ML071090024: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
Line 18: Line 18:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:May 8, 2007Mr. Dennis R. MadisonVice President - Hatch Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant 11028 Hatch Parkway North Baxley, GA 31513
{{#Wiki_filter:May 8, 2007 Mr. Dennis R. Madison Vice President - Hatch Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant 11028 Hatch Parkway North Baxley, GA 31513


==SUBJECT:==
==SUBJECT:==
EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 (HNP) - REQUESTFOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (RAI) REGARDING GENERIC LETTER 2006-03, "POTENTIALLY NONCONFORMING HEMYC AND MT FIRE BARRIER CONFIGURATIONS" (TAC NOS. MD1586 AND MD1587)
EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 (HNP) - REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (RAI) REGARDING GENERIC LETTER 2006-03, POTENTIALLY NONCONFORMING HEMYC AND MT FIRE BARRIER CONFIGURATIONS (TAC NOS. MD1586 AND MD1587)


==Dear Mr. Madison:==
==Dear Mr. Madison:==


The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff is reviewing your responses, dated June 9,and November 28, 2006, to Generic Letter 2006-03, "Potentially Nonconforming Hemyc and MT Fire Barrier Configurations," as they may apply to the HNP and find that additional information is needed as stated in the enclosure.If you have any questions regarding this response, please contact me at 301-415-1493.Sincerely,/RA/Robert E. Martin, Sr. Project ManagerPlant Licensing Branch II-1 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor RegulationDocket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff is reviewing your responses, dated June 9, and November 28, 2006, to Generic Letter 2006-03, Potentially Nonconforming Hemyc and MT Fire Barrier Configurations, as they may apply to the HNP and find that additional information is needed as stated in the enclosure.
If you have any questions regarding this response, please contact me at 301-415-1493.
Sincerely,
                                                    /RA/
Robert E. Martin, Sr. Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch II-1 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366


==Enclosure:==
==Enclosure:==
RAI cc w/encl: See next page May 8, 2007Mr. Dennis R. MadisonVice President - Hatch Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant 11028 Hatch Parkway North Baxley, GA 31513
RAI cc w/encl: See next page
 
May 8, 2007 Mr. Dennis R. Madison Vice President - Hatch Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant 11028 Hatch Parkway North Baxley, GA 31513


==SUBJECT:==
==SUBJECT:==
EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 (HNP) - REQUESTFOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING GENERIC LETTER 2006-03, "POTENTIALLY NONCONFORMING HEMYC AND MT FIRE BARRIER CONFIGURATIONS" (TAC NOS. MD1586, MD1587)
EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 (HNP) - REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING GENERIC LETTER 2006-03, POTENTIALLY NONCONFORMING HEMYC AND MT FIRE BARRIER CONFIGURATIONS (TAC NOS. MD1586, MD1587)


==Dear Mr. Madison:==
==Dear Mr. Madison:==


The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff is reviewing your responses, dated June 9,and November 28, 2006, to Generic Letter 2006-03, "Potentially Nonconforming Hemyc and MT Fire Barrier Configurations," as they may apply to the HNP and find that additional information is needed as stated in the enclosure.If you have any questions regarding this response, please contact me at 301-415-1493.Sincerely,/RA/Robert E. Martin, Sr. Project ManagerPlant Licensing Branch II-1 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor RegulationDocket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff is reviewing your responses, dated June 9, and November 28, 2006, to Generic Letter 2006-03, Potentially Nonconforming Hemyc and MT Fire Barrier Configurations, as they may apply to the HNP and find that additional information is needed as stated in the enclosure.
If you have any questions regarding this response, please contact me at 301-415-1493.
Sincerely,
                                                            /RA/
Robert E. Martin, Sr. Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch II-1 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366


