ML040570650
| ML040570650 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 02/18/2004 |
| From: | Gallagher M AmerGen Energy Co |
| To: | Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML040570644 | List: |
| References | |
| 2130-04-20030, CAW-04-1793 | |
| Download: ML040570650 (28) | |
Text
AmerGen.M AmerGen Energy Company, LLC www.exeloncorp.com An Exelon Company 200 Exelon Way Kennett Square, PA 19348 1 OCFR50.55a February 18, 2004 2130-04-20030 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555 Oyster Creek Generating Station Facility Operating License No. DPR-16 NRC Docket No. 50-219
Subject:
Proposed Relief Requests to the Requirements of 1 OCFR50.55a Concerning the Third Ten-Year Interval Inservice Inspection Progratm Response to Request for Additional Information
Reference:
Letter from M. P. Gallagher (AmerGen Energy Compahy, LLC) to U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, dated June 12, 2003 In the referenced letter, AmerGen Energy Company, LLC, submitted for your review and approval four (4) proposed relief requests in accordance with 10CFR50.55a, associated with the Third Ten-Year Interval Inservice Inspection (ISI) Program for Oyster Creek Generating Station (OCGS). The OCGS third ten-year interval began on March 15, 1992, and concluded onOctober 14, 2002. The OCGS ISI Program for the Third Interval complied with the 1986
- Edition of the ASME Section Xi Code.
In a conference call with the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission on January 13, 2004, the Staff requested additional information. Attached are the revised relief requests containing the additional information as identified by the revision bars.
Relief Request OC-33 contains a diagram proprietary to Westinghouse. Accordingly, it is requested that the diagram be withheld from public disclosure. An affidavit supporting this request is contained in Attachment 2. OC-33 also contains a non-proprietary version of the diagram.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission February 18, 2004 Page 2 If you have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Very truly yours, Michael P. Gallagher Director, Licensing & Regulatory Affairs AmerGen Energy Company, LLC - Oyster Creek Generating Station Revised Relief Requests - Affidavit cc:
H. J. Miller, Administrator, USNRC, Region I (w/attachment)
R. J. Summers, USNRC Senior Resident Inspector, OCGS (w/attachment)
P. S. Tam, Senior Project Manager, USNRC (w/attachment)
File No. 03068
ATTACHMENT 1 OYSTER CREEK GENERATING STATION REVISED RELIEF REQUESTS OC-32
-OC-33 OC-34 OC-35
Third Interval Relief Request Oyster Creek Generating Station Page 1 AmerGen Energy Company Oyster Creek Generating Station Third 10-Year Interval Request for Relief OC-32 ASME CODE COMPONENTS AFFECTED:
Code Class:
Class 1
Reference:
ASME Section Xi, 1986 Edition, Table IWB-2412-1 ("Inspection Program B"), and Table IWB-2500-1 ("Pressure Retaining Welds in Reactor Vessel")
Examination Categories:
B-A Item Numbers:
B1.10, B1.20, B1.30, and B1.40
==
Description:==
Deferral of Shell-to-Flange Weld (Weld No. NRO2 3-563)
Examination (B13.30)
APPLICABLE CODE EDITION AND ADDENDA:
ASME Section Xl, 1986 Edition APPLICABLE CODE REQUIREMENT:
ASME Section Xl, 1986 Edition, Table IWB-2412-1 requires inspections to be performed each inspection period and to satisfy the minimum and maximum completed examination percentage in accordance with the inspection interval.
Basis for Hardship or Unusual Difficulty without Compensating Increase in Level of Quality or Safety:
In accordance with 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3)(ii), relief is requested from the requirements of Table IWB-2412-1 for examination category B-A in that reactor vessel weld examinations were not performed during the second period as required by Table IWB-2500-1. Examination items B13.20 and B13.40 of Table IWB-2500-1 were inspected in the first period in accordance with the Table IWB-2412-1. However, performance of examination item B13.30 (shell-to-flange weld) was subsequently deferred to the third period as part of the reactor vessel shell weld examinations (B13.10) in order to gain greater coverage of the weld by accessing it from the inner diameter (i.e., the ID exam allowed scanning the weld from two directions) through use of the enhanced shell weld examination tooling. This relief is requested based on the financial hardship of the significant staging costs necessary for performing this examination during the second period, and the radiation dose that would be obtained for performing the exams manually as compared to performing the examinations utilizing the automated tooling.
