ML20210N335
| ML20210N335 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/24/1997 |
| From: | Callan L NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| SECY-97-134, SECY-97-134-01, SECY-97-134-1, SECY-97-134-R, NUDOCS 9708250188 | |
| Download: ML20210N335 (37) | |
Text
-
m m
m RELEASED TO THE PDR:
?p
.n.,%
g 5
$2hD
. bd/:
date j,
initials POLICY ISSUE (NEGATIVE CONSENT)
June 24, 1997 stcY-97-134 FOR:
The Commissioners l
FROM:
L. Joseph Callan l
Executive Director for Operations l
SUBJECT:
COMMERCIAL USE OF NRC DEVELOPED THERMAL HYDRAULIC l
CODES BY NON-U.S. ORGANIZATIONS l
i PURPOSE:
To inform the Comrnission of the staff's plan to implement Alternative 3 regarding the current restrictions on commercial use of NRC thermal-hydraulic codes obtained by international organizations under the Code Assessment and Maintenance Program (CAMP) agreements.
This action will define and clarify the various uses that international organizations can make of the NRC supplied codes.
ISSUE:
The current CAMP membership consists of 23 countries. The CAMP agreements are due to expire August 31,1997. Present NRC policy prohibits non-U.S. organizations from using the NRC developed codes obtained through CAMP agreements for commercial purposes. The intent of the restriction in the current agreement is to prohibit international organizations from utilizing U.S. funded work to compete against U.S. companies. However, the agreement does not explicitly define what constitutes a commercial use. This vagueness may dissuade some members from continuing to participate in CAMP if they interpret the restriction to prohibit the performance of safety calculations. Since there exist a variety of other thermal-hydraulic codes and intemational user groups that do not restrict code use, current policy may diminish the CAMP membership and reduce the international collaboration provided by CAMP. Alternative actions to manage this issue of commercial use are presented for the Commission's consideration.
t
% j L{ II g82ga970624 gg_ Q 97-134 R PDR
' ' ( b m"1 CONTACT:
NOTE:
TO BE FIADE PUBLICLY AVAI ALBLE WHEN JENNIFER UHLE. DST /RES THE FINAL SRM IS F1ADE AVAILABLE 301 415-5741 i Ri>' l-S bl$ !!!ll!!!!h!,$[!!!!!!
w
O 2
BACKGROUND:
Until the early 1980's, the NRC developed thermal-hydraulic computer codes were readily available to both international and domestic parties. Their distributie was not controlled by an NRC approval process (this policy also applied to all NRC sponsored research). NRC encouraged extensive use of the codes as a means of enhancing worldwide nuclear safety.
However, in consideration of the substantial cost associated with code development and
{
supporting experimentation, the policy of unrestricted access was changed when the NRC organized the international Code Assessment Program (ICAP)in 1983.
Through the bilateral ICAP agreements, NRC provided the latest version of its thermal hydraulic codes and technical assistance with their operation to international governments in exchange for a specified number of code assessment calculations per year as a means of measuring the code's modeling capabilities. The code assessments reduced the level of effort required by the NRC to ensure the validity of the code results. The larger user base exercised the code more l
thoroughly, since the code was compared with a larger and more diversified database than was possible if use were limited to NRC or domestic applications. The success of a code development program is partially governed by the number of assessment cases performed and their diversity. The more diverse and extensive an assessment database, the more confidenco a user community will have in the code's capability to accurately model individual phenomena and system behavior over the required range of conditions. Furthermore, ICAP allowed the U.S. to benefit from international expertise, as members often identified code deficiencies and errors and proposed corrective actions. ICAP was a vehicle by which the NRC codes enhanced the world's Nuclear Power Plant (NPP) analysis capability and by which the NRC received valuable assistance with code development.
Due to the extensive benefits NRC reaped from ICAP, when the codes matured and assessment was no longer the primary concern, ICAP was continued but modified to emphasize maintenance needs rather than assessment. In 1993, the Code Applications and Maintenance Program (CAMP) replaced ICAP. In accordance with the agreements, the individual countries now provide cash contributions to the NRC in exchange for the latest versions of the codes and assistance with their use. NRC funds and the member contributions are invested in code maintenance, error corrections and improvements. Additionally, each member performs two code assessments per year to ensure the codes are continually assessed.
Presently, there is a large number of domestic organizations that use the NRC codes and 23 member nations participate in CAMP. To prevent unauthorized code versions from circulating and perhaps diminishing the quality of NPP safety calculations (a user may mistake a modified unauthorized version for the latest NRC version), NRC prohibits the members from redistributing the code to a third party without prior consent (when a U.S. corporation is purchased by a non-U.S. corporation, the parent organization to the U.S. organization is considered to be a third party and is not permitted to receive the code without NRC permission).
3 To prevent the situation in which the U.S. government would effectively be subsidizing an international company's competitive status, the agreements also restrict non U.S. organizations from utilizing the codes for commercial applications. In the past, some exceptions have been granted, such as a three year waiver granted to the Russian Research Center Kurchatov institute (RRC KI) for use in safety studies of Russian designed reactors (SECY 95-014), and
(
the permission for ANPA (Italy) to perform safety analysis of Eastern European reactors under i
the sponsorship of the European Commission. Additionally, a one time waiver was granted to Tractebel(Belgium) to assist the Slovenian Sefety Authorities with the use of the RELAPS code to train the KRSKO plant staff.
In October 1993, four companies (Siemens, Tractebol, KEMA, ABB) appealed to the staff to i
delete the non commercial use restriction in the CAMP agreements, since they believed the I
major benefit of their involvement in CAMP would be the ability to use the code for both commercial and non-commercial purposes The staff asked Westinghouse and General Electric to comment on the commercialimpact of lifting the restrictions on the use of the CAMP released thermal-hydraulic codes. Both companies replied that this action would put them at an economic disadvantage. SECY-94158 summarized this situation and recommended the continuance of the commercial use restriction. In an SRM on SECY 94158 dated June 30, 1994, the Commission approved continuing the ' current restrictions on commercial use of NRC codes obtained under the CAMP agreements."
DISCUSSION:
The policy of restricting international non commercial use is stated in the following excerpt from the CAMP agreement:
The USNRC codes and other related analytical techniques covered under this Agreement, any improvements, modifications or updates to such codes or techniques are for the purpose of reactor and plant systems research and shall not be used for commercial purposes, or for other benefits not related to the study of reactor safety without the prior consent of the USNRC, CAMP members have requested that the NRC clarify the vague definition of commercial use, and some members have declared the prohibition too restrictive. Additionally, these restrictions have been interpreted by some CAMP members as prohibiting the use of the code for safety assessment. As a result, the NRC codes are not being used for all permissible applications, which then diminishes the safety benefit that the codes can provide. There is reason to believe that if the restriction is not modified, participation in CAMP will decline, thus detracting from the program's primary goal of enhancing nuclear safety worldwide.
Alternatives Three options that may be exercised to manage the issue of commercial use have been identified:
1.
Change NRC policy and lift the restrictions on commercial use.
4 4
2.
Maintain present policy.
3.
More explicitly define the permitted commercial uses of the codes to allow wider application, so that strong CAMP participation is ensured without compromising U.S.
interests.
Discussion of Altematives Alternative _1 l
By deleting the restrictions on commercial uses of the codes, the NRC would ensure that j
intemational participation in CAMP would increase or at least be maintained. This action is cons! stent with the mission of the NRC to protect the health and safety of the public, since the NRC codes would be more widely used by the international community, enhancing the safety of i
i the world's nuclear program. Furthermore, the in kind contributions from the participant countries would allow for a more extensive code assessment and maintenance effort, thereby increasing the quality of the codes. The disadvantages include: 1) the appearance that the NRC would effectively be subsidizing international organizations' competitive status, and 2) both Westinghouse and General Electric would have to contend with International competition and they would be at a competitive disadvantage. It should be noted that previous CAMP agreements did not receive full review by the Executive Branch, since they included a clause that restricted the commercial use of the codes by international organizations, which was consistent with Executive Branch policy. The removal of the restriction on commercial use may require that future CAMP agreements undergo full-scale interagency review as well as possible renegotiation with the Executive Branch of the intellectual property provisions NRC had been L
allowed to use on the basis of the restriction. Both of these results may substantially delay the renewal of the CAMP agreements.
Alternative 2 -
Under this alternative, the appearance of NRC subsidizing and enhancing international organizations' competitive position would be eliminated and the concerns of Westinghouse and General Electric would be alleviated. However, there are disadvantages to this alternative.
There is reason to believe that if the NRC does not modify the agreement, the CAMP membership will decline. There are other codes and user groups available to the international community that do not restrict the use of the codes. The NRC would lose some benefit from the CAMP technical and financial contributions that have proved valuable. Since the codes have been developed over a period of 15 years of cooperative agreements, and both CAMP and ICAP have provided a great deal of international assistance, the international community can claim some degree of ownership. Furthermore, no legislation prohibits someone from taking a mature version of the code, making minor changes and renaming it with the aim of
4 providing this code to an alternate user group. However, this user group would neither benefit in a timely fashion from future NRC supported improvements made to the code nor benef!( from NRC user support.
Attemative 3 The agreement can be modified to define more specifically the meaning of commercial use that is consistent with its originalintent, i.e., the intent of NRC providing the code to the international community to be used to promote and enhance nuclear safety worldwide and not to defray or eliminate code development cost by intemational organizations. Under this attemative, infomational users could perform safety analyses with the codes in the non U.S. market, but could not use them to compete in the U.S. or as a design tool, this alternative were adopted, the staff would coordinate the review of this new language with the appropriate Executive Branch agencies. It is suggested that the text of the CAMP agreement be supplemented by the following:
Among the code uses that will be permitted under the CAMP agreements are those related tu research in the reactor safety area and analyses performed by CAMP members or their contractors that can assist regulators and plant J
personnelin assessing the safety of the plant, analyzing operating events, and training of operators. Specific examples of permitted analyses include: design basis accidents (e.g., loss of coolant accidents), anticipated transients, accident management and emergency operating procedures, mid loop operation, analysis to support PRA success criteria, power upgrades and reload.
Prohibited uses of the code include: (1) analyses to develop a new reactor l
design; (2) analyses to support power upgrades and reload in the U.S. unless performed by a U.S. subsidiary.
]
The disadvantage of this alternative is that it may give some CAMP members the opportunity to compete against U.S. companies in the non U.S market for commercial applications. We believe that the previously stated concerns of Westinghouse and General Electric would not be eliminated if the NRC adopts this alternative. However, since strong CAMP participation will be ensured, this option will benefit NRC thermal hydraulic code development and will enhance worldwide reactor safety assessment, Furthermore, since our international partners have, in effect, partial ownership of the codes through their program contributions, it is reasonable to allow a limited commercial use of the codes in the non U.S. market.
SUMMARY
The NRC's thermal-hydraulic codes are used by more countries in the world than any other reactor safety analysis codes, The NRC has made these codes available to the intemational community to promote and enhance nuclear safety worldwide and benefits from wide -
distribution of the codes in three ways:
1.
The code is exercised by a wider use,* oase and is assessed against more diverse data.
6 2.
Users identify errors, suggest corrections and perform two code assessments per year.
3.
NRC receives financial contributions from the participants and invests them in the form of code maintenance, error corrections and improvements.
Presently, uses of the codes obtained under the CAMP agreement are restricted to non-commercial applications. Under Alternative 3, we suggest that these restrictions be clarified and modified to allow international organizations to use the codes for commercial applications in the non-U.S. market. We do recognize, however, that this action may appear to subsidize international organizations' competitive status and U.S. companies would have to contend with l
the international competition. However, four factors make this Alternative a reasonable policy:
1.
Permitting limited commercial use of the codes in the non-U.S. market by international organizations will allow the NRC to maintain the CAMP program, which has proven to be
- valuable, j
2.
Wide distribution of the codes enhances the world's reactor safety analysis capability.
i 3.
We believe that ensuring continuation of the U.S. regulatory body's world leadership role enhances the competitive position of U.S. companies more than the possibility of the increased competition in the non U.S. market hinders it.
4.
Even if the CAMP program restricts all commercial use, the codes can be obtained j
through other means that place no restriction on their use. NRC would receive no benefit from these programs, and the U.S. companies would be forced to contend with international competition in both the non U.S. and domestic markets.
i Altemative 3 maximizes the number of member countries in CAMP but does not unreasonably conflict with the present policy of restricting international organizations' commercial use.
Therefore, the staff believes that it is a reasonable policy that accommodates the NRC as well as the U.S. industries. Since the positions of Westinghouse and General Electric have been voiced to the Commission in previous correspondence (Attachment 1), their views were not requested again.
COORDINATION:
The Office of General Counsel and the Office of international Programs have reviewed this paper and have no objections.
RECOMMENDATION:
Unless otherwise instructed within 10 days following the date of this paper, the staff will proceed with two activities:
1.
The staff will proceed with implementing Alternative 3.
7 2.
Since Alternative 3 will be a substantive change to the agreement text. Attachment 2 is a letter to Mr. Richard J.K. Stratford, U.S. Department of State, from Mr. Carl Stoiber l
requesting Executive Branch review of the new supplemental clarification to the non-commercial clause in the CAMP agreements.
' 3.
The staff will proceed with renewing the CAMP agreements that maintain the current restrictiori but willinform the participants that the NRC is reassessing and clarifying code -
uses that are permitted under the policy of restricting CAMP members from using these codes for non commercial purposes. A letter from Dr. Farouk Eltawila to Dr. Nusret Aksan of the Paul Scherrer Institute is also enclosed as an example of this correspondence (Attachment 3).
j L. Jo e h Callan Executive Director for Operations Attachments:
1.-
Correspondence between NRC and Westinghouse Electric Corp.-
and between NRC and General Electric 2.
Proposed Letter from C, Stoiber to R. Stratford 3.
Letter from F. Eltawila to N. Aksan SECY NOTE:
In the absence of instructions to the contrary. SECY will notify the staff on Friday, July 11. 1997 that the Commission, by negativa consent, assents to the action proposed in this paper.
DISTRIBUTOIN:-
Commissioners OGC OIG OPA OIP.
I J
9 ATTACHMENT 1
. CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN NRC AND WESTINGHOUSE. ELECTRIC CORPORATION AND BETWEEll NRC AND GENERAL ELECTRIC
_. _. _ =
PREDECISIONAL INFORMATION FOR: INTERNAL USE ONLY
J DEC 13 893 Nathanial D. Woodson, Vice President and General Meniger Energy Systems Business Unit Westinghouse Electric Corporation P.O. Box 355 Pittsburgh, Pa. 15230
Dear Mr. Woodson:
The purpose of this letter is to request your comment on requests to allow foreign vendors to use reactor system codes such as RELAP5 and TRAC for commercial purposes.
