ML23093A209

Request for Withholding Information from Public Disclosure

ML23093A209
Person / Time
Site:	Callaway
Issue date:	04/14/2023
From:	Mahesh Chawla Plant Licensing Branch IV
To:	Diya F Union Electric Co
Chawla M
References
EPID L-2022-LLA-0132
Download: ML23093A209 (1)

Text

April 14, 2023 Mr. Fadi Diya Senior Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer Ameren Missouri Callaway Energy Center 8315 County Road 459 Steedman, MO 65077

SUBJECT:

CALLAWAY PLANT, UNIT NO. 1 - REQUEST FOR WITHHOLDING INFORMATION FROM PUBLIC DISCLOSURE (EPID L-2022-LLA-0132)

Dear Mr. Diya,

By letter dated August 29, 2022 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML22242A122), you submitted an affidavit executed by Kimberly Manzione of Holtec International, dated June 30, 2022, requesting that the information contained in the following document (attachment 6 of enclosure 1 to the letter dated August 29, 2022, be withheld from public disclosure pursuant to Section 2.390 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR):

HI-2220020, Critical Safety Analysis of SFP [Spent Fuel Pool] for Callaway Nuclear Generating Station, Revision 1 However, this affidavit was in error since it did not properly indicate the information to be withheld in the proprietary attachment. By letter dated October 26, 2022 (ML22299A232), you resubmitted the proprietary information in the supplement with three affidavits. The affidavits executed by Kimberly Manzione of Holtec International dated October 24, 2022; Camille Zozula of Westinghouse Electric Company LLC, dated October 26, 2022; and Byram Morris of Framatome Inc., dated October 20, 2022, correctly indicate and request that the information contained in the following document (enclosure 3 of the letter dated October 26, 2022) be withheld from public disclosure pursuant to Section 2.390 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR):

HI-2220020, Criticality Safety Analysis of SFP for Callaway Nuclear Generating Station, Revision 2 A nonproprietary version of the document, contained in Enclosure 2 of the letter dated October 26, 2022, has been placed in the NRC Library in ADAMS at Accession No. ML22299A235.

F. Diya The affidavit stated that the submitted information should be considered exempt from mandatory public disclosure for the following reasons:

The Holtec International affidavit stated, in part, that the information should be considered exempt from public disclosure for the following reasons:

(4) Some examples of categories of information which fit into the definition of proprietary information are:

a. Information that discloses a process, method, or apparatus, including supporting data and analyses, where prevention of its use by Holtecs competitors without license from Holtec International constitutes a competitive economic advantage over other companies;

b. Information which, if used by a competitor, would reduce his expenditure of resources or improve his competitive position in the design, manufacture, shipment, installation, assurance of quality, or licensing of a similar product.

The Westinghouse affidavit stated, in part, that the information should be considered exempt from public disclosure for the following reasons:

(5) Westinghouse has policies in place to identify proprietary information.

Under that system, information is held in confidence if it falls in one or more of several types, the release of which might result in the loss of an existing or potential competitive advantage, as follows:

(a) The information reveals the distinguishing aspects of a process (or component, structure, tool, method, etc.) where prevention of its use by any of Westinghouses competitors without license from Westinghouse constitutes a competitive economic advantage over other companies.

(b) It consists of supporting data, including test data, relative to a process (or component, structure, tool, method, etc.), the application of which data secures a competitive economic advantage (e.g., by optimization or improved marketability).

(c) Its use by a competitor would reduce his expenditure of resources or improve his competitive position in the design, manufacture, shipment, installation, assurance of quality, or licensing a similar product.

(d) It reveals cost or price information, production capacities, budget levels, or commercial strategies of Westinghouse, its customers or suppliers.

(e) It reveals aspects of past, present, or future Westinghouse or customer funded development plans and programs of potential commercial value to Westinghouse.

F. Diya (f) It contains patentable ideas, for which patent protection may be desirable.

The Framatome affidavit stated, in part, that the information should be considered exempt from public disclosure for the following reasons:

6. The following criteria are customarily applied by Framatome to determine whether information should be classified as proprietary:

(d) The information reveals certain distinguishing aspects of a process, methodology, or component, the exclusive use of which provides a competitive advantage for Framatome in product optimization or marketability.

We have reviewed your application and the material in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 2.390 and, on the basis of the statements in the affidavits, have determined that the submitted information sought to be withheld contains proprietary commercial information and should be withheld from public disclosure.

Therefore, the version of the submitted information marked as proprietary will be withheld from public disclosure pursuant to 10 CFR 2.390(b)(5) and Section 103(b) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.

Withholding from public inspection shall not affect the right, if any, of persons properly and directly concerned to inspect the documents. If the need arises, we may send copies of this information to our consultants working in this area. We will, of course, ensure that the consultants have signed the appropriate agreements for handling proprietary information.

If the basis for withholding this information from public inspection should change in the future such that the information could then be made available for public inspection, you should promptly notify the NRC. You also should understand that the NRC may have cause to review this determination in the future, for example, if the scope of a Freedom of Information Act request includes your information. In all review situations, if the NRC makes a determination adverse to the above, you will be notified in advance of any public disclosure.

F. Diya If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at 301-415-8371 or by email at Mahesh.Chawla@nrc.gov.

Sincerely,

/RA/

Mahesh Chawla, Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch IV Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-483 cc: Listserv

ML23093A209 *concurrence via email OFFICE NRR/DORL/LPL4/PM* NRR/DORL/LPL4/PM* NRR/DORL/LPL4/LA* NRR/DORL/SFNB/BC*

NAME TByrd MChawla PBlechman SKrepel DATE 4/3/2023 4/3/2023 4/11/2023 4/11/2023 OFFICE NRR/DORL/LPL4/BC* NRR/DORL/LPL4/PM*

NAME JDixon-Herrity MChawla DATE 4/13/2023 4/14/2023