Third Interval Relief Request Oyster Creek Generating Station Page 2 Additionally, based on the location of this weld and the associated limitations as identified in the attached diagram (contained in RR-33, drawing CE 232-587), better coverage would be expected utilizing automated ID examination tools versus a manual OD examination.
Therefore, performing the code examination during the second period would not result in a compensating increase in the level of quality or safety.
In summary, two items (B13.20 and B1i.40) were inspected in the first period and two items (B1.10 and B1.30) in the third period, but no items were examined during the second period as required by Table IWB-2412-1. Table IWB-2412-1 provides the required distribution for these categories. This distribution was not followed for the inspection of these examination items.
BURDEN CAUSED BY COMPLIANCE:
In accordance with 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3)(ii), relief is requested from the distribution of examinations as provided on Table IWB-2412-1. Performance of examination item B1.30 (shell-to-flange weld) during the third period, as part of the reactor vessel shell weld examinations (B1.10), provided greater coverage of the weld (i.e., scanning the weld from the Vessel ID from two directions) through use of the enhanced shell weld examination tooling used as part of the shell weld examinations. Additionally, performing the B13.30 examination during the third period avoided the burden of the significant staging costs necessary for performing the examinations during the second period.
As an example, the required distribution provided in Table IWB-2412-1 of the 1986 version of the Code has been updated in the 1995 Edition, up to the 1996 Addenda, to provide more flexibility in the examination of the Category B-A welds. Specifically, as discussed in the 1995 Edition, up to the 1996 Addenda, IWB-2412, "Inspection Program B", "if there are less than three items or welds to be examined in an Examination Category, the items or welds may be examined in any two periods, or in any one period if there is only one item or weld, in lieu of the percentage requirements of Table IWB-2412-1." Therefore, as discussed above in the 1995 version of the code, if there are less than three (3) items or welds to be examined in an Examination Category during a period, which occurred at Oyster Creek Generating Station, the items or welds may be examined in any two periods during the interval, in lieu of the percentages of Table IWB-2412-1. Therefore, this example of the new version of the code would eliminate the need for this proposed relief.
PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE AND BASIS FOR USE:
Oyster Creek Generating Station proposes to accept the schedule of examinations that were utilized during this interval for these examination category B-A welds. The proposed relief will not adversely impact the health and safety of the public.
DURATION OF PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE:
This relief is requested for examinations performed during the third ten-year interval at Oyster Creek Generating Station, which concluded on October 14, 2002.
Third Interval Relief Request Oyster Creek Generating Station Page 3 AmerGen Energy Company Oyster Creek Generating Station Third 10-Year Interval Request for Relief OC-33 ASME CODE COMPONENTS AFFECTED:
Code Class:
Class 1
Reference:
ASME Section Xl, 1986 Edition, Table IWB-2500-1 ("Pressure Retaining Welds in Reactor Vessel"), Examination Item B13.30, Shell-to-Flange Weld, Weld No. NRO2 3-563, drawing E 232-587.
Examination Category:
B-A Item Numbers:
B1.30
==
Description:==
Reduced Coverage of the Reactor Vessel Shell-to-Flange Weld APPLICABLE CODE EDITION AND ADDENDA:
ASME Section Xl, 1986 Edition APPLICABLE CODE REQUIREMENT:
ASME Section Xl, 1986 Edition, requires inspections of the Shell-to-Flange Weld. As part of the examination coverage, examination of the shell-to-flange weld requires "essentially 100%"
coverage.
IMPRACTICALITY OF COMPLIANCE:
Relief is requested from the Section XI requirement to examine "essentially 100%" (defined in 50.55a(g)(6)(ii)(A)(2) as greater than 90% coverage) of the volume of the shell-to-flange weld (Examination Item B13.30), which was performed during the third period, of the third inspection interval.