1980's, the 181C has made its thermal hydraulic systems analysis Since the early(RELAP5, TRAC) available internationally through bilateral computer codes agreements with the governments of countries in both Europe and Asia. The Igtc provides the latest version of the codes in return for assessment of results of the code against exmrimental data. We coordinated code agreements with these countries through tie International Code Assessment Program (ICAP). Many of these ICAP agreements are now expiring, and we propose to renew them under a new an. the Code Assessment and Maintenance Program ;CA W ).
The main difference ICAP and CAW is that under CAW, we require cash contributtons with limited code assessment.
The original intent was essentially as follows:
(1) it provided more assessment calculations using our codes than the 181C could alone perfort: (2) it advanced nuclear safety world wide by making such codes readily available: (3) these programs afforded us more direc,t control over our codes with regard to their use in other countries. Under the now car program, the benefit is increased funding fbr maintenance and development of the code.
Recently, however, tuo concerns have arisen regarding the impact our program may have on marketing by domestic vendors such as Westinghouse. These concerns are:
the assumed the foreign govermont would use the Originally,for sa 1.
analyses of their Now, however, govervaants te companies (e.g., plants.Siemens, IEMA) as agents for codes only are desimatiry pri interfac' ng with the 15tc. In addition, these its are providityl the CAW funding for participating in 181C programs, fort, they fee they have paid for the right to use the codes and have requested to use them for commercial purposes. The question is, would Westinghouse thereby be placed at a disadvantage and, if so, why?
Part of the 15tC's design certification process for the AP60011 ant is the 2.
modification and validation of computer codes, primarily llELA4 to analyze The concerti is that release of the the passive safety system performance.
codes that have had phenomenological models modified or added as a result of assessment against experimental data developed by either Westinghouse (e.g., SPES. OSU) or the 15tC (e.g., ROSA.V), sight adversely affect the ability of Westinghouse to maintain its commercial advantage over its competitors.
DEC 131993 Nathanial D. Woodson 2
I look forward to your reply. If you have any further comments or questions on this request, please feel free to call Brian W. Sheron of my staff at (301) 492-3500.
Sincerely, tntIUIRAL cn:J BT EricS. Beck #rd. Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Distribution:
4 RES Circ /Chron DSR Chren BSheron Chron BSheron TK1 s
iter D
71 BSh is EBeckjo i
12/j/93 12/ /93 12ho/93 9:\\westcode
~
4
"DEC 131933 Mr. Steven $ps:ker, Vice President E Nuclear Energy 175 Curtner Avenue San Jose, California 95125
Dear Mr. 5 pecker:
The purpose of this letter is to regaest your comment on requests to allow foreim vendors to use reactor system codes such as RELAPS and TRAC for commercial purposes.
5thee the early(RELAP5, TRAC) available internationally through bilateral 1950's, the II computer codes agreements with the govertusents of countries in both Europe and Asia. The IILC provides the latest version of the codes in twturn for assessment of results of the code aminst enwriaental data. We coordinated code agreements with these countries 1hrough tw International Code Assessment Program (ICAP). Many of these ICAP agreements are now expiring..and we propose to renew them under a new l
am, the Code Assessment and Maintenance Program (CAW). The esin difference ICAP and car is that under CAW, we reglire cash contributions with limited code assessment.
The oririnal intent was essentially as follows:
(1) it provided more assessment calculations using our codes then the IgIC could alone perfors: (2) it advanced nuclear safety world wide by asking such codes readily available: (3) these programs afforded us more 01rset control over our codes with regard to their use in other contries, under the new CAW program, the benefit is increased funding for maintenance and development of the code.
liscently, hauever, two concerns have arisen rqltheimpactourprogrammay have on marketing by domestic vendors such as a
Electric. These concerns are:
1.
Originally, the agreement assumed the forwie government would use the codes only for safety analyses of their plants, llow, however, governments are designeting private companies (e.g., siemens. ICEMA) as agents for interfac' no with the IIIC. In addition, these 1es are providiryi the CAW funding fbr participating in IIIC programs.
fore, they fee they have paid for the right to use the codes and have requested to use them for commercial purposes. The question is, would General Electric thereby be placed at a disadvantage and if so, why?
2.
Part of the IIIC's desip certification process-for the Saft plant is the sodification and validation of computer codes, primarily RELAPS. to analyze the passive safety system performance. The concern is that release of the codes that have had phenomenological models modified or added as a result of assessment against experimental data developed by either General
. might adversely Electric (e.g.. FIST) or the IItC (e.g.. Purdue Loop)ts commercial advantage affect the ability of General Electric to maintain i over its competitors.
DEC 131993 I look forward to your reply.
If p have any further coments or questions on this request, please feel free to call Brian W. Sheron of my staff at (301) 492-3500.
Sincerely, or.IcIKAL SIG=D n Eric S. Beck #rd. Director Dffice of Nuclear Regulatory Research Distribution:
ES Circ /Chron DSR Chron 85 heron Chron BSheren TKimi T5r s BS11 1kar D
D/REl 85 n
is EBeck#rd 12/ /93 12/ /93 12/g/93 g:\\westcode v'
~
e e
Wesnnghouse faergy Systems sa ns Bectric Corporalien 8usmass Unil W"'"""
- 5ee.acsce oce 4 mer.' W revs van 4r February 3,1994 Di. E. S. Beckjord, Dirocar Office of Nuclear Regulatory Ramsareb U.S. Nuc. lear Regulasory Comunission Washington, D.C. 20$$$
Dear Dr. Beckjord:
Thank you for your leser on the NRC Interandonal Code Assessement and Malatenance Program (CAMP) and your mand-ndon as to the effecs sach a program na have on se Westinghouse competitive posidon la the international market. We clearly believe that there meald be a competitive disadvantage in Wesdaghomas if any informatica/ codes relemaad throagh the program are stalzed by our foreign conspotisors for comanercul purpose. We expect our propewsary data to be safeguarded under appliable laws la any ask program.
Wessinghouse products and services are casamuing to fans lacreased cosapeddon world. wide, particalarly from Europeaa. based counpamies that now have complete or consolling inserest la former U.S. owned camipamies. There is an increened dependsace of these compaales, particadarly Siemens, Trocambel, and Frunatome, ca safety analysis ensapagar codes and me6ods which weet developed by U.S. National Laborstories for the Nuclear Regulatory c'a==iaala= 1his has the comunercial effect of a U.S. government subsidy of car formiga mapetisces.
The quality and accatracy of es safety analysis codes used la the assamment of a pardcadar feel design are significant competidve advantages becauss ' hey art important to piant operation and perfonnanos, he licenstag calculations. pernalarly the large break LOCA. establish abe deal peaking factors and Iberefore, the operanomal envelope for the plant. Impsoved safety analysis asshods result la increased plant peaking faaors, which can then be udlized by the usilley to improve the fuel cycle costs millandon of new feel designs and/or cycle length (availability). The undity ama also use the inaensed peaking faaors as margia to comprasate for agaipment wear or steam gaaerator tube pluggiag margia.
Therefort, the safety analysis method used to perform the calculadoes directly affects the marketability of fuel to the onlity.
%,.s
Page :
As stated is your letter, &c original intent of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to release its codes to foreign governmental agencies has ment. It supports the application of U.S. standards which makes it easier for Wesunghc.uae and osher American companias to esublish a pressace la these countries, and ideaufia the Nuclear Regulatory Camsussion as the techaial leader in this area. However, we have noticed, as your leuer states, that some foreign governments are direcsly passing te code and its aswinted technology to private compania. Os several recent feel contraca, Wsstinghouse has been bidding against foreign compania either in the U.S. or Earope which are relying on U.S.wieveloW safety analysis technology to license their fuel products. More specifically, we have bu.2 oldding on fuel reloads for k Ringhals Units in Sweden and es 11HANGE Units in Belgium (bot are eree l
loop Wesunghouse plaats) against Prassatoec. "!be latest Phunatome safety analysis model is TRAC.
