ML20059A762
| ML20059A762 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | River Bend  |
| Issue date: | 12/16/1993 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20059A753 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9401030114 | |
| Download: ML20059A762 (11) | |
Text
,
I s/A M Cp k
UNITED STATES
-3 T.
.j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l'
WASHINGTON, D.C. 2055M)001
%..... f SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 70 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-47 GULF STATES UTILITIES CAJUN ELECTRIC POWER COOPERATIVE RIVER BEND STATION. UNIT 1 DOCKET NO. 50-458
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated January 13, 1993, as supplemented by letter dated June 29, 1993, Gulf States Utilities (GSU) requested an amendment to Facility Operating License No. NPF-47 for River Bend Station, Unit 1 (River Bend). The proposed amendment involves a change in the River Bend managing agent from Gulf States Utilities to Entergy Operations, Inc. (E01), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Entergy Corporation (Entergy). The ownership of GSU will also be transferred to Entergy resulting in GSU becoming a wholly-owned subsidiary of Entergy. A separate license amendment has been proposed to accomplish the ownership transfer.
2.0 DISCUSSION River Bend is a nuclear powered electric generating facility which'is being-operated on behalf of the owners, GSU and Cajun Electric Power Cooperative 'Inc.
(Cajun), pursuant to a Joint Ownership Participation and Operating Agreement (J0POA), submitted to the NRC by letter dated October 26, 1979.
In accordance with the J0P0A, GSU, an electric utility, has acted as the managing agent for the co-owners, with responsibility for management, operation, and maintenance of River Bend.
This position has been recognized in the operating license.
In June 1992, GSU and Entergy entered into an agreement providing for the combination of the businesses of their companies.
In accordance with the merger plan, GSU, following the merger, will continue to operate as an electric utility, but as a subsidiary of a new holding company to be named Entergy Corporation with its electric operations fully integrated with those of the Entergy System. Upon consummation of the proposed business combination and subject to the receipt of all necessary approvals, EDI, on behalf of the owners, could assume operational and managerial responsibility for River Bend.
Consummation of the proposed merger between GSU and Entergy would occur prior to and would be a condition precedent to the effectiveness of the amendment to the River Bend operating license as proposed.
9401030114 931216 PDR ADOCK 05000458 P
.. E01's agency responsibilities and the limitations on E01's agency authority with respect to the operation and maintenance of River Bend will be set forth in an operating agreement between E01 and GSU substantially identical to the existing operating agreements between E01 and the owners of the Entergy System's nuclear facilities.
E01 would assume operational and managerial responsibility for River Bend as agent for GSU and would be solely responsible for the safe operation of River Bend. The operating agreement will be subject to the rights of GSU and Cajun under the J0P0A.
Upon consummation of these arrangements and subject to the Reorganization Agreement, substantially all employees of GSU who are presently dedicated to the operation of River Bend (approximately 890 persons) will be transferred to and become employees of E01. The E01-GSU operating agreement will not affect the ownership of River Bend, E01's services thereunder will be provided at cost, and GSU will retain control over E0I's spending and contracting authority and, pursuant to the J0P0A, continue to provide its allocable share of the funds required for the operation, maintenance and decommissioning of River Bend.
In addition, E01 and GSU propose to enter into a related Support Agreement and a Switchyard and Transmission Interface Agreement. Under these agreements, GSU will provide to E0I (I) necessary personnel, supplies and services to support the operation of River Bend and (2) access to and necessary control over the switchyard facilities at River Bend and necessary personnel, supplies, and services pertaining to the operation and maintenance of the associated transmission equipment.
E01 and GSU contemplate that this transition will be initially accomplished by transferring to E01 the existing GSU nuclear personnel with virtually no organizational changes or disruption.
In the near term, there will be no organizational or physical location changes to the existing dedicated organization, which includes the engineering, maintenance, quality assurance, and licensing organizations supporting River Bend, as a result of the transfer of operating authority to E01. This will achieve continuity in the management of River Bend by allowing E0I to initially assume the role of operator with the same staff that the NRC has previously evaluated and approved in connection with the techr.ical qualifications of GSU. The longer term consolidation of the GSU nuclear organization into E01 will be an evolutionary process.
