Not putting in the required paperwork to the NRC indicates the site is spinning out of control from the NRC.
This is not the normal new plant start-up process in Unit 2...it indicates widespread poor quality issues with all the components.
wildly
Summary of Plant Status
Unit 1 started the reporting period at 100 percent rated
thermal power and remained there until March 22, 2016, when the reactor tripped due to a main
turbine trip caused by a governor valve circuit card failure. Unit 1 returned to 100 percent rated
thermal power on March 28, 2016, and remained there until June 11, 2016, when power reductions
were necessary to maintain main low pressure turbine #3 back pressure limits during warmer
weather. Unit 1 operated between
89 and 97 percent power, as necessary to maintain main
turbine backpressure limits, until June 25, 2016, when power was reduced due to turbine building
sump overflowing, resulting from turbine building sump pump failures. The rising water level
approached the running unit 1 #3 high pressure heater drain tank pumps. The licensee decided
to secure the #3 high pressure heater drain pumps and, as a result, lowered unit 1 power.
Power reduction continued to 60 percent on June 27, 2016, then increased over the next
three days to 79 percent by the end of the reporting period.
Unit 2 started the reporting period in mode 3 and remained
there until April 2, 2016, when it entered mode 4 for repairs to leaking safety injection
check valves. The unit re-entered mode 3 on April 8, 2016, where it remained until April 17, 2016,
when it re-entered mode 4 due to failure of the turbine-driven auxiliary feedwater pump (TDAFW) to
meet mode 3 operability requirements. The unit re-entered mode 3 on May 1, 2016,
where it remained until May 18, 2016, when it re-entered mode 4 for repairs to the solid
state protection system. The unit reentered mode 3 on May 20, 2016. The unit
then entered mode 2 on May 23, 2016, and mode 1 on May 25, 2016, where it
remained until May 28, 2016, when it re-entered mode 3 due to abnormal indications of foreign material in the main
turbine when it was rolled at low speed for the first time. The unit re-entered mode 2 and mode 1 on
May 31, 2016. The unit remained in mode 1 until June 5, 2016, when the #1 turbine governor
valve failed full open, causing an automatic reactor trip and safety injection. The unit
re-entered mode 2 and mode 1 on June 8, 2016. The unit remained in mode 1 until an automatic
reactor trip caused by steam generator low level occurred on June 20, 2016. The reactor trip was
the result of a secondary transient caused by the loss of the running main feedwater pump. The
unit re-entered mode 2 on June 23, 2016, and re-entered mode 1 on June 24, 2016. The unit
re-entered mode 2 on June 26, 2016, due to a high pressure steam leak and subsequent
lifting of two main steam safety valves
on the #4 steam generator. The unit re-entered mode 3 on
June 26, 2016, to repair the steam leak and the safety valves. The unit remained in mode 3
through the end of the reporting period.
*The report covered a three-month period of inspection by
the resident and regional inspectors. Ten NRC-identified
and self-revealed findings were identified.
NRC-Identified Findings and Self-Revealed Findings
SL
IV. The NRC identified a Severity Level (SL) IV non-cited violation (NCV) of 10 Code
of Federal Regulations (CFR)
50.73(a)(2)(i)(B) for the licensee's failure to notify the NRC that the technical specification (TS)
limiting condition for operation (LCO) 3.5.2 required action and completion time were not
met when the 1B-B centrifugal charging pump (CCP) was inoperable due to an
inoperable room cooler. Subsequently, the licensee submitted LER 2016-006-00 for
this event on June 30, 2016. This issue was placed in the licensee’s corrective
action program (CAP) as CR 1165380.
Since the failure to submit an event report within the time
requirements may impact the ability of the NRC to perform its regulatory oversight
function, this performance deficiency was dispositioned under traditional enforcement
and the violation was assessed using Section 2.2.4 of the NRC’s Enforcement
Policy. Using the example listed in Section 6.9.d.9, “A licensee fails to make report
required by 10 CFR 50.73,” the issue was determined to be a SL IV violation. In
accordance with IMC 0612, “Power Reactor Inspection Reports,” dated May 6, 2016,
traditional enforcement violations are not assessed for cross-cutting aspects.