==Enclosure:==
==Enclosure:==
RAI cc w/encl: See next pageDISTRIBUTION:
RAI cc w/encl: See next page DISTRIBUTION:
PublicRidsAcrsAcnwMailCenter LPL2-1 R/FRidsNrrDraAfpb (DFrumpkin)
Public                                      RidsAcrsAcnwMailCenter LPL2-1 R/F                                  RidsNrrDraAfpb (DFrumpkin)
RidsNrrDorlL2-1 (EMarinos)RidsRgn2MailCenter(SShaeffer)
RidsNrrDorlL2-1 (EMarinos)                   RidsRgn2MailCenter(SShaeffer)
RidsNrrDorlDprRidsNrrPMRMartin (hard copy)
RidsNrrDorlDpr                              RidsNrrPMRMartin (hard copy)
RidsNrrLAMO'Brien (hard copy)RidsOgcRp RidsNrrAfpb (SWeerakkody)
RidsNrrLAMOBrien (hard copy)               RidsOgcRp RidsNrrAfpb (SWeerakkody)
ADAMS No: ML071090024     OFFICENRR/LPL2-1/PMNRR/LPL2-1/LAAFPB/BCNRR/LPL2-1/BCNAMERMartin:ncMO'BrienSWeerakkodyEMarinosDATE04/23/07 04/23/0704/19/0705/8/07 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY EnclosureREQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATIONCONCERNING FIRE BARRIER CONFIGURATIONSFOR EDWIN I. HATCH PLANT, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2Please provide clarifying information regarding whether the following information, based on theletter from Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., dated November 28, 2006, for the Farley Nuclear Plant, also applies to the Edwin I. Hatch Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 (HNP). Item 1 - How was the Promat tested? Is the Promat testing, as described in the November 28, 2006, letter also applicable to HNP? That letter stated: The Promat was tested and qualified to American Society of Testing Materials(ASTM) E119-88 by Performance Contracting Inc. under Omega Point Project No. 8806-90254 (Promat Report SR90-005). This testing included ASTM E119 time-temperature, full scale fire testing for the wall assembly and a small scale fire testing of the ceiling assembly. The test details are documented in Promat Report SR90-005.If this information is not applicable to HNP, please provide the information in the Questionsbelow.Item 2 - What acceptance criteria were used? Were the same acceptance criteria as describedin the November 28, 2006, letter, used? That letter stated:The test acceptance criteria were that of ASTM El 19-88 Section 16 "Conditionsof Acceptance," which meets the acceptance criteria of GL 86-10, Supplement 1.
ADAMS No: ML071090024 OFFICE        NRR/LPL2-1/PM      NRR/LPL2-1/LA    AFPB/BC        NRR/LPL2-1/BC NAME          RMartin:nc          MOBrien        SWeerakkody    EMarinos DATE          04/23/07             04/23/07        04/19/07        05/8/07 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
The 325 degrees Fahrenheit temperature criterion was used, which assumes a maximum temperature rise of 250 degrees Fahrenheit above an ambient temperature of 75 degrees Fahrenheit.If this information is not applicable to HNP, please provide the information in the Questionsbelow.Item 3 - How were installed configurations that were different from tested configurationsevaluated? Were the field installations deviations evaluated similarly as described in the November 28, 2006, letter? That letter stated:An analysis and acceptance for plant specific deviations from the testedconfigurations is included in Performance Contracting Inc. Fire Protection Technical Evaluation (FPTE) FPTE 2006-001, Revision 0. This evaluation received a documented review and approval by a qualified fire protection engineer within Southern Nuclear and found to be consistent with the GL 86-10, Section 3.2.2 criteria.If this information is not applicable to HNP, please provide the information in the Questionsbelow.QUESTIONS, if November 28, 2006, responses do not apply to HNP 1) For HNP, the Promat H board is described as a fire barrier that separates redundanttrains within the same fire area (for example, cable tray enclosures). The response states that Promat H board is tested in accordance with Underwriters Laboratory Standard 263, ASTM Standard E119, and National Fire Protection Association Standard 251. Use of these tests and standards identifies fire testing for building members and assemblies, but does not specifically address 1- and 3-hour fire barrier systems protecting electrical raceways.If the Promat H boards were used in accordance with a listed fire rated assembly (suchas a UL listed assembly), please provide that information.The NRC staff's current guidance for raceway protection is contained in Generic Letter86-10, Supplement 1, "Potentially Nonconforming Hemyc and MT Fire Barrier Configurations."  The NRC staff is interested in whether the Promat H fire barriers (as installed in the plant) were tested and evaluated (for deviations from the testing) in accordance with the GL 86-10, Supplement 1, guidance. If not, the NRC staff is interested in the following:a)Is the support protection and penetrating item protection for the Promat Hbarriers in the plant representative of the protection provided during the testing?b)Does the testing encompass or bound the installed configurations?
 
