ML20204H897
| ML20204H897 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07109268 |
| Issue date: | 03/22/1999 |
| From: | Redley A External (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20137D718 | List: |
| References | |
| BFS-NRC-99-027, BFS-NRC-99-27, NUDOCS 9903290198 | |
| Download: ML20204H897 (6) | |
Text
l$~
OBNFL BNFL Fuel Solutions Corporation 1 Victor Square Scotts Valley, CA 95066 Fuel Solutions a (83y 438.e444 Fax: (831)438-5206 March 22,1999 BFS/NRC 99-027 Docket No. 71-9268 File No. SNC-109 Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards J
US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001
Subject:
Revised TranStor Part 71 Impact Limiter Test Plan
Reference:
SNC Letter dated October 15,1997, SNC-97-102, impact Limiter Test Plan
Dear Sir,
In a meeting with the NRC on February 9,1999, BFS presented its design philosophy and approach to validating the analytical model used in the design and analysis of the impact limiter.
The validation method consists of the following elements:
- 1. Design Analysis
- 2. Independent Design Reviews
- 3. Testing i
Included within these elements are substantial tests to demonstrate material properties and benchmark the analytical model, comparisons to available test and material data, and independent reviews. BFS considers that no single element alone is sufficient, but that the combination of these elements is necessary to provide a complete validation of the analytical model.
The enclosed Revision 2 of the test plan addresses the Testing element of the validation of the analytical model. The test plan provides for three quasi-static tests and two dynamic drop tests consistent with the discussions in the February meeting. As stated in the test plan, the adequacy j
of the selected dynamic drop orientations will be confirmed by a comparison of the results from the quasi-static side test and the dynamic side drop test.
Revision 0 of the TranStorm Impact Limiter Test Plan was submitted as proprietary in the referenced letter. The NRC agreed and withheld the complete test plan from public disclosure as stated in its letter dated December 5,1997. Since that time, BFS has undertaken an effort to 1
minimize the information that is labeled as proprietary. Although BFS has concluded that the enclosed test plan does contain information that is commercially sensitive and, as such, is held in
(
h(
9903290198 990322 PDR ADOCK 07109268 C
[1 OT 1
l W/0 PP 290041 C\\W M p 6%>
I R OF Y k
UgEDts l
i
~ U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission BFS/NRC 98-027 Page 2 confidence, a portion of the test plan can be made available for public disclosure. Enclosed are
]
the affidavit documenting the proprietary basis for Revision 2 of the TranStor Impact Limiter Test Plan, and the proprietary version and the redacted /non-propdetary version of the test plan.
If any questions exist relative to this submittal, please contact me at (831) 438-6444.
Sincerely, -
- ice-P b
Enclosure i
cc)
Mr. L. G. Dusek Ms. Marilyn Meigs 3
Portland General Electric BNFL Inc.
71760 Columbia River Hwy.
90017 Street NW, Suite 10.(0 I
th Rainier, OR 97048 Washington, DC 20006-2501 Mr. Dan Gildow Mr. Max DeLong i
Portland General Electric Project Engineer 71760 Columbia River Hwy.
Private Fuel Storage, LLC Rainier, OR 97048 c/o NSP,512 Nicollet Mall Minneapolis, MN 55401 Mr. John Donnell Stone & Webster 7677 E. Berry Ave.
j Englewood, CO 80111-2137 i
i l
1 s
ENCLOSUREI AFFIDAVIT J
1 l
l 4
i 1
US Nuclear Regulatory Commission BFS/NRC 99-027 i, Page 1 TranStorm Part 71 Shipping Cask System AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF PROPRIETARY INFORM ATION CONTAINED IN BNFL FUEL SOLUTIONS TEST PLAN State of California, County of Santa Cruz I, Alan J. Redley, being duly swom, depose and state as follows:
(1) I am Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of BNFL Fuel Solutions ("BFS")
and have been delegated the ftmetion of reviewing the information described in paragraph (2), which is sought to be withheld, and have been authorized to apply for its withholding.
