ML19282D037
| ML19282D037 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07002623 |
| Issue date: | 03/27/1979 |
| From: | Mcgarry J DUKE POWER CO. |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7905110037 | |
| Download: ML19282D037 (22) | |
Text
.
NRC PLT;LIC LGu. mM WOL d/
A -/
c:..
UNITED STATES OF AF2RICA
(#
4 c
e e
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 7, s
.... )
l t
,N
%s
'~~~~
In the Matter of
)
)
DUKE POWER COMPANY
)
)
Docket No. 70-2623 (Amendment to Materials
)
License SNM-1773 for Oconee Nuclear Station Spent Fuel Transportation and Storage
)
At McGuire Nuclear Station)
)
APPLICANT'S ANSWER TO NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL'S (NRDC) INTERROGATORIES TO APPLICANT Comes now Applicant, Duke Power Company (Duke), in ccm-pliance with che rules of practice of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and makes the following answer to Natural Resources Defense Council's Interrogatories to Applicant.
Question:
1.
Ecw many fuel assemblies in the full core?
Response
a.
Oconee Units 1, 2 and 3 each have 177 assemblies in their respective cores.
McGuire Units 1 and 2 each have 193 assemblies in their respectice cores.
b.
Documents used as basis -- Oconee Final Safey Analysis Report S3.2; Table 3-1; McGuire Final Safety Analysis Report S4.1; Table 4.1-1.
c.
No ocher documents were relied upon for this answer.
d.
T..
W.
- 3cstian, H.
T.
Snead -- Duke Power.
e.
No ongoing research which may affect this answer.
f.
R.
W.
- Bestian, H. T. Snead - Duke Power ~1/
7005110037 g
1/ With respect co NRDC's request for qualifications of Applicant wicnesses, Duke will furnish them to NRCC, by
()
hand delivery, on or before March 30, 1979.
. Cuestion:
2.
How much capacity currently exists at the spent fuel storage facility at the reactor?
(Please supply this figure as the number of spaces which exist, and not simply as the number of unfilled spaces.)
Response
a.
There are 810 present storage locations in the spent fuel pools at Oconee Nuclear Station: 336 in the pool shared by Units 1 and 2 and 474 in the Unit 3 pool.
At McGuire Unit 1, there are 502 locations in the spent fuel pool.
McGuire Unit 2's racks have not been installed, but at this time 502 storage locations are planned.
b.
The spent fuel pool maps show the rack 1ccations for each pool and are the basis for this answer.
c.
No other documents are relied upon for this answer.
d.
R.
W.
- Bastian, H.
T.
Snead - Duke Pcwer e.
At the present time Duke is planning to rerack the Oconee Units 1 and 2 pcol in mid to late 1979 with high density (non-poison) racks.
When the cumplete =cdification (mechanical cooling systems included) is made, the new capacity of the Oconee Units 1 and 2 pool will be 750 spent fue:
.;frage locations.
No other increases in on-site storage are planned at this time.
f.
See footnote to Answer 15.
Question:
3.
Is this capacity the maximum currently licensed?
If not, what is the maximum number of spaces currently licensed?
. Response:
a.
The response to interrogatory Number 2 (above) reflects the maximum capacity at the Oconee pools currently licensed and the maximum number of fuel storage spaces at McGuire (as submitted in the McGuire FSAR).
b.
The FSAR for McGuire and the Oconee operating licenses were used as the basis for this answer.
c.
No other documents were relied upon for this answer.
d.
R.
W.
Bostian, H.
T.
Snead - Duke Power.
e.
No ongoing research which may affect this answer is being performed.
f.
See footnote to answer if.
Question:
4.
How many spaces of the capacity given in Cuestion 2 above are currently filled with fuel assamblies?
If fuel from other reactors is stored at a given reactor's spent fuel facility, please provide a 'creakdown of the inventory at the fuel pool, and note any changes in the designed existing capacity which come as a result of the presence of other-reactor fuel.
Response
a.
Currently, there are 545 spent fuel assemblies in the Cconee spent fuel pools.
There are 138 in the Unit 1 and 2 pool and 407 in the Unit 3 pool.
Also, the 193 assemblies com-prising the initial core of McGuire 1 are in the McGuire 1 spent fuel pool and new fuel vault.
. b.
Duke's special nuclear material accountability program for spent fuel was used as a basis for this answer.
c.
