May 6, 2009 

EA-08-349 

Mr. Michael D. Wadley 

Site Vice President 

Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant 

Northern States Power Company-Minnesota 

1717 Wakonade Drive East 

Welch, MN 55089 

SUBJECT: FINAL SIGNIFICANCE DETERMINATION OF WHITE FINDING AND NOTICE 

OF VIOLATION; NRC INSPECTION REPORT NO. 05000282/2009008; 

05000306/2009008; PRAIRIE ISLAND NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT, 

UNITS 1 AND 2 

Dear Mr. Wadley: 

This letter provides you the final significance determination of the preliminary Yellow finding 

discussed in our previous communication dated February 10, 2009, which provided Inspection 

Report Number 05000282/2008009; 05000306/2008009 (ML090410466). The finding involved 

the shipment of a package containing radioactive material, via an exclusive-use open transport 

vehicle. When the package arrived at its destination, the detected radiation levels exceeded 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulations, which invoke the Department of 

Transportation requirements limiting the radiation level on the surface of a package shipped in an 

open transport vehicle to 200 millirem per hour. 

At your request, a Regulatory Conference was held on March 17, 2009, to further discuss your 

views on this issue. During the conference, you and your staff described your assessment of 

the significance of the finding, and the corrective actions taken to resolve it, including the root 

cause evaluation of the finding. Specifically, your assessment of the significance of the finding 

focused on the appropriateness of the different radiation detectors used to accurately 

characterize the true dose rate for the source of the radiation. You presented information to 

support your belief that an ion chamber detector was the appropriate instrument to be used, due 

to the detector’s slower response and its ability to accurately measure the true dose rate. You 

also provided information to support your belief that a Geiger-Mueller detector would greatly 

overestimate the actual dose rate. Therefore, you concluded that a White significance was the 

appropriate outcome. 

On March 26, 2009, your staff provided supplemental information in response to NRC 

questions raised during the Regulatory Conference (ML090890369). After reviewing the 

information developed during the inspection and provided during and after the conference, we 

determined that both instruments provided valid measurements of the radiation levels near the 

surface of the package. The differences in the instrument responses appeared to be primarily 

due to the differences in detector geometries and response characteristics. While both 
M. Wadley -2- 

 

instruments provided measured radiation levels that exceeded the regulatory limit of 

200 millirem per hour, the significance assessed using the public radiation safety Significance 

Determination Process (SDP) resulted in different significance levels depending on the 

instrument used. 

The source of the radiation was from a discrete radioactive particle, which was a point source. 

The NRC is aware that the biological effect of exposure to point sources of radiation is less than 

that from an equivalent exposure to the whole body resulting from exposure to broader beams 

of radiation. However, this risk insight is not fully factored into the current public radiation safety 

cornerstone SDP, whose risk outcomes are based solely on the radiation level at the surface of 

a package relative to the regulatory limits. In this particular case, the source of radiation, the 

discrete radioactive particle, was located on the underside of the package in an area that was 

not readily accessible to a member of the public during transport. Therefore, because of the 

limited actual radiological risk to the public, the NRC determined that the application of 

Inspection Manual Chapter 0609, Appendix M, “Significance Determination Process Using 

Qualitative Criteria,” was more appropriate to evaluate the actual public radiation safety 

significance of this finding. 

The NRC used the results of the measurements obtained at the receipt of the package and the 

relative risk from the point radiation source to develop the significance of the finding. As stated 

above, both radiation detection instruments measured radiation levels that exceeded the 

regulatory limit, which provides a level of protection to a member of the public that may come 

into contact with the shipment. Although no exposures to the public resulted from the shipment, 

the potential consequences could have been greater under less favorable circumstances. Any 

shipment with radiation levels that exceed regulatory limits can be potentially significant, and in 

this case the risk was more than minimal. Based on this assessment and after considering the 

information developed during the inspection, the information you provided at the conference, 

and the supplemental information, the NRC has concluded that the finding is appropriately 

characterized as White, a finding with low to moderate increased importance to safety that may 

require additional NRC inspections. 

You have 30 calendar days from the date of this letter to appeal the staff’s determination of 

significance for the identified White finding. Such appeals will be considered to have merit only 

if they meet the criteria given in the NRC Inspection Manual Chapter 0609, Attachment 2. 

The NRC has determined that the failure to properly characterize, prepare, and ship a package 

containing radioactive material and the failure to provide adequate training to workers who 

were involved in the preparation of the package for transport are violations of 10 CFR 71.5, 

which invokes 49 CFR 173.441(a) and 49 CFR 172.704, as cited in the enclosed Notice of 

Violation (Notice). The circumstances surrounding the violations were described in detail in the 

subject inspection report. In accordance with the NRC Enforcement Policy, the Notice is 

considered escalated enforcement action because it is associated with a White finding. 

