ML093620814: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(StriderTol Bot change)
 
Line 18: Line 18:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:UNITED STATES
{{#Wiki_filter:UNITED STATES  
                          NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION  
                                            REGION III
REGION III  
                                2443 WARRENVILLE ROAD, SUITE 210
2443 WARRENVILLE ROAD, SUITE 210  
                                        LISLE, IL 60532-4352
LISLE, IL 60532-4352  
                                        December 28, 2009
EA-09-283
December 28, 2009  
Mr. Barry Allen
Site Vice President
EA-09-283  
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company
Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station
Mr. Barry Allen  
5501 North State Route 2, Mail Stop A-DB-3080
Site Vice President  
Oak Harbor, OH 43449-9760
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company  
SUBJECT:       DAVIS-BESSE NUCLEAR POWER STATION
Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station  
                NRC INSPECTION REPORT 05000346/2009503(DRS)
5501 North State Route 2, Mail Stop A-DB-3080  
                PRELIMINARY WHITE FINDING
Oak Harbor, OH 43449-9760  
Dear Mr. Allen:
On November 23, 2009, the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) completed an
SUBJECT:  
inspection conducted onsite August 4 through 6, 2009, of an event that occurred at your
DAVIS-BESSE NUCLEAR POWER STATION  
Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station on June 25, 2009. The purpose of the inspection was to
review the events, circumstances, and licensee actions associated with an explosion in the
NRC INSPECTION REPORT 05000346/2009503(DRS)  
switchyard and subsequent Alert declaration. The enclosed report documents the inspection
PRELIMINARY WHITE FINDING
findings which were discussed on November 23, 2009, with you and other members of your
staff.
The inspection examined activities conducted under your license as they relate to safety and
compliance with the Commissions rules and regulations and with the conditions of your license.
Dear Mr. Allen:  
The inspectors reviewed selected procedures, records, audio tapes, and interviewed personnel.
On November 23, 2009, the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) completed an  
The enclosed report presents the results of the inspection including a finding that preliminarily
inspection conducted onsite August 4 through 6, 2009, of an event that occurred at your  
has been determined to be White, a finding with low to moderate increased safety significance
Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station on June 25, 2009. The purpose of the inspection was to  
that may require additional NRC inspections. As described in Section 4OA3 of this report, the
review the events, circumstances, and licensee actions associated with an explosion in the  
finding involves the failure to implement the emergency classification and action level scheme
switchyard and subsequent Alert declaration. The enclosed report documents the inspection  
during an actual event for an explosion in the switchyard. The operators failed to verify, assess,
findings which were discussed on November 23, 2009, with you and other members of your  
and classify the situation in conjunction with the Davis-Besse Emergency Plan Table of
staff.  
Emergency Action Level Conditions. Specifically, immediately following an electrical fault and
The inspection examined activities conducted under your license as they relate to safety and  
catastrophic failure of a voltage transformer in the switchyard resulting in an explosion, fires,
compliance with the Commissions rules and regulations and with the conditions of your license.
and damage to several switchyard components which affected plant operations, the operators
The inspectors reviewed selected procedures, records, audio tapes, and interviewed personnel.  
failed to recognize the hazard to the stations operations met the emergency action level
The enclosed report presents the results of the inspection including a finding that preliminarily  
conditions for declaring an Alert. After the finding was identified, your staff implemented
has been determined to be White, a finding with low to moderate increased safety significance  
corrective actions to ensure the finding did not present an immediate safety concern. The
that may require additional NRC inspections. As described in Section 4OA3 of this report, the  
finding was assessed based on the best available information using the Emergency
finding involves the failure to implement the emergency classification and action level scheme  
Preparedness Significance Determination Process (SDP).
during an actual event for an explosion in the switchyard. The operators failed to verify, assess,  
and classify the situation in conjunction with the Davis-Besse Emergency Plan Table of  
Emergency Action Level Conditions. Specifically, immediately following an electrical fault and  
catastrophic failure of a voltage transformer in the switchyard resulting in an explosion, fires,  
and damage to several switchyard components which affected plant operations, the operators  
failed to recognize the hazard to the stations operations met the emergency action level  
conditions for declaring an Alert. After the finding was identified, your staff implemented  
corrective actions to ensure the finding did not present an immediate safety concern. The  
finding was assessed based on the best available information using the Emergency  
Preparedness Significance Determination Process (SDP).  


B. Allen                                       -2-
B. Allen  
The finding is also an apparent violation of NRC requirements and is being considered for
escalated enforcement action in accordance with the Enforcement Policy, which can be found
on the NRCs website at http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/enforcement/enforce-pol.html.
In accordance with NRC Inspection Manual Chapter (IMC) 0609, Significance Determination
Process, we intend to complete our evaluation using the best available information and issue
-2-  
our final determination of safety significance within 90 days of the date of this letter. The
significance determination process encourages an open dialogue between the NRC staff and
the licensee; however, the dialogue should not impact the timeliness of the staffs final
The finding is also an apparent violation of NRC requirements and is being considered for  
determination.
escalated enforcement action in accordance with the Enforcement Policy, which can be found  
Before we make a final decision on this matter, we are providing you with an opportunity:
on the NRCs website at http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/enforcement/enforce-pol.html.  
(1) to attend a Regulatory Conference where you can present to the NRC your perspective on
the facts and assumptions the NRC used to arrive at the finding and assess its significance, or
In accordance with NRC Inspection Manual Chapter (IMC) 0609, Significance Determination  
(2) submit your position on the finding to the NRC in writing. If you request a Regulatory
Process, we intend to complete our evaluation using the best available information and issue  
Conference, it should be held within 30 days of the receipt of this letter and we encourage you
our final determination of safety significance within 90 days of the date of this letter. The  
to submit supporting documentation at least one week prior to the conference in an effort to
significance determination process encourages an open dialogue between the NRC staff and  
make the conference more efficient and effective. If a Regulatory Conference is held, it will be
the licensee; however, the dialogue should not impact the timeliness of the staffs final  
open for public observation. If you decide to submit only a written response, such submittal
determination.  
should be sent to the NRC within 30 days of your receipt of this letter. If you decline to request
a Regulatory Conference or submit a written response, you relinquish your right to appeal the
Before we make a final decision on this matter, we are providing you with an opportunity:
final SDP determination, in that by not doing either, you fail to meet the appeal requirements
(1) to attend a Regulatory Conference where you can present to the NRC your perspective on  
stated in the Prerequisite and Limitation sections of Attachment 2 of IMC 0609.
the facts and assumptions the NRC used to arrive at the finding and assess its significance, or  
Please contact Mr. Hironori Peterson at (630) 829-9707 within ten days from the issue date of
(2) submit your position on the finding to the NRC in writing. If you request a Regulatory  
this letter to notify the NRC of your intentions. If we have not heard from you within ten days,
Conference, it should be held within 30 days of the receipt of this letter and we encourage you  
we will continue with our significance determination and enforcement decision. The final
to submit supporting documentation at least one week prior to the conference in an effort to  
resolution of this matter will be conveyed in separate correspondence.
make the conference more efficient and effective. If a Regulatory Conference is held, it will be  
Because the NRC has not made a final determination in this matter, no Notice of Violation is
open for public observation. If you decide to submit only a written response, such submittal  
being issued for this inspection finding at this time. In addition, please be advised that the
should be sent to the NRC within 30 days of your receipt of this letter. If you decline to request  
characterization of the apparent violation described in the enclosed inspection report may
a Regulatory Conference or submit a written response, you relinquish your right to appeal the  
change as a result of further NRC review.
final SDP determination, in that by not doing either, you fail to meet the appeal requirements  
Based on the results of this inspection, two additional findings of very low safety significance
stated in the Prerequisite and Limitation sections of Attachment 2 of IMC 0609.  
were also identified, one NRC identified and one licensee identified. The findings involved
violations of NRC requirements; however, because of the very low safety significance and
Please contact Mr. Hironori Peterson at (630) 829-9707 within ten days from the issue date of  
because the issues were entered into your corrective action program, the NRC is treating the
this letter to notify the NRC of your intentions. If we have not heard from you within ten days,  
issues as Non-Cited Violations (NCVs) in accordance with Section VI.A.1 of the NRC
we will continue with our significance determination and enforcement decision. The final  
Enforcement Policy.
resolution of this matter will be conveyed in separate correspondence.  
If you contest the subject or severity of the NCVs, you should provide a response within 30 days
of the date of this inspection report, with the basis for your denial, to the U. S. Nuclear
Because the NRC has not made a final determination in this matter, no Notice of Violation is  
Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Document Control Desk, Washington, DC 20555-0001, with a
being issued for this inspection finding at this time. In addition, please be advised that the  
characterization of the apparent violation described in the enclosed inspection report may  
change as a result of further NRC review.  
Based on the results of this inspection, two additional findings of very low safety significance  
were also identified, one NRC identified and one licensee identified. The findings involved  
violations of NRC requirements; however, because of the very low safety significance and  
because the issues were entered into your corrective action program, the NRC is treating the  
issues as Non-Cited Violations (NCVs) in accordance with Section VI.A.1 of the NRC  
Enforcement Policy.  
If you contest the subject or severity of the NCVs, you should provide a response within 30 days  
of the date of this inspection report, with the basis for your denial, to the U. S. Nuclear  
Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Document Control Desk, Washington, DC 20555-0001, with a


B. Allen                                       -3-
B. Allen  
copy to the Regional Administrator, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission - Region III, 2443
Warrenville Road, Suite 210, Lisle, IL 60532-4352; the Director, Office of Enforcement, U. S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; and the Resident Inspector
Office at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station. In addition, if you disagree with the
characterization of any finding in this report, you should provide a response within 30 days of
-3-  
the date of this inspection report, with the basis for your disagreement, to the Regional
copy to the Regional Administrator, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission - Region III, 2443  
Administrator, Region III, and the NRC Resident Inspector at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power
Warrenville Road, Suite 210, Lisle, IL 60532-4352; the Director, Office of Enforcement, U. S.  
Station. The information that you provide will be considered in accordance with Inspection
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; and the Resident Inspector  
Manual Chapter 0305, Operating Reactor Assessment Program.
Office at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station. In addition, if you disagree with the  
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of the NRCs Rules of Practice, a copy of this
characterization of any finding in this report, you should provide a response within 30 days of  
letter, its enclosures and your response (if any) will be made available electronically for public
the date of this inspection report, with the basis for your disagreement, to the Regional  
inspection in the NRC Public Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records (PARS)
Administrator, Region III, and the NRC Resident Inspector at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power  
component of NRCs document system (ADAMS), accessible from the NRC Web site at
Station. The information that you provide will be considered in accordance with Inspection  
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room).
Manual Chapter 0305, Operating Reactor Assessment Program.  
                                                Sincerely,
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of the NRCs Rules of Practice, a copy of this  
                                                /RA/
letter, its enclosures and your response (if any) will be made available electronically for public  
                                                Anne T. Boland, Director
inspection in the NRC Public Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records (PARS)  
                                                Division of Reactor Safety
component of NRCs document system (ADAMS), accessible from the NRC Web site at  
Docket No. 50-346
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room).  
License No. NPF-3
Sincerely,  
Enclosures:
1. Inspection Report 05000346/2009-503
      w/Attachment: Supplemental Information
/RA/  
2. Sequence of Events
cc w/encls:     Distribution via ListServ
Anne T. Boland, Director  
Division of Reactor Safety  
Docket No. 50-346  
License No. NPF-3  
Enclosures:  
1. Inspection Report 05000346/2009-503  
  w/Attachment: Supplemental Information  
2. Sequence of Events  
cc w/encls:  
Distribution via ListServ  


          U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
                          REGION III
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION  
Docket No:           50-346
REGION III  
License No:         NPF-3
Docket No:  
Report No:           05000346/2009-503
50-346  
Licensee:           FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC)
License No:  
Facility:           Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station
NPF-3  
Location:           Oak Harbor, OH
Report No:  
Dates:               August 4, 2009 through November 23, 2009
05000346/2009-503  
Inspector:           Regina Russell, Emergency Preparedness Inspector
Licensee:  
Approved by:         Hironori Peterson, Chief
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC)  
                    Operations Branch
Facility:  
                    Division of Reactor Safety
Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station  
                                                                Enclosure 1
Location:  
Oak Harbor, OH  
Dates:  
August 4, 2009 through November 23, 2009  
Inspector:  
Regina Russell, Emergency Preparedness Inspector  
Approved by:  
Hironori Peterson, Chief  
Operations Branch  
Division of Reactor Safety
Enclosure 1  


                                    TABLE OF CONTENTS
ENCLOSURE 1
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS1
TABLE OF CONTENTS  
REPORT DETAILS 3
ENCLOSURE 1  
4OA3 Follow-Up Of Events...3
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS1  
  .1   Explosion of the J Bus Transformer..3
REPORT DETAILS 3  
      a.     Inspection Scope..3
4OA3 Follow-Up Of Events...3  
      b.     Event Description..3
   
      c.     Findings..4
.1  
            *   Emergency Classification .4
Explosion of the J Bus Transformer..3  
            *   Notification of State and Local Agencies7
4OA6 Management Meetings...9
a.  
4OA7 Licensee-Identified Violation..9
Inspection Scope..3  
ATTACHMENT - SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
KEY POINTS OF CONTACT1
LIST OF ITEMS OPENED, CLOSED AND DISCUSSED1
b.  
LIST OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED...2
Event Description..3  
LIST OF ACRONYMS USED4
ENCLOSURE 2
SEQUENCE OF EVENTS.1
c.  
                                              i
Findings..4  
*  
Emergency Classification .4  
*  
Notification of State and Local Agencies7  
4OA6 Management Meetings...9  
4OA7 Licensee-Identified Violation..9  
ATTACHMENT - SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION  
KEY POINTS OF CONTACT1  
LIST OF ITEMS OPENED, CLOSED AND DISCUSSED1  
LIST OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED...2  
LIST OF ACRONYMS USED4  
ENCLOSURE 2  
SEQUENCE OF EVENTS.1  
i  


