UNITED STATES

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Region III

2443 Warrenville Road, Suite 210

Lisle IL 60532-4352

March 26, 2013

EA-12-273

Mr. Jim Lynch

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 A WHITE FINDING WITH 

ASSESSMENT FOLLOWUP AND NOTICE OF VIOLATION; NRC INSPECTION 

REPORT NO. 05000282/2013503; PRAIRIE ISLAND NUCLEAR GENERATING 

PLANT, UNIT 1

Dear Mr. Lynch:

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

discussed in our previous communication dated January 24, 2013, which included U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission (NRC) Inspection Report No. 05000282/2012504. The finding involved 

the loss of the 1R-50 shield building high range vent gas radiation detector from July 24, 2011, 

to May 18, 2012, which degraded Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant’s (Prairie Island’s) 

ability on Unit 1 to classify and declare general emergencies (emergency action level RG1.1) or 

site area emergencies (emergency action level RS1.1).

At your request, a Regulatory Conference was held on February 25, 2013, to discuss your views 

on this issue. A copy of your presentation was previously placed in the NRC’s Agencywide 

Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) at accession number ML13056A026. 

During the meeting 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. You attributed the root cause of the failure to a mindset which did not recognize that the 

1R-50 shield building high range vent gas radiation detector was a single piece of equipment 

necessary for emergency preparedness action levels and did not recognize its importance to the 

emergency preparedness program. A partial list of attendees at this meeting is included in 

Enclosure 1.

During the meeting, you stated that you agreed that there was a performance deficiency, but 

that you disagreed with the significance of the issue. You also stated that you believed that the 

associated violation should be cited against Title10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 

(10 CFR) Section 50.47(b)(8) instead of 10 CFR 50.47(b)(4) as the NRC proposed in Inspection 

Report No. 05000282/2012504.

Specifically, your staff stated that, because the 1R-50 sample pump continued to work, the

classification could be done within 15 minutes using local measurements performed by on-shift 

personnel. Your staff stated that a shift manager would be able to make an appropriate 

emergency declaration based on that dose rate measurement, even if the emergency response 

organization was not activated. To support your staff’s position, on February 28, 2013, your 

staff performed a time validation scenario. The results of the time validation scenario were 
J. Lynch -2-

provided to the NRC on March 4, 2013, and are available in ADAMS at accession number 

ML13067A229.

After considering the information developed during the inspection, the information you provided 

at the regulatory conference on February 25, and the results of the time validation study that 

you provided on March 4, 2013, the NRC has concluded that the finding is appropriately 

characterized as White, a finding with low to moderate safety significance that may require 

additional NRC inspections. Our conclusion was primarily based on the results of the time 

validation study, which did not consistently demonstrate that your staff could classify a Site Area 

Emergency, RS1.1, or a General Emergency, RG1.1 in a timely manner without the 1R-50 

shield building high range vent gas radiation detector being available. Specifically, your study 

did not sufficiently demonstrate or simulate all of the activities necessary to classify an event 

with the loss of the 1R-50 radiation detector. The study was limited to the infield time necessary 

for a technician to obtain a measurement and to report that measurement to the control room 

operator; however, you did not simulate other actions that would have needed to occur, 

including the control room operator’s recognition of the issue, identification of the compensatory 

action, and communication and briefing of the technician. While we recognize that you have an 

established procedure and training for the task, the time study did not provide assurance that 

the necessary actions could be completed without delaying the emergency classification. 

Consequently, the NRC concluded that you did not demonstrate that a timely classification of 

RS1.1 or RG1.1 could be made with a non-functional 1R-50 radiation detector, and we 

concluded that your ability to classify these events was degraded.

The NRC agreed with your position at the conference that there was an alternative emergency 

action level such that an accurate declaration of the initiating condition would have been made. 

The NRC had taken this information into account and had determined that Prairie Island would 

have classified a Site Area Emergency or a General Emergency based on other criteria, which 

is why the NRC declared the planning standard to be degraded rather than lost. 

The NRC also considered the information that you presented during the conference that another 

plant was cited for a violation of 10 CFR 50.47(b)(8) and that the violation appeared to be for a 

case similar to Prairie Island’s where a radiation detector was out-of-service for an extended 

period of time. The NRC evaluated this specific case and determined that this specific licensee

also received two White findings, one against 10 CFR 50.47(b)(4) and the other against 

10 CFR 50.47(b)(9), along with a SL III violation of 10 CFR 50.72(b)(3)(xiii). When the NRC 

looked at the issue regarding the radiation detector, the NRC recognized that the risk significant 

planning standard (10 CFR 50.47(b)(4)) had already been degraded, which was cited as a 

stand-alone violation, and determined that the radiation detector issue was a separate

equipment issue. Therefore, the NRC determined that a separate violation of 

10 CFR 50.47(b)(8) was appropriate. In Prairie Island’s case, as you pointed out, there was 

an equipment issue, as well as an emergency classification standards issue involved in the

finding. Therefore, it would be appropriate for the NRC to cite both 10 CFR 50.47(b)(4) and 

10 CFR 50.47(b)(8). After consultation with the Director of the Office of Enforcement, we have 

incorporated both requirements into the violation. 
J. Lynch -3-

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

significance for the identified White finding. An appeal must be sent in writing to the Regional 

Administrator, Region III, 2443 Warrenville Road, Lisle, IL 60532-4352, and must address the 

criteria in NRC Inspection Manual Chapter 0609, Attachment 2, “Process for Appealing NRC 

Characterization of Inspection Findings (SDP Appeal Process).”

The NRC has also determined that a violation was associated with the finding, as cited in the 

Notice of Violation (Notice) provided in the enclosure. The circumstances surrounding the 

violation were described in detail in NRC Inspection Report No. 05000282/2012504. 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 information regarding the reasons for the violation, the corrective 

actions taken and planned to be taken to correct the violation, and the date when full 

compliance was achieved, is already adequately addressed on the docket in NRC Inspection 

Report No. 05000282/2012504. Therefore, you are not required to respond to this letter unless 

the description therein does not accurately reflect your corrective actions or your position. In 

that case, or if you choose to provide additional information, you should follow the instructions 

specified in the enclosed Notice.

As a result of our review of Prairie Island’s performance, including this White finding, we have 

assessed the plant to be in the Regulatory Response column of the NRC’s Action Matrix, 

effective the 4th quarter of 2012. 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 and the 

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

For administrative purposes, this letter is issued as NRC Inspection Report 05000282/2013503. 

Additionally, apparent violation (AV) 05000282/2012504-01 is now considered to be 

violation (VIO) 05000282/2012504-01.

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

enclosure, 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 ADAMS, which is

accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To the extent
J. Lynch -4-

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. The NRC also 

includes significant enforcement actions on its Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/enforcement/actions.

Sincerely,

/RA by C. Pederson for/

Charles A. Casto

Regional Administrator

Docket No. 50-282

License No. DPR-42

Enclosures: 

1. Regulatory Conference List of Attendees

2. Notice of Violation

cc: Distribution via ListServ
REGULATORY CONFERENCE

LIST OF ATTENDEES

Enclosure 1

James Lynch, Prairie Island Site Vice President

Xcel Energy

Kevin Davison, Prairie Island Director Site Operations 

Aldo Capristo, Acting Vice President – Operations Support

Kerrie DeFusco, Prairie Island Emergency Preparedness Manager

Jon Anderson, Prairie Island Regulatory Affairs Manager

Steven Ingalls, Prairie Island Senior Reactor Operator

Edward Weinkam, Director Emergency Preparedness

John Callahan, Emergency Preparedness Manager

Kevin Holmstrom, System Engineer

Thomas Hoen, Media Relations (via phone)

Jody Nemcek, Emergency Preparedness Coordinator (via phone)

Cynthia Pederson, Deputy Regional Administrator, Region III

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Patrick Louden, Deputy Director, Division of Reactor Safety (DRS)

Donald Funk, Acting Branch Chief, Plant Support Branch, DRS

Robert Kahler, Chief, Inspection and Regulatory Improvement Branch, Office of Nuclear 

Security and Incident Response (NSIR)

Robert Jickling, Senior Emergency Preparedness Inspector, Plant Support Branch, DRS 

Steven Orth, Enforcement Officer

Mark Rubic, Acting Regional Counsel

James Beavers, Emergency Preparedness Inspector, Plant Support Branch, DRS (via phone)

Robert Orlikowski, Acting Chief, Branch 1, Division of Reactor Projects (DRP)

Nirodh Shah, Project Engineer, Branch 2, DRP

Karla Stoedter, Senior Resident Inspector, Prairie Island, DRP (via phone)

Joseph Mancuso, Reactor Engineer, Branch 2, DRP

Michael Ziolkowski, Reactor Engineer, Branch 2, DRP

Allan Barker, Government Liaison

Harral Logaras, Government Liaison

Prema Chandrathil, Public Affairs Officer

Stephen LaVie, Senior Emergency Preparedness Specialist, NSIR (via phone)

Eric Schrader, Emergency Preparedness Specialist NSIR (via phone)

Jonathan Fiske, Emergency Preparedness Specialist NSIR (via phone)

Thomas Wengert, Project Manager, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (via phone)

Kevin Barclay, Resident Inspector, Kewaunee, DRP (via phone)

Patricia Lougheed, Senior Enforcement Coordinator

Joseph Maynen, Senior Security Inspector, Plant Support Branch, DRS

Elba Sanchez Santiago, Reactor Engineer, DRS

Navid Tehrani, Materials Inspector, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety

Kathryn Campbell, Wisconsin Emergency Management

Public

Stephen Dieringer, Martin Brower

Sherrie Flaherty, Minnesota Dept of Health

Ron Johnson, Prairie Island Indian Community

Jeff Kitsembel, Public Service Commission of Wisconsin

Douglas Renier, State of Minnesota Department of Commerce

Diane Richter-Biwer, Goodhue County Emergency Management

David Shaffer, Star Tribune Newspaper
NOTICE OF VIOLATION

Enclosure 2

Northern States Power Company, Minnesota Docket No. 50-282

Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Unit 1 License No. DPR-42

EA-12-273

During a U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) inspection conducted from December 10 

to 18, 2012, a violation of NRC requirements was identified. In accordance with the NRC 

Enforcement Policy, the violation is listed below:

Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 50.54(q)(2) requires that a holder 

of a nuclear power reactor operating license follow and maintain the effectiveness of an 

emergency plan that meets the requirements in Part 50, Appendix E and the planning 

standards of 10 CFR 50.47(b). 