The NRC has concluded that the information regarding the reason for the violations, the 

corrective actions taken and planned to correct the violations and prevent recurrence, and 

the date when full compliance was achieved were adequately addressed at the Regulatory 

Conference and on the docket (ML090790543 and ML090700284). Therefore, you are not 

required to respond to this letter unless the description therein does not accurately reflect your 

corrective actions or your position. 
M. Wadley -3- 

 

As a result of our review of Prairie Island Units 1 and 2 performance, including this White 

finding, we have assessed you to be in the Regulatory Response column of the NRC’s 

Action Matrix. Therefore, we plan to conduct a supplemental inspection using Inspection 

Procedure 95001, “Inspection for One or Two White Inputs in a Strategic Performance Area,” 

when your staff has notified us of your readiness for this inspection. This inspection procedure 

is conducted to provide assurance that the root cause and contributing causes of risk significant 

performance issues are understood, the extent of condition is identified, and the corrective 

actions are sufficient to prevent recurrence. 

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter, 

its enclosures, and your response, if you choose to provide one, will be made available 

electronically for public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room or from the 

NRC’s document system (ADAMS), accessible from the NRC Web site at 

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To the extent possible, your response 

should not include any personal privacy, proprietary, or safeguards information so that 

it can be made available to the public without redaction. 

Sincerely, 

/RA/ 

Mark A. Satorius 

Regional Administrator 

Docket Nos. 50-282; 50-306 

License Nos. DPR-42; DPR-60 

Enclosure: 

Notice of Violation 

cc w/encl: D. Koehl, Chief Nuclear Officer 

 Regulatory Affairs Manager 

 P. Glass, Assistant General Counsel 

 Nuclear Asset Manager 

 J. Stine, State Liaison Officer, Minnesota Department of Health 

 Tribal Council, Prairie Island Indian Community 

 Administrator, Goodhue County Courthouse 

 Commissioner, Minnesota Department of Commerce 

 Manager, Environmental Protection Division 

 Office of the Attorney General of Minnesota 

 Emergency Preparedness Coordinator, Dakota 

 County Law Enforcement Center
M. Wadley -3- 

 

As a result of our review of Prairie Island Units 1 and 2 performance, including this White finding, we have 

assessed you to be in the Regulatory Response column of the NRC’s Action Matrix. Therefore, we plan 

to conduct a supplemental inspection using Inspection Procedure 95001, “Inspection for One or Two 

White Inputs in a Strategic Performance Area,” when your staff has notified us of your readiness for this 

inspection. This inspection procedure is conducted to provide assurance that the root cause and 

contributing causes of risk significant performance issues are understood, the extent of condition is 

identified, and the corrective actions are sufficient to prevent recurrence. 

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter, its enclosures, 

and your response, if you choose to provide one, will be made available electronically for public 

inspection in the NRC Public Document Room or from the NRC’s document system (ADAMS), accessible 

from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To the extent possible, your 

response should not include any personal privacy, proprietary, or safeguards information so that 

it can be made available to the public without redaction. 

Sincerely, 

/RA/ 

Mark A. Satorius 

Regional Administrator 

Docket Nos. 50-282; 50-306 

License Nos. DPR-42; DPR-60 

Enclosure: 

Notice of Violation 

cc w/encl: D. Koehl, Chief Nuclear Officer 

 Regulatory Affairs Manager 

 P. Glass, Assistant General Counsel 

 Nuclear Asset Manager 

 J. Stine, State Liaison Officer, Minnesota Department of Health 

 Tribal Council, Prairie Island Indian Community 

 Administrator, Goodhue County Courthouse 

 Commissioner, Minnesota Department of Commerce 

 Manager, Environmental Protection Division 

 Office of the Attorney General of Minnesota 

 Emergency Preparedness Coordinator, Dakota 

 County Law Enforcement Center 

DISTRIBUTION:

See next page 

DOCUMENT NAME: G:\EICS\ENFORCEMENT\Enforcement Cases 2008\EA-08-349 Prairie Island 

Transportation\EA-08-349 Draft Final Letter White and NOV.doc 

; Publicly Available □Non-Publicly Available □Sensitive ; Non-Sensitive 

OFFICE RIII RIII RIII RIII D: OE D: NRR RIII RIII 

NAME Gryglak Lougheed Cassidy 

for Orth 

West Hilton for 

Carpenter1

Pedersen2 Heck Satorius 

DATE 05/04/09 05/01/09 05/04/09 05/04/09 04/30/09 04/30/09 05/05/09 05/05/09 

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

 

