ML20133B326

Responds to Re Request for Withholding Info from Public Disclosure on Perry Npp.Affidavit,Encl

ML20133B326
Person / Time
Site:	Perry
Issue date:	12/26/1996
From:	Leaver D POLESTAR APPLIED TECHNOLOGY, INC.
To:	Hopkins J NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
References
NUDOCS 9701030088
Download: ML20133B326 (6)

Text

.

h&

1 POLES ~rAR T AF4>uro TLanstacoav. n:.

December 26,1996 DAvro E. W. LcAvra Mr. Jon B. Hopkins Division of Reactor Projects -III/IV Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 - 0001

Dear Mr. Hopkins:

This is in response to your letter of December 2,1996 regarding the request for withholding information from public disclosure on the Perry Nuclear Power Plant.

Consistent with the Polestar Applied Technology,Inc. July 18,1996 Affidavit (copy attached), the document in question, Polestar calculation PSAT 04202U.03, " Dose Calculation Data Base for Application of the Revised DBA source Term to CEI Perry Nuclear Power Plant," is not proprietary information. Only the documents listed on page 1 of the Polestar Affidavit are proprietary.

I apologize for any confusion on this matter. Please contact me if you have any further questions or need for information regarding the proprietary information on the Polestar revised source term work for Perry.

Very truly yours, cc: Emin Ortalan, CEI I

9701030098 961226 PDR ADOCK 05000440 P PDR ONt FesT STutt T + SuiTc 4 . Los ALT 1 . . C AUF OHNi A + 94022 . US A . Ttt 415 946 t3242 FAA 41b 948-8244

3 3

M MT ^

APPUEC* IECMJOLOGY. oc i

Polestar Applied Technology,Inc.

DAVio E. W. LEAVER l AFFIDAVIT l i j 1

I, David E.W. Leaver, being duly sworn, depose and state as follows: '

!. (1) I am a Principal and an Officer of Polestar Applied Technology,Inc.

l~ (" Polestar") and am responsible for the function of reviewing the '

~

information described in paragraph (2) which is sought to be withheld, and have been authorized to apply for its withholding.

(2) The information sought to be withheld is contained in portions of the

following Polestar reports and calculations prepared for CEIin support of the Perry Nuclear Plant application of the revised design basis accident source 4

term:

PSAT 04212H.02, Drywell Sweep-Out Rate and Related Thermal-Hydraulic Conditions Inside Containment '

PSAT 04202H 04, Aerosol Decay Rates (Lambda) in Drywell PSAT 04202H.05, . Aerosol Decay Rates (Lambdas) in Containment with Spray i

\ PSAT 04212H.06, Mixing Between the Sprayed and Unsprayed Portions of the Perry Containment

, PSAT 04202H.07, Main Steam Line Heat Transfer Analysis 1

l PSAT 04202H.08, Steamline: Particulate Decontamination Calculation -

4 l PSAT 04202H.11, Perry Containment Water Pool pH PSAT 04202H.12, Calculation of Fraction of Containment Aerosol Deposited in Water t

(3) In making this application for withholding of proprietary information of

} which it is the owner, Polestar relies upon the exemption from disclosure set j forth in the NRC regulations 10 CFR 9.17(a)(4),2.790(a)(4), and 2.790(d)(1) for

" trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a i person and privileged or confidential" (Exemption 2.790(a)(4)). The material for which exemption from disclosure is here sought is all " confidential commercial information".

d 1

ONC Fissi S tat. t T . Sun t 4 . Los AL.Tos . C AUFORNIA 94022 . USA . Tt14 3 5 948 P242 . F AX dl6 946-8244

\ . .

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

a. Information that discloses a process or method, including supporting data-and analyses, where prevention of its use by Polestar's competitors without license from Polestar constitutes a competitive economic advantage over other companies.

b. Information which,if used by a competitor, would significantly reduce his expenditure of resources or improve his competitive position in the l

analysis, design, assurance of quality, or licensing of a similar product;

c. Information which reveals cost or price information, production capacities, budget levels, or commercial strategies of Polestar, its customers, or its suppliers;

d. Information which reveals aspects of past, present, or future Polestar customer-funded development plans and programs, of potential commercial value to Polestar;

c. Information which discloses patentable subject matter for which it may be desirable to obtain patent protection.

