ML20137Z197

Forwards to Commission Results of Staff Evaluation of Performance of Licensees W/Ownership Structure Similar to Plant

ML20137Z197
Person / Time
Site:	Maine Yankee
Issue date:	04/14/1997
From:	Callan L NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
To:
References
SECY-97-082, SECY-97-082-R, SECY-97-82, SECY-97-82-R, NUDOCS 9704240025
Download: ML20137Z197 (13)

Text

.

i 4

g"% oo .....................

RELEASED TO THE PDR f'

~

g i *

t/As/@ D2o  :*

i , date g / initia:s

....................... 1 POLICY ISSUE (Information)

April 14,1997 SECY-97-082 FOR: The Commissioners FROM: L. Joseph Callan Executive Director for Operations

SUBJECT:

PERFORMANCE ISSUES RELATED TO OWNERSHIP STRUCTURE PURPOSE:

To forward to the Commission the results of the staff's evaluation of the 3erformance of licensees with an ownership structure similar to Maine Yankee.

10 Commission action is requested or required.

SACKGROUND:

The Independent Safety Assessment (ISA) of Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company issued in October 1996 examined a number of financial and economic issues relating to plant performance. The ISA report noted as deficiencies " weak identification and resolution of problems; weak scope, rigor, and evaluation of testing; and declining material condition." The report also named two closely related root causes: "(1) economic pressure to be a low-cost energy producer has limited available resources to address corrective actions and some plant improvement upgrades and (2) there is a lack of a questioning culture which has resulted in the failure to identify or aromptly correct

, significant problems in areas perceived by management to 3e of low safety significance. "

The Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company (MYAPCo), the licensee for the Maine /'

Yankee plant is both the owner and operator. MYAPCo in turn is owned by 10 t utilities in the New England region. The owners have exclusive rights to the -

power generated by Maine Yankee, and they are also required to provide for the />5/ P NOTE: To BE MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE IN 5 WORKING DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS PAEPR

{l (( f Dl/ 7)Il/QA/W t

Contact:

I. Dinitz. NRR 415-1289 l

- A Q

/ V [, b m m G o S W O & ll ll l Il!I I;l I I "90003 4,\c Y n I.ll . . -

i I

a. \

l

'The. Commissioner.s I operating costs, capital expenses, and decommissioning funds for the plant.

Unlike most other utilities. MYAPCo does not ratain earnings and does not set aside reserve funds for unplanned requirements, except for those required by law. The owner utilities are required to finance from their own operating budgets unexpected emergent expenses that exceed the amount left in a ,

$5 million fund established for emergent work.

In a staff requirements memorandum dated November 15, 1996, the Commission asked the staff to identify other licensees who have an ownership structure similar to Maine Yankee and to discuss the performance of those licensees, particularly how performance may be impacted by the financial arrangement.s that result from such ownership structures.

DISCUSSION:

In order to examine whether there was a correlation between ownership i structure and performance, the staff grouped operating reactor units into five groups according to differing ownership and operating arrangements. Various performance indicators were examined for possible correlations between i categories of ownership and aerformance to determine whether any conclusions could be drawn. A list of tie groups follows:

Grouc 1: Plants with multi)le owners of an operating company that owns and operates a single plant. T1e owners own all the stock of the operating company and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) regulates the plant and determines wholesale power rates.

Haddam Neck (no longer operating)  ;

Maine Yankee '

Vermont Yankee Grouc 2: Plants operated by operating companies that do not own the plants.

Arkansas Nuclear 1, 2 Seabrook Grand Gulf TMI 1 Farley 1. 2 Waterford 1 Hatch 1. 2 Wolf Creek Oyster Creek Vogtle River Bend

_ _ _ _ . ._ _ __ y 1

1 r

4 i

The Commissioners i i I .

