|
---|
Category:LEGAL TRANSCRIPTS & ORDERS & PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20212L0841999-10-0101 October 1999 Exemption from 10CFR50,App R,Section III.G.2 to Ensure That Adequate Fire Protection Features Provided for Redundant Cables or Equipment Located in Same Fire Area Outside of Primary Containment ML20141D7351997-06-19019 June 1997 Comment Supporting Bulletin 96-001,suppl 1, Control Rod Insertion Problems. Reactor Operating W/Framatome Cogema Fuels Mark-B Fuel Requested to Be Excluded from Final Bulletin Suppl DD-97-15, Director'S Decision DD-97-15 Re Petitioners Request That NRC Prohibit Loading of VSC-24 Until Coc,Sar & SER Amended Following Independent third-party Review of VSC-24 Design. No Adequate Basis Exists for Granting Petitioners Request1997-06-18018 June 1997 Director'S Decision DD-97-15 Re Petitioners Request That NRC Prohibit Loading of VSC-24 Until Coc,Sar & SER Amended Following Independent third-party Review of VSC-24 Design. No Adequate Basis Exists for Granting Petitioners Request 0CAN049709, Comment Supporting Proposed Rev 3 to Reg Guide 1.134, Medical Evaluation of Licensed Personnel at Nuclear Power Plants1997-04-21021 April 1997 Comment Supporting Proposed Rev 3 to Reg Guide 1.134, Medical Evaluation of Licensed Personnel at Nuclear Power Plants ML20136E7591997-03-0707 March 1997 Comment Supporting Proposed Generic Communication, Effectiveness of Ultrasonic Testing Systems in Inservice Inspection Programs ML20128M3411996-09-30030 September 1996 Comment on Proposed Generic Communication, Primary Water Stress Corrosion Cracking of Control Rod Drive Mechanism & Other Vessel Head Penetrations ML20116G9431996-08-0707 August 1996 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR26 Re, Mods to Fitness-For-Duty Program Requirements ML20099M4921995-12-18018 December 1995 Comment on Draft Suppl to GL 83-11, Licensee Qualification for Performing Safety Analyses 0CAN119504, Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR60,72,73 & 75 Re Requirements for Spent Nuclear Fuel or high-level Radwaste Stored as ISFSI1995-11-13013 November 1995 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR60,72,73 & 75 Re Requirements for Spent Nuclear Fuel or high-level Radwaste Stored as ISFSI TXX-9522, Comment Opposing Proposed GL on Testing of safety-related Logic Circuits.Believes That Complete Technical Review of All Surveillance Procedures Would Be Expensive & Unnecessary Expenditure of Licensee Resources1995-08-26026 August 1995 Comment Opposing Proposed GL on Testing of safety-related Logic Circuits.Believes That Complete Technical Review of All Surveillance Procedures Would Be Expensive & Unnecessary Expenditure of Licensee Resources ML20086N6551995-07-14014 July 1995 Comment on Proposed Generic Ltr Re 10CFR50.54 Process for Changes to Security Plans W/O Prior NRC Approval. Agrees W/ Proposed Clarification of Language & W/Provided Screening Criteria in Notice ML20086D8841995-06-29029 June 1995 Comments on Proposed Rule Re, Review of NRC Insp Rept Content,Format & Style ML20085E5891995-06-0909 June 1995 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR73 Re Changes to NPP Security Requirements Associated W/Containment Access Control ML20077E8231994-12-0808 December 1994 Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR2,51 & 54 Re Rev to NRC NPP License Renewal Rule ML20080A1331994-10-21021 October 1994 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR2 Re Reexamination of NRC Enforcement Policy.Advises That Util of Belief That NRC Focus on Safety Significance in Insps & Enforcement Policy Can Be Achieved by Utilization of Risk Based Techniques ML20073M3261994-10-0303 October 1994 Comment on Pilot Program for NRC Recognition of Good Performance by Nuclear Power Plants ML20072B8521994-08-0505 August 1994 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR26 Re Consideration of Changes to FFD Requirements.Licensee Believes Reduction in Amount of FFD Testing Warranted & Can Best Be Achieved in Manner Already Adopted by Commission ML20065P4121994-04-25025 April 1994 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Rule Re Code & Stds Re Subsections IWE & Iwl.Expresses Deep Concern About Ramifications of Implementing Proposed Rule ML20058G6211993-12-0606 December 