ML20126D312
| ML20126D312 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000447 |
| Issue date: | 12/29/1983 |
| From: | GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20126D269 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-84-175, FOIA-84-A-66 NUDOCS 8506150019 | |
| Download: ML20126D312 (19) | |
Text
- . . . - _ . _ - . _. .. _
4: n.
12/29/83 Letter to D. G. Eisenhut from J. F. Quirk re: GESSAR-II Seismic Event Unce~rtainity Analysis (66 pages) 1 i
i i
i n
4 1
8506150019 850215 i PDR FOIA ,
CURRAN 84-A-66 PDR i
}
d.
. . , . - - . . . . ~ . . _ , , . . , _ - . . -_a_..~._...__..._.. ...__.._-4. _ . - _ .. . _ _ _ _ _ ._.,._ms_..s._.. _ _ . . . . , . - _ . , , _ _ , . - -
07m Lc_kangrLewLsnnAnm Erard curve Uncertainty The basard ourve defines the annual frequency of exceedance of effective peak ground acceleration. The ourve provides a reasonable upper bound expected value for potential GESSAR II sites in the United States. The best estimate c m e is shown in Figure 2-1.
The uncertainty in the best estimate curve is based on the results of a study k.
by D. 0)frent) 'A Survey of Expert Opinion on 1ow Frobability Earthquakes'.
The study polled seven experts, to obtain their best estimate of seismic l exceedance frequency versus peak horizontal acceleration, for eleven IXR plants. The seven experts participating in the study are listed in Table 2-1.
The plant sites considered are shown in Table 2-2.
For a single plant site, the estimates given by the seven experts were processed to obtain a sample mean and standard deviation for each acceleration level of interest. The corresponding coefficients of variation were also 4.i ,_g g i
calculated. The reduced data is shown in Tables
- through + of Appendix A. 1
~
'The coefficients of variation, which refleet the expert-to-expert uncertainty in estimating seismic exceedance frequency, were taken as a measure of 1 uncertainty in the best estimate hazard curve.
l The ocefficients of variation for each plant were further processed to obtain an average value over the eleven sites and a sample standard deviation, 1 A
reflecting the site-to-site variability of the coefficients of variation.
. h*m'd 955 upper confidence emmed was omiculated, and this value of the coefficient eo*9tt- eral of variation was used for the uncertainty analysis. The^ average g,,g value*, ammphe !
ers,ahmaanm" MMC, A-s2. 3;g,p standard deviationf ses 955 confidence suuss is shown in Table 3 of LThe.
Appendix 1. The use of the 95,5 ooofidence value provides a high degree of ooefidence that the ocefficient of variation (based on expert estimation of seismic recurrence frequency), for a specific plant, will be less than the value used in the analysis.
g,,4 bb Th( annual core damage frequency is eeHesteter the seismic analysis na the ,
product of the probability of core damage, given peak ground acceleration E' J Q mant acceleration et f
- O Ointerval, and the annual recurrence frequency of earthquakes with peak ground acceleration within the acceleration interval, summed ove(rall /q.7 -
possible acceleration intervals. The hazard curve provides an estimate of th's
,: earthquake recurrence frequency in each peak ground sooeleration interval.
m ...._ .. . f +.' " ] e difference between the exceedance frequency Wm.r WW defined by the hasard curve at the espper and hvee acceleration values of tge acoaleration interval h is considered to be a random variable with a ocefficient of variation estimated as described in the previous C
paragraphs. Tbs standard deviation estimate.is obtained, for each sooeleration interval, as the product of the mean estimate (from the best estimate hasard curve) and the associated ocefficient of variation. The estimated mean annual frequency, ocefficient of variation and standard j deviation for each effective pegk ground acceleration interval, is shown in j T6\ e. 2.- 3. "'T W e aden v
- rhM t. h aE mtd do bt \o-vwrmah ch6,&444 \nN b 46 pavw a. hts %j \o avMO wun (ot) ad \oy'his.,,
N d o,v 4 dMad4o-- ,
- ==, c.ompk td nen i k t.s M D vv on a.4 sbdavd ebidim (Y;,) ed h A; A,adim % Veh o.c 9 A
.. M .=::.