                                      SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
IR 05000346/2009-503(DRS); 08/04/2009 - 11/23/2009; Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station;
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS  
Event Follow-up Inspection
IR 05000346/2009-503(DRS); 08/04/2009 - 11/23/2009; Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station;  
The report covers an event follow-up inspection by a regional emergency preparedness
Event Follow-up Inspection  
inspector. The inspection identified one preliminary White finding with an associated Apparent
The report covers an event follow-up inspection by a regional emergency preparedness  
Violation (AV), one Green finding with an associated Non-Cited Violation (NCV), and one
inspector. The inspection identified one preliminary White finding with an associated Apparent  
Severity Level IV finding with an associated NCV of NRC regulations. The significance of most
Violation (AV), one Green finding with an associated Non-Cited Violation (NCV), and one  
findings is indicated by their color (Green, White, Yellow, Red) using Inspection Manual Chapter
Severity Level IV finding with an associated NCV of NRC regulations. The significance of most  
(IMC) 0609, Significance Determination Process (SDP), and the cross-cutting aspect was
findings is indicated by their color (Green, White, Yellow, Red) using Inspection Manual Chapter  
determined using IMC 0305, Operating Reactor Assessment Program. Findings for which the
(IMC) 0609, Significance Determination Process (SDP), and the cross-cutting aspect was  
SDP does not apply may be Green or be assigned a severity level after NRC management
determined using IMC 0305, Operating Reactor Assessment Program. Findings for which the  
review. The NRCs program for overseeing the safe operation of commercial nuclear power
SDP does not apply may be Green or be assigned a severity level after NRC management  
reactors is described in NUREG-1649, Reactor Oversight Process, Revision 4, dated
review. The NRCs program for overseeing the safe operation of commercial nuclear power  
December 2006.
reactors is described in NUREG-1649, Reactor Oversight Process, Revision 4, dated  
Cornerstone: Emergency Preparedness
December 2006.  
    *   Preliminary White. A licensee identified finding and associated Apparent Violation (AV)
        of 10 CFR 50.54(q) and 10 CFR 50.47(b)(4) was identified for the failure to implement
Cornerstone: Emergency Preparedness  
        the emergency classification and action level scheme during an actual event to declare
*  
        an Alert after an explosion in the switchyard. The operators failed to verify, assess, and
Preliminary White. A licensee identified finding and associated Apparent Violation (AV)  
        classify the situation in conjunction with the Davis-Besse Emergency Plan Table of
of 10 CFR 50.54(q) and 10 CFR 50.47(b)(4) was identified for the failure to implement  
        Emergency Action Level Conditions. Specifically, immediately following an electrical
the emergency classification and action level scheme during an actual event to declare  
        fault and catastrophic failure of a voltage transformer in the switchyard resulting in an
an Alert after an explosion in the switchyard. The operators failed to verify, assess, and  
        explosion, fires, and damage to several switchyard components which affected plant
classify the situation in conjunction with the Davis-Besse Emergency Plan Table of  
        operations, the operators failed to recognize the hazard to the stations operations met
Emergency Action Level Conditions. Specifically, immediately following an electrical  
        the emergency action level conditions for declaring an Alert. The station entered a
fault and catastrophic failure of a voltage transformer in the switchyard resulting in an  
        Limiting Condition for Operation per Technical Specifications.
explosion, fires, and damage to several switchyard components which affected plant  
        The finding was screened to be more than minor because the failure to declare an Alert
operations, the operators failed to recognize the hazard to the stations operations met  
        adversely affected the Reactor Safety - Emergency Preparedness Cornerstone objective
the emergency action level conditions for declaring an Alert. The station entered a  
        to ensure the licensee is capable of implementing adequate measures to protect the
Limiting Condition for Operation per Technical Specifications.  
        health and safety of the public during a radiological emergency. The performance
        deficiency has the attribute of Emergency Response Organization Performance
The finding was screened to be more than minor because the failure to declare an Alert  
        associated with Actual Event Response. The performance deficiency involving the
adversely affected the Reactor Safety - Emergency Preparedness Cornerstone objective  
        failure to properly utilize the emergency classification and action level scheme during an
to ensure the licensee is capable of implementing adequate measures to protect the  
        actual Alert meets the criteria of the Emergency Preparedness SDP for a failure to
health and safety of the public during a radiological emergency. The performance  
        implement a risk significant planning standard of event classification. The failure to
deficiency has the attribute of Emergency Response Organization Performance  
        classify was a result of the licensees errors in recognition, was not due to competing
associated with Actual Event Response. The performance deficiency involving the  
        safety-related activities, and denied offsite authorities the opportunity to make decisions
failure to properly utilize the emergency classification and action level scheme during an  
        regarding protecting public health and safety. The finding was screened to be a failure
actual Alert meets the criteria of the Emergency Preparedness SDP for a failure to  
        to implement the risk significant planning standard associated with classification at the
implement a risk significant planning standard of event classification. The failure to  
        Alert level and was screened to be preliminarily White. Additionally, the cause of the
classify was a result of the licensees errors in recognition, was not due to competing  
        deficiency had a cross-cutting component in the area of Human Performance.
safety-related activities, and denied offsite authorities the opportunity to make decisions  
        Specifically, the licensee failed to make safety-significant decisions using a systematic
regarding protecting public health and safety. The finding was screened to be a failure  
        process and failed to obtain adequate reviews on the decisions (H.1(a)). (Section 4OA3)
to implement the risk significant planning standard associated with classification at the  
                                                  1                                     Enclosure 1
Alert level and was screened to be preliminarily White. Additionally, the cause of the  
deficiency had a cross-cutting component in the area of Human Performance.
Specifically, the licensee failed to make safety-significant decisions using a systematic  
process and failed to obtain adequate reviews on the decisions (H.1(a)). (Section 4OA3)
Enclosure 1  
1


    *   Green. The inspector identified a finding and an associated NCV of 10 CFR 50.54(q)
        and 10 CFR 50.47 (b)(5) for the licensees failure to maintain adequate emergency
Enclosure 1
        procedures to comply with emergency planning requirements to ensure timely
2
        notifications to State and local governmental agencies. Although the licensees
*  
        emergency classification procedure implied that State and local notifications should be
Green. The inspector identified a finding and an associated NCV of 10 CFR 50.54(q)  
        made promptly, the procedure did not prescribe the notification time frame in which a
and 10 CFR 50.47 (b)(5) for the licensees failure to maintain adequate emergency  
        missed classification should be made; as a result, the required notifications were not
procedures to comply with emergency planning requirements to ensure timely  
        completed for over four hours.
notifications to State and local governmental agencies. Although the licensees  
        The finding was screened to be more than minor because the deficiency adversely
emergency classification procedure implied that State and local notifications should be  
        affected the Reactor Safety - Emergency Preparedness Cornerstone objective to ensure
made promptly, the procedure did not prescribe the notification time frame in which a  
        the licensee is capable of implementing adequate measures to protect the health and
missed classification should be made; as a result, the required notifications were not  
        safety of the public during a radiologic emergency. The deficiency has the attribute of
completed for over four hours.  
        Procedure Quality associated with procedure use in an actual event. The Failure to
        Comply branch of the Emergency Preparedness SDP flowchart was used because the
The finding was screened to be more than minor because the deficiency adversely  
        program element for offsite notification was not adequate as designed for all types of
affected the Reactor Safety - Emergency Preparedness Cornerstone objective to ensure  
        events, such as in the case of an after-the-fact or missed event declaration. Because
the licensee is capable of implementing adequate measures to protect the health and  
        the emergency conditions no longer existed at the time of the event classification and
safety of the public during a radiologic emergency. The deficiency has the attribute of  
        notification recognition, the compliance with emergency plan requirements for notification
Procedure Quality associated with procedure use in an actual event. The Failure to  
        was evaluated as non-risk significant for the switchyard event. The performance
Comply branch of the Emergency Preparedness SDP flowchart was used because the  
        deficiency was evaluated to be a planning standard degraded function and to be Green.
program element for offsite notification was not adequate as designed for all types of  
        State and local offsite governmental officials were not able to assess conditions at the
events, such as in the case of an after-the-fact or missed event declaration. Because  
        time of the late event declaration and make informed decisions concerning the offsite
the emergency conditions no longer existed at the time of the event classification and  
        response. Additionally, the finding had a cross cutting component in the Human
notification recognition, the compliance with emergency plan requirements for notification  
        Performance area of Resources. Specifically, the licensees procedures for notification
was evaluated as non-risk significant for the switchyard event. The performance  
        to offsite agencies were not complete (H.2(c)). (Section 4OA3)
deficiency was evaluated to be a planning standard degraded function and to be Green.
Licensee-Identified Violation
State and local offsite governmental officials were not able to assess conditions at the  
A violation of very low safety significance that was identified by the licensee has been reviewed
time of the late event declaration and make informed decisions concerning the offsite  
by inspectors. Corrective actions planned or taken by the licensee have been entered into the
response. Additionally, the finding had a cross cutting component in the Human  
licensees corrective action program. This violation and corrective action tracking number is
Performance area of Resources. Specifically, the licensees procedures for notification  
listed in Section 4OA7 of this report.
to offsite agencies were not complete (H.2(c)). (Section 4OA3)  
                                                  2                                    Enclosure 1
Licensee-Identified Violation
A violation of very low safety significance that was identified by the licensee has been reviewed  
by inspectors. Corrective actions planned or taken by the licensee have been entered into the  
licensees corrective action program. This violation and corrective action tracking number is  
listed in Section 4OA7 of this report.  


                                      REPORT DETAILS
4.   OTHER ACTIVITIES
REPORT DETAILS  
4OA3 Follow-Up of Events (71153)
4.  
.1   Explosion of the J Bus Transformer
OTHER ACTIVITIES  
  a. Inspection Scope
4OA3 Follow-Up of Events (71153)  
      The inspector reviewed the circumstances including the sequence of events and
.1  
      licensee actions associated with the Alert declaration on June 25, 2009, following the
Explosion of the J Bus Transformer  
      switchyard explosion of the J bus transformer. The inspector interviewed fourteen
a.  
      personnel and reviewed selected procedures, records, audio tapes, and written
Inspection Scope
      statements. The inspection was conducted onsite August 4 through 6, 2009, and
The inspector reviewed the circumstances including the sequence of events and  
      continued with in-office reviews until November 23, 2009. The purpose of the inspection
licensee actions associated with the Alert declaration on June 25, 2009, following the  
      was to evaluate the licensees event response actions for compliance with applicable
switchyard explosion of the J bus transformer. The inspector interviewed fourteen  
      regulatory and Davis-Besse Emergency Plan requirements. A detailed event timeline
personnel and reviewed selected procedures, records, audio tapes, and written  
      has been included in the Enclosure 2. Documents reviewed in this inspection are listed
statements. The inspection was conducted onsite August 4 through 6, 2009, and  
      in the Attachment - Supplemental Information.
continued with in-office reviews until November 23, 2009. The purpose of the inspection  
      This event follow-up review constituted 1 sample as defined in IP 71153-05.
was to evaluate the licensees event response actions for compliance with applicable  
  b. Event Description
regulatory and Davis-Besse Emergency Plan requirements. A detailed event timeline  
      On June 25, 2009, at 12:49 a.m., the control room operators received annunciator
has been included in the Enclosure 2. Documents reviewed in this inspection are listed  
      alarms in the control room indicating the de-energization of the J bus in the switchyard.
in the Attachment - Supplemental Information.  
      The loss of the J bus was caused by an electrical fault and catastrophic failure of the
This event follow-up review constituted 1 sample as defined in IP 71153-05.  
      Coupling Capacitor Voltage Transformer (CCVT) in the Coupling Capacitor Potential
b.  
      Device (CCPD) used for voltage monitoring on the B phase of the bus. Two air circuit
Event Description  
      breakers opened and the 345 kV breaker tripped resulting in loss of the J bus and
On June 25, 2009, at 12:49 a.m., the control room operators received annunciator  
      unavailability of one of two start-up transformers used to tie in offsite power. The station
alarms in the control room indicating the de-energization of the J bus in the switchyard.
      entered Technical Specifications (TS) for a single point vulnerable configuration for
The loss of the J bus was caused by an electrical fault and catastrophic failure of the  
      offsite alternating current (AC) power and a Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) with
Coupling Capacitor Voltage Transformer (CCVT) in the Coupling Capacitor Potential  
      a 72-hour action statement.
Device (CCPD) used for voltage monitoring on the B phase of the bus. Two air circuit  
      At the onset of the event, reports of an explosion in the switchyard were immediately
breakers opened and the 345 kV breaker tripped resulting in loss of the J bus and  
      called into the Secondary Alarm Station (SAS) by various security officers. The roving
unavailability of one of two start-up transformers used to tie in offsite power. The station  
      officers and those at the posts reported the explosion, a white flash, a loud noise,
entered Technical Specifications (TS) for a single point vulnerable configuration for  
      flames, and building vibrations. The SAS operator then called the control room and
offsite alternating current (AC) power and a Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) with  
      reported fires throughout the switchyard, debris spread throughout the area, and a
a 72-hour action statement.  
      breaker on fire. Security called for offsite fire and emergency medical services per the
      control rooms request. Ottawa County responded with police, fire, and emergency
At the onset of the event, reports of an explosion in the switchyard were immediately  
      medical services.
called into the Secondary Alarm Station (SAS) by various security officers. The roving  
      The control room dispatched operations personnel to investigate the occurrence in the
officers and those at the posts reported the explosion, a white flash, a loud noise,  
      switchyard and provide an assessment of magnitude of the fire, the need for offsite
flames, and building vibrations. The SAS operator then called the control room and  
      assistance, and the extent of component damage. The control room also dispatched fire
reported fires throughout the switchyard, debris spread throughout the area, and a  
      brigade personnel to the switchyard. The fire brigade extinguished the flames using
breaker on fire. Security called for offsite fire and emergency medical services per the  
      hand held fire extinguishers and allowing other smaller fires to extinguish themselves.
control rooms request. Ottawa County responded with police, fire, and emergency  
      The licensee did not use the offsite fire assistance and released the offsite responders.
medical services.  
                                                3                                    Enclosure 1
The control room dispatched operations personnel to investigate the occurrence in the  
switchyard and provide an assessment of magnitude of the fire, the need for offsite  
assistance, and the extent of component damage. The control room also dispatched fire  
brigade personnel to the switchyard. The fire brigade extinguished the flames using  
hand held fire extinguishers and allowing other smaller fires to extinguish themselves.
The licensee did not use the offsite fire assistance and released the offsite responders.
Enclosure 1  
3


  The control room alerted the assigned duty team of the events in the switchyard and the
  need for their response to the site. The outage control center was manned in order to
The control room alerted the assigned duty team of the events in the switchyard and the  
  provide support and assistance to the transmission and distribution company that
need for their response to the site. The outage control center was manned in order to  
  responded for repair and restoration of the bus.
provide support and assistance to the transmission and distribution company that  
  After receiving reports of the fire and considering the request which had been made for
responded for repair and restoration of the bus.  
  offsite fire assistance, the Shift Manager referred to the emergency plan and
  classification scheme and noted the criteria for an Unusual Event classification under the
After receiving reports of the fire and considering the request which had been made for  
  Hazards to Station Operations category of Fire would be met if the offsite fire
offsite fire assistance, the Shift Manager referred to the emergency plan and  
  company was used in extinguishing the fires. When the offsite assistance was not used,
classification scheme and noted the criteria for an Unusual Event classification under the  
  the Shift Manager again noted that no emergency criteria were met for the emergency
Hazards to Station Operations category of Fire would be met if the offsite fire  
  plan. The Shift Technical Advisor performed a peer review and arrived at the same
company was used in extinguishing the fires. When the offsite assistance was not used,  
  conclusions as the Shift Manager for no need of event classification. The conditions for
the Shift Manager again noted that no emergency criteria were met for the emergency  
  an Alert were met under Onsite explosion affecting plant operations because: (1) the
plan. The Shift Technical Advisor performed a peer review and arrived at the same  
  control room was informed by station personnel who made a visual sighting of the
conclusions as the Shift Manager for no need of event classification. The conditions for  
  explosion; and (2) instrumentation readings in the control room indicating equipment
an Alert were met under Onsite explosion affecting plant operations because: (1) the  
  problems which required entry into a 72-hour TS LCO.
control room was informed by station personnel who made a visual sighting of the  
  When the oncoming Shift Manager reviewed the events with the assistance of the
explosion; and (2) instrumentation readings in the control room indicating equipment  
  Emergency Preparedness Manager, the oncoming Shift Manager realized the entry
problems which required entry into a 72-hour TS LCO.  
  criteria for a classification at the Alert level were met.
  The Shift Manager notified the NRC Headquarters Operations Officer of a transitory Alert
When the oncoming Shift Manager reviewed the events with the assistance of the  
  at 11:44 hours on June 25, 2009, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.72 (a)(1)(i) and based on
Emergency Preparedness Manager, the oncoming Shift Manager realized the entry  
  Emergency Action Level 7.D.2, Onsite explosion affecting plant operations. The
criteria for a classification at the Alert level were met.  
  Emergency Preparedness Manager along with plant management notified Ottawa
The Shift Manager notified the NRC Headquarters Operations Officer of a transitory Alert  
  County, Lucas County, and the State of Ohio by a phone conference call.
at 11:44 hours on June 25, 2009, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.72 (a)(1)(i) and based on  
c. Findings
Emergency Action Level 7.D.2, Onsite explosion affecting plant operations. The  
  The inspector identified two findings.
Emergency Preparedness Manager along with plant management notified Ottawa  
* Emergency Classification
County, Lucas County, and the State of Ohio by a phone conference call.  
  Introduction: A licensee-identified preliminarily White finding with low to moderate
c.  
  safety significance and associated Apparent Violation (AV) of 10 CFR 50.54(q) and
Findings  
  10 CFR 50.47(b)(4) was identified for the failure to implement the emergency
The inspector identified two findings.  
  classification and action level scheme during an actual event for an explosion in the
*  
  switchyard. The operators failed to verify, assess, and classify the situation and
Emergency Classification  
  recognize the event met the emergency action level conditions for declaring an Alert.
Introduction: A licensee-identified preliminarily White finding with low to moderate  
  Description: On June 25, 2009, during an actual explosion event, the Shift Manager
safety significance and associated Apparent Violation (AV) of 10 CFR 50.54(q) and  
  failed to verify indications of the off-normal event and reported sightings and failed to
10 CFR 50.47(b)(4) was identified for the failure to implement the emergency  
  perform an extensive assessment as necessary to determine the applicable emergency
classification and action level scheme during an actual event for an explosion in the  
  classification level. The Shift Manager failed to recognize the fire and debris throughout
switchyard. The operators failed to verify, assess, and classify the situation and  
  the switchyard and areas outside the switchyard were a result of a transformer
recognize the event met the emergency action level conditions for declaring an Alert.  
  explosion; therefore, he failed to consider the emergency actions levels for Explosion
Description: On June 25, 2009, during an actual explosion event, the Shift Manager  
  under the Hazards to Station Operations category. The conditions for the Alert were
failed to verify indications of the off-normal event and reported sightings and failed to  
  met under Onsite explosion affecting plant operations because: (1) the control room
perform an extensive assessment as necessary to determine the applicable emergency  
  was informed by station personnel who made a visual sighting of the explosion; and
classification level. The Shift Manager failed to recognize the fire and debris throughout  
  (2) instrumentation readings in the control room indicating equipment problems.
the switchyard and areas outside the switchyard were a result of a transformer  
                                                4                                  Enclosure 1
explosion; therefore, he failed to consider the emergency actions levels for Explosion  
under the Hazards to Station Operations category. The conditions for the Alert were  
met under Onsite explosion affecting plant operations because: (1) the control room  
was informed by station personnel who made a visual sighting of the explosion; and  
(2) instrumentation readings in the control room indicating equipment problems.
Enclosure 1  
4