c)Is the plant cable loading (the thermal mass) of the installed configurationsbounded by the tested configurations?
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CONCERNING FIRE BARRIER CONFIGURATIONS FOR EDWIN I. HATCH PLANT, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 Please provide clarifying information regarding whether the following information, based on the letter from Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., dated November 28, 2006, for the Farley Nuclear Plant, also applies to the Edwin I. Hatch Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 (HNP).
Item 1 - How was the Promat tested? Is the Promat testing, as described in the November 28, 2006, letter also applicable to HNP? That letter stated:
The Promat was tested and qualified to American Society of Testing Materials (ASTM) E119-88 by Performance Contracting Inc. under Omega Point Project No. 8806-90254 (Promat Report SR90-005). This testing included ASTM E119 time-temperature, full scale fire testing for the wall assembly and a small scale fire testing of the ceiling assembly. The test details are documented in Promat Report SR90-005.
If this information is not applicable to HNP, please provide the information in the Questions below.
Item 2 - What acceptance criteria were used? Were the same acceptance criteria as described in the November 28, 2006, letter, used? That letter stated:
The test acceptance criteria were that of ASTM El 19-88 Section 16 "Conditions of Acceptance," which meets the acceptance criteria of GL 86-10, Supplement 1.
The 325 degrees Fahrenheit temperature criterion was used, which assumes a maximum temperature rise of 250 degrees Fahrenheit above an ambient temperature of 75 degrees Fahrenheit.
If this information is not applicable to HNP, please provide the information in the Questions below.
Item 3 - How were installed configurations that were different from tested configurations evaluated? Were the field installations deviations evaluated similarly as described in the November 28, 2006, letter? That letter stated:
An analysis and acceptance for plant specific deviations from the tested configurations is included in Performance Contracting Inc. Fire Protection Technical Evaluation (FPTE) FPTE 2006-001, Revision 0. This evaluation received a documented review and approval by a qualified fire protection engineer within Southern Nuclear and found to be consistent with the GL 86-10, Section 3.2.2 criteria.
If this information is not applicable to HNP, please provide the information in the Questions below.
QUESTIONS, if November 28, 2006, responses do not apply to HNP Enclosure
: 1) For HNP, the Promat H board is described as a fire barrier that separates redundant trains within the same fire area (for example, cable tray enclosures). The response states that Promat H board is tested in accordance with Underwriters Laboratory Standard 263, ASTM Standard E119, and National Fire Protection Association Standard 251. Use of these tests and standards identifies fire testing for building members and assemblies, but does not specifically address 1- and 3-hour fire barrier systems protecting electrical raceways.
If the Promat H boards were used in accordance with a listed fire rated assembly (such as a UL listed assembly), please provide that information.
The NRC staff's current guidance for raceway protection is contained in Generic Letter 86-10, Supplement 1, Potentially Nonconforming Hemyc and MT Fire Barrier Configurations. The NRC staff is interested in whether the Promat H fire barriers (as installed in the plant) were tested and evaluated (for deviations from the testing) in accordance with the GL 86-10, Supplement 1, guidance. If not, the NRC staff is interested in the following:
a)     Is the support protection and penetrating item protection for the Promat H barriers in the plant representative of the protection provided during the testing?
b)     Does the testing encompass or bound the installed configurations?
c)     Is the plant cable loading (the thermal mass) of the installed configurations bounded by the tested configurations?
 
Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units 1 & 2 cc:
Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units 1 & 2 cc:
Laurence BergenOglethorpe Power Corporation 2100 E. Exchange Place P.O. Box 1349 Tucker, GA 30085-1349Mr. R. D. BakerManager - Licensing Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.
Laurence Bergen                          Mr. Jeffrey T. Gasser Oglethorpe Power Corporation             Executive Vice President 2100 E. Exchange Place                   Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.
P.O. Box 1295 Birmingham, AL 35201-1295Resident InspectorPlant Hatch 11030 Hatch Parkway N.
P.O. Box 1349                             P.O. Box 1295 Tucker, GA 30085-1349                    Birmingham, AL 35201-1295 Mr. R. D. Baker                          General Manager Manager - Licensing                       Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.
Baxley, GA 31531Harold Reheis, DirectorDepartment of Natural Resources 205 Butler Street, SE., Suite 1252 Atlanta, GA 30334Steven M. JacksonSenior Engineer - Power Supply Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia 1470 Riveredge Parkway, NW Atlanta, GA 30328-4684Mr. Reece McAlisterExecutive Secretary Georgia Public Service Commission 244 Washington St., SW Atlanta, GA 30334Arthur H. Domby, Esq.Troutman Sanders Nations Bank Plaza 600 Peachtree St, NE, Suite 5200 Atlanta, GA 30308-2216ChairmanAppling County Commissioners County Courthouse Baxley, GA 31513Mr. Jeffrey T. GasserExecutive Vice President Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.
P.O. Box 1295                             U.S. Highway 1 North Birmingham, AL 35201-1295                P.O. Box 2010 Baxley, GA 31515 Resident Inspector Plant Hatch                               Mr. K. Rosanski 11030 Hatch Parkway N.                   Resident Manager Baxley, GA 31531                          Oglethorpe Power Corporation Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant Harold Reheis, Director                  P.O. Box 2010 Department of Natural Resources           Baxley, GA 31515 205 Butler Street, SE., Suite 1252 Atlanta, GA 30334 Steven M. Jackson Senior Engineer - Power Supply Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia 1470 Riveredge Parkway, NW Atlanta, GA 30328-4684 Mr. Reece McAlister Executive Secretary Georgia Public Service Commission 244 Washington St., SW Atlanta, GA 30334 Arthur H. Domby, Esq.
P.O. Box 1295 Birmingham, AL  35201-1295General ManagerEdwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.
Troutman Sanders Nations Bank Plaza 600 Peachtree St, NE, Suite 5200 Atlanta, GA 30308-2216 Chairman Appling County Commissioners County Courthouse Baxley, GA 31513}}
U.S. Highway 1 North P.O. Box 2010 Baxley, GA 31515Mr. K. RosanskiResident Manager Oglethorpe Power Corporation Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant P.O. Box 2010 Baxley, GA 31515}}