3
{G:,7 . t.fp).+ Q_ z bp.) ,1 2-
.- }s.= h.2. ug0- a l
The manner in which these parameters are used in the analysis to omiculate
[ random values of earthquake recurrence frequency for each peak ground l
acceleration interval, is desorfbed in Section 3 0.
g
,3_
. , '\
' LIMERI CK --- - ;
INDIAN POINT ~-- l Z10t! - --
I #
OYSTER CREEK l
\
g
\ f
\ gg 10 %
s 1
% \
\
s'
\
\
g \\
-[ESSAR
\
'10-5 _ \
EnJ %.
y \
% k \
e * 'N OYSTER S CREEK-
\
O s m s
N g LIMERICK s
W \
g10-6 ,,,
s 21
- s, y nT E INDIAN yy gg7 tan zi POINT 's g
~
\ f ga ,a a w e
\ '
10~7 -
/
1 I !
\ j 4 I 10 I i i i i 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 i
O 0.1 0.2 0.3 EFFECTIVE PEAK GROUND ACCELEP,ATION(g)
Figure 2-1: GESSAR 11 Seisuic Hazard Curve Compared to Hazard Curves from o Studies. ,,
.g.
- _ _._..,._..,_o, _ , , _ , - . _ - _ . . . . , , _ , -
l l .,. .
30 ._ WMM .. - -
The 36onte Carlo 'simultation method is employed to evaluste the effect en oore .
damage frequency of uncertainties in the seismic annual exceedance frequency - )
and the component oonditional failure probabilities. The probability distribution describing the uncertainty on the earthquake recurrence frequency estimates and the soaponent/ structure failure probabilities, are sampled to asaa m e obtain random values for4 recurrence frequency and eosponent failurt probabilites. These values are then treated as point-value estimates by the ,
)
oore damage frequency evaluation code (developed for the previous seismic risk s
analysis and reported in Referenced to obtain the random oore damage frequency 6
estimate. By repeating the randos estimation process a ausyr of times, a set of oore damage frequency estimates is obtained. The met of estimates is processed to obtain mean, standard deviation, 5th, 50th and 95th percentile values characterizing the estimated core damage frequency uncertainty.
)
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY' PROPRIETARY'INFORMATI0h s
Table A-1 51TE NAME: BRUNSWICK STATE: NORTH CAROLINA PROBABILITY PER YEAR PGA g M S'pg, V pg, pg, 0.05g 7.0x10-3 4.1x10-3 0.6 0.10g 1.0x10-3 7.0x10-4 0.7 0.15g 1.0x10'4 1.2x10~4 1.2 0.20g 4.2x10-4 8.0x10~4 1.9 0.25g 2.5x10~4 4.3x10-4 1.7 0.30g 1.3x10-4 2.2x10~4 1.7 0.40-0.60g 1.4x10-5 3.5x10-5 2.5 0.80->1.1g 1.4x10-6 3.3x10~0 2.4 KH: pes /1128-3 12/27/83
GENERAL ELECTRIC COW.PANY PROPRIETARY INFORMATION I
Table A-Z SITE NAME: COOPER STATE: NEBRA5KA PROBABILITY PER YEAR PGAg M S'pg, Y,g, pg, 0.05g 7.4x10'3 7.'1x10'3 1.0 0.10g 1.3x10-3 1.6x10~3 1.2 0.15g 6.2x10~4 7.8x10'4 1.3 O.20g 1.4x10-4 2.1x10-4 1.5 0.25g 5.1x10-5 4.9x10-5 1.0 0.30g 1.4x10-5 1.9x10-5 1.4 0.40-0.60g 3.1x10~7 3.7x10~7 1.2 0.80->1.1g 1.0x10-8 0 0 KH: pes /1128-4 12/27/83
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY PROPRfETARY INFORMATION
\
l Table A-3 SITE NAME: DAVIS BESSE l STATE: 0HIO j l
PROBABILITY PER YEAR Y
H pga pga pga 0.05g 2.5x10-2 3.8x10-2 3,5 0.10g 2.6x10-2 4.3x10-2 3,7 0.15g 2.0x10-2 4.0x10-2 2.0 0.20g 3.3x10-2 4.7x10-2 3,4 0.25g 2.5x10 4.3x10-3 3,7 0.30g 3.3x10-3 4.7x10-2 1.4 0.40-0.60g 1.4x10~4 3.5x10~4 2.5 0.80->1.1g 2.5x10-0 3.4x10-0 1.4 KH: pes /112B-5 12/27/83
. . GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY PROPRIETARY INFORMATION t
I Table d.-4 i
SITE NAME: GRAND GULF STATE: MISSISSIPPI 3 ..
