ML20236S153
| ML20236S153 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/14/1998 |
| From: | Shirley Ann Jackson, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Towns E HOUSE OF REP. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20236S154 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9807240157 | |
| Download: ML20236S153 (3) | |
Text
k
[Mpaso%%
v 4
UNITED STAT;S
[W. p, /;gjg[
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- s-
, f,p g
WASHINGTON. D C. 705 % -0001 E/
July 14, 1998
- w CHAIRMAN
.The Honorable Edolphus "Ed' Towns U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congressman Towns:
I appreciate the concerns expressed in your June 3,1998, letter to me about the proprietary nature of material developed under federal government contract. I assure you that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is as concerned as you are about the availability of information in the public domain.
You are correct about the Westinghouse Electric Corporation (WEC) application for the WESFLEX transportation cask system submitted in accordance with 10 CFR Part 71. One of the reasons the application was returned to the applicant was WEC's decision to mark the entire contents as proprietary. - On May 29,1998, this application was resubmitted. The staff has'not completed its acceptance review or made any determination regarding proprietary information.-
However, the WESFLEX storage cask system application was submitted (in accordance with 10 -
CFR Part 72) with a proprietary and non-proprietary version of the safety analysis report. After review of the technical material and based upon the statements made in the WEC affidavit, NRC concluded that the application contained sufficient information to start its technical review.
However, the staff has not concluded that the information can be considered proprietary and
- withheld from public disclosure. NRC staff will make a determination for proprietary information in accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 by July 29,1998.
As I stated in my June 6,1997, letter to you, NRC considers design work developed by a vendor while under contract to a government sponsor to be publicly available information unless other contractual arrangements are made at the inception of the project. For your copyright concern, as long as the information is available to the public for review and comment (e.g.,
available in the Public Document Room), the staff does not believe that material marked as l
copyrighted significantly impedes the flow of information to the public.
l I am providing responses to your specific questions in the enclosure. I trust that this reply l
responds to your concerns.
l-Sincerely, I'
... i : a y
[g
Enclosure:
As stated 9907240157 900714
}a C0fge fWtCC PDR CORRESP0 6 E PDR 1
0
.o Resoonse to Representative Towns Question 1:
How does NRC determine whether any or some portion of a design was created under govemment contract?
Answer:
In general, NRC relies upon a review of the technical information and the statements in the affidavit provided by the applicant in making a proprietary determination to withhold information from the public domain. NRC considers design work developed by a vendor while under contract to a government sponsor to be publicly available information unless other contractual arrangements are made at the inception of the project. Staff does not have the resources to determine what specific design information may have been developed under a government contract for any specific application.
Question 2:
How does NRC treat a proprietary claim which is based (partially or in whole) on work developed under a government contract?
Answer:
if the review of the application reveals a proprietary claim based on work solely developed under government contract, staff would return the application to the applicant. However, since government contract work is publicly available, the vendor, who was previously under government contract, would be allowed to assess that information for its own use and make unique design changes that could be considered proprietary. This new, but modified, design could then be withheld from the public domain if the modified design attributes were considered significant enough to be considered proprietary information by the staff.
Question 3:
How has NRC handled other cask designs which were developed entirely or largely on government-funded contracts such as General Atomic's GA 4/9 and Vectra's MP-17 [ sic] [MP-187)?
Answer:
General Atomics (GA) submitted applications in 1994 for the approval of the GA-4 and GA-9 legal weight truck spent fuel transport cask designs. GA was under contract with the Department of Energy (DOE) during the initial review of the GA-4/9 designs, and staff review time was charged to the Nucles Waste Fund. In May 1996, DOE informed NRC that the contract for the GA-4/9 designs was canceled and that the charges to the Nuclear Waste Fund should be terminated. None of the information regarding the GA-4/9 applications was treated as proprietary up to this point. In January 1997, GA provided a revised GA-4 application (in response to a previous NRC request for additional information), which included a neutron shield design change as proprietary information. In February 1997, the staff completed its proprietary determination on the design change. The staff is currently reviewing this application and is charging GA for the staff review time expended. GA decided not to pursue GA-9 certification.
Enclosure a
e tv-l
' The Vectra (now Transnuclear West) MP-187 transportation cask system application and affidavit were reviewed by the staff. The staff determined that the information could be withheld as proprietary. Consistent with current practice, the staff did not inquire as to government funding for design work or question any cooperative agreements between the applicant and the government.
Question 4:
Would you please provide any written NRC policies or procedures which have been issued with respect to these issues? -
Answer:
The governing regulation is 10 CFR 2.790, *Public inspections, exemptions, requests for withholding." The following documents are attached:
1.
Memorandum dated June 4,1998, "SFPO Internal Procedure - Staff
- Interactions with Applicants." The staff recently issued this internal procedure to clarify and improve the Spent Fuel Project Office (SFPO) licensing process. Attachment A to this procedure is NMSS Policy and -
Procedures Letter 1-51,
- Policy and Criteria for Initial Processing of Incoming Licensing Actions."
2.
Memorandum dated May 6,1998, NMSS Policy and Procedures Letter 1-62, " Freedom of Inforrnation Act Procedures," dated May 1,1998.
3.
Memoranda dated February 16,1996, and February 12,1996," Meetings Between NRC Staff and the Public."
Attachments: As stated (3) l l
1 2
Enclosure 1