ML20126J084

Responds to Appeal Re Denial of FOIA Request for GESSAR-II Pra.Forwards Pages 2-7 - 2-16 of Document 5 on App A. Portions Withheld (Ref FOIA Exemption 4)

ML20126J084
Person / Time
Site:	05000447
Issue date:	04/19/1985
From:	Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
To:	Curran D, Jordan W HARMON & WEISS
Shared Package
ML20126J087	List: ML20126J084 ML20126J115
References
FOIA-84-175, FOIA-84-A-66 NUDOCS 8506180519
Download: ML20126J084 (4)

Text

,

?

i

1. 'o,, UNITED STATES 8 o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (j e .; wAssincrow, o. c. 20sss

% *

• s e * .o E 18 W Diane Curran, Esq. IN RESPONSE REFER William S. Jordan, III, Esq. TO F01A-84-A-66 Harmon, Weiss & Jordan (F01A-84-175) 2001 S Street, N.W.

Suite 430 Washington, D.C. 20009

Dear Ms. Curran and Mr. Jordan:

On January 31, 1985 I informed you that, with the exception of certain identified portions, the material claimed to be proprietary in the GESSAR-II Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) and six related documents listed in Appendix A of this letter were exempt from disclosure pursuant to Exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act (F0IA) (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4)) and 10 CFR 9.5(a)(4) of the. Commission's regulations as confidential and commercially valuable information. 1 also informed you that the material which was not exempt or was not included in the General Electric Company's (GE's) list of proprietary portions would be released.

Prior to the release of the material on February 15, 1985, GE informed us that it had made a typographiccl ceror on one page of its index of proprietary material. The index for the November 7, 1983 letter from Mr. Quirk to Mr. Eisenhut on fire ar.d external event analysis (Document 5 in Appendix A) identified pages 2-17 through 2-18 rather thar 2-7 through 2-18 as proprietary. Because we believed GE had not in fact relinquished its claim regarding this material, the NRC egreed to review the additional pages (2-7 through 2-16). On February 15, 1935 we released all the portions of the seven documents identified in Appendix A which were not exempt or to which GE had withdrawn its claim. We also notified you that we were reviewing pages 2-7 through 2-16 of Mr. Quirk's letter.

GE had specified which portions of the additional pages it considered to be proprietary. GE supported its claim by stating that GE had used the desig-nated material to secure contracts for PRA services in the past and expected the material to enable GE to secure 3imilar contracts in the future. GE also stated that release of the material would make it more difficult to secure such contracts and thus adversely affect its competitive position.

The staff has now completed its review of the material GE claims to be proprietary and I have determined that release of most of it will not be likely to cause GE sufficient competitive harm to justify it being withheld.

These portions include disclosure of areas of the plant's design that GE did 8506180519 850419 PDR FDIA CURRAN 84-A-66 PDR

Diane Curran, Esq. not take credit for in its analysis, and parts of sentences which did not disclose important information. Accordingly, I have rejected GE's claim to these portions. These portions and the portions GE did not claim to be proprietary are released and copies of them are enclosed for your convenience.

There are, however, a few small portions of pages 2-7 through 2-16 which contain the assumptions and methodology GE used in performing it.s fire event analysis. I determine that this material could be useful to competitors performing similar analyses, and I have no reason to doubt GE's statement that release of the material would make it more difficult for GE to secure future contracts. Acc]rdingly, I determine that this material is exempt from dis-closure pursuant to Exemption 4 of the F0IA and NRC regulations as confiden-tial and commercially valuable information because its release would be likely to cause GE substantici comoetitive harm and the public need for release does not outweigh the demonstrated concern for the protection of GE's competitive position.

i This completes the agency action as to the seven documents listed in Appendix

! A including pages 2-7 through 2-16 of Document 5. Judicial review of this decision is available in the pending UCS v. NRC, No. 84-2833 (D.D.C.) lawsuit, t

I will now address two issues raised by your clients, the Union of Concerned .

Scientists (UCS), in its March 18, 1985 Motion for Summary Judgment in UCS v.

NRC, supra. UCS states that the NRC has not determined that release of the withheld portions of the seven documents listed in Appendix A is likely to cause GE " substantial" competitive harm. Although my' January 31, 1985 letter does not use the specific word " substantial," in fact in making that decision, '

I determined that release of the PRA material would be likely to cause GE

( substantial competitive harm. This finding is supported by the fact that release would enable the other firms competing with GE for the multimillion dollar PRA preparation market to save a large expenditure of resources and time needed to prepare a PRA. Release of the material would also provide considerable assistance to a competitor in preparing a PRA by providing the framework for a BWR/6 PRA and identifying the more applicable approaches.

Since the loss of even a single contract could cost GE hundreds of thousands of dollars, it is clear that the potential injury to GE's competitive position L is substantial.

h j UCS also states that the NRC has not determined whether a discretionary

? release of the material is warranted even though it is exempt from mandatory i disclosure pursuant to the F0IA and NRC regulations. As with UCS's first concern, although this discretionary decision was not referred to in my li d,

i

1 Diane Curran, Esq.  ;

i January 31, 1985 letter, in fact in making the decision that the material should be withheld, I decided that the public need for release of the pro-l i prietary material did not outweigh the demonstrated concern for the protection of GE's competitive position. Accordingly, a discretionary release was not warranted. I hope this clarifies any misunderstanding concerning my

, January 31, 1985 decision.

4

Sincerely, W 11 am . Dircks ' *^' -

x- ! utive Director for 3perations

Enclosures:

As stated i

I l

1

F01A-84-A-66 (F01A-84-175)

APPENDIX A

1. Undated GESSAR-II Appendix 15D.3, BWR/6 Probabilistic Risk Assessment (790 pages)

2. Undated GESSAR-II Appendix C Event Trees (156 pages)

3. Undated GESSAR-II Appendix D Fault Trees (309 pages)

4. 9/21/83 Letter to D. G. Eisenhut from J. F. Quirk re:

GESSAR-II Seismic Event Analysis (152 pages)

5. 11/7/83 Letter to D. G. Eisenhut from J. F. Quirk re:

GESSAR-II Fire and Flood External Event Analysis (81 pages)

6. 11/17/83 Letter to D. G. Eisenhut from J. F. Quirk re:

GESSAR-II Internal Event PRA Uncertainty Analysis (64 pages)

7. 12/29/83 Letter to D. G. Eisenhut from J. F. Quirk re:

GESSAR-II Seismic Event Uncertainty Analysis (66 pages) -

l b

1

- - , _ . , _ - -- , .