l
! PROBABILITY PER YEAR b M pga I'pga Y pga 1
0.05g 5.6x10-3 3.7x!O-3 0.7 O.10g 4.0x10~4 0.9 3.7x10-4 0.15g 2.3x10-4 3.9x10'4 1.7 0.20g 2.3x10-5 3.9x10-5 3,7 0.25g 2.6x10-6 3.7x10-6 3,4 0.30g
]' 2.2x10'7 2.1x10'7 1.4 0.40-0.60g[
0.8->1.19 1.0x10-8 0 0 1
l l
KH: pes /112B-6 12/27/83
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY PROPRIETARY INFORMATION Table A 5 SITE NAME: PILGRIM STATE: MASSACHUSETTS r PROBABILITY PER YEAR H pga 5'pg, Y pg, 0.05g 2.5x10-2 3.8x10-2 1.5 ,
0.10g 3.3x10~3 4.0x10-3 1.2 0.15g 1.1x10-3 1.2x10'3 1.1 0.20g 5.4x10-5 4.1x10-5 0.8 0.25g 4.0x10-4 8.0x10'4 2.0 0.30g 1.6x10-6 1.7x10-6 3,3 0.40-0.60g 1.6x10'4 3.3x10~4 2.1 0.80->1.1g 1.2x10-5 3.3x10-5 2.6 KH: pes /112B-7 12/27/83
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY PROPRIETARY INFORMATION Table A+
SITE NAME: RIVER BEND ST/TE: LOUISIANA ,
PROBABILITY PER YEAR PGA M Y H pga 3'pga pga 0.05g 2.3x10-2 3.8x10-2 3,7 0.10g 2.1x10-3 4.0x10-3 3,9 0.15g 4.1x10-4 4.8x10-4 1.2 0.20g 5.1x10-5 5.0x10-5 1.0 0.25g 5.3x10-6 4.7x10-6 0.9 0.30g
]r 5.4x10-7 9.2x10-7 1.7 0.40-0.60g ,
0.80->1.1g 1.0x10-8 0 0 4
KH pes /1128-8 12/27/83
, , GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY PROPRIETARY INFORMATION Table A-7 SITE NAME: SUMER
. STATE: SOUTH CAROLINA PROBABILITY PER YEAR N 3 Y H pga pga pga 0.05g 2.7x10-2 3.7x10-2 3,4 0.109 3.8x10-3 3.9x10-3 3,9 0.159 1.0x10-3 0 0 0.20g 1.6x10-4 1.4x10~4 0.9 0.25g 6.2x10-5 4.6x15-5 0.7 0.309 4.8x10-5 4.0x10-5 0.8 0.40-0.60g 2.6x10-5 4.0x10-6 1.5 0.80->1.19 1.8x10-8 0 0 l
l KH: pes /1128-9 12/27/83
._ - . - .\
. . GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY PROPRIETARY INFORMATION Table A-8 SITE NAME: St# NIT STATE: DELAWARE PROBABILITY PER YEAR N Y H pga 3'pga pga 2
0.05g 1.0x107 6.0x10'3 0.6 0.109 1.5x10-3 1.5x10-3 1.0 0.15g 8.4x10-4 1.1x10-3 3,3 0.20g 8.3x10-5 1.6x10-4 1.9 0.25g 2.8x10~4 4.2x10 1.5 0.30g 1.4x10-4 2.1x10-4 1.5 0.40-0.60g 2.4x10-5 6.2x10-5 2.6 0.80->1.1g 1.5x10-7 3.5x10-7 2.3 l
1 l
l l
l l
KH: pes /1128-10 12/27/83
, , GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY PROPRIETARY INFOR'4ATION Table A 4 SITE NAME: TROJAN STATE: OREGON l
