ML20207B688
| ML20207B688 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/26/1988 |
| From: | Murley T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Davis A, Grace J, Russell W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I), NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II), NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8808030350 | |
| Download: ML20207B688 (6) | |
Text
-
j,
[8h
}
[
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f
UNITED STATES 8
0 o
WASHINOTON. D. C. 20665 h
JUL 2 61988 MEMORANDUM FOR:
William T. Russell Regional Administrator, Region I J. Nelson Grace Regional Administrator, Region II A. Bert Davis Regional Administrator, Region III Robert D. Martin Regional Administrator, Region IV John B. Martin Regional Administrator, Region V FROM:
Thomas E. Murley, Director Office of Nuclear Resctor Regulation
SUBJECT:
SURVEILLANCE TESTING DURING POWER OPERATION The Technic 01 Specifications Branch in NRR, as part of the Technical Specifi-cations Improvements Program, has in progress a short term (approximately 90 days) effort to study Technical Specifications surveillance requirements that The purpose is
.are perfomed during power operation for both PWRs and BWRs.
to detemine if the surveillance requirements should be modified or, possibly, eliminated based on one or more of the following criteria:
The surveill.ince could lead to a plant transient.
o The surveillance results in unnecessary wear to equipment.
o The surveillance results in radiation exposure to plant personnel which o
is not justified by the safety significance, The surveillance is a burden on plant personnel in terms of time required o
not being justified by the safety significance.
We are reviewing Standard Technical Specifications and operating experience related to Technical Specifications surveillance testino. We are also con-ducting plant visits to three PWRs and to at least one BWR to obtain industry views on this subject.
f;;.
f (Su S 50 Xf '
5 f P'
s JUL 2 61988 I
Regional Administrators 2
As part of this effort we are requesting your coments on problems experienced by regional personnel related to Technical Specifications surveillance require-For instance, are there surveillance requirements which place the plant ments.
in a particularly vulnerable condition? Are there surveillance requirements which are performed too often or not often enough? Are there surveillance requirements that are done in a way that may not meet the intent of proving that a system or component can perform its safety function when required?
Regional perspective on these surveillance issues would be very helpful to our Please have your staff provide coments directly to Richard Lobel study.
(x21157), Technical Specifications Branch, within 30 days of receipt of this memorandum. We would welcome them either verbally or in writing.
original signed by necas I. Eurley Thomas E. Murley, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation DISYRIBUTION:
\\
TEMurley VOTSB R/F JhSniezek 00EA R/F TTMartin Central Files JTaylor WDLanning LShao RJLobel AThadani MWilliams CERossi EJButcher CHBerlinger
'Q AC S
(NEM0/ REGIONAL ADMIN /LOBEL)
- (see previous concurrence)
- 0TSB:NRR
- C:0TSB:NRR
- D:00EA:NRR
- ADT:NRR RJLobel: pac EJButcher CERossi TTHartin EMurley 07/14/88 07/15/88 07/18/88 07/21/88 L
0746/88
N
..,.. ~
q,,jg4 0
e
.hu. OGYf b v *,
a6 cur C.nuarsith cnd 9/7[f?, 2 m
f a.
Mar 6LAUw_ U k-a_
3 a a w a +. w k b -, %.
M Lp h
ue uzu57 l O 2 g ea,,exc6sq m ccq g ouse
,e kwge.
au r
O
-- - - - - - - -