! Group 3: Plants owned by more than one utility company and operated by.one of l

- the investor-owned utility owners.- l l Beaver Valley 1, 2 North Anna 1, 2

! Brunswick 1,2 2 Palo Verde 1, 2, 3

! Catawba 1. 2 Peach Bottom 2, 3 Clinton Perry 1 Crystal River 3 Quad Cities 1, 2

Davis-Besse Salem 1. 2 .

Duane Arnold San Onofre 2. 3 i Harris 1 South Texas 1, 2 '

f Hope Creek St. Lucie 2 Kewaunee Summer 1 Millstone 1, 2. 3. Susquehanna 1. 2-Nine Mile Point 2 Grouc 4: Plants owned and operated by a single investor-owned utility company. i Big Rock Point Monticello Braidwood 1. 2 Nine Mile Point 1 Byron 1, 2 Oconee 1. 2. 3 Callaway 1 Palisades Calvert Cliffs 1, 2 Pilgrim 1 Comanche Peak 1, 2 Point Beach 1, 2 Cook 1, 2 Prairie Island 1. 2 Diablo Canyon 1, 2 Robinson 2 Dresden 2. 3 St. Lucie 1 Fermi 2 Surry 1, 2 Ginna- Turkey Point.3, 4 Indian Point 2 Zion 1, 2 -

LaSalle 1. 2 Limerick 1, 2 McGuire 1. 2 .

t I

(

l 2

Catawba 2. although owned by two publicly owned utilities, is ope' rated by Duke.  !

' The Commissioners l Group 5: Plants owned and operated by governmental authorities.

Browns Ferry 2, 3 Indian Point 3 Cooper. Sequoyah 1, 2

-FitzPatrick WNP 2 Fort Calhoun 1 The measures selected for examination were intented to provide a general, macroscopic overview across these ownership groups that may be indicative of a correlation between ownership structure and performance Therefore, a variety of indicators was selected for this preliminary look. The first measures selected for evaluation were (1) long-term (five to seven cycles 3er unit)

SALPaveragesintheOperationsandMaintenancecategories,(2)penumberof '

times a unit appeared in Categories 2 and 3 on the " Watch List " and (3) the number of times a unit appeared on the " superior performer" list. The staff also examined long-term (540 days for operations or 180 days shutdown experience) trend deviations of the individual units from their nuclear steam supply system (NSSS) peer group taken from the Performance Indicator Report prepared by the Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data. The trend data consisted of scrams, safety system failures (SSFs), design construction installation fabrication problems (DCIFs), forced outage rate (FOR). and equipment forced outage rate per 1000 critical commercial hours (EOFOR/K). The above performance data are arranged by power plant unit and ownership group and are tabulated in Attachment 4.

In order to detect a correlation between the performance data and the 1 ownership group, the staff developed three charts to visually display the data. ,

l 2

Watch List Category 2 are those plants authorized to operate that the l NRC will monitor closely. Although these plants are being operated in a l manner that adequately protects public health and safety, they are having or  :

have had weaknesses that warrant increased NRC attention from both headquarters and the associated regional office. A plant will remain in this j category until the licensee either demonstrates a period of improved i performance or until a further deterioration of performance results in the l plant being placed in Category 3. ]

Watch List Category 3 are shut down plants requiring NRC authorization to start up and that the NRC will monitor closely. These plants are having or have had significant weaknesses that warrant maintaining the plant in a shutdown condition until the licensee can demonstrate to the NRC that adequate 1 programs have both been established and implemented to ensure substantial l improvement. The Commission must approve restart of a plant in a Category 3 j status.

I l

I

i . i l

t

The Commissioners i l l

\

l

Attachment 1. "SALP - Operations and Maintenance" displays the groups' average t

SALP rating in these areas. Attachment 2. " Watch and Superior Performer

Lists " displays the groups' average number of times on the lists, on a unit basis, for each of the five ownership groups. Overall, some correlations by

, ownership group are indicated. In general, the plants in Groups 1, 2, and 3

- iadicate the bast overall average performance when considering these measures.

' Group 4 units (single utility owned and operated) are ) laced on the superior '

performer list more often than the plants in Group 1 t1 rough 3. However, Group 4 plants have appeared on the average more often on the Watch List than  ;

, the plants in Groups 1 through 3. Group 5 units (government / municipal owned i and operated), indicated worse average group performance in all measures compared with the other groups.

l

To compare the performance by ownership group of performance indicator long-

. term trend deviation data, the staff averaged the individual unit's trends.  :

j These deviations are centered around zero: negative deviations reflect worse

+

performance (e.g. -0.2 for scrams represents a higher average frequency).

Attachment 3 is a bar chart by ownership group with the different trends I

,. illustrated in an attempt to detect performance correlation by group. Average

performance for a group would be represented by the bar chart centered around 1 zero. 'For a better performing group, the bars would be centered around a more i i positive number. Although the differences are not dramatic, the best performing group would appear to be Group 2, followed in order by Groups 3. 4. I i 5, and 1. Overall, there was a wide variability in these data, especially '

when examining Group 1 plants (three units). This is expected for Group 1, 3

considering that the individual parameter deviation data should tend toward a

smaller magnitude average deviation as the number of units in the sample increases. Group 1 plants are shown as experiencing more safety system i

failures during operation and more design / construction / installation / i

fabrication (DCIF) problems during operation than plants in other groups. The number of DCIF problems may be a misleading indicator since a plant going

through a' design basis reconstitution might show a peak in this area which I would not necessarily indicate poor performance and could be indicative of a >

proactive corrective action program. The Group 1 plants do better than other groups in the frequency of scrams during operation and in the equipment forced j

outage rate per thousand commercial critical hours (EOFOR/K).

Overall, the staff's examination of various performance measures, binned i

into various ownership categories. did not indicate that there was a readily apparent tie between an ownership structure such as that of MYAPCo (a Group 1 plant). with its attendant financial arrangements, and performance, as i measured by the existing NRC methods.

1 3

The criteria for consideration as a supr a performance changed j following the June 1994 Senior Management Meeting. Starting with the January j 1995 SMM, only plants with SALP reports issued during the prior 6 months.were I eligible for superior performer consideration. Under the previous criteria plants were considered at each SMM based on their last SALP scores.

l

.i 1

i The Commissioners >

1 .

The Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data is also working to

> ' develop a variety of potential financial performance indicators. We will keep the Commission informed of the results of this effort and our plans to. utilize financial performance indicators in future reactor oversight activities.

COORDINATION:

This paper has been coordinated with the Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational. Data, i

i l

L. seph Callan Exe utive Director for Operations Attachments:

1. Chart, SALP - Operations and Maintenance '

l Averages by Group l 2. Chart, Watch List and Superior Performance Lists l 3. Chart, Performance Indicator Group Average l Peer Group Deviations

4. Table of Performance Data for All Units by Ownership Group t

DISTRIBUTION:

Commissioners oGC i oCAA oIG oPA oCA ACRS EDo j REGIONS i SECY l

l l

)

i :i!,lr!  :! !!  !!i  !,  ! l!;!1(i[  :!!I5 !

M P

e ' . L S A P SO c . .

n P

L a -

A -

n S _

e t -

i n -

a -

5

~ - p Mre ~

~

u dt e t ~

. o r

4 nB a

G 1 t

n s p e si r .

3 i

h m

ne . h s

c a

i owo .

r e

t t

A t

aL r 2 n e w p O -

O- 1 P

L 3 5 2 5 i A 2 1

S .

g Em_  ! >C < o30mO ji

j l {l llli

~

.~ - -

t s _ 4 i

s .