10 CFR 50.47(b)(4) states “A standard emergency classification and action level 

scheme, the bases of which include facility system and effluent parameters, is in use by 

the nuclear facility licensee, and State and local response plans call for reliance on 

information provided by facility licensees for determinations of minimum initial offsite 

response measures.” 

10 CFR 50.47(b)(8) states “Adequate emergency facilities and equipment to support the 

emergency response are provided and maintained.”

Contrary to the above, from July 24, 2011, until May 18, 2012, Prairie Island Nuclear 

Generating Plant (PINGP) Unit 1 failed to follow and maintain in effect an emergency 

plan that uses a standard emergency classification and action level scheme because 

adequate emergency equipment to support the emergency response was not 

maintained. Specifically, PINGP Unit 1 did not take timely corrective actions to restore 

the failed 1R-50 Shield Building High Range Vent Gas Radiation Detector instrument 

and did not implement a compensatory measure which addressed the parameters 

identified in emergency action levels RG1.1, General Emergency, and RS1.1, Site Area 

Emergency.

This violation is associated with a White Significance Determination Process finding.

The NRC has concluded that information regarding the reasons for the violation, the corrective 

actions taken and planned to be taken to correct the violation, and the date when full 

compliance was achieved, is already adequately addressed on the docket in NRC Inspection 

Report No. 05000282/2012504. 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-12-273” and send it to the U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Document Control Desk, Washington, DC 20555-0001, with a 

copy to the Regional Administrator, Region III, 2443 Warrenville Road, Suite 210, Lisle, IL 

60532-4352, and a copy to the NRC Resident Inspector at the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating 

Plant, within 30 days of the date of the letter transmitting this Notice of Violation (Notice).
Notice of Violation -2-

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, U.S. 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, your 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 of receipt.

Dated this 26th day of March 2013
J. Lynch -4-

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. The NRC also 

includes significant enforcement actions on its Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/enforcement/actions.

Sincerely,

/RA by C. Pederson for/

Charles A. Casto

Regional Administrator

Docket No. 50-282

License No. DPR-42

Enclosures: 

1. Regulatory Conference List of Attendees

2. Notice of Violation

cc: Distribution via ListServ

SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE

FILE NAME: G:\ORAIII\EICS\ENFORCEMENT\Cases\Enforcement Cases 2012\EA-12-273 Prairie Island EP\EA-12-

273 Prairie Island Final Significance Determination - FINAL.docx

OFFICE RIII RIII RIII D:OE RIII RIII

NAME Lougheed Funk

JMaynen for

Shear

PLouden

Zimmerman1 Orth

RCarpenter

Casto

CPederson for

DATE 03/08/13 03/08/13 03/11/13 03/20/13 03/21/13 03/22/13

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

 

1 OE concurrence received via e-mail from R.Carpenter on March 20, 2013.
Letter to Jim Lynch from Charles A. Casto dated March 26, 2013

SUBJECT: FINAL SIGNIFICANCE DETERMINATION OF A WHITE FINDING WITH 

ASSESSMENT FOLLOWUP AND NOTICE OF VIOLATION; NRC INSPECTION 

REPORT NO. 05000282/2013503; PRAIRIE ISLAND NUCLEAR GENERATING 

PLANT, UNIT 1

DISTRIBUTION:

RidsSecyMailCenter Resource

OCADistribution

Bill Borchardt

Michael Johnson

Roy Zimmerman

Nick Hilton

Robert Carpenter

Chuck Casto

Cynthia Pederson

Marvin Itzkowitz

Mary Spencer

Eric Leeds

Jennifer Uhle

Mandy Halter

Daniel Holody

Carolyn Evans

Heather Gepford

Holly Harrington

Hubert Bell

Cheryl McCrary

Seth Coplin

John Cassidy

RidsNrrPMPrairieIsland Resource

RidsNrrDorlLpl3-1 Resource

RidsNrrDirsIrib Resource

Steven Orth

Allan Barker

Harral Logaras

Viktoria Mitlyng

Prema Chandrathil

Patricia Lougheed

Paul Pelke

Magdalena Gryglak

Sarah Bahksh

Carole Ariano

Linda Linn

DRPIII

DRSIII

Patricia Buckley

Tammy Tomczak

OEMAIL Resource

OEWEB Resource

ROPassessment.Resource@nrc.gov