PROBABILITY PER YEAR PGA Y H pga 3'pga pga 0.05g 9,.4x10-2 0.1 1.1 0.10g 2.8x10-2 3.8x10-2 3,4 0.15g 3.8x10-3 3.5x10-3 0.9 0.20g 3.0x10'3 3.7x10-3 1.2 0.25g 9.0x10~4 1.2x10'3 1.3 0.3'Og 5.5x10-4 4.6x10 0.8 0.40-0.60g 3.6x10-5 6.6x10-5 1.8 0.80->1.1g 1.0x10-8 0 0 KH: pes /1128-11 12/27/83
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY PROPRIETARY INFORMATION-i Table A.aD SITE NAME: RANCHO SECO STATE: CALIFORNIA
,,, PROBABILITY PER YEAR PGA M y H pga S'pga pga 0.05g 8.8x10-2 6.7x10-2 0.8 l 0.10g 0.1 0.1 1.0 0.15g 3.0x10-3 3.3x10-3 1.1 0.20g 8.0x10~4 7.0x10~4 0.9 0.25g 1.2x10-4 1.1x10-4 0.9 0.30g 3.8x10-5 3.0x10-5 0.8 0.40-0.60g 3.7x10-6 6.2x10-6 1.7 0.80->1.1g 4.2x10-7 6.7x10-7 1.6 i
l I
l j
1 i
l KH: pes /1128-12 ;
12/27/83 l
, , GENERALELECTRICCOMPANYPROPRIETARYIkFORMATION '
t Table A li SITE NAME: DIABLO CANYON STATE: CALIFORNIA PROBABILITY PER YEAR N pga 3 pga Y pga 0.05g 5.0x10-2 3.7x10'2 0.7
. 0.10g 3.3x10-2 3.9x10-2 1.2 0.15g 5.8x10-3 3.3x10-3 0.6 0.20g 4.3x10-3 3.4x10-3 0.8 0.25g 1.8x10-3 8.3x10'4 0.5 0.30g 7.8x10-4 3.9x10-4 0.5 0.40-60g 7.3x10-4 9.4x10-5 1.3 0.80->1.19 1.9x10-6 3.4x10-6 1.8 I
I KH: pes /112B-13 12/27/83
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY PROPRIETARY INFORMATION Table A.Et l SUMAMRY OF THE COEFFICIENT OF VARIATIONS (VP9,) ON THE, PROBABILITY Natans '
(,PERYEA@FORAGIVENPGA SITE NAME/ Ypg, FOR PROBABILITY PER YEAR AT
~
STATE 0.05g 0.10g 0.159 0.209 0.250 0.30g 0.60g >1.lg Brunswick North Carolina 0.6 0.7 1.2 1.9 1.7 1.7 2.5 2.4 Cooper .
Nebraska 1.0 1.2 1.3 1.5 1.0 1.4 1.2 -
Davis Besse Ohio 1.5 1.7 2.0 1.4 1.7 1.4 2.5 1.4 Grand Gulf Mississippi 0.7 0.9 1.7 1.7 1.4 1.4 1.4 -
Pilgrim Massachusetts 1.5 1.2 1.1 0.8 2.0 1.1 2.1 2.6 River Bend Louisiana ,
1.7 1.9 1.2 1.0 0.9 1.7 1.7 -
Sunsner South Carolina 1.4 1.0 - 0.9 0.7 0.8 1.5 -
Summit Delaware 0.6 1.0 1.3 1.9 1.5 1.5 2.6 2.3 Trojan Oregon 1.1 1.4 0.9 1.2 1.3 0.8 1.8 -
Rancho Seco California 0.8 1.0 1.1 0.9 0.9 0.8 1.7 1.6 Diablo Canyon California 0.7 1.2 0.6 0.8 0.5 0.5 1.3 1.8 .