L -

3 r

e ,

m r p 2

f ouo .

r r ,

eG -

~ . '-

Pp

_ ' .' - 2 t

ri n e

oh is r r e

pn e MLW h c

t t

A m

a y

uw r o

S Oy g dn B L e W t a

a C h

t c L

- a P

_ S W

5 3 s. 2 15 5 o

3 2 23 "8 3 g 3 &!#

l )1llll! l! , :f; jll:l l l l!{ll1I; < l

Performance Indicator Group Average Peer

• Group Deviations by Category 0.4 - i m0 .2 -

h -

! EQ FORIK j

• O,

~

j ~=

~

0 [ hJe IE FOR o -- g_ aa o

s g -

e -

$ -0.2 ---- g -

-l EE!!E

< s .

==m a

g -.

Ry g . .

SSF

@ 'NSSS Peer Groups from O -0.4 - - - - -

e "" "" i"di'*' '

senma I

-0.6 -- - -

c -

---+ -- N 1 2 3 4 5 Attachment 3 1

Performance Data for All Units by Group VWetete Ust Cat. swarter SALP Averages Number : Lases Teren Trend Deviatieses, Ptsetenaience kulicator Report Group DOCKET Mo. Power Plant VUL2 VUL3 pareenmar oyermosas armemam of SALPs Scrasses SSF OCF FOR EQ FORM Group 1: Plants operated by a holding company that owns the plant 1 50-213 Haddam Neck 1.20 1.80 5 0.45 -0.79 -0.33 -0.1 -0.18 1 50-309 Maine Yankee 1 1.00 1.50 6 -0.28 0 -0.69 -0.28 0.21 1 50-271 Vermont Yankee 1.40 1.40 5 0 45 -0.22 -0.56 0.58 0.51 Group 1 Total Times on List 1 0 0 3 Group 1 Average 1.20 1.57 0.21 -0.34 -O 53 0.07 0.18 Group 2. Plants operated by operating companies that do not own the plant 2 50-313 Arkansas 1 1.29 2.00 7 -0.85 0.26 0.26 0.02 -0.72 2 50-368 Arkansas 2 1.29 2.00 7 0 0 0.77 -0.03 -0.36 2 50-348 Farley 1 1.20 1.60 5 0 -0.22 0 -0.01 0.26 2 50-364 Farley 2 1.20 1.60 5 -0.28 0 0 -0.02 -0.18 2 50-416 Grand Gulf 1 3 1.00 1.20 5 -0.99 -0.9 0.26 0 -0.81 2 50-321 Hatch 1 1.40 1 60 5 -0.28 0.26 0.9 0.4 0 2 50-366 Hatch 2 1.40 ~a .60 5 0.45 0.78 0.9 -0.01 0 2 50-219 Oyster Creek 2.00 2.00 6 -0.28 0.52 0.64 0 0.26 2 50-458 River Bend 1 1.67 2.17 6 0.68 0.45 0 0.16 0.64 2 50-443 Seabrook 1 1.00 2.00 5 0 0.13 0 -0.01 -0.09 2 50-289 Three IWile is 1 1 1.33 1.33 6 0.45 0.52 0.77 0.52 0.51 .j 2 50-424 Vogtle 1 1.86 1.57 7 0 -0.17 -0.13 -0.01 - 0.39 2 50-425 Vogtle 2 1.80 1.60 5 0 0.13 0.26 0.53 0.64 2 50-382 Waterford 1.50 1.50 6 0 0.23 0 -0.13 -0.18 2 50-482 Wolf Creek 1.83 2.00 6 -0.28 -028 0 0.16 -0.09 Group 2 Total Times on List 0 0 4 15 Group 2 Average 1.50 1.72 -0.09 0.08 0.31 0.10 0.02 Group 3: Plants owned by muniple utilities and operated by one 3 50-334 Beaver Valley 1 1.33 1.67 6 0 0.26 -0.07 -0.1 0 3 50-428 Beaver Valley 2 1.33 1.67 6 0 0.39 0.26 0.51 0.39 3 50-325 Brunswick 1 4 1.71 2.14 7 -0 0 -0.03 0.15 -0.18 3 50-324 Brunswick 2 4 1.71 2.14 7 0.9 0.52 0.39 0.37 -0.18 3 50-413 Catawba 1 2.00 2.00 6 0.45 -0.06 0.26 0.3 -0.09 Attachment 4