An electrical fault and catastrophic failure of the transformer for voltage monitoring on
the B phase of the J bus resulted in an explosion and fires. The event resulted in two
An electrical fault and catastrophic failure of the transformer for voltage monitoring on  
breakers opening, damage to several switchyard components, one of two switchyard
the B phase of the J bus resulted in an explosion and fires. The event resulted in two  
buses used to tie in offsite power becoming de-energized, and the required entry into a
breakers opening, damage to several switchyard components, one of two switchyard  
72-hour TS LCO.
buses used to tie in offsite power becoming de-energized, and the required entry into a  
The Shift Manager and Shift Technical Advisor considered the emergency classification
72-hour TS LCO.  
related to the switchyard fires but failed to recognize the explosion. They determined the
conditions requiring emergency classification for fire were not met because offsite fire
The Shift Manager and Shift Technical Advisor considered the emergency classification  
assistance was not used. The Shift Manager failed to verify the indications, assess the
related to the switchyard fires but failed to recognize the explosion. They determined the  
overall impact to the facility, and evaluate other entry criteria in the Hazards to Station
conditions requiring emergency classification for fire were not met because offsite fire  
Operations category of the emergency classification scheme. The Shift Technical
assistance was not used. The Shift Manager failed to verify the indications, assess the  
Advisor performed a peer review and arrived at the same conclusions as the Shift
overall impact to the facility, and evaluate other entry criteria in the Hazards to Station  
Manager that no event classification was warranted. Essentially, the Shift Technical
Operations category of the emergency classification scheme. The Shift Technical  
Advisor performed a peer check on the use of the classification table focusing on a Fire
Advisor performed a peer review and arrived at the same conclusions as the Shift  
hazard and did not perform an independent assessment. He did not re-evaluate the
Manager that no event classification was warranted. Essentially, the Shift Technical  
initiating conditions and information received from the field to make an emergency
Advisor performed a peer check on the use of the classification table focusing on a Fire  
classification evaluation.
hazard and did not perform an independent assessment. He did not re-evaluate the  
The control room crew had an opportunity to realize an explosion had occurred at 00:50
initiating conditions and information received from the field to make an emergency  
hours when the SAS operator informed the control room of the explosion and fires in the
classification evaluation.  
switchyard and subsequently requested offsite fire assistance. The determination was
based on the site protection incident report, emergency phone call report which indicated
The control room crew had an opportunity to realize an explosion had occurred at 00:50  
the Shift Manager was notified, and interviews conducted by the inspector, Based on
hours when the SAS operator informed the control room of the explosion and fires in the  
interviews with the inspector, the SAS operator said he told the control room an
switchyard and subsequently requested offsite fire assistance. The determination was  
explosion had occurred, as well as, the Shift Security Supervisor reported he told the
based on the site protection incident report, emergency phone call report which indicated  
Shift Manager. The Shift Security Supervisor also reported to the Duty Team Director,
the Shift Manager was notified, and interviews conducted by the inspector, Based on  
who represented senior management for emergency response, an explosion had
interviews with the inspector, the SAS operator said he told the control room an  
occurred (recorded phone call). The Duty Team Director had subsequent calls to the
explosion had occurred, as well as, the Shift Security Supervisor reported he told the  
control room.
Shift Manager. The Shift Security Supervisor also reported to the Duty Team Director,  
The operating crew had numerous opportunities to gain and assess information to
who represented senior management for emergency response, an explosion had  
properly classify the explosion. On the initial call and subsequent calls to the control
occurred (recorded phone call). The Duty Team Director had subsequent calls to the  
room from Security, the reactor operator in the control room on the phone to Security
control room.  
reported he was not concerned with what had caused the wide spread fires but was
focused on what to do to put out the fires and actions to ensure plant stability. When
The operating crew had numerous opportunities to gain and assess information to  
Operations personnel and the Fire Captain, a Senior Reactor Operator (SRO), were sent
properly classify the explosion. On the initial call and subsequent calls to the control  
to the switchyard and reported back their assessment at 01:47 hours, the control room
room from Security, the reactor operator in the control room on the phone to Security  
was provided enough information to conclude an explosion had occurred. Based on
reported he was not concerned with what had caused the wide spread fires but was  
interviews with the inspector, the Fire Captain stated he knew a transformer had an
focused on what to do to put out the fires and actions to ensure plant stability. When  
electrical fault that catastrophically failed, caused damage to many components, and
Operations personnel and the Fire Captain, a Senior Reactor Operator (SRO), were sent  
spread debris and fire in a large area, but in his mind, he did not consider this an
to the switchyard and reported back their assessment at 01:47 hours, the control room  
explosion. He was unaware of the definition of explosion in the licensees procedure.
was provided enough information to conclude an explosion had occurred. Based on  
The licensees procedure for explosions, RA-EP-02840, defines Explosion: A rapid,
interviews with the inspector, the Fire Captain stated he knew a transformer had an  
violent, unconfined combustion, or catastrophic failure of pressurized/energized
electrical fault that catastrophically failed, caused damage to many components, and  
equipment that imparts sufficient force to potentially damage permanent structures,
spread debris and fire in a large area, but in his mind, he did not consider this an  
systems, or components.
explosion. He was unaware of the definition of explosion in the licensees procedure.
Analysis: The inspector concluded the failure to use the emergency action level scheme
The licensees procedure for explosions, RA-EP-02840, defines Explosion: A rapid,  
to classify an Alert when conditions warranted due to an explosion during an actual
violent, unconfined combustion, or catastrophic failure of pressurized/energized  
event was a performance deficiency. Even though indications were available to the
equipment that imparts sufficient force to potentially damage permanent structures,  
                                            5                                    Enclosure 1
systems, or components.
Analysis: The inspector concluded the failure to use the emergency action level scheme  
to classify an Alert when conditions warranted due to an explosion during an actual  
event was a performance deficiency. Even though indications were available to the  
Enclosure 1  
5


control room at 00:50 hours, the event was not recognized as meeting the Alert criteria
until 07:50 hours. The performance deficiency was screened using the Emergency
Enclosure 1
Preparedness SDP. The performance deficiency was screened to be more than minor
6
because the performance deficiency adversely affected the Reactor Safety - Emergency
control room at 00:50 hours, the event was not recognized as meeting the Alert criteria  
Preparedness Cornerstone objective to ensure the licensee is capable of implementing
until 07:50 hours. The performance deficiency was screened using the Emergency  
adequate measures to protect the health and safety of the public during a radiologic
Preparedness SDP. The performance deficiency was screened to be more than minor  
emergency. The performance deficiency has the attribute of Emergency Response
because the performance deficiency adversely affected the Reactor Safety - Emergency  
Organization Performance associated with Actual Event Response.
Preparedness Cornerstone objective to ensure the licensee is capable of implementing  
The performance deficiency involving the failure to properly utilize the emergency
adequate measures to protect the health and safety of the public during a radiologic  
classification and action level scheme during an actual Alert meets the SDP criteria for a
emergency. The performance deficiency has the attribute of Emergency Response  
failure to implement a risk significant planning standard of event classification. The
Organization Performance associated with Actual Event Response.  
failure to classify was a result of the licensees errors in recognition, was not due to
The performance deficiency involving the failure to properly utilize the emergency  
competing safety-related activities, and denied offsite authorities the opportunity to make
classification and action level scheme during an actual Alert meets the SDP criteria for a  
decisions regarding protecting public health and safety, therefore, was assessed as a
failure to implement a risk significant planning standard of event classification. The  
failure to implement the emergency plan classification scheme. The Program Element of
failure to classify was a result of the licensees errors in recognition, was not due to  
the emergency classification scheme was adequate as designed and met the planning
competing safety-related activities, and denied offsite authorities the opportunity to make  
standard function.
decisions regarding protecting public health and safety, therefore, was assessed as a  
IMC 0609, Appendix B - The Actual Event Implementation Problem branch of the SDP
failure to implement the emergency plan classification scheme. The Program Element of  
was used because failure to comply with a regulatory requirement occurred during an
the emergency classification scheme was adequate as designed and met the planning  
actual event. Using the SDP, Appendix B, Sheet 2, Actual Event Implementation
standard function.  
Problem flowchart, the performance deficiency screened to be an actual event
IMC 0609, Appendix B - The Actual Event Implementation Problem branch of the SDP  
implementation problem associated with classification at the Alert level and a failure to
was used because failure to comply with a regulatory requirement occurred during an  
implement a risk significant planning standard, therefore, was screened as a preliminary
actual event. Using the SDP, Appendix B, Sheet 2, Actual Event Implementation  
White finding. As a result of not declaring an Alert, Davis-Besse failed to activate their
Problem flowchart, the performance deficiency screened to be an actual event  
full emergency response organization to assist in mitigating the event. Additionally,
implementation problem associated with classification at the Alert level and a failure to  
State and local offsite agencies were not able to take initial offsite measures to assess
implement a risk significant planning standard, therefore, was screened as a preliminary  
conditions, staff their facilities, and make informed decisions for protecting public safety.
White finding. As a result of not declaring an Alert, Davis-Besse failed to activate their  
The cause of the deficiency had a cross-cutting component in the area of Human
full emergency response organization to assist in mitigating the event. Additionally,  
Performance. Specifically, the licensee failed to make safety-significant decisions using
State and local offsite agencies were not able to take initial offsite measures to assess  
a systematic process and failed to obtain adequate reviews on the decisions (H.1(a)).
conditions, staff their facilities, and make informed decisions for protecting public safety.
Enforcement: Title 10 CFR 50.47(q) requires, in part, a licensee authorized to possess
The cause of the deficiency had a cross-cutting component in the area of Human  
and operate a nuclear power reactor shall follow and maintain in effect emergency plans
Performance. Specifically, the licensee failed to make safety-significant decisions using  
which meet the standards in 10 CFR 50.47(b). Title 10 CFR 50.47(b)(4) requires, in
a systematic process and failed to obtain adequate reviews on the decisions (H.1(a)).  
part, a standard emergency classification and action level scheme be used by the
Enforcement: Title 10 CFR 50.47(q) requires, in part, a licensee authorized to possess  
licensee. Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Emergency Plan section 2.6 states, in
and operate a nuclear power reactor shall follow and maintain in effect emergency plans  
part, detailed actions to be taken by individuals in response to onsite emergency
which meet the standards in 10 CFR 50.47(b). Title 10 CFR 50.47(b)(4) requires, in  
conditions are described in the emergency plan implementing procedures. Davis-Besse
part, a standard emergency classification and action level scheme be used by the  
Nuclear Power Station Emergency Plan Implementing Procedure, RA-EP-01500,
licensee. Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Emergency Plan section 2.6 states, in  
Emergency Classification requires, in part, that when indications of abnormal
part, detailed actions to be taken by individuals in response to onsite emergency  
occurrences are received by the control room staff, the Shift Manager shall verify the
conditions are described in the emergency plan implementing procedures. Davis-Besse  
indications of the off-normal event or reported sighting, assess the information available
Nuclear Power Station Emergency Plan Implementing Procedure, RA-EP-01500,  
from valid indications or reports, and classify the situation. The Emergency Plan Table
Emergency Classification requires, in part, that when indications of abnormal  
of Emergency Action Level Conditions for Explosion under the Hazards to Station
occurrences are received by the control room staff, the Shift Manager shall verify the  
Operations category requires, in part, the declaration of an Alert for an onsite explosion
indications of the off-normal event or reported sighting, assess the information available  
affecting plant operations in all modes with the: (1) control room being informed by
from valid indications or reports, and classify the situation. The Emergency Plan Table  
station personnel who have made a visual sighting; and (2) instrumentation readings on
of Emergency Action Level Conditions for Explosion under the Hazards to Station  
plant systems indicating equipment problems.
Operations category requires, in part, the declaration of an Alert for an onsite explosion  
                                            6                                    Enclosure 1
affecting plant operations in all modes with the: (1) control room being informed by  
station personnel who have made a visual sighting; and (2) instrumentation readings on  
plant systems indicating equipment problems.  


  Contrary to the above, from the time period of 00:50 to 01:47 hours on June 25, 2009,
  the Shift Manager failed to verify the indications of the off-normal event or reported
Contrary to the above, from the time period of 00:50 to 01:47 hours on June 25, 2009,  
  sighting, assess the information available from valid indications or reports of an
the Shift Manager failed to verify the indications of the off-normal event or reported  
  explosion, and classify the situation as an Alert in accordance with the Davis-Besse
sighting, assess the information available from valid indications or reports of an  
  Emergency Plan Table of Emergency Action Level Conditions during an actual event.
explosion, and classify the situation as an Alert in accordance with the Davis-Besse  
  Specifically, the valid indications and reports included: (1) the control room being
Emergency Plan Table of Emergency Action Level Conditions during an actual event.
  informed by Security personnel of a visual sighting of an explosion in the switchyard;
Specifically, the valid indications and reports included: (1) the control room being  
  (2) instrumentation readings and annunciators in the control room that indicated the loss
informed by Security personnel of a visual sighting of an explosion in the switchyard;  
  of the J bus; and (3) onsite field reports from the equipment operator and from the Fire
(2) instrumentation readings and annunciators in the control room that indicated the loss  
  Brigade Captain of catastrophic failure of a transformer and debris. As a consequence,
of the J bus; and (3) onsite field reports from the equipment operator and from the Fire  
  Davis-Besse failed to activate their full emergency response organization to assist in
Brigade Captain of catastrophic failure of a transformer and debris. As a consequence,  
  mitigating the event. Additionally, State and local offsite agencies which rely on
Davis-Besse failed to activate their full emergency response organization to assist in  
  information provided by the facility licensee were not able to take initial offsite measures.
mitigating the event. Additionally, State and local offsite agencies which rely on  
  The finding is identified as an apparent violation of low to moderate safety significance.
information provided by the facility licensee were not able to take initial offsite measures.
  (AV 05000346/ 2009503-01)
The finding is identified as an apparent violation of low to moderate safety significance.  
* Notification of State and Local Agencies
(AV 05000346/ 2009503-01)  
  Introduction: An NRC- identified finding of very low safety significance (Green) with an
*  
  associated NCV was identified for the licensees failure to comply with emergency
Notification of State and Local Agencies  
  planning requirements to ensure timely notifications to State and local governmental
Introduction: An NRC- identified finding of very low safety significance (Green) with an  
  agencies. Following the licensees after-the-fact recognition of the Alert, the licensee
associated NCV was identified for the licensees failure to comply with emergency  
  recognized notifications needed to be made to State and local response organizations;
planning requirements to ensure timely notifications to State and local governmental  
  however, the procedures failed to provide clear and consistent guidance for the
agencies. Following the licensees after-the-fact recognition of the Alert, the licensee  
  notification timeliness. As such, the notifications were not completed for more than four
recognized notifications needed to be made to State and local response organizations;  
  hours.
however, the procedures failed to provide clear and consistent guidance for the  
  Description: At 07:50 hours on June 25, 2009, approximately eight hours after the
notification timeliness. As such, the notifications were not completed for more than four  
  switchyard explosion had occurred and mitigating actions were completed by the
hours.  
  operating crew, the licensee realized they had failed to classify and declare an Alert. By
Description: At 07:50 hours on June 25, 2009, approximately eight hours after the  
  this time, the licensee had many managers and responder personnel onsite reviewing
switchyard explosion had occurred and mitigating actions were completed by the  
  the events and circumstances of the explosion. At 07:50 hours, the Shift Manager noted
operating crew, the licensee realized they had failed to classify and declare an Alert. By  
  in the control room unit log, information for notification to the State of Ohio, Ottawa
this time, the licensee had many managers and responder personnel onsite reviewing  
  County, and Lucas County were to be collected and the after-the-fact notifications were
the events and circumstances of the explosion. At 07:50 hours, the Shift Manager noted  
  to be made by the Emergency Offsite Manager who was designated for the event to be
in the control room unit log, information for notification to the State of Ohio, Ottawa  
  Emergency Preparedness Manager for the site.
County, and Lucas County were to be collected and the after-the-fact notifications were  
  The Davis-Besse Emergency Plan and emergency plan implementing procedures
to be made by the Emergency Offsite Manager who was designated for the event to be  
  designate the responsible individual for offsite notification. The Emergency Plan states,
Emergency Preparedness Manager for the site.
  in part, the Shift Manager, acting as the Emergency Director, will implement the plan and
The Davis-Besse Emergency Plan and emergency plan implementing procedures  
  ensure that required notifications to the counties and State are made. However, the
designate the responsible individual for offsite notification. The Emergency Plan states,  
  Emergency Classification procedure in the section for Transitory Events states, in
in part, the Shift Manager, acting as the Emergency Director, will implement the plan and  
  part, if through an event review an emergency classification was discovered as missed,
ensure that required notifications to the counties and State are made. However, the  
  the Shift Manager, or designee, will contact the Emergency Offsite Manager (EOM).
Emergency Classification procedure in the section for Transitory Events states, in  
  The EOM will perform the required notifications to the offsite agencies. The EOM as
part, if through an event review an emergency classification was discovered as missed,  
  described in the Emergency Plan was a position associated with activation of the
the Shift Manager, or designee, will contact the Emergency Offsite Manager (EOM).
  Emergency Response Organization. For the after-the-fact Alert declaration for the
The EOM will perform the required notifications to the offsite agencies. The EOM as  
  switchyard explosion event on June 25, 2009, the Emergency Response Organization
described in the Emergency Plan was a position associated with activation of the  
  was not activated.
Emergency Response Organization. For the after-the-fact Alert declaration for the  
                                              7                                      Enclosure 1
switchyard explosion event on June 25, 2009, the Emergency Response Organization  
was not activated.  
Enclosure 1  
7