Mypg, 1.1 1.2 M '# 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.8 M2 l o.4 e.+
S' ypg, 0.4 0.4 4+ 0.4 4h6 0.4 0.5 0.5 KH: pes /1128-2 12/27/83
, ., GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY PROPRIETARY INFORMATION TABLE A 2 UPPER 95% CONFIDENCE LIMIT ON POPULATIOh MEAN OF OVERALL VARIATION (Vpga)FORPROBABILITY(PERYEAR)
NdARP I
Vpga
- PGA M ypg, S'ypg, M Vpga
+t l-a;n-1hn 0.10g 1.20 0.40 1.42 s.te o.43 0.159 .553 +:t 9* 1.47 o.es . o.659
^ ;;-;.;4
. 1.85 0.51 2.15 o.65 M ->1.lg 2.02 0.41 2.36 I
Notes:
(, ) n = it 3 t ,93. e
- l 813 i
n = (o , t ,s ; g = 2.085 (2) hieet 957. emn68enar. e'nWed kr popWd 6n mo 4 Vpys
- k M
Vpga
+t l-a; n-1 Vpga/6 S
KH: pes /1128-1 12/27/83
. . GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY PROPRIETARY INFORMATION TABLE A.sa DVERALL COEFFICIENTS OF VARIATION OF ANNL'AL PROBABILITIES OF OCCURRENCE (V pga) overall EPGA (Vpga) overall 0.109 1.4 0.159 1.5 0.20g 1.5 0.25g 1.5 0.30g 2.1 0.35g 2.1 0.40g 2.1 0.45g 2.1 0.50g 2.1 0.55g 2.1 0.60g 2.1 ,
0.65g 2.3 0.70g 2.3 0.75g 2.3 0.80g 2.3 O.85g 2.3 0.90g 2.3 0.95g 2.3
, Note:
EPGA I 1.25 PGA Where EPGA = effective peak ground acceleration PGA = peak ground acceleration.
KH: pes /112B-14 12/27/83
l o 4 HARMON, WEISS 8c JORDAN 2001 S ST REET. N.W.
SUITE 430 WASHINGTON, D.G. Booo9 Gall MCGREEVY H ARMON TELEPHONE ELLYN R. WLISS (2O2)328-3500 ,
WILLI AM S. JORDAN,111 !
- ' " " " " ley
[E,"[R.Toj3 HAND DELIVERED August 6, 1984 William Dircks ypg OF INITIAL FOIA DECISION Executive Director for Operations U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commision Washington, D.C.. 20555
[lf 4-66EO -j78 SUBJ ECT: ' Appeal of Denial of FOIA-84-175 bhh
Dear Mr. Dircks:
On March 13, 1984, Steven-Sholly of the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) submitted to NRC a Freedom of Information Act request for the Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) performed by the General Electric Company for its GESSAR II standardized plant design, for any NRC-sponsored reviews of the PRA, and for identification rf the reviewing organizations and contract details. A copy of that letter is attached.
When the NRC did not respond to Mr. Sholly's request in a timely manner, UCS appealed the failure to respond in a letter to you dated April 5, 1984. J.M. Felton of the Division of Rules and Records finally responded to Mr. Sholly's original request and to the April 5 appeal on June 25, 1984. Mr.
Felton's response identified and denied four documents, and i stated that the review of additional documents responsive to Mr. Sholly's request was " continuing." Mr. Sholly has received no further correspondence from Mr. Felton.
Having appealed the NRC's original failure to make a timely response to Mr. Sholly's FOIA request, UCS is entitled to bring this matter directly before a federal District Court. 5 U.S.C.
S 552(a)(6)(C). However, we have chosen to take an additional administrative appeal of Mr. Felton's response letter, because we believe you will agree that he has not provided adequate or consistent justification for denial of these documents. We also appeal once more the Commission's failure to complete its response to this request within the statutory time frame required by the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. S 552(a)(6)(A)(i).
HARMON, WEISS & JORDAN William Dircks August 6, 1984 Page Two Mr. Felton's June 25 letter identifies and denies in their entirety four documents: the PRA and three reviews of the PRA by the Brookhaven National Laboratory. Although Mr. Felton's letter does not specifically identify the FOIA exemption claimed, he apparently invokes exemption 4 of the Act, which protects trade secrets and commercial o'r financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential.
5 U.S.C. S 552(b)(4). Mr. Felton does not claim that the documents constitute " trade secrets," and none of the documents fits the description of a trade secret given by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia: ,
an unpatented, commercially valuable plan, appliance, formula, or process, which is used for the making, l preparing, compounding, treating, or processing of articles or materials which are trade commodities.
Public Citizen' Health Research Group v. FDA, 704 F.2d 1280, 1287 (D.C. Cir. 1983). Rather, Mr. Felton claims that disclosure of the materials could cause " substantial harm to the competitive position of the General Electric Company."
