ML17053C048

Denies Util 800630 Petition to Amend 800221 Confirmatory Order Re Plant Operation W/O ATWS Reactor Pump Trip

ML17053C048
Person / Time
Site:	Nine Mile Point
Issue date:	10/06/1980
From:	Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Dise D NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORP.
References
NUDOCS 8011040346
Download: ML17053C048 (26)

Text

ria t

g,c'Ocr 6

>980 Docket No. 50-220 Mr. Donald P. Disc Vice President - Engineering c/o Miss Catherine R. Seibert Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation 300 Erie Boulevard West

Syracuse, New Y'ork 13202

Dear Mr. Disc:

bution ocket ORB y2 NRR Reading Local PDR NRC PDR' HDenton ECase DEisenhut RPurple RTedesco GLainas TNovak TIppolito SNorris PPolk RHartfield, MPA GBennington, MPA JOlshinski OELD APOISE (3)

BJones (4)

ACRS (16)

OPA NSIC TERA SECY (3)

RDiggs J He 1 temes By Petition dated June 30, 1980, Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation (NMPC) sought an amendment to the February 21, 1980 Confirmatory Order issued to Facility License No. DPR-63 for the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1.

For the reasons set forth herein, the NMPC Petition to Amend the Conf'irmatory Order is denied.

In December 1978, the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued NUREG-0460, Volurite 3, "Anticipated Transients Without Scram, (ATkJS),"

wherein plant modifications for a recirculation pump trip (RPT),

among

others, were considered.

By letter dated December 21,

1979, NMPC provided the commitment for ATWS RPT instahlation by the end of 1980, and on February 21, 1980, the NRC issued a Confirmatory Order so requiring.

Issuance of the Order was noticed in the FEDERAL REGISTER on February 29, 1980 45FR13567.

By the aforementioned Petition, Nt@C requested that the Confirmatory Order be modified to allow plant operation without an ATHS RPT until the next refueling outage in March 1981-Five considerations were cited in support of the NMPC Petition.

These may be summarized as follows:

(1)

Required RPT equipment and materials may not be available to meet the December 31, 1980 deadline; I

(2)

A 75 day delay in RPT installation is not unreasonable when compared to the length of time this issue has been outstanding; I

(3)

Operating procedures are expected to provide safety improvement equivalent to the RPT during the requested 75 day delay; (4)

The necessary plant shutdown and subsequent startup present more of' hazard than operation for a short period of time without the RPT; and.

OFFICE) g...

SURNAME OATE$..

NRC FORM 318 (9.76) NRCM 0240 AU.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1979.289.389

000 geewe jl' F00>

0" 0 ~-

I Zt 4', 4 0 I I 4, ~

"" 'I;'

0'I (er J

.ivy.ev dt'AOt.

Fw,

~

(<.)

~-1.7

~ lV il t.

." ft.'i

~ i

~J g

'0 At V<e

~r<v.;. l 0',gree(

I 0

et

~ "< '""fe" 0

0 I

t I te

~

vg <<t 0 0 It 'I 00 00

~

C I,

~0 0

~ '0

~ I

) ~

pe I

)

t ~

e 0

I' 0

F re

~

0 It 0

0

Nr. Donald P. Disc (5)

During plant shutdown, NNPC may not be able to meet system require-ments without its own generating capacity and this might have a

significant economic impact.

BACKGROUND AND EVALUATION By letter dated July 14, 1980, we acknowledged receipt of youl Petition and indicated that our response was under advisement.

We have finalized our review of your Petition bases and have, in summary, concluded that:

(1)

Items (1), (3) and (4) were considered at the time the Order was written and found at that time to be insufficient justification for operation after December 31, 1980 without an ATWS RPT.

These items have been reevaluated and our conclusion has not changed;

{2)

Item (2) has been reviewed and we have concluded that all. affected licensees, including NHPC, have had sufficient time to successfully come to terms with the ATWS RPT issue; and (3)

Item (5) has been rereviewed and we have concluded that the desired enhancement of plant safety continues to outweigh the economic impact.

