POLICY ISSUE

INFORMATION

July 9, 2001 SECY-01-0124

FOR: The Commissioners

FROM: William D. Travers

Executive Director for Operations

SUBJECT: POWER UPRATE APPLICATION REVIEWS 

PURPOSE:

To provide the Commission with the status of staff activities associated with power uprate

reviews. The staff is also providing responses to the staff requirements memorandum

(COMNJD-01-0001 - Power Uprate Applications) dated May 24, 2001.

SUMMARY:

The staff has assigned power uprate applications a high priority. The staff considers power

uprate applications among the most significant licensing actions and is, therefore, conducting

power uprate reviews on accelerated schedules. The current schedules for reviews of power

uprate applications (plant-specific applications and generic topical reports) do not unnecessarily

delay licenseesí plans for implementing such uprates. The staff has conducted a survey of

licensees to better understand licensee plans for submitting future power uprate applications

and expects 46 power uprate applications over the next 5 years. Planned power uprates are

expected to result in an increase of about 4870 megawatts thermal (MWt) or approximately

1600 megawatts electric (MWe) in power level. Sufficient resources are currently available to

complete the technical evaluation of power uprate applications. The staff will utilize the existing

Planning, Budgeting, and Performance Management (PBPM) process to ensure that sufficient

resources will be available to complete power uprate reviews in a way that does not

unnecessarily delay licenseesí plans for implementing such uprates. The staff is evaluating the

power uprate application review processes to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of these

processes and is considering issuing lessons learned reports, enhancing management

Contact:

Mohammed A. Shuaibi, NRR

(301) 415-2859
 - 2 -

oversight, and/or developing power-uprate-specific performance measures. The staff will

communicate information related to power uprates (e.g., lessons learned, process

improvements, and guidance) with external stakeholders. Plans include using one or more of

the following methods for this communication: NRC external website, regulatory information

summaries (RISs), Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) public briefings, and

public workshops. The staff will continue to inform the Commission of the status and progress

of power uprate reviews through updates to the Chairmanís Tasking Memorandum (CTM). 

BACKGROUND:

Power uprates can be classified in three categories: (1) measurement uncertainty recapture

power uprates, (2) stretch power uprates, and (3) extended power uprates. Measurement

uncertainty recapture power uprates are on the order of 1.5 percent and are achieved by

implementing enhanced techniques for calculating reactor power. This involves the use of

state-of-the-art feedwater flow measurement devices that reduce the degree of uncertainty

associated with feedwater flow measurement and in turn provide for a more accurate

calculation of power. The recent rulemaking to 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix K, which allowed

licensees to use a power uncertainty less than 2 percent in loss-of-coolant accident analyses,

facilitated these reviews. Stretch power uprates are typically on the order of 7 percent and

usually involve changes to instrumentation setpoints. Stretch power uprates do not generally

involve major plant modifications. This is especially true for boiling-water reactor (BWR)

plants. In some limited cases where plant equipment was operated near capacity prior to the

power uprate, more substantial changes may be required. Extended power uprates are

usually greater than stretch power uprates and are expected to be submitted for increases as

high as 20 percent. Extended power uprates usually require significant modifications to major

balance-of-plant equipment such as the high pressure turbines, condensate pumps and

motors, main generators, and/or transformers. 

Licensees have been applying for and implementing power uprates since the 1970s as a way to 

increase the power output of their plants. The staff has been conducting power uprate reviews

since then and has completed 57 such reviews. See Table 1, ìApproved Power Upratesî

(Attachment 1). Table 1 shows that, to date, the staff has approved measurement uncertainty

recapture power uprates for 4 units, stretch power uprates for 50 units, and extended power

uprates for 3 units. Figure 1, ìPower Capacity Increaseî (Attachment 2), shows the cumulative

increase in power that resulted from the power uprates listed in Table 1. This data shows that,

to date, an equivalent of approximately two nuclear power plant units (approximately 1000 MWe

each) has been gained through implementation of power uprates at existing plants. 