Thus, he appears to invoke the second prong of exemption 4, for confidential commercial or financial information that is obtained from a person.
However, Mr. Felton has not satisfied the second prong of exemption 4 because he has not shown that the materials are actually confidential, i.e., that the release of the materials would cause substantial harm to GE's competitive position. Id. ~~~
at 1290. A significant amount of the information being withheld is already available to the public, and thus disclosure of these documents would have little effect on the ability of competitors to obtain the information they contain.
" Clearly, if the information is already available to . .
competitors, then.it.does.not qualify as confidential." United Technologies Corp. v. Marshall, 464.F Supp. 845,.852 (D. Ct.
1979), citing Hughes Aircraft Company v. Schlesinger, 384 F.
Supp. 292, 297 (C.D. Cal.1974) .
GE and the NRC have already released -- and thus made avaliable to GE competitors -- a significant amount of information related to the GESSAR PRA. The NRC released one of
HARMON, WEISS & JORDAN William Dircks August 6, 1984 Page Three theBrookhavenreviewgocuments,virtuallyinitsentirety,to another FOIA requester , and it has held at least one_open meeting discussing-the contents of the GESSAR PRA in detail.
The Brookhaven document that has been released discusses the contents of the PRA in detail and demonstrates that GE's claim to a level of " detail, sophistication, and NRC acceptance which is not remotely approached with respect to BWR's by GE's present or potential competitors" is highly inflated.
According to Brookhaven, GE used the MARCH, CORRAL, and CRAC codes as the bases for its source term and consequence analyses. All three of these codes were developed for NRC and are available in NRC publications and technical literature.
The versions of these codes used by GE are not highly sophisticated, state-of-the-art codes, but have been used for many years. There is thus simply no basis to GE's claim that release of these materials will have a substantial detrimental effect on its competitive position in the marketplace.
Moreover, some of the methodologies that GE would like the NRC to protect as proprietary information were developed at government expense. Such government-generated information is not exempt.from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. Consumers Union of United States, Inc. v. Veterans' Administration, 301 F. Supp. 796, 803 (S.D.N.Y. 1969). If anything, the NRC's refusal to disclose GE's use of PRA-related codes developed at government expense constitutes an illegal and unwarranted subsidy of GE.
The Brookhaven report also discusses some of the PRA's input assumptions in great detail. Many of these assumptions are not design-specific, but relate to standardized concepts regarding nuclear power plant accidents. Other assumptions, although somewhat design-dependent, do not involve the use of detailed design information which might be proprietary or confidential. Their disclosure would reveal little information that. is, ngt, already widely known in the industry. Moreover,
- " Review and Evaluation of the GESSAR-II Probabilistic Risk Assessment - Containment Failure Modes and Fission Product Release," Letter Report by Accident Analysis Group, Department of Nuclear Energy, Brookhaven National Laboratory (July 27, 1983). This is identified as document i 3 in Mr. Felton's June 25 response to Mr. Sholly. It was released to Susan Hiatt on l January 3, 1984 in FOIA-83-460.
HARMON, WEISS & JORDAN William Dircks August 6, 1984 Page Four any design-specific assumptions should be available to the public, since GE has not claimed the plant design itself as proprietary information.
The Brookhaven report also contains a great deal of information on the results of the PRA. Although specific figures have been deleted from the tables, PRA results are described and discussed in the text. In any event, competitors could obtain approximately the same results by using the methodologies and assumptions as described in the Brookhaven study.
Inconsistent positions taken in the past by GE and NRC with regard to the confidentiality of the GESSAR PRA and related documents raise serious questions about the sincerity and veracity of GE's claim that release of the information will cause " substantial" harm to its competitive position. GE and NRC' officials have orally stated to UCS that they are not interested in protecting the results of the PRA, but only the methodology. Yet, the Brookhaven Laboratory study released by the NRC 6iscusses the methodology in great detail, but it omits many of the results. Although GE and NRC now claim complete confidentiality for the PRA, they participated in an open ACRS meeting on April 22, 1983, in which the methodology and assumptions used in the PRA were discussed in great detail.