1993 Comment on Draft NUREG/BR-0058, Regulatory Analysis Guidelines,Rev 2. Concurs W/Numarc & Nubarg Comments ML20058D8581993-11-26026 November 1993 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Notification of Events at Isfsi.Believes General Licenses Should Not Be Required to Use New 10CFR72.75 ML20056F3481993-08-23023 August 1993 Comment Opposing NRC Draft GL 89-10,suppl 6 0CAN059206, Comment Supporting Proposed Rule Re Elimination of Requirements Marginal to Safety1992-05-28028 May 1992 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule Re Elimination of Requirements Marginal to Safety ML20058E0251990-10-12012 October 1990 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR51 Re Renewal of Nuclear Plant OLs & NRC Intent to Prepare Generic EIS ML20055E9871990-06-29029 June 1990 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR55 Re Mod for fitness-for-duty Programs & Licensed Operators.Util Believes That High Stds of Conduct Will Continue to Be Best Achieved & Maintained by Program That Addresses Integrity ML20006C5721990-01-15015 January 1990 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR50, Stabilization & Decontamination Priority,Trusteeship Provisions & Amount of Property Insurance Requirements. ML19353B2001989-12-0404 December 1989 Comment Supporting Opinions Expressed by NUMARC on Draft Reg Guide DG-1001, Maint Programs for Nuclear Power Plants. Util Supports Philosophy of Proper Maint as Important Part of Safe & Reliable Nuclear Power Plant Operation ML20247N1311989-07-0707 July 1989 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR50, Acceptance of Products Purchased for Use in Nuclear Power Plant Structures,Sys & Components. Existing Regulations,Codes & Stds Including Industry Procurement Improvement Activities Are Adequate ML20235T4141989-02-24024 February 1989 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Ensuring Effectiveness of Maint Programs for Nuclear Power Plants ML20206M6171988-11-17017 November 1988 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR26 Re NRC Rulemaking on Fitness for Duty Programs.Endorses NUMARC 881118 Comments on Subj Proposed Rule & Suggests Incorporation of NUMARC Suggested Changes ML20205P9691988-10-26026 October 1988 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re NUREG-1317, Regulatory Options for Nuclear License Renewal. Supports Contents of NUREG-1317 & Endorses NUMARC Comments on Rulemaking & Position Paper by NUMARC Nuplex Working Group 0CAN088804, Comment Opposing Proposed Rules 10CFR170 & 171 Re License & Annual Fees.Nrc Portion of Cooperative Programs Should Be Taken from Remaining 55% of Funds Appropriated by Congress1988-08-0404 August 1988 Comment Opposing Proposed Rules 10CFR170 & 171 Re License & Annual Fees.Nrc Portion of Cooperative Programs Should Be Taken from Remaining 55% of Funds Appropriated by Congress ML20149E8581988-02-0404 February 1988 Order Imposing Civil Monetary Penalty in Amount of $75,000, Based on Licensee Response to Notice of Violation & Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty by ML20236A0441987-10-13013 October 1987 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Rev to Backfitting Process for Power Reactors.Proposed Rule Devoid of Objective Guidance or Criteria for Distinguishing Between Cases Where cost-benefit Analysis Permissible & Where Not ML20215D6741987-06-12012 June 1987 Suppl 4 to Petition for Immediate Action to Relieve Undue Risk Posed by Nuclear Power Plants Designed by B&W.Ucs Reply to Responses from NRC & B&W Owners Group.* Certificate of Svc Encl ML20214Q6151987-06-0101 June 1987 Order Imposing Civil Monetary Penalty in Amount of $50,000 for Violation Noted in Insp on 860106-31.Evaluations & Conclusions Encl ML20210C4191987-04-0606 April 1987 Principal Response of B&W Owners Group to Petition Filed Under 10CFR2.206 by Ucs.* Petition Should Be Denied ML20205F2911987-03-23023 March 1987 Suppl 3 to Petition for Immediate Action to Relieve Undue Risk Posed by Nuclear Power Plants Designed by B&W.* Requests That Listed Names Be Added to List in Paragraph 1 of 870210 Petition ML20210C2691987-03-0606 March 1987 Initial Response of B&W Owners Group to Petition Filed Under 10CFR2.206 by Ucs.