In addition to plant-specific power uprate applications, General Electric Nuclear Energy

(GENE) has submitted four topical reports (one in 1990, one in 1991, one in 1995, and one in

1996) in which it proposed guidelines to be followed by BWR licensees in the preparation and

submittal of power uprate applications. These topical reports covered stretch and extended

power uprates up to a 20-percent increase in power level. The staff has reviewed and

approved these topical reports. The use of topical reports has many benefits. Specifically, it

provides a template that standardizes licensee applications for power uprate submittals,

improves the quality of licenseesí submittals, and provides focus for staff technical review. 

This also leads to fewer requests for information during the staffís reviews of plant-specific

applications and a more efficient review by the staff. 

DISCUSSION:
 - 3 -

Plant-Specific Applications Under Review

Table 2, ìPower Uprate Submittals Currently Under Staff Review,î (Attachment 3), provides a

summary and the status of the power uprate submittals currently under staff review. The staff

has 17 applications for power uprates under review. Of these, nine are for measurement

uncertainty recapture power uprates, while six are for extended power uprates greater than or

equal to 15 percent. The remaining two include one for 4.5 percent and one for 7.5 percent. 

The staff has assigned these reviews a high priority. Sufficient resources exist to complete the

technical evaluation of these power uprate applications on a schedule that does not

unnecessarily delay licenseesí plans for implementing them. The staff will continue to inform

the Commission of the status of these power uprate applications through updates to the CTM.

The six requested power uprates that are greater than or equal to 15 percent are first of a kind

from the perspective of the requested increase in power level. These include a 15-percent

power uprate for Duane Arnold (this is in addition to a 4.1-percent power uprate that was

approved in 1985), 17-percent power uprates for Dresden Units 2 and 3, 17.8-percent power

uprates for Quad Cities Units 1 and 2, and a 20-percent power uprate for Clinton. Some

external stakeholders have expressed interest in the staffís review of these applications. The

staff has ensured that key stakeholders are kept informed of the staffís efforts related to these

reviews. The staff will continue to keep stakeholders informed of new power uprate

applications by following established agency policies and guidance consistent with the

requirements of 10 CFR 50.91 and 50.92 for notifying stakeholders of power uprate

amendment applications. Other communication methods will also be implemented as

described below.

Expected Future Plant-Specific Applications

On April 2, 2001, the staff issued Nuclear Regulatory Commission RIS 2001-08, ìOPERATING

REACTOR LICENSING ACTION ESTIMATES.î In this RIS, the staff requested, on a

voluntary basis, information related to future submittals of licensing actions for fiscal years

2001 and 2002. The staff also specifically requested licensees to identify, by brief title, those

licensing actions that are expected to entail complex reviews, including power uprate requests. 

In addition, the staff conducted a survey of all licensees in June 2001 to obtain information

regarding the industryís future plans related to power uprate applications. This survey targeted

projections for the size and schedule of power uprate submittals over the next 5 years. Table

3, ìExpected Future Submittals for Power Upratesî (Attachment 4), provides a summary of the

results of this survey. This table indicates that licensees plan to submit 46 power uprate

applications in the next 5 years. Of these, 15 are expected to be of the extended power uprate

type (4 to 6 per year for the next 3 years), 3 are expected to be of the stretch power uprate

type (1 per year for the next 3 years), and 27 are expected to be of the measurement

uncertainty recapture power uprate type (10 to 15 per year for the next 2 years). One licensee

did not report a size for the expected uprate. The sizes reported for the stretch and extended

power uprates may also include measurement recapture uncertainty. Based on the

information provided, planned power uprates are expected to result in an increase of about

4870 MWt or approximately 1600 MWe. The staff will utilize the information provided in

response to the RIS and survey for planning and allotting resources for power uprate reviews

and to assure the staffís readiness and availability to perform the technical reviews for these

applications when they arrive. 
 - 4 -

The staff has assigned power uprate reviews a high priority. The staff considers power uprate

applications among the most significant licensing actions and is, therefore, conducting power

uprate reviews on accelerated schedules. The staffís current schedules for reviews of power

uprate applications do not unnecessarily delay licenseesí plans for implementing these uprates. 

