ML040641015
| ML040641015 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Mcguire, Catawba, McGuire  |
| Issue date: | 03/01/2002 |
| From: | Rani Franovich Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | William Reckley, Siemien M Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, NRC/OGC |
| References | |
| FOIA/PA-2002-0256 | |
| Download: ML040641015 (1) | |
Text
e-ea----
.-~ ------
(Ifcm-kley6k I
-FDuke Aragmn rwns n e
ee N Al Response From:
Rani Franovich~ow To:
(>L'-._Mary Pat Siemien; William Reckley Date:
Fri, Mar 1, 2002 9:14 AM
Subject:
Duke General Arrangement Drawings and License Renewal RAI Response Bill and Mary Pat, As you know, Duke Energy has applied for renewal of the operating licenses for Catawba and McGuire. In reviewing the application, the staff determined that additional information pertaining to site buildings and yard structures Is needed to complete its review. As such, a request for additional information (RAI) was issued to Duke.
Duke has unofficially provided general arrangement drawings (which you have seen) to the staff to review and indicate if these drawings will suffice. The staff has concluded that the drawings provide sufficient information to support its review of the application; however, Duke must now respond to the RAI in an official capacity.
My counterpart at Duke has informed me that, since the staff already has the drawings and information requested, Duke does not wish to send the drawings as a physical attachment to their RAI response.
Rather, they prefer to (1) reference the drawings by title (as opposed to number); (2) indicate that the drawings contain sensitive Information pertaining to the physical security of the plants; and (3) state that the drawings were provided to the staff seperately and are therefore not attached to the RAI response.
The reason, as I understand it, is that they want to send one letter that would be publicly available in response to our RAI (which Includes some 30-odd questions). If the drawings must be sent, they would issue them seperately to avoid Inadvertant placement of them In the public domain. The applicant, however, considers the effort involved in issuing a separate response unreasonable since the staff already has the information.
lLi Please advise... and feel free to call (415-1868) if you have any questions.
Thanks a bunch-Rani Franovich, Project Manager CatawbalMcGuire License Renewal, Safety Review CC:
BrianThomas; Jin-Sien Guo; Pao-Tsin Kuo; Robert Elliott; Stephen Hoffman Information in ifs record was deleted in accordance wi the Freedom of Informatoh Act, exemptions 5 FOA-Goo-eas4 I~2
-4:,