Revision as of 08:15, 23 November 2019

Request for Additional Information Generic Letter 2006-03 Potentially Nonconforming Hemyc and MT Fire Barrier Configuration (TAC MD1586 and MD1587)
ML071090024
Person / Time
Site: Hatch  Southern Nuclear icon.png
Issue date: 05/08/2007
From: Martin R
NRC/NRR/ADRO/DORL/LPLII-1
To: Madison D
Southern Nuclear Operating Co
Martin R, NRR/DORL, 415-1493
References
GL-06-003, TAC MD1586, TAC MD1587
Download: ML071090024 (5)
v • d • e


Text

May 8, 2007 Mr. Dennis R. Madison Vice President - Hatch Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant 11028 Hatch Parkway North Baxley, GA 31513

SUBJECT:

EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 (HNP) - REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (RAI) REGARDING GENERIC LETTER 2006-03, POTENTIALLY NONCONFORMING HEMYC AND MT FIRE BARRIER CONFIGURATIONS (TAC NOS. MD1586 AND MD1587)

Dear Mr. Madison:

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff is reviewing your responses, dated June 9, and November 28, 2006, to Generic Letter 2006-03, Potentially Nonconforming Hemyc and MT Fire Barrier Configurations, as they may apply to the HNP and find that additional information is needed as stated in the enclosure.

If you have any questions regarding this response, please contact me at 301-415-1493.

Sincerely,

/RA/

Robert E. Martin, Sr. Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch II-1 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366

Enclosure:

RAI cc w/encl: See next page

May 8, 2007 Mr. Dennis R. Madison Vice President - Hatch Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant 11028 Hatch Parkway North Baxley, GA 31513

SUBJECT:

EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 (HNP) - REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING GENERIC LETTER 2006-03, POTENTIALLY NONCONFORMING HEMYC AND MT FIRE BARRIER CONFIGURATIONS (TAC NOS. MD1586, MD1587)

Dear Mr. Madison:

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff is reviewing your responses, dated June 9, and November 28, 2006, to Generic Letter 2006-03, Potentially Nonconforming Hemyc and MT Fire Barrier Configurations, as they may apply to the HNP and find that additional information is needed as stated in the enclosure.

If you have any questions regarding this response, please contact me at 301-415-1493.

Sincerely,

/RA/

Robert E. Martin, Sr. Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch II-1 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366

Enclosure:

RAI cc w/encl: See next page DISTRIBUTION:

Public RidsAcrsAcnwMailCenter LPL2-1 R/F RidsNrrDraAfpb (DFrumpkin)

RidsNrrDorlL2-1 (EMarinos) RidsRgn2MailCenter(SShaeffer)

RidsNrrDorlDpr RidsNrrPMRMartin (hard copy)

RidsNrrLAMOBrien (hard copy) RidsOgcRp RidsNrrAfpb (SWeerakkody)

ADAMS No: ML071090024 OFFICE NRR/LPL2-1/PM NRR/LPL2-1/LA AFPB/BC NRR/LPL2-1/BC NAME RMartin:nc MOBrien SWeerakkody EMarinos DATE 04/23/07 04/23/07 04/19/07 05/8/07 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CONCERNING FIRE BARRIER CONFIGURATIONS FOR EDWIN I. HATCH PLANT, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 Please provide clarifying information regarding whether the following information, based on the letter from Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., dated November 28, 2006, for the Farley Nuclear Plant, also applies to the Edwin I. Hatch Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 (HNP).