For future applications, the staff will work with licensees to establish schedules that are mutually

agreeable. The staff will continue to utilize the existing PBPM process to ensure that sufficient

resources are available for completing power uprate application reviews consistent with the

established schedules. In addition, the staff will continue to keep the Commission informed of

new applications for power uprates by including them on the CTM.

Generic Methodologies Under Review

The staff is currently reviewing one topical report submitted by GENE related to measurement

uncertainty recapture power uprates. This topical report was submitted on July 11, 2000. In

this topical report, GENE provided a methodology to apply a reduced reactor thermal power

uncertainty for 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix K, and Regulatory Guide 1.49 analyses. The staff is

currently reviewing this topical report and plans to complete its review by the end of the year. 

The staff was also reviewing a topical report submitted by GENE related to extended power

uprates. This topical report was submitted on March 19, 2001. In this topical report, GENE

proposed a streamlined approach for licensees to use in preparing and submitting extended

power uprate applications. Because of the combination of (1) the magnitude of power uprates

that this topical report would apply to (up to a 20-percent increase in power), (2) the limited

experience in reviewing power uprates of this magnitude, and (3) the magnitude of reduction in

the amount of information to be provided by licensees as proposed in the topical report, the

staff was challenged in its review of this report. The staff conducted a meeting with GENE in

June 2001 to discuss preliminary feedback on this topical report. As a result of the staffís

feedback, GENE requested that the staff place the review of this topical report on hold. Per

GENEís request, the staff plans to meet with GENE again in July 2001 to discuss the topical

report further. 

The staff believes that generic topical reports provide a means to standardize plant-specific

applications for staff reviews. Standardization and improvements in the quality of licensee

submittals can significantly improve the efficiency of the staffís review. Therefore, the staff has

assigned high priority to topical reports related to power uprates. The staff evaluations for

both topical reports can be accomplished within existing budget resources allocated for

reviewing vendor topical reports. The staff will continue to keep the Commission informed of

the status of these reviews through updates to the CTM.

Review Processes

To date, reviews of measurement uncertainty recapture power uprate applications have been

accomplished in 6 to 8 months. Based on the staffís current understanding of the scope and

depth of review, the staff is evaluating ways to reduce the review duration. The staff believes

that sufficient experience in this area has been gained to allow for such improvement. The staff

is currently evaluating the scope of review and specific information required to make a

regulatory decision. The staff plans to share the results of this effort with licensees. The goal

of this effort is to provide guidance to the industry in developing standardized power uprate

applications. The staff believes that standardization of licenseesí submittals, improvements in

the quality of licenseesí submittals, and more focused reviews by the staff could reduce the

review duration considerably. If changes in addition to those directly resulting from the power
 - 5 -

uprate are requested in the power uprate applications, reviews of these additional changes may

require extra time for review. The effort described above will ensure that the staffís reviews of

measurement uncertainty recapture power uprates are conducted in the most effective and

efficient manner.

In safety evaluations approving generic methodologies for power uprates, the staff had

estimated that the reviews of extended power uprate applications would require up to

18 months. The staff is currently scheduling the reviews of extended power uprate

applications for completion in less than 12 months. This includes approximately 2 months for

ACRS coordination and review. As was noted earlier, the staff is currently reviewing extended

power uprate applications of increases that are greater than or equal to 15 percent for six

units. The staff will incorporate any improvements identified during these reviews into the

current power uprate review process. In addition, following completion of these reviews, the

staff will review the existing processes, in light of the latest experience, to identify other areas

where efficiencies may be gained. 

