ML19210C407: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 17: Line 17:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:I..Wisconsin Electnc em comu 231 W. MICHIGAN, P.O. BOX 2046. MILWAUKEE, WI 53201 flovember 2,1979 l'r. Harold R. Denton, Director Office of fluclear Reactor Regulation U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0ldISSION Washington, D. C.
{{#Wiki_filter:I Wisconsin Electnc em comu 231 W. MICHIGAN, P.O. BOX 2046. MILWAUKEE, WI 53201 flovember 2,1979 l'r. Harold R. Denton, Director Office of fluclear Reactor Regulation U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0ldISSION Washington, D. C.             20553
20553  


==Dear Mr. Denton:==
==Dear Mr. Denton:==


DOCKET N05. 50-266 AND 50-301 REOUEST FOR TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CHAflGE NO. 60 UPEiM il Un ed 2000 Phl A Pr:1:-2uY SY5(tH PRESSURE P01H6 BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT UNITS 1 AND 2 In accordance with Section 50.59 of 10 CFR 50, Wisconsin Electric Power Company (Licensee) hereby requests an amendment to Facility Operating Licenses D''R-24 and DPR-27 to incorporate changes in the Techni.:al Specifica-tions for the Point beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2.
DOCKET N05. 50-266 AND 50-301 REOUEST FOR TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CHAflGE NO. 60 UPEiM il Un ed 2000 Phl A Pr:1:-2uY SY5(tH PRESSURE P01H6 BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT UNITS 1 AND 2 In accordance with Section 50.59 of 10 CFR 50, Wisconsin Electric Power Company (Licensee) hereby requests an amendment to Facility Operating Licenses D''R-24 and DPR-27 to incorporate changes in the Techni.:al Specifica-tions for the Point beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2.                     The proposed changas ara concerned with those revisions necessary for operation of Point Beach Nuclear Plant Unit 1 and Unit 2 at reduced primary system operating pressure.
The proposed changas ara concerned with those revisions necessary for operation of Point Beach Nuclear Plant Unit 1 and Unit 2 at reduced primary system operating pressure.
Point Beach Units 1 and 2 were originally designed and operated at 2250 psia.         Primary system operating pressure was reduced to 2000 psia during Unit 1 Cycle 3 and Unit 2 Cycle 1 in order to extend the time to clad collapse associated with fuel densification problems. JustiOqation for operation at 2000 psia was contained in the Westinghouse report L 1, WCAP-3151 " Fuel Densi-fication Point Bocch Nuclear Plant Unit 2 Low Pressure Analysis, June 1973".
Point Beach Units 1 and 2 were originally designed and operated at 2250 psia.
Operation of Unit 1 at 2000 psia was the subject of the NRC Safety Evaluation (2) for Licensing Amendment No. 3 to DPR-24 (Change No. 3 to Technical Specifica-tions). Fer Unit 2 operction by the RRC Safety Evaluation (3)'t                 2000 psia supporting      primary5 systcm Amendmcat            pressure to License No. DDR-27was covered (Change No. 11 to tne Technical Specifications). Return to a primary system operating pressure of 2250 psia f coverec by NRC Safety Evaluationsg' supporting          git 1 CycleAmendment 4 and UnitNos.14 2 Cycleand3 18 was to Licenses DPR-24/27 (Change Hos.19 and 24 to the Technical Specificatt:ns) and Amendment No. El to License No. DPR-27, respectively. Return to 225u psia resulted from concerns with the possibility of experiencing excessive internal fuel rod pressures, given the fuel rod prepressurization utilized at that time and the gas release model and internal pressure criteria tnen in effect.
Primary system operating pressure was reduced to 2000 psia during Unit 1 Cycle 3 and Unit 2 Cycle 1 in order to extend the time to clad collapse associated with fuel densification problems. JustiOqation for operation at 2000 psia was contained in the Westinghouse report L 1, WCAP-3151 " Fuel Densi-fication Point Bocch Nuclear Plant Unit 2 Low Pressure Analysis, June 1973".
                                                                                  ' '9   221 von 1toI N
Operation of Unit 1 at 2000 psia was the subject of the NRC Safety Evaluation (2) for Licensing Amendment No. 3 to DPR-24 (Change No. 3 to Technical Specifica-tions).Fer Unit 2 operction by the RRC Safety Evaluation (3)'t 2000 psia primary systcm pressure was covered supporting Amendmcat 5 to License No. DDR-27 (Change No. 11 to tne Technical Specifications).
[
Return to a primary system operating pressure of 2250 psia f coverec by NRC Safety Evaluationsg' git 1 Cycle 4 and Unit 2 Cycle 3 was supporting Amendment Nos.14 and 18 to Licenses DPR-24/27 (Change Hos.19 and 24 to the Technical Specificatt:ns) and Amendment No. El to License No. DPR-27, respectively.
 
