ML032460679

E-mail FSARs

ML032460679
Person / Time
Site:	Mcguire, Catawba, McGuire
Issue date:	02/08/2002
From:	Rani Franovich Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	William Reckley Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
FOIA/PA-2002-0256
Download: ML032460679 (1)

Text

Wy~Hili Rekley - Re: FSARs P 1 From: Rani Franovich \ p.4Mv To: William Reckley/

Date: Fri, Feb 8, 2002 9:35 AM

Subject:

Re: FSARs That sounds good. Let's touch base Monday to see how the redaction is coming along. Thanks, Bill, and have a pleasant weekend.

Rani

>>> William Reckley 02108/02 09:14AM >>>

I talked with Mary Pat yesterday and we will be doing the initial redaction. For now, lets just offer Duke Energy the option to provide input if they want but otherwise we will be doing the work.

>>> Rani Franovich 02/08/02 08:42AM >>>

Hi Bill, I spoke with Bob Gill of Duke Energy late yesterday to let him know of our efforts to make the Catawba and McGuire UFSARs available to the public. I passed along the implication that their assistance in identifying figures and information currently in the UFSARs that may be related to physical protection may be needed. f did not sense much responsiveness from Bob. Either the Duke folks involved in license renewal are not much concerned with the ASLBs interest in these documents and their accessibility; or they simply are not the right group in Duke to assist us in this effort. My suspicion is the latter of the two.

If you think we may need assistance from Duke, perhaps you and I should discuss the nature of their desired contribution. Would they do a upeer review" of figures or information we determine fits into the physical security category? Or would we ask them to do a wholesale review of the UFSARs? And are we justified in going to the sites (suggested by Bob Gill to be the appropriate place) to request their assistance with such a short-fuse item?

Just some things to consider. Wold like to get your thoughts on them.

>>> William Reckley 02/07/02 01 :26PM >>>

You might warn the licensee that we are looking at the FSARs and that they might want to do the same.

We don't have specific criteria but the most suspect items are currently arrangement drawings (e.g., Fig 3-110) which when added together, give info on equip locations, routes between pts, etc. I am checking with OGC on how we will actually do the retractions. It is possible that we will need something from the licensee that states that they have determined that the subject figureslinfo currently in the FSARs are (in light of 9/11) are related to the facilities' physical protection and is now considered proprietary in accordance with 10 CFR 2.790(d). This is a provision that we have not used in the past and involves defining some level of information (such as the layout drawings and perhaps some PRA material that gives critical combinations of equipment) as being related to physical protection and therefore proprietary.

I'll be back in touch but a conversation with the licensee may be in order now just because we don't have much time to resolve these Issues.

I'll drop by the earlier comsecy but the SRM basically supercedes anything that it said.

CC: Christopher Grimes; Pao-Tsin Kuo; Stephen Hoffman; Susan Uttal L 1/3g