The staff is evaluating the power uprate application review processes to improve the

effectiveness and efficiency of these processes. The staff is considering issuing lessons

learned reports, enhancing management oversight, and/or developing power-uprate-specific

performance measures. The staff also plans to hold a public workshop following completion of

the Duane Arnold, Quad Cities 1 and 2, and Dresden 2 and 3 extended power uprate reviews

to share lessons learned from these reviews with our stakeholders. The staff will also solicit

stakeholder input on the staffís review of these applications and ideas for improving the review

process. Guidance similar to that discussed above for the measurement uncertainty recapture

power uprates may also be issued for extended power uprates.

Based on the results of the survey, the staff does not expect many stretch power uprate

applications over the next 5 years (the staff expects about one per year). In contrast, the staff

expects between 10 to 15 applications per year over the next 2 years for measurement

uncertainty recapture power uprates, and 4 to 6 applications per year over the next 3 years for

extended power uprates. Therefore, staff efforts for improving the power uprate application and

review processes will initially focus on measurement uncertainty recapture power uprates and

extended power uprates. However, efficiencies gained in these areas will also be utilized to

improve the stretch power uprate review process.

The staff has considered issuing a Standard Review Plan (SRP) section to provide guidance for

NRC staff conducting power uprate reviews. An SRP section could serve to standardize staff

reviews of power uprate applications and could also be used by licensees to ensure that

appropriate and sufficient information is included in their submittals. The staff evaluated this

approach in light of existing guidance and the latest information available in the power uprate

arena. 

In late 1995 and 1996, the staff responded to concerns identified by the Union of Concerned

Scientists (UCS) associated with the Maine Yankee Power Plant. One of the staff actions

which followed was the formation of the Maine Yankee Lessons Learned Task Group. The

task group examined several power uprate reviews against then-current practice and

determined that an SRP section for power uprates was needed to guide the staff in reviewing

computer codes and to ensure consistency in power uprate reviews. 
 - 6 -

The staff is in the process of implementing the recommendation that an SRP section for

computer codes be issued. However, the staff determined that an SRP section was not needed

for ensuring consistency in power uprate reviews. The staff has chosen an alternative termed a

ìtemplate review.î The ìtemplate reviewî essentially identifies all areas the staff will evaluate. 

By utilizing the ìtemplate reviewî the staffís reviews have been made uniform. 

The determination that an SRP section is not needed for ensuring consistency in power uprate

reviews was based on several factors as described below. For BWR plants, the NRC has

approved GENE topical reports that provide guidance related to the analyses and information

required to support power uprate reviews by the staff. The approved methodologies were

implemented in an application for a power uprate for the Monticello plant (Monticello was

considered the lead plant for these topical reports). All lessons learned identified from the

efforts by the Maine Yankee Lessons Learned Task Group were addressed in the review and

safety evaluation for the power uprate for Monticello. In addition, the staff evaluated the

Monticello power uprate application in accordance with Regulatory Guide 1.174, ìAn Approach

for Using Probabilistic Risk Assessment in Risk-Informed Decisions on Plant-Specific Changes

to the Licensing Basis,î to confirm that the impact on risk was acceptable. Use of probabilistic

risk assessments is highly beneficial as it can be used to assess the integrated effect of plant

changes related to the power uprate and other significant plant modifications on plant risk. 

While similar topical reports do not currently exist for pressurized-water reactor (PWR) plants, a

power uprate application from the Farley plant was reviewed during 1997 and 1998. This

application review underwent scrutiny similar to that given to the Monticello application to

ensure that all lessons learned identified by the Maine Yankee Lessons Learned Task Group

were implemented. The safety evaluation for the Farley power uprate addressed the concerns

identified in the lessons learned report. Therefore, because of the completeness of the safety

evaluations for the Monticello and Farley plants, the staff has used these safety evaluations as

templates for future reviews of power uprates for BWR and PWR plants, respectively. The staff

believes that this approach, which consists of the use of template safety evaluations, approved

GENE topical reports, and existing SRP sections, is the most effective and efficient way to

ensure that future power uprate reviews are consistent. 