These findings are further elaborated upon in the following paragraphs.

With respect to item (1), which questions the availability of required materials, your petition fails to state that. materials are known to be unavailable or that NNPC has made a best effort attempt-to obtain the material in the event that they are, in fact, unavailable.

Prior to the issuance of the Order, the NRC staff evaluated industry capabilities to ascertain the availability of materials as well as the time required for manufacture and delivery.

He were advised by the General Electric

Compare, whom we expected to be the am)or supplier, that materials could be made available in a tim ly manner for all affected plants.

- Furthermore, your letter of December 21, 1979 provided a conmitment for timely ATHS RPT installation.

We assume this commitment was based on the knowledge that equipment and ttjater ials could be timely procured and installed.

Since item {1) of your Petition merely alleges a potential materials availability problem, we have concluded that; (1) if a problem is known to exist,- NfPC should forward for HRC review a statement of the problem as well as the necessary supporting documentation to al,low staff evaluation; or (2) if a problem is not known to exist, ft is not possible for the staff to provide such antefacto approval", therefore, NNPC should continue to pursue expedited materials delivery.

OFFICE/ I SURNAME DATE$.

NRC FORM 318 (9-76) NRCM 0240 4 U.S. GOVERNMENT'RINTINGOFFICE: 1979.289-369

1 yl

~ P

~

ve

'(

~

~

~ I F

'e f

I e I " et eemel

~

I

~

el

~

e I ~

I'e I P

P P I. e I

V 't.'I v

~

I e

V e V

t e

)

LCUV It P

+e

~ 'VV-e e

.' i Vtf:,Pj ve"'e

~

e

'II, I

e f F

~ Q 4

P j.'ytp I

V

,I1 jf

'I t.'I lf I P e

, ~

P I

V tt I ~ P I

tt le C"

I',

V' VI ej e,

4 I

e V

I e

U

='

~ e e"

f

~ ~

V't t.

e I

~'

g I'

I

'<)

'=

4 ',Pelk ",

"I f

~

J v el

.It I Ie

Nr. Donald P. Disc 3

'get'

)980 Regarding item (2), which questions the immediacy of-an issue ongoing for many years, it is our position that licensees have had sufficient time to resolve the ATMS RPT issue.

The evolution of acceptance criteria and determination of various satisfactory solutions were finalized by the issuance of NUREG-0460 in December 1978, approximately a year and a half ago.

The lack of a scheduled outage prior to the spring of 1981 is not a sufficient justification for the relief sought.

Hany plants are on a 12 month refueling cycle vis-a-vis the Nine Nile 24 month cycle.

In addition, some licensees schedule a second outage each year for main-tenance.

For these plants, outages solely for plant safety improvements can be minimized.

A 24 month fuel cycle reduces such schedular flexibility and will result in an'increase of unscheduled outages when implementing

,safety-related plant modifications in a timely nanner.

It is our view that, given such a fuel cycle, NHPC should be prepared to accept additional outages necessary to assure or enhance safety. Therefore,, the NRC continues to feel that installation by the end of 1980 is a valid, reasonable, and

'justifiable requirement.

Events since the issuance of NUREG-0460 have served to further exacerba'te the urgency of the Commission's decision to enhance plant safety in as short a time period as possible.

Two events in particular have created significant concern:

(1) the Three Nile Island (TNI) accident, and (2) the 8rowns Ferry control rod drive (CRD) malfunction.

The TNI accident has illustrated a general need not only to improve plant safety but also to accomplfsh improvements in a timely manner.-

The 8rowns Ferry CRD malfunction created a specific need to further investigate conmon mode failures. It should be noted that this failure introduced a

common mode failure which could have severely limited, or even pre-

cluded, safe plant shutdown.

This malfunction reinforced the under-lying thought process which led to the conclusion that the ATHS RPT was necessary; i.e., that the ATMS RPT would mitigate the consequences of a common recede failure such as that which occurred at Browns Ferry.

Therefore, we continue to feel that, the timely RPT modifications are necessary.

