ML20237C361

Requests That Proprietary Rev 2 to WCAP-11386, Byron/ Braidwood T-Hot Reduction Final Licensing Rept, Be Withheld (Ref 10CFR2.790(b)(4))

ML20237C361
Person / Time
Site:	Byron, Braidwood, 05000000
Issue date:	11/24/1987
From:	Wiesemann R WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY, DIV OF CBS CORP.
To:	Murley T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML19302D195	List: ML20237C332 ML20237C342 ML20237C361 ML20237C409
References
AW-77-18, CAW-87-122, NUDOCS 8712210278
Download: ML20237C361 (8)

Text

_ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

/ O 3

(e w j i Westinghouse PowerSystems Nuclear Technology systems civision Electric Corporation Box 355 P ttsburgn Pennsylvania 15230 0355

. Nov. 24, 1987 CAW-87-122 Dr. Thomas Murley, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 APPLICATION FOR WITHHOLDING PROPRIETARY INFORMATION FROM PUBLIC DISCLOSURE

Subject:

Byron /Braidwood T-hot Reduction Final Licensing Report (WCAP-11386 Rev.2)

Dear Dr. Murley:

The proprietary material for which withholding is being requested in the enclosed letter by Commonwealth Edison is further identified in an affidavit signed by the owner of the proprietary information, Westinghouse Electric Corporation. The affidavit, which accompanies this letter, sets forth the basis on which the information may be withheld from public disclosure by the Commission and addresses with specificity the considerations listed in paragraph (b)(4) of 10CFR Section 2.790 of the Commission's regulations.

The proprietary material for which withholding is being requested is of the same technical type as that proprietary material previously submitted as Affidavit AW-77-018.

Accordingly, this letter authorizes the utilization of the accompanying affidavit by Commonwealth Edison, j Correspondence with respect to the proprietary aspects of the application for withholding or the Westinghouse affidavit should reference this letter, CAW-87-122, i and should be addressed to the undersigned. j I

j 8712210278 871204 Very)truly yours, - I x

PDR P

ADOCK 05000454 PDR .

hg,/jggg )

Robert A. Wiesemann, Manager

__. /dmr Regulatory & Legislative Affairs _

Enclosure (s) cc: E. C. Shomaker, Esq.

Office of the General Council, NRC

____-______-__-_-________-_-_ m

1 f.

PROPRETARY INFORMATION NOTICE TRANSFmED EDEWEH ARE PROPRETARY AND/OR NON-PROPRETARY YE DOCUMENTS P13Rh'ISHED 70 THE NRC IN CONNECTION WITH [ R PLAhT SPECIFIC REVIEW AND APPROVAL.

IN ORDER E C0hTORM 70 THE RGUIRNTS OF 10CFR2.790 0F THE COM REGULATIONS CONCERNING 7EE PROTECTION & PROPRIETARY INF TO THE NRC, THE INFORMATION WHICH IS PROPRETARY IN THE PROPRIETARY VE CONTAINED WITHIN BRACKETS AND WHERE THE PROPRIETARY INFORMA DELETD IN 7EE NON-PROPRIETARY VERSIONS GLY THE BRACKEIS REMAIN, THE Ih70PyATION THAT WAS CONTAINED WITHIN 7EE BRACKETS IN 7EE PROPRIETARY V HAVING BEEN DE.ET E.

THE JUSTIFICATION FOR CLAIMING THE INFORMATION .50 DESIGNATED AS PROPRIETARY IS INDICATE IN BOTH ' VERSIONS BY LCTERS (a) THROUGH (g) C0hTAINED WITHIN PARENTHESES LOCATED AS A SUPERS IMMEDIATE.Y FDLLOWING 1NE BRACKETS Dic 0 SING EACH ITEM OF IN IDENTIFED AS PROPRIETARY OR IN THE MARGIN OPPOSITE THESESUCH Ih70RM LOWD CASE LUTERS PITER 7D 1HE TYPES & INFORMATION WESTING HOLDS IN CONFIDENCE IDEhTIFIED IN SECTIONS (4)(ii)(a) through (4)(ii)(g) 0F THE AFFIDAVIT ACCOMPAhTING THIS TPJJiSMITTAL PUPSJAhT 7D 10CFP2.