The staff is investigating ways to modify the power uprate review process to make it more

effective and efficient. Therefore, the review process may go through several changes. As the

review process for power uprate applications remains dynamic, the staff believes that

developing an SRP section for power uprate reviews at this time is premature and not cost

effective. For the near term, and in light of the template review process established by the staff

for power uprate applications, the staff does not believe that development of an SRP section for

power uprates is necessary. However, the staff will reevaluate this at a later date.
 - 7 -

Communication Plan

The staff will communicate information related to power uprates (e.g., lessons learned,

process improvements, and guidance) with external stakeholders. The staff plans to use one

or more of the following methods for this communication: NRC external website, RISs, ACRS

public briefings, and public workshops. The staff plans to conduct a public workshop on power

uprates after completing reviews of the Duane Arnold, Quad Cities 1 and 2, and Dresden 2

and 3 extended power uprate applications. During this workshop, the staff will share lessons

learned from the reviews of these applications with our external stakeholders and potential

applicants for extended power uprates. The staff will also solicit stakeholder input on process

improvements. The staff will also utilize the RIS process, when appropriate, to provide

information and guidance related to power uprates to licensees. These communication

strategies can be accomplished within existing budget resources. 

COORDINATION:

This paper has been coordinated with the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research. The Office

of the Chief Information Officer has reviewed this paper and has no objection. The Office of

the Chief Financial Officer has reviewed this paper for resource implications and has no

objections. The Office of the General Counsel has reviewed this paper and has no legal

objection.

/RA/

William D. Travers

Executive Director

 for Operations

Attachments: 1. Table 1 - Approved Power Uprates

2. Figure 1 - Power Capacity Increase

3. Table 2 - Power Uprate Submittals Currently Under Staff Review

4. Table 3 - Expected Future Submittals for Power Uprates
 - 7 -

Communication Plan

The staff will communicate information related to power uprates (e.g., lessons learned,

process improvements, and guidance) with external stakeholders. The staff plans to use one

or more of the following methods for this communication: NRC external website, RISs, ACRS

public briefings, and public workshops. The staff plans to conduct a public workshop on power

uprates after completing reviews of the Duane Arnold, Quad Cities 1 and 2, and Dresden 2

and 3 extended power uprate applications. During this workshop, the staff will share lessons

learned from the reviews of these applications with our external stakeholders and potential

applicants for extended power uprates. The staff will also solicit stakeholder input on process

improvements. The staff will also utilize the RIS process, when appropriate, to provide

information and guidance related to power uprates to licensees. These communication

strategies can be accomplished within existing budget resources. 

COORDINATION:

This paper has been coordinated with the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research. The Office

of the Chief Information Officer has reviewed this paper and has no objection. The Office of

the Chief Financial Officer has reviewed this paper for resource implications and has no

objections. The Office of the General Counsel has reviewed this paper and has no legal

objection.

RA/

William D. Travers

Executive Director

 for Operations

Attachments: 1. Table 1 - Approved Power Uprates

2. Figure 1 - Power Capacity Increase

3. Table 2 - Power Uprate Submittals Currently Under Staff Review

4. Table 3 - Expected Future Submittals for Power Uprates

CITF

*Previously concurred

OFFICE PDIII-1/PM PDIII-/LA PDIII/D TECH EDITOR* DLPM/D* OGC*

NAME MShuaibi RBouling SBajwa PKleene JZwolinski RWeisman

DATE 05/24/01 06/28/01 06/29/01

OFFICE OCFO* OCIO* NRR/ADPT* NRR/D EDO

NAME HThompson BShelton JZwolinski

for BSheron SCollins WTravers

DATE 06/01/01 05/31/01 06/28/01 06/29/01 07/09/01

Accession No. ML011700113

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
1

Through June 2001

2

Capacity Recapture Power Uprates for Provisional Operating License Plants are not

included in this table. These are Haddam Neck uprate of 24% in 1969, Oyster Creek uprate of

14% in 1971, Palisades uprate of 15% in 1977, Ginna uprate of 17% in 1984, Maine Yankee

uprate of 10% in 1989, and Indian Point 2 uprate of 11% in 1990.