This view has been reinforced by events over the past year.

Mfth respect to item (3), which claims equivalent safety based on operating procedures, we concluded prior to issuance of the Order that such procedures would enhance plant safety.

However, even though such improvement was beneficial, it was not considered equivalent to the increased reliability and safety achieved by the ATWS RPT.

In fact, the implementation of operator procedures was one of the factors in the evaluation used to justify interim plant operation until hardware modifications could be made..

Therefore, procedures should be relied upon for a short period of time with the duration of such an interval limited to the minimum time necessary to complete plant modifications.

OFFICE ):.

SORNAME OATE$.

NRC FORM 318 (9 76) NRCM 0240 AU.S. GOVERNMENT PAINTING OFFICE: 1979 289'369

C

, I II I

II't I'

ttr. Donald P. Disc 4 <<

'9Cr 8

-1980-Regarding item (4), which alleges that. plant transients introduce significant hazards, it is not our view that such hazards are signifi-cant, or that they are meaningful when compared to the safety benefits of the ATWS RPT.

Again, our prior conclusion in this regard has been further supported by the Browns Ferry CRD problem as well as by the Nine Mile single CRD failure when conducting tests necessitated by the Office

'f Inspection and Enforcement Bulletin 80-17. It continues to be our view that the plant shutdown required by the Confirmatory Order Modifications does not introduce significant new hazards.

j With respect to item (5), which indicates significant economic impact from the plant shutdown, economic cost benefit considerations are dis-cussed at length in NUREG-0460.

Therefore, we continue to conclude that the enhancement of safety justifies economic impact.

CONCLUSION For the reasons stated herein, the NNPC Petition dated June 20, 1980, has been denied.

Accordingly, the Commission., reaffirms the expectation that NIPC will successfully fulfillthe requirements of the February 21, 1980 Order-A copy of this letter will be placed in the Commission's Public Document Room a't 1717 H Street, N. W., Washington, D. C.

20555 and the local public document room for the Nine Nile Point Nuclear Plant located at the Penfield Library, State University of College at

,Oswego, New York; 13126.

Sincerely, Qriginal signCd bg PQ, C080 Har ld R. Denton, Director fice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation cc:

See next page

• SEE PREVIOUS YELLOWS FOR CONCURRENCES "Pol k/Ippolit

,9/2/80 SURNAME DATEI DFFICEj ORB P2 OELD

..C&uA~

/Lt /80 AD: OR

• TNovak 9/10/80

.urple........

P // /80 DL NRC FORM 318 I9.76)NRCM 0240

'kU.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1979.289.369

C, 6ddf 8

f~i6' ll b a

P I

W r

4i

'I I

4I J I 1't 1

I, ft

. P L

L

'I Yir. Donald P. Disc

$9+

Regarding item (4). which alleges that plant transients introduce significant hazards, it is not our view that such hazards are signifi-cant, or that they are meaningful when corryared to the safety benefits of tl;e ATHS PRT.

Again, this prior conclusfon has been further suppo'rted by the Browns Ferry CRD problem as well as the Nine Hf'le single CRD failure when conducting tests necessitated by the Office of Inspection and Enforcement Bulletin 80-17. It has

been, and continues to be, our view that plant testing and plant shutdowns to make safety modifications enhance safety unless such testing or shutdowns can be shown to be either destructive or to introduce significant hazards.

Therefore, if NYPC continues to feel that a hazard would be introduced, the documentation in support of this finding is requested.

Without such evidence, the staff will not be able to evaluate and concur in such a finding.

With'respect to ftem {5), which indicates significant economic impact from the plant shutdown, economic cost benefit considerations are dis-cussed at length in NUREG-0460.

Therefore, we continue to conclude

-that the enhancement of safety Justifies economic impact.

CONCLUSION For the reasons stated herein, the NNPC=Petition dated June 20, 1980.

has been denied.

Accordingly, the Commission,reaffirms the expectation

- that HffPC will successfully fulfill the requirements of the February 21, 1980 Order.

A copy of this letter will be placed fn the Commission's Public Document Room at 1717 H Street.

