NSD-NRC-98-5757, Responds to Ref NRC Ltrs Re Request for Withholding Proprietary Info Re W AP600 Ltr.Per 980708 Telcon,W Has Reviewed TRs WCAP-13288 & WCAP-13289 & Considers None of Info to Be Proprietary

Responds to Ref NRC Ltrs Re Request for Withholding Proprietary Info Re W AP600 Ltr.Per 980708 Telcon,W Has Reviewed TRs WCAP-13288 & WCAP-13289 & Considers None of Info to Be Proprietary

ML20237C039
Person / Time
Site:	05200003
Issue date:	08/14/1998
From:	Mcintyre B WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY, DIV OF CBS CORP.
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
References
NSD-NRC-98-5757, NUDOCS 9808200168
Download: ML20237C039 (4)

Text

_ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _-_ ___ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _

O g.

Westin ouse Energy Systems Ba 355 Pittsburgh PemsyNama 15230 0355 Electrl Corp 0 ration DCP/NRCl413 NSD-NRC-98-5757 Docket No.: 52-003 August 14,1998 Document Control Desk U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 ATTENTION: T. R. Quay

SUBJECT:

RESPONSE TO NRC LETTERS CONCERNING REQUEST FOR WITliHOLDING INFORMATION

Reference:

1. Letter, Sebrosky to McIntyre, " Request for withholding information from public disclosure for Westinghouse AP600 design letter of October 20,1993," dated June i 18,1998. I

2. Letter, Sebrosky to McIntyre, " Request for withholding information from public disclosure for Westinghouse AP600 design letter of January 17, 1994," dated June 18,1998.

3. Letter, Sebrosky to McIntyre, " Request for withholding information from public disclosure for Westinghouse AP600 letters of September 20,1993, January 21, 1994, and February 3,1994," dated July 10,1998.

4. Letter, Sebrosky to McIntyre, " Request for withholding proprietary information for Westinghouse letters dated April 18,1995," dated July 15, 1998.

5. Letter, Huffman to McIntyre, " Request for withholding information from public disclosure of Westinghouse report on AP600 ftmetion based task analysis," dated July 17,1998. ,

I

Dear Mr. Quay:

O Reference 1 provided the NRC assessment of the Westinghouse claim that nrtprietary information was provided in a letter dated October 20,1993, that contained the raponse to a staff request for l additional information regarding the AP600 probabilistic risk assessment. The NRC assessment was p i

that the material was similar to material that exists in the current (1998) nonproprietary version of the ., D, l AP600 probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) report. In addition, the staff indicated the material was used by the staffin the development of the AP600 draft safety evaluation report and therefore should

- remain on the docket. At the time this request for additional information response was provided to the _,

W8 WPI , ,

. u t,..

l 9808200168 990814 l PDR ADOCK 05200003 E em

i e

I i

DCP/NRCl413 NSD-NRC-98-5757 August 14,1998

,- 1 NRC technical staff, the information was considered to be proprietary by Westinghouse since it contained information that had commercial value to Westinghouse. If this request for additional .

information response was indeed used by the stafTin development of the AP600 draft final safety  !

evaluation report in November 30,1994, then at this time, almost Gye years later, this information is I no longer considered to be proprietary by Westinghouse. I Reference 2 provided the NRC assessment of the Westinghouse claim that proprietary information was provided in a letter dated January 17,1994, that contained the response to a staff request for additional information regarding the AP600 instrumentation and control system. The NRC assessment was that the material was similar to material that exists in the current (1998) nonproprietary version of the AP600 standard safety analysis report. In addition, the staffindicated the material was used by the staffin the development of the AP600 draft safety evaluation report and therefore should remain on the docket. At the Gme this request for additional information response was provided to the NRC technical staff, the information was considered to be proprietary by Westinghouse since it contained information that had commercial value to Westinghouse. If this request for additional information response was indeed used by the staffin development of the AP600 draft Gnal safety evaluation report in November 30,1994, then at this time, over four years later, this information is no longer considered to be proprietary by Westinghouse. t Reference 3 provided the NRC assessment of the Westinghouse claim that proprietary information was provided in a letter dated September 20,1993, that contained information related to the AP600 PRA and WCAP-13795, which provided the PRA uncertainty analysis. The NRC assessment was that the material was similar to material that exists in the current (1998) nonproprietary version of the AP600 probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) report. In addition, the staff indicated the material was used by the staffin the development of the AP600 draft safety evaluation report and therefore should remain on the docket.. At the time this information was provided to the NRC technical staff, it was considered to be proprietary by Westinghouse since it contained information that had commercial l value to Westinghouse. If the information transmitted by the Westinghouse September 20,1993, letter l was indeed used by the staffin development of the AP600 draft final safety evaluation report in November 30,1994, then at this time, almost five years later, this information is no longer considered to be proprietary by Westinghouse.

Reference 3 also provided the NRC assessment of the Westinghouse claim that proprietary information was provided in a letter dated January 21,1994, that contained WCAP-13913, " Framework for AP600 Severe Accident Management Guidance"(SAMG). The NRC assessment was that the material was similar to material that exists in current (1998) nonproprietary AP600 documents (e.g., WCAP-13914,

" Framework for AP600 Severe Accident Management Guidance"). In addition, the staff indicated the material was used by the staff in the development of the AP600 draft safety evaluation report and therefore should remain on the docket. At the time this Framework for SAMG was provided to the NRC technical staff, the infor nation was considered to be proprietary by Westinghouse since it contained information that had commercial value to Westinghouse. At this time, over four years later, this information is no longer considered to be proprietary by Westinghouse.

17'ma wpf L__.________.____ _

DCP/NRC1413 N SD-NRC-98-5757 August 14,1998 j r a Reference 3 also provided the NRC assessment of the Westinghouse claim that proprietary information was provided in a letter dated February 3,1994, that contained additional copies of WCAP-13913,

" Framework for AP600 Severe Accident Management Guidance"(SAMG). The NRC assessment was that the material was similar to material that exists in current (1998) nonproprietary AP600 documents (e.g., WCAP-13914, " Framework for AP600 Severe Accident Management Guidance"). In addition, the staff indicated the material was used by the staff in the development of the AP600 draft safety evaluation report and therefore should remain on the docket. At the time this Framework for SAMG was provided to the NRC technical staff, the information was considered to be proprietary by l Westinghouse since it contained information that had commercial value to Westinghouse. At this I time, over four years later, this information is no longer considered to be proprietary by Westinghouse.

Reference 4 provided the NRC assessment of the Westinghouse claim that proprietary information was l provided in a letter dated April 18,1995, that contained information for a MAAP4/RELAP comparison for the AP600 in response to a staff request for additional information. The NRC assessment was that the Westinghouse cover letter indicated that Enclosure 2 is a non-proprietary version of Enclosure 3, 3 however, the staff could not find any portion of the enclosures marked as proprietary. The staff l assessment further states the conventional bracketed-superscript notation also appears to be missing. l Finally, the NRC assessment states the staff could not determine which part of the material enclosed with the Westinghouse letter was Enclosure 1,2, or 3. It should be noted that the Westinghouse April 18,1995, cover letter states " Enclosures 2 (nonproprietary) and 3 (proprietary) provide the requested information." The letter does not indicate that enclosure 2 was a duplicate of enclosure 3 minus the proprietary information. A cover sheet was provided just prior to each of th;. enclosures to the l Westinghouse letter. The enclosures contained the following: Enclosure 1 provided a copy of the NRC's two-page request for information for the MAAP-RELAP comparison. Enclosure 2 provided the requested information, and was titled " Requested Information for AP600 MAAP4/RELAP Comparison." Under section 4, Initial Conditions, of Enclosure 2 it states the initial conditions information (which was proprietary) is provided in Enclosure 3 of the subject Westinghouse letter.

Finally, Eaclosure 3 contained the list of initial conditions. The infonnation provided in Enclosure 3 was labeled as Westinghouse Proprietary Class 2 at the top of the page, however, the specific proprietary information was not indicated by the bracketed-superscripted notation. In addition to the initial conditions, a mark-up of AP600 PRA Figure K-1 was provided in Enclosure 3. Again, the information was labeled as Westinghouse Proprietary Class 2 at the top of the page, however, the specific proprietary information was not indicated by the bracketed-superscripted notation. At the time the information provided in Enclosure 3 of the subject Westinghouse letter was provided to the NRC technical staff, the information was considered to be proprietary by Westinghouse since it contained information that had commercial value to Westinghouse. At this time, over three years later, this information is no longer considered to be proprietary by Westinghouse.

Reference 5 provided the NRC assessment of the Westinghouse claim that proprietary information was provided in a letter dated February 8,1994, provided a copy of WCAP-13957, "AP600 Reactor Coolant System Mass Inventory: Function Based Risk Analysis." The NRC assessment was that the

, material was not "information that the staff customarily accepts as proprietary." In addition, the staff indicated the material was used by the staff in the development of the AP600 final safety evaluation report and therefore should remain on the docket. At the time this report was prepared, the Dwa wpf

-4 e

DCP/NRCl413 I NSD-NRC-98-5757 August 14,1998 x <

information was considered to be proprietary by Westinghouse since it contained information that had commercial value to Westinghouse and was of the type ofinformation that was customarily held in confidence by Westinghouse. That the material was not information that the staff customarily accepts as proprietary is not relevant to making the proprietary determination. Ilowever, in an effort to expedite the issuance of the AP600 Final Safety Evaluation Report and Final Design Approval, Westinghouse agrees to no longer consider this information to be prop-!etary.

In a telephone call on July 8,1998, the staff informed Westinghouse of a concern related to WCAP-13288 and WCAP-13289, which were associated with the AP600 check valve testing specification. l The concern was that the proprietary report had no proprietary information identified and the nonproprietary report had been placed in the public document room. Westinghouse has reviewed these reports and, at this time, considers none of the information to be proprietary.

This response addresses the proprietary issues delineated in the references.

A Brian A. McIntyre, Manag Advanced Plant Safety and Licensing jml cc: J. W. Roe - NRC/NRR/DRPM J. M. Sebrosky - NRC/NRR/DRPM W. C. Huffman - NRC/NRR/DRPM

11. A. Sepp - Westinghouse l

I M90s wpr

- - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ __ . . - . s