ML18038A626

Forwards Proprietary & Nonproprietary Structural Audit Open Issue Close Out Info.Affidavit Requesting Proprietary Status for Info Encl.Proprietary Info Withheld

ML18038A626
Person / Time
Site:	Nine Mile Point
Issue date:	02/10/1984
From:	Lempges T NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORP.
To:	Schwencer A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML17054A447	List: ML18038A626
References
(8037), NUDOCS 8402150345
Download: ML18038A626 (56)

Text

I REGULATORY x.. ORMATION DISTRIBUTION SYS 8 (RIDS)

ACCESSION NOR'8402150345 DOC ~ DATE: 84/02/10 NOTARIZED'ES DOCKET FACIL:50-410 Nine Mile Point Nuclear Stationi Unit 2i Niagara Moha 05000410 AUTH INANE AUTHOR AFFILIATION LEMPGESiT.E, Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.

RECIP ~ blAME RECIPIENT AFFILIATION SCHNKNCERgA ~ Licensing Branch '2

SUBJECT:

For wards proprietary nonproprietary structural audit open issue close out info,Affidayit requesting proprietary status for info encl. Proprietary info withheld.

DISTRIBUTION CODE: 8001S COPIKS RECEIVED:LTR ( ENCL, 3 gP SIZE:. '2,'7++~~

TITLE: LicenSing Submittal: PSAR/FSAR Anldts 8 Related Correspondence NOTES:PNL 1cy FSAR'S 8 AMDTS ONLY, 0500041.0 RECIPIENT 'COPIES RECIPIENT COPIES ID CODE/NAME LTTR EbICL IO CODE/NAME LTTR ENCL NRR/DL/ADL 1 0 NRR L82 BC 1 0 NRR LB2 LA 1 0 HAUGHEYiM 1 1 INTERNAL: ELO/HDS3 1 0 IE FII E -

P3 1 -1 IE/DEPER/EP8 Qi5(6)7 5 3 IE/DEPER/IRB ftfif. 1 1 IE/DQASIP/GABE]g 1 1 NRR/DK/AEAB 1 0 NRR/DE/CKB Q'iq 1 1 NRR/DF/EHEB 1 1 NRR/DE/EQB ~yogi 2 "2 NRR/DE/GB 2 2 NRR/DE/MKB Qx~ 1 1 NRR/DE/MTEB 1 1 NRR/DE/SAB @fZ+ 1 1 NRR/DE/SGEB 1 1 NRR/DHFS/HFEB+@$ 1 1 NRR/DHFS/LQB 1 .1 NRR/DHFS/PSRB~~ 1 1 NRR/DL/SSPB 1 0 NRR/DS I/AKB @Q4 1 NRR/DS I/ASB >I 1 1 NRR/DSI/CPB AZa 1 1 NRR/DSI/CSB Q 1 1 NRR/DSI/ICSB NRR/DS I/METB l3 1, NRR/DS I/PSB ~X/ 1 1

1 NR lf 1 1

1 NRR/DSI/RSB +35 1 1 G FILE t 1 1 RGN1 P3>sf' I/MIB 1 0 EXTERNAL: ACRS esw"1'> 6 BNL(AMOTS ONLY) @&0 NPa, DMB/DSS (AMDTS) QPg f400 FEMA "REP DIV 39 NPo NOa' LPOR 03 gpO @Pa NRC PDR 02 1 NSIC 05 HPO HAP NTIS N$'o ppo NOTES-' 1 TOTAL NUMBER OF COPIES REQUIRED: LTTR 54 ENCL 47

ql 'f'( ~ IN fj I/.j f, l,',l) j,)I'>I, ~g),fr t>> h

)) J, fit ll>> II) II I) I)) f! 't)I pl ,g q>>ef.~,rj,f'j f j f<<f<<jt ',

zj, lf > fffsl)f' "5 jr f

7) r 'j fj, '>> 'jjA I I )f) ~ ~ t g, >>) tl f)'jg 'I ). jf '.<<f <<>j ll j tlt l g)!)' f')3>> If 9 It"Ij )l I

' ~

f!f!, ft f I!jr,fg 1 lt jli, g I

,11 ",Ir I! I fly I'jf t I

I' ft)