N. W., Washington, D. C.

20555 and the local public document room for the Hfne bafle Point Nuclear Plant located at the Penfield Library, State University of College at Oswego.

New York, 13126.

, Sincerely, cc:

See next page Harol d R. Denton, Dfrector Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation n >~

"SEE PREVIOUS YELLOt. FOR CONCURRENCES OFFICE $

SURNAME DATE$

ORB ¹2 Pol k/~Ippof i.

9/2/80 0,

OELD

/

/80 AD:

ti yak Q /P /80 DL RPurple

/

/80 DL

,DEisenhut

/

/80 NRR

.HDen ton...

/

/80 NRC FORM 318 (9 76) NRCM 0240 4 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1979.289 369

~B j+j L

t' I.

r 1 J

/

1' C

r I

h

~

~

r lb

~

~ ~

'gg s

1980 Regarding item (4), which alleges that plant transients introduce significant hazards, it is not our view that such hazards are signifi-cant, or that they are meaningful when compared to the safety benefits of the ATWS PRT.

Again, this prior conclusion has been further supported by the Brevr1s Ferry CRD problem as well as the Nine Mile single CRD failure when conducting tests necessitated by the Office of Inspection and Enforcement Bulletin 80-17. It has

been, and continues to be, our view that plant testing and p'lant shutdowns to make safety modifications enhance safety unless such testing or shutdowns can be shown to be either destructive or to introduce significant hazards.

Therefore, if NCPC continues to feel that a hazard would be introduced, the documentation in support of this finding is requested.

Without such evidence, the staff will not be able to evaluate and concur in such a finding.

With respect to item (5), which indicates significant economic impact from the plant-shutdown, economic cost benefit considerations are dis-cussed at length jn NUREG-0460.

In addition, we would at this time like to draw your attention to the monumental cost projected at Three Nile Island Unit 2-Therefore, we continue to conclude that the enhancement of safety justifies economic impact.,

CONCLUSION For the reasons stated herein, the NNPC Petition dated June 20, 1980, has been denied.

Therefore, at this time, the Commission reaffirms the expectation that NYPC will successfully fulfillthe requirements of the February 21, 1980 Order.

Any person who'has an interest affected by this denial may request a hearing within twenty (20) days of the Federal Register Notice.

Arly request for a hearing will not stay the effectiveness of the original Order.

Any request for a hearing shall be addressed to the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Cotmnission, Washington, D. C.

20555. If a hearing is requested by a person whose interest may be affected by Denial to Amend a Confirmatory Order, the Commission will issue an Order designating the time and place of arly such hearing.

A copy of this decision will be placed in the Commission's Public Document Room at 1717 H Street, N. W., Washington, D. C.

20555 and the local public document room for the Nine Nile Point Nuclear Plant located at the Penfield Library, State University of'ollege at

Oswego, New York, 13126.

ORB ¹2 Polk/Ippolito:mjf 9/Z./80 Enclosure and cc:

fC'~

arold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Se OFFICE SURNAME DATE$.

next page OELD

... Bor.den.ick/Sc.i

/

/80 P,D'$

t.o...TNo.vak

/

/80

....OL.........

... APur.pl.e..

/./80

.:DL..........

..DEi,senhut.

/

/80 NRR.........

HDentnn....

/ /80 NRC FORM 318 t9 76) NRCM 0240

~

4 U'S'OVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICEt 1979 289 369 r'

L P

4

\\ ~ ~ I

~ (

)IIL 1 PI tlt\\,

II I

I 'I

~I<<>>

I

~

~

P L

I I

0 ~

EP

~

L I

~

c2 4

I 0

ter. Ponald P. Disc October 6, 1980 CC:

Eugene B. Thomas, Jr., Esquire

LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby 8 NacRae 1333 New Hampshire

Avenue, N.

M.

Suite 1100 Mashington, D-C.