The Emergency Plan and emergency plan implementing procedures did not provide
clear consistent guidance for required notification timeliness. In the Emergency Plan,
The Emergency Plan and emergency plan implementing procedures did not provide  
the specific agencies to notify are listed along with the time requirement of 15 minutes.
clear consistent guidance for required notification timeliness. In the Emergency Plan,  
The emergency plan implementing procedure Emergency Notification states, in part,
the specific agencies to notify are listed along with the time requirement of 15 minutes.
the initial notification of the State and Counties is required within 15 minutes of the
The emergency plan implementing procedure Emergency Notification states, in part,  
declaration of an emergency. The Emergency Classification procedure has a caution
the initial notification of the State and Counties is required within 15 minutes of the  
that states, in part, if a transitory event has occurred a notification to the offsite agencies
declaration of an emergency. The Emergency Classification procedure has a caution  
is still required. In contrast, the Emergency Classification procedure in the Transitory
that states, in part, if a transitory event has occurred a notification to the offsite agencies  
Event section discusses the notification to the offsite organizations will be made by
is still required. In contrast, the Emergency Classification procedure in the Transitory  
phone or if the agency cannot be contacted, the notification will be faxed with a follow-up
Event section discusses the notification to the offsite organizations will be made by  
phone call the following morning. The procedure implies the notification will be made
phone or if the agency cannot be contacted, the notification will be faxed with a follow-up  
promptly following the gathering of the notification information, but does not clearly state
phone call the following morning. The procedure implies the notification will be made  
the time requirement. Even though the licensee defined the after-the-fact classification
promptly following the gathering of the notification information, but does not clearly state  
as a transitory Alert, the declaration had the 15-minute notification time requirement as
the time requirement. Even though the licensee defined the after-the-fact classification  
noted in the Emergency Notification procedure and the Emergency Plan. The
as a transitory Alert, the declaration had the 15-minute notification time requirement as  
Emergency Preparedness Manager acting as the EOM reported he did not have the
noted in the Emergency Notification procedure and the Emergency Plan. The  
sense of timeliness for the required notification and lost track of time. The notification of
Emergency Preparedness Manager acting as the EOM reported he did not have the  
the after-the-fact Alert declaration was made at 12:30 hours to the State and local
sense of timeliness for the required notification and lost track of time. The notification of  
governmental agencies through a conference call. The notification was not made using
the after-the-fact Alert declaration was made at 12:30 hours to the State and local  
the Initial Notification form, DBEP-010, as required by the licensees procedure.
governmental agencies through a conference call. The notification was not made using  
Analysis: The inspector concluded the failure to comply with emergency planning
the Initial Notification form, DBEP-010, as required by the licensees procedure.  
requirements to have adequate procedures to ensure timely notifications to State and
Analysis: The inspector concluded the failure to comply with emergency planning  
local governmental agencies was a performance deficiency. The deficiency did not meet
requirements to have adequate procedures to ensure timely notifications to State and  
the criteria for traditional enforcement, therefore, was screened using the Emergency
local governmental agencies was a performance deficiency. The deficiency did not meet  
Preparedness SDP. The deficiency was screened to be more than minor because the
the criteria for traditional enforcement, therefore, was screened using the Emergency  
deficiency adversely affected the Reactor Safety - Emergency Preparedness
Preparedness SDP. The deficiency was screened to be more than minor because the  
Cornerstone objective to ensure the licensee is capable of implementing adequate
deficiency adversely affected the Reactor Safety - Emergency Preparedness  
measures to protect the health and safety of the public during a radiologic emergency.
Cornerstone objective to ensure the licensee is capable of implementing adequate  
The deficiency has the attribute of Procedure Quality associated with procedure use in
measures to protect the health and safety of the public during a radiologic emergency.
an actual event. The delay to notify the offsite agencies was not a result of the
The deficiency has the attribute of Procedure Quality associated with procedure use in  
licensees errors in recognition and was not due to competing safety-related activities.
an actual event. The delay to notify the offsite agencies was not a result of the  
Even after the licensee recognized State and local notifications needed to be made,
licensees errors in recognition and was not due to competing safety-related activities.
offsite notifications were delayed for over four hours.
Even after the licensee recognized State and local notifications needed to be made,  
IMC 0609, Appendix B - The Failure to Comply branch of the SDP was used because
offsite notifications were delayed for over four hours.  
the program element for offsite notification was not adequate as designed for all types of
IMC 0609, Appendix B - The Failure to Comply branch of the SDP was used because  
events, such as in the case of an after-the-fact or missed event declaration. The
the program element for offsite notification was not adequate as designed for all types of  
licensee did not comply with a regulatory requirement to have adequate procedures to
events, such as in the case of an after-the-fact or missed event declaration. The  
ensure timely notifications to State and local governmental agencies for all event types.
licensee did not comply with a regulatory requirement to have adequate procedures to  
Because the emergency conditions no longer existed at the time of the event
ensure timely notifications to State and local governmental agencies for all event types.
classification and notification recognition, the compliance with emergency plan
Because the emergency conditions no longer existed at the time of the event  
requirements for notification was evaluated as non-risk significant for the switchyard
classification and notification recognition, the compliance with emergency plan  
event. Using the SDP, Appendix B, Sheet 1, Failure to Comply flowchart, the
requirements for notification was evaluated as non-risk significant for the switchyard  
performance deficiency was evaluated to be a planning standard degraded function,
event. Using the SDP, Appendix B, Sheet 1, Failure to Comply flowchart, the  
therefore, was screened to be of very low safety significance (Green). State and local
performance deficiency was evaluated to be a planning standard degraded function,  
offsite governmental officials were not able to assess conditions at the time of the late
therefore, was screened to be of very low safety significance (Green). State and local  
event declaration and make informed decisions concerning the offsite response.
offsite governmental officials were not able to assess conditions at the time of the late  
The performance deficiency involving the licensees failure to have adequate procedures
event declaration and make informed decisions concerning the offsite response.
to ensure timely notifications to State and local governmental agencies for all declared
The performance deficiency involving the licensees failure to have adequate procedures  
                                            8                                      Enclosure 1
to ensure timely notifications to State and local governmental agencies for all declared  
Enclosure 1  
8


    events had a cross cutting component in the Human Performance area of Resources.
    Specifically, the licensees procedures for notification to offsite agencies were not
events had a cross cutting component in the Human Performance area of Resources.
    complete. (H.2(c))
Specifically, the licensees procedures for notification to offsite agencies were not  
    Enforcement: Title 10 CFR 50.47(q) requires, in part, a licensee authorized to possess
complete. (H.2(c))  
    and operate a nuclear power reactor shall follow and maintain in effect emergency plans
Enforcement: Title 10 CFR 50.47(q) requires, in part, a licensee authorized to possess  
    which meet the standards in 10 CFR 50.47(b). In accordance with 10CFR 50.47(b)(5),
and operate a nuclear power reactor shall follow and maintain in effect emergency plans  
    procedures have been established for notification of State and local response
which meet the standards in 10 CFR 50.47(b). In accordance with 10CFR 50.47(b)(5),  
    organizations. Also 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E.D.3., requires the capability to notify
procedures have been established for notification of State and local response  
    responsible State and local governmental agencies within 15 minutes after declaring an
organizations. Also 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E.D.3., requires the capability to notify  
    emergency.
responsible State and local governmental agencies within 15 minutes after declaring an  
    Contrary to the above, the licensee did not maintain adequate procedures to ensure
emergency.  
    timely notifications to State and local governmental agencies for all declared events.
Contrary to the above, the licensee did not maintain adequate procedures to ensure  
    For the after-the-fact Alert declaration for the switchyard explosion event on
timely notifications to State and local governmental agencies for all declared events.
    June 25, 2009, the notifications to State of Ohio, Ottawa County, and Lucas County
For the after-the-fact Alert declaration for the switchyard explosion event on  
    were delayed for over four hours after the Shift Manager noted the requirement.
June 25, 2009, the notifications to State of Ohio, Ottawa County, and Lucas County  
    Because the finding was of very low safety significance and has been entered into the
were delayed for over four hours after the Shift Manager noted the requirement.
    licensees corrective action program (CR 09-62918), the violation is being treated as a
Because the finding was of very low safety significance and has been entered into the  
    Green NCV (NCV 05000346/ 2009503-02, Failure to Have Adequate Procedures for
licensees corrective action program (CR 09-62918), the violation is being treated as a  
    Offsite Notifications), in accordance with Section VI.A.1 of the NRC's Enforcement
Green NCV (NCV 05000346/ 2009503-02, Failure to Have Adequate Procedures for  
    Policy.
Offsite Notifications), in accordance with Section VI.A.1 of the NRC's Enforcement  
4OA6 Management Meetings
Policy.  
.2 Exit Meeting Summary
4OA6 Management Meetings  
    On August 6, 2009, the inspector provided an interim debrief to the licensee staff for the
.2  
    onsite interview portion of the inspection. On November 23, 2009, the inspector
Exit Meeting Summary  
    presented the inspection results to the Site Vice President, Mr. B. Allen, and other
On August 6, 2009, the inspector provided an interim debrief to the licensee staff for the  
    members of the licensee staff. The licensee acknowledged the issues presented. The
onsite interview portion of the inspection. On November 23, 2009, the inspector  
    inspector confirmed that none of the potential report inputs which were discussed was
presented the inspection results to the Site Vice President, Mr. B. Allen, and other  
    considered proprietary.
members of the licensee staff. The licensee acknowledged the issues presented. The  
4OA7 Licensee-Identified Violation: A violation of very low safety significance (Severity
inspector confirmed that none of the potential report inputs which were discussed was  
    Level IV) was identified by the licensee and was a violation of NRC requirements which
considered proprietary.  
    meets the criteria of Section VI of the NRC Enforcement Policy. A violation of
4OA7 Licensee-Identified Violation: A violation of very low safety significance (Severity  
    10 CFR 50.72 was identified for failure to provide timely notification to the NRC. On
Level IV) was identified by the licensee and was a violation of NRC requirements which  
    June 25, 2009, Davis-Besse failed to provide timely notification to the NRC of the
meets the criteria of Section VI of the NRC Enforcement Policy. A violation of  
    after-the-fact Alert classification resulting from an explosion in the switchyard. The
10 CFR 50.72 was identified for failure to provide timely notification to the NRC. On  
    delayed notification was not a result of competing safety-related activities, plant
June 25, 2009, Davis-Besse failed to provide timely notification to the NRC of the  
    stabilization activities, or equipment failures. The delayed notification was not a result of
after-the-fact Alert classification resulting from an explosion in the switchyard. The  
    the licensees initial failure to classify the event. At 07:50 hours the licensee recognized
delayed notification was not a result of competing safety-related activities, plant  
    that conditions warranted the classification of an Alert and they had missed the Alert
stabilization activities, or equipment failures. The delayed notification was not a result of  
    declaration; however, the licensee did not notify the NRC of the missed Alert until
the licensees initial failure to classify the event. At 07:50 hours the licensee recognized  
    11:44 hours, a period exceeding one hour notification requirement.
that conditions warranted the classification of an Alert and they had missed the Alert  
    The finding was evaluated using the traditional enforcement process because the
declaration; however, the licensee did not notify the NRC of the missed Alert until  
    deficiency had the potential to impact the NRCs ability to perform its regulatory function.
11:44 hours, a period exceeding one hour notification requirement.  
    Since the emergency condition no longer existed at the time the report was required and
The finding was evaluated using the traditional enforcement process because the  
    the report was untimely versus not reported at all, the issue was characterized as a
deficiency had the potential to impact the NRCs ability to perform its regulatory function.
                                                  9                                  Enclosure 1
Since the emergency condition no longer existed at the time the report was required and  
the report was untimely versus not reported at all, the issue was characterized as a  
Enclosure 1  
9


    violation of very low safety significance (SL IV) and as a NCV. The licensee entered the
    issue into their corrective action program (CR 09-61112).
Enclosure 1
ATTACHMENT: SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
10
                                              10                                Enclosure 1
violation of very low safety significance (SL IV) and as a NCV. The licensee entered the  
issue into their corrective action program (CR 09-61112).  
ATTACHMENT: SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION


                              SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
                                  KEY POINTS OF CONTACT
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION  
Licensee
KEY POINTS OF CONTACT  
B. Allen, Site Vice President
Licensee  
R. Patrick, Operations Superintendent
B. Allen, Site Vice President  
G. Wolf, Regulatory Compliance Supervisor
R. Patrick, Operations Superintendent  
D. Wuokko, Regulatory Compliance Supervisor
G. Wolf, Regulatory Compliance Supervisor  
V. Kaminskas, Engineering Director
D. Wuokko, Regulatory Compliance Supervisor  
J. Vetter, Emergency Preparedness Manager
V. Kaminskas, Engineering Director  
M. Parker, Security Manger
J. Vetter, Emergency Preparedness Manager  
B. Boles, Site Operations Director
M. Parker, Security Manger  
C. Price, Performance Improvement director
B. Boles, Site Operations Director  
G. Halnon, Regulatory Affairs Director
C. Price, Performance Improvement director  
T. Schneider, Public Affairs
G. Halnon, Regulatory Affairs Director  
D. Dewitz, Senior Nuclear Specialist
T. Schneider, Public Affairs  
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
D. Dewitz, Senior Nuclear Specialist  
H. Peterson, Chief Operations Branch
J. Rutkowski, Senior Resident Inspector
Nuclear Regulatory Commission  
                    LIST OF ITEMS OPENED, CLOSED AND DISCUSSED
H. Peterson, Chief Operations Branch  
Opened
J. Rutkowski, Senior Resident Inspector  
05000346/ 2009503-01         AV       Failure to Use Classification Scheme for an Alert
05000346/ 2009503-02         NCV     Inadequate Procedures for State and Local Notifications
Closed, and Discussed
LIST OF ITEMS OPENED, CLOSED AND DISCUSSED  
05000346/ 2009503-02         NCV     Inadequate Procedures for State and Local Notifications
Opened  
                                                1                                   Attachment
05000346/ 2009503-01  
AV  
Failure to Use Classification Scheme for an Alert  
05000346/ 2009503-02  
NCV  
Inadequate Procedures for State and Local Notifications  
Closed, and Discussed  
05000346/ 2009503-02  
NCV  
Inadequate Procedures for State and Local Notifications  
Attachment
1