BURDEN CAUSED BY COMPLIANCE:
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(5)(iii), relief is requested from the Section XI requirement to examine "essentially 100%" (defined in 50.55a(g)(6)(ii)(A)(2) as greater than 90% coverage) of the volume of the shell-to-flange weld (Examination Item B13.30), which was performed during the third period of the third inspection interval.
The examination category B1.30 examination performed in refueling outage 1R18 (2000) was performed using an automatic technique applied to the inner diameter of the vessel where the inspection coverage was taken in two directions (above and below the weld). Sixty-six percent (66%) of the shell-to-flange weld was inspected and no reportable indications were identified.
Third Interval Relief Request Oyster Creek Generating Station Page 4 The remaining sections of the flange-to-shell weld could not be inspected during 1 R1 8 because of interference due to guide rods, main steam nozzle plugs and hoses, and excessive clad roughness. Refer to attached drawing E 232-587, which identifies obstructions that limit ID coverage. This diagram shows obstructions created by: 1) the guide rod brackets at elevation 54, and 2) the steam dryer brackets at elevation 48. The guide rods are connected to the guide rod brackets at 0 and 180 degrees, but are not shown in the diagram, and are also an obstruction. These limitations are the result of vessel internal structures and necessary outage in-vessel configurations. Removal of these interferences was impractical. The 66% of the weld that was examined was distributed around the circumference of the vessel, which provided a good representative sample of the weld. At the completion of the 1 R1 8 outage this weld had been examined to the maximum extent practical. No reportable indications were identified in the 66% coverage.
Additional weld examination would require scaffolding off the biological shield completely around the vessel and the removal of the mirror insulation to gain access to the weld. For the personnel involved with scaffolding, handling insulation, prepping the weld and performing the examination, the estimated dose was 8.6 person-rem.
An assessment of the additional weld coverage which could have been achieved with this manual OD examination determined that a maximum of 17% additional coverage could have been obtained. Even if this manual OD examination would have been performed, and if maximum expected coverage was achieved, total exam coverage would be 83% combining ID and OD examinations, which would still not meet the Code requirement.
Therefore, given the substantial personnel dose and cost considerations which would have been incurred to achieve the incremental coverage using an OD manual inspection approach, and the fact that essentially 100% coverage still would not have been achieved with these additional manual exams, inspections beyond the B13.30 examination that was performed in outage 1R18 would constitute an undue burden.
PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE AND BASIS FOR USE:
Oyster Creek Generating Station proposes to accept the 66% weld coverage for the shell-to-flange weld.
DURATION OF PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE:
This relief is requested for examination performed during the third ten-year interval at Oyster Creek Generating Station, which concluded on October 14, 2002.
Third Interval Relief Request Oyster Creek Generating Station Page 6 Attached Drawing E 232-587 (Non-Proprietary Version)
Non-Proprietary Version of Drawing E 232-587
Third Interval Relief Request Oyster Creek Generating Station Page 7 AmerGen Energy Company Oyster Creek Generating Station Third 10-Year Interval Request for Relief OC-34 ASME CODE COMPONENTS AFFECTED:
Code Class:
Class 1
References:
ASME Section XI, 1986 Edition, Figure IWB-2500-7(d), drawing 104R858 (Overhead View of Vessel)
Examination Categories:
B-D Item Numbers:
B3.90 and B3.100
==
Description:==
Limited Code Coverage on Nozzle to Vessel Weld Examinations APPLICABLE CODE EDITION AND ADDENDA:
ASME Section Xl, 1986 Edition APPLICABLE CODE REQUIREMENT:
ASME Section XI, 1986 Edition, Examination Category B-D, Items B3.90 and B3.100 require 100% volumetric examination of nozzle-to-vessel welds and nozzle inside radius sections, as defined by Figure IWB-2500-7(d).