I I

t I

I'I P'j,f P QC I',I),ttf I), 'I II', t f I g I) 'l')

y<,)t~ge frt)~ j,g jf l I I 0f rr )a,

>>W P.+;",l>> e~>>>>>>>>tet>>>>>>>> +

lrh! tIhft ff)'h t <<

jj t!j I! II p jrf > g fr )gt'<<f f )gh,'r.'ft>>,) fj ~

I ' ' >> "II jtf f

f'I il l I

~

'h r 'ht)

)g

'h

) t v I

~ ~ << I 0't w$ gggtI 4 hj) "'

.~ )l ~

'>> l ggf )I

,K C~ "t r$ Cist 5-J H~ 49M g)I)~O) jf " ht l" ll <<

NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION/300 ERIE BOULEVARD WEST. SYRACUSE, N,Y, 13202/TELEPHONE (315) 474-1511 February 10, 1984 (8037)

A. Schwencer, Chief Licensing Branch No. 2 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555

Dear Mr. Schwencer:

RE: Nine Mile Point Unit 2 Docket No. 50-410 Enclosed for your review are eight copies of information to close out certain open issues of the NRC Structural Audit. During the Structural Audit of December 12 through 16, 1983 we committed to provide this information.

I '

Attachment A provides the non-proprietary information. Attachment B provides an affidavit requesting proprietary status for information in Attachment C which is considered proprietary by Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation.

)~

Sincerely, Vice President of Nuclear Generation TEL/NLR'lf Attachment cc: A. F. Zallnick, Jr.

C. V. Mangan M. Haughey W. Morrison S. Z. Doyle (File)

R. Pinney (CHOC)

. @pe quoit

~-.-'u>~

<O~ qO<V',"

egg,. b>,

ego>pgyo p98 '9490500.

i 7 pI~~

Nfl<

IroP

LLL' 4 4

~ 4 ~

ATTACHMENT A j . ~ i NINE MILE POINT UNIT 2 NRC REQUEST NO. 1 Verify and confirm the design of all structures affected by SRV and hy-drodynamic loading.

RESPONSE

The design of structures within the reactor building will be verified for the SRV and hydrodynamic loading during the load verification stage.

Structures within the reactor building either are designed for conceptual (i.e., preliminary) SRV and hydrodynamic loading or are provided with an adequate design margin, which should account for future load verifica-tion.

Based on current schedule, the load verification for the reactor pedestal is planned to be completed by June 1984. The load verification for other structures will be completed by September 1985. The NRC will be notified of the results of this verification upon completion.

a402150345 C2/12177/7/2RH

0 NINE NILE POINT UNIT 2 NRC REQUEST NO. 2 Provide an assessment of the significant differences between the require-ments of ACI 349, as augmented by the NRC Regulatory Guide 1.142 and the requirements of ACI 318-77. (Reference NRC Q Nos. 220.31 and 220.33).

RESPONSE

Results of an assessment of the significant differences between the codes used in NMP2 design versus those referenced in NRC Regulatory Guide 1.142, Revision 1, will be submitted by June 1984.

C2/12177/7/2RH

NINE 11ILE POINT UNIT 2 NRC REQUEST NO. 3 Review the effect of vertical floor flexibility in the analysis of equip-ment and floor designs.

RESPONSE

of the effect of vertical floor flexibility in the analysis An assessment of equipment and floor designs will be performed and submitted 'y June 1984.

C2/12177/7/2RH

NINE MILE POINT UNIT 2 NRC REQUEST NO. 4 Provide a summary of cable tray support calculation methodology for the supports attached to floor and ceiling.

RESPONSE

ELECTRICAL TUNNEL CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS ATTACHING FIOOR TO CEILING

~Summar The most critical cable tray support type FP87 was reanalyzed to include differential movement of the top (roof) slab relative to the base. The support at the top of the slab was modeled first as pinned, which was the condition used in the original design calculation. all stresses were found to be acceptable. The second case assumed the support to be fixed and stresses were still found to be acceptable.

A~nal sis Static Anal sis - Dead loads from the members and cable tray-loadings were included. Differential slab movement of the top slab relative to the base was also statically analyzed by treating the OBE profile (maximum) displacements as support displacements. This is a conservative approach, since the profile displacements are the maximum values of the actual displacements.