The information sought to be withheld is considered to be proprietary for the reasons set forth in both paragraphs (4)a and (4)b, above.

(5) The information sought to be withheld is being submitted to CEI (and, we trust, to NRC) in confidence. The information is of a sort customarily held in confidence by Polestar, and is in fact so held. The information sought to be withheld has, to the best of my knowledge and belief, consistently been held in confidence by Polestar, no public disclosure has been made, and it is not .J available in public sources. All disclosures to third parties including any required transmittals to NRC, have been made, or must be made, pursuant to regulatory provisions or proprietary agreements which provide for maintenance of the information in confidence. Its initial designation as proprietary information, and the subsequent steps taken to prevent its unauthorized disclosure, are as set forth in paragrapla (6) and (7) following.

(6) Initial approval of proprietary treatment of a document is made by the manager of the originating component, the person most likely to be l acquainted with the value and sensitivity of the information in relation to

! industry knowledge. Distribution of such documents within Polestar is l limited to timse with a need to know.

l l

(7) The approval of external release of such a document typically requires review by the project manager, and the Polestar Principal closest to the work, for l

2 l

1

technical content, competitive effect, and determination of the accuracy of the proprietary designation. Disclosures outside Polestar are limited to regulatory bodies, customers, and potential customers, and their agents, suppliers, and licensees, and others with a legitimate need for the information, and then i only in accordance with appropriate regulatory provisions or proprietary agreements. I (8) The information identified in paragraph (2), above, is classified as proprietary !

because it contains detailed information on models in current software which were developed by Polestar and are justified from numerous benchmark {

exercises and applications, detailed results of these models and analytical  !

methods, and computer codes which Polestar has developed, documented, l and is maintaining under the Polestar 10 CFR 50, Appendix B Quality  !

Assurance Program. The model results are from applications of the revised DBA source term to the Perry Nuclear Plant in support of CEI.

The development and documentation of the methods, models, and associated Polestar computer codes used in these analyses was achieved at a significant i cost to Polestar, on the order of $50,000, which is a significant fraction of l internal research and development resources available to a company the size of Polestar.

The development of the models and methods, along with the interpretation and application of the results,is derived from the extensive experience database that constitutes a major Polestar asset.

(9) Public disclosure of the information sought to be withheld is likely to cause substantial harm to Polestar's competitive position and foreclose or reduce the availability of profit-making opportunities. The information is part of Polestar's comprehensive technology base on application of the revised source term to operating plants and advanced light water reactors, and its .J commercial value extends beyond the original development cost. The value of the technology base goes beyond the extensive physical database and  !

analytical methodology and includes development of the expertise to determine and apply the appropriate evaluation process. In addition, the technology base includes the value derived from providing analyses done with methods which have been developed and are being maintained in accordance with 10 CFR 50, Appendix B requirements.

The research, development, engineering, analytical and review costs comprise a substantial investment of time and money by Polestar.

The precise value of the expertise to devise an evaluation process and apply the correct analytical methodology is difficult to quantify, but it clearly is substantial.

3

1 e .

Polestar's competitive advantage will be lost if its competitors are able to use the results of the Polestar experience to normalize or verify their own process or if they are able to claim an equivalent understanding by demonstrating that they can arrive at the same or similar conclusions.

The value of this information to Polestar would be lost if the information were disclosed to the public. Making such information available to competitors without their having been required to undertake a similar expenditure of resources would unfairly provide competitors with a windfall, and deprive Polestar of the opportunity to exercise its competitive advantage .

to seek an adequate return on its relatively large investment in developing

~ these very valuable analytical tools.

)

1

• h 4

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

) ss:

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA )

l David E.W. Leaver,is being duly sworn, deposes and says- 1 That he has read the foregoing affidavit and the matters stated therein are true a- '

i correct to the best of his knowledge,information, and belief. l Executed at Los Altos, California, this 1996,

/P day of M>

i d EN

---

l 1

David E.W. Leaver l Polestar Applied Technology, Inc.

Subscribed and sworn before me this /f# day of I 1996.

/~

" " L a

~

% ribas >

Mycom 'co *W"

• L ---- /

- -- - - - _d &--

m.tay'j$'8;3999

._ r Notary Public, State of Californial I

i l

5