                                  LIST OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED
The following is a list of documents reviewed during the inspection. Inclusion on this list does
LIST OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED  
not imply that the NRC inspectors reviewed the documents in their entirety, but rather, that
The following is a list of documents reviewed during the inspection. Inclusion on this list does  
selected sections of portions of the documents were evaluated as part of the overall inspection
not imply that the NRC inspectors reviewed the documents in their entirety, but rather, that  
effort. Inclusion of a document on this list does not imply NRC acceptance of the document or
selected sections of portions of the documents were evaluated as part of the overall inspection  
any part of it, unless this is stated in the body of the inspection report.
effort. Inclusion of a document on this list does not imply NRC acceptance of the document or  
4OA3 Follow-Up of Events
any part of it, unless this is stated in the body of the inspection report.  
        Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Emergency Plan; Revision 26
4OA3 Follow-Up of Events  
        RA-EP-01500; Emergency Classification; Revision 10
Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Emergency Plan; Revision 26  
        RA-EP-02110; Emergency Notification; Revision 9
RA-EP-01500; Emergency Classification; Revision 10  
        RA-EP-02840; Emergency Plan Off Normal Procedure; Explosion; Revision 3
RA-EP-02110; Emergency Notification; Revision 9
        NOP-LP-5003; Communicating Events of Potential Public Interest; Revision 1
RA-EP-02840; Emergency Plan Off Normal Procedure; Explosion; Revision 3  
        Integrated On-Call Report; Responder Team C/Blue; dated June 25, 2009
NOP-LP-5003; Communicating Events of Potential Public Interest; Revision 1  
        Control Room Unit Log; June 25, 2009, through June 26, 2009
Integrated On-Call Report; Responder Team C/Blue; dated June 25, 2009  
        June 25, 2009 Alert Timeline; dated July 27, 2009
Control Room Unit Log; June 25, 2009, through June 26, 2009  
        DB-0095-01; Reactor Plant Event Notification Worksheet; dated June 25, 2009
June 25, 2009 Alert Timeline; dated July 27, 2009  
        FENOC Site Protection Incident Reports and Statements from Security Personnel
DB-0095-01; Reactor Plant Event Notification Worksheet; dated June 25, 2009  
        DB-0700-0; Emergency Phone Call Report; dated June 25, 2009
FENOC Site Protection Incident Reports and Statements from Security Personnel  
        CR 09-61025; Loss of J Bus, Catastrophic Failure of J Bus Phase Potential Device;
DB-0700-0; Emergency Phone Call Report; dated June 25, 2009  
        dated June 25, 2009
CR 09-61025; Loss of J Bus, Catastrophic Failure of J Bus Phase Potential Device;  
        CR 09-61038, Davis-Besse Site Protection to Critique Opportunities for Improvement on
dated June 25, 2009  
        Response to Switchyard Event; dated June 25, 2009
CR 09-61038, Davis-Besse Site Protection to Critique Opportunities for Improvement on  
        CR 09-61115; Transitory Alert Emergency Classification Following Loss of J Bus; dated
Response to Switchyard Event; dated June 25, 2009
        June 26, 2009
CR 09-61115; Transitory Alert Emergency Classification Following Loss of J Bus; dated  
        CR 09-62916; Lessons Learned: Switchyard Event NRC Follow-up Inspection;
June 26, 2009
        Improvements to Relate Explosions to Emergency Action Levels; dated August 6, 2009
CR 09-62916; Lessons Learned: Switchyard Event NRC Follow-up Inspection;  
        CR 09-62918, Lessons Learned - Switchyard Event NRC Follow-up Inspection;
Improvements to Relate Explosions to Emergency Action Levels; dated August 6, 2009  
        Observation Concerning Notification Timeliness of State and Locals; dated
CR 09-62918, Lessons Learned - Switchyard Event NRC Follow-up Inspection;  
        August 6, 2009
Observation Concerning Notification Timeliness of State and Locals; dated  
        CR09-62919, Lesson Learned: Switchyard Event Follow-up - NRC Inspection;
August 6, 2009  
        Review Security Operations Strategies and Communications; dated August 6, 2009
CR09-62919, Lesson Learned: Switchyard Event Follow-up - NRC Inspection;  
        CR09-63249; Re-evaluate June 25 Event on NRC Performance Indicator; dated
Review Security Operations Strategies and Communications; dated August 6, 2009  
        August 14, 2009
CR09-63249; Re-evaluate June 25 Event on NRC Performance Indicator; dated  
4OA7 Licensee-Identified Violation
August 14, 2009  
        DB-OP-00002; Operations Section Event/Incident Notifications and Actions; Revision 19
        DBRM-RC-001; Regulatory Reporting Requirements; Revision 3
4OA7 Licensee-Identified Violation  
                                                    2                                 Attachment
DB-OP-00002; Operations Section Event/Incident Notifications and Actions; Revision 19  
DBRM-RC-001; Regulatory Reporting Requirements; Revision 3  
Attachment
2


NRC Event Notification Report for June 26, 2009
CR 09-61112; RA-EP-01500 Procedure Requires Additional Guidance; dated
NRC Event Notification Report for June 26, 2009  
June 26, 2009
CR 09-61112; RA-EP-01500 Procedure Requires Additional Guidance; dated  
CR 09-61200; NRC Notification Time for the 6/25/09 Alert Was Exceeded; dated
June 26, 2009  
June 8, 2009
CR 09-61200; NRC Notification Time for the 6/25/09 Alert Was Exceeded; dated  
CA 09-61200; Human Performance Success Clock Evaluation Results; dated
June 8, 2009  
July 1, 2009
CA 09-61200; Human Performance Success Clock Evaluation Results; dated  
CA 09-61200; Revise RA-EP-01500 to Strengthen Wording for NRC Notification; dated
July 1, 2009  
July 24, 2009
CA 09-61200; Revise RA-EP-01500 to Strengthen Wording for NRC Notification; dated  
                                      3                                 Attachment
July 24, 2009  
Attachment
3


                        LIST OF ACRONYMS USED
ADAMS Agencywide Document Access Management System
LIST OF ACRONYMS USED
CA   Corrective Action
ADAMS  
CAP   Corrective Action Program
Agencywide Document Access Management System  
CCPD Coupling Capacitor Potential Device
CA  
CCVT  Coupling Capacitor Voltage Transformer
Corrective Action  
CFR   Code of Federal Regulations
CAP  
CR   Condition Report
Corrective Action Program  
DRP   Division of Reactor Projects
CCPD  
IMC   Inspection Manual Chapter
Coupling Capacitor Potential Device  
IR   Inspection Report
CCVT   
NCV   Non-Cited Violation
Coupling Capacitor Voltage Transformer
NEI   Nuclear Energy Institute
CFR  
NRC   U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Code of Federal Regulations  
PARS Publicly Available Records System
CR  
SDP   Significance Determination Process
Condition Report  
UFSAR Updated Final Safety Analysis Report
DRP  
URI   Unresolved Item
Division of Reactor Projects  
                                      4           Attachment
IMC  
Inspection Manual Chapter  
IR  
Inspection Report  
NCV  
Non-Cited Violation  
NEI  
Nuclear Energy Institute  
NRC  
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission  
PARS  
Publicly Available Records System  
SDP  
Significance Determination Process  
UFSAR  
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report  
URI  
Unresolved Item  
Attachment
4


                                  SEQUENCE OF EVENTS
June 24, 2009
SEQUENCE OF EVENTS  
Late on June 24, 2009, approximately two-and-a-half hours prior to midnight, a computer
point in the control room (E100) began to act erratically, first the computer point read off
June 24, 2009  
scale high and later indicated a low voltage even thought the actual voltage in the J bus did
Late on June 24, 2009, approximately two-and-a-half hours prior to midnight, a computer  
not change. The operators assumed the computer point was bad because the bus voltage
point in the control room (E100) began to act erratically, first the computer point read off  
appeared unchanged.
scale high and later indicated a low voltage even thought the actual voltage in the J bus did  
June 25, 2009
not change. The operators assumed the computer point was bad because the bus voltage  
At 00:48 hours, the control room lights flickered and a static noise was heard on the plant
appeared unchanged.  
address system. The Coupling Capacitor Potential Device (CCPD) catastrophically failed
causing a loss of the J bus and damage to switchyards components.
June 25, 2009  
Within seconds, the Secondary Alarm Station (SAS) received reports of an explosion, a
At 00:48 hours, the control room lights flickered and a static noise was heard on the plant  
white flash, a loud noise, flames, and building vibrations and flames in the switchyard.
address system. The Coupling Capacitor Potential Device (CCPD) catastrophically failed  
At 00:49 hours, annunciator alarms were received indicating breaker openings, trips, and
causing a loss of the J bus and damage to switchyards components.  
the J bus (one of the two switchyard buses for offsite AC power) was de-energized. The
Within seconds, the Secondary Alarm Station (SAS) received reports of an explosion, a  
station entered a Limiting Condition for Operation per Technical Specifications for a single
white flash, a loud noise, flames, and building vibrations and flames in the switchyard.  
point vulnerable configuration.
At 00:50 hours, as documented in the FENOC site protection incident report and per
At 00:49 hours, annunciator alarms were received indicating breaker openings, trips, and  
interviews with the inspector, the SAS called to the Control Room and reported explosion
the J bus (one of the two switchyard buses for offsite AC power) was de-energized. The  
and flames throughout the switchyard. The Central Alarm Station (CAS) communicated with
station entered a Limiting Condition for Operation per Technical Specifications for a single  
security posts concerning an explosion.
point vulnerable configuration.  
Security requested offsite assistance from Ottawa County to dispatch Carroll Township fire
and Emergency Medical Services (EMS). The Control Room dispatched an equipment
At 00:50 hours, as documented in the FENOC site protection incident report and per  
operator to the switchyard to investigate the extent of the fire and equipment damage.
interviews with the inspector, the SAS called to the Control Room and reported explosion  
At 00:54 hours, the equipment operator reported fire, smoke, and debris spread throughout
and flames throughout the switchyard. The Central Alarm Station (CAS) communicated with  
whole end of the switchyard by the J Bus. The Shift Manager referred to the emergency
security posts concerning an explosion.  
plan for Hazards (Fire) and noted conditions for an Unusual Event would be met if offsite fire
assistance (Carroll Township) is used to help extinguish the fires.
Security requested offsite assistance from Ottawa County to dispatch Carroll Township fire  
Following the initial report to the Control Room by SAS, per the interview with the inspector,
and Emergency Medical Services (EMS). The Control Room dispatched an equipment  
the Shift Security Supervisor indicated he communicated to the Shift Manager that the
operator to the switchyard to investigate the extent of the fire and equipment damage.  
explosion was apparently from equipment malfunction and was not from suspicious activity.
At 01:11 hours, Carroll Township Police Department was onsite.
At 00:54 hours, the equipment operator reported fire, smoke, and debris spread throughout  
At 01:19 hours, Carroll Township Fire Department was onsite.
whole end of the switchyard by the J Bus. The Shift Manager referred to the emergency  
At 01:20 hours, Carroll Township EMS was onsite.
plan for Hazards (Fire) and noted conditions for an Unusual Event would be met if offsite fire  
The Duty Team Director responded to a page from the Shift Security Supervisor. The Duty
assistance (Carroll Township) is used to help extinguish the fires.  
Team Director was the management representative on call. During the recorded telephone
conversation, the Shift Security Supervisor told the Director of the explosion in the
Following the initial report to the Control Room by SAS, per the interview with the inspector,  
switchyard and the debris spread throughout the area. The explosion was apparently from
the Shift Security Supervisor indicated he communicated to the Shift Manager that the  
                                              1                                      Enclosure 2
explosion was apparently from equipment malfunction and was not from suspicious activity.  
At 01:11 hours, Carroll Township Police Department was onsite.  
At 01:19 hours, Carroll Township Fire Department was onsite.  
At 01:20 hours, Carroll Township EMS was onsite.  
The Duty Team Director responded to a page from the Shift Security Supervisor. The Duty  
Team Director was the management representative on call. During the recorded telephone  
conversation, the Shift Security Supervisor told the Director of the explosion in the  
switchyard and the debris spread throughout the area. The explosion was apparently from  
Enclosure 2  
1


equipment malfunction and was not from suspicious activity. Carroll Township police, fire,
and EMS were onsite but not allowed into the switchyard and the fires were allowed to burn
Enclosure 2
out. Between 00:50 and 01:20 hours, the onsite Fire Captain, a Senior Reactor Operator
2
(SRO), arrived with the fire brigade to assess the damage and extinguish the fires.
equipment malfunction and was not from suspicious activity. Carroll Township police, fire,  
At 01:23 hours, the Fire Captain reported all ground fires were extinguished.
and EMS were onsite but not allowed into the switchyard and the fires were allowed to burn  
At 01:24 hours, the Shift Manager noted no entry criteria met for event classification
out. Between 00:50 and 01:20 hours, the onsite Fire Captain, a Senior Reactor Operator  
because offsite fire assistance was not used. After his review, the Shift Manager asked the
(SRO), arrived with the fire brigade to assess the damage and extinguish the fires.  
Shift Technical Advisor to do a peer check. The Shift Technical Advisor peer check
confirmed no classification for the event due to fires.
At 01:23 hours, the Fire Captain reported all ground fires were extinguished.  
At 01:26 hours, the CAS and SAS were advised offsite assistance was not needed.
At 01:27 hours, SAS called Ottawa County to cancel further response.
At 01:24 hours, the Shift Manager noted no entry criteria met for event classification  
At 01:32 hours, the Carroll Township police, fire, and EMS left the site.
because offsite fire assistance was not used. After his review, the Shift Manager asked the  
At 01:47 hours, the Fire Captain reported visible damage to J Bus A phase (oil leak),
Shift Technical Advisor to do a peer check. The Shift Technical Advisor peer check  
C phase (damaged insulator), B phase (destroyed and debris throughout the property),
confirmed no classification for the event due to fires.  
and C phase disconnect breaker (damaged insulator).
At 01:55 hours, the Shift Manager conducted a duty team phone call to provide updated
At 01:26 hours, the CAS and SAS were advised offsite assistance was not needed.  
status of the plant. The Outage Control Center became manned with the Duty Plant
Manager, maintenance, and engineering to support the transmission and distribution
At 01:27 hours, SAS called Ottawa County to cancel further response.  
companys response to the switchyard explosion.
At 02:15 hours, the Shift Manager called on the phone to the Operations Manager and
At 01:32 hours, the Carroll Township police, fire, and EMS left the site.  
discussed damage to switchyard components.
The control room continued to receive information from the field concerning the damage and
At 01:47 hours, the Fire Captain reported visible damage to J Bus A phase (oil leak),  
communicated with the duty team and proceeded to switch over to the remaining available
C phase (damaged insulator), B phase (destroyed and debris throughout the property),  
start-up transformer.
and C phase disconnect breaker (damaged insulator).  
At 07:50 hours, further review of the events and the classification by the oncoming Shift
Manager in conjunction with the EP Manager, the licensee determined they met the
At 01:55 hours, the Shift Manager conducted a duty team phone call to provide updated  
conditions for an emergency classification of an Alert for criteria 7.D.2 - Onsite explosion
status of the plant. The Outage Control Center became manned with the Duty Plant  
affecting plant operations. Per the licensees procedures, the missed Alert was called a
Manager, maintenance, and engineering to support the transmission and distribution  
transitory Alert. The Shift Manager noted the EP Manager would notify the State of Ohio,
companys response to the switchyard explosion.  
Ottawa County, and Lucas County.
At 11:44 hours, the Shift Manager notified the NRC Headquarters Operations Officer
At 02:15 hours, the Shift Manager called on the phone to the Operations Manager and  
pursuant to 10 CFR 50.72 (a)(1)(i) of a transitory Alert based on Emergency Action Level
discussed damage to switchyard components.  
7.D.2- onsite explosion affecting plant operations.
At 12:30 hours, the EP Manager along with plant management, notified Ottawa County,
The control room continued to receive information from the field concerning the damage and  
Lucas County, and the State of Ohio by a phone conference call.
communicated with the duty team and proceeded to switch over to the remaining available  
                                            2                                      Enclosure 2
start-up transformer.  
At 07:50 hours, further review of the events and the classification by the oncoming Shift  
Manager in conjunction with the EP Manager, the licensee determined they met the  
conditions for an emergency classification of an Alert for criteria 7.D.2 - Onsite explosion  
affecting plant operations. Per the licensees procedures, the missed Alert was called a  
transitory Alert. The Shift Manager noted the EP Manager would notify the State of Ohio,  
Ottawa County, and Lucas County.
At 11:44 hours, the Shift Manager notified the NRC Headquarters Operations Officer  
pursuant to 10 CFR 50.72 (a)(1)(i) of a transitory Alert based on Emergency Action Level  
7.D.2- onsite explosion affecting plant operations.  
At 12:30 hours, the EP Manager along with plant management, notified Ottawa County,  
Lucas County, and the State of Ohio by a phone conference call.  


B. Allen                                                                   -3-
Warrenville Road, Suite 210, Lisle, IL 60532-4352; the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S.
B. Allen  
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; and the Resident Inspector
Office at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station. In addition, if you disagree with the
characterization of any finding in this report, you should provide a response within 30 days of
the date of this inspection report, with the basis for your disagreement, to the Regional
Administrator, Region III, and the NRC Resident Inspector at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power
-3-  
Station. The information that you provide will be considered in accordance with Inspection
Manual Chapter 0305, Operating Reactor Assessment Program.
Warrenville Road, Suite 210, Lisle, IL 60532-4352; the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S.  
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of the NRCs Rules of Practice, a copy of this
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; and the Resident Inspector  
letter, its enclosures and your response (if any) will be made available electronically for public
Office at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station. In addition, if you disagree with the  
inspection in the NRC Public Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records (PARS)
characterization of any finding in this report, you should provide a response within 30 days of  
component of NRCs document system (ADAMS), accessible from the NRC Web site at
the date of this inspection report, with the basis for your disagreement, to the Regional  
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room).
Administrator, Region III, and the NRC Resident Inspector at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power  
                                                                          Sincerely,
Station. The information that you provide will be considered in accordance with Inspection  
                                                                          /RA/
Manual Chapter 0305, Operating Reactor Assessment Program.  
                                                                          Anne T. Boland, Director
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of the NRCs Rules of Practice, a copy of this  
                                                                          Division of Reactor Safety
letter, its enclosures and your response (if any) will be made available electronically for public  
Docket No. 50-346
inspection in the NRC Public Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records (PARS)  
License No. NPF-3
component of NRCs document system (ADAMS), accessible from the NRC Web site at  
Enclosures:
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room).  
1. Inspection Report 05000346/2009-503
Sincerely,  
        w/Attachment: Supplemental Information
2. Sequence of Events
/RA/  
cc w/encls:               Distribution via ListServ
DISTRIBUTION:
See next page
Anne T. Boland, Director  
                                                                          SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCES
Division of Reactor Safety  
DOCUMENT NAME: G:\DRS\Work in Progress\Davis Besse IR2009-503 (1).doc
Docket No. 50-346  
  Publicly Available                         Non-Publicly Available                   Sensitive               Non-Sensitive
License No. NPF-3  
To receive a copy of this document, indicate in the concurrence box "C" = Copy without attach/encl "E" = Copy with attach/encl "N" = No copy
OFFICE                 RIII                       RIII                     RIII                       RIII
Enclosures:  
  NAME                   RRussell:co               HPeterson               SOrth                       ABoland
  DATE                   12/17/09                   12/17/09                 12/28/09                     12/28/09
1. Inspection Report 05000346/2009-503  
                                                          OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
  w/Attachment: Supplemental Information  
                                                                              1
2. Sequence of Events  
cc w/encls:  
Distribution via ListServ  
DISTRIBUTION:  
See next page  
SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCES  
DOCUMENT NAME:   G:\\DRS\\Work in Progress\\Davis Besse IR2009-503 (1).doc  
  Publicly Available  
Non-Publicly Available  
Sensitive  
Non-Sensitive  
To receive a copy of this document, indicate in the concurrence box "C" = Copy without attach/encl "E" = Copy with attach/encl "N" = No copy  
OFFICE  
RIII  
RIII  
RIII  
RIII  
   
NAME  
RRussell:co  
HPeterson  
SOrth  
ABoland  
   
DATE  
12/17/09  
12/17/09  
12/28/09  
12/28/09  
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
1


Letter to Mr. Barry Allen from Ms. Anne Boland dated December 28, 2009
SUBJECT:         DAVIS-BESSE NUCLEAR POWER STATION
                SPECIAL INSPECTION REPORT 05000346/2009-503 PRELIMINARY
1
                WHITE FINDING
Letter to Mr. Barry Allen from Ms. Anne Boland dated December 28, 2009  
DISTRIBUTION:                                     Marvin Itzkowitz
RidsNrrDorlLpl3-2 Resource                         Catherine Scott
SUBJECT:  
Susan Bagley                                      Eric Leeds
DAVIS-BESSE NUCLEAR POWER STATION  
RidsNrrPMDavisBesse Resource                      Bruce Boger
RidsNrrDirsIrib Resource                          Mary Ann Ashley
SPECIAL INSPECTION REPORT 05000346/2009-503 PRELIMINARY  
Cynthia Pederson                                  Mark Satorius
WHITE FINDING  
Steven Orth                                        Cynthia Pederson
Jared Heck                                        Steven West
Allan Barker                                      Daniel Holody
Carole Ariano                                      Carolyn Evans
DISTRIBUTION:  
Linda Linn                                        William Jones
RidsNrrDorlLpl3-2 Resource  
DRPIII                                            Steven Orth
Susan Bagley
DRSIII                                            Jared Heck
RidsNrrPMDavisBesse Resource
Patricia Buckley                                  Holly Harrington
RidsNrrDirsIrib Resource
Tammy Tomczak                                      Hubert Bell
Cynthia Pederson 
ROPreports Resource                                Guy Caputo
Steven Orth
RidsSecyMailCenter                                Mona Williams
Jared Heck
OCADistribution                                    Allan Barker
Allan Barker
Bill Borchardt                                    James Lynch
Carole Ariano
Bruce Mallett                                      Harral Logaras
Linda Linn
Roy Zimmerman                                      Viktoria Mitlyng
DRPIII
Belkys Sosa                                        Prema Chandrathil
DRSIII
Nick Hilton                                        Patricia Lougheed
Patricia Buckley
Gregory Bowman                                    Paul Pelke
Tammy Tomczak
Gerald Gulla                                      Magdalena Gryglak
ROPreports Resource
                                                  OEMAIL Resource
RidsSecyMailCenter
                                                  OEWEB
OCADistribution
                                              1
Bill Borchardt
Bruce Mallett
Roy Zimmerman
Belkys Sosa
Nick Hilton
Gregory Bowman
Gerald Gulla
Marvin Itzkowitz
Catherine Scott  
Eric Leeds  
Bruce Boger  
Mary Ann Ashley  
Mark Satorius  
Cynthia Pederson  
Steven West  
Daniel Holody  
Carolyn Evans  
William Jones  
Steven Orth  
Jared Heck  
Holly Harrington  
Hubert Bell  
Guy Caputo  
Mona Williams  
Allan Barker  
James Lynch  
Harral Logaras  
Viktoria Mitlyng  
Prema Chandrathil  
Patricia Lougheed  
Paul Pelke  
Magdalena Gryglak  
OEMAIL Resource  
OEWEB
}}
}}

Latest revision as of 07:39, 14 January 2025

IR 05000346-09-503(DRS), on 08/04/2009 - 11/23/2009; Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station; Event Follow-up Inspection
ML093620814
Person / Time
Site: Davis Besse Cleveland Electric icon.png
Issue date: 12/28/2009
From: Boland A
Division of Reactor Safety III
To: Allen B
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Co
References
EA-09-283 IR-09-503
Download: ML093620814 (23)


See also: IR 05000346/2009503

Text

UNITED STATES

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION III

2443 WARRENVILLE ROAD, SUITE 210

LISLE, IL 60532-4352

December 28, 2009

EA-09-283

Mr. Barry Allen

Site Vice President

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company

Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station

5501 North State Route 2, Mail Stop A-DB-3080

Oak Harbor, OH 43449-9760

SUBJECT:

DAVIS-BESSE NUCLEAR POWER STATION

NRC INSPECTION REPORT 05000346/2009503(DRS)

PRELIMINARY WHITE FINDING

Dear Mr. Allen:

On November 23, 2009, the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) completed an

inspection conducted onsite August 4 through 6, 2009, of an event that occurred at your

Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station on June 25, 2009. The purpose of the inspection was to

review the events, circumstances, and licensee actions associated with an explosion in the

switchyard and subsequent Alert declaration. The enclosed report documents the inspection

findings which were discussed on November 23, 2009, with you and other members of your

staff.

The inspection examined activities conducted under your license as they relate to safety and

compliance with the Commissions rules and regulations and with the conditions of your license.

The inspectors reviewed selected procedures, records, audio tapes, and interviewed personnel.

The enclosed report presents the results of the inspection including a finding that preliminarily

has been determined to be White, a finding with low to moderate increased safety significance

that may require additional NRC inspections. As described in Section 4OA3 of this report, the

finding involves the failure to implement the emergency classification and action level scheme

during an actual event for an explosion in the switchyard. The operators failed to verify, assess,

and classify the situation in conjunction with the Davis-Besse Emergency Plan Table of

Emergency Action Level Conditions. Specifically, immediately following an electrical fault and

catastrophic failure of a voltage transformer in the switchyard resulting in an explosion, fires,

and damage to several switchyard components which affected plant operations, the operators

failed to recognize the hazard to the stations operations met the emergency action level

conditions for declaring an Alert. After the finding was identified, your staff implemented

corrective actions to ensure the finding did not present an immediate safety concern. The

finding was assessed based on the best available information using the Emergency

Preparedness Significance Determination Process (SDP).

B. Allen

-2-

The finding is also an apparent violation of NRC requirements and is being considered for

escalated enforcement action in accordance with the Enforcement Policy, which can be found

on the NRCs website at http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/enforcement/enforce-pol.html.

In accordance with NRC Inspection Manual Chapter (IMC) 0609, Significance Determination

Process, we intend to complete our evaluation using the best available information and issue

our final determination of safety significance within 90 days of the date of this letter. The

significance determination process encourages an open dialogue between the NRC staff and

the licensee; however, the dialogue should not impact the timeliness of the staffs final

determination.

Before we make a final decision on this matter, we are providing you with an opportunity:

(1) to attend a Regulatory Conference where you can present to the NRC your perspective on

the facts and assumptions the NRC used to arrive at the finding and assess its significance, or

(2) submit your position on the finding to the NRC in writing. If you request a Regulatory

Conference, it should be held within 30 days of the receipt of this letter and we encourage you

to submit supporting documentation at least one week prior to the conference in an effort to

make the conference more efficient and effective. If a Regulatory Conference is held, it will be

open for public observation. If you decide to submit only a written response, such submittal

should be sent to the NRC within 30 days of your receipt of this letter. If you decline to request

a Regulatory Conference or submit a written response, you relinquish your right to appeal the

final SDP determination, in that by not doing either, you fail to meet the appeal requirements

stated in the Prerequisite and Limitation sections of Attachment 2 of IMC 0609.

Please contact Mr. Hironori Peterson at (630) 829-9707 within ten days from the issue date of

this letter to notify the NRC of your intentions. If we have not heard from you within ten days,

we will continue with our significance determination and enforcement decision. The final

resolution of this matter will be conveyed in separate correspondence.

Because the NRC has not made a final determination in this matter, no Notice of Violation is

being issued for this inspection finding at this time. In addition, please be advised that the

characterization of the apparent violation described in the enclosed inspection report may

change as a result of further NRC review.

Based on the results of this inspection, two additional findings of very low safety significance

were also identified, one NRC identified and one licensee identified. The findings involved

violations of NRC requirements; however, because of the very low safety significance and

because the issues were entered into your corrective action program, the NRC is treating the

issues as Non-Cited Violations (NCVs) in accordance with Section VI.A.1 of the NRC

Enforcement Policy.

If you contest the subject or severity of the NCVs, you should provide a response within 30 days

of the date of this inspection report, with the basis for your denial, to the U. S. Nuclear

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

B. Allen

-3-

copy to the Regional Administrator, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission - Region III, 2443

Warrenville Road, Suite 210, Lisle, IL 60532-4352; the Director, Office of Enforcement, U. S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; and the Resident Inspector

Office at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station. In addition, if you disagree with the

characterization of any finding in this report, you should provide a response within 30 days of

the date of this inspection report, with the basis for your disagreement, to the Regional

Administrator, Region III, and the NRC Resident Inspector at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power

Station. The information that you provide will be considered in accordance with Inspection

Manual Chapter 0305, Operating Reactor Assessment Program.

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of the NRCs Rules of Practice, a copy of this

letter, its enclosures and your response (if any) will be made available electronically for public

inspection in the NRC Public Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records (PARS)

component of NRCs document system (ADAMS), accessible from the NRC Web site at

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room).

Sincerely,

/RA/

Anne T. Boland, Director

Division of Reactor Safety

Docket No. 50-346

License No. NPF-3

Enclosures:

1. Inspection Report 05000346/2009-503

w/Attachment: Supplemental Information

2. Sequence of Events

cc w/encls:

Distribution via ListServ

U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION III

Docket No:

50-346

License No:

NPF-3

Report No:

05000346/2009-503

Licensee:

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC)

Facility:

Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station

Location:

Oak Harbor, OH

Dates:

August 4, 2009 through November 23, 2009

Inspector:

Regina Russell, Emergency Preparedness Inspector

Approved by:

Hironori Peterson, Chief

Operations Branch

Division of Reactor Safety

Enclosure 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ENCLOSURE 1

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS1

REPORT DETAILS 3

4OA3 Follow-Up Of Events...3

.1

Explosion of the J Bus Transformer..3

a.

Inspection Scope..3

b.

Event Description..3

c.

Findings..4

Emergency Classification .4

Notification of State and Local Agencies7

4OA6 Management Meetings...9

4OA7 Licensee-Identified Violation..9

ATTACHMENT - SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

KEY POINTS OF CONTACT1

LIST OF ITEMS OPENED, CLOSED AND DISCUSSED1

LIST OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED...2

LIST OF ACRONYMS USED4

ENCLOSURE 2

SEQUENCE OF EVENTS.1

i

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

IR 05000346/2009-503(DRS); 08/04/2009 - 11/23/2009; Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station;

Event Follow-up Inspection

The report covers an event follow-up inspection by a regional emergency preparedness

inspector. The inspection identified one preliminary White finding with an associated Apparent

Violation (AV), one Green finding with an associated Non-Cited Violation (NCV), and one

Severity Level IV finding with an associated NCV of NRC regulations. The significance of most

findings is indicated by their color (Green, White, Yellow, Red) using Inspection Manual Chapter

(IMC) 0609, Significance Determination Process (SDP), and the cross-cutting aspect was

determined using IMC 0305, Operating Reactor Assessment Program. Findings for which the

SDP does not apply may be Green or be assigned a severity level after NRC management

review. The NRCs program for overseeing the safe operation of commercial nuclear power

reactors is described in NUREG-1649, Reactor Oversight Process, Revision 4, dated

December 2006.

Cornerstone: Emergency Preparedness

Preliminary White. A licensee identified finding and associated Apparent Violation (AV)

of 10 CFR 50.54(q) and 10 CFR 50.47(b)(4) was identified for the failure to implement

the emergency classification and action level scheme during an actual event to declare

an Alert after an explosion in the switchyard. The operators failed to verify, assess, and

classify the situation in conjunction with the Davis-Besse Emergency Plan Table of

Emergency Action Level Conditions. Specifically, immediately following an electrical

fault and catastrophic failure of a voltage transformer in the switchyard resulting in an

explosion, fires, and damage to several switchyard components which affected plant

operations, the operators failed to recognize the hazard to the stations operations met

the emergency action level conditions for declaring an Alert. The station entered a

Limiting Condition for Operation per Technical Specifications.

The finding was screened to be more than minor because the failure to declare an Alert

adversely affected the Reactor Safety - Emergency Preparedness Cornerstone objective

to ensure the licensee is capable of implementing adequate measures to protect the

health and safety of the public during a radiological emergency. The performance

deficiency has the attribute of Emergency Response Organization Performance

associated with Actual Event Response. The performance deficiency involving the

failure to properly utilize the emergency classification and action level scheme during an

actual Alert meets the criteria of the Emergency Preparedness SDP for a failure to

implement a risk significant planning standard of event classification. The failure to

classify was a result of the licensees errors in recognition, was not due to competing

safety-related activities, and denied offsite authorities the opportunity to make decisions

regarding protecting public health and safety. The finding was screened to be a failure

to implement the risk significant planning standard associated with classification at the

Alert level and was screened to be preliminarily White. Additionally, the cause of the

deficiency had a cross-cutting component in the area of Human Performance.

Specifically, the licensee failed to make safety-significant decisions using a systematic

process and failed to obtain adequate reviews on the decisions (H.1(a)). (Section 4OA3)

Enclosure 1

1

Enclosure 1

2

Green. The inspector identified a finding and an associated NCV of 10 CFR 50.54(q)

and 10 CFR 50.47 (b)(5) for the licensees failure to maintain adequate emergency

procedures to comply with emergency planning requirements to ensure timely

notifications to State and local governmental agencies. Although the licensees

emergency classification procedure implied that State and local notifications should be

made promptly, the procedure did not prescribe the notification time frame in which a

missed classification should be made; as a result, the required notifications were not

completed for over four hours.