2. D namic Anal sis " A lump mass model was used to perform the dynamic analysis. The response spectra of the roof slab were input into the analysis. OBE being the most critical seismic case (after consid-ering load factors), was used. Member forces and moments were determined by using modal superposition and SRSS of the responses.

D~esi n All members were checked and found to be within allowable stress limits for both cases (top support, fixed, and pinned). Results of the computer run for static were added by absolute sum method to the SRSS of dynamic stresses.

C2/12177/7/2RH

0 NINE MILE POINT UNIT 2 ELECTRICAL TUNNEL TRAY SUPPORTS WITH DISPLACEMENT Summary of Results Verticals Original W/Differential W/Differential

~Desi n Movement - Pinned Movement - Fixed Axial Load 0.7 K 1.1 K 1.1 K Bending Moment* 10.1 IN-K 9.6 IN-K- 21.9 IN-K Combined Stress 0.3 0.35 0.67 Equation+

'>NOTE: The original design has a higher moment than the pinned, differential movement design because of a conservative, sim-plifying used assumption used during the original analysis ~

Horizontals For all designs, the vertical member stresses govern the shape selection.

Therefore, for horizontal members using the same members as verticals is adequate.

Vertical Connection NOTE: The design of vertical connection governs over Horizontal to connection.

Allowable Loads-Connection Original f W/Dif e rent ia 1

- Pinned W/Differential

- Fixed Ca acit '~Desi n Movement Movement Shear 2.0 K 0.5 K 0.4 K 0.77 K Axial 1.5 K 0.7 K 1.1 K 1.1 K "Combined stress equation Fa + Fb <1.0 Similar to AISC 1.6-la Fa allow Fb allow C2/12177/7/2RH

NINE MILE POINT VNIT 2 NRC REQlJEST NO. 6 Provide data on strength, material type, and mechanical properties of Nelson studs, used in NMP2 polar crane rail support design.

RESPONSE

Nelson studs Type CPL, 7/8-inch diameter threaded studs are used in fastening polar crane rail supports. This method of fastening offers easy installation, reduced maintenance, and added safety during instal,-

lation and operation. The attachment provides the data on material composi,tion, type, strengthi etc, Crom the catalog, Nelson - Construction Applications in Power Generating Plants by (TRW - Nelson Division).

C2/12177/7/2RH

~ (

APPLICATION 10 STEEL MILLS

.Ntt00DIN KIB3 N800WOMR II2lMK I2l60Q iSTANDARD STUD DIMENSIONS CPL PITCH DIAMETER BASE STUDS E F Weld Weld Ttireed Std. INn. fillet fNet f Diameter t. th Dilnetei t i C B J 5/8 /8 /4 rsvp 4Available inreqmrcd tcngtlo above cpcoficdmimmvm, D

c-ELSON PITCH DIAMETER BASE AND FULL BASE HBL FULL BASE THREADED STUDS HREADED STUDS FOR SECURINO OVERHEAD CRANE AILS Used with a variety ol clips designed for par iSTANOARD STUD DIMENSIONS ticular situations. NELSON pitch diameter and lull base threaded studs provide overhead crane rail fastening E I f that offers speed of installation, added safety, and Wold Weld reduced maintenance at lower cost. Tbread Std. Btin. fittet fittct iiaeeter L Dianeter H t 5/B 5/8 3/8 I I/2 3 16 34 3/4 /2 ~ /4 /4 lrc BENEFITS:

~

tcI

~ FASTER RAIL INSTALLATION All installation is

~ .e topside no underneath staging or scaffolding err unnecessary to back up nuts with wrench on under.

<<'y side.

~ QUALITY ASSEMBLY AT LOWEST COST Weak.

nesses in craneway sections caused by drilled or punched holes is eliminated.

~ Rf DUCED MAINTENANCELess corrosion because holes are eliminated.

~ SAFER Drop out of bolts, due to loosening in service or assembly, is eliminated.

Pri<<red ie U.S.A.

GENERAL INFORMATION 1 CPL SPEC 1 THREADED PITCH DIAMETER BASE STUD . "~ 2.3

~,

~ ~ ~ ~

CFP, CFL, FFL SPEC 2 FULL THREADED STUDS. 4,6 NBI. SPEC 3 NO THREAD STUDS .. ~....., ~...,, ~,, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 6

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

84X REFRACTORY "Y"ANCHOR BTUDS .. d RGP SPEC 4 SPEC 6- RECTANGULAR STUDS ...............,.

