05000368/LER-1981-017-99, /99L-0:on 810424,during Mode 1 operation,30 Out of 32 Resistance Temp Detectors Did Not Meet Tech Spec Response Time Limit of 6-s.Caused by Inadequate Contact of Couplant Thermowells.Wells Cleaned & Visually Inspected

/99L-0:on 810424,during Mode 1 operation,30 Out of 32 Resistance Temp Detectors Did Not Meet Tech Spec Response Time Limit of 6-s.Caused by Inadequate Contact of Couplant Thermowells.Wells Cleaned & Visually Inspected

ML20004B185
Person / Time
Site:	Arkansas Nuclear
Issue date:	05/20/1981
From:	Shively C ARKANSAS POWER & LIGHT CO.
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
Shared Package
ML20004B177	List: 05000368/LER-1981-017, Forwards LER 81-017/99L-0 05000368/LER-1981-017-99, /99L-0:on 810424,during Mode 1 operation,30 Out of 32 Resistance Temp Detectors Did Not Meet Tech Spec Response Time Limit of 6-s.Caused by Inadequate Contact of Couplant Thermowells.Wells Cleaned & Visually Inspected
References
LER-81-017-99L, LER-81-17-99L, NUDOCS 8105270360
Download: ML20004B185 (1)

LER-1981-017, /99L-0:on 810424,during Mode 1 operation,30 Out of 32 Resistance Temp Detectors Did Not Meet Tech Spec Response Time Limit of 6-s.Caused by Inadequate Contact of Couplant Thermowells.Wells Cleaned & Visually Inspected

Event date:
Report date:
3681981017R99 - NRC Website

text

a v

O U

NRC FORM 366 U. S. NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSIOes LICENSEE EVENT REPORT EXHIBIT A CONTROL SLOCit: l l l l \\ l lh (PLE ASE *RINT OR TYPE ALL RECUIRED IFOR8f ATION!

lo til l AlR l Al Nj 0l 2 jgl 0 j0 l -l0 l0 l 0l 0l 0 l-l 0 l0 lg4 l1 l 1l1 l 1[gj l lg 7

e.

Lecf NsEt C00g is is LicENst mwveta 25 26 Lect % E tvre At 63 car Ss f.ON'T ITTTl J%; ILj@l0 i s p 10101316 i 8glo 14 2141811@l 01512 018111@

1 7

e 60 61 DOCsLET NUMagm 68 67 EVENT DATg

s FS

?onsoaTE 80 EVENT DESCRIPTION AND PRCS ASLE CONSEQUENCES h Io12 I During Mode 1 operation, Reactor Protective Instrumentation response timel i, n i i 18 month surveillance test data was collected for the Reactor Coolant i

io t. i i System resistance temperature detectors (RTD's) as reouired by T.S. Tablel i n i s i ! 3.3-2 Item 10. c and 10.d per T.S. 4. 3.1.1. 3.

Subseocent evaluation of I

I response times indicated that 30 out of 32 RTD's did not meet the Tech I

o 6 lo ! > i i Spec limit of 6.0 seconds. The response time deficiency was identified i Lo_L.J Lafter Voil. shutdown for refuelina.

Reoorted for infor ation nniv. as RTDfs are noT reg,Lred to p3 0pegtgle during Mooe 6 operatiog., No s,imila'r~ occurrences.

CODI LCCE SUSCODE GUPONENT COut

• spn}ge svigogg prTO l l l BIO L,Ej@ l El@ l I!N I S IT 1 R IU l@ OS [_Zj @

,2

~

2o w Tvi..

".isV4'o' "E '"

• Cif

"'1l *

@ y,g,,o I 8111 L-J l 01117i M

i 919 i L_LJ L,, J LOJ u

_2, n

n u

.c n

n u

u 74( N a oN PL2 T M Tw D

• Oves 22 s8 7 0 809 '

l' Ev'*L (R waN ra Yunga LBJ8LXJ8 i zi@

LZJ@

1010!0i ! [NJ@

llij O L NJ @ LP,13 16 l 91@

41 40 el 41 43 44 4,

3J 44 35 4

C AUSE DESCRIPTION AND CORREC flVC ACTIONS m i Investigation indicates that couplant used in RTD thermowells may not hat; ii i,i i orovided adeouate contact, thereby causino the deficient response time.

i

,,,,,i Wells are being cleaned and visually inspected with a boroscope. RTD 3

FrTT1 i fit in wells is beino evaluated and corrective action is beino determin(Q rrTri I i

's:'aTIs' ot ca status @ E'sEc!?!v'

..s:2.i v cesemenos @

v oasa m L.Hj@ 1010101@l NA

_.J LBj@l Surveillance Testing I

• a

'.!n e,. caris, avevNr c, actiotv @ I tv.nm or suan @

.euasso or atLease l'TTil L2]@ L2_J@l NA I

NA l

' ' naso delax ossis cesai.v.cu@

uuvie n tves m 10101_"3LZ_J@l NA l

• a noso~~.'t,mu% s ossemerios@

suunta li l-l i c i 010 j@l NA l

i, i2 Mc' h s'c".7,*,'J.* '" @

[3J@l NA l

' 9

, sv["@on'Emievio,@

NRc usa oNov lh',J l NA

_,,)

llltll1l;;[tl 2 o AME OF PRE *ARER S

PHONE 8105270'346