ML20153D949

Submits Response to NRC Ltrs Re Requests for Withholding Info.Info Does Not Have Commercial Value & No Longer Considered to Be Proprietary by W

ML20153D949
Person / Time
Site:	05200003
Issue date:	08/12/1998
From:	Mcintyre B WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY, DIV OF CBS CORP.
To:	Quay T NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
Shared Package
ML20153C365	List: ET-NRC-93-3874, Forwards Addl Copies of Topical Rept WCAP-13383 in Support of AP600 Review.W Copyright Notice & Proprietary Info Notice Attached ML20153C438 ML20153C484 ML20153D949
References
NSD-NRC-98-5751, NUDOCS 9809250276
Download: ML20153D949 (2)

Text

- _ . .

/* ^ 'N

,' L. l

\ ' ;)\

- ~ ,

l I l Westingtiouse Energy Systems aci m ,

Electric Corporation Pinsturit Fermsytvarha 15230-0355 l DPCMRCl407 i NSO-NRC-98 5751 Docket No.: 52-003 Au6ust 12,1998 4

Document Contro! Desk U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

, Washington, DC 20$55 ATTENTION. T, R. QUAY

SUBJECT:

PiSPONSE TO NRC LETTERS CONCERNING REQUESTS FOR WITHHOLDING TNFORMATION

Reference. 1. Letter, Sebrosky to McIntyre, " Request for withholding informa' 4 m public ,

disclosure for Westinghouse AP600 letters of March 9,1992, Apai . !993, and l July 14.1998."

2. Letter, Sebrosky to McIntyre, " Request for withholding inforTnation from public disclosure for Westinghouse letters dated February 14,1992, July 29,1994, and July 14,1998."

i s _-

Dear Mr. Quay:

Reference 1 provided the NRC assesstnent of the Westinghouse claim that proprietary information was 4

provided in a letter dated March 9,1992, that proposed a cooperative testing program ia the Oregon Sute Univer.<ity, ROSA.IV and Large Scale Test facilities that would have allowed Westinghone and the NRC to dihre the same testing facilities to perform AP600 related integrn! systems testing. The f; NRC assesserent w.s : hat the information contained was similar tu other nonproprietary material or that it did not conform to 10CFR2.790(b)(4). In addition, the material was used by the staff in the development of the draft safety evale.ation report for the AP600, and therefore. should remain on the

![

docket. At the time this offer was being proposed, the information was proprietary since it contained

information that had commercial value to Westinghouse. At this time, cner six years later, this i /

information does not have commercial value and is no longer cortsidered to be propri:tary by Westinghouse. h-). } '

Reference 1 also provided the NRC assessment of the Westinghouse claim that proprietary information was provided in a letter dated April 28,1993, that provided a copy of WCAP-13383, "AP600 Instrumentation and Control Hardware and Software Design, Verification and Validation Process Report." The NRC assessment was tha.t the information contained was similar to other nonpropietary c'steerial or that it did not conform to 10CFR2.790(b)(4). Reference I also noted that a subsequent yevision of this report wt.s considered nonproprietary. In addition, the material us used by the uaff __

in :he development of the draft safety evaluation report for the AP600, and therefore, should remMn

. on the docket. Revision 1 of WCAP 13383 was issued on June 17,1996, (DCP/NRC0526) to clow out DSER open items 7.1.41 and 7.1.61. At that time, three years after Revision 0 of WCAP-13383 3

CO/20'd 2002Gir!Oct8 01 2LLP PLC 2 t t' 3 711030Nt40ld-3 dd ad PG: LO 86,61 900

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

3

'** C00'ased ~10101. *

• i' DPC/NRCl407

., NSD NRC-98 5751 August 12,1%S

! D 4

was issued, the information was no longer considered to be proprietary by Westinghouse and Revision I was therefore issued es a nonproprietary report. Since the information in Revision 0 is essentia!!y the same information as in Revision 1, Revision 0 of WCAP-lWM thereforc no longer considered to be proprietary by Westinghouse.

~

{ '

~

l 1

1 Reference 2 provided the NRC aswssment of the Westinghouse claim that propriettry information was l' provided ir a Ictter dated February 14, JW2, that contained the Westinghouse response to the NRC AP600 isstu:s that would require testing in a high pressere full height test facility. The NRC

! assessrnent was that no material in the teact was specifically identined as being pioprietary and that a nonproprietary version was not provided. In addition, the materia! was used by the staff in the Me!opment of the safety evaluation for the AP600, and therefore, wou'.d need to be provided in j an., ' *r form if Westinghouse decidcs to withdraw the proprietary information as allowed by 10CF 2 790(c). At the time this subject was being discussed with the NRC technical staff, the information was considered to be proprietary by Westinghouse since it contained information that had I

' commercial value to Westinghouse. At this time, over six years later, this information does not have

ccmmercial value and is no longer considered to be proprietsty by Westinghouse.

} Reference 2 also provided the NRC uscssment of the Westinghouse claim that proprietary information was provided in a letter dated July 24,1994, that provided a copy of WCAF-14132 (Proprietary) and WCAP- 14133 (Nonproprietary) *AP600 CMT Prograrn - Facility Description Report." The NRC assessment was that no material in the reports was spea0cally identified n being proprietary. In l _ addition, the material was used by the staff in the development of the safety evaluation for the AP600,

and therefore, would need to be provided in another form if Westinghouse decides to withdraw the i v propriet.vy information as allowed by 10CFR2.790(c). In WCAP-14132, it should b

noted that toe

' detailed as built CMT test facility drawings in Appendix A me indicated to be proprietary by the standard proprietary statement used by Westinghouse on drawings. These detailed as-built drawings

'were deleted from WCAP 14133 to cre, ate the nonproprietaty version of the CMT facility descdption report. To indicate what had been dekted, the list of as.ouilt dra,vings wu retained in the l nonproprietary version of the report, WCAP.14133. Westinghouse still considers the as-built drawings i

rnatied as proprietary in WCAP 14122 to be proprietary since the information reveals the distinguishing aspects of a process (raracture, truthod or cornponent) where prevention of its use by any of Westinghouse's competitors without license from Westinghouse constitutes a competitive

^

advantage over other compan!cs and its use by a competitor would mduce his expenditure of resouxces

in the desi6n, assurance of quality or licensing of a similar product. The text description of the CMT test facility in WCAP-14133 is sufUcient to support the staff safety determinatico for this activity.

i This response addresses the proprietary issues delineated in the references.

i

/

ff Brian A. McIntyre, P anager k .J Advx.ced Plant Safety and Licensing jml ec: J. W. Roe - NRC/NRR/DRPM J. M. Sebrosky - NRC/NRIUDRPM H. A. Sepp - Westinghouse 3tt2a wpf CO/CO'e 2002GirIOCIO 01 244r P/ C 2IP 3rlin3OdNOW Gdd dd PG: LO 86.61 900

- -