Return to 225u psia resulted from concerns with the possibility of experiencing excessive internal fuel rod pressures, given the fuel rod prepressurization utilized at that time and the gas release model and internal pressure criteria tnen in effect.
Mr. llarold R. Denton - Page Two tiovenber 2,1979 Operation at 2000 psia primary system pressu w provides benefits unrelated to fuel rod clad collapse concerns. Stresses on important plant components are significantly reduced, e.g., on steam generator tubes, valve packing and gaskets, and charging pump discharge piping.
' '9 221[von 1toI N Mr. llarold R. Denton - Page Two tiovenber 2,1979
Wisconsin Electric is proceeding with plans to return to reduced primary system pressure operation. Fuel rod designs currently utilized
..Operation at 2000 psia primary system pressu w provides benefits unrelated to fuel rod clad collapse concerns. Stresses on important plant components are significantly reduced, e.g., on steam generator tubes, valve packing and gaskets, and charging pump discharge piping.
                                                                                    )
Wisconsin Electric is proceeding with plans to return to reduced primary system pressure operation.
the Unit 1 agUnitand 2 cores are based en the latest Westinghouse   models can accommodate o' ' ation at either 2250 psia or 2000 and criteria psia primary system pressure.
Fuel rod designs currently utilized
Westinghouse has reviewed the safety implications of operation of Unit 1 and Unit 2 at 200% psia during the Unit 2 Cycle 6 and the Unit 1 Cycle 7 and 8 reload safety evaluations. Incidents analyzed and reported in the Point Beach Final Faci'ity Description and Safety Analysis Report (FFDSAR) which could ootentially be affected by reduced primary system pressure operation were reviewed. Results of later analyses were inc}uded and the applicability of previous results was verified. The methodology \8) described in WCAP-9273
)the Unit 1 agUnit 2 cores are based en the latest Westinghouse models and criteria and can accommodate o' ' ation at either 2250 psia or 2000 psia primary system pressure.
    " Westinghouse Reload Safety Evaluation Methodology" was employed in the evalua-tion. Assuming cycle burnups as discussed in the respective cycle Reload Safety Evaluations, and adherence to the Technical Specifications, the Point Beach Units can be operated at rated power at either 2250 psia or 2000 psia primary system operating pressure.
Westinghouse has reviewed the safety implications of operation of Unit 1 and Unit 2 at 200% psia during the Unit 2 Cycle 6 and the Unit 1 Cycle 7 and 8 reload safety evaluations.
Incidents analyzed and reported in the Point Beach Final Faci'ity Description and Safety Analysis Report (FFDSAR) which could ootentially be affected by reduced primary system pressure operation were reviewed. Results of later analyses were inc}uded and the applicability of previous results was verified. The methodology \8) described in WCAP-9273" Westinghouse Reload Safety Evaluation Methodology" was employed in the evalua-tion. Assuming cycle burnups as discussed in the respective cycle Reload Safety Evaluations, and adherence to the Technical Specifications, the Point Beach Units can be operated at rated power at either 2250 psia or 2000 psia primary system operating pressure.
The recommended changes in the Technical Specifications attached cover operation at either 2250 psia or 2000 psia and include:
The recommended changes in the Technical Specifications attached cover operation at either 2250 psia or 2000 psia and include:
1.Page 15.2.3-2 to change the overtemperature AT setpoint, K1 value, consistent with the previous val"9, which contemplated operation at 2250 psia.
: 1. Page 15.2.3-2 to change the overtemperature AT setpoint, K1 value, consistent with the previous val"9, which contemplated operation at 2250 psia.
2.Pages 15.3.1-1 through 15.3.1-3 are changed in format and Section 15.3.1.A.4.A and its basis are located on a new page, page 15.3.1-19, to eliminate confusion.
: 2. Pages 15.3.1-1 through 15.3.1-3 are changed in format and Section 15.3.1.A.4.A and its basis are located on a new page, page 15.3.1-19, to eliminate confusion.
3.Page 15.3.1-2, Item 4 Operational Limitations, (page 15.3.1-19 of this revision) is changed to reflect operation at 2000 psia as well as to eliminate certain problems with interpretation and to provide consistent operating flexibility.