Discharge reports to Allied Gulf Nuclear Services and transfer documents (NRC form 741) for all shipments were also used in the formulaulon of this reply.
d.
R.
W.
- Bostian, H.
T.
Snead--Duke Power.
e.
No ongoing research which may affect this answer is being performed.
f.
See footnote to answer if.
Question:
5.
When is the next discharge of fuel frem the reactor?
Response
a.
The next schedule refuelings as of 3/13/79:
Oconee 3 - June 3, 1979 (may be scener)
Oconee 1 - December 2, 1979 Oconee 2 - January 27, 1930 McGuire 1 -Mid 1981 McGuire 2 -Late 1982 - Earl'2 s
b.
Based on the latest refueling schedul c.
No other dccuments were used as a basis for thi3 answer.
d.
R.
W.
- Bostian, E.
T.
Snead - Duke Power.
e.
The planned refuelings are reviewed periodically and based on fuel burnup, the dates are revised as necessary.
f.
See footnote to answer lf.
~
,. Question:
6.
How many assemblies will be discharged at this time?
Response
50 a.
Oconee 3 68 Oconee 1 68 Oconee 2 McGuire 1 -
61 McGuire 2 -
61 b.
Based on the latest refueling schedule.
c.
No other documents were used as a basis for this answer.
d.
R.
W.
Bostian, H.
T.
Snead - Duke Power.
Those planned discharges for Oconee are fixed and are not e.
expected to change.
The plans for McGuire are still being formulated and may differ frcm the values shown.
f.
See footnote to answer if.
Question:
7.
What cycle will be used for fueling in the future (i.e.,
annual; IS months; 15, 15, 18 monrhs; etc. ) ?
Response
The following types of cycles are planned for future use:
a.
Oconee 1
- 13 months Oconee 2
- 18 months Oconee 3
- Annual McGuire 1 - Annual thru Cycle 3 McGuire 2 - Annual thru Cycle 2 b.
Based on the latest refueling schedule.
c.
No other documents were used as a basis for this decision.
, d.
R. W. Bo stian, H. T.
Snead - Duke Power.
e.
The fuel burnup cycles for Cconee 3 and McGuire 2 have not been finalized.
The alternate scheme under consideration for both units is an 18-month cycle.
f.
See footnote to answer if.
Question:
8.
In future fuel cycles, will the number of rods discharged be the same figure as in Question 6 above?
If not, how many rods will be discharged at the end of each refuel?
Response
a.
In the future cycles of each unit the following number of fuel assemblies are planned for discharge:
Cconee 1 (1981 - End of Cycle 6) 72 cconee 2 (1981 - End of Cycle 5) 72 cconee 3 56 McGuire 1 -
92
- Possible after Cycle 3 McGuire 2 -
92
- Possible after Cycle 2 b.
These values are based upon the EMA Nuclear Fuel Costs and Accounting Program.
c.
No other documents were used as a basis for this decision.
d.
R. W.
- Sostian, E.
T. Snead--Duke Power e.
Research is continuing in this area so that fuel costs are minimized and discharges of spent fuel are reduced.
f.
See footnote to answer if.
Question:
9.
Has Duke Power Company undertaken any in-house or external research on the possibility of expanding spent fuel capacity
.- at any of the above five reactors, either through enhanced or more efficient use of existing physical space, or through construction of additional facilities?
If not, why were such studies not done?
Response
Duke has researched the feasibility of expanding the spent fuel storage capacity at the subject reactor sites.
See re-sponse to Inrerrogatory No. 10.
Question:
- 10. Please summarize the findings of such research on the physical feasibility of expansion through the means con-sidered, including, for example, such widely discussed and applied techniques as more efficient racking of assemblies in the spent fuel pool, establishment of racks incorporating neutron absorbers (such as Baron-aluminum ccmposites),
physical restructuring of-the fuel assemblies ("densifi-cation"), and the construction of new or additional facilities.
In particular, if it is not physically pos-sible to utilize any of these listed techniques at any of the above reactors, please explain in detail precisely why such utilization is a physical impossibility.
Response
a.
The physical feasibility of expansion of the spent fuel capacity at the five subject reactor sites has been in-vestigated as follows:
1.
More efficient reracking of Cconee Unit 3 Spen: Fuel Pool.
This concept is feasible and was incorporated
.. in 1976 by increasing the spent fuel storage capacity from 216 to 474 assemblies.
The racks were modified to reduce the center to center assembly spacing from 21" to 14.09" (reference Duke letter to NRC, dated September 12, 1975).
2.
More efficient racking of the Oconee Units 1 and 2 Spent Fuel Pool.
This concept is feasible (reference Duke letters to NRC, dated October 13, 1979 and February 2, 1979).
3.
More efficient racking of the McGuire Unit 1 and Unit 2 Spent Fuel Pools.
This approach was deemed feasible in 1975 and the Unit 1 and 2 racks were modified to reduce the center to center assembly spacing from 21" to 15-1/2" (reference FSAR 59.1. 2. 3).
4.
An additional spent fuel storage pool adjacent to the Oconee Units 1 and 2 pool.
This concept is not feasible due to existing structures located on each side cf the pool (reference station layout F.rawings).
5.
An additional spent fuel storage pcol adjacent to the Oconee Unit 3 pool.
This concept is feasible.
- However, the space available for a new pool is limited due to existing structures on three sides.
Also support systems for the new pool would have to be independent of Unit 3 since those systems were sized for the existing pcol; therefore, the new fuel storage facility would be an independent spent fuel storage facility (reference station layout drawings).
,. 6.
Racks incorporating neutron absorbers.
This concept is physically feasible.
However, it was not employed in our Cconee Unit 3 pool's reracking in 1975 and 1976 due to perceived technical problems with the rack design at that time (reference NSIC, Oak Ridge National Labs, ACCESSION-138108, 138109).
This type of reracking could not be used at Ceonee 3 at this time due to the fact that it is essentially full of spent fuel and would not allow under-water divers rocm to operate in safety.
The neutron ab-sorbing racks were decided against in this latest proposed reracking of the Oconee 1 and 2 pcol due to scheduling problems.
Duke, in talking with rack manuf acturers, dis-covered that poison racks would require two to five months longer lead times.
Poison rack usage for the McGuire 1 pool has not been planned because transshipment is con-sidered the best means for handling the spent fuel until either reprocessing and/or government waste storage facilities are made available. McGuire Unit 2's racks have not yet been installed.
Additional storage capacity at this pcol is under consideration.
7.
Physical restructuring of the spent fuel assemblies.
This concept is physically feasible.
Duke has had three meet-ings with Nuclear Assurance Corporation (NAC) of Atlanta, Georgia concerning this item and has received one proposal for a two-year demonstration program.
It is Duke's belief,
,. though, that this concept is still in the beginning re-search and development stage and will require more work before it becomes a viable solution to spent fuel storage problems (reference NAC's Cctober 7, 1977 proposal).
8.
An Independent Spent Fuel Storage Facility.
This concept is feasible (reference Duke letter to NRC, dated February 2, 1979 and Duke's "1976 ISFSF Study").
The Applicant is not presently engaged in research which may affect the above response.
However, the possibility of further research is not precluded.
b.
Provided in "a" above.
c.
Documents referenced:
Drawings 0-1, 2,
3; Duke's "Cconee Unit 3 SFP Rerack Study."
d.
R.
W.
- Bostian, H. T.
Snead, S.
3.
Hagar - Duke Power.
e.
Duke is not engaged in any research which may affect this answer.
f.
See footnote to answer if.
Question:
- 11. Has Duke Power Company or its consultants investigated the economic issues relevant to the desirability of main-taining enough spaces at each reactor's fuel pool to accept the discharge of an entire core?
(Henceforth, having enough space to accept a full core will be called main-taining a " full core reserve," or simply "FCR".)
Response
a.
The capability to unload a full core into the spent fuel pool is desirable in order to provide for unexpected
.. problems in the reactor core system.
The system reliability is highly sensitive to the availability of this dis-charge space.
Should a problem occur or an inspection be ordered which required a core unloading when space was not available, the unit (or units) would remain out of service until storage was made available and the problem solved or inspection completed.
The loss of capacity would increase the production cost of the system significantly (about S165,000 per day for one Oconee unit) and reduce the reliability of the system.
Full core discharge capability was part of the design for Cconee and not having this capability would mean additional generation capacity would be necessary to maintain system reliability.
If a full core discharge were unavailable, all three units could be removed. from service.
At a replacement power cost of about S640,000 per day, for the three units, a six month outage to arrange storage space would cost our customers $115,700,000, b.
This answer is based upon documents produced by System Planning Department dated December, 1978, for the year 1931.
c.