The finding was screened to be more than minor because the deficiency adversely

affected the Reactor Safety - Emergency Preparedness Cornerstone objective to ensure

the licensee is capable of implementing adequate measures to protect the health and

safety of the public during a radiologic emergency. The deficiency has the attribute of

Procedure Quality associated with procedure use in an actual event. The Failure to

Comply branch of the Emergency Preparedness SDP flowchart was used because the

program element for offsite notification was not adequate as designed for all types of

events, such as in the case of an after-the-fact or missed event declaration. Because

the emergency conditions no longer existed at the time of the event classification and

notification recognition, the compliance with emergency plan requirements for notification

was evaluated as non-risk significant for the switchyard event. The performance

deficiency was evaluated to be a planning standard degraded function and to be Green.

State and local offsite governmental officials were not able to assess conditions at the

time of the late event declaration and make informed decisions concerning the offsite

response. Additionally, the finding had a cross cutting component in the Human

Performance area of Resources. Specifically, the licensees procedures for notification

to offsite agencies were not complete (H.2(c)). (Section 4OA3)

Licensee-Identified Violation

A violation of very low safety significance that was identified by the licensee has been reviewed

by inspectors. Corrective actions planned or taken by the licensee have been entered into the

licensees corrective action program. This violation and corrective action tracking number is

listed in Section 4OA7 of this report.

REPORT DETAILS

4.

OTHER ACTIVITIES

4OA3 Follow-Up of Events (71153)

.1

Explosion of the J Bus Transformer

a.

Inspection Scope

The inspector reviewed the circumstances including the sequence of events and

licensee actions associated with the Alert declaration on June 25, 2009, following the

switchyard explosion of the J bus transformer. The inspector interviewed fourteen

personnel and reviewed selected procedures, records, audio tapes, and written

statements. The inspection was conducted onsite August 4 through 6, 2009, and

continued with in-office reviews until November 23, 2009. The purpose of the inspection

was to evaluate the licensees event response actions for compliance with applicable

regulatory and Davis-Besse Emergency Plan requirements. A detailed event timeline

has been included in the Enclosure 2. Documents reviewed in this inspection are listed

in the Attachment - Supplemental Information.

This event follow-up review constituted 1 sample as defined in IP 71153-05.

b.

Event Description

On June 25, 2009, at 12:49 a.m., the control room operators received annunciator

alarms in the control room indicating the de-energization of the J bus in the switchyard.

The loss of the J bus was caused by an electrical fault and catastrophic failure of the

Coupling Capacitor Voltage Transformer (CCVT) in the Coupling Capacitor Potential

Device (CCPD) used for voltage monitoring on the B phase of the bus. Two air circuit

breakers opened and the 345 kV breaker tripped resulting in loss of the J bus and

unavailability of one of two start-up transformers used to tie in offsite power. The station

entered Technical Specifications (TS) for a single point vulnerable configuration for

offsite alternating current (AC) power and a Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) with

a 72-hour action statement.

At the onset of the event, reports of an explosion in the switchyard were immediately

called into the Secondary Alarm Station (SAS) by various security officers. The roving

officers and those at the posts reported the explosion, a white flash, a loud noise,

flames, and building vibrations. The SAS operator then called the control room and

reported fires throughout the switchyard, debris spread throughout the area, and a

breaker on fire. Security called for offsite fire and emergency medical services per the

control rooms request. Ottawa County responded with police, fire, and emergency

medical services.

The control room dispatched operations personnel to investigate the occurrence in the

switchyard and provide an assessment of magnitude of the fire, the need for offsite

assistance, and the extent of component damage. The control room also dispatched fire

brigade personnel to the switchyard. The fire brigade extinguished the flames using

hand held fire extinguishers and allowing other smaller fires to extinguish themselves.

The licensee did not use the offsite fire assistance and released the offsite responders.

Enclosure 1

3

The control room alerted the assigned duty team of the events in the switchyard and the

need for their response to the site. The outage control center was manned in order to

provide support and assistance to the transmission and distribution company that

responded for repair and restoration of the bus.

After receiving reports of the fire and considering the request which had been made for

offsite fire assistance, the Shift Manager referred to the emergency plan and

classification scheme and noted the criteria for an Unusual Event classification under the

Hazards to Station Operations category of Fire would be met if the offsite fire

company was used in extinguishing the fires. When the offsite assistance was not used,

the Shift Manager again noted that no emergency criteria were met for the emergency

plan. The Shift Technical Advisor performed a peer review and arrived at the same

conclusions as the Shift Manager for no need of event classification. The conditions for

an Alert were met under Onsite explosion affecting plant operations because: (1) the

control room was informed by station personnel who made a visual sighting of the

explosion; and (2) instrumentation readings in the control room indicating equipment

problems which required entry into a 72-hour TS LCO.

When the oncoming Shift Manager reviewed the events with the assistance of the

Emergency Preparedness Manager, the oncoming Shift Manager realized the entry

criteria for a classification at the Alert level were met.

The Shift Manager notified the NRC Headquarters Operations Officer of a transitory Alert

at 11:44 hours on June 25, 2009, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.72 (a)(1)(i) and based on

Emergency Action Level 7.D.2, Onsite explosion affecting plant operations. The

Emergency Preparedness Manager along with plant management notified Ottawa

County, Lucas County, and the State of Ohio by a phone conference call.

c.

Findings

The inspector identified two findings.

Emergency Classification

Introduction: A licensee-identified preliminarily White finding with low to moderate

safety significance and associated Apparent Violation (AV) of 10 CFR 50.54(q) and

10 CFR 50.47(b)(4) was identified for the failure to implement the emergency

classification and action level scheme during an actual event for an explosion in the

switchyard. The operators failed to verify, assess, and classify the situation and

recognize the event met the emergency action level conditions for declaring an Alert.

Description: On June 25, 2009, during an actual explosion event, the Shift Manager

failed to verify indications of the off-normal event and reported sightings and failed to

perform an extensive assessment as necessary to determine the applicable emergency

classification level. The Shift Manager failed to recognize the fire and debris throughout

the switchyard and areas outside the switchyard were a result of a transformer

explosion; therefore, he failed to consider the emergency actions levels for Explosion

under the Hazards to Station Operations category. The conditions for the Alert were

met under Onsite explosion affecting plant operations because: (1) the control room

was informed by station personnel who made a visual sighting of the explosion; and

(2) instrumentation readings in the control room indicating equipment problems.

Enclosure 1

4

An electrical fault and catastrophic failure of the transformer for voltage monitoring on

the B phase of the J bus resulted in an explosion and fires. The event resulted in two

breakers opening, damage to several switchyard components, one of two switchyard

buses used to tie in offsite power becoming de-energized, and the required entry into a

72-hour TS LCO.

The Shift Manager and Shift Technical Advisor considered the emergency classification

related to the switchyard fires but failed to recognize the explosion. They determined the

conditions requiring emergency classification for fire were not met because offsite fire

assistance was not used. The Shift Manager failed to verify the indications, assess the

overall impact to the facility, and evaluate other entry criteria in the Hazards to Station

Operations category of the emergency classification scheme. The Shift Technical

Advisor performed a peer review and arrived at the same conclusions as the Shift

Manager that no event classification was warranted. Essentially, the Shift Technical

Advisor performed a peer check on the use of the classification table focusing on a Fire

hazard and did not perform an independent assessment. He did not re-evaluate the

initiating conditions and information received from the field to make an emergency

classification evaluation.

The control room crew had an opportunity to realize an explosion had occurred at 00:50

hours when the SAS operator informed the control room of the explosion and fires in the

switchyard and subsequently requested offsite fire assistance. The determination was

based on the site protection incident report, emergency phone call report which indicated

the Shift Manager was notified, and interviews conducted by the inspector, Based on

interviews with the inspector, the SAS operator said he told the control room an

explosion had occurred, as well as, the Shift Security Supervisor reported he told the

Shift Manager. The Shift Security Supervisor also reported to the Duty Team Director,

who represented senior management for emergency response, an explosion had

occurred (recorded phone call). The Duty Team Director had subsequent calls to the

control room.

The operating crew had numerous opportunities to gain and assess information to

properly classify the explosion. On the initial call and subsequent calls to the control

room from Security, the reactor operator in the control room on the phone to Security

reported he was not concerned with what had caused the wide spread fires but was

focused on what to do to put out the fires and actions to ensure plant stability. When

Operations personnel and the Fire Captain, a Senior Reactor Operator (SRO), were sent

to the switchyard and reported back their assessment at 01:47 hours, the control room

was provided enough information to conclude an explosion had occurred. Based on

interviews with the inspector, the Fire Captain stated he knew a transformer had an

electrical fault that catastrophically failed, caused damage to many components, and

spread debris and fire in a large area, but in his mind, he did not consider this an

explosion. He was unaware of the definition of explosion in the licensees procedure.

The licensees procedure for explosions, RA-EP-02840, defines Explosion: A rapid,

violent, unconfined combustion, or catastrophic failure of pressurized/energized

equipment that imparts sufficient force to potentially damage permanent structures,

systems, or components.

Analysis: The inspector concluded the failure to use the emergency action level scheme

to classify an Alert when conditions warranted due to an explosion during an actual

event was a performance deficiency. Even though indications were available to the

Enclosure 1

5

Enclosure 1

6

control room at 00:50 hours, the event was not recognized as meeting the Alert criteria

until 07:50 hours. The performance deficiency was screened using the Emergency

Preparedness SDP. The performance deficiency was screened to be more than minor

because the performance deficiency adversely affected the Reactor Safety - Emergency

Preparedness Cornerstone objective to ensure the licensee is capable of implementing

adequate measures to protect the health and safety of the public during a radiologic

emergency. The performance deficiency has the attribute of Emergency Response

Organization Performance associated with Actual Event Response.

The performance deficiency involving the failure to properly utilize the emergency

classification and action level scheme during an actual Alert meets the SDP criteria for a

failure to implement a risk significant planning standard of event classification. The

failure to classify was a result of the licensees errors in recognition, was not due to

competing safety-related activities, and denied offsite authorities the opportunity to make

decisions regarding protecting public health and safety, therefore, was assessed as a

failure to implement the emergency plan classification scheme. The Program Element of

the emergency classification scheme was adequate as designed and met the planning

standard function.

IMC 0609, Appendix B - The Actual Event Implementation Problem branch of the SDP

was used because failure to comply with a regulatory requirement occurred during an

actual event. Using the SDP, Appendix B, Sheet 2, Actual Event Implementation

Problem flowchart, the performance deficiency screened to be an actual event

implementation problem associated with classification at the Alert level and a failure to

implement a risk significant planning standard, therefore, was screened as a preliminary

White finding. As a result of not declaring an Alert, Davis-Besse failed to activate their

full emergency response organization to assist in mitigating the event. Additionally,

State and local offsite agencies were not able to take initial offsite measures to assess

conditions, staff their facilities, and make informed decisions for protecting public safety.

The cause of the deficiency had a cross-cutting component in the area of Human

Performance. Specifically, the licensee failed to make safety-significant decisions using

a systematic process and failed to obtain adequate reviews on the decisions (H.1(a)).

Enforcement: Title 10 CFR 50.47(q) requires, in part, a licensee authorized to possess

and operate a nuclear power reactor shall follow and maintain in effect emergency plans

which meet the standards in 10 CFR 50.47(b). Title 10 CFR 50.47(b)(4) requires, in

part, a standard emergency classification and action level scheme be used by the

licensee. Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Emergency Plan section 2.6 states, in

part, detailed actions to be taken by individuals in response to onsite emergency

conditions are described in the emergency plan implementing procedures. Davis-Besse

Nuclear Power Station Emergency Plan Implementing Procedure, RA-EP-01500,

Emergency Classification requires, in part, that when indications of abnormal

occurrences are received by the control room staff, the Shift Manager shall verify the

indications of the off-normal event or reported sighting, assess the information available

from valid indications or reports, and classify the situation. The Emergency Plan Table

of Emergency Action Level Conditions for Explosion under the Hazards to Station

Operations category requires, in part, the declaration of an Alert for an onsite explosion

affecting plant operations in all modes with the: (1) control room being informed by

station personnel who have made a visual sighting; and (2) instrumentation readings on

plant systems indicating equipment problems.

Contrary to the above, from the time period of 00:50 to 01:47 hours on June 25, 2009,

the Shift Manager failed to verify the indications of the off-normal event or reported

sighting, assess the information available from valid indications or reports of an

explosion, and classify the situation as an Alert in accordance with the Davis-Besse

Emergency Plan Table of Emergency Action Level Conditions during an actual event.

Specifically, the valid indications and reports included: (1) the control room being

informed by Security personnel of a visual sighting of an explosion in the switchyard;

(2) instrumentation readings and annunciators in the control room that indicated the loss

of the J bus; and (3) onsite field reports from the equipment operator and from the Fire

Brigade Captain of catastrophic failure of a transformer and debris. As a consequence,

Davis-Besse failed to activate their full emergency response organization to assist in

mitigating the event. Additionally, State and local offsite agencies which rely on

information provided by the facility licensee were not able to take initial offsite measures.

The finding is identified as an apparent violation of low to moderate safety significance.

(AV 05000346/ 2009503-01)

Notification of State and Local Agencies

Introduction: An NRC- identified finding of very low safety significance (Green) with an

associated NCV was identified for the licensees failure to comply with emergency

planning requirements to ensure timely notifications to State and local governmental

agencies. Following the licensees after-the-fact recognition of the Alert, the licensee

recognized notifications needed to be made to State and local response organizations;

however, the procedures failed to provide clear and consistent guidance for the

notification timeliness. As such, the notifications were not completed for more than four

hours.

Description: At 07:50 hours on June 25, 2009, approximately eight hours after the

switchyard explosion had occurred and mitigating actions were completed by the

operating crew, the licensee realized they had failed to classify and declare an Alert. By

this time, the licensee had many managers and responder personnel onsite reviewing

the events and circumstances of the explosion. At 07:50 hours, the Shift Manager noted

in the control room unit log, information for notification to the State of Ohio, Ottawa

County, and Lucas County were to be collected and the after-the-fact notifications were

to be made by the Emergency Offsite Manager who was designated for the event to be

Emergency Preparedness Manager for the site.

The Davis-Besse Emergency Plan and emergency plan implementing procedures

designate the responsible individual for offsite notification. The Emergency Plan states,

in part, the Shift Manager, acting as the Emergency Director, will implement the plan and

ensure that required notifications to the counties and State are made. However, the

Emergency Classification procedure in the section for Transitory Events states, in

part, if through an event review an emergency classification was discovered as missed,

the Shift Manager, or designee, will contact the Emergency Offsite Manager (EOM).

The EOM will perform the required notifications to the offsite agencies. The EOM as

described in the Emergency Plan was a position associated with activation of the

Emergency Response Organization. For the after-the-fact Alert declaration for the

switchyard explosion event on June 25, 2009, the Emergency Response Organization

was not activated.

Enclosure 1

7

The Emergency Plan and emergency plan implementing procedures did not provide

clear consistent guidance for required notification timeliness. In the Emergency Plan,

the specific agencies to notify are listed along with the time requirement of 15 minutes.

The emergency plan implementing procedure Emergency Notification states, in part,

the initial notification of the State and Counties is required within 15 minutes of the

declaration of an emergency. The Emergency Classification procedure has a caution

that states, in part, if a transitory event has occurred a notification to the offsite agencies

is still required. In contrast, the Emergency Classification procedure in the Transitory

Event section discusses the notification to the offsite organizations will be made by

phone or if the agency cannot be contacted, the notification will be faxed with a follow-up

phone call the following morning. The procedure implies the notification will be made

promptly following the gathering of the notification information, but does not clearly state

the time requirement. Even though the licensee defined the after-the-fact classification

as a transitory Alert, the declaration had the 15-minute notification time requirement as

noted in the Emergency Notification procedure and the Emergency Plan. The

Emergency Preparedness Manager acting as the EOM reported he did not have the

sense of timeliness for the required notification and lost track of time. The notification of

the after-the-fact Alert declaration was made at 12:30 hours to the State and local

governmental agencies through a conference call. The notification was not made using

the Initial Notification form, DBEP-010, as required by the licensees procedure.

Analysis: The inspector concluded the failure to comply with emergency planning

requirements to have adequate procedures to ensure timely notifications to State and

local governmental agencies was a performance deficiency. The deficiency did not meet

the criteria for traditional enforcement, therefore, was screened using the Emergency

Preparedness SDP. The deficiency was screened to be more than minor because the

deficiency adversely affected the Reactor Safety - Emergency Preparedness

Cornerstone objective to ensure the licensee is capable of implementing adequate

measures to protect the health and safety of the public during a radiologic emergency.