: 3. Page 15.3.1-2, Item 4 Operational Limitations, (page 15.3.1-19 of this revision) is changed to reflect operation at 2000 psia as well as to eliminate certain problems with interpretation and to provide consistent operating flexibility.
4.Page 15.4.3-1, Item a) and Basis are changed to reflect lower system leak testing requirements while operating at 2000 psia primary system pressure.
: 4. Page 15.4.3-1, Item a) and Basis are changed to reflect lower system leak testing requirements while operating at 2000 psia primary system pressure.
Licensee has reviewed 'the requirements of 10 CFR Part 170.22 regarding the schedule of fees for facility license amendments.
Licensee has reviewed 'the requirements of 10 CFR Part 170.22 regarding the schedule of fees for facility license amendments.       It is our determination that the license amendment for DPR-24 for Point Beach Unit 1 should be classified as a Class III amendment in that a single issue having no significant hazards considerations is involved. The license amendment for DPR-27 for Point Beach fiuclear Plant Unit 2 is a duplicate of the Unit I application, deals with the identical subject and concerns, and is therefore classified as a Class I amendment. Accordingly, we have enclosed herewith check number 461322 for $4,400 which is the full amount of the arendment fees.
It is our determination that the license amendment for DPR-24 for Point Beach Unit 1 should be classified as a Class III amendment in that a single issue having no significant hazards considerations is involved. The license amendment for DPR-27 for Point Beach fiuclear Plant Unit 2 is a duplicate of the Unit I application, deals with the identical subject and concerns, and is therefore classified as a Class I amendment. Accordingly, we have enclosed herewith check number 461322 for $4,400 which is the full amount of the arendment fees.
                                                                                ' " 9 222
' " 9 222 Mr. liarold R. Denton - Page Three Hovettur 2,13N
  . Mr. liarold R. Denton - Page Three                     Hovettur 2,13N lie Fave enclosed herewith three signed originals of the license amendment request. Lle shall provide under separate cover forty cepies of the request. Attached to each copy of the request are proposed revised Technical Specification pages which reflect the changes discussed herein. Any questions you may have on this license anendment request should be directed to me. It is requested that your consideration and approval of +,his license amendment application be as prompt as possible. We believe that reducing the Unit 1 operating pressure coincident with or as soon as possible after Unit l's return to pcuer upon completion of the present refueling shutdown will minimize the hoop stress in the steam generator tubes.
., lie Fave enclosed herewith three signed originals of the license amendment request. Lle shall provide under separate cover forty cepies of the request.Attached to each copy of the request are proposed revised Technical Specification pages which reflect the changes discussed herein.
Very truly yours, A         .
Any questions you may have on this license anendment request should be directed to me.
                                                                          /O W
It is requested that your consideration and approval of +,his license amendment application be as prompt as possible. We believe that reducing the Unit 1 operating pressure coincident with or as soon as possible after Unit l's return to pcuer upon completion of the present refueling shutdown will minimize the hoop stress in the steam generator tubes.
Sol Burstein                           Executive Vice President Enclosures Subscribed and suorn to before me pu "% k a 1 ( 7 ( Sh:MA,9 h Hotary Public,' State of WiscoHsin My Comission expires PJ 6 ; / f'l 0 -
Very truly yours, A./O W Sol Burstein Executive Vice President Enclosures Subscribed and suorn to before me pu "% k a 1 ( 7 ( Sh:MA,9 h Hotary Public,' State of WiscoHsin My Comission expires PJ 6 ; / f'l 0 -
e e
e e"9 223'.
                                                        "9 223
*.REFEREflCES 1.WCAP-8151, " Fuel Densification Point Beach Nuclear Plant Unit No. 2 Low PressureAnalysis",(June,1973).
 
2." Safety Evaluation by the Directorate of Licensing, Amendment No. 3 to Facility Operating License fio. DPR-24, (Change flo. 8 to Appendix A of Technical Specifications), Wisconsin Michigan and Wisconsin Electric Power Company,' Point Beach Nuclear Plant Unit tio.1, Docket No. 50-266", May 23, 1974, transmitted by letter; Dennis L. Zieman for Karl R. Goller to Mr. Sol Burstein, May 23, 1974.
REFEREflCES
3." Safety Evaluation oy the Directorate of Licensing, Supporting Amendment No. 5 to License No. DPR-27, Change No.11 to the Technical Specifications, Wisconsin Electric Power Company and Wisconsin Michigan Power Company", September 30, 1974, transmitted by letter; Karl R. Goller to Mr. Sol Burstein, September 30, 1974.
: 1. WCAP-8151, " Fuel Densification Point Beach Nuclear Plant Unit No. 2 Low PressureAnalysis",(June,1973).
4." Safety Evaluation by the Office of fluclear Reactor Regulation, Supporting Amendment Nos. 14 and 18 to Licenses DPR-24 and DPR-27 (Change flos. 19 and 24 to the Technical Specifications, Wisconsin Electric Power Company, Wisconsin Michigan Power Company, Point Beach Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2, Docket lios. 50-266 and 50-301", December 24, 1975, transmitted by letter; Donald M. Elliot for George Lear to Mr. Sol Burstein, December 24, 1975.
: 2. " Safety Evaluation by the Directorate of Licensing, Amendment No. 3 to Facility Operating License fio. DPR-24, (Change flo. 8 to Appendix A of Technical Specifications), Wisconsin Michigan and Wisconsin Electric Power Company,' Point Beach Nuclear Plant Unit tio.1, Docket No. 50-266",
5." Safety Evaluation by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Supporting Amendment No. 21 to License fio. DPR-27. Wisconsin Electric Power Company Wisconsin Michigan Power Company, Point Beach Nuclear Plant Unit 2, Docket No. 50-301", March 22,1976, transmitted by letter; George Lear to Mr. Sol Burstein, March 22, 1976.
May 23, 1974, transmitted by letter; Dennis L. Zieman for Karl R. Goller to Mr. Sol Burstein, May 23, 1974.
6.WCAP-8785, " Improved Analytical Models used in Westinghouse Fuel Rod Design Computations", October 1976.
: 3. " Safety Evaluation oy the Directorate of Licensing, Supporting Amendment No. 5 to License No. DPR-27, Change No.11 to the Technical Specifications, Wisconsin Electric Power Company and Wisconsin Michigan Power Company",
7.Westinghouse " Safety Analysis for the Revised Fuel Rod Internal Pressra Design Basis"; enclosure to Westinghouse letter NS-CE-1290, C. Eicheldinger to Dr. Denwood F. Ross, Jr., November 24, 1976.
September 30, 1974, transmitted by letter; Karl R. Goller to Mr. Sol Burstein, September 30, 1974.
8.WCAP-9273, " Westinghouse Reload Safety Evaluation Methodology", March 1978.~,o9}}
: 4. " Safety Evaluation by the Office of fluclear Reactor Regulation, Supporting Amendment Nos. 14 and 18 to Licenses DPR-24 and DPR-27 (Change flos. 19 and 24 to the Technical Specifications, Wisconsin Electric Power Company, Wisconsin Michigan Power Company, Point Beach Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2, Docket lios. 50-266 and 50-301", December 24, 1975, transmitted by letter; Donald M. Elliot for George Lear to Mr. Sol Burstein, December 24, 1975.
: 5. " Safety Evaluation by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Supporting Amendment No. 21 to License fio. DPR-27. Wisconsin Electric Power Company Wisconsin Michigan Power Company, Point Beach Nuclear Plant Unit 2, Docket No. 50-301", March 22,1976, transmitted by letter; George Lear to Mr. Sol Burstein, March 22, 1976.
: 6. WCAP-8785, " Improved Analytical Models used in Westinghouse Fuel Rod Design Computations", October 1976.
: 7. Westinghouse " Safety Analysis for the Revised Fuel Rod Internal Pressra Design Basis"; enclosure to Westinghouse letter NS-CE-1290, C. Eicheldinger to Dr. Denwood F. Ross, Jr., November 24, 1976.
: 8. WCAP-9273, " Westinghouse Reload Safety Evaluation Methodology", March 1978.
                                                                ~,o9}}