I 1

i

l . .y.

~

WESTiriGH00SL PkOPRIETAltY LLASS 2 AW-77-1,8 m

. . l AFFIDAVIT ,

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA:

1 ss s, i COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY: ,

. .i

\, j

.Before me, the undersigned authority, personally appeared Robert A. Wiesemann, who, being by me duly sworn according to law, l.

deposes and says that he is authorized to execute this Affidavit.

on behalf of Westinghouse Electric Corporation (" Westinghouse") and

[

. that the averments of fact set forth in this Affidavit are true and correct to the best of his knowledge', information, and belief:

4 19

)

ll$N//Adlid

~

Robert A. Wiesemenn, Manager-

. Licensipp Prop, rams Sworn to and subscribed 1:efore9me tpis i day l cf h'M 2 1977. I k /:'L. llk$

i Notary Public ,

t .. .

• x l

! ,, .. . . . . - 3;;i 4

- l l* '

t ,

" 28 .

y

7 .,.,.... ,

,g7 _7 y

. e ,

zil'

, .y '

' /,

l ', _ '

WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 2

\ .i 'i i w' ,

, AW-77-1B -

y~-

THE NATURE OF THE COMPETITION IN THE HUCLEAR BUSINESS Westinghouse's principal competitors in t.he nuclear steam supply business are Babcock & Wilcox, Combustion Engineering, and General Electric. The  ;

principal V. S. competitors in the nuclear fuel fabrication business are '

Babcock & Wilcox, Combustion Engineering, Exxon, and General Electric. -

With the exception of General Electric, these competitors are new entries

. in the business with substantially smaller investments in technology.-

Westinghouse also has competition from foreign fabricators. This com-

~

, petition can drastically affect our abi1ity to obtain contracts in the international market. Specific competitors include ASEA-ATOM (Sweden),

Kraftwerk AEG (Germany) Framatome (France), BNFL (Great Britain). Enusa (Spain), Mitsubishi (Japan), and Fabricazione Nucleari (Italy).

Both the nuclear steam supply and the nuclear fuel fabrication businesses -

,, involve high technology, and competition i.s on the basis of that high technology rather than on price. Only if competition continues based on technology will Westinghouse be able to recover its substantial invest- ,

ments in technology and product development.

.EFFECT OF RELEASE OF INFORMATION ON WESTINGHOUSE COMPETITIVE POSITION If, as a matter of general practice, cost or price infonnation or infor-mation about the basis on which Westinghouse' makes its business judge-ments were =Me publicly available, it would have the general effect of )

altering the nature of competition from a technology base to a price -

base. This weuld charge the entire complexion of the business and drive l it toward a low .'nvestmert-low technology development business. Under ,

such circumstances, these sn the business with heavy unrecovered invest-ments in technology such as Westinghouse would have difficulty competing '

successfully wii.n those who have made relatively small investments since

/.

2- I

WE5'lIf;GH0!i5f PROMill1/ut ' CLAS'S 2 AW-77-1p business would tend to go to the lowest qualified bidder. . The general public would also suffer in that they would be deprived of the benefits of technological developments that would most likely far exceed any short-term benefits derived from lower prices. Likewise, a general practice of making publicly available information obtained from invest-ments in technology would enable competitors to benefit without having to make commensurate investments. This would stifle the incentive for further investments in technology and drive the business to price-based competition instead of competition on the basis of technology with the same end results as in the case of di.sclosure of cost or price infor-mation.

WHAT WESTINGHOUSE SEEKS TO PROT'ECT Westinghouse seeks to protect its ability to recover its investments in:

(1) Basic data resulting from research and development.

(2) Analytical methods and models.

(3) Details of our designs including margins, tolerances, etc.

(4) The knowledge of what data to present and how to present the data to satisfy NRC licensing requirements. NOTE: In the current licensing environment, the capability to obtain licensing approval has become very inportant in the market-place.

, :: h*ELTIf.i.aduSE PROTRIETARf'CLA55 2

, AW.77-18 The above' identified information is of considerable comercial advantage to the competitors of Westir.ghouse to the extent that it eliminates the need for similar investments in technology.