E01 has committed to keep the NRC informed of organizational changes, as appropriate.
3.0 EVALUATION The staff, in making its evaluation, has applied the criteria and review areas required by 10 CFR 50.80 " Transfer of Licenses" as appropriate.
The review of i
the transfer of operation of the facility from GSU to E01 was simplified by the fact that the GSU personnel currently acting in all areas as nuclear operations personnel will transfer to E0I.
1
}
i
)
1 Manacement and Technical Oualifications In its application dated January 13, 1993, GSU stated that a change in the River Bend managing agent will not result in changes to the station's technical support organization. GSU has stated that the present River Bend organization, i
the Oversight organization, the Business Systems organization, and the Engineering and Administration organization will be transferred essentially intact from GSU to E01, subject to the terms of the Reorganization Agreement.
The technical qualifications of the proposed River Bend organization, therefore, will be at least equivalent to those of the existing organization.
The only change in the proposed River Bend organization is that the senior nuclear executive will report directly to the President and Chief Executive Officer of E01.
E01, as an operating company for multiple reactors, has a j
large repository of system nuclear operating expertise and experience, j
Consolidation of this talent will permit application of expertise in certain specialized areas at River Bend.
Integration of River Bend into the E0I j
organization will also allow more effective communication and use of E01 nuclear operating experience.
E01, with its expanded responsibilities, will also provide a broader base for management candidates experienced in nuclear generation and will provide greater opportunity to attract and retain highly qualified employees.
Acceptance of this change in managing agent is based on the proposed managing agent, EDI, being technically qualified to operate the plant and having the necessary managerial and technical resources to provide assistance to the plant staff during normal and off-normal conditions, and in the event of an emergency.
Based on its review of information given in the amendment request the staff has determined that:
(1) The corporate and plant organizational structure and functions for operation and technical support of River Bend Station are acceptable.
(2) The organizational structure described in the amendment request provides for the integrated management of activities that support the operations of
)
River Bend.
l (3) The management controls, lines of authority, and channels of communication i
between the organizational units involved in the management, operation, and technical support for River Bend are acceptable.
These findings support the staff's determination that the proposed managing agent, E01, will have the necessary managerial and technical resources to provide assistance to River Bend staff during normal and off-normal conditions, including an emergency, as specified in Section 13.1.1 of NUREG-0800, " Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants" 1
i
I (SRP). Moreover, since all GSU nuclear employees will become E01 employees, the staff concludes that the operating organization is acceptable as specified in SRP Section 13.1.2 - 13.1.3.
Financial Considerations E0I is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Entergy, Inc. (Entergy).
E01 is responsible for operating Entergy's nuclear plants that it owns through three utility subsidiaries: Arkansas Power and Light Company, Louisiana Power and Light Company, and Mississippi Power and Light Company. Because E01 operates plants for these su5sidiaries, but neither owns nor uses power from these plants, E01 has no substantial assets of its own.
E01 receives payment for operating the Ent2rgy nuclear plants through agreements with Entergy's utility subsidiaries. These agreements obligate the utility subsidiaries to pay the operating and capital costs associated with the nuclear plants. A similar arrangement would be instituted between E01 and GSU when Entergy and GSU t
complete their merger.
r Because of the E01/GSU operating agreement, the financial qualifications of E01 are dependent on GSU's and Cajun's continued ability to pay operating expenses for River Bend as they are currently doing. As such, there are no financial considerations from the proposed transfer of operating responsibility for River Bend beyond those that would pertain to GSU had it kept such operating responsibility.
Antitrust Considerations E01 will not acquire any ownership interest in River Bend or the energy provided by River Bend.
In addition, the licensee has proposed in its June 29, 1993, letter a license condition stating that E01 will not be involved in the marketing or brokering of power or energy from River Bend. Therefore, this amendment raises no issue with respect to antitrust considerations.
Restricted Data The application for amendment does not contain any restricted data or other defense information, and GSU does not expect that any such information will become involved in the licensed activities. However, GSU has committed and E0I i
agrees that, should such information become involved, it will safeguard any such information and limit access to it until the Office of Personnel i
Management can investigate, report to the NRC, and NRC approve or disapprove access of individuals to restricted data.
The staff finds this to be acceptable and in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.37.
Offsite Power In its application for amendment, GSU has stated there will be no changt in the arrangements to provide offsite power to the plant as a result of the change in -
operational control requested by the application.
GSU has committed to providing offsite power for River Bend.
Procedures and Lgreements will provide
)
7 l;.-
l for the continuation of current arrangements for the operation'and maintenance of the switchyard for River Bend and associated transmission facilities.
The agreements will also specify that GSU will coordinate with E01 all activities which will directly affact power supply to River Bend. The staff finds this to be acceptable.
4 Other Areas Upon assumption of operating responsibility, E0I will assume ultimate responsibility in the areas of training, engineering support, quality assurance, and security (including the exclusion areas).
E01 will assume authority for functions necessary to fulfill the emergency planning requirements and GSU will continue to fulfill selective emergency planning functions. The required support will be assured by a support agreement that i
will be entered into between GSU and E01 under which GSU will provide j
personnel, supplies, and services to E01 necessary to support the River Bend J
GSU has stated that E01 will manage, operate, and maintain
-I l
River Bend in these areas in accordance with the conditions'and requirements established by the NRC with respect to River Bend and with the same regard for public and personnel safety as heretofore exemplified by GSU.
GSU has stated that, except for administrative changes to reflect the role of E01, the commitments in the River Bend quality assurance program, the River Bend emergency plan, security plan, and training program will be unaffected, and that this license amendment will not change any of the licensee's regulatory commitments to the NRC. The staff finds this to be acceptable.
License Conditions i
(a). Administrative Changes Throughout the license, license conditions and other statements are proposed to be modified to reflect E01 as a new licensee and the l
operator / managing agent for all licensees. These administrative l
changes, necessary to effect the transfer of operating authority, are acceptable.
(b) Marketing of Energy A new license condition (2.C.(3)(b)) relating to the marketing and brokering of energy will be included in the license. This condition l
results from a commitment from GSU that E01 would not participate in i
the marketing or brokering of energy. Such a commitment was provided I
by a letter dated June 29, 1993. The new license condition states:
l E01 shall not market or broker power or energy from River Bend Station, Unit 1.
GSU is responsible and accountable for the actions of its agent, E01, to the extent said agent's l
actions affect the marketing or brokering of power or energy from River Bend Station, Unit I
I.
l l
l l
.- and, in any way, contravene the antitrust conditions of this paragraph or Appendix C of this license.
Hearina Contentions l
On July 7, 1993, the NRC noticed GSU's request for this amendment in the Federal Reaister (58 FR 36436) and offered an opportunity for interested persons to file petitions to intervene and requests for a hearing. On August 6, 1993, Cajun filed a petition to intervene and request for a hearing.
Cajun supplemented its petition on August 17, 1993. On August 31, 1993, in response to an August 26, 1993 notice in the Federal Reaister that an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) had been established for this proposed amendment, Cajun filed seven contentions, which are addressed b6 0w.
A prehearing conference was held on September 15, 1993, to hear argument.s on the petition to intervene and responsive pleadings.
By a filing before the Licensing Board on October 13, 1993, the staff addressed i
the contentions regarding their admissibility for a hearing. Cajun's contentions and the staff's consideration of their applicability to safety are presented below:
C-1 "The proposed amendments fail to reflect the public interest and interests of co-owners, wholesale customers and customers that may be affected by the outcome of the Cajun and Texas litigation."
Cajun failed to state in its basis what it perceives to be the relationship between the proposed amendment and the litigation that it says may bankrupt GSU. While it states that there may be an
" adverse financial impact" from the proposed merger and the litigation, it does not indicate how this alleged impact relates to the safe operation of River Bend.
Based on the information provided by Cajun, it appears that the effect of the outcome of the cited litigation would be the same without regard to who owns GSU and who operates River Bend.
C-2 "The proposed amendments may result in a significant reduction in the margin of safety at River Bend."
Cajun's discussion in support of this contention does not address the margin of safety, but instead discusses funding and the possibility that River Bend might have to shut down because of the unavailability of funds to operate the plant. Cajun's arguments notwithstanding, established safety margins are contained in the plant technical specifications through the limiting conditions for operation, limiting safety system settings, and safety limits. There will be no change to the technical specifications for River Bend as a result of granting the amendment nor will there be any change to the physical design of the plant. Cajun itself has stated that E01's operation of the plant will enhance safety.
i
.- l l
l C-3 "The proposed license amendment cannot be approved without Cajun's i
consent."
l This particular contention is not one involving safety'but one involving the contractual relationship between GSU and Cajun.
Thus, it is not a concern that the NRC staff needs to address in evaluating the effect of the proposed amendment on'public health and
- safety, i
C-4 "The proposed license amendments will adversely affect Cajun's rights regarding the operation of River Bend."
With this contention, Cajun listed six " additional detrimental impacts".
They are: (1) lack of privity with the operator; (2) right of access to audits and key reporting data; (3) approval of budgets, l
capital projects, and major undertakings; (4) scheduling of power; (5) administrative, general, and other costs; and (6) the assertion that the proposed arrangement limits liability to actions that constitute gross negligence or willful misconduct. The rights that Cajun alleges will be adversely affected by E0I operation are a combination of economic and contractual issues not related to any health and safety issues.
Thus, the staff need not consider these concerns in evaluating the effect of the proposed amendment on public health and safety.
C-5 "The proposed license amendments cannot be approved without certain license conditions."
Cajun offers no argument to show that granting any of its proposed license conditions will affect the safe operation of the plant.
i Rather the proposed license conditions appear to address economic and contractual concerns of Cajun.
C-6 "The proposed ownership amendment should be approved only with conditions adequate to remedy its adverse impact on the Cajun /GSU Interconnection Agreement."
l 1
The contention is directed toward the transfer of ownership of GSU rather than the change in the operating company for River Bend, which is the subject of this amendment.
C-7 "The River Bend license conditions must be enforced."
Cajun specifically identifies License Condition 2.C.(3), Appendix C, i
Condition 10, which requires GSU to transmit power over its system on behalf of utilities engaging in bulk power supply in GSU's service area, and Condition 12, addressing GSU's obligation to sell power for resale. This contention does not seem to be related to the proposed amendment, but rather requests enforcement of two existing antitrust 1
.- license conditions. An allegation of nonconformance with license conditions is properly raised in a petition pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206.
In summary, the contentions do not address the safe operation of the plant or public health and safety. Thus, there is no need for the staff to discuss Cajun's concerns as set forth in its contentions in the staff's review of the application.
4.0 FINAL NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION
GSU's request for this amendment to the operating license for the River Bend, including a proposed determination by the staff of no significant hazards consideration, was noticed in the Federal Reaister on July 7, 1993 I
(58 FR 36435).
Section 50.92(c) of 10 CFR includes three standards u n d by the NRC staff to arrive at a determination that a request for amendment involves no significant hazards considerations.
If operation of a facility in accordance i
with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety, then the standards for a finding of no significant hazards have been met.
GSU addressed the above three standards in the amendment application and i
determined that the proposed changes do not involve a significant hazards j
consideration.
In regard to the three standards, GSU provided the following analysis.
(1) Operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
As a result of the proposed license amendment, there will be no physical change to the River Bend facility, and all Limiting Conditions for Operation, Limiting Safety System Settings, and Safety Limits specified in the Technical Specifications will remain unchanged. Also, the River Bend Quality Assurance Program, Emergency Plan, Security Plan, and Operator Training and Requalification Program will be unaffected.
i (2) The proposed amendment will not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
The proposed amendment will have no effect on the physical configuration of River Bend or the manner in which it will operate.
The plant design and design basis will remain the same. The current plant safety analyses will therefore remain complete and accurate in addressing the design basis events and in analyzing plant response and consequences. The Limiting Conditions for Operation, Limiting Safety System Settings, and Safety Limits specified in the Technical i
i i
4
.- Specifications for River Bend are not affected by the proposed license amendment. As such, the plant conditions for which the design basis accident analyses have been performed will remain valid.
Therefore, the proposed license amendment cannot create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
(3) The proposed amendment will not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Plant safety margins are established through Limiting Conditions for i
Operation, Limiting Safety System Settings, and Safety Limits specified in the Technical Specifications.
Since there will be no change to the physical design or operation of the plant, there will be no change to any of these margins.
Thus, the proposed license amendment will not involve a significant reduction in any margin of safety.
Comments As stated above, by letter dated August 6, 1993, as supplemented by letters dated August 17, 1993, and August 31, 1993, Cajun filed comments, a petition to intervene, and a request for a hearing and contentions in response to the July 7, 1993, notices of consideration and proposed no significant hazards determinations.
Four comments on the proposed no significant hazards consideration determinaticn were submitted in the August 6, 1393,~1etter and the August 17, 1993 letter.
In response to an August 26, 1993, notice in the Federal Reaister that an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) had been established for this proposed amendment, Cajun submitted the August 31, 1993, letter, which contained the seven contentions addressed above.
To date, the ASLB has not ruled on whether Cajun has standing or whether any of the contentions are admissible.
The comments and the staff's evaluation of them regarding applicability to safety and this amendment are presented below:
Comment 1 Cajun raised questions concerning GSU's ability to fund E01's operation of River Bend, the possibility of GSU's having to declare bankruptcy if a ruling adverse to GSU occurs in pending litigation between GSU and Cajun and the effect of a GSU bankruptucy on GSU's ability to fund River Bend's operation, and the possibility that River Bend may have to be shut down due to insufficient operating funds.
Based on these concerns, Cajun stated that the criteria for a finding of no significant hazards determination have not been met.
These issues are addressed in the responses to Contentions 1 and 2 above.
.~
i
' Comment 2 The proposed amendment transferring operational responsibility to E01 cannot be approved without Cajun's consent.
This comment is addressed in the response to Contention 3 above.
Comment 3 The proposed amendment transferring operational authority to EDI will adversely-affect Cajun's rights regarding the operation of River Bend.
l This comment is addressed in the response to Contention 4 above.
Comment 4 The antitrust license conditions contained in 2.C.(3), Appendix C, Conditions 10 and 12 of the River Bend license must be enforced.
1 This comment is addressed in the response to Contention 7.
l The NRC has considered Cajun's comments and has concluded that there is nothing 2
in them that would cause the staff to change the proposed no significant hazards consideration determination.
Having considered Cajun's comments, the staff continues to agree with Gulf States Utilities' analysis regarding the no significant hazards consideration determination, and therefore has made a final determination that the proposed amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration.
5.0 STATE CONSULTATION
In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Louisiana State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment. The State official had i
no comments.
6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.21. 51.32, and 51.35, an environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact was published in the Federal Reaister on i
October 29, 1993 (58 FR 58201). Accordingly, based upon the environmental assessment, the Commission has determined that issuance of this amendment will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment.
5
.e I
l
. J i
i
7.0 CONCLUSION
8 The Comission has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, i
that:
(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, (2) such i
activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendment will not be-inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor: Edward T. Baker, PDIV-2/NRR Date: December 16, 1993 h
b i
I l
.~
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
)
GULF STATES UTILITIES
)
Docket No. 50-458 ENTERGY CORPORATION
)
(License No. NPF-47)
ENTERGY OPERATIONS, INC.
l (River Bend Station, Unit 1)
)
\\
I ORDER APPROVING TRANSFERS l'
AND NOTICE OF ISSUANCE l
_OF LICENSE AMENDMENTS I.