Latest revision as of 04:34, 2 February 2020

Forwards Request for Tech Spec Change 60 to Amend Tech Specs for Licenses DPR-24 & DPR-27.Amend Fee Encl
ML19210C407
Person / Time
Site: Point Beach  NextEra Energy icon.png
Issue date: 11/02/1979
From: Burstein S
WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER CO.
To: Harold Denton
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML19210C408 List:
References
NUDOCS 7911140187
Download: ML19210C407 (4)
v • d • e


Text

I Wisconsin Electnc em comu 231 W. MICHIGAN, P.O. BOX 2046. MILWAUKEE, WI 53201 flovember 2,1979 l'r. Harold R. Denton, Director Office of fluclear Reactor Regulation U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0ldISSION Washington, D. C. 20553

Dear Mr. Denton:

DOCKET N05. 50-266 AND 50-301 REOUEST FOR TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CHAflGE NO. 60 UPEiM il Un ed 2000 Phl A Pr:1:-2uY SY5(tH PRESSURE P01H6 BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT UNITS 1 AND 2 In accordance with Section 50.59 of 10 CFR 50, Wisconsin Electric Power Company (Licensee) hereby requests an amendment to Facility Operating Licenses DR-24 and DPR-27 to incorporate changes in the Techni.:al Specifica-tions for the Point beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2. The proposed changas ara concerned with those revisions necessary for operation of Point Beach Nuclear Plant Unit 1 and Unit 2 at reduced primary system operating pressure.

Point Beach Units 1 and 2 were originally designed and operated at 2250 psia. Primary system operating pressure was reduced to 2000 psia during Unit 1 Cycle 3 and Unit 2 Cycle 1 in order to extend the time to clad collapse associated with fuel densification problems. JustiOqation for operation at 2000 psia was contained in the Westinghouse report L 1, WCAP-3151 " Fuel Densi-fication Point Bocch Nuclear Plant Unit 2 Low Pressure Analysis, June 1973".

Operation of Unit 1 at 2000 psia was the subject of the NRC Safety Evaluation (2) for Licensing Amendment No. 3 to DPR-24 (Change No. 3 to Technical Specifica-tions). Fer Unit 2 operction by the RRC Safety Evaluation (3)'t 2000 psia supporting primary5 systcm Amendmcat pressure to License No. DDR-27was covered (Change No. 11 to tne Technical Specifications). Return to a primary system operating pressure of 2250 psia f coverec by NRC Safety Evaluationsg' supporting git 1 CycleAmendment 4 and UnitNos.14 2 Cycleand3 18 was to Licenses DPR-24/27 (Change Hos.19 and 24 to the Technical Specificatt:ns) and Amendment No. El to License No. DPR-27, respectively. Return to 225u psia resulted from concerns with the possibility of experiencing excessive internal fuel rod pressures, given the fuel rod prepressurization utilized at that time and the gas release model and internal pressure criteria tnen in effect.

' '9 221 von 1toI N

[

Mr. llarold R. Denton - Page Two tiovenber 2,1979 Operation at 2000 psia primary system pressu w provides benefits unrelated to fuel rod clad collapse concerns. Stresses on important plant components are significantly reduced, e.g., on steam generator tubes, valve packing and gaskets, and charging pump discharge piping.

Wisconsin Electric is proceeding with plans to return to reduced primary system pressure operation. Fuel rod designs currently utilized

)

the Unit 1 agUnitand 2 cores are based en the latest Westinghouse models can accommodate o' ' ation at either 2250 psia or 2000 and criteria psia primary system pressure.

Westinghouse has reviewed the safety implications of operation of Unit 1 and Unit 2 at 200% psia during the Unit 2 Cycle 6 and the Unit 1 Cycle 7 and 8 reload safety evaluations. Incidents analyzed and reported in the Point Beach Final Faci'ity Description and Safety Analysis Report (FFDSAR) which could ootentially be affected by reduced primary system pressure operation were reviewed. Results of later analyses were inc}uded and the applicability of previous results was verified. The methodology \8) described in WCAP-9273

" Westinghouse Reload Safety Evaluation Methodology" was employed in the evalua-tion. Assuming cycle burnups as discussed in the respective cycle Reload Safety Evaluations, and adherence to the Technical Specifications, the Point Beach Units can be operated at rated power at either 2250 psia or 2000 psia primary system operating pressure.