(Section 1R15)
SL
IV: The NRC identified a SL IV NCV of 10 CFR 50.73(a)(2)(i)(B) for the licensee's failure notify the NRC that the TS LCO 3.1.8
required action and completion time were not met when the analog rod position
indication (ARPI) and the demand position indication system were not operable.
Subsequently, the licensee submitted LER 2016-007-00 for this issue on June 20, 2016.
This violation was placed in the
licensee’s corrective action program as CR 1163150.
Since the failure to submit an event report within the time
requirements may impact the ability of the NRC to perform its regulatory oversight
function, this performance deficiency was dispositioned under traditional enforcement
and the violation was assessed using Section 2.2.4 of the NRC’s Enforcement
Policy. Using the example listed in Section 6.9.d.9, “A licensee fails to make report
required by 10 CFR 50.73,” the issue was determined to be a SL IV violation. In
accordance with IMC 0612, “Power Reactor Inspection Reports,” dated May 6, 2016,
traditional enforcement violations are not assessed for cross-cutting aspects.
(Section 4OA3.6)
SL
IV. The NRC identified a SL IV NCV of 10 CFR 50.73(a)(2)(i)(B) for the
licensee's failure notify the NRC that the TS LCO 3.6.3 required
action and completion time were not met for an inoperable emergency raw cooling water
(ERCW) containment isolation valve. Subsequently, the licensee submitted LER
2016-009-00 for this issue on July 15, 2016. This issue was placed in the
licensee’s corrective action program as CR 1174000.
Since the failure to submit an event report within the time
requirements may impact the ability of the NRC to perform its regulatory oversight
function, this performance deficiency was dispositioned under traditional enforcement
and the violation was assessed using Section 2.2.4 of the NRC’s Enforcement
Policy. Using the example listed in Section 6.9.d.9, “A licensee fails to make report
required by 10 CFR 50.73,” the issue was determined to be a SL IV violation. In
accordance with IMC 0612, “Power Reactor Inspection Reports,” dated May 6, 2016,
traditional enforcement violations are not assessed for cross-cutting aspects.
(Section 4OA2.3)
SL
IV. The NRC identified a SL IV NCV of 10 CFR 50.73(a)(2)(i)(B) for the
licensee's failure to report, within 60 days of discovery,
a condition which was
prohibited by the plant’s TS associated with recent
performances of TS surveillance requirement (SR) 3.5.2.3 for verification that emergency
core cooling system (ECCS) piping is full of water. Subsequently, the licensee
submitted LER 2016-003-00 for this issue on May 10, 2016. This violation was placed in
the licensee’s corrective action program as CR 1166564.
Since the failure to submit an event report within the time
requirements may impact the ability of the NRC to perform its regulatory oversight
function, this performance deficiency was dispositioned under traditional enforcement
and the violation was assessed using Section 2.2.4 of the NRC’s Enforcement
Policy. Using the examplelisted in Section 6.9.d.9, “A licensee fails to make report
required by 10 CFR 50.73,” the issue was determined to be a SL IV violation. In
accordance with IMC 0612, “Power Reactor Inspection Reports,” dated May 6, 2016,
traditional enforcement violations are not assessed for cross-cutting aspects.
(4OA3.4)
SL
IV. The NRC identified a SL IV NCV of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion V,
“Instructions, Procedures, and Drawings,” at Watts Bar Unit
2 for the licensee’s
failure to follow procedure OPDP-8, Operability
Determination Process and Limiting Condition for Operation Tracking, Revision 22.