20036 T. K. DeBoer, Director Technological Development Programs State of New York Energy Office Swan Street Building CORE 1.- Second Floor Empire State Plaza

Albany, New York 12223 Nr. Robert P. Jones, Supervisor Town of Scriba R. D.

v"4

Oswego, New York 13126 Ni a gara blohawk Power Corporation ATTN:

i~jr.

Thomas Perk ins Plant Superintende'nt Nine Hi le Point Plant 3000 Erie Boulevard ';lest

Syracuse, New York 13202 Director, Technical Assessment Division Office of Radiation Programs (Al'59)

US EPA Crystal ilail "'2 Arlington, Virginia 20460 U.

S. Environmental Protection Agency Region II Office ATTN:

EIS COORDINATOR 26 Federal Plaza New York, New York 10007 State University at Oswego Penfield Library - Documents

Oswego, New York 13126 Resident Inspector c/o U. S.

NRC P. 0.

Box 126 Lycomi ng, New York 13093

I 41

~ r

~pS REGS P0 UNITEDSTATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMtSSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 ocT Or, 1980 Generic Task No. A-12 All Power Reactor Licensees and Applicants

Subject:

Implementation of Guidance From Unresolved Safety Issue A-12, "Potential For Low Fracture Toughness and Lamellar Tearing on Component Supports" Gentlemen:

As you are aware, NUREG-0577 (Potential for Low Fracture Toughness and Lamellar Tearing on PMR Steam Generator and Reactor Coolant Pump Supports) was issued in its "For Comment" form in November 1979.

Additional guidance regarding implementation was issued by letters dated May 19, 1980 (licensees) and May 20, 1980 (applicants).

A significant difference between NUREG-0577 and the criteria contained in the May 19th and 20th

,letters was the removal, in the letters, of the option of using linear elastic fracture mechanics analyses to.demonstrate adequate structural integrity.

The largest single response by applicants and licensees to the May 19 and 20 letters indicated a desire to retain linear elastic fracture mechanics analyses as an alternative means to demonstrate adequate structural integrity.

Because of the response received due to this change, the NRC staff convened a meeting on August 27, 1980 to resolve the differences in the proposed programs.

The summary of this meeting is attached.

You should especially note these items of importance:

(1)

No action is required on your part at this time regarding lamellar tearing; (2)

The subject of irradiation effects on reactor vessel support materials is under review by the NRC staff and is not part of the A-12 effort and-(-3)-

No implementation-action-on-your.part will.be---.--'----

required before the December 1980 meeting.

Exceptions to this policy may be necessary on a case-by-case basis if significant materials problems are found to exist.

Of more importance, however, is our request that you be prepared to commit to the alternative program if approved by the NRC staff at the meeting to be held in December 1980.

Failure to coIImit to the alternative program will result in NRC imposition of the guidance contained in the May 19, 1980 and May 20, 1980 letters, as modified by applicable comments under review by the NRC staff.

Note also that the recommendation for extension of the implementation period is still under staff review.

A decision will be made prior to the December 1980 meeting.

l h

I 0

I-i h

F I

A

\\

h I

I I

R I

N

~

1 f

Ql

All Power Reactor Licensees and Applicants Please refer any questions to Richard Snaider at 301-492-7876.

Enclosure:

Summary of August 27, 1980 Meeting cc: Service List, w/o attachment

~ Ci 7

Pa re 1

B.

's'en

, Director Division of icensing

ALL PO~lER REACTOR LIC=HSEES Docket Ho. 50-340 Farley Unit 1

Docket Ho. 50-313 Arkansas Unit 1

Docket No. 50-368 Arkansas Unit 2 Docket Ho. 50-317 Calvert Cliffs Unit 1

Docket No. 50-318 Calvert Cliffs Unit 2 Docket No. 50-293 Pilgrim Unit 1

Docket No. 50-325 Brunswick Unit 1

Docket No. 50-324 Brunswick Unit 2 Docket Ho. 50-261

~

H. B. Robinson Uni". 2 Docket No. 50-10 Dresden Unit 1

Docket No. 50-237 Dresden Unit 2 Docket Ho. 50-249 Dresden Unit 3 Docket Ho. 50-254 guad-Cities Unit 1