Item 1 - How was the Promat tested? Is the Promat testing, as described in the November 28, 2006, letter also applicable to HNP? That letter stated:

The Promat was tested and qualified to American Society of Testing Materials (ASTM) E119-88 by Performance Contracting Inc. under Omega Point Project No. 8806-90254 (Promat Report SR90-005). This testing included ASTM E119 time-temperature, full scale fire testing for the wall assembly and a small scale fire testing of the ceiling assembly. The test details are documented in Promat Report SR90-005.

If this information is not applicable to HNP, please provide the information in the Questions below.

Item 2 - What acceptance criteria were used? Were the same acceptance criteria as described in the November 28, 2006, letter, used? That letter stated:

The test acceptance criteria were that of ASTM El 19-88 Section 16 "Conditions of Acceptance," which meets the acceptance criteria of GL 86-10, Supplement 1.

The 325 degrees Fahrenheit temperature criterion was used, which assumes a maximum temperature rise of 250 degrees Fahrenheit above an ambient temperature of 75 degrees Fahrenheit.

If this information is not applicable to HNP, please provide the information in the Questions below.

Item 3 - How were installed configurations that were different from tested configurations evaluated? Were the field installations deviations evaluated similarly as described in the November 28, 2006, letter? That letter stated:

An analysis and acceptance for plant specific deviations from the tested configurations is included in Performance Contracting Inc. Fire Protection Technical Evaluation (FPTE) FPTE 2006-001, Revision 0. This evaluation received a documented review and approval by a qualified fire protection engineer within Southern Nuclear and found to be consistent with the GL 86-10, Section 3.2.2 criteria.

If this information is not applicable to HNP, please provide the information in the Questions below.

QUESTIONS, if November 28, 2006, responses do not apply to HNP Enclosure

1) For HNP, the Promat H board is described as a fire barrier that separates redundant trains within the same fire area (for example, cable tray enclosures). The response states that Promat H board is tested in accordance with Underwriters Laboratory Standard 263, ASTM Standard E119, and National Fire Protection Association Standard 251. Use of these tests and standards identifies fire testing for building members and assemblies, but does not specifically address 1- and 3-hour fire barrier systems protecting electrical raceways.

If the Promat H boards were used in accordance with a listed fire rated assembly (such as a UL listed assembly), please provide that information.

The NRC staff's current guidance for raceway protection is contained in Generic Letter 86-10, Supplement 1, Potentially Nonconforming Hemyc and MT Fire Barrier Configurations. The NRC staff is interested in whether the Promat H fire barriers (as installed in the plant) were tested and evaluated (for deviations from the testing) in accordance with the GL 86-10, Supplement 1, guidance. If not, the NRC staff is interested in the following:

a) Is the support protection and penetrating item protection for the Promat H barriers in the plant representative of the protection provided during the testing?

b) Does the testing encompass or bound the installed configurations?

c) Is the plant cable loading (the thermal mass) of the installed configurations bounded by the tested configurations?

Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units 1 & 2 cc:

Laurence Bergen Mr. Jeffrey T. Gasser Oglethorpe Power Corporation Executive Vice President 2100 E. Exchange Place Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.

P.O. Box 1349 P.O. Box 1295 Tucker, GA 30085-1349 Birmingham, AL 35201-1295 Mr. R. D. Baker General Manager Manager - Licensing Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.

P.O. Box 1295 U.S. Highway 1 North Birmingham, AL 35201-1295 P.O. Box 2010 Baxley, GA 31515 Resident Inspector Plant Hatch Mr. K. Rosanski 11030 Hatch Parkway N. Resident Manager Baxley, GA 31531 Oglethorpe Power Corporation Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant Harold Reheis, Director P.O. Box 2010 Department of Natural Resources Baxley, GA 31515 205 Butler Street, SE., Suite 1252 Atlanta, GA 30334 Steven M. Jackson Senior Engineer - Power Supply Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia 1470 Riveredge Parkway, NW Atlanta, GA 30328-4684 Mr. Reece McAlister Executive Secretary Georgia Public Service Commission 244 Washington St., SW Atlanta, GA 30334 Arthur H. Domby, Esq.

Troutman Sanders Nations Bank Plaza 600 Peachtree St, NE, Suite 5200 Atlanta, GA 30308-2216 Chairman Appling County Commissioners County Courthouse Baxley, GA 31513

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML071090024&oldid=2178532"