05000327/LER-1980-176-03, /03L-0:on 801020,lower Airlock Failed SI-159.1, Overall Leakage Test.Caused by Airlock Inner Door Ball Valve Leak.Valve Repaired

/03L-0:on 801020,lower Airlock Failed SI-159.1, Overall Leakage Test.Caused by Airlock Inner Door Ball Valve Leak.Valve Repaired

ML19345A857
Person / Time
Site:	Sequoyah
Issue date:	11/21/1980
From:	Cottle W, Kirk G TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
Shared Package
ML19345A853	List: 05000327/LER-1980-176, Forwards LER 80-176/03L-0 05000327/LER-1980-176-03, /03L-0:on 801020,lower Airlock Failed SI-159.1, Overall Leakage Test.Caused by Airlock Inner Door Ball Valve Leak.Valve Repaired
References
LER-80-176-03L, LER-80-176-3L, NUDOCS 8011250339
Download: ML19345A857 (2)

LER-1980-176, /03L-0:on 801020,lower Airlock Failed SI-159.1, Overall Leakage Test.Caused by Airlock Inner Door Ball Valve Leak.Valve Repaired

Event date:
Report date:
3271980176R03 - NRC Website

text

_

g CJ

...w,i.

5 ConTnot etcCx: ;

I I

I I

I.l@

intEasE eniur on TveE 4tt aEculRED INFORMATIONI W IT I Ni si ni pl 1 !@l o I ol I o f o f o l 010 l-lo 10 l@l 4 l 111 1 111 l@l i

lg 3

8 9 LIC8N144 COOg le IS tsCEN51 NuvetR 2$

26 LIC&N$1 Tyrg J0 b7 CA( te CON'T l, o_,[,8,,,j N',R$ IL hl 0 l 5 l 0 [0 l0 l 3l 2 l 7 Ql 1 l0 l2 l0 l 8l 0 l@l 1l 1l 2 l118 l0 l@

4 I'

8 M

68 DOCatt7 NUMages r,8 63 EVENT QATE 74 7%

ptPCRT DAT E 80 EVEtJT DESCatPTION AND PROSA8tE CONSECUENCES h l

10121l Unit 1 in Mode 4 with RCS Tave at 207 degrees F and oressure at 325 psie, the lower io;3; lairlock failed SI-159.1, overall leakage test. Allowable leakage for the airlock i o ; 41 lis < = 11.25 SCFH. The airlock leakage was 39.6 SCFH. The action statement of LCO goj.,g l3.6.1.3 was entered.' The Technical Specification requirement for overall containment l o [6 ] l ntegrity (bypass and summation leakage) was not exceeded. There was no effect upon i

ja{,j lpublic health or safety. Previous occurrences - none.

lo ta l I I

SvSit M

CAUSE

CAU$E COU8 Valvt CODE C006 '

SiseC004 Cou'ONE NT CODE SUSCOCE

$USCODE l013l lSlAlh [ h t Blh lp l El Nl El T l R lh Wh 'C h I

8 9

iG 13 12 IJ le 19 20 SEOVE N TI AL ocCURRENC(

p(POR T R t ViifCN Lt EVENT YEAR R E P0nT No.

400E Tvrt No.

@.ag#1RoI 810 l l- _J l117I6l l-l 1013I y

l_l l0l l,

21 22 2J.

24 26 2F 28 29 30 38 32 TA E ACT C o PLANT utTH 0 HOUps 22 s e iT i Pon 48.

Su *LitR MAN sACTunte lD Jgl34Zlg lZl@

l Z l@

l0l0l 0l l

lNlg lN lL l@

lCl3 l1 l0, 3J JS 36 31 40 46 42 43 44 47 CAuSE DESCRIPTION AND CORRECTIVE ACTIONS I i i o i l The source of the leakage was the airlock inner door ball valve. The valve was y

W l repaired and retested. A small leak around the outer door handwheel seal was discovered ;

[, ; 7 ; l during subsequent retesting. The seal was tightened and the airlock was satisfactorily 1i 6 3I l retested. The corrective actioc was performed within the allowable 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> time limit g,.ai l of LCO 3.6.1.3 action statement.

L i so S F'$

% POWER of HER STATUS hisc v Av Ot1COvtRv otSCRiPTION I 8 i $ l [.C }@ l 0l 0 l 0 (gl l

lBl@lSurveillancetesting NA 1

' c'.,v, T v Co'acNT

's ao A

AucuNTosACrivifvh toCAfioN or me;s Ass h li t a l [ j @o ca ntttan[,dgl

==t Ast NA I

l NA j

7 s 9 _

to is 4A 45 60

• tM10NNE L (m'osumas 4U99 4 8l TVPt o($CRtPTION l t l J l 0 ] O l 0 l@l Z l@l l

pt soNNa',N,u'i.s casCnieficNh Nuve t a

{ g l0l0l0l@l NA l

. 2 2

.0 LO110e og cauACg Yo FACILITY Tv't C(5CA'*f 80ae ll l9 l l Z !hl NA l

,0

,,,u,'*hl.,'C.P,8 0~ @

80n250337

~,

"ac uS5 o"o [J,j_e_j NA l

l l l I I I I l'l i I I l-i a e

'O es as N'=e of Preparer W. T. Cottle/G. B. Kirk 615-842-8261

.4 a

Phone

--.,,-c-+

i3 g--

g-y-.--

m.

y 4rg

i j

EVALUATION LOGIC FOR PART 21 PRO-1-80-363 and Originating Document No.

LER-SQRO-50-327/80176 Yes No

1. Deficiency of a plant security system?

X 1.

Could defect create a substantial safety hazard?

X If yes, report as part 21.

II. Is the component necessary to ensure:

\\,

1.

The integrity of the reactor coolant boundary?

X 2.

The capability to shut down reactor and maintain it in a safe shutdown condition?

X 3.

The capability to prevent or mitigate the consequences of accidents which could result in potential cf fsite exposure comparable to those referred to in 10 CFR 100.117 X

'e

~

III. Is defect in a basic component one that has been accepted for ownership?

X Installed for use or operation?

X If a yes in II and III above, could defect create a substantial safety hazard?

X If yes, report as part 21.

IV.

Is defect in a basic component:

3 condition that could contribute to exceed.ng of safety limit?

X If yes to one of II and IV above. report as part 21.

e l

-~~ ----..-

~