PFl MOD 2 and eis model was used as the system code to evalusae se IDCA transient.
We have also been competing against Siemens for reloads in the BEZNAU Units in Switzerland (two-loop Westingbouse plant) and the H. B. Robinson Unit (three-loop Wessaghouse plant)in me U.S.
Siemens usa the RELAP51 MOD 2J code to evalease the IDCA tanaimis and they include the codes as part of the technology transfer to the multry. We have had sinailar experieaos with Babcock and Wilcox Ccmpany which is owned, la part, by Fremasome, when compenas on the Duke Power Units (Wesunghouse four loop PWR's).
Westinghouse is placed at a severe comunercial disadvantage when our foreign based or owned competitors can participase in programs such as the CAMP program and la ceanecsion iberewith can stillae se NRC developed codes, and obtais easy acosas to the lasest verstans of mdes and code developers. Q certain markets, this give the issage of NRC andersammt of seir predacm/ services.
Oar competition can direcsly nailian the results of taxpayer and UJ. isillry snyponed safety research as a commercial advanuge against Westinghouse and thereby oEset developosat costs that they must otherwise recover la their prica for $nst and services.
We have greater concern about the release of any ende validanad against car proprieury tant data for se AP600. la this situatica, car counpethers wondd receive the benefit of dem whidi Wesunghouse, the Department of Energy and b Utilities invested significant funds and several years of effort to abiaia. The passive tas,timology is a signiGcast comapeutsve advantage !ct Westinghouse is the world market sad represents the future of socisar priwer.
For te ressoas stated heres we are opposed to any NRC action asuttang in releasing any codes to our comoetitors, and would requent that the NRC *h in CAMP prograss to assure its codes as proprietary to se NRC and Nanomal Laboratories.
We would be happy to meet with you to discuss $is further should our position cause hardship for k Commusion.
Very truly yours,
.\\\\,
- /~ r W ';. n.'.~.:,.
M&=u.*gt*
GI Meelear Enefyy Asses a sessaar,
,,,,,ge...;;. m
<a Mw: n #n
- ww s: m w., u a ; n.:s m wn: t. m in:n 1
i January 18.1991 Mr. Erw S. Best ord. Director f
Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nucleat Regulatory Commissum Washington. D C. 20$55
Dear Mr. Sectior6:
This neuer responds to your letter of Doceder 13.1993 requestas GE comments on requests to allow foreign venders to use reactor sysaem codes such as RELAP5 and TRAC for commercial purposes.
While we fully support the need of the NRC to maintam safety cades so enhance reactor safery, we have significant concerns with the apparent commercializauon of these codes under the proposed Code Assessment and Maintenance Program (CAMP).,
Through the CAMP program, foreign compemes would be able to obtain stase of.the. art safety codes for a relatively small annual fee. Since there would appaready be no restrictions on the use of these codes, parnetpants in CAMP could use these codes for commercial applications. This would crease direct cornpeunon so GE through work pamally funded by U.S. taxpayers.
The CAMP program would ultimasely elianinase any inceanve for GE to perform safety cessarch to independently develop and tamatam safety codes. As you inay be aware, GE has invested substanual sesources a developing an improved version of the TRAC code (e.g 3D asisronics). la addition, substantial GE resources will be expended to liconee the improsed version with the NRC. This improved code provides GE with a unspe capability a evahamme WW% vents such as A1WS-stabthey is addition, it anows GE to perform improved W calculations for curtant licensed safery codes. Under the CAMP program, similar code improvements could be developed and inade avadable to all parocapants. Therefois, Es compactive advantage will be last if competitors have access to code improvements bened on GE expenance and wdl unfairly provide compeators with a windfall. This will depnve GE of the appareanity to realias na adequese renarn on its large investment in developing the improved code, la fact, the CAMP program encowages and rewards cornpanies not to spend pnvase resources to develop or improve independent codes. Furthermore, companies that cannot afford to invest in code i - y m= and ensintenance would suddenly be more counpositive.
The second concern idennfled la your inner ceresses code modtfications to analyze the SBWR plant response. GE has destloped a SBWR version of 11 TAC bened on expenrnental data developed by GE.
Reisme of the 11 TAC code wil'. provide our % iots with the al,dity to normalize or verify their own d
process and allow them to claim an equivalent undantanding by demonstraung that they can arnve at sinular conclusions. Again, GE's commercial advantage will be senously 174
-- -~~-
m m
.v....
.._o January 18.1998 P*8e 2 It must be pointed cut that the abose discusnon applus to tch domesuc and foreign companws. Several GE competitors in the nuclear fuel and plant services arts which are headquartered in Europe hase ownership of U.S. bawd companies Derefore, esen if the codes are not released to foreign companies fer commercial use. the capability could be haJned through the U.S. Subsidiary. In other countnes where GE has local ownership of manufactunng faciliues we are not privy to the results of their govemment funded computer codu.
In summary GE opposes -the release of NRC sponsored reactor safety code improvements for commeretal_use because :t aould do substantial harm to.wr competitive posit on. Furthermore, any i
incentive for GE to conimue to insest substantial resources in the advancement of basic researen and ecde improvements would be severel) limated The NRC's role should be lieruted to basic research and development of audit code.apability; not commercializauon of retctor safety codes.
Sincerely.
Steven R. 5 Vice President and General Mar.ager cc; 8.W. Sheron (NRC)
DRAFT 1
i Mr. Richard J.K. Stratford, Director Office of Nuclear Energy Affairs Bureau of Political-Military Affairs U.S. Department of State Washington, D.C. 20520
SUBJECT:
COMMERCIAL USE OF NRC-DEVELOPED THERMAL-HYDRAULIC CODES BY NON-U.S. ORGANIZATIONS
Dear Mr. Stratford:
The purpose of this letter is to request expedited Executive Branch consideration of a proposed
- text change to clarify the meaning of the commercial use restric' ions on NRC thermal-hydraulic codes obtained by foreign organizations under the Code Assessment and Maintenance Program (CAMP) agreements. The proposed renewal text for these agreements was sent to l
you for Executive Branch review and generic clearance on June 6,1997.
By way of background, the NRC has bilateral agreements with 23 countries to cooperate in the area of therma!-hydraulic research for the exchange of technical information including NRC-developed thermal-hydraulic codes, RELAPS, TRAC-P, and TRAC-B. The CAMP agreements are due to expire August 31,1997. Article V-l of CAMP agreements (Attachment 1) prohibits J
non-U.S. organizations from using the NRC developed codes obtained through CAMP agreements for commercial purposes. The intent of the restriction in the current agreement is to prohibit international organizations from utiPzing U.S. funded work to compete against U.S.
companies. In the past, the NRC has granted some very limited exceptions to CAMP organizations to perform reactor safety analyses that we determined to be necessary to enhance the world's reactor safety assessment capability.
In October 1993, several CAMP members appealed to the NRC to delete the non-commercial use restriction in the CAMP agreements, since they believed the major benefit of their involvement in CAMP would be the ability to use the code for both commercial and non-commercial purposes. The NRC asked Westinghouse and General Electric to cc ament on the commercialimpact of completely withdrawing restrictions on the use of the CAMF released thermal-hydraulic codes. Both companies replied that this action would put them at an economic disadvantage. As a result, the NRC continued the " current restrictions on commercial use of NRC codes obtained under the CAMP agreements."