No other documents have been used.
d.
D.
H.
Sterrett - Duke Powe r.
e.
These economic studies are the ongoing responsibility of System Planning.
f.
See footnote to answer if.
, Question:
- 12. For each of the five reactors of interest, under what cir-camstances would Duke Power Company operate them without having FCR?
Response
a.
Duke Power Company will continue to operate Oconee Nuclear Station and will operate McGuire Nuclear Station without having full core reserve at each station.
Currently there are no perceived circumstances which will dictate the need for limited operation and no studies have been performed on the matter relative to future operation of Cconee.
b.
See Answer to 10a above.
c.
No other documents have been used in the pregeration of this answer.
d.
R.
W.
- Bostian, H.
T.
Snead - Duke Power.
e.
Not applicable.
f.
See footnote to answer if.
Question:
- 13. What are the economic constraints on applying each of the physical possibilities for expansion of at-reactor storage at each of the five reactors?
Response
Economic constraints on applying each of the physical pcssi-bilities for expansion of at-reactor spent fuel storage at the five subject reactors is as follows:
1.
More ef ficient racking of the Oconee Unit 3 Spent Fuel Pool - 59,000 per additional spent fuel storage space (referer:ce Duke letter to NRC, dated 10-18-73).
,. 2.
More efficient racking of the Oconee Units 1 and 2 Spent Fuel Pool - S8,300 per additional location (reference Duke letter to NRC, dated 2-2-79 and Duke's " Cost Estimate for the Oconee 1-2 SFP Rerack").
3.
More efficient racking of the McGuire Unit 1 and Unit 2 Spent Fuel Pools.
These costs are not available as a separate item.
4.
An additional spent fuel storage pool adjacent to the Oconee Unit 3 pool.
Reference economic constraint pre-sented in No. 7 below.
5.
Racks incorporating neutron absorbers--due to the reasons outlined in Question 10 concerning this item, no formal study of these costs have been made.
At this time Duke has received only verbal cost estimates for poison racks under normal deliverylead times.
6.
Physical-restructuring of the spent fuel assemblies.
In the Cctober 7, 1977 proposal by NAC for a pin storage demonstration project, Duke would have been required to put up a capital investnent of $400,000 and would receive NAc assistance in developing a saf ety analysis report and receiving NRC approval, the equipment required would be delivered and testec, scme small number of asse=blies would be disassembled and the non-fuel bearing components shipped to a burial site (reference NAC's October 7, 1977 proposal).
7.
An Independent Spent Fuel Storage Facility - S34,500 (1978) per rack location (reference Duke letter to NRC, dated
, February 2, 1979 and Duke's "1976 ISFSF Study").
b.
See "a" above.
c.
No other documents have been used in the preparation of this answer.
d.
R. W.
- Bostian, H.
T.
- Snead, S.
3.
Hagar - Duke Power.
e.
Duke is not, at this time, engaged in any research which may affect this answer but continues to stay informed on this subject.
f.
See footnote to answer lf.
Question:
- 14. Do any of the constraints in Question 13 pose so great a problem that they would render the physical possibility for expansion concerned impossible to apply?
If so, please include a detailed analysis showing exactly why Duke Power Company believes this to be the case.
Response
The ecencmic constraints presented in the response to Inter-regatory 413 do not render the physical possibility for expan-sien impossible to apply.
Question:
- 15. What are the dates en which each of the five reactors runs out of FCR if for the sake of analysis it is assumed that they jointly store spent fuel at a common pcc1 made up of each of the five at-reactor pools?
f Response:
a.
The question as it now stands seems somewhat vague for the following reasons:
1.
There are only four spent fuel pools at Oconee and McGuire.
2.
Duke determines loss of FCR by site and from necessity not by specific pools since only a station FCR is planned for.
3.
The assumption of all four pools ccmprising one pool requires unlimited instantaneous transfers--this is not possible.
However, Duke will answer the following question which we be-lieve is the question you neant to ask.
Question:
What are the dates the Oconee and McGuire Nuclear Stations would run out of FCR discharge space in their respective spent fuel pools if Oconee is able to transfer fuel to McGuire only.
Answer: Oconee loses FCR 7/85 McGuire loses FCR 1/S5 b.
Based on present refueling schedule.
c.
No other documents were used in the preparation of these answers.
d.
R.
W.
Bostain, H.
T.
Snead - Duke Power.
e.