* Request for Immediate Suspension Should Be Summarily Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20211F5091987-02-20020 February 1987 Suppl 2 to Petition for Immediate Action to Relieve Undue Risk Posed by Nuclear Power Plants Designed by B&W.* Lists Names to Be Added to 870210 Petition & Corrects Address for Save Our State from Radwaste ML20210N4861987-02-10010 February 1987 Petition for Immediate Action to Relieve Undue Risk Posed by Nuclear Power Plants Designed by B&W Co.* OLs & CPs for Facilities Should Be Suspended Until Listed NRC Actions Taken ML20203A1491986-03-10010 March 1986 Affidavit of Jh Taylor Demonstrating That Encls May Be Withheld Per 10CFR2.790 & Listing B&W Procedures for Withholding ML20137L5911985-09-10010 September 1985 Response Opposing Jf Doherty 850611 Petition for Show Cause Order Requesting NRC to Institute Consolidated Proceeding Per 10CFR2.202.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20126A3531985-06-11011 June 1985 Petition/Request for Order to Show Cause Why Plants Should Not Be Shut Down Until CRD Mechanisms Inspected ML19343B1761980-11-13013 November 1980 Affidavit Supporting Proprietary Treatment for CEN-139(A)-P, Statistical Combination of Uncertainties.. ML20126M2581980-03-14014 March 1980 Affidavit for Withholding Proprietary Info Re Low Pressure Turbine Rotor (Ref 10CFR2.790).Nonproprietary Version Attached ML19326C6621978-09-28028 September 1978 Forwards Executed Amend 7 to Idemnity Agreement B-65, Including New Article Viii ML19326C6511978-08-0707 August 1978 Executed Amend 6 to Indemnity Agreement B-65,changing License Numbers ML19326C6531975-03-27027 March 1975 Executed Amend 3 to Indemnity Agreement B-65,increasing Liability Premiums ML19317H1351974-05-0303 May 1974 Acknowledgement of Svc of Amend 45 to Application for OL ML19326B8481973-08-10010 August 1973 Acknowledges Svc of Amend 40 to OL Application on 730810 1999-10-01
[Table view] Category:PUBLIC COMMENTS ON PROPOSED RULES & PETITIONS FOR
MONTHYEARML20141D7351997-06-19019 June 1997 Comment Supporting Bulletin 96-001,suppl 1, Control Rod Insertion Problems. Reactor Operating W/Framatome Cogema Fuels Mark-B Fuel Requested to Be Excluded from Final Bulletin Suppl 0CAN049709, Comment Supporting Proposed Rev 3 to Reg Guide 1.134, Medical Evaluation of Licensed Personnel at Nuclear Power Plants1997-04-21021 April 1997 Comment Supporting Proposed Rev 3 to Reg Guide 1.134, Medical Evaluation of Licensed Personnel at Nuclear Power Plants ML20136E7591997-03-0707 March 1997 Comment Supporting Proposed Generic Communication, Effectiveness of Ultrasonic Testing Systems in Inservice Inspection Programs ML20128M3411996-09-30030 September 1996 Comment on Proposed Generic Communication, Primary Water Stress Corrosion Cracking of Control Rod Drive Mechanism & Other Vessel Head Penetrations ML20116G9431996-08-0707 August 1996 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR26 Re, Mods to Fitness-For-Duty Program Requirements ML20099M4921995-12-18018 December 1995 Comment on Draft Suppl to GL 83-11, Licensee Qualification for Performing Safety Analyses 0CAN119504, Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR60,72,73 & 75 Re Requirements for Spent Nuclear Fuel or high-level Radwaste Stored as ISFSI1995-11-13013 November 1995 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR60,72,73 & 75 Re Requirements for Spent Nuclear Fuel or high-level Radwaste Stored as ISFSI TXX-9522, Comment Opposing Proposed GL on Testing of safety-related Logic Circuits.Believes That Complete Technical Review of All Surveillance Procedures Would Be Expensive & Unnecessary Expenditure of Licensee Resources1995-08-26026 August 1995 Comment Opposing Proposed GL on Testing of safety-related Logic Circuits.Believes That Complete Technical Review of All Surveillance Procedures Would Be Expensive & Unnecessary Expenditure of Licensee Resources ML20086N6551995-07-14014 July 1995 Comment on Proposed Generic Ltr Re 10CFR50.54 Process for Changes to Security Plans W/O Prior NRC Approval. Agrees W/ Proposed Clarification of Language & W/Provided Screening Criteria in Notice ML20086D8841995-06-29029 June 1995 Comments on Proposed Rule Re, Review of NRC Insp Rept Content,Format & Style ML20085E5891995-06-0909 June 1995 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR73 Re Changes to NPP Security Requirements