Performance Data for All Units by Group Watch List Cat. sap reer SALP Averages Numiner Long Term Trend Deviations, Performance hosticator Report Group DOCKET NO. Power Plant WL2 WL3 pere ==er oyersonne --

- of SALPs Scrams SSF DCF FOR EQ FOftlK 3 414 Catawba 2 2.00 2.00 6 -0.57 -0.72 0.26 -0.1 -2.25 3 50-461 Clinton 1.67 1.67 6 0.22 0 0.51 -0.05 -0.45 3 50-302 Crystal River 3 1 1.83 2.00 6 0 -0.9 -0.92 -0.14 0 3 50-346 Davis-Besse 1 1.80 1.40 5 0.45 0.26 0.26 0.52 0.51 3 50-331 Duane Arnold 1.50 2.00 6 0.45 0.52 1.16 0.57 0.51 3 50-400 Harris 1 2 1.00 1.60 5 -0.57 0.13 -0.07 -0.05 -0.45 3 50-354 Hope Creek 1.20 1.80 5 0.68 -0.67 -0.13 0.01 0.64 3 50-305 Kewaunee 3 1.00 1.40 5 -0.85 0 1.03 0.07 0 3 50-245 Millstone 1 1 2 1.60 1.60 5 0.9 -0.45 -0.49 -0.03 07.i 3 50-336 Millstone 2 1 2 1.80 2.20 5 0.45 -0.56 -0.83 -0.11 E04 3 50-423 Millstone 3 1 2 2.00 1.60 5 0.45 -0.62 0 -0.27 0.39 3 50-410 Nine Mile Pt 2 5 2.00 2.29 7 0.68 0.52 -0.2 0.39 0.64 3 50-338 North Anna 1 1 1.00 1.60 5 0 0 0.26 0.24 0.26 3 50-339 North Anna 2 1 1.00 1.60 5 0 0.26 0 0.26 0.26 3 50-528 Palo Verde 1 2.00 2.00 7 -0.57 0.26 -0.07 -0.03 -0.18 3 50-529 Palo Verde 2 2.00 2.00 7 0 -0.23 -0.26 0.11 0 3 50-530 Palo Verde 3 2.00 2.00 7 0.45 -0.11 -0.2 0.12 0 3 50-277 Peach Bottom 2 2 3 1.71 1.86 7 0.9 0.78 -0.03 0.69 0.77 3 50-278 Peach Bottom 3 2 3 1.71 1.86 7 0 0.52 -0.03 0.08 -0.18 3 50-440 Perry 1 2.00 2.00 5 -0.71 0.78 -0.13 -0.04 -0.81 3 50-254 Quad Cities 1 2.33 2.33 6 0.45 -0.45 -0.03 -0.4 0 3 50-265 Quad Cities 2 2.33 2.33 6 0 -0.56 -0.16 -0.59 -0.9 3 50-272 Salem 1 2.40 2.20 5 -0.67 -0.56 -0.85 -0.93 -0.7 3 50-311 Salem 2 2.40 2.20 5 0.24 -0.05 -0.59 -1.39 -0.34 3 50-361 San Onofre 2 1.50 1.83 6 0.9 0.26 0.26 0.06 0.26 3 50-362 San Onofre 3 1.50 1.83 6 0.9 0.26 0.51 0 0.26 3 50-498 South Texas 1 3 1.83 1.67 6 -0.28 0.39 0.51 0.41 0.64 3 50-499 South Texas 2 3 1.83 1.67 6 -0.28 0.39 0.51 0.3 0.13 3 50-389 St. Lucie 2 5 1.20 1.40 5 -0 0.26 0.39 0.77 -0.21 3 50-395 Summer 1 6 1.20 1.00 5 0.45 0.39 0 0.6 0.64 3 50-387 Susquehanna 1 3 1.20 1.00 5 0.22 0.26 0.26 0.76 0.9 3 50-388 Susquehanna 2 3 1.20 1.00 5 0.22 0.26 0.26 0.03 0.64 i

Group 3 Total Times on List 27 12 25 37 Group 3 Average 1.67 1.80 0.16 0.05 0.05 0.08 0.03 Attachment 4

Performanca Data far All Units by Group Watch Ust Cat. superior SALP Averages Number Long Term Trend Deviations, Performance Indicator Report Group DOCKET NO. Power Plant WL2 WL3 perser-se operaeon. - - - _ _ ofSALPs scrams SSF DCF FOR EQ FOR/K Group 4: Plants owned and operated by a single utility 4 50-155 Big Rock Point 1.67 2.00 6 0 0.78 0.64 -0.03 -0.18 4 50-456 Braidwood 1 1.83 1.33 6 0 -0.17 0.26 -0.04 0.13 4 50-457 Braidwood 2 1.83 1.33 6 0.45 -0.28 0 0.33 0.39 4 50454 Byron 1 3 1.20 1.00 5 0 0.39 -0.07 0.09 0.39 4 50455 Byron 2 3 1.20 1.00 5 0.45 -0.17 0.51 0 0.39 4 50-483 Callaway 1 9 1.20 1.00 5 -0.28 0.39 0.77 0.16 -0.45 4 50-317 Calvert Cliffs 1 9 1.67 2.17 6 0.45 0 0.13 -0.04 -0.39 4 50-318 Calvert Cliffs 2 9 1.67 2.17 6 0 0.26 0.39 1.06 0.99 4 50-445 Comanche Pk 1 1.80 1.80 5 -0.85 -0.17 -0.07 -0.05 -0.63 4 50-446 Comanche Pk 2 1.67 1.67 3 -0.57 0.13 0.26 -0.05 -0.27 4 50-315 Cook 1 1.50 1.83 6 0 0.9 0.64 -0.02 0.9 4 50-316 Cook 2 1.50 1.83 6 -0.57 1.16 0.64 0.88 0.9 4 50-275 Diablo Canyon 1 7 1.33 1.67 6 -0.28 -0.51 -0.07 0.03 -0.09 4 50-323 Diablo Canyon 2 7 1.33 1.67 6 0 -0.39 -0.07 -0.01 0.13 4 50-237 Dresden 2 14 2.17 2.00 6 0.9 -1.05 -0.98 -0.82 -0.01 4 50-249 Dresden 3 14 2.17 2.00 6 -0.85 -1.01 -0.82 -0.88 -0.36 4 50-341 Fermi 2 5 2.33 2.33 6 -0.14 0 -0.07 -0.1 0.64 '

4 50-244 Ginna 1.80 1.60 5 0 0.52 0 -0.06 -0.54 4 50-247 Indian Point 2 1.33 1.67 6 -0.85 0.12 0.13 0.9 -0.27 4 50-373 LaSalle 1 1 1.40 2.17 5 -0.43 0 0 -0.1 -0.81 4 50-374 LaSalle 2 1 1.40 2.17 5 0.68 -0.22 -0.2 -0.04 -0.09 4 50-352 Limerick 1 1.00 1.33 6 -0.43 -0.22 0.26 -0.01 -0.45 4 50-353 Limerick 2 1,00 1.33 6 -0.43 -0.11 0.51 0.57 -0.27 4 50-369 McGuire 1 2.00 2.17 6 0 0.13 0.26 0.1 -0.63 4 50-370 McGuire 2 2.00 . 2.17 6 0 -0.06 -0.07 -0.14 -0.45 4 50-263 Monticello 2 1.17 1.17 6 0 0 0.39 0.37 0 4 50-220 Nine Mile Pt 1 5 2.00 2.33 7 0 1.04 -0.03 0.06 -0.72 4 50-269 Oconee 1 1.50 2.00 6 0 -0.11 -0.07 0 0 4 50-270 Oconee 2 1.50 2.00 6 0 0 0 -0.07 -0.72 t 4 50-287 Oconee 3 1.50 2.00 6 -0.28 -0.11 -0.07 -0.02 -0.54 4 50-255 Palisades 1 1 1.80 1.60 5 0.45 -0.23 -0.3 0.51 -0.03 ,