These calculations are updated periedically to take into effect reactor delays, new plans for spent fuel storage, and revised refueling schdules.
, f.
See footnote to answer lf.
Question:
- 16. What are the dates on which each of the five reactors runs out of FCR if for the sake of analysis it is assumed that each reactor stores spent fuel at its own spent fuel facility which is expanded from its present capacity to the maximum physically possible, as discussed in Question 10 above?
What are the analogous dates if all measures physically possible other than construction of new pools are taken?
Respcnse:
a.
For this case, preliminary calculations indicate that the following capacities could be achieved if neutron absorbing racks were to be installed at the various pools.
No in-creases for pin storage are included.
Oconee 1, 2 1,289 Oconee 3 783 McGuire 1 1,200 McGuire 2 1,200 Also, the loss of FCR will be calculated, by site, with the use of ISFSF's at both Cconee and McGuire, with a 1500 assembly capacity at each pool.
If Cconee and McGuire were reracked to the above capacities and either had or were without an ISFSF, FCR at the two sites would be lost as noted below:
Oconee (with ISFSF) 1998 (without ISFSF) - 1987 McGuire (with ISFSF)
- 2005-2010 (without ISFSF) - 1999
,. These dates assume no offsite shipments and no loss of FCR while attempting to rerack the pools or design, license; and construct an ISFSF.
b.
Based on present refueling schedule, S.
M.
Stoller study of maximum storage capabilities, a S&W report of rerack-ing Oconee Units 1 and 2 with poison racks, and a pre-liminary assessment of the McGuire pools capacities with poison racks.
c.
No other documents were used in the preparation of this answer.
d.
R.
W.
Bostian, H.
T.
Snead - Duke Power.
e.
There is no ongoing research which may affect this answer.
f.
See footnote to answer lf.
Cuestion:
- 17. What are the analogous dates for loss of FCR at each of the five reactors if at-reactor capacity is expanded to the maximum physically possible and economically feasible in Duke Power Company's view?
Please include a " menu" of measures which were assumed to have been taken for the make of analysis.
Res=onse:
a.
For this case, Duke considers the following capacities as the maximum economically feasible for the Oconee and McGuire pools:
Oconee 1, 2
750 Oconee 3 474 McGuire 1 750 McGuire 2 1200
. The McGuire 1 pool is considered to be reracked with higher density non-poison racks and the %;Guire 2 pool with poison racks.
No increase for pin storage are assumed.
- Also, there are assumed to be no offsite shipments and it is
' assumed that FCR is not lost during any reracking operations.
Duke does not consider ISFSF's to be economically feasible.
Based on the above assumptions, site FCR is lost as shown:
1982 Oconee 1995 McGuire b.
Based on present refueling schedule and preliminary assess-ment of the McGuire pools capacities with poison racks.
c.
No other documents were relied upon for this answer.
D.
R.
W.
- Bostian, H.
T.
Snead -- Duke Power.
e.
There is no ongoing research which may affect this answer.
f.
See footnote to answer if.
Question:
- 13. In the event the tactic explored in Question 15 above is assumed to cccur, what does Duke Power Ccmpany plan to do when the reactors run out of FCR?
When they run out of spent fuel capacity at all?
What would Duke Pcwer Company do in these instances if no public or pri/ ate off-site storage were available, other than the facilities at the five reactors?
Response
a.
Duke Power intends to ship spent nuclear fuel from our Oconee anf our McGuire facilities to our Catawba Nuclear
. Station.
In such case, Duke Power will not run out of spent fuel storage space as ample time is available for government or private industry to provide reprocessing and/or spent fuel storage and/or final disposal of spent fuel.
The last question calls for a highly speculative answer considering the current Duke plans will provide spent fuel storage well into the 1990's.
It is contemplated, however, that at that time Duke would build centralized independent spent fuel storage facilities to serve these five reactors.
However, it is unlikely that this will be required.
b.
Based on Spent Fuel Storage and Transfers Update, February 23, 1979.
c.
No other cocuments were used in the preparation of this answer.
d.
R.
W.
- Bostian, H.
T.
Snead - Duke Power.
e.
There is no ongoing research which may affect this answer.
f.
See footnote to answer lf.
Respectfully submitted,
'b
/
J. Michael McGarry, III Of counsel:
William L.
Porter, Esq.
Associate General Counsel Duke Power Company March 27, 1979
a yf.
t*
s 'b
'i 3
e
_o=
- y V,...
w.r..
