ML18142A565
| ML18142A565 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Surry  |
| Issue date: | 07/12/1985 |
| From: | VIRGINIA POWER (VIRGINIA ELECTRIC & POWER CO.) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17159A880 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8507190309 | |
| Download: ML18142A565 (4) | |
Text
ATTACHMENT 1 PROPOSED TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CHANGE 1~------,;8;,;.;5.:r0~7c.;;;i,.9.;;;0=3=0=9:---B-5_0_7_-c-12~---
PDR ADOCK 05000280 P
- PDR
TABLE 4.1-1 (Continued)
Channel Description
- 10.
Rod Position Bank Counters
- 11.
Steam Generator Level
- 12.
Charging Flow Check S(l,2) s N.A
- 13.
Residual Heat Removal Pump Flow N.A
- 14.
Boric Acid Tank Level
- D
- 15.
Refueling Water Storage Tank Level S
- 16.
(DELETED)
- 17.
Volume Control Tank Level
- 18.
Reactor Containment Pressure-CLS
- 19.
Boric Acid Control
- 20.
Containment Sump Level
- 21.
Accumulator Level and Pressure
- 22.
Containment Pressure-Vacuum Pump System
- 23.
Steam Line Pressure N.A.
- D N.A.
N.A.
s s
s Calibrate N.A.
R R
R R
R R
R R
R R
R R
Test N.A.
M N.A N.A N.A.
M N.A.
M(l)
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
M Remarks
- 1)
Each six inches of rod motion when data logger is out of service
- 2)
With analog rod position
- 1)
Isolation valve signal and spray signal.
e
e e
ATTACHMENT 2 DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED CHANGE
1-e DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED CHANGE Technical Specification Amendments Nos. 95 and 94 (dated February 24, 1984) to operating licenses DPR-32 and DPR-37 for the Surry Power Station, Units No. 1 and 2 respectively, removed the surveillance requirements on the boron injection tank level instruments in Table 4.1.
Due to an administrative
- error, surveillance requirements for the boron injection tank level instruments were inadvertantly included in Technical Specification Amendments Nos. 97 and 96 on Table 4.1-1 (dated June 19, 1984) for Surry Power Station, Units 1 and 2 respectively.
The proposed change simply deletes the surveillance requirements from the text previously deleted by Amendment Nos. 95/94.
The Safety Evaluation, concluding that no unreviewed safety question (as defined in 10CFR50.59) exists, remains unchanged from that supporting Amendment Nos. 95/94.
In a similar manner, no significant hazards consideration as defined in 10CFR50.92 exists because the proposed amendment is administrative in nature and is similar to Example (1) of the examples provided by the Connnission (48FR14870) that are considered not likely to involve significant hazards consideration*.