Associated W/Containment Access Control ML20077E8231994-12-0808 December 1994 Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR2,51 & 54 Re Rev to NRC NPP License Renewal Rule ML20080A1331994-10-21021 October 1994 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR2 Re Reexamination of NRC Enforcement Policy.Advises That Util of Belief That NRC Focus on Safety Significance in Insps & Enforcement Policy Can Be Achieved by Utilization of Risk Based Techniques ML20073M3261994-10-0303 October 1994 Comment on Pilot Program for NRC Recognition of Good Performance by Nuclear Power Plants ML20072B8521994-08-0505 August 1994 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR26 Re Consideration of Changes to FFD Requirements.Licensee Believes Reduction in Amount of FFD Testing Warranted & Can Best Be Achieved in Manner Already Adopted by Commission ML20065P4121994-04-25025 April 1994 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Rule Re Code & Stds Re Subsections IWE & Iwl.Expresses Deep Concern About Ramifications of Implementing Proposed Rule ML20058G6211993-12-0606 December 1993 Comment on Draft NUREG/BR-0058, Regulatory Analysis Guidelines,Rev 2. Concurs W/Numarc & Nubarg Comments ML20058D8581993-11-26026 November 1993 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Notification of Events at Isfsi.Believes General Licenses Should Not Be Required to Use New 10CFR72.75 ML20056F3481993-08-23023 August 1993 Comment Opposing NRC Draft GL 89-10,suppl 6 0CAN059206, Comment Supporting Proposed Rule Re Elimination of Requirements Marginal to Safety1992-05-28028 May 1992 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule Re Elimination of Requirements Marginal to Safety ML20058E0251990-10-12012 October 1990 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR51 Re Renewal of Nuclear Plant OLs & NRC Intent to Prepare Generic EIS ML20055E9871990-06-29029 June 1990 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR55 Re Mod for fitness-for-duty Programs & Licensed Operators.Util Believes That High Stds of Conduct Will Continue to Be Best Achieved & Maintained by Program That Addresses Integrity ML20006C5721990-01-15015 January 1990 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR50, Stabilization & Decontamination Priority,Trusteeship Provisions & Amount of Property Insurance Requirements. ML19353B2001989-12-0404 December 1989 Comment Supporting Opinions Expressed by NUMARC on Draft Reg Guide DG-1001, Maint Programs for Nuclear Power Plants. Util Supports Philosophy of Proper Maint as Important Part of Safe & Reliable Nuclear Power Plant Operation ML20247N1311989-07-0707 July 1989 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR50, Acceptance of Products Purchased for Use in Nuclear Power Plant Structures,Sys & Components. Existing Regulations,Codes & Stds Including Industry Procurement Improvement Activities Are Adequate ML20235T4141989-02-24024 February 1989 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Ensuring Effectiveness of Maint Programs for Nuclear Power Plants ML20206M6171988-11-17017 November 1988 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR26 Re NRC Rulemaking on Fitness for Duty Programs.Endorses NUMARC 881118 Comments on Subj Proposed Rule & Suggests Incorporation of NUMARC Suggested Changes ML20205P9691988-10-26026 October 1988 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re NUREG-1317, Regulatory Options for Nuclear License Renewal. Supports Contents of NUREG-1317 & Endorses NUMARC Comments on Rulemaking & Position Paper by NUMARC Nuplex Working Group 0CAN088804, Comment Opposing Proposed Rules 10CFR170 & 171 Re License & Annual Fees.Nrc Portion of Cooperative Programs Should Be Taken from Remaining 55% of Funds Appropriated by Congress1988-08-0404 August 1988 Comment Opposing Proposed Rules 10CFR170 & 171 Re License & Annual Fees.Nrc Portion of Cooperative Programs Should Be Taken from Remaining 55% of Funds Appropriated by Congress ML20236A0441987-10-13013 October 1987 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Rev to Backfitting Process for Power Reactors.Proposed Rule Devoid of Objective Guidance or Criteria for Distinguishing Between Cases Where cost-benefit Analysis Permissible & Where Not 1997-06-19
[Table view] |
Text
._ __
." f)Jo 7 . .