4 50-293 Pilgrim 1 3 1.67 2.00 6 0.45 -0.11 0.39 -0.02 0.26 t

Atta.b rc-rd 4

o .

Performance Data for All Units by Group Watch I.jst Cat. superior SALP Averages Numisor Long Term Trend Devinskms, Performance W Repat ,

Group DOCKET NO. Power PImnt WL2 WL3 parem ar operseene

- of SALPs Scrams SSF DCF FOR EQ FORNC 4 . 50-266 Point Beacii 1 1.67 1.67 6 0 0 0 0 0.26 4 50-301 Point Beach 2 1.67 1.67 6 -0.28 0 0.26 01 0.26 4 50-282 Prairie is 1 4 1.00 1.00 5 0 -0.11 -0.2 0.06 0.51 4 50-306 Prairie Is 2 4 1.00 1.00 5 -0.57 -0.11 -0.26 0 0 4 50-261 Robinson 2 1 83 2.17 6 0 0.26 0.51 0.12 0 4 50-335 St. Lucie 1 5 1.20 1.40 5 -0.28 -0.11 -0.03 -0.17 -1.29 4 50-280 Surry 1 3 1.67 2.33 6 0.45 0.26 0.26 0.24 0.26 4 50-281 Suny 2 3 1.67 2.33 6 -0.57 0 0 -0.07 -0.54 4 50-250 Turkey Point 3 5 1 1.40 1.80 5 0 -0.22 4.07 -0.02 -0.54 4 50-251 Turkey Point 4 5 1 1.40 1.80 5 0.45 0 0.51 0.07 0 4 50-295 Zion 1 5 2.33 2.33 6 0 0.12 0.39 0.17 0.39 4 50-304 Zion 2 5 2.33 2.33 6 1.35 -0.17 -0.03 1.41 0.9 Group 4 Total Tirnes on List 85 4 46 i 44 Group 4 Average 1.60 1.78 -0.04 0.02 0.11 0.10 -0.06 l Group 5: Plants owned and operated by governmental authorities 5 50-260 Browns Ferry 2 2 7 1.25 2.25 4 -0.28 0 0.64 0.38 0.51 5 50-296 Browns Ferry 3 7 17 0 -0.9 -0.13 0.71 0.05 -0.7 5 50-298 Cooper 1.60 2.20 5 0.9 -0.22 -0.23 -0.00 0.77 5 50-333 FitzPatnck 4 2.00 2.17 6 0 -0.11 0.13 -0.07 0.51 5 50-285 Fort Calhoun 1 2 2.00 2.00 6 0 0.26 0.13 0.39 0.21 5 50-206 Indian Poirt 3 8 2.20 2.00 5 1.35 -0.08 -0.1 -0.9 -0.47 5 50-327 Sequoyah 1 1 4 2.14 2.14 7 -0.57 0.39 -0.07 -0.04 -0.81 ,

5 50-328 Sequoyah 2 1 3 2.14 2.14 7 -0.28 0.39 -0.07 -0.04 -0.63 i 5 50-397 WNP2 2.29 2.00 7 -0.43 0.26 -0.07 0.2 0.13 Group 5 Total Tirnes on List 25 31 0 9 Group 5 Average 1.95 2.11 -0.02 ~ 0.08 0.12 -0.01 -0.05 Attim innent 4

. _ . _ . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ ._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . .____ _ ___ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _. . _ . _ _ _