Now that the current agreements are due to expire August 31,1997, several CAMP members have indicated that they may not renew the agreements because the non-commercial use prohibitions are too restrictive. Others have requested that the NRC clarify the vague definition of commercial use before they decide to renew the agreement. It is possible that the NRC
2 codes are not being used for all permissible applications, which then diminishes the safety benefit that the codes can provide._ This result is inconsistent with the mission of the NRC, which has been and continues to be to protect the health and safety of the public, by having j
the NRC codes more widely used by the international community to enhance the world's reactor i
safety assessment capabil;ty.
l
.l
. There is reason to believe that if the NRC does not modify the agreement, the CAMP membership will decline. There are other codes and user groups available to the international i
community that do not restrict the use of the same or)ery similar codes. The NRC would lose j-
- some benefit from the CAMP technical and financial contributions that have proved valuable.
l Since the codes have been developed over a period of 15 years of cooperative agreements, i-and both CAMP and its predecessor, ICAP, have provided a great deal of international assistance, the international community can claim some degree of ownership. Furthermore, no legislation prohibits someone from taking a mature version of the code, making minor changes and renaming it with an aim of providing this code to an attemate user group.
Therefore, we are proposing to modify Article V-1 of the CAMP agreements to clarify the meaning of commercial use that is consistent with its original intent, i.e., the intent of NRC providing the code to the international community to be used to promote and enhance nuclear safety worldwide. Under this alternative, international users could perform safety analyses with the codes in the international market, but could not use them to compete in the U.S. or as a design tool.' It is suggested that the text of Article V l be supplemented by the following:
Among the code uses that will be permitted under the CAMP agreements are those related to research in the reactor safety area and analyses performed by CAMP members or their contractors that can assist regulators and plant personnelin assessing the safety of the plant, analyzing operating events, and training of operators. Specific examples of permitted analyses include: design basis accidents (e.g., loss-of-coolant-accidents), anticipated transients, accident management and emergency operating procedures, mid-loop operation, analysis to support PRA success criteria, power upgrades and reload.
Prohibited uses of the code include: (1) analyses to develop a new reactor
- design and analyses to support plant design modifications unless performed for
- a regulatory body with the aim to assess the safety significance of these modifications; (2) analyses to support power upgrades and reload in the U.S.
unless performed by a U.S. subsidiary.-
It should be noted that although this modified text may give some CAMP members the opportunity to compete against U.S. companies in the non-U.S. market for commercial applications, it does not completely withdraw the restriction on non-commercial use. Moreover,
3 since strong CAMP participation will be ensured, this option will benefit NRC thermal-hydraulic -
code development and will enhance worldwide reactor safety assessment. Furthermore, since our international partners have, in effect, partial ownership of the codes through their program contributions, it is reasonable to allow a limited commercial use of the codes in the international market. Finally, we believe, since NRC thermal-hydraulic codes are used by more countries in the world than any other code for reactor safety analysis, they position the U.S. nuclear industry in an excellent competitive position.
We appreciate your prompt attention to this matter.
Sincerely, Carlton R. Stoiber, Director i
Office of International Programs
Attachment:
A Sample CAMP Agreement cc:
SECY OGC OCA OPA EDO Distribution: RPSB r/f; DST Chron; Uhle r/f; Uhle; Eltawila; King; Hodges; DChaney; CStoiber DOCUMENT NAME: a:\\Commiss3.Itr To receive a copy of this document, indicate in the box:"C" = Copy without enclosures "E"= Copy with enclosures "N"=Nu copy
'Previously concurred.
OFFICE:
RES/ DST /RPSB DST /RPSB DD/ DST OIP OIP NME:
- JUhle/cle
- FEltawila-
- TLKino DChaney C$toiber gE:
06/12/97 06/12/97 06/12/97 6/ /97 6/- /97 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY (RES File Code) RES-
. =,
SA-MPLE AGREEMENT ON THERMAL HYDRAULIC l
CODE APPLICATIONS AND MAINTENANCE BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION AND KOREA INSTITUTE OF NUCLEAR SAFETY (KINS)
The United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC) and Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety (KINS) (hereinafter referred to as the " Parties");
Considering that they have:
1.
A mutual interest in continuing the cooperation in the field of reactor and plant systems research with the objective of improving and helping to ensure the safety of reactors internationally:
2.
A mutual objective of reciprocity in the exchange of technical
.information:
Have reached the following understanding to guide the extension of their cooperation:
ARTICLE I' PROGRAM COOPERATION The Parties.-in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement and subject to applicable laws and regulations in' force-in their respective Countries, first joined together to undertake cooperative thermal hydraulic research programs on August 19, 1993. This Agreement extends that cooperation for another three years.
e ARTICLE II FORMS OF COOPERATION i
Cooperation between the Parties may take the following forms:
A.
The exchange of information in the form of technical reports, experimental data, corres)ondence, newsletters, visits, joint meetings, and such other means as tie Parties agree.
4 4
B.
The temporary assignment of personnel of one Party or of its contractors to laboratories or facilities owned by the other Party or in which it specors research.
Each assignment will be considered on a case by-case basis and will generally require a separate agreement.
C.
The execution of joint programs and projects, including those involving a division of activities between the Parties. Each joint program and project will be considered on a case by case basis and may be the subject of a separate agreement, if determined to be necessary by either of the Parties to this Agreement or their research organizations.
L Otherwise, it will be accom)lished by an exchange of letters between the j
research organizations of tie Parties, subject at least to the terms and conditions of the present Agreement, j
D.
The use by one Party of facilities that are owned by the other Party or i
in which research is being sponscred by the~other Party. Use of these-facilities may be-subject to commercial terms and conditions.
[
E.
If a Party wishes to visit, assign personnel, or use the facilities
)
owned or operated by entities other than the Parties to this Agreement, the Parties recognize that the approval of such entities will in general be required by the Receiving Party.
F.
Any other form agreed between the Parties.
ARTICLE III - SCOPE OF AGREEMENT
- A.
Program Objectives:
1.
Share experience on code errors and inadequacies and cooperate in resolving the deficiencies and maintaining a single, internationally recognized code version.
Software quality assurance procedures will be followed and code configuration control will be maintained.
Standard programming language will be applied and code portability will be maintained.
2.
Share user experience on code scalability, applicability, and uncertainty studies.
3.
Share a well documented code assessment data base.
4.
Share experience on full scale power plant safety related analyses performed.using the code. This includes analyses of operating reactors, advanced light water reactors, transients, risk dominant
3_
secuences including the front end of severe accident sequences.
anc accident management-and operator procedures related studies.
5.
Maintain and improve user expertise and documented user guidelines f
for applying the code.
B..
USNRC Scope of Responsibility 1.
Coordination and Program Management. The Thermal Hydraulic Code A)plications and Maintenance Program (CAMP) will. be coordinated by t1e USNRC.
Program information will be documented and circulated via newsletters-and NUREG/IA documents. A Technical Program Committee (TPC): comprised of representatives from the Parties will-meet regularly to report on code errors and modeling deficiencies, and recommend and assign rankings to code correction and improvement needs, including. approaches to resolution. Error corrections and model improvements will-be made, within the limits L
of available resources allocated-for each code, taking into account a priority list recommended by TPC. TPC will also exchange information on applications and assessment results. TPC 4
i meetings will be held twice per year, once in the U.S. and once I
abroad.