42 FA' 2672 P
,h. jy cp//ak My M m7 v Entergy Operations,Inc.
Ih 1%u g [* ((t;v//W#
T 1448 S.R. 333 ResrMe. AA 72801 g tml 1,c,0,1,-- OR .AM. Q.t (19 RULES & DR EPMCH US NRC
- June 19,1997 ICAN069706 , _
Chief, Rules Review and Directives Branch U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop T-6D-69 Washington, DC 20555-0001
Subject:
Arkansas Nuclear One - Unit 1 Docket No. 50-313
, License No. DPR-51 I Comments on Proposed NRC Bulletin 96-01, Supplement 1; Control Rod Insertion Problems Gentlemen:
By letter dated June 18,1997, the Babcock and Wilcox Owners Group (BWOG) submitted comments on the subject proposed bulletin supplement. Entergy Operations at Arkansas Nuclear One (ANO) endorses the comments provided by the BWOG (attached for information only). NEI and NUBARG are also providing comments to the proposed bulletin. l Entergy Operations has been involved with development of the NEI and NUBARG comments and agrees with the conclusions and recommendations that will be submitted. In order to supplement the BWOG comments, Entergy Operations also desires to provide the following comments.
Fuel Assembly Design:
The ANO-1 fuel design has prevented the occurrence of control rod insertion problems.
One of the 11 key Mark-B fuel design differences compared to the Westinghouse V5H fuel and delineated in the BWOG comments is utilization of helical holddown springs.
ANO-1 currently utilizes helical holddown springs in its Framatome Cogema Fuels (FCF) fuel design. For the helical spring fuel designs, the holddown force per guidetube is substantially less than the Westinghouse V5H fuel design. The ANO-1 fuel design features result in significantly less compressive loading or stress on the control rod guidetubes, less control rod guidetube deformation, and reduced control rod insertion ,
forces. As a result of the margins incorporated into the design, ANO-1 fuel assemblies I
have not shown a similar susceptibility, nor are believed to be susceptible to the control rod guidetube distortion described in the subject bulletin.
9706270322 970619 PDR I&E MISC PDR
\- **
U. S. NRC L June 19,1997 1CAN069706 Page 2 Control Rod Drop Time Testine:
'ANO-1 control rod drop time data over the past three years indicates no correlation
- between higher fuel assembly burnups and control rod drop times (see attached graph). -
This includes technical specification required control rod drop time testing at the beginning of cycle and unplanned reactor trip data. Also, on September 12,1996, ANO-1 experienced a reactor trip at the end of a fuel cycle. At the time of the trip,44 of the 60 control rods were located in fuel assemblies with burnups greater than 35,000 mwd /mtU, including 13 control rods which resided in fuel assemblies whose burnups were in the range of 43,000 to 48,000 mwd /mtU. The remaining 16 control rods were located in fuel assemblies with burnups greater than 31,000 mwd /mtU. When the reactor tripped, all control rods fully inserted as designed with no significant variation in previous control rod trip times. Therefore, ANO-1 fuel is not believed to be susceptible to exhibiting control :
rod insertion problems within the current licensed fuel burnup limits.
Operational Concerns- !
I The proposed control rod drop time testing would result in unnecessary reactor j shutdowns and unwarranted reactor trips. Plant operation, other than at steady-state conditions, exposes a nuclear power plant to increased vulnerabilities. Special concerns arise during the approach to or return from shutdown conditions. Numerous operator actions occur during a controlled decrease in power which increases the chance for error.
The operator has to diagnose off-normal conditions which are complicated by the transient I
plant conditions and the numerous actions occurring during plant maneuvering.
Therefore, increasing the frequency of either controlled shutdowns or reactor trip events significantly increases the probability of operator error. ,
Fuel Integrity and Reliability:
The frequency of reactor trip events impacts fuel integrity. During a reactor trip the fuel is 1 thermally cycled, thus increasing the probability for inducing failure in a pre-existing flaw (e.g., the local wear of the cladding by debris or increased grid to fuel rod fretting due to changes in core cross-flow). Furthermore, a reactor trip aggravates any pre-existing fuel failures. The probability for inducing secondary hydriding failures is also increased. This normally results in increased levels of tramp activity which persists for several cycles following removal of the failed fuel.
