|
---|
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
...
m' n
.M DOCKET NUMBER L , PROPOS RULE S , a.,, , uw c.,,q
- ==~ApeL SVR 4'ss2 4 rw:: e DOCKETED L tte R:ck AR 72203 uswac w sm om i
'90 JAN 29 P2 :42 I
irFICE OF ECFETAfW uGCKEliflG A SEi'VtCI-PR ANC'i .
January 15, 1990 BCANB19004 . _
Mr. Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary .
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document-Control Desk Mail Station P1-137 Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing and Service Branch
Subject:
Arkansas Nuclear One - Units 1 & 2 Docket Nos. 50-313 and 50-368 License Nos. DPR-51 and NPF-6 Proposed Rule 10CFR Part 50 Stabilization and Decontamination Priority, Trusteeship Provisions, and Amount of Property Insurance Requirements FR, Vol. 54, No. 213 (November 6,1989)
Dear Mr. Chilk:
Arkansas Power & Light Company (AP&L) is submitting the following comments in response to the proposed rule change regarding stabilization and decontamination priority, trusteeship provisions, and amount of. property insurance requirements for nuclear power plants.
As delineated in the proposed rule, three petitions were submitted to the NRC. subsequent to the publication of the final rule in 1987. AP&L purchases all of the ANO property insurance from ANI/MAERP and NEIL, two of the
. petitioners, and is a member of the Edison Electric Institute serving on the Risk Management Committee, which is the third petitioner. Therefore, we have been monitoring each of the petitioner's activities closely. We are in agreement with the petitioners' proposals to the final rule. In substance, the NRC_ adopted the proposals but changed some of the proposed language and expanded the scope of certain proposals "so that NRC responsibilities and concerns are more clearly presented."
i 9002080242 900115 54 46624 PDR ,
y9
g ,
L3 j .
e Mr. Samuel J. Chilk l Page 2 4 January 15, 1990 t
The four points of contention contained in the petitioners' proposals and AP&L comments regarding the NRC amendments are as follows:
- Clarification of the scope and timing of the stabilization process !
after an accident at a covered reactor '
The NRC accepted the $10.0 million threshold, changed the petitioners' proposed 30-day stabilization period priority to a 60-day priority on '
insurance proceeds, and accepted the petitioners' examples of stabilization actions, modifying the language somewhat and adding maintenance and sub-criticality.
We are in agreement with this proposed amendment.
- Clarification of procedures by which the NRC determines and approves expenditures of funds necessary for decontamination and cleanup Consistent with the petitioners' proposals, the NRC adopted language for post-accident cleanup plans, in order that unplanned insurance ,
proceeds may be used for activities other than those defined as stabilization and decontamination priority activities. The most significant NRC modification to the language proposed by the petitioners is found in S50.54(w)(4)(ii) and (iii), "... to decontaminate the reactor sufficiently to permit the licensee either to f resume operation of the reactor or to apply under S50.82 for authorit todecommissionthereactorandtosurrenderthelicensevoluntarily.{
The petitioners' proposals suggested "to decontaminate the reactor sufficiently to permit the licensee either to resume operation of the reactor or to undertake measures leading to decommissioning of the reactor, in a manner that is consistent with the-Commission's occupational exposure limits in 10CFR Part 20."
We are in agreement with the currently proposed wording. <
- A change in the terminology of the required insurance from " property" insurance to " decontamination liability" insurance In order to insulate decontamination priority insurance proceeds from indenture provisions and because all nuclear property insurers now are willing to offer hybrid policies, the NRC adopted the petitioners' ?
proposals to reouire insurance that clearly states that any proceeds must be payable first for stabilization of the reactor and next for decontamination of the reactor and the reactor station site.
We are in agreement with this proposed amendment.
m
)
Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Page 3 January 15, 1990 i
- ~ Rescission of the provision that proceeds of the required insurance :
are to be paid to an independent trustee J L
In the final rule of 1987, the NRC included the trusteeship provisions L" to assure that decontamination and cleanup expenses received priority over other post-accident activities. The NRC states "... a combination
, of the hybrid policy, explici_t procedures for the payment of claims, i
and recent decisions in aankruptcy cases may more effectively protect -
decontamination and cleanup expenses from competing claims."
i The NRC has reserved the right to implement the trusteeship t u requirements in individual cases, if warranted, and is apparently seeking legislative to receive and retain such funds itself. The proposed rules contain no indication however, of whether the commission believes the proposed legislation would also authorize the NRC to direct insurers to pay the NRC rather than policy beneficiaries, or whether the agency thinks it already has such authority.
We are in agreement with this proposed amendment, as written.
One issue not proposed by the petitioners, but of which the NRC has taken advantage-in its solicitation of comments of the proposed rules, is a solicitation of comments regarding the appropriate level and indexing of the required amount of insurance. The NRC indicates that in the 1987 rulemaking, it had no effective means of determining future costs of accident stabilization, decontamination, and cleanup other than by periodic ;
updates of the study from which the current $1.06 billion requirement was derived (NVREG/CR-2601). The NRC solicitation for comments continues with suggestions that a mechanism similar to the one used in its final decommissioning regulations (53 FR 24018, June 27, 1988) may be appropriate for accident cleanup inflation. A significant component of the mechanism's formula would be reactor size and type. Additionally, in its Regulatory Analysis, the NRC states "Although the offect of these formulas, if developed and adopted, would increase the required amount of insurance for some licensees, there should be little impact on insurance costs to licensees because almost all licensees buy the maximum amount of insurance >
available."
We believe that the $1.06 billion presently required is as appropriate as '
any calculation generated by formulas including reactor size and type. To fully define decontamination and cleanup costs, many accident scenarios and consequences of those scenarios would have to be developed, costs assigned, and mitigation plans produced, in addition to methods for inflation
~
indexing. Additionally, its quite probable that each reactor would require ,
a different level of insurance, based on this assessment. In our opinion, the present level required is appropriate and there is no need to create a mechanism for accident cleanup inflation. The finan::ial impact statement made in the Regulatory Analysis may presently be true, as most licensees do
' c.
~
l Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Page 4 January 15, 1990 t
purchase all available capacity. Presently AP&L does not purchase all available capacity. If the rule were changed to require purchase of all capacity at this time, the cost to AP&L would be $846,000 per year.
Additionally, this comment suggests that utilities will always purchase all capacity offered by the insurers, which indicates the insurers would determine how much capacity is enough and directly impact utilities' budgets in the process. . .
In summary, we are in agreement with the proposed amendments, as written and
. feel that the present requirement of $1.06 billion is adequate.
l Additionally, we do not believe there is a need for developing formulas for establishing base requirement amounts or escalation factors.
Should you have any questions or comments, I would be glad to provide whatever clarification necessary.
Very truly yours, s
8 .
Y===lO=A*=
ames J. Fisicato Manager, licensing JJF/SAB/lw cc:. Mr. Robert Martin U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region IV-611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 Arlington, TX 76011 NRC Senior Resident Inspector Arkansas Nuclear One - ANO-1 & 2 Number 1, Nuclear Plant Road ,
Russellville, AR 72801 '
Mr. C. Craig Harbuck NRRProjectManager,RegionIV/ANO-1 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- NRR Mail Stop 13-D-18 One White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, Maryland 20852 G
Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Page 5 January 15, 1990 Mr. Chester Poslusny NRR Project Manager, Region IV/ANO-2 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission NRR Mail Stop 13-D-18 One White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, Maryland 20.852