ML20069K663
| ML20069K663 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Wolf Creek  |
| Issue date: | 03/23/1983 |
| From: | Koester G KANSAS GAS & ELECTRIC CO. |
| To: | Jay Collins NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| References | |
| KMLNRC-83-033, KMLNRC-83-33, NUDOCS 8304260434 | |
| Download: ML20069K663 (2) | |
Text
e 6
KANSAS GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY THE ELECTAC COMPANY OLENN L MOESTER V'CE PREliOENT - NUCLE Am March 23, 1983 ll fr
-- "\\ ' ' hl ],
Mr. John T. Collins Regional Administrator
!Di!
' l 'i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission it{i W28 E l
Region IV
!l I
i
,f U 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 Arlington, Texas 76011
~_._.
KMLNRC S3-0?3 Re:
Docket No. STN 50-482 Ref: Letter of 3/11/83 from J'ICollins, NRC, Pegion IV, to GLKoester, KG&E
Dear Mr. Collins:
Your Referenced letter requested that Kansas Gas and Electric Company (KG&E) provide your office with specific questions that KG&E would like discussed during the meeting being held in Dallas, Texas, on April 5, 1983.
Attached are KG&E's questions as of rhis time. These questions were previously telecopied to your Mr. Hale.
Yours very truly, gf 5
O CLK:bb Attach cc: HRoberds/SSchum, w/a 3 I agrn8 raa883
'z A
I 201 N. Market - Wichita, Kansas - Mail Address: RO. Box 208 i Wichita, Kansas 67201 - Telephone: Ar, a Code (316) 261-6451
v
.se.4 e-g Attachment to KMLNRC 83-033 a
QUESTIONS FOR APRIL 5 REGIONAL MEETING
.A.
Proposed Rule on' License Conditions and Tech Specs in an Emergency 1.
KG&E understands that the Commission received 25 comments concerning the proposed rule, two of which disagreed with the rule. On what basis were the comments disagreeing with the rule?
2.
KG&E commented to the Commission that the rule as finally adopted should include those standards to be used by the NRC staff in evaluating a licensee's judgment and actions should the provisions of the rule ever be utilized.
What are the NRC's plans with regard to the adoption of such standards?
B.
QA Program Change Final Rule 1.
Do changes to a utility's NRC approved QA program description '
for operations fall under the new regulations if the utility currently has only a construction permit and not an operati ng license?
The operating QA program is being implemented by the Startup and Operations organizations in preparation for commercial operation.
2.
Are submittals made per 50.54 (a)(3)(ii) and 50.55(f)(3)(ii) intended to be a draf t of proposed revisions for the SAR with the formal. issuance of the revision to come after NRC approval?
3.
What is intended by the 50.54(a)(3)(ii) and 50.55(f)(3)(ii)
I statement that the submittal must be accompanied by
...a forwarding letter identifying.... the basis for concluding that the revised program incorporating the change continues to satisfy.... the Safety Analysis Report Quality l
Assurance Program description commitments previsouly accepted '
L by the NRC... when the reason for this requirement, as stated in the last sentence of 50.54(a)(3) and 50.55(f)(3),
[
is to obtain approval to reduce these previsouly accep ted commitments?
i 4.
How does 50.55(f) apply to subcontractors who have their own QA program which is neither described nor referenced in the plant FSAR?
t s