2.
Reactor Systems Simulation Codes.
RELAP5/M003. TRAC PF1/M002 and TRAC BF1 will be maintained on a level consistent with the extent of participation by the Parties. -Subject to the availability of appropriated funds, the USNRC plans to match the sum of the Parties' cash contributions up to the maximum of $250K per year per code.
However, the USNRC may' transfer funds between codes to fulfill the minimum maintenance requirements for a particular
-code.
Code updates will be provided in source form on machine-readable media.
Complete available documentation will be maintained consisting of:
code manual; models and correlations document; developmental assessment document; user guidelines document; and independent assessment documents; Code configuration control will be maintained to provide an internationally recognized code version.
3.~
Nuclear Plant Analyzer (NPA). The NPA operates as a dedicated workstation.
It includes visual display of the plant state and graphical display of plant parameters. The NPA software and associated documentation will be provided. The.USNRC will also provide subsequent updates of the NPA:and associated documentation that-are released during the Agreement period.
4.
Provision of Codes and Documentation. The USNRC will provide to KINS the RELAP5/M003 code and documentation. The USNRC will also provide subsequent updates of the code and documentation which are released during the Agreement period.
4 C.
KINS Scope of Responsibility 1.
Cash contribution for Code Maintenance and Improvements. During the month of July of each year beginning in July 1997, KINS will transmit to the USNRC forty five thousand U.S. dollars ($45,000) to receive the RELAP5/M003 code and the NPA software with their associated documentation.
KINS will also receive subsequent updates of the code and documentation that are issued during the Agreement period.
2.
In Kind Contribution.
KINS shall submit to the USNRC two code assessment reports per year or other work products of equivalent value. The assessment reports shall contain assessment information on the NRC codes that are released through thic Agreement.
The content of assessment reports is defined in NUREG-l 1271. The USNRC will have the nonexclusive right to publish these assessment reports containing nonproprietary information as NUREG/IA reports with proper reference to the originating Party.
D.
Gode Applications Analyses to be Exchanged by the Parties 1.
Code Scaling A>plicability and Uncertainty Evaluations. An example of suc1 studies was documented in NUREG/CR 5249, 2.
Issue Resolution.
Issues may arise requiring that information be developed to determine whether a particular problem exists.
Examples include pressurized thermal shock, interfccing systems LOCA, and long term cooling following a LOCA.
Non proprietary safety issue analyses performed using the codes specified in Section B.2. of Article III will be exchanged.
ARTICLE IV ADMINISTRATION OF THE AGREEMENT A.
Each party will designate one rearesentative to coordinate and determine the detailed implementation of t11s Agreement. These representatives may, at their discretion, delegate this responsibility to the appropriate individual with res)ect to a given issue.
The single designated representative will )e referred to as the Administrator of this Agreement.
B.
The Agreement restricts dissemination of proprietary and other confidential or privileged information.
C.
The Parties will endeavor to select technical personnel for assignment in the program who can contribute positively to the program. Technical personnel assigned to the program will be considered visiting scientists (nonsalaried) within the program and will be expected to participate in the conduct of the analyses and experiments of the program as mutually agreed.
D.
Each Party will have access to all non proprietary reports written by I
the other Party's technical personnel assigned to the respective programs that derive from its participation in the Agreement.
E.
Administrative details concerning questions such as security, indemnity, and liability related to the assignees or trainees will be addressed in personnel assignment agreements-between the respective Parties.
F.
Travel costs, living expenses and salaries of visiting technical personnel or personnel participating in program review meetings shall be t>orne by their respective organizations, i
ARTICLE V EXCPANGE AND USE OF INFORMATION AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY l
i
-A.
General The Parties supx>rt the widest possible dissemination of information provided or exclanged under this Agreement, subject both to the need to protect proprietary or other confidential or privileged information as may be exchanged hereunder, and to the provisions of the Intellectual Property Addendum, which is an integral part of this Agreement.
B.
Definitions For purposes of this Agreehent:
1.
The term "information" means nuclear energy related regulatory, safety, safeguards, waste management, scientific, or technical data, including information on results or methods of assessment, research, and any other knowledge intended to be provided or-exchanged under this Agreement.
2.
-The term " proprietary information" means information developed outside or made available under this Agreement which contains trade secrets or other privileged or confidential commercial information (such that the person having the information may derive an economic benefit from it or may have a competitive advantage over those who do not have it), and may only include information which:
a.
- has been held in confidence by its owner; b.
is of a type which is customarily held in confidence by its owner; c.
has not been transmitted by the owner to other entities (including the Receiving Party) except on the basis that it be held in confidence; d.
is not otherwise available to the Receiving Party from another source without restriction on its further dissemination; and
.6.
e, is not already in the possession of the Receiving Party, 3.
The term "other confidential or privileged information" means information, other than " proprietary information," which is protected from public disclosure under the laws and regulations of the country of ths Party providing the information and which has been transmitted and received in confidence.
C, Marking P acedures for Documentary Proprietary Information A Party receiving documentary proprietary information pursuant to this Agreement will respect the privileged nature thereof, orovided such proprietary information is clearly marked with the following (or substantially similar) restrictive legend:
-This document contains proprietary information furnished in confidence under an Agreement dated between the-United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Korea Institute'of Nuclear Safety and will not be disseminated outside these organizations, their consultants, contractors, and licensees, and concerned departments and agencies of the Government of the United States, and the Government of Korea.
without the arior approval of (name of Transmitting party), This notice will >e marked on any reproduction hereof, in whole or in part. These limitations will automatically. terminate when this
. information is disclosed by the owner without. restriction, This restrictive legend will be respected by the Receiving Party and proprietary information bearing this-legend will not be used for commercial proposes, made public, or disseminated in any manner unspecified by or contrary to the terms of-this Agreement without the consent of the Transmitting Party.
D, Dissemination of Documentary Proprietary Information 1.
-In general, proprietary info;mation received under this Agreement may be freely disseminated by the Receiving Party without prior consent to persons within or employed by the Receiving Party, and -
to concerned Government departments and Government agencies in the country of the Receiving Party.
2.
In addition, proprietary information may be disseminated without prior consent to:
a.
Prime or subcontractors or.. consultants of the Receiving Party located within the geographical limits of that Party's -
nation, for use only within the scope of work of their contracts with the Receiving Party in work relating to the subject matter of the proprietary information; b.
Domestic organizations permitted or licensed by the Receiving Party to construct or operate nuclear production 7
1 or utilization facilities, or to use nuclear materials and radiation sources, provided that such proprietary information is used only within the terms of.the permit or 11 cense: and c.
Domestic contractors of organizations identified in Section D.2.b. of Article V for use only in work within the scope of the permit or license granted to such organizations:
Provided that any dissemination of proprietary information under Section D.2.a., D.2.b., and D.2.c.. of Article V shall be on an as needed, case by case basis, shall be pursuant to an agreement of confidentiality, and shall be marked with a restrictive legend substantially similar to that appearing in Section C. of Article V.
1 3.
With the prior written consent of the Party furnishing proprietary I
(
information under this Agreement, the Receiving Party may i
disseminate such proprietary infonnation more widely than i
otherwise permitted in Sections D.1 and D.2. of Article V.
The Parties shall cooperate in developing procedures for requesting and obtaining approval for such wider dissemination, and each Party will grant such approval to the extent permitted by its j
national policies, regulations and laws.
E.