Radiological. Industrial, and Environmental Considerations:
Failed fuel provides a path for fission products to enter the primary reactor coolant.
During a reactor trip with failed fuel present, iodine spiking occurs which can briefly increase the reactor coolant activity by an order of magnitude of two or more. Also, highly radioactive " crud bursts" can occur during a reactor trip. These phenomena increase the radiation dose that plant employees receive.
l f
l
, , _ - -y ,
. i
,** 'f U. S. NRC I l June 19,1997 l 1CAN069706 Page 3 J Higher reactor coolant activity levels impact the balance of plant if primary-to-secondary leakage exists. Increasing the frequency of plant shutdowns, especially late in cycle, substantially increases the amount of -liquid and gaseous radwaste . generated and subsequently discharged. In addition to the environmental considerations, this has dose consequences as well, given the increased frequency of changing filters and resins.
Therefore, a control rod testing program with high reactor coolant activity levels would substantially increase the radiation dose to plant emphyees.
Increasing the frequency of performing a controlled power decrease, reactor trip, and -
power ascension increases the likelihood of component failure due to mechanical and thermal cycling. Such failures pose industrial hazards to plant employees and could result in extended outages. If an anticipated or actual component failure requires cooldown to cold shutdown conditions, or even opening or draining the reactor coolant system, consequences increase dramatically. This substantially increases employee exposure to industrial and radiological hazards and significantly increases liquid, gaseous, and solid radiological waste generation. l 1
1 Safety Imosct:
1 The ANO-1 Probabilistic Safety Assessment identifies a number of complicating events, such as losses of feedwater or offsite power, which in conjunction with reactor trip lead to core damage. During plant maneuvering to shutdown or to perform a reactor trip, key i operator actions are required to realign main feedwater and offsite power. Though operators are aware of protecting these critical safety functions, the opportunity for error is greater during plant maneuvering. The proposed testing plan would systematically .
require the plant to enter transient operating conditions. The resulting increase in exposure to conditions potentially adverse to safety must be thoughtfully considered.
Entergy Operations has made a significant effort to decrease unnecessary reactor trips.
Although ANO-1 can be safely shutdown and restarted when required, it is not pmdent to mandate a testing program that results in approximately five extra shutdowns or reactor trips per year for a concern that is not applicable to ANO-1. From a safety standpoint, control rod drop time testing would provide no increased safety benefit and could potentially degrade safety.
Therefore, Entergy Operations concludes that control rod insertion problems are not a safety concern for ANO-1 and requests that the reactors operating with FCF Mark-B fuel be excluded from the final bulletin supplement. Entergy Operations appreciates the NRC's consideration of these comments. Should you have any questions, please contact me.
j u
l M =m-wi m
'?-
U. S. NRC June 19,1997 - '
1CAN069706 Page 4 Very truly yours, i gL $.
+~
- Dwight C. Mims Director, Nuclear Safety DCM/nbm Attachments
- cc: U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l Document Control Desk l Mail Station PI-137 l
- Washington, DC 20555 )
Mr. Ellis W. Merschoff L
Regional Administrator U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region IV 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 400 Arlington, TX 76011-8064 i
. NRC Senior Resident Inspector Arkansas Nuclear One !
P.O. Box 310 London, AR72847 Mr. George Kalman NRR Project Manager Region IV/ANO-1 & 2
- U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission NRR Mail Stop 13-H-3 One White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852
. t 9
^~ ..
Rodded Fuel Assembly Bumups versus Control Rod Drop Times 50000 -
g gg g x
x x g
xf &&* b*
t xx xx '
40000 -
- X X ** x*x* D 8E M * **
xx a *#* ** IExg,%c x
25000 - -
$ x x x x d * *S Ex 3 20000 - -
E x x xx xx x x x ** ;
y x x xx xx x '
< 15000 - -
10000 - -
5000 - - -
0 : : : : :
1.00 1.05 1.10 1.15 1.20 1.25 1.30 ANO-1 Control Rod Drop Times (seconds)
Page1 e