IMPRACTICALITY OF COMPLIANCE:
Relief is requested from the Code required 100% volumetric examination of the reactor vessel nozzle welds listed below due to nozzle forging configuration and access restrictions.
Third Interval Relief Request Oyster Creek Generating Station Page 8 Code Estimate Component Component Description --::I-Item #
d % of Description of Limitation ID CRV Achieve-
_d (1)
NRO2 4-566A FW nozzle to vessel weld N4A B3.90 62.4%
Restricted access due to adjacent N13B and N6A nozzles NRO2 4-566B FW nozzle to vessel weld N4B B3.90 71.2%
Nozzle geometry NRO2 4-566C FW nozzle to vessel weld N4C B3.90 61.7%
Restricted access due to adjacent N15B and N6B nozzles and nozzle geometry NRO2 4-566D FW nozzle to vessel weld N4D B3.90 71.2%
Nozzle geometry and surface conditions NRO2 6-567 CRD return line nozzle to vessel B3.90 52%
Automated exams restricted weld (N9 nozzle) due to the proximity of N17B Instrumentation nozzle NRO2 2-567A CS nozzle to vessel weld N6A B3.90 34.1%
Restricted access at left side of bio-shield opening NRO2 2-567A CS nozzle N6A (INNER B3.100 50%
Restricted access at left side of RADIUS) bio-shield opening NRO2 3-576 Nozzle to top head weld B3.90 53.8%
Nozzle geometry (N7B nozzle)
NRO2 5-576 Nozzle to top head weld B3.90 45.3%
Nozzle geometry (N8 nozzle)
(1) The volume coverage that was achieved utilizing automated and manual UT techniques (composite coverage).
I BURDEN CAUSED BY COMPLIANCE:
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(5)(iii), relief is requested from ASME Section Xi, 1986 Edition, Examination Category B-D, Items B3.90 and B3.100, which requires 100% volumetric examination of nozzle-to-vessel welds and nozzle inside radius sections, as defined by Figure IWB-2500-7(d).
Oyster Creek has twenty-four Reactor Vessel nozzles that apply to this B-D examination category. Due to the nozzle forging configuration and access restrictions, portions of the Code required examination volume can not be completely examined with automated or manual techniques. The curvature of the blend radius of several nozzle forgings are such that ultrasonic scanning of the weld is interrupted due to loss of contact of the ultrasonic search unit.
This limitation affects both transverse and parallel scanning of the Code required examination volume. The nozzle and vessel material is carbon steel that is typically not susceptible to IGSCC or other typical degradation mechanisms at a BWR. An Oyster Creek service history review found that no outside nozzle and vessel surfaces are exposed to wetting from concentrated chloride bearing environments. Also, in support of ALARA, many of the nozzle to vessel welds are examined utilizing a remote automated nozzle scanner. These techniques however, further limit the examination coverage due to scanning limitations caused by scanner design. Attached Figures 1 and 2 provide a typical example of a limited nozzle examination.
Third Interval Relief Request Oyster Creek Generating Station Page 9 Also attached is drawing 104R858, which provides an overhead view of the vessel. This diagram is an example of the close proximity of the Core Spray and Feedwater nozzles to each other. This close proximity results in limited coverages for the nozzle examinations, as shown in the coverages presented in the previous Table.
The CRD return nozzle (N9) is still utilized for return flow to the reactor at Oyster Creek. The nozzle internal thermal sleeve was replaced with an improved design that protects the nozzle ID surfaces from thermal fatigue by not allowing the return flow to contact the nozzle ID surfaces.
The nozzle ID is inaccessible for an EVT-1 examination due to access limitations. Figure 3 provides a diagram of this return nozzle.
All examinations were performed to the maximum extent practical utilizing automated and manual techniques. The volumetric examination coupled with the visual examination requirements of Code Examination Category B-P during system pressure testing provide reasonable assurance of weld structural integrity.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(5)(iii), relief is requested from the Code required 100%
volumetric examination of the reactor nozzle welds listed in the above table.
PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE AND BASIS FOR USE:
No alternate provisions are practical for the subject welds. Examinations were performed to the maximum extent feasible.