3 TYPE-- S = Stretch; E = Extended; MU = Measurement Uncertainty Recapture

ATTACHMENT 1

TABLE 1 - Approved Power Uprates1,2

NO. PLANT % UPRATE MWt YEAR

APPROVED

TYPE3

1 Calvert Cliffs 1 5.5 140 1977 S

2 Calvert Cliffs 2 5.5 140 1977 S

3 H. B. Robinson 4.5 100 1979 S

4 Millstone 2 5 140 1979 S

5 Fort Calhoun 5.6 80 1980 S

6 St. Lucie 1 5.5 140 1981 S

7 St. Lucie 2 5.5 140 1985 S

8 Duane Arnold 4.1 65 1985 S

9 Salem 1 2 73 1986 S

10 North Anna 1 4.2 118 1986 S

11 North Anna 2 4.2 118 1986 S

12 Calloway 4.5 154 1988 S

13 TMI-1 1.3 33 1988 S

14 Fermi 2 4 137 1992 S

15 Vogtle 1 4.5 154 1993 S

16 Vogtle 2 4.5 154 1993 S

17 Wolf Creek 4.5 154 1993 S

18 Susquehanna 1 4.5 148 1994 S

19 Susquehanna 2 4.5 148 1994 S

20 Peach Bottom 2 5 165 1994 S
NO. PLANT % UPRATE MWt YEAR

APPROVED

TYPE3

21 Peach Bottom 3 5 165 1994 S

22 Limerick 2 5 165 1995 S

23 WNP2 4.9 163 1995 S

24 NMP2 4.3 144 1995 S

25 Hatch 1 5 122 1995 S

26 Hatch 2 5 122 1995 S

27 Surry 1 4.3 105 1995 S

28 Surry 2 4.3 105 1995 S

29 Limerick 1 5 165 1996 S

30 Summer 4.5 125 1996 S

31 Turkey Point 3 4.5 100 1996 S

32 Turkey Point 4 4.5 100 1996 S

33 Palo Verde 2 2 76 1996 S

34 Palo Verde 3 2 76 1996 S

35 Brunswick 1 5 122 1997 S

36 Brunswick 2 5 122 1997 S

37 Fitzpatrick 4 100 1997 S

38 Browns Ferry 2 5 164 1997 S

39 Browns Ferry 3 5 164 1997 S

40 Farley 1 5 138 1997 S

41 Farley 2 5 138 1997 S

42 Monticello 6.3 105 1998 E

43 Hatch 1 8 205 1998 E

44 Hatch 2 8 205 1998 E

45 LaSalle 1 5 166 1999 S

46 LaSalle 2 5 166 1999 S

47 Perry 5 178 1999 S

48 Comanche Peak 2 1 34 1999 MU

49 River Bend 5 145 2000 S
NO. PLANT % UPRATE MWt YEAR

APPROVED

TYPE3

50 Diablo Canyon 1 2 73 2000 S

51 Watts Bar 1.4 48 2001 MU

52 Byron 1 5 170 2001 S

53 Byron 2 5 170 2001 S

54 Braidwood 1 5 170 2001 S

55 Braidwood 2 5 170 2001 S

56 Salem 1 1.4 48 2001 MU

57 Salem 2 1.4 48 2001 MU
0 

2000 4000 6000 8000 

Cumulative Megawatts Gained

1977 1981 1985 1989 1993 1997 

Year

MWt MWe

Figure 1: Power Capacity Increase

ATTACHMENT 
1

 TYPE -- S = Stretch; E = Extended; MU = Measurement Uncertainty Recapture

ATTACHMENT 3

TABLE 2 - Power Uprate Submittals Currently Under Staff Review

NO PLANT %

UPRATE

MWt SUBMITTAL

DATE

PROJECTED 

COMPLETIO

N DATE

TYPE1

1 Susquehanna 1 1.4 48 10/30/00 7/6/01 MU

2 Susquehanna 2 1.4 48 10/30/00 7/6/01 MU

