ML20058C023
| ML20058C023 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Monticello  |
| Issue date: | 11/17/1993 |
| From: | Richard Anderson NORTHERN STATES POWER CO. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9312020319 | |
| Download: ML20058C023 (6) | |
Text
~
Northem States Power Company 414 Nicollet Mall Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401-1927 Telephone (612) 330-5500 November 17, 1993 US Nuclear Regulatory Commission 10 CFR Part 2 Attn: Document Control Desk Section 2.790 Washington, D.C.
20555 MONTICELLO UUCLEAR GENERATING PIANT Docket No. 50-263 License No. DPR-22 Supplemental Information Concerning Documentation Provided to the NRC on March 12, 1993 In Response to NRC Questions Related to the Monticello Core Sprav Header Crack Indication Discovered Durint the 1993 Refueline Outane In a March 12, 1993, letter from Mr P Kissinger (NSP) to Mr Tony Hsia (NRC-NRR), NSP provided the NRC with additional information concerning the core spray header crack indication that was discovered during the 1993 refueling outage. The information was provided at the NRC's request in order to resolve I
a number of open issues identified during a March 5, 1993 meeting on this topic and to respond to additional NRC questions presented to NSP on March 11, 1993. At that time, the NRC requested that NSP provide copies of two General Electric documents referenced in the Monticello specific core spray header crack analysis (GE-NE-637-0005-0393, Rev 1) prepared by General Electric.
The two referenced documents, NEDC-31786P (Monticello SAFER /GESTR-IDCA Loss-of Coolant Accident Analysis) and GE-NE-187-02-0392 (Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant SAFER /GESTR-LOCA Analysis Basis Documentation) were both provided to the NRC as Attachment 4 to our March 12, 1993 letter. NEDC-31786P and GE-NE-187-02-0392 are both considered by General Electric to be proprietary documents.
NEDC-31786P had previously been submitted to the NRC via NSP correspondence dated January 31, 1991, and an affidavit from General Electric stating the basis for exemption from public disclosure was provided at that time.
A second copy of NEDC-31786P was provided as an attachment to our March 12, 1993 submittal at the request of the NRC in order to facilitate an expedited review of the core spray header crack issue.
GE-NE-187-02-0392 had not, to our knowledge, been provided to the NRC prior to our March 12, 1993 letter. An affidavit stating the basis for exenpting that document from public disclosure should have been included with that letter but was not.
We regret this oversight, and are hereby providing the required affidavit for GE-NE-187-02-0992 as required by 10 CFR Part 2, Section 2.790(b)(1)(ii).
9312O20319 931117 PDR ADOCK 05000263 P
PDR I
v
USNRC NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY November 17, 1993 Page 2 This letter contains no new NRC commitments, nor does it modify any prior commitments.
Please contact Terry Coss, Sr Licensing Engineer, at (612) 295-1449 if you require additional informetion.
i T0
/)f (oc Roger O Anderson Director Licensing and Management Issues c: Regional Administrator-III. NRC NRR Project Manager, NRC Resident Inspector, NRC State of Minnesota, Attn: Kris Sanda J Silberg
Attachment:
Affidavit of David J Robare, General Electric Company 1
i l
I l
l I
I
i General Electric Company i
AFFIDAVIT I, David J. Robare, being duly sworn, depose and state as follows:
i I
(1)I am Project Manager, Plant Licensing / Renewal Projects, General Electric Company 1
("GE") and have been delegated the function of reviewing the information described j
in paragraph (2) which is sought to be withheld, and have been authorized to apply for its withholdmg.
j (2) The information sought to be withheld is contained in the GE proprietary report GE-NE-187-02-0392, Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant SAFER /GESTR-LOCA Analysis Basis Document, dated March,1992.
The proprietary information is delineated by bars marked in the margin adjacent to the specific material.
.j (3) In making this application for withholding of proprietary information of which it is i
the owner, GE relies upon the exemption from disclosure set forth in the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"),5 USC Sec. 552(b)(4), and the Trade Secrets Act,18 USC; Sec.1905, and NRC regulations 10 CFR 9.17(a)(4),2.790(a)(4), and 2.790(d)(1) for
" trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and l
privileged or confidential" (Exemption 4). The material for which exemption from disclosure is here sought is all " confidential commercial information", and some portions also qualify under the narrower definition of " trade secret", within the meanings assigned to those terms for purposes of FOIA Exemption 4 in, respectively, Critical Mass Enercy Project v. Nuclear Reculatory Commission. 975F2d871'(DC Cir.
1992), and Public Citizen Health Research Group v. FDA. 704F2dl280 (DC Cir.
1983).
(4) Some examples of categories ofinformation which fit into the definition of proprietary l
information are:
a.
Information that discloses a process, method, or apparatus, including supporting data and analyses, where prevention ofits use by General Electric's competitors without license from General Electric constitutes a competitive economic advantage over other companies,
- b. Information which, if used by a competitor, would reduce his expenditure of i
resources or improve his competitive position in the design, manufacture, shipment, installation, assurance of quality, or licensing of a similar product; c.
Information which reveals cost or price information, production capacities, budget levels, or commercial strategies of General Electric, its customers, or Aindavit Page I
its suppliers;
- d. Information which reveals aspects of past, present, or future General Electric customer-funded development plans and programs, of potential commercial value to General Electric; e.
Information which discloses patentable subject matter for which it may be desirable to obtain patent protection.
l The information sought to be withheld is considered to be proprietary for the L
reasons set forth in both paragraphs (4)a. and (4)b., above.
l l
(5) The information sought to be withheld is being submitted to NRC in confidence.1he information is of a sort customarily held in confidence by GE, and is in fact so held.
Its initial designation as proprietary information, and the subsequent steps taken to prevent its unauthorized disclosure, are as set forth in (6) and (7) following. The information sought to be withheld has, to the best of my knowledge and belief, consistently been held in confidence by GE, no public disclosure has been made, and it is not available in public sources. All disclosures to third parties including any required transmittals to NRC, have been made, or must be made, pursuant to regulatory provisions or proprietary agreements which provide for maintenance of the information in confidence.
(6) Initial approval of proprietary treatment of a document is made by the manager of the originating component, the person most likely to be acquainted with the value and sensitivity of the information in relation to industry knowledge. Access to such documents within GE is limited on a "need to know" basis.
(7) The procedure for approval of extemal release of such a document typically requires review by the staff manager, project manager, principal scientist or other equivalent authority, by the manager of the cognizant marketing function (or his delegate), and by the Legal Operation, for technical content, competitive effect, and determination of the accuracy of the proprietary designation. Disclosures outside GE are limited to regulatory bodies, customers, and potential customers, and their agents, suppliers, and l
j licensees, and others with a legitimate need for the information, and then only in accordance with appropriate regulatory provisions or proprietary agreements.
(8) The information identified in paragraph (2) is classified as proprietary because it contains detailed results of analytical models, methods and processes, including computer codes, which GE has developed, obtained NRC approval of, and applied to perform evaluations of the loss-of-coolant accident for the BWR.
l The development and approval of the BWR loss-of-coolant accident analysis computer codes used in this analysis was achieved at a significant cost, on the order of several million dollars, to GE.
l Aindavit Page 2 l
I
~
i l
The development of the evaluation process along with the interpretation and application of the analytical results is derived from the extensive experience database that constitutes a major GE asset.
(9) Public disclosure of the infosmation sought to be withheld is likely to cause substantial harm to GE', competitive position and foreclose or reduce the availability I
of profit-making opportunities. The information is part of GE's comprehensive BWR safety and technology base, and its commercial value extends beyond the original l
development cost. The value of the technology base goes beyond the extensive i
physical database and analytical methodology and includes development'of the expertise to determine and apply the appropriate evaluation process. In addition, the l
technology base includes the value derived from providing analyses done with l
NRC-approved methods.
The research, development, engineering, analytical and NRC review costs j
comprise a substantial investment of time and money by GE.
l The precise value of the expertise to devise an evaluation process and apply the correct analytical methodology is difficult to quantify, but it clearly is substantial.
l GE's competitive advantage will be lost if its competitors are able to use the results of the GE experience to normalize or verify their own process or if they are able to claim an equivalent understanding by demonstrating that they can arrive at the same or similar conclusions.
The value of this information to GE would be lost if the information were disclosed to the public. Making such information available to competitors without their having been required to undertake a similar expenditure of resources would unfairly provide competitors with a windfall, and deprive GE of the opportunity to exercise its competitive advantage to seek an adequate return on its large investment in developing these very valuable analytical tools.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
)
)
ss:
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
)
David J. Robare, being duly swom, deposes and says:
Afndavn Page 3
i i
1 That he has read the foregoing affidavit and the matters stated therein are true and correct to the best of his it,owledre, information, and belief.
i Executed at San Jose, California, this 4 E day of
}$0V tinf%R.
1993.
i N\\
David J. Robare General Electric Company r
i Subscribed and sworn before me this N day of
[h w e b 1993.
i buH l
1 I
Notary Pustic, State of California MARY L KENDALL j, gg. -;
COMM. # 987864
[
4-g..
Notary Public - Cohfomio
~>
~}
' ' My Comm. Ex;*es MAR 26.1997 )
SANTA CLARA COUNTY y
1
.,m
]
i i
10/25/93RTH I
i I
Atrulavit Page 4 1
l l