Marking Procedures for Other Confidential or Privileged Information of a i
Documentary Nature A Party receiving under this Agreement other confidential or 3rivileged information shall respect its confidential nature, orovided t1at such information is clearly marked so as to indicate its confidential or privileged nature and is accompanied by a statement indicating that the information is:
1.
Protected from public disclosure by the Government of the Transmitting Party; and 2.
Transmitted under the condition that it be maintained in confidence.
F.
Dissemination of Other Confidential or Privileged Information of a Documentary Nature Other confidential or privileged information may be disseminated in the same manner as that set forth in Section D. of Article V, Dissemination of Documentary Proprietary Information.
G.
Non Documentary Proprietary or Other Confidential or Privileged Information Non documentary proprietary or other confidential or privileged information provided in seminars and other meetings arranged under this
8 Agreement, or. information arising from attachments of staff, use of facilities, or joint projects shall be treated by the Parties according to the principles specified for documentary information in this i
Agreement, provided, however, that the Party communicating such i
proprietary or other confidential or privileged 'information has placed the recipient on notice as to the character of the information communicated.
H.
Consultation If, for any reason, one of the Parties becomes aware that it will be, or may reasonably be expected to become, unable to meet the non-dissemination provisions of this Agreement, it shall immediately inform the other Party. The Parties shall thereafter consult to define an appropriate course of action.
I.
Other 1.
Nothing contained in this Agreement shall preclude a Party from using or disseminating information received without restriction by a Party from sources outside of this Agreement.
2.
All USNRC computer codes disseminated under this Agreement are to be considered privileged information unless otherwise noted, are protected as such by the USNRC, and shall be treated likewise by the KINS. They are, in particular, subject to all of the
)rovisions of this Article with the exception that they need not
>e marked with the restrictive designation. The codes are subject to this protection in both object and source forms and as recorded in any media.
9 3.
The USNRC codes and other related analytical techniques covered under this Agreement, and any improvements, modifications or updates to such codes or techniques are for the purpose of reactor and plant systems research and licensing and shall not be used for commercial purposes, or for other benefits not related to the study of reactor safety without the prior consent of the USNRC.
Among'the: code uses that willabe'permittedTunder the CAMP agreements are those related to!research in the reactor safety! area?and analyses performed by; CAMP! members ort their contractors.that can assist regulators'and plant personnel in' assessing the safety of the plant,4 analyzing
. operating events.:and training of; operators..Swcific examples of permitted analyses include: design > asis'..
accidents ~(e.g.,sloss-of-coolant accidents) anticipated transients, accident management and emergency: operating proceduresf mid-loopLoperation,- analysis to support PRA success criteriay power upgrades-and reload.
Prohib'ited'uses~of theTcode ~ includes '(1)1a'nalyses tofdevelop a new reactorgdesign;and analysesito support-plant design modificationsunless: performed for a regulatory! body with the: aim to assessithe safety.significanceL ofsthese~
modifications: E(2)Lanalyses to support power upgrades ~and reload in theLU,SL unless: performed,byga U.;S. ' subsidiary (
4.
The USNRC codes and other related analytical techniques shall not be advertised directly or by implication to obtain contracts related to the construction or servicing of nuclear facilities, nor shall advertising imply that the USNRC has endorsed any particular analyses or techniques.
5.
All reports published within the scope of this Agreement and all meetings held shall be in English.
ARTICLE VI DISPUTES AND WARRANTY OF INFORMATION A.
All costs arising from implementation of this Agreement shall be borne by the Party that incurs them except when specifically agreed to otherwise.
It is understood that the ability of the Parties to carry out their obligations is subject to the availability of funds.
It is also understood that the terms herein agreed to represent feasible commitments according to the best understanding regarding resources and costs of the Parties at the time of signature.
B.
Cooperation under this Agreement shall be in accordance with the laws and regulations of the Parties' res)ective countries. Any dispute between the Parties concerning the )arties' interpretation or application of the Agreement shall be settled by mutual agreement.
10 C.
Information furnished by one Party to the other under this Agreement shall be accurate to the best knowledge and belief of the Party supplying the information. However, the application or use of any information exchanged or transferred between the Parties under this Agreement shall be the responsibility of the Party receiving the information, and the Transmitting Party does not warrant the suitability of the information for any particular use or application.
D.
The USNRC makes no warranties whatsoever for the ability or suitability of any USNRC code or other analytical technique to perform in any particular manner for any particular purpose, or to accomplish any particular task. The USNRC accepts no res mnsibility or liability for damages of any type that may result from tie use of its codes or other.
analytical techniques provided under this Agreement.
ARTICLE VII FINAL PROVISIONS A.
This Agreement enter into force'upon signature and remain in force until August 31, 2000, unless both parties agree to'an extension. This
. Agreement may be extended for an additional period of time, upon mutual agreement of the Parties.
B.
The Parties enter into this Agreement with the understanding that reasonable allowances for normal delays will be made in completing the work. The Party has the right to utilize information provided under this Agreement after the expiration date: however, all information protected by provisions of this Agreement as proprietary, confidential, privileged, or otherwise subject to restriction on disclosure shall remain so protected indefinitely unless mutually agreed to in writing.
C.
A Party may terminate this Agreement after providing the other Party written notice of its intent to terminate 180 days in advance.
The Party not terminating will notify the terminating Party before the effective date of termination if termination will result in the terminating Party receiving a disaroportionate share of the expected benefit from this Agreement. Bot 1 Parties will endeavor to reach an equitable settlement of the matter through negotiation.
4 D.
The Parties to this Agreement reserve the right to modify or extend the specific activities described in Article III within the intended scope of the Agreement upon written concurrence of their Administrators.
11 E.
If the portion of-the research program of any Party that-is pertinent to this Agreement is substantially reduced or-eliminated, the technical scope-described in Article III may be adjusted to substitute research of equivalent programatic interest upon mutual agreement of the Parties.
-FOR'THE UNITED STATES NUCLEAR KOREA INSTITUTE OF NUCLEAR SAFETY REGULATORY COMMISSION (KINS)
BY:
BY:
NAME:
L. Joseph Callan NAME:-
(PRINT)
(PRINT)
TITLE: Executive Director TITLE:
for Operations DATE:
DATE:
PLACE:
PLACE:
12 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ADDENDUM Pursuant to Article V of this Agreement:
The Parties shall ensure adequate and effective protection of intellectual property created or furnished under this Agreement and relevant implementing arrangements. The Parties agree to notify one another in a timely fashion of any inventions or copyrighted works arising under this Agreement and to seek protection for such intellectual property in a timely fashion.
Rights to such intellectual property shall be allocated as provided in this Addendum, i
I.
SCOPE A.
This Addendum is applicable to all cooperative activities undertaken pursuant to this Agreement, except as otherwise specifically agreed by the Parties or their designees.
B.
For purposes of this Agreement, " intellectual property" shall have the meaning found in Article 2 of the Convention Establishing the World Intellectual Property Organization, done at Stockholm, July 14, 1967: yjA, ' intellectual property' shall include the rights relating to:
literary, artistic and scientific works.
performances of artists, phonograms, and broadcasts.
inventions in all fields of human endeavor, scientific discoveries, industrial designs, trademarks, service marks, and commercial names and designations, protection against unfair competition, and all other rights resulting from intellectual activity in -
the industrial, scientific, literary-or artistic fields."
C.