Specifically, the 2A-A motor-driven auxiliary feedwater pump (MDAFW) was potentially inoperable
in mode 3 due to inadequate compensatory measures that were being controlled
outside of the operability process. The issue was corrected and the pump
returned to operable status on April 19, 2016. The issue was entered into the
licensee’s corrective action program as CR 1163431.
The performance deficiency was more than minor because it
represented an
improper or uncontrolled work practice that could impact
quality or safety, involving safety-related SSCs. Specifically, failure to appropriately
use the operability process when measures must be established to compensate for
degraded or nonconforming conditions can lead to SSC inoperability. As described in
IMC 2517, the significance of this issue was determined using traditional enforcement,
because the cornerstone associated with this finding was not being assessed by the
reactor oversight process (ROP). The inspectors determined this finding to be of very
low safety significance, SL IV because it represented a failure to meet a regulatory
requirement, specifically a quality assurance (QA) criteria to follow quality-related
procedures, which had
more than minor safety significance. The finding was
assigned a cross-cutting
aspect of Work Management in the Human Performance area
because the minor
maintenance work order created to compensate for the oil
loss from the 2A-A
MDAFW pump was never reviewed by operations, which could
have identified the out of process error. [H.5]. (Section 1R15)
SL
IV. The NRC identified a SL IV NCV of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion V,
“Instructions, Procedures, and Drawings,” at Watts Bar Unit
2 for the licensee’s
failure to follow the surveillance test program procedure
by making adjustments to the turbine-driven auxiliary feedwater (TDAFW) pump control
system during the performance of a surveillance instruction. The licensee
reperformed the surveillance instruction with satisfactory results. The issue was
entered into the licensee’s corrective action program as CR 1167102.
The performance deficiency was more than minor because
making adjustments to the TDAFW pump control system during the performance of a
surveillance
instruction could invalidate the test and result in the
TDAFW pump being
inappropriately declared operable. As described in IMC
2517, the significance of this issue was determined using traditional enforcement, because
the cornerstone associated with this finding was not being assessed by the
reactor oversight process (ROP). The inspectors determined this finding to be of very
low safety significance, SL IV, because it represented a failure to meet a
regulatory requirement, specifically a QA criteria to follow quality-related procedures, which
had more than minor safety significance. The finding was assigned a cross-cutting
aspect of Conservative Bias in the Human Performance area because numerous individuals
were aware the speed adjustment had been made while completing the
surveillance instruction but did not question the appropriateness of that adjustment
until prompted by NRC inspectors. [H.14] (Section 1R22)
SL
IV. A self-revealed Severity Level (SL) IV non-cited violation (NCV) of 10 Code
of Federal Regulations (CFR) 50, Appendix B, Criterion V, “Instructions,
Procedures, and Drawings,” was identified at Watts Bar Unit 2 for the
licensee’s failure to follow procedure 0-MI-1.003, Disassembly, Inspection, and Reassembly of Auxiliary Feedwater Pump Turbine. Specifically, the valve stem spring
coil gap was not set in accordance with procedure, causing the turbine-driven
auxiliary feedwater (TDAFW) pump to trip on electrical overspeed when the level control
valves (LCVs) were closed. This issue was corrected on May 30, 2016, when the
proper spring coil gap was set and verified and the post maintenance test was
performed satisfactorily. The issue was
entered into the licensee’s corrective action program as CR 1175968.
The performance deficiency was more than minor because it
represented an
improper or uncontrolled work practice that could impact
quality or safety involving safety-related structures, systems, and components (SSCs).
The finding was a SL IV violation because it represented a failure to meet a
regulatory requirement, specifically a quality assurance (QA) criteria to follow
quality-related procedures, which had more than minor safety significance. The finding
was assigned a crosscutting aspect of resources in the Human Performance area because
the licensee failed to ensure that personnel, equipment, procedures, and
other resources are available and adequate to support nuclear safety.
Specifically, the procedure that set the coil spring gap lacked sufficient detail and rigor
to ensure that the coil gap would be set
appropriately by the technicians. [H.1] (4OA3.1)