The transcript-of that meeting is publicly available. Having permitted the release of so much of the PRA-related information in the past, GE and NRC are no longer in a position to claim that the requested materials are confidential.
As discussed above, Mr. Felton has failed to provide adequate justification for the denial of the requested documents under exemption 4 of the FOIA. Moreover, he has failed to satisfy the Act's requirement to release " reasonably segregable" portions of the documents. 5 U.S.C. 5 552(b). Any changes that GE has made to publicly available assumptions and methodologies could easily be segregated from other parts of the PRA. Yet, the NRC has not made the slightest attempt to identify releasable portions of the documents.
In addition to the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act, strong policy reasons compel the release of
HARMON, weiss & JORDAN William Dircks August 6, 1984 Page Five these documents to the public. The GESSAR PRA is being used to obtain a generic license that will be valid over the next ten years. The quality of this license application will therefore be critical to the safety and reliability of any individual plants that are licensed pursuant to this standardized design.
For this reason, it should be opened to the closest scrutiny possible. GE's sudden and inconsistent attempts to protect the confidentiality of its PRA and related review documents may demonstrate more of a wish to hide flaws in the GESSAR PRA from public scrutiny than a need to protect valuable business secrets. As a matter of policy, the NRC should make the GESSAR PRA and related review documents available to the public, with the exception of only those limited portions that GE can demonstrate are truly confidential. The NRC must not endcrse and promote GE's blanket attempts to shield this vital safety information from the public eye.
Moreover, although no regulatory requirement for PRAs exists now, we understand that the NRC intends to use the GESSAR PRA to evaluate and perhaps require changes in the GESSAR standardized plant design. If this is true, then the PRA is a part of the design application that must be made available for public review and comment under the hearing requirement of the Atomic Energy Act, 42 U.S.C. S 2239(a)(1).
The public's right to a hearing on the safety of the standardized plant design will effectively be denied if important supporting information is withheld from public scrutiny.
As far as we know, this is the first PRA that has been withheld by NRC as confidential commercial information. If, as recent NRC regulatory proposals indicate, the Commission intends to use PRAs to evaluate design adequacy in the future,
' it should be prepared to share that information with the public as required by the hearing provision of the Atomic Energy Act.
If it intends to protect such information from public scrutiny, it should reconsider its intention to use PRAs as licensing documents.
We look forward to receiving your response within the 20 working days permitted by the statute. If UCS does not receive a full response, with either complete disclosure or substantial
1 HARMON, WEISS & JORDAN l
William Dircks 1 August 6, 1984 Page Six justification for deletion of minor portions of the documents, we intend to pursue this matter in federal court.
Sincerely, Diane Curran
& =_
William Jordan, III Attorneys for Union of Concerned Scientists I
s
3ACist
' [
- A.
,'g UNITED STATES -
'd -' e NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION v:ASHINGTc N, D. C. 20555 ,.
- S g ...* ;
j
~
JUN 2 s 1984 Mr. Steven Sholly Technical Research Associate Union of Concerned Scientists 1346 Connecticut Avenue, NW IN RESPONSE REFER Washington, DC 20036 TO F0IA-84-175
Dear Mr. Sholly:
This is in further response to your letter dated March 13, 1984, and your April 5,1984 appeal, requesting documents relating to GESSAR-II.
The four documents listed on Appendix A are being withheld in their
-entirety as release of this information could cause substantial ham to the competitive position 'of the General Electric Company in that GE maintains:
- 1. The GESSAR-II PRA is the only Level 3 PRA which has been perfomed by an NSSS vendor at its own cost. The GESSAR-II PRA will be the first Level 3 PRA approved for a Standard Nuclear-Island Design.
As such, its market value far exceeds the total cost. GE intends to utilize the information and analyses in the PRA as the major portion of plant-specific analyses for BWR/6 plants which are currently operating, are under construction, and for future plant sales. Total resources expended by GE in perfoming the PRA, preparing the required submittals, and supporting the PRA review ,
amount to millions of dollars;
- 2. The perfomance of probabilistic risk assessments is a highly competitive market. The information in this PRA represents a level of expenditure, detail, sophistication, and NRC acceptance which is not remotely approached with respect to BWR's by GE's present or potential competitors. Accordingly, public disclosure of this infomation would permit competitors or potential customers to utilize this information at ne cost and would thereby deprive GE not only to seek reimbursement of its expeditures but also an economic competitive advantage by allowing competitors to copy the
~
design at little or no cost; and
( .