DURATION OF PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE:
This relief is requested for examinations performed during the third ten-year interval at Oyster Creek Generating Station, which concluded on October 14, 2002.
Oyster Cre k
., re. S.p ra a' N6A XNozzle-LiRqu rrod: Thrier -radluuec~oerag6, m,-.
6 Zone -
inner. radtus scan coverage
,rC
- 70 Zo and 2A t
nner radlus scan coverage a
0 ClI) w-t l--
C)
Dflo (D X 0
O D
m N13B fk)Z.E 0
0=
m 0
\\VISCANNEDMANUAL:..
2z CD 2
-t oa CD~
MANUAL Zi - 870'AND Z2A -85CN 02 AREA FROM 200' CW TO 2018I t-OTAC------BLE.
CD~
Q) CDl
- C
Third Interval Relief Request Oyster Creek Generating Station Page 12 PLAN-CONTROL ROD DRIVE RETURN NOZZLE FIGURE 3
- Relief Request OC-34 CRD Return Nozzle Interferences
Third Interval Relief Request Oyster Creek Generating Station Page 13 Attached Drawing 104R85
Third Interval Relief Request Oyster Creek Generating Station Page 14 AmerGen Energy Company Oyster Creek Generating Station Third 10-Year Interval Request for Relief OC-35 ASME CODE COMPONENTS AFFECTED:
Code Class:
Class 1 and 2
Reference:
ASME Section XI, 1986 Edition, Table IWB-2500-1, and Table IWC-2500-1 Examination Categories:
B-J, C-F-1, C-F-2 and C-B Item Numbers:
Various
==
Description:==
Limited Code Coverage on Piping Weld Examinations (PDI)
APPLICABLE CODE EDITION AND ADDENDA:
ASME Section Xl, 1986 Edition APPLICABLE CODE REQUIREMENT:
ASME Section Xl, 1986 Edition, require 100% volumetric examination of Class 1 and 2 piping welds as defined by Table IWB-2500-1, and Table IWC-2500-1.
10CFR50.55a(b)(2)(xv)(A) requires the following examination coverage when applying Supplement 2 of Appendix ViII:
- 1. Piping must be examined in two axial directions, and when examination in the circumferential direction is required, the circumferential examination must be performed in two directions, provided access is available. Dissimilar metal welds must be examined axially and circumferentially.
- 2. Where examination from both sides is not possible, full coverage credit may be claimed from a single side for ferritic welds or dissimilar metal welds. Where examination from both sides is not possible on austenitic welds, full coverage credit from a single side may be claimed only after completing a successful single-sided Appendix Vil demonstration using flaws on the opposite side of the weld.
IMPRACTICALITY OF COMPLIANCE:
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(5)(iii), relief is requested from the new examination coverage requirements for austenitic piping welds with single side access as required in 10CFR50.55a(b)(2)(xv)(A)(2), in that procedures were not available at the time of the examination of the welds below to perform a single-sided Appendix Vil demonstration using flaws on the opposite side of the weld.
Third Interval Relief Request Oyster Creek Generating Station Page 15
'Estimated Component ID Component Description of CRV Description of Limitation
."' A chieved.