The recommended changes in the Technical Specifications attached cover operation at either 2250 psia or 2000 psia and include:

1. Page 15.2.3-2 to change the overtemperature AT setpoint, K1 value, consistent with the previous val"9, which contemplated operation at 2250 psia.
2. Pages 15.3.1-1 through 15.3.1-3 are changed in format and Section 15.3.1.A.4.A and its basis are located on a new page, page 15.3.1-19, to eliminate confusion.
3. Page 15.3.1-2, Item 4 Operational Limitations, (page 15.3.1-19 of this revision) is changed to reflect operation at 2000 psia as well as to eliminate certain problems with interpretation and to provide consistent operating flexibility.
4. Page 15.4.3-1, Item a) and Basis are changed to reflect lower system leak testing requirements while operating at 2000 psia primary system pressure.

Licensee has reviewed 'the requirements of 10 CFR Part 170.22 regarding the schedule of fees for facility license amendments. It is our determination that the license amendment for DPR-24 for Point Beach Unit 1 should be classified as a Class III amendment in that a single issue having no significant hazards considerations is involved. The license amendment for DPR-27 for Point Beach fiuclear Plant Unit 2 is a duplicate of the Unit I application, deals with the identical subject and concerns, and is therefore classified as a Class I amendment. Accordingly, we have enclosed herewith check number 461322 for $4,400 which is the full amount of the arendment fees.

' " 9 222

. Mr. liarold R. Denton - Page Three Hovettur 2,13N lie Fave enclosed herewith three signed originals of the license amendment request. Lle shall provide under separate cover forty cepies of the request. Attached to each copy of the request are proposed revised Technical Specification pages which reflect the changes discussed herein. Any questions you may have on this license anendment request should be directed to me. It is requested that your consideration and approval of +,his license amendment application be as prompt as possible. We believe that reducing the Unit 1 operating pressure coincident with or as soon as possible after Unit l's return to pcuer upon completion of the present refueling shutdown will minimize the hoop stress in the steam generator tubes.

Very truly yours, A .

/O W

Sol Burstein Executive Vice President Enclosures Subscribed and suorn to before me pu "% k a 1 ( 7 ( Sh:MA,9 h Hotary Public,' State of WiscoHsin My Comission expires PJ 6 ; / f'l 0 -

e e

"9 223

REFEREflCES

1. WCAP-8151, " Fuel Densification Point Beach Nuclear Plant Unit No. 2 Low PressureAnalysis",(June,1973).
2. " Safety Evaluation by the Directorate of Licensing, Amendment No. 3 to Facility Operating License fio. DPR-24, (Change flo. 8 to Appendix A of Technical Specifications), Wisconsin Michigan and Wisconsin Electric Power Company,' Point Beach Nuclear Plant Unit tio.1, Docket No. 50-266",

May 23, 1974, transmitted by letter; Dennis L. Zieman for Karl R. Goller to Mr. Sol Burstein, May 23, 1974.

3. " Safety Evaluation oy the Directorate of Licensing, Supporting Amendment No. 5 to License No. DPR-27, Change No.11 to the Technical Specifications, Wisconsin Electric Power Company and Wisconsin Michigan Power Company",

September 30, 1974, transmitted by letter; Karl R. Goller to Mr. Sol Burstein, September 30, 1974.

4. " Safety Evaluation by the Office of fluclear Reactor Regulation, Supporting Amendment Nos. 14 and 18 to Licenses DPR-24 and DPR-27 (Change flos. 19 and 24 to the Technical Specifications, Wisconsin Electric Power Company, Wisconsin Michigan Power Company, Point Beach Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2, Docket lios. 50-266 and 50-301", December 24, 1975, transmitted by letter; Donald M. Elliot for George Lear to Mr. Sol Burstein, December 24, 1975.
5. " Safety Evaluation by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Supporting Amendment No. 21 to License fio. DPR-27. Wisconsin Electric Power Company Wisconsin Michigan Power Company, Point Beach Nuclear Plant Unit 2, Docket No. 50-301", March 22,1976, transmitted by letter; George Lear to Mr. Sol Burstein, March 22, 1976.
6. WCAP-8785, " Improved Analytical Models used in Westinghouse Fuel Rod Design Computations", October 1976.
7. Westinghouse " Safety Analysis for the Revised Fuel Rod Internal Pressra Design Basis"; enclosure to Westinghouse letter NS-CE-1290, C. Eicheldinger to Dr. Denwood F. Ross, Jr., November 24, 1976.
8. WCAP-9273, " Westinghouse Reload Safety Evaluation Methodology", March 1978.

~,o9

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML19210C407&oldid=2390440"