On November 20, 1985, pursuant to 10 CFR Part 50, License No. NPF-47 was
{
issued, under which Gulf States Utilities Company (GSU) is authorized to operate and hold a 70 percent ownership share in River Bend Station, Unit I (River Bend), which is located in West Feliciana Parish, Louisiana.
l l
II.
In June 1992, GSU and Entergy Corporation (Entergy) entered into an agreement providing for the combination of the businesses of their companies.
In accordance with the merger plan, GSU, following the merger, will continue i
to operate as an electric utility, but as a subsidiary of a new holding company to be named Entergy Corporation, with its electric operations fully integrated with those of the Entergy System. Upon consumation of the proposed business combination and subject to the receipt of the necessary approvals, Entergy Operations Inc. (EDI), on behalf of the owners, will assume l
operations and managerial responsibility for River Bend.
\\
\\
Q };
h(,(d 13 O N
l s
l t
1 i
l !
III.
To implement the business combination, G5U applied to the U.S. Nuclear-i Regulatory Commission (NRC) for two license amendments to license NPF-47,- by i
two letters dated January 13, 1993, as supplemented by later filings. Under i
these requested license amendments, the license would reflect the transfer of -
ownership of GSU to become a wholly-owned subsidiary of Entergy as a result of a merger between GSU and Entergy, and control over the operation of River Bend would be transferred from GSU to E01, another wholly-owned subsidiary of Entergy. Notice of these applications for transfer and proposed no significant hazards consideration determinations were published in the Federal Reaister on July 7, 1993 (58 FR 36435 and 58 FR 36436).
P IV.
l The transfer of rights under license NPF-47 is subject to the NRC's approval under 10 CFR i 50.80. Based on information provided by GSU and Entergy, and other information before the Commission, it is determined that the proposed transfer of the control of operations of River Bend from GSU.to i
EDI, and the proposed transfer of ownership of GSU to Entergy, subject to the
]
conditions set forth herein, are in the public interest and are consistent with the applicable provisions of law, regulations and orders issued by the Commission. These actions were evaluated by the staff as documented in Safety Evaluations, dated December 16, 1993, which contain final no significant hazards consideration determinations. The conditions of the transfer, to-which GSU has not objected,~ are:
)
~
f
- ' 2.C.(3)
Antitrust Conditions a.
GSU shall comply with the antitrust license conditions set forth in Appendix C, attached hereto and incorporated in this license.
b.
EDI shall not market or broker power or energy from River Bend Station, Unit 1.
GSU is responsible and accountable for the actions of its agent, EDI, to the extent said agent's actions affect the marketing or brokering of power or energy from River Bend Station, Unit I and, in any way, contravene the antitrust conditions of this paragraph or Appendix C of this license.
2.C.(16)
Mercer Related Reoorts GSU shall inform the Director, NRR:
Sixty days prior to a transfer (excluding grants of a.
security interests or liens) from GSU to Entergy or any other entity of facilities for the production, transmission or distribution of electric energy having a depreciated book value exceeding one percent (1%) of GSU's consolidated net utility plant, as recorded on GSU's books of account.
7-e
.~
b.
Of an award of damages in litigation initiated agains+
GSU by Cajun Electric Power Cooperative regarding River Bend within 30 days of the award.
Y.
Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 103,105,161b,1611, and 187 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2201 et seq. and 10 CFR Part 50, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the transfers to Entergy Corporation and Entergy Operations Inc., discussed above, are approved, and NOTICE IS GIVEN that license amendments providing for the transfer of control of operation of River Bend to E01, subject to the license conditions set out and herein, and the transfer of ownership of GSU to Entergy are issued, and both amendments i
being subject to the further conditions that should both of these transfers not be completed by June 14,1994 this order will be null and void, except that for good cause shown, the date upon which the transfers are to be completed may be extended for a short period beyond June 14, 1994 FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1
a:- $ k Thomas E. Murley, Director
-i Office of Nuclear Reactor _ Regulation Dated at Rock +
- , Maryland i
this 16th day er December 1993 1
i I
l
-