Docket Ho. 50-265 guad-Cities Unit 2 Docke No. 50-295 Zion Unit 1

Docket No. 50-304 Zion Unit 2 D"cket ffo. 50-213 Connecticut Yankee (Haddam Neck)

Docket Ho. 50-3 Indian ?oi t Unit ]

Docket ffo. 50-247 Indian Point Unit 2 Docket 50-286 Indian Point Unit 3 Docket tio. 50-155 Big Rock Point Docket Ho. 50-255 Palisades Docke-Ho. 50-409 Lacrosse Docket Ho. 50-269 Oconee Unit 1

Docket Ho. 50-270 Oconee Unit 2 Docket Ho. 50-287 Ocone Unit 3 Docket No. 50-334 Beaver Valley Unit 1

Docket Ho. 50-302 Crystal River 3

Dockec-ffo. 50-335 St. Lucie Unit 1

Docket tlo. 50-250 Turk.v Point Unit 3 Docket Ho. 50-25',

Turkey Point Unit 4 Docket Ho. 50-321 Edwin I. Hatcn Unit 1

Docket No. 50-366 Edwin I. Hatch Unit 2 Docket Ho. 50-315 D. C.

Cook Uni 1

Docket No. 50-316 D.

C.

Cook Unit 2 Docket No. 50-331 Duare Arnold Docket,Ho.

50-219 Oyster Creek ':nit 1

Docket No. 50-309 Maine Yankee Docket No. 50-289 Three Mile Island Unit 1

Docket No. 50-320

~ Three Mile Island Unit 2 Docl'et Ho. 50-298 Cooper Station Docket Ho. 50-220 Nine Mile Point Unit 1

Docket Wo. 50-245 Millstone Unit 1

Docket No. 50-336 Millstone Unit 2 Docket Ho. 50-263 Monticello Docket Ho. 50-282 Prairie Island Unit 1

Docket No. 50-306 Prairie'sland Unit 2 Docket Ho. 50-285

'Ft. Calhoun Docket Ho. 50-133 Humboldt Bay Docket No. 50-277 Peach Bottom 2 Docket Ho. 50-278 Peach Bottom 3

Docket No. 50-344 Trojan Docket No. 50-333 FitzPatrick Docket No. 50-267 Ft. St. Vrain Docket No. 50-272 Salem Unit 1

Docket No. 50-244 P,.

E. Ginna 1

Docket No. 50-312 Rancho Seco Docket No. 50-206 Jan Onofre 1

Docket No. 50-259 Brogans Ferry Unit 1

Docket Ho. 50-260 Broadens Ferry Unit. 2 Docket No. 50-296 Browns.Ferry Unit 3 Docket No. 50-346 Davis-Besse 1

Docket No. 50-271 Vermont Yankee Docket No. 50-338 North Anna 1

Docket No. 50-280 Surry Unit 1

Docket Ho. 50-281 Surry Unit 2 Docket No. 50-266 Point Beach Unit 1

Docket Ho 50-301 Point Bea h Unit 2

4

A.- i"LICAfiTS Docket f~o. 50-397 WPPSS 1

Docket Ho.

STH 50-523 Palo Yerde 1

Docket Nc.

STf< SG-529 PaI". Verde 2

Docket No.

STH 50-530 Pal Verde 3

i< Docket Phipps

) Docket Phipps Docket Yellow No.

STN 50-553 Bend 1

No.

STN 59-554 Bend 2

Ho.

STH 50-566 Creek 1

Docket No.

STH 50-567 Yellow Creek 2

Docket No. 50-467 Aliens Creek 2

Docket No. 50-7 Floating Nuclear Plant 1-8 Docket No.

50-488 Perkins 1

- Docket No. 50-489 Perkins 2

.Docket f<o.

STN 50-556 Black Fox 1

Docket No.

STH 50-557 Black Fox 2 Docket tfo. 50-514 Pebble. Springs 1

Docket t/o.

