ML040990645

E-mail from M. Kotzalas to J Arildsen and Z. Hsu Regarding McGuire FSAR Review

ML040990645
Person / Time
Site:	Mcguire, McGuire
Issue date:	02/14/2002
From:	Margie Kotzalas Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Arildsen J, Hsu Z Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response
References
FOIA/PA-2002-0256
Download: ML040990645 (1)

Text

. . I I I.--- 1-1 .. .. g - ? -1. -1 , -- . , .- . - - .. , .- - ... I. i - - - . . 1. - - - -- -- -- ..- , .

[WilliarnFleckley-Fle: McGuireFSARreview .. . 1. Page 1.

W Reckle - - .- . . r. ..-. . . -v--

From: Margie Kotzalas '-

To: Jesse Arildsen; Zan-Shing (Ray) Hsu iJ5I 2-Date: Thu, Feb 14, 2002 5:30 PM

Subject:

Re: McGuire FSAR review OttlrThanks Ray. I am reviewing the information that Jesse identified as sensitive in the McGuire FSAR and 10 l looking for the same kind of information in Catawba's FSAR. Even if we don't get all the sensitive info out Lof the FSARs the first time around, I want to be consistent in removing the same info from these 2 FSARs

>>> Zan-Shing (Ray) Hsu 02/14/02 05:23PM >>>>> J I Margie, I concur with Jesse's comments after reviewing his attachement.

0 C Particular the McGuire & Catawba FSAR are submitted for relicense. This updated information could be more sensitive to the old FSAR. Now, these information would be available in an electronic format which is provided an easy and accurate assessment to looking for the vital component or SSCs. I agree with Jesse's recommendation for a more detailed review.

In addition, these two sites have unique design of SSF. When I prepared for their the OSREs during 90s, because this unique feature, I used FSAR & their SSF information for planning the activities.

Ray

> Jesse Arildsen 02/14/02 04:43PM >>>

Margie, I've attached the review results as a broad brush (subjective) partial review of the FSAR. As we discussed this list is representative of just part of what should NOT be released to the PDR. The review did not include all of the Figures in Chapter 3 nor the following Chapters. In addition, I believe that the items listed by Sam Miranda found in Chapters 3, 6, 8, 9, and 10 are worthy of consideration for withholding. However, please note the statement made by Bill in an E-mail yesterday. "What we'll do is take a version to the PDR on Friday. If our subsequent review identifies more or less Info to take out, we'll take the revised disks down to the PDR."

We need to ensure that mgmt understands that this was a cursory review, and a more detailed review is strongly recommended.

Thank you Margie. I regret that this project requires far more time than is available this week.

Jesse (Dennis Gordon - Please note that I call particular attention to Figure 2-4.)

CC: Samuel Miranda; William Reckley Fe--