NG-A-0002 Elbow to Pipe Weld 50%
Exam performed from Elbow side only due to Tee configuration NG-C-0001A Safe-End to Elbow Weld 50%
Exam performed from Elbow side only due to Safe-end configuration NG-D-0022A Pipe to Safe-End Weld 50%
Exam limited to Safe-End side due to Safe-End configuration NG-E-0001A Safe-End to Elbow Weld 50%
Exam from Elbow side only due to Safe-End configuration NU-3-0001 Pipe to Branch Weld 50%
Exam from Pipe side only due to Branch connection configuration NU-4-0001 Branch to Tee Weld 50%
Exam performed from Tee side only due to branch configuration NU-2-0037 Pipe to Valve Weld 75%
Exam performed from pipe side due to valve configuration ND-10-0021 Pipe to Valve Weld 50%
Exam performed from pipe side due to valve configuration NG-A-0006 Pipe to Valve Weld 50%
Exam performed from pipe side due to valve configuration NG-B-0005 Pipe to Valve Weld 50%
Exam performed from pipe side due to valve configuration NZ-3-0023 Pipe to Valve Weld 50%
Exam performed from pipe side due to valve configuration NU-3-0006 Valve to Pipe Weld 50%
Exam performed from pipe side due to valve configuration NZ-3-0069 Pipe to Valve Weld 50%
Exam performed from pipe side due to valve configuration NZ-3-0081 Pipe to Valve Weld 50%
Exam performed from pipe side due to valve configuration ND-1-0209 Valve to Pipe Weld 50%
Exam performed from pipe side due to valve configuration ND-1 -0208 Elbow to Valve Weld 50%
Exam performed from elbow side due to valve configuration NE-2-0255 Valve to Pipe 'Weld (PSI) 50%
Exam performed from pipe side due to valve configuration NE-2-0256 Pipe to Valve Weld (PSI) 50%
Exam performed from pipe side due to valve configuration NE-2-0257 Valve to Pipe Weld (PSI) 50%
Exam performed from pipe side due to valve configuration NZ-3-0004 Pipe to Valve Weld 50%
Exam performed from pipe side due to valve configuration NE-2-238 Tee to Pipe Weld 75%
Exam performed from pipe side due to tee configuration
Third Interval Relief Request Oyster Creek Generating Station Page 16 Estimated %
- Component ID Component Description of CRV-Description of Limitation
- " A ch ieved - - -
NQZ-1 -0054 Reducing Tee to Pipe 68%
Exam performed from pipe side.
Weld Due to weld crown geometry the scans could not be performed on the weld crown.
NQ-2-0053 Valve to Pipe Weld 52%
Exam was limited by the weld crown and the valve configuration NQ-2-0160 Flange to Pipe Weld 64%
Exam was limited due to flange and weld crown configuration CD-14-001A Isolation Condenser 50%
Exam performed from the head 211-S-5 (Steam Side) Weld (PSI) side due to nozzle configuration CD-14-001A Isolation Condenser 50%
Exam performed from the head 211-C-5 (Condenser Side) Weld side due to nozzle configuration (PSI)
CD-14-001A Isolation Condenser 50%
Exam performed from the head 211-S-6 (Steam Side) Weld (PSI) side due to nozzle configuration CD-14-001A Isolation Condenser 50%
Exam performed from the head 21 1-C-6 (Condenser Side) Weld side due to nozzle configuration (PSI)
BURDEN CAUSED BY COMPLIANCE:
As discussed in 10CFR50.55a(b)(2)(xv)(A)(1) and 10CFR50.55a(b)(2)(xv)(A)(2), if access is available, the weld shall be ultrasonically scanned in both directions parallel to the weld and both directions perpendicular to the weld, where required. Full credit for examination coverage may be claimed for single side exams on ferritic piping welds. However, for austenitic piping welds, an ultrasonic examination procedure must be qualified with flaws located in the inaccessible side of the weld.
There were no qualified PDI ultrasonic examination procedures available for single side coverage that demonstrates equivalency to ultrasonic examination two-sided coverage on austenitic piping welds at the time of the examinations for the welds above.
At Oyster Creek, qualified PDI ultrasonic examination techniques have been used since 2000.
However, qualified PDI procedures were not available at the time of the examination of the welds above to perform a single-sided Appendix Vil demonstration using flaws on the opposite side of the weld as required by 10CFR50.55a(b)(2)(xv)(A)(2).
The table above provides the weld, the code required volume achieved, and the basis for not achieving full coverage.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(5)(iii), relief is requested from the new examination coverage requirements for austenitic piping welds with single side access.
Third Interval Relief Request Oyster Creek Generating Station Page 17 PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE AND BASIS FOR USE:
No alternate provisions are practical for the subject welds. Examinations were performed to the maximum extent feasible.
DURATION OF PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE:
This relief is requested for examinations performed during the third ten-year interval at Oyster Creek Generating Station, which concluded on October 14, 2002.