50-515 Pebble Springs 2

Docket No. 50-522 Skaoit 1

Docket No. 50-523 Skagit 2

Docket Ho.

SO-471 Pilgrim 2 Docket Ho. 50-412 Beaver Valley 2 Docket Ho.

50-413 Catawba 1

ocket Ho. 50-4i4 Catawba 2

Docket Ho. 50-322 Shoreham Dn"ket No. 50-460

'r.,-PSS 2

Docket No. 50-275 Diablo Canyon 1

Docket No. 50-323 Diablo Canyon 2

Docket No.

50-461 Clinton 1

Docket Ho. 50-462 Clinton 2 Cocket No. 50-416 Grand Gulf 1

Docket No.'0-417 Grand Gulf 2 Docket No. 50-354 Hope Creek 1

Docket Ho. 50-355 Hope Creek 2

Docket Ho.

50-311 Salem 2

Docket No. 50-458 Riverbend 1

Docket No. 50-459 Riverbend 2

Docket No. 50-361 San Onofre 2.

Docket Ho. 50-362 San Onofre 3

Docket No. 50-329 tlidland 1

Docket No. 50-330 Midland 2 Docket No. 50-358 Zimmer 1

Docket No. 50-382 Waterford 3

Docket No. 50-390 Watts Bar 1

Docket Ho. 50-391 Watts Bar 2 Docket No. 50-424 Y:.-.tie 1

Do i.at No. 50-425 Vogtle 2 Docket tio. 50-483 Callaway 1

Docket Ho. 50-340 Seabrcok Docket f/o. 50-513 l'PPSS 3

Docket Nn. 50-327 Sequoyah 1

Cocket Ho. 50-328 Sequoyah 2

Docket STH 50-498 So.

Texas 1

Docket STH 50-499 So. Texas 2

Docket No. 50-395 Sumer 1

Docket No. 50-440 Perry 1

Docket No. 50-441 Perry 2

Docket No. 50-352 Limerick 1 Docket No. 50-353 Limerick 2 Docket STH 50-Si8 Hartsvi1 le 1

Docket STN 50-519 Hartsville 2 Docket STH 50-520 Hartsville 3 Docket STN 50-521 Hartsville 4 Docket No. 50-363 Forked River 1

Docket 50-341 Fermi 2

Docket t(o. 50-364 Farley 2

Docket No. 50-445 Comanche Peak 1

Docket No. 50-446 Comanche Peak 2

Dockec bio. 50-491 Cherokee 1

Docket No. 50-492 Cherokee 2

Docket Nu. 50-493 Cl.erokee 3

Docket No. 50-486 Callaway 2

Docket Ho. 50-339 North Anna 2

Cockei ';o. 50-508 WF'PSS 4

Docket Ho. 50-509 WPPSS 5

Docket No. 50-454 Byron 1

Docket No. 50-455 Byron 2 Docket No. 50-456 Braidwood 1

Docket No. 50-457 Braidwood 2

Docket to. 50-367 Bailly Docket Ho. 50-410 t<ine Hile Point 2 Docket No. 50-546 f'.. ble Hill 1 Docket No. 50-547 Marble Hill 2 Docket No..'.:-400 Shearon Harris 1

Docket No. 50-401 Shearon Harris 2

Docket t/o. 50-402 Shearon Harris 3

Docket Ho. 50-403 Shearon H=rris 4 Docket Ho. 50-373 LaSalle 1

Docket No. 50-374 LaSalle 2

Docket No. 50-389 St. Lucie 2 Docket No. 50-482 Wolf Creek Docket t/o. 50-423 Millstone 3 Docket Ho. 50-438 Bellefonte 1

Docket Ho. 50-439 Bellefonte 2

Docket No. 50-369 HcGuire 1

Docket No. 50-370 flcGuire 2 Docket No. 50-387 Susquehanna 1

Docket f'io. 50-388 Susquehanna 2

1 t

r I

ll t

II L

I

( J Docket tIo. 50-305 i:ewaunee Docket ho.

50-29 Yankee-Roue Docket No. 50-267 Ft. St. Vrain

t