- i. v,t.
- t.. m..
w.
.s
....e
- 4..
t -.y v..
....sa..r..
<.. u E
d 1
',.. *r.4
(*
.....;1. '.
4.._.
....m
.T.,.,.,,e.
..J (Q
s
.a s.a*,
.6
$e
.'r.....
1.
.'.r....
..;.i.....,.
7.?.'. *:...
s
~~.af,**.;.*.,
{ '_
... r s
V J '.,..:
t.
u
(
,s.,..,.
-..,..,.,s.
..3.
,s....;....
.,,m._.,
- V..
...4...
s.
f......,.
7
..... c - -
\\"**i.**.
. ".........,.m..
.t..
- .s..
e
.y r.
4 e..........
..., e..
_.. -..r
- ,.,.,,z..
p
....s
..... s
,,,.6.
e
$.2
,..J a..
rs
,.....?
.a
- =..
- ,4
,.A
-e e
g C
1 g
=
1.,eA
/
b a
^. e*
i
-e.'
e e' '
.!.. ' d f, 4.d_. '
[-
2 s
h.-
2I-
..g t
. g.. '.y
- e.,j 6..... '.. _.. ;y.... t._ e...(
a
=,
w
.t.,..
s A
-=
l.
- .., *.,/. /,,S.,9, tw w-,.
,.s
-6...
,j.
P.
- 1....
- w.'. ;.
T
- ...S
....6 g
y.
f
- 5..
S
'A.
3 r
ar
.Ar
>=
1 8.. *.v.,w........
g.,i,....
.r,,;......
- t..%,
e.
g s
r 3,
'~s
.d
- 4. '.
a.
...S co CL$M..e. b.
9;>
a he.ef.OCV.
. D. C.Co%n 4...
. $ $ _YM.. S n A
o
- w..
w.
the ori inal bv sec.arate cover.
9
~
LWITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
)
DUKE POWER COMPANY
)
)
Docket No. 70-2623
( Amendment to Materials
)
License SNM-1773 for Oconee
)
Nuclear Station Spent Fuel
)
Transportation and Storage
)
At McGuire Nuclear Station)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Applicant's Answer to Natural Resources Defense Council's (NRDC) In ter r og a tor ies to Applicant", dated March 27, 1979 in the above captioned matter, have been served upon the following by deposit in the United States mail this 27th day of March, 1979.
Marshall I. Miller, Esq.
Mr. Jesse L.
Riley Chairman, Atomic Safety and President Licensing Board Carolina Environmental S tudy U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Group Commission 854 Henley Place Washington, D.
C.
20555 Charlotte, North Carolina 28207 Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke Atomic Safety and Licensing Edward G. Ketchen, Esq.
Board Counsel for NRC Regulatory U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Staff Commission Office of the Executive Legal Washington, D.
C.
20555 Director U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Dr. Cadet H. Hand, Jr.
Commission Director Wash ington,
D.
C.
20555 Bodega Marine Laboratory of California William L. Porter, Esq.
Post Of fice Box 247 Associate Gener al Counsel Bodega Bay, California 94923 Duke Power Company Post Office Box 33189 Charlotte, North Carolina 28242
, Shelley Blum, Esq.
Richard P. Wilson 418 Law Building Assistant Attorney General 730 East Trade Street State of South Carolina Charlotte, North Carolina 2600 Bull Street 28202 Columbia, South Carolina 29201 Anthony Z.
Roisman, Esq.
Natural Resources Defense Chairman, Atomic Safety and Council Licensing Board Panel 917 15 th S treet, N.W.
U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.
C.
20005 Commission Washing ton, D.
C.
20555 Brenda Best Carolina Action Chairman, Atomic Safety and 1740 E.
Independence Blvd.
Licensing Appeal Board Charlotte, North Carolina U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory 28205 Commission Washington, D.
C.
20555 Chuck Gaddy Chairperson Davidson PIRG Mr. Chase R. Stephens P.O.
Box 2501 Docketing and Service Section Davidson College Of fice of the Secretary Davidson, North Carolina U. S. Nuclear Regulatory 28036 Commission Washington, D.
C.
20555 Mr. David R.
Belk Safe Energy Alliance 1707 Lombardy Circle Charlotte, North Carolina 28203 f
/
' B^QV
/hh. Michael McGarry, III'/
t