.J.
ATTACHMENT 2 AFFIDAVIT
- Westinghouse Westinghouse Electric Company Nuclear Services P.O. Box 500 Windsor, Connecticut 06095-0500 USA U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555-0001 Direct tel: 860-731-6289 Direct fax: 860-731-6238 e-mail: ian.c.rickardeus.westinghouse.com Our ref: CANV-04-1793 February 13,2004 APPLICATION FOR ITTIIIOILDING PROPRIETARY INFORMATION FROM PUBLIC DISCLOSURE
Subject:
Combustion Engineering Drawing E-232-587-4, "Internals Attachments, Jersey Central R.V." dated 9-8-65 (Proprietary).
Westinghouse hereby transmits the enclosed affidavit for withholding concerning the subject proprietary document. Affidavit CAW-04-1793, signed by Westinghouse Electric Company LLC, the owner of the information, sets forth the basis on which the proprietary information is requested to be withheld from public disclosure by the. Commission and addresses the considerations listed in paragraph (b)(4) of 10 CFR Section 2.790 of the Commission's regulations.
In conformance with the requirements of 10 CFR 2.790, Westinghouse confirms that the information contained within the subject documents is proprietary. Thejustification for claiming this report as proprietary is identified in Sections (4)(ii)(a) through (4)(ii)(f) of the enclosed affidavit.
Correspondence with respect to the proprietary aspects of the application for withholding or the Westinghouse affidavit should reference this letter, CAW-04-1793, and should be addressed to the undersigned.
Very truly yours, Ian C. Rickard Licensing Project Manager Regulatory Compliance and Plant Licensing Enclosure A BNFL Group Company
CAW-04-1 793 bcc: J. A. Gresham (ECE 4-7A)
C. B. Brinkman, (Rockville, MD 20852)
D. P. Siska (Chattanooga)
RCPL Administrative Aide (ECE 4-7A)
CAW-04-1 793 AFFIDAVIT STATE OF CONNECTICUT
)
) ss: WINDSOR, CT COUNTY OF HARTFORD
)
Before me, the undersigned authority, personally appeared Ian C. Rickard, who, being by me duly sworn according to law, deposes and says that he is authorized to execute this Affidavit on behalf of Westinghouse Electric Company LLC ("Westinghouse"), and that the averments of fact set forth in this Affidavit are true and correct to the best of his kniowledge, information, and belief:
Ian C. Rickard, Licensing Project Manager Regulatory Compliance and Plant Licensing Sworn to and subscribed before me this 13th day of February 2004.
I'
//
Notary ublic My commission expires May 31, 2008.
I z
CAW-04-1793 (1)
I, Ian C. Rickard, depose and say that I am the Licensing Project Manager in Nuclear Services, Westinghouse Electric Company LLC ("Westinghouse"), and as such I have been specifically delegated the function of reviewing the proprietary information sought to be withheld from public disclosure in connection with nuclear power plant licensing and rule making proceedings, and am authorized to apply for its withholding on behalf of the Westinghouse Electric Company LLC.
(2) 1 am making this Affidavit in conformance with the provisions of 10 CFR Section 2.790 of the Commission's regulations and in conjunction with the Westinghouse application for withholding accompanying this Affidavit.
(3)
I have personal knowledge of the criteria and procedures utilized by the Westinghouse Electric Company LLC in designating information as a trade secret, privileged or as confidential commercial or financial information.
(4)
Pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (b)(4) of Section 2.790 of the Cornmission's regulations, the following is furnished for consideration by the Commission in determining whether the information sought to be withheld from public disclosure should be withheld.
(i)
The information sought to be withheld from public disclosure is owned and has been held in confidence by Westinghouse.
(ii) The information is of a type customarily held in confidence by Westinghouse and not customarily disclosed to the public. Westinghouse has a rational basis for determining the types of information customarily held in confidence by it and, in that connection, utilizes a system to determine when and whether to hold certain types of information in confidence.