~.........,.,. .......

~,,.......

~

~ .. 8 R7P SPEC 6 RECTANGULAR STUDS w/HOlE ~...,....'. 7

- ~ ~ ~

L2L SPEC 7 LAGGING STUDS w/HOLE . ~ ~ ~ . ~..... .. ~ 7 SSL SPEC 8 FEMALE SPRINKLER STUDS........ ~... ~.....,...... ~.........,, 8

~ .

CKL SPEC 9- THREADED COLLAR STUDS 8 F3L SPEC 10- NO THREAD COLLAR STUDS ~ ~ ~ . ....

~ ~ ~ .. 9 H3P SPEC 11 NAMEPLATE STUDS 9 N3A SPEC 12 ALUMINUMNAVY TYPE ANNULAR RING STUDS . ~ .. ~.... ~,... ~ ~ . ~ .. 10 N3P SPEC 13 NAVY TYPE ANNULAR RING STUDS ....... ~ . ~ ... ~ 10 R9L SPEC 14 ROPE HOOK STUD ~ 11 SL SPEC 16 20- STANDARD CABLE HANGER STUDS 12 SL SPEC 21 PLATE HANGERS 13 SL SPEC 22 TUBULAR HANGERS 13 P2P SPEC 23 DOUBLE POINTED INSULATION PINS . ~ 14 D2L SPE C 24 DEFORMED BAR ANCHOR 16 S3L SPEC 26 SHEAR CONNECTORS ~ . 18 H4L SPEC 26 CONCRETE ANCHORS 17 ATC,ATS,ATA,FTC SPEC 27 THREADED STORED ARC STUDS 18 TPC SPEC 28 STORED ARC PIN l9 CHP SPEC 29- CUPPED HEAD INSULATION PIN 20 S7X SPEC 30 REFRACTORY "STEERHORN" ANCHOR 21 VXCD SPEC 31 ANCHOR ASSEMBLY 21 RWP SPEC 32 WIGGLED RECTANGULAR TWO TINE STUD 22 SPEED CLIPS 23 STUD ACCESSORIES 24 INSULATION FASTENERS QTY'S. PER CARTON . ~ , . 26 STANDARD FERRULES .26, 27 WEIGHT CHART THREADED STUDS, NON THREADED .............. 28 WEIGHT CHART SHEAR CONNECTORS, ANCHOR STUDS ......,..... 29 STUD TENSILE TORQUE STRENGTHS . M,31 STORED ARC STUD TENSIlE TORQUE STRENGTHS ~................. 32

]r, ~

\

~

~

~ ~

~ ~

~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .'I 'o

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ~

~ ~

~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~

o ~ ~

~ ~

~

~

~ I ~ ~

~ ~ ~

~ ~

~ I ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ '

~ ~ ~

~

~ '

~ ~

~ ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o o

~ ~ ~ ~

~;

o ~

~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~

~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~

~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ' '. ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ' ', ~ ~ ~ ~ ', ~ ~

~ ' ~ ~ o o ~ .: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~

~, ~ ~ . ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~

~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~

~ ~

~

~ . ~ ~ ~ ~

~

~ ~

~

~

~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ . ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 'o

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ . ~

~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~

' ~ ~ ~ ~

~ o ~

~ I ~

~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I

~ ~ ~ I~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

II

~ ~ ~ I ~ I II ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ II ~ I ~ ~ ~ o ~

I I II o ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~

NINE MILE POINT UNIT 2 NRC REQUEST NO. 7 Provide a summary of how cable (rope) slack is considered in the con-tainment polar. crane design.

RESPONSE

Dynamic analysis of the polar crane considered trolley positions at mid-span (MID), at quarter-span, and at the end of span (END); with the load positioned at maximum lift lift the and with no load.

(UP), i.e., highest elevaiton, at minimum trolley at quarter span analysis was (DOWN) discontinued when it became apparent that stress levels would be lower than other load conditions.

The attached table summarizes the rope accelerations under OBE and SSE seismic loading for the preceding various conditions.