3 Hope Creek 1.4 46 12/01/00 7/30/01 MU

4 San Onofre 2 1.42 48 4/3/01 8/31/01 MU

5 San Onofre 3 1.42 48 4/3/01 8/31/01 MU

6 Shearon Harris 4.5 138 12/14/00 9/1/01 S

7 Duane Arnold 15.0 248 11/20/00 10/30/01 E

8 Beaver Valley 1 1.4 37 1/18/01 10/30/01 MU

9 Beaver Valley 2 1.4 37 1/18/01 10/30/01 MU

10 Dresden 2 17 430 12/29/00 11/30/01 E

11 Dresden 3 17 430 12/29/00 11/30/01 E

12 Quad Cities 1 17.8 446 12/29/00 11/30/01 E

13 Quad Cities 2 17.8 446 12/29/00 11/30/01 E

14 ANO2 7.5 211 12/19/00 12/19/01 S

15 Comanche Peak 1 1.4 47 4/5/01 12/31/01 MU

16 Comanche Peak 2 0.4 13 4/5/01 12/31/01 MU

17 Clinton 20 580 6/20/01 TBD E
1

The staff believes that applications for at least 22 units in addition to those identified in this

table will be submitted for power uprates within the next 5 years ( 2 of the additional applications will be

of the extended type, 1 will be of the stretch type, and 18 will be of the measure uncertainty recapture

type [1 did not report the size of the uprate]). However, specific information related to those applications

has not been disclosed. In addition, licensees are considering 11 additional power uprates. These are

still being studied by the licensees and no decisions have been made. Licensee also reported that 48

units will not be requesting power uprates.

2

 TYPE -- S = Stretch; E = Extended; MU = Measurement Uncertainty Recapture

ATTACHMENT 4

TABLE 3 - Expected Future Submittals for Power Uprates1

NO PLANT % UPRATE APPROXIMATE

SUBMITTAL

DATE

TYPE2

1 Brunswick 1 15 July 2001 E

2 Brunswick 2 15 July 2001 E

3 South Texas 1 1.4 July 2001 MU

4 South Texas 2 1.4 July 2001 MU

5 Palisades 1.4 Fall 2001 MU

6 Crystal River 3 1 Fall 2001 MU

7 Waterford 3 1.7 September 2001 MU

8 Palo Verde 2 2.9 October 2001 S

9 Sequoyah 1 1.3 October 2001 MU

10 Sequoyah 2 1.3 October 2001 MU

11 Grand Gulf 1.7 January 2002 MU

12 Kewaunee 6 February 2002 S

13 River Bend 1.7 April 2002 MU

14 Browns Ferry 2 14 Spring 2002 E

15 Browns Ferry 3 14 Spring 2002 E

16 Point Beach 1 10.1 May 2002 E

17 Point Beach 2 10.1 May 2002 E

18 Beaver Valley 1 5-10 June 2002 E

19 Beaver Valley 2 5-10 November 2002 E

20 St. Lucie 1 8 2003 E
NO PLANT % UPRATE APPROXIMATE

SUBMITTAL

DATE

TYPE2

21 St. Lucie 2 8 2003 E

22 Fort Calhoun 15-20 Late 2003 E

23 Grand Gulf 10-12 2004 E

24 Waterford 3 8-10 2004 E