. . : i.
Mr. Steven Shally J1)N 2 51984
- 3. The three,NRC contractor (Brookhaven National Laboratory) reports .
also contain GE proprietary infomation and are being withheld in their entirety for the same reasons stated above.
The NRC has reviewed General Electric's proprietary claim and agrees that the infonnation involved is proprietary.
These documents are being withheld from public disclosure pursuant to Exemption (4) of the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4)) and 10 CFR 9.5(a)(4) of the Commission's regulations. These documents do not contain any reasonably segregable factual portions.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 9.9 of the Comission's regulations, it has been determined that the information is exempt from production or disclosure, and that its production or disclosure is contrary to the public interest.
The persons responsible for this denial are the undersigned and Mr.
Harold R. Denton, Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
This denial may be appealed to the Connission's Executive Director for Operations within 30 days from the receipt of this letter. As provided in 10 CFR 9.11, any such appeal must be in writing, addressed to the Executive Director for dpbrations, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and should clearly state on the envelope and in the letter that it is an " Appeal from an Initial F0IA Decision."
The review of additional documents related to your request is continuing.
You will be notified at the completion of this review.
Sincp[ely,
/ /* W
/ -
. .. elton, Director Division of Rules and Records Office of Administration
Enclosure:
Appendix A 4
- ', FOIA 84-175 i APPENDIX A
- 1. GESSAR II Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) i 2. BNL Memo dated 5/5/83 " Status of GESSAR PRA. Review."
,- Containment Failure Modes and Fission Product Release," 7/27/83.
- 4. BNL Letter Report " Review of GESSAR II Probabilistic Risk Assessment," undated.
4 h i
l i
e i
i
UNION OF .
CONCERNED .
SCIENTISTS me C._,,ima _.N... . . s. nm . .. .. si.,,... DC ,oo3. . <,o23 2 .s.oo 13 March 1984 FREEDOM OF INFORMATION Mr. 5. M. Felton, Director.
ACT REQUEST Division of Rules and Records ,jg, '
j office of Administration [Ac. Q [/[-/g U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington , D.C. 20555 RE: Freedom of Information Act Request for the GESSAR-II Probabilistic Risk Assessment and Associated NRC and NRC-contractor Reviews of that Report (Sholly !
FOIA Request. Number 84-07) i i
Dear 12. Felton:
Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, please make cvailable at the Commission's Public Document Room at 1717 H Street, N.W. , Washington, D.C. , copies of documents in the following )
> categories:
)
A. A copy of the General Electric Probabilistic Risk Assessment for the GESSAR-II standard plant design i (BWR/6 Mark III) , and all updates, amendments, l appendices, addenda, supplements, and all other l changes thereto.
B. Copies of all NRC staff reviews of the documents described above in "A".
C. Copies of all NRC contractor reviews of the documents described above in "A". -
D. For any review identified under "C" above, provide the name of the reviewing organization, the lead ..,
investigators, all other investigators, the NRC -
Contract and FIN numbers assigned to the review project, the funding provided for the review project, and the NRC Form 189 for each such project.
If there are any questions regarding this request, please contact me at 296-5600. It is my understanding that a proprietary claim has been made with respect to some or all of the documents identified in "A" above. This request specifically includes a request to review the bases for the priprietary claim and release a,ll of the documents discussed in "A" above.
^~
I h definition of " trade secret" is also relatively narrow. It has been defined as an " unpatented, secret, comercially valuable plan, appliance, formula or process which is used for the making, preparing, cm. pounding, treating or processire of articles or materials which are trade carnodities.
Consumers Union, supra, .1)1 F.Supp. at 01.
It is impossible to believe that all of the Gessar PFA is legally exempt frm disclosure 'under this standard. For one thing, the Gessar design is not j
- secret" since it is subject to NRC review and public scrutiny. In addition, it is my understanding that the codes being used are primarily publicly-available codes.
I would ' appreciate your response as soon as possible.
. Sincerely,
.: L
- El Ti R. Weiss General Counsel Union of Concerned Scientists Enclosure 1 e