The maximum dynamic acceleration alone had a value 'of 1.01 g, which when considered against 1 g gravity loads results in a stable rope situation, with essentially no differential acceleration and no slack-rope condi-tion.

C2/12177/7/2RH

NINE MILE POINT UNIT 2

SUMMARY

OF POLAR CRANE ROPE LOADS OBE Load Dynamic .Static and Dynamic Position Acceleration (Gs)

MID/UP 0.63 1.63 MID/DOWN 0.48 1.48 END/UP 1.00 2.00 END/DOWN 0,44 1.44 SSE Load Dynamic Static and Dynamic Position Acceleration Gs) Acceleration Gs MID/UP 0.68 1.68 MID/DOWN 0 '1 1.61 END/UP 1.01 2.01 END/DOWN 0.54 1.54 C2/12177/7/2RH

NINE MILE POINT UNIT 2 NRC REQUEST NO. 9 Revise response to NRC Question 220.28 based on reviewing a seismic Category I structure for an additional torsional rqoment resulting from additional eccentricity of 5 percent of the maximum building dimension.

RESPONSE

See revised response to NRC Question 220.28.

C2/12177/7/2%I 14

NINE MILE POINT UNIT 2 QUESTION F220.28 (SRP 3.7.2-II.ll)

To account for accidental torsion, the SRP states that an additional eccentricity of +5 percent of the maximum building dimension at the level under consideration should be assumed in the seismic analysis of Category I structures. For Nine Mile Point 2, however, the accidental torsion effects for the additional +5 percent were not considered in the analysis. Provide an assessment of the adequacy of the analysis con-sidering the effects of accidental torsion.

RESPONSE

As explained in Section 3.7.2.11A, the seismic analyses of Category 1 structures consider the effects of actual eccentricities between the centers of rigidity and centers of mass of structural components (which cause the torsional loading). Therefore, 'since the results of the analyses already account for the torsional effects, it is not necessary to consider an additional eccentricity of 5 percent of the maximum building dimension.

Additionally, the design of the control building, which is considered representative of Category I structures, was reviewed for an additional torsional moment resulting from additional eccentricity of 5 percent of the maximum building dimension. It was shown that the additional shear stresses resulting from this analysis were not significant and were within the design capacities.

C2/12177/7/2RH 15

NINE MILE POINT UNIT 2 NRC REQUEST NO. 10 Provide additional justification for the validity of the use of the 1.3 static coefficient factor in equipment design (Reference NRC Ques-tion 220.9).

RESPONSE

Response to this request is already incorporated in FSAR Amendment 7, December 1983.

C2/12177/7/2M'

NINE MILE POINT UNIT 2 NRC REQUEST NO. 11 Provide a discussion on the primary containment hatch boundary conditions and the correlation of forces/displacements between the two models.

RESPONSE

Response to this request will be provided by March 1984.

C2/12177/7/2RH 17

NINE NILE POINT UNIT 2 NRC RE(UEST NO. 14 Verify all Category I foundations for stability considering upward seismic forces.

RESPONSE

Response to this request will be provided by March, 1984.

1 t

Ir fI t

A

NINE MILE POINT UNIT 2 NRC REQUEST NO. 15 Verify that radwaste and screenwell buildings are analyzed and designed as independent structures.

RESPONSE

The screenwell building design is updated to reflect the results of the revised seismic analysis, which does not include the radwaste building.

The radwaste building is seismically analyzed as an independent struc-ture; therefore, both structures are analyzed and designed independently of each other.

C2/12177/7/2RH 23

NINE NILE POINT UNIT 2 NRC REQUEST NO. 16 For all Category I buildings, verify vermiculite concrete-bearing capacity against sliding resistance.

RESPONSE

Response to this request will be provided by March, 1984.

I C ATTACHMENT B I

FEB v~ )~~~

Commonwealth of Massachusetts)

SS.

County of Suffolk ~V<8cuso

) 9u8rfegs I, Ben Charlson, being duly sworn according to law depose and say I am Vice President of Stone 6 Webster Engineering Corporation (SWEC) and that:

For the reasons listed below the material contained in Attach-ment C of the responses to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commis-sion (NRC) request for information from their structural audit which is being filed with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commis-sion by Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation (NMPC) in connection with its license application for Nine Mile Point Unit 2, Docket No. 50-410, contains information considered by SWEC to be con-fidential information containing trade secrets and should be withheld from public disclosure.

2. In support of its averment that the above-mentioned information is confidential, SWEC provides the following reasons:

a ~ The information sought to be withheld consists of modeling techniques used in seismic analyses of the structures, techniques to analyze column loading of the spent fuel pool, and design basis and details for the polar crane supports.

b. I am a Vice President for SWEC and have the authority to review and protect the confidential commercial information sought to be withheld.

c ~ SWEC is in the business of designing and constructing nuclear power plants. This business is competitive and firms that engage in it compete on the basis of the nature and quality of the products and services that they offer clients. The above referenced material is one such pro-duct.

d. The subject material was developed at considerable expense to SWEC and is of substantial value to SWEC in the conduct of its business. A competitor would derive an unfair advantage in obtaining the proprietary information sought to be withheld. Thus the unrestricted disclosure of this material could have an adverse commercial impact on SWEC.

The data is plant specific and the methodology is for Nine Mile Point Unit 2; however, the data could be applied to other situations.

e. It is, accordingly, the customary practice of SWEC to treat such material as confidential commercial informa-tion.

C3/12177/192/5Y

~

~, ~ F'

f. To the best of my knowledge and belief, the identified materials are not, available from any public source and have not been made available to third parties, except in confidence.

Ben Charlson, being duly sworn, deposes and says that he has read the foregoing affidavit and the matters stated therein are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief.

Ben Charlson Vice President Stone 8 Webster Engineering Corporation Sworn and su/scribed before me this J day of January 1984 Catherine Trabucco

).y pic (r.NOTARY PUBLIC For the Cofnmopvealth of MassaofIIII)t0 My Co~issi6n Expires ffov, 8, NN C3/12177/192/5Y

4 l

l c wynd y~

k' P

l fl

'1

ATTACHMENT B U

Commonwealth of Massachusetts)

SS.

County of Suffolk ~Ylacro

)

Quarterly I, Ben Charlson, being duly sworn according to law depose and say I am Vice President of Stone 6 Webster -Engineering Corporation (SWEC) and that:

For the reasons listed below the material contained in Attach-

,ment C o'f the responses to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commis-sion (NRC) request for information from their structural audit which is being filed with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commis-sion by Niagara Mohawk Power- Corporation (NMPC) in connection with its license application for Nine Mile Point Unit 2, Docket No. 50-410, contains information considered by SWEC to be con-fidential'nformation containing trade secrets and should be withheld from public disclosure.

In support of its averment that the above-mentioned information is confidential, SWEC provides the following reasons:

a ~ .The information sought to be withheld consists of modeling techniques used in seismic analyses of the structures, techniques to analyze column loading of the spent fuel pool, and design basis and details for the polar crane supports. v \

b. I am a Vice President for SWEC and have the authority to review and protect the confidential commercial information sought to be withheld.

C. SWEC is in the business of designing and constructing nuclear power plants. This business is competitive and firms that engage in it, compete on the basis of the nature and quality of the products and services that they offer clients. The above referenced material is one such pro-duct.

d. The subject material was developed at considerable expense to SWEC and is of substantial value to SWEC in the conduct of its business. A competitor would derive an unfair advantage in obtaining the proprietary information sought to be withheld. Thus the unrestricted disclosure of this material could have an adverse commercial impact on SWEC.

The -data is plant specific and the methodology is for Nine Mile Point Unit 2; however, the data could be applied to other situations.

e. It is, accordingly, the customary practice of SWEC to treat such material as confidential commercial informa-tion.

C3/12177/192/5Y

. ~

To the best of my knowledge and belief, the identified materials are not available from any public source and have, not been made available to third parties, except in confidence.

Ben Charlson, being duly sworn, deposes .and says that he has read the foregoing .affidavit and the matters- stated therein are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information, .and belief.

Ben Charlson Vice President Stone 8 Webster Engineering Corporation Sworn and su/scribed before me this l day of January 1984 Catherine Trabucco

,< j rr,hlOTARY PUBLIC

,Foi,the~6mrrionwealth of MasNchNON

,> "'y Comrtrission~Expires NoV. 8, NN

~ ~ >

l~

C3/12177/192/5Y

'4 ~

0

ATTACHMENT C