(2) The information sought to be withheld is contained in the test plan listed below. The proprietary material in these documents is delineated by proprietary designation on specific pages or within specific sections of the pages.
IL-TP-001, Revision 2 (3) In making this application for withholding of proprietary information of which it is the owner, BFS relies upon the exemption from disclosure set forth in the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"),5 U.S.C. { 552(b)(4), and the T rade Secrets Act,18 U.S.C.
1905, and NRC regulations 10 C.F.R. 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 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. S_e_e Critical Mass Enerny Project v. NRC,975 F.2d 871 (D.C. Cir.1992), cert.
denied,507 U.S. 984 (1993); Public Citizen Health Research Group v. FDA,704 F.2d 1280 (D.C. Cir.1983).
(4) Information that is held in confidence, meaning if the information is released, it might result in the loss of an existing or potential competitive advantage, falls into one or more of the following category types:
(a) The information reveals the distinguishing aspects of components, and the i
prevention ofits use by BFS's competitors, without license from BFS, gives BFS a competitive economic advantage.
(b) The information, if used by a competitor, would reduce the competiter's expenditure of resources or improve the competitor's advantage in the design, manufacture, shipment, installation, assurance of quality, or licensing of a similar product.
)
q US Nuclear Regulatory Commission BFS/NRC 99-027, Page 2-(c) The information reveals aspects of past, present, or future BFS or customer funded development plans and programs of potential commercial value to BFS.
(d) The information contains patentable ideas, for which patent protection may be desirable.
(5) The information sought to be withheld is being submitted to NRC in confidence. The information is of a sort customarily held in confidence by BFS, and is in fact so held.
The information sought to be withheld has to the best of my knowledge and belief, consistently been held in confidence by BFS, no public disclosure has been made, and j
it is not available in public sources. All disclosures to third parties including any j
required transmittals to NRC, have been made, or must be made, pursuant to i
regulatory provisions or proprietary agreements that provide for maintenance of the information in confidence.
(6) The procedure for approval of external release of such a document typically requires j
review by the project manager, lead technical and management personnel, and by the licensing director, for technical content, competitive effect, and detennination of the accuracy Of the proprietary designation. Disclosures outside BFS are limited to regulatory bodies, customers, and potential customers, and their agents, suppliers, and licensees, and others with a legitimate need for the information, and then only in accordance with appropriate regulatory provisions or proprietary agreements.
]
(7) The information identified in paragraph (2) is classified as proprietary because:
(i)
It contains detailed results of analytical models, computer codes, methods and processes, in which BFS has a proprietary interest and has applied to evaluations of the TranStor Part 71 shipping cask system for which BFS is seeking NRC approval.
I (ii)
The development and eventual approval of the designs represented in these documents was achieved at a significant cost to BFS.
(iii)
The interpretation and application of analytical results is derived from the extensive experience database that constitutes a major BFS asset.
(iv)
Public disclosure of the information sought to be withheld is likely to cause substantial harm to BFS's competitive position and foreclose or reduce the availability of profit-making opportunities. The information is part of BFS's technology base and its commercial value extends beyond the original development cost. The value of the technology base goes beyond the analytical methodology and includes development of the expertise to determine and apply appropriate evaluation process. In addition, the technology base includes the value derived from NRC's eventual approval of the specific cask design.
)
US Nuclear Regulatory Commission BFS/NRC 99-027
)
,, Page 3 j
(v)
The research, development, engineering, analytical and NRC review costs comprise a substantial investment of time and money by BFS.
(vi)
BFS's competitive advantage will be lost ifits competitors are able to use the results of the BFS 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.
(vii)
The value of this information to BFS would be lost if the information were disclosed tc, 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 BFS of the opportunity to exercise its competitive advantage to seek an adequate retum on its large investment.
Alan Jy. ()
BNFL Fuel Solutidfis Sworn to before me this $
day of bA C_h
- 1999, i
d SHAb b P0U l
(
,b M Nota, u e to la Notary Public, Stafe of Cllifornia Santa Cruz hunty w
My Comm. Exp. July 25. 2001 l
-.