The deficiency has the attribute of Procedure Quality associated with procedure use in

an actual event. The delay to notify the offsite agencies was not a result of the

licensees errors in recognition and was not due to competing safety-related activities.

Even after the licensee recognized State and local notifications needed to be made,

offsite notifications were delayed for over four hours.

IMC 0609, Appendix B - The Failure to Comply branch of the SDP was used because

the program element for offsite notification was not adequate as designed for all types of

events, such as in the case of an after-the-fact or missed event declaration. The

licensee did not comply with a regulatory requirement to have adequate procedures to

ensure timely notifications to State and local governmental agencies for all event types.

Because the emergency conditions no longer existed at the time of the event

classification and notification recognition, the compliance with emergency plan

requirements for notification was evaluated as non-risk significant for the switchyard

event. Using the SDP, Appendix B, Sheet 1, Failure to Comply flowchart, the

performance deficiency was evaluated to be a planning standard degraded function,

therefore, was screened to be of very low safety significance (Green). State and local

offsite governmental officials were not able to assess conditions at the time of the late

event declaration and make informed decisions concerning the offsite response.

The performance deficiency involving the licensees failure to have adequate procedures

to ensure timely notifications to State and local governmental agencies for all declared

Enclosure 1

8

events had a cross cutting component in the Human Performance area of Resources.

Specifically, the licensees procedures for notification to offsite agencies were not

complete. (H.2(c))

Enforcement: Title 10 CFR 50.47(q) requires, in part, a licensee authorized to possess

and operate a nuclear power reactor shall follow and maintain in effect emergency plans

which meet the standards in 10 CFR 50.47(b). In accordance with 10CFR 50.47(b)(5),

procedures have been established for notification of State and local response

organizations. Also 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E.D.3., requires the capability to notify

responsible State and local governmental agencies within 15 minutes after declaring an

emergency.

Contrary to the above, the licensee did not maintain adequate procedures to ensure

timely notifications to State and local governmental agencies for all declared events.

For the after-the-fact Alert declaration for the switchyard explosion event on

June 25, 2009, the notifications to State of Ohio, Ottawa County, and Lucas County

were delayed for over four hours after the Shift Manager noted the requirement.

Because the finding was of very low safety significance and has been entered into the

licensees corrective action program (CR 09-62918), the violation is being treated as a

Green NCV (NCV 05000346/ 2009503-02, Failure to Have Adequate Procedures for

Offsite Notifications), in accordance with Section VI.A.1 of the NRC's Enforcement

Policy.

4OA6 Management Meetings

.2

Exit Meeting Summary

On August 6, 2009, the inspector provided an interim debrief to the licensee staff for the

onsite interview portion of the inspection. On November 23, 2009, the inspector

presented the inspection results to the Site Vice President, Mr. B. Allen, and other

members of the licensee staff. The licensee acknowledged the issues presented. The

inspector confirmed that none of the potential report inputs which were discussed was

considered proprietary.

4OA7 Licensee-Identified Violation: A violation of very low safety significance (Severity

Level IV) was identified by the licensee and was a violation of NRC requirements which

meets the criteria of Section VI of the NRC Enforcement Policy. A violation of

10 CFR 50.72 was identified for failure to provide timely notification to the NRC. On

June 25, 2009, Davis-Besse failed to provide timely notification to the NRC of the

after-the-fact Alert classification resulting from an explosion in the switchyard. The

delayed notification was not a result of competing safety-related activities, plant

stabilization activities, or equipment failures. The delayed notification was not a result of

the licensees initial failure to classify the event. At 07:50 hours the licensee recognized

that conditions warranted the classification of an Alert and they had missed the Alert

declaration; however, the licensee did not notify the NRC of the missed Alert until

11:44 hours, a period exceeding one hour notification requirement.

The finding was evaluated using the traditional enforcement process because the

deficiency had the potential to impact the NRCs ability to perform its regulatory function.

Since the emergency condition no longer existed at the time the report was required and

the report was untimely versus not reported at all, the issue was characterized as a

Enclosure 1

9

Enclosure 1

10

violation of very low safety significance (SL IV) and as a NCV. The licensee entered the

issue into their corrective action program (CR 09-61112).

ATTACHMENT: SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

KEY POINTS OF CONTACT

Licensee

B. Allen, Site Vice President

R. Patrick, Operations Superintendent

G. Wolf, Regulatory Compliance Supervisor

D. Wuokko, Regulatory Compliance Supervisor

V. Kaminskas, Engineering Director

J. Vetter, Emergency Preparedness Manager

M. Parker, Security Manger

B. Boles, Site Operations Director

C. Price, Performance Improvement director

G. Halnon, Regulatory Affairs Director

T. Schneider, Public Affairs

D. Dewitz, Senior Nuclear Specialist

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

H. Peterson, Chief Operations Branch

J. Rutkowski, Senior Resident Inspector

LIST OF ITEMS OPENED, CLOSED AND DISCUSSED

Opened

05000346/ 2009503-01

AV

Failure to Use Classification Scheme for an Alert

05000346/ 2009503-02

NCV

Inadequate Procedures for State and Local Notifications

Closed, and Discussed

05000346/ 2009503-02

NCV

Inadequate Procedures for State and Local Notifications

Attachment

1

LIST OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED

The following is a list of documents reviewed during the inspection. Inclusion on this list does

not imply that the NRC inspectors reviewed the documents in their entirety, but rather, that

selected sections of portions of the documents were evaluated as part of the overall inspection

effort. Inclusion of a document on this list does not imply NRC acceptance of the document or

any part of it, unless this is stated in the body of the inspection report.

4OA3 Follow-Up of Events

Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Emergency Plan; Revision 26

RA-EP-01500; Emergency Classification; Revision 10

RA-EP-02110; Emergency Notification; Revision 9

RA-EP-02840; Emergency Plan Off Normal Procedure; Explosion; Revision 3

NOP-LP-5003; Communicating Events of Potential Public Interest; Revision 1

Integrated On-Call Report; Responder Team C/Blue; dated June 25, 2009

Control Room Unit Log; June 25, 2009, through June 26, 2009

June 25, 2009 Alert Timeline; dated July 27, 2009

DB-0095-01; Reactor Plant Event Notification Worksheet; dated June 25, 2009

FENOC Site Protection Incident Reports and Statements from Security Personnel

DB-0700-0; Emergency Phone Call Report; dated June 25, 2009

CR 09-61025; Loss of J Bus, Catastrophic Failure of J Bus Phase Potential Device;

dated June 25, 2009

CR 09-61038, Davis-Besse Site Protection to Critique Opportunities for Improvement on

Response to Switchyard Event; dated June 25, 2009

CR 09-61115; Transitory Alert Emergency Classification Following Loss of J Bus; dated

June 26, 2009

CR 09-62916; Lessons Learned: Switchyard Event NRC Follow-up Inspection;

Improvements to Relate Explosions to Emergency Action Levels; dated August 6, 2009

CR 09-62918, Lessons Learned - Switchyard Event NRC Follow-up Inspection;

Observation Concerning Notification Timeliness of State and Locals; dated

August 6, 2009

CR09-62919, Lesson Learned: Switchyard Event Follow-up - NRC Inspection;

Review Security Operations Strategies and Communications; dated August 6, 2009

CR09-63249; Re-evaluate June 25 Event on NRC Performance Indicator; dated

August 14, 2009

4OA7 Licensee-Identified Violation

DB-OP-00002; Operations Section Event/Incident Notifications and Actions; Revision 19

DBRM-RC-001; Regulatory Reporting Requirements; Revision 3

Attachment

2

NRC Event Notification Report for June 26, 2009

CR 09-61112; RA-EP-01500 Procedure Requires Additional Guidance; dated

June 26, 2009

CR 09-61200; NRC Notification Time for the 6/25/09 Alert Was Exceeded; dated

June 8, 2009

CA 09-61200; Human Performance Success Clock Evaluation Results; dated

July 1, 2009

CA 09-61200; Revise RA-EP-01500 to Strengthen Wording for NRC Notification; dated

July 24, 2009

Attachment

3

LIST OF ACRONYMS USED

ADAMS

Agencywide Document Access Management System

CA

Corrective Action

CAP

Corrective Action Program

CCPD

Coupling Capacitor Potential Device

CCVT

Coupling Capacitor Voltage Transformer

CFR

Code of Federal Regulations

CR

Condition Report

DRP

Division of Reactor Projects

IMC

Inspection Manual Chapter

IR

Inspection Report

NCV

Non-Cited Violation

NEI

Nuclear Energy Institute

NRC

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

PARS

Publicly Available Records System

SDP

Significance Determination Process

UFSAR

Updated Final Safety Analysis Report

URI

Unresolved Item

Attachment

4

SEQUENCE OF EVENTS

June 24, 2009

Late on June 24, 2009, approximately two-and-a-half hours prior to midnight, a computer

point in the control room (E100) began to act erratically, first the computer point read off

scale high and later indicated a low voltage even thought the actual voltage in the J bus did

not change. The operators assumed the computer point was bad because the bus voltage

appeared unchanged.

June 25, 2009

At 00:48 hours, the control room lights flickered and a static noise was heard on the plant

address system. The Coupling Capacitor Potential Device (CCPD) catastrophically failed

causing a loss of the J bus and damage to switchyards components.

Within seconds, the Secondary Alarm Station (SAS) received reports of an explosion, a

white flash, a loud noise, flames, and building vibrations and flames in the switchyard.

At 00:49 hours, annunciator alarms were received indicating breaker openings, trips, and

the J bus (one of the two switchyard buses for offsite AC power) was de-energized. The

station entered a Limiting Condition for Operation per Technical Specifications for a single

point vulnerable configuration.

At 00:50 hours, as documented in the FENOC site protection incident report and per

interviews with the inspector, the SAS called to the Control Room and reported explosion

and flames throughout the switchyard. The Central Alarm Station (CAS) communicated with

security posts concerning an explosion.

Security requested offsite assistance from Ottawa County to dispatch Carroll Township fire

and Emergency Medical Services (EMS). The Control Room dispatched an equipment

operator to the switchyard to investigate the extent of the fire and equipment damage.

At 00:54 hours, the equipment operator reported fire, smoke, and debris spread throughout

whole end of the switchyard by the J Bus. The Shift Manager referred to the emergency

plan for Hazards (Fire) and noted conditions for an Unusual Event would be met if offsite fire

assistance (Carroll Township) is used to help extinguish the fires.

Following the initial report to the Control Room by SAS, per the interview with the inspector,

the Shift Security Supervisor indicated he communicated to the Shift Manager that the

explosion was apparently from equipment malfunction and was not from suspicious activity.

At 01:11 hours, Carroll Township Police Department was onsite.

At 01:19 hours, Carroll Township Fire Department was onsite.

At 01:20 hours, Carroll Township EMS was onsite.

The Duty Team Director responded to a page from the Shift Security Supervisor. The Duty

Team Director was the management representative on call. During the recorded telephone

conversation, the Shift Security Supervisor told the Director of the explosion in the

switchyard and the debris spread throughout the area. The explosion was apparently from

Enclosure 2

1

Enclosure 2

2

equipment malfunction and was not from suspicious activity. Carroll Township police, fire,

and EMS were onsite but not allowed into the switchyard and the fires were allowed to burn

out. Between 00:50 and 01:20 hours, the onsite Fire Captain, a Senior Reactor Operator

(SRO), arrived with the fire brigade to assess the damage and extinguish the fires.

At 01:23 hours, the Fire Captain reported all ground fires were extinguished.

At 01:24 hours, the Shift Manager noted no entry criteria met for event classification

because offsite fire assistance was not used. After his review, the Shift Manager asked the

Shift Technical Advisor to do a peer check. The Shift Technical Advisor peer check

confirmed no classification for the event due to fires.

At 01:26 hours, the CAS and SAS were advised offsite assistance was not needed.

At 01:27 hours, SAS called Ottawa County to cancel further response.

At 01:32 hours, the Carroll Township police, fire, and EMS left the site.

At 01:47 hours, the Fire Captain reported visible damage to J Bus A phase (oil leak),

C phase (damaged insulator), B phase (destroyed and debris throughout the property),

and C phase disconnect breaker (damaged insulator).

At 01:55 hours, the Shift Manager conducted a duty team phone call to provide updated

status of the plant. The Outage Control Center became manned with the Duty Plant

Manager, maintenance, and engineering to support the transmission and distribution

companys response to the switchyard explosion.

At 02:15 hours, the Shift Manager called on the phone to the Operations Manager and

discussed damage to switchyard components.

The control room continued to receive information from the field concerning the damage and

communicated with the duty team and proceeded to switch over to the remaining available

start-up transformer.

At 07:50 hours, further review of the events and the classification by the oncoming Shift

Manager in conjunction with the EP Manager, the licensee determined they met the

conditions for an emergency classification of an Alert for criteria 7.D.2 - Onsite explosion

affecting plant operations. Per the licensees procedures, the missed Alert was called a

transitory Alert. The Shift Manager noted the EP Manager would notify the State of Ohio,

Ottawa County, and Lucas County.

At 11:44 hours, the Shift Manager notified the NRC Headquarters Operations Officer

pursuant to 10 CFR 50.72 (a)(1)(i) of a transitory Alert based on Emergency Action Level

7.D.2- onsite explosion affecting plant operations.

At 12:30 hours, the EP Manager along with plant management, notified Ottawa County,

Lucas County, and the State of Ohio by a phone conference call.

B. Allen

-3-

Warrenville Road, Suite 210, Lisle, IL 60532-4352; the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; and the Resident Inspector

Office at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station. In addition, if you disagree with the

characterization of any finding in this report, you should provide a response within 30 days of

the date of this inspection report, with the basis for your disagreement, to the Regional

Administrator, Region III, and the NRC Resident Inspector at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power

Station. The information that you provide will be considered in accordance with Inspection

Manual Chapter 0305, Operating Reactor Assessment Program.

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of the NRCs Rules of Practice, a copy of this

letter, its enclosures and your response (if any) will be made available electronically for public

inspection in the NRC Public Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records (PARS)

component of NRCs document system (ADAMS), accessible from the NRC Web site at

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room).

Sincerely,

/RA/

Anne T. Boland, Director

Division of Reactor Safety

Docket No. 50-346

License No. NPF-3

Enclosures:

1. Inspection Report 05000346/2009-503

w/Attachment: Supplemental Information

2. Sequence of Events

cc w/encls:

Distribution via ListServ

DISTRIBUTION:

See next page

SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCES

DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\DRS\\Work in Progress\\Davis Besse IR2009-503 (1).doc

Publicly Available

Non-Publicly Available

Sensitive

Non-Sensitive

To receive a copy of this document, indicate in the concurrence box "C" = Copy without attach/encl "E" = Copy with attach/encl "N" = No copy

OFFICE

RIII

RIII

RIII

RIII

NAME

RRussell:co

HPeterson

SOrth

ABoland

DATE

12/17/09

12/17/09

12/28/09

12/28/09

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

1

1

Letter to Mr. Barry Allen from Ms. Anne Boland dated December 28, 2009

SUBJECT:

DAVIS-BESSE NUCLEAR POWER STATION

SPECIAL INSPECTION REPORT 05000346/2009-503 PRELIMINARY

WHITE FINDING

DISTRIBUTION:

RidsNrrDorlLpl3-2 Resource

Susan Bagley

RidsNrrPMDavisBesse Resource

RidsNrrDirsIrib Resource

Cynthia Pederson

Steven Orth

Jared Heck

Allan Barker

Carole Ariano

Linda Linn

DRPIII

DRSIII

Patricia Buckley

Tammy Tomczak

ROPreports Resource

RidsSecyMailCenter

OCADistribution

Bill Borchardt

Bruce Mallett

Roy Zimmerman

Belkys Sosa

Nick Hilton

Gregory Bowman

Gerald Gulla

Marvin Itzkowitz

Catherine Scott

Eric Leeds

Bruce Boger

Mary Ann Ashley

Mark Satorius

Cynthia Pederson

Steven West

Daniel Holody

Carolyn Evans

William Jones

Steven Orth

Jared Heck

Holly Harrington

Hubert Bell

Guy Caputo

Mona Williams

Allan Barker

James Lynch

Harral Logaras

Viktoria Mitlyng

Prema Chandrathil

Patricia Lougheed

Paul Pelke

Magdalena Gryglak

OEMAIL Resource

OEWEB