1 OE concurrence per N. Hilton received via e-mail from Gregory Bowman on April 30, 2009.

2 NRR concurrence per R. Pedersen received via e-mail from Gregory Bowman on April 30, 2009. 
Letter to Mr. Michael D. Wadley from Mr. Mark A. Satorius dated May 6, 2009 

SUBJECT: FINAL SIGNIFICANCE DETERMINATION OF WHITE FINDING AND NOTICE 

OF VIOLATION; NRC INSPECTION REPORT NO. 05000282/2009008; 

05000306/2009008; PRAIRIE ISLAND NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT, 

UNITS 1 AND 2 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

ADAMS (PARS) 

RidsSecyMailCenter Resource 

OCADistribution 

Bill Borchardt, EDO 

Bruce Mallett, DEDR 

Cynthia Carpenter, OE 

Nick Hilton, OE 

Gregory Bowman, OE 

Mark Satorius, RIII 

Catherine Marco, OGC 

Marvin Itzkowitz, OGC 

Eric Leeds, NRR 

Bruce Boger, NRR 

Daniel Holody, RI 

Carolyn Evans, RII 

Jared Heck, RIII 

William Jones, RIV 

MaryAnn Ashley, NRR 

Karla Stoedter, RIII 

Paul Zurawski, RIII 

Eliot Brenner, OPA 

Hubert Bell, OIG 

Guy Caputo, OI 

Mona Williams, OCFO 

John Giessner, RIII 

Scott Thomas, RIII 

Martin J. Phalen, RIII 

Mark W. Mitchell, RIII 

Peter J. Lee, RIII 

Viktoria Mitlyng, OPA RIII 

Prema Chandrathil, OPA RIII 

Allan Barker, RIII 

Paul Pelke, RIII 

Patricia Lougheed, RIII 

Magdalena Gryglak, RIII 

RidsNrrDirsIrib 

OEMAIL Resource 

OEWEB Resource 
NOTICE OF VIOLATION

Northern States Power Company – Minnesota Docket Nos. 50-282; 50-306 

Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2 License Nos. DPR-42; DPR-60 

 EA-08-349 

During an NRC inspection conducted on November 17, 2008 through January 21, 2009, two 

violations of NRC requirements were identified. In accordance with the NRC Enforcement 

Policy, the violations are listed below: 

Title 10 CFR 71.5, “Transportation of Licensed Material,” requires licensees to comply 

with the Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations in Title 49 CFR parts 170 

through 189 relative to the transportation of licensed material. Specifically, 

1) Title 49 CFR 173.441(a) requires that each package of radioactive material 

offered for transportation must be designed and prepared for shipment, so that 

under conditions normally incident to transportation, the radiation level does not 

exceed 2 millisievert per hour (200 millirem per hour) at any point on the external 

surface of the package. 

Contrary to the above, on October 29, 2008, the licensee shipped a package 

containing radioactive material that was not designed or prepared to assure that, 

under conditions normally incident to transportation, the radiation level on the 

external surface of the package would not exceed 200 mrem per hour. 

2) Title 49 CFR 172.704, “Training Requirements,” requires that individuals involved 

in the transport of hazardous materials receive function specific training relative 

to their specific tasks, and that these individuals receive recurrent training at least 

once every three years. 

Contrary to the above, as of October 29, 2008, five people involved in preparing 

a package for radioactive shipment and transport had not received the required 

function-specific training. 

These violations are associated with a White Significance Determination Process 

finding. 

The NRC has concluded that information regarding the reason for the violations, the corrective 

actions taken and planned to correct the violations and prevent recurrence and the date 

when full compliance was achieved was adequately addressed on the docket in Inspection 

Report No. 05000282/2008009; 05000306/2008009, at the Regulatory Conference, and in 

your letter dated March 26, 2009. However, you are required to submit a written statement or 

explanation pursuant to 10 CFR 2.201 if the description therein does not accurately reflect 

your corrective actions or your position. In that case, or if you choose to respond, clearly 

mark your response as a "Reply to a Notice of Violation, EA-08-349", and send it to the 
Notice of Violation -2- 

 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Document Control Desk, Washington, DC 20555-

0001 with a copy to the Regional Administrator, Region III, and a copy to the Prairie Island 

Resident Inspectors, within 30 days of the date of the letter transmitting this Notice of 

Violation (Notice). 

If you contest this enforcement action, you should also provide a copy of your response, with 

the basis for your denial, to the Director, Office of Enforcement, United States Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. 

If you choose to respond, your response will be made available electronically for public 

inspection in the NRC Public Document Room or from the NRC’s document system (ADAMS), 

accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Therefore, 

to the extent possible, the response should not include any personal privacy, proprietary, or 

safeguards information so that it can be made available to the public without redaction. 

In accordance with 10 CFR 19.11, you may be required to post this Notice within two working 

days. 

Dated this 6th day of May 2009