The application of that system and the substance of that system constitute Westinghouse policy and provide the rational basis required.
Under that system, information is held in confidence if it falls in one or more of several types, the release of which might result in the loss of an existing or potential competitive advantage, as follows:
(a)
The information reveals the distinguishing aspects of a process (or component, structure, tool, method, etc.) where prevention of its use by any of Westinghouse's competitors without license from Westinghouse constitutes a competitive economic advantage over other companies.
(b)
It consists of supporting data, including test data, relative to a process (or component, structure, tool, method, etc.), the application of which data secures a competitive economic advantage, e.g., by optimization or improved marketability.
(c)
Its use by a competitor would reduce his expenditure of resources or improve his competitive position in the design, manufacture, shipment, installation, assurance of quality, or licensing a similar product.
CAW-04-1793 (d)
It reveals cost or price information, production capacities, budget levels, or commercial strategies of Westinghouse, its customers or suppliers.
(e)
It reveals aspects of past, present, or future Westinghouse or customer funded development plans and programs of potential commercial value to Westinghouse.
(f)
It contains patentable ideas, for which patent protection may be desirable.
(iii) There are sound policy reasons behind the Westinghouse system for classification of proprietary information, which include the following:
(a)
The use of such information by Westinghouse gives Westinghouse a competitive advantage over its competitors. It is, therefore, withheld from disclosure to protect the Westinghouse competitive position.
(b)
It is information that is marketable in many ways. The extent to which such information is available to competitors diminishes the Westinghouse ability to sell products and services involving the use of the information.
(c)
Use by our competitor would put Westinghouse at a competitive disadvantage by reducing his expenditure of resources at our expense.
(d)
Each component of proprietary information pertinent to a particular competitive advantage is potentially as valuable as the total competitive advantage. If competitors acquire components of proprietary information, any one component may be the key to the entire puzzle, thereby depriving Westinghouse of a competitive advantage.
(e)
Unrestricted disclosure would jeopardize the position of prominence of Westinghouse in the world market, and thereby give a market advantage to the competition of those countries.
(f)
The Westinghouse capacity to invest corporate assets in research and development depends upon the success in obtaining and maintaining a competitive advantage.
(iv) The information is being transmitted to the Commission in confidence and, under the provisions of 10 CFR Section 2.790, it is to be received in confidence by the Commission.
(v) The information sought to be protected is not available in public sources or available information has not been previously employed in the same original manner or method to the best of our knowledge and belief.
(vi) The proprietary information sought to be withheld in this submittal is that which is contained in Combustion Engineering Drawing No. 232-5874, "Internals Attachments, Jersey Central R.V." dated 9-8-65.
CAW-04-1793 The information defines construction details of a reactor vessel, and in particular supports utilities with CE-manufactured NSSS components in the inspection of such, including:
(a)
The identification of important details relevant to the installation of reactor vessel internals, including locations and dimensions, and (b)
The applicability of the reactor vessel internals to Inservice Inspection Programs for utilities having CE manufactured NSSS components.
Further this information has substantial commercial value as follows:
(a)
Westinghouse plans to sell the use of similar information to its customers for purposes of meeting NRC requirements for licensing documentation.
(b)
Westinghouse can sell the application and defense of the reactor coolant pump seal failure model.
(c)
The information requested to be withheld reveals the distinguishing aspects of a methodology that was developed by Westinghouse.
Public disclosure of this proprietary information is likely to cause substantial harm to the competitive position of Westinghouse because it would enhance the ability of competitors to provide similar advanced nuclear power plant designs and to provide licensing defense services for commercial power reactors without commensurate expenses. Also, public disclosure of the information would enable others to use the information to meet NRC requirements for licensing documentation without purchasing the right to use the information.
The development of the technology described in part by the information is the result of applying the results of many years of experience in an intensive Westinghouse effort and the expenditure of a considerable sum of money.
In order for competitors of Westinghouse to duplicate this information, similar technical programs would have to be performed and a significant manpower effort, having the requisite talent and experience, would have to be expended.
Further the deponent sayeth not.