ML20101S929
| ML20101S929 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Calvert Cliffs  |
| Issue date: | 07/13/1992 |
| From: | Creel G BALTIMORE GAS & ELECTRIC CO. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9207200154 | |
| Download: ML20101S929 (2) | |
Text
_
n p
N BALTIMORE GAS AND ELECTRIC 1650 CALVERT CUFF 3 PARKWAY LUSBY, W.RYLAND 20657 4702 GEonot C. CREEL Vect Pnttut thf Nuckt As cNtROT mm,.u-..n July 13,1992 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington,DC 20555 A1TENTION:
Document Control Desk
SUBJECT:
Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Unit Nos.1 & 2; Docket Nos. 50-317 & 50-318 Clarification of Proposed ChanecJo Ouality Auurance Procram
REFERENCE:
(a)
Letter from Mr. G. C. Creel (BG&E) to NRC Document Control Desk, dated June 24,1992, Proposed Change to Quality Assurance Program Gentlemen:
In Reference (a), Baltimore Gas and Electric Company (BG&E) requested NRC approval of a proposed revision of the Quality A+surance (OA) Program for the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant. The revision would clarify the regulatory controls that apply to changes to licensing documents. We proposed to add the following w rds to Section 1B.2 of the QA Policy (see proposed In crt B in Reference a):
"OA Policy revisions are reviewed by NOAD personnel to detcimine if they constitute a reduction in commitments previously made to the NRC. If so, the revisions are sent to the NRC for approva! prior to further interaal review."
(emphasis added)
On July 2,1992, we were contacted by the NRC reviewer for this request, Mr. John Caruso of NRC Region I, Mr. Caruso requested clarification on the meaning of the phrase " prior to further internal review." We explained that this phrase only denoted final review of the overall revision package by the Manager, Nuclear Oaality Assurance Department (NOAD) prior to submitting the new OA Program to the Vice President, Nuclear Energy for signature. Mr. Caruso observed that this is primarily an implementation activity, not a further internal BG&E review lic recommended that the wording be changed from "... prior to further internal review" to ",. prior to implementation."
We agree with the suggested wording change because it is consistent with our procedures, it does not in any way change the intent of the revision we proposed in Reference (a), and it is consistent with the specific wording of 10 CFR 50.54(a)(3).
g f,f
/6
~,,
<oU! is 9207200154 920713
//
hh Ah/I /
DR ACOCK 0500 7
p
Document Control Desk Jply 13,1992 i
Page 2 We therefore request that this wording change be factored into your continuing review of Reference (a). Should you have any further questions regarding this matter, we will be pleased to discuss them with you.
Very truly yours, l
i
,/
~[
/
( -)
/
i
-==
vI GCC/BSM/bsm/ dim cc:
D. A. Brune, Esquire J. E. Silberg, Esquire R. A. Capra, NRC D. G. Mcdonald, Jr., NRC T. T. Martin, N RC P. R. Wilson, NRC R.1. Mcl.can, DNR J.11. Walter, PSC
_m__ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ __. _. _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
-