NRC Generic Letter 1983-27

From kanterella
Revision as of 15:47, 4 March 2018 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

NRC Generic Letter 1983-027: Surveillance Intervals in Standard Technical Specifications
ML031080248
Person / Time
Site: Beaver Valley, Millstone, Hatch, Monticello, Calvert Cliffs, Dresden, Davis Besse, Peach Bottom, Browns Ferry, Salem, Oconee, Mcguire, Nine Mile Point, Palisades, Palo Verde, Perry, Indian Point, Fermi, Kewaunee, Catawba, Harris, Saint Lucie, Point Beach, Oyster Creek, Watts Bar, Grand Gulf, Cooper, Sequoyah, Byron, Pilgrim, Arkansas Nuclear, Three Mile Island, Braidwood, Susquehanna, Summer, Prairie Island, Columbia, Seabrook, Brunswick, Surry, Limerick, North Anna, Turkey Point, River Bend, Vermont Yankee, Crystal River, Haddam Neck, Ginna, Diablo Canyon, Vogtle, Waterford, Duane Arnold, Farley, Robinson, Clinton, South Texas, San Onofre, Cook, Comanche Peak, Yankee Rowe, Maine Yankee, Quad Cities, La Crosse, Big Rock Point, Rancho Seco, Zion, Midland, Bellefonte, Fort Calhoun, FitzPatrick, McGuire, LaSalle, 05000000, 05000496, 05000497, Zimmer, 05000103, Fort Saint Vrain, Washington Public Power Supply System, Shoreham, Satsop, Trojan, Bailly, Atlantic Nuclear Power Plant, Clinch River, Skagit, Marble Hill
Issue date: 07/06/1983
From: Eisenhut D G
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
References
GL-83-027, NUDOCS 8307060329
Download: ML031080248 (2)


AJuly 6, 1983

TO ALL LICENSEES AND APPLICANTS FOR OPERATING POWER REACTORSAND HOLDERS OF CONSTRUCTION PERMITS FOR POWER REACTORS.Gentlemen:Subject: Surveillance Intervals in Standard Technical Specifications(Generic Letter No. 83-27 )There appears to be a misunderstanding as to the basis for the surveillanceintervals given in the Standard Technical Specifications (STS) and.in someexisting custom Technical Specifications in use by a number of licensees.We have received several requests recently from licensees converting to 18-month fuel cycles to increase the surveillance intervals for the 12-monthand 18-month surveillance requirements in plant-specific Technical Specifi-cations. The requests indicated that the increase in surveillance intervalswould malntain the same contingency period beyond nominal fuel cycle periodsthat existed In their approved Technical Specifications for shorter fuelcycles. The nominal surveillance interval was not established to providea fixed contingency period beyond nominal fuel cycle periods. The purposeof this letter is to reiterate the bases for the specified surveillanceintervals and to advise licensees of our current practice with respect torequests to increase surveilance intervals.The 18-month surveillance intervals contained in the STS were establishedduring the original development of STS after consultations with various seniorstaff members and with the reactor and fuel vendors. The 18-month surveil-lance intervals were established based upon operating experience and theknowledge that some reactors would be utilizing 18-month fuel cycles. Toprovide the necessary operational flexibility which may be required due toscheduling and performance considerations, the STS, and most custom TechnicalSpecifications, include a provision which permits any surveillance intervalto be extended by 25X of the nominal interval provided that the total timeinterval does not exceed 3.26 times the specified surveillance interval overany three consecutive surveillance intervals.8307060329O F ICD ..OFFI.... ... ....... , ............. ... ..... .,..................... ................... ..................... ................... ..,,... ......SURNAMEO ............... .,................. ,,,... ..................... ........... ... .....................,, ..................... .......,,,....... ....,DATE ONRC FORM 318 1101801 NRCM 0240 OFFICIAL RECORD CPY. GPO 8300-* --t --;-- -W ..--.- --r. 0 --e es uSwz A-^ -2-The effect of extended outages was also considered during our developmentand establishment of the 18-month surveillance interval. We presumed thatIf a plant incurs an extended outage during a fuel cycle, the licensee wouldperform the appropriate surveillances during the extended outage so thatrequired surveillances will not become due before completion of the fuelcycle.The 12-month surveillance intervals applicable to certain portions of thefire protection (fire water systems) Technical Specifications were basedupon annual climatic conditions rather than on the length of a fuel cycle;therefore, these intervals should not be changed. As stated in the STS Basesfor the snubbers, establishment of the snubber surveillance intervals wasbased upon maintaining a constant level of protection. The assumptions usedfor maintaining the constant level of protection would be invalidated ifthe surveillance intervals are changed.We intend to retain the 18-month and 12-month surveillance intervals givenin the STS and plant-specific Technical Specifications except that infrequent,one time only changes may be granted for plant-specific conditions whereadequate Justification is given.

Sincerely,Ori illal sjignedbDarrell0 G,Darrell G. Elsenhut, DirectorDivision of LicensingDISTRIBUTION:Document ControlSSPB R/FFAndersonDBrinkmanCThomasFMiragliaDEisenhutOFFICEI SSPB: SSPB:Di :D -a... ,P5. ....f ..... .. ... ..... .. .. .............. .............. ....................SURNAMK v Fa6rson:k b DBri , Z fid lla................... ..................... ..................... ..D..... ..................... ..................... ...../..............DA'Mt 6/,/ //83 6/ Iq/83 6/J/4 83 6//[ /83 to-.................. ... ......... ...... ..e...OF....... .... ..... .... ....... ... ..... ...... .......... .............. ........;-::::-NRC FORM 318 110/S01 NRCM 0240 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY U.5. PO 1983-84U0-z4 1Otf.....:' -:._.' ,. -V-, , r :.- s ' --8 -.s < ;. t ....~ -_z t .; -.-. %-t --'J+-' '. -, .- --'~~ ~ : '.

Template:GL-Nav