This Addendum addresses the allocation of rights, interests, and royalties between the Parties. Each party shall ensure that the other Party can obtain rights to' intellectual aroperty allocated-in accordance with the Addendum by obtaining tiose rights from its own participants through contracts or other legal means, if necessary. This Addendum does not otherwise alter or arejudice the allocation between a Party and its nationals, whic1 shall' be deterrhined by that Party's laws and practices.
m%'-
13 D.
Disputes concerning intellectual property arising under this Agreement should be resolved through discussions between the concerned participating institutions or, if necessary, the Parties or their designees. Upon mutual agreement of the Parties, a dispute shall be submitted to an arbitral tribunal for binding arbitration in accordance with the applicable rules of international law. Unless the Parties or their designees agree-otherwise in writing, the arbitration rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) shall govern.
E.
Termination or expiration of this Agreement shall not affect rights or obligations under this Addendum.
II.
ALLOCATION OF RIGHTS A.
Each Party shall be entitled to a non exclusive, irrevocable, royalty free license in all countries to translate, reproduce, and publicly distribute scientific and technical journal articles, reports, and books directly arising from cooperation under this Agreement. All Jublicly distributed copies of copyrighted work pre)ared under t11s provision shall indicate the names of the aut1 ors of the work unless an author explicitly declines to be named.
B.
Rights to all forms of intellectual property, other than those i
rights described in Section II.A. of this Addendum, shall be allocated as folloc:
1.
Visiting researchers, for example, scientists visiting primarily in furtherance of their education, shall receive intellectual property rights under the policies of the host institution.
In addition, each visiting researcher named as an inventor shall be entitled to share in a portion of any royalties earned by the host institution from the licensing.of such intellectual property.
2.
(a) For intellectual prowrty created during joint research, for example, w1en the Parties aarticipating institutions, or participating personnel lave agreed in advance on the scope of work, each Party shall be entitled to obtain all rights and interests in its own country. The Party in whose country the invention was made shall have first option to acquire all rights and interests in third countries.
If research is not designated as " joint research", rights to intellectual property arising from the research will be allocated in accordance with Section II.B.1. of this Addendum.
In addition, each person named as an inventor shall be entitled to share in a portion of any royalties earned by either institution from the licensing of the property,
14 (b) Notwithstanding Section II.B.2 (a) of this Addendum, if a type of intellectual property is available under the laws of one Party but not the other Party, the Party whose laws provide for this type of protection shall be entitled to all rights and interests worldwide.
Persons named as inventors of the property shall nonetheless be entitled to royalties as provided in paragraph II.B.2.(a).
1 i
I l
)
RENEVAL CAMP AGREEMENTS 1.
Argentina, Autoridad Regulatoria Nuclear (ARN).
(NEV ORGANIZATION) 2.
Belgium, TRACTEBEL. *** THIS IS A COMMERCIAL AGREEMENT. ***
3.
Brazil, Comissao Nacional de Energia Nuclear (QiEN) of Brazil.
4.
Bulgaria, Bulgarian Committee on the Use of Atomic F.nergy for Peaceful Purposes (BCAE).
5.
Czech Republic, State Office for Nuclear Safety of the Czech Republic (SONS).
6.
Finland, Technical Research Centre of Finland (VIT).
7.
Germany, TUEV Bayern-Sachsen (TUEV) of Germany.
8.
Hungary, KFKI Atomic Energy Institute (KFKI-AEKI).
(NEW ORGANIZATION) 9.
Italy, Italian Ente per le Nouve Tecnologie, l'Energia e l'Ambiente (ENEA).
- 10. Korea, Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety (KINS).
11.
Lithuania, Lithuanian State Nuclear Safety Inspectorate (VATESI).
- 12. Netherlands, The Netherlands Energy Research Foundation in the Area of Nuclear Reactor Safety Research (ECN).
- 13. Russia, Russian Research Centre 'Kurchatov Institute" (RRC KI).
- 14. Slovakia, Naclear Regulatory Authority of the Slovak Republic (NRASR).
- 15. Slovenia, Institut Jozef Stefan (IJS).
- 16. South Africa, Council for Nuclear Safety (CNS).
17.
Spain, Consejo de Seguridad Nuclear (CSN) of Spain.
- 18. Sweden, Swedish Nuclear Power Inspectorate (SKI).
19..: Switzerland, Swiss Paul Scherrer Institute (PSI).
(NEW ORGANIZATION)
- 20. Taiwan, American Institute in Taiwan (AIT), represented by the USNRC and Coordination Council for North American Affairs (CCNAA).
- 21. Turkey, Turkish Atomic Energy Authority (TAEA).
22.
United Kingdom, United Kingdom Health and Safety Executive (UKHSE).
(NEW ORGANIZATION)
NEW CAMP AGREEMENTS 1.
China, Nuclear Power Institute of China (NPIC).
2.
Croatia, Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computing, University of Zagreb of Croatia.
3.
Egypt, Egyptian Atomic Energy = Agency (EAEA).
4.
Japan, Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute (JAERI).
- 5..
Mexico, Comision Nacional de Seguridad Nuclear y Salvaguardias (CNSNS) 6.
Horocco, Centre National de l'Energie des Sciences et des Techniques Nuclaires (CNESTEN).
N
DRAFT Dr. Nusret Aksan Thermal-Hydraulic Laboratory Paul Scherrer institute 5232 Villigen PSI Switzerland
Dear Dr. Aksan:
j l
Enclosed are two copies of the CAMP agreement which extends the current agreement, due to terminate by the end of August 1997, for five years to August 2002. During the May 21-23, 1997, CAMP meeting, I stated that NRC is fully committed to expending the resources i
necessary to maintain the RELAPS, TRAC-P and TRAC-B for at least a five-year period. In FY97-FY98, we will couple the three codes to 3D neutronics, reduce the mass error in the RELAP5 code, modernize the RELAP5 code, and continue the modernization of the TRAC-P l
code. In addition, we will continue the development of the GUI. During the five-year period, the NRC will be undertaking separate tasks that willlead to the consolidation of these codes. Only after the consolidated code is fully completed, tested, assessed, and users are properly trained in its use, will the individual codes be archived.
From the NRC perspective, the CAMP activities have been very useful in providing information on the use of the NRC thermal hydraulic codes. These codes are available worldwide to assess the safety of nuclear plants and they need to be widely tested in order to find and correct errors, and facilitate improvement through experience. CAMP activities provided independent code assessments, identified user effects and machine dependencies which have been valuable in assuring code robustness, usability, and reliability. We also received new models and suggestions for improvement of the codes from member countries, which we factor into our work plans and priorities.
We believe that member countries also benefited from this cooperative agreement. They have had access to the codes and to the support provided by NRC and its contractors on the use of the codes. In addition, CAMP members have access to the updated codes as the errors are corrected and new improved models are added. Participation in the CAMP meetings where all participants present their results has been useful and beneficial to NRC and other users, since participants learn from each others' experience.
Please note that the enclosed agreement extends the current agreement for a five-year period with the same conditions as the current agreement. The NRC is currently reassessing and clarifying code uses that are permitted under the policy of restricting CAMP members from using these codes for commercial purposes. However, until, and only if, a list of such permitted code uses is proviced, the current restriction on the use of the code for commercial purposes still applies.
=
a Dr. Aksan 2
- I look forward to receiving a signed copy of the agreement soon, and I look forward to our continued cooperation.
Sincerely, Farouk Ettawila, Chief Reactor and Plant Systems Branch Division of Systems Technology Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research
Enclosures:
As stated Distribution:
DST Chron: RPSB r/f; FEltawila r/f: FEltawila. TLKing, MWHodges JCortez.
DOCUMENT NAME:
A:\\AKSAN.LTR OFFICE RES/ DST /RPSB NAME FEltawila/cic lDATE 6/ /97 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY RES l