RELATIONSHIP OF INFORMATION SOUGHT TO BE WITHHELD FROM PUBLIC DISCLOSURE TO WHAT IS SOUGHT TO BE PROTECTED JJiFORMATIONSOUGHT-TOBEWITHHELD The t'nformation sought to be withheld consists of the details of the

~

Westinghouse flow path model, analytical modeling techniques, testing pmgrams.. comparison of effects of modified initial gao pressure cal-

culation, pump speed calculations, continuous flow path quality calculation, limiting pump speed factor, and discussion of results.

The release of this infomation would result in the following competitor benefits:

POTENTIAL ADVANTAGES TO COMPETITORS (1) It reduces or eliminates the amount of analysis, research and development work competitors would have to do by providing specific ,

j data which by reverse engineering together with other information, whether it be their own or that which is made publicly available. 3 enables competitors to derive the results of research and develop ' l ment work with a much smaller investment of their own resources. )

(2) It enables competitors to learn details of our model, calculations, 4 and testing pmgrams.

\ .

(3) It allows competitors to verify their own analytical techn'iques by using comparative testing arguments and with a much smaller investment of resources.

l I \

I 1

..... j

I.' ' "

! WESThril10VSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 2 AW-77-18 .

u

. (4) It enables competitors to define and justify the scope and contents of their testing programs based on a comparison with an accepted program and thereby reduce their costs.

l (5) It would provide competitors with the opportunity to develop a similar model on a time schedule which would' allow them to counter Westinghouse in the marketplace.

l~.

l . INVESTMENT BY WESTINGHOUSE IN WHAT IS SOUGHT TO BE PROTECTED .

A considerable' amount of highly qualified development effort has been l expended over a five year period in formulating the analytical models and computer programs used to assess emergency core cooling system performance during a loss-of-coolant accident. The investment involved in test components, testing facilities, direct labor and computer costs .

amounts to approximately $3 million dollars. Some specific examples of this effort include testing of pump performance under single and two phase flow conditions, transient testing and analytical formulations for ~

blowdown heat transfer, single and multi-rod dynamic evaluations, and i associated code development and calculations of system effects as they ]

influence emergency ' core cooMng system performance during loss-of-  !

coolant accidents. -

{

]

' It should also be recognized that in the course of these efforts.  ;

Westinghouse has. generated additional information regarding emergency core cooling system design bases to improve'our product and ultimately enhance our competitive position. Furthermore. it is felt that the extensive effort expended in obtaining comprehensive analytical and experimental information on system and component emergency core cooling '

system performance could directly affect our sales performance with ,

respect to the licensing service for which it is provided.

/

5-h

gj.gp, c . - :: N r,pm r,v,t.y. .'l'. A9._23 ,,

7 .. .

AW-77-18 ,

li POTENTIAL HARM TO WESTINGHOUSE ,

We believe there is a likelihood of substantial harm to the compa.titive position of Westinghouse if the infomation sought to be withheld is 1

publicly disclosed, which could result in a minimum loss of approxi-i mately $10,000.000 to $12,000,000 annually in potential reload fuel sales and reload emergency core cooling system analyses. (

. An example of Westinghouse infomation publicly disclosed and serving to . I the advantage of our competitors is an instance where infomation submitted to the NRC by Westinghouse was used by the NRC practically verbatim in the issuance of the regulatory guide concerning the rod ejection accident. There was no attempt by Westinghouse to protect this

~

. infomation from disclosure in this instance, but it serves to illus-

' " trate the value which can accrue ~to competitors from the release of the more sensitive infomation which Westinghouse does seek to protect.

- A further example--a licensee a customer of a Westinghouse competitor, concluded that power spikes due to fuel densification in both the LOCA and DNB analyses need not be considered. In both cases, justification

~

was based upon Westinghouse topical reports. The NRC Staff concluded

- this was acceptable. This situation was further aggravated by the fact that the licensee had not considered the effects of rod bowing on DNB

! and LOCA analyses. However, based upon experimental data in another Westinghouse topical report which had been reviewed and accepted by the l Staff, the licensee was able to eliminate penalties.-

Further the deponent sayeth not.

t G

_- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -