ML19254B430
| ML19254B430 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/27/1979 |
| From: | Gossick L NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Kreysa F NEUTRON PRODUCTS, INC. |
| References | |
| FOIA-79-44, FOIA-79-A-20 NUDOCS 7909270614 | |
| Download: ML19254B430 (2) | |
Text
f...
i i.
s a
August 14, 1979 Mr. J. M. Felton, Director Division of Rules and Records APPEAL OE INLIIAL EQlA_RECISLOR Office of Administration 7 g, g _ ]Cg[79W U. S. Nucicar Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 kre 'd 2- & -79 Re: FOIA 79-159
Dear Mr. Felton:
\\
Thank you for your letter of June 20, 1979 and a copy of the AECL correspondence.
We would like to appeal the Commission's decision not to release certain drawings (the Gammission's Appendix A) as stated in your letter of May 9,1979, and we will address each of AECL's claims as outlined in their correspondence with you.
Letter Dated April 5, 1979 1.
The fact that the documents listed under Appendix A relate also to the Theratron 60 is immaterial. The manufacture of both units has been discontinued, and we could couch our request in terms which would include all the information for both type units.
2.
The fact that the documents are those of a prototype unit is im-material as is the statement "that they are for prototype develop-ment only and not to be used in the manufacturing process." Our Freedom of Information Act request made no reference to drawings of a prototype or manufacturing nature. Accordingly, if your office has drawings which represent the manufacturing stage, we would like to receive these also.
3.
The fact that the manufacture of both models has been discontinued for the last seven years should weigh heavily against any claims on the part of AECL that the release of such drawings would be harmful to their proprietary interest. Since AECL is also produc-ing a newer model, we have difficulty in understanding their claim of continued commercial value of the older models.
4.
The fact tl it such documents were intended to be for licensing pur-poses only nad marked as proprietary has some merit.
However, more D 9O D
1048 003 oo em
~
~ T D
7 9092706> / Y
Mr. J. M. Felton U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Page Two than fifteen years have passed, this momel has been discontinued, newer models have been placed on the market by AECL, and the NRC has new regulations and guidelines regarding material marked as proprietary.
5.
We have no basis for disputing this claim. Query, since AECL has not manufactured a singic unit of this type for over seven years, should this information remain in confidence?
6.
This point is well made.
Indeed, it would behoove all manufacturers to discourage the dissemation of information which could result in a hazardous undertaking. Neutron Products has been servicing these units since 1972 under a State of Maryland license, and obviously AECL is not referring to our company as one whose. workmanship has resulted in serious incidents or accidents on these machines.
The more information that we have, the hl'gher the degree of assurance of proper adjustments, replacements, and workmanship.
7.
While the statement "The use of old drawings or information may easily mislead persons into the use of improper replacement parts" is true generally, such is not the case with Neutron Products.
All of our servicemen are well aware of the potential danger in installing replacement parts which have not been specified by AECL and in the unlikely event that such a replacement part would be authori:cd, it would certainly have undergone detailed evaluation.
Indeed, having these drawings and other information should help us do a better job at specifying and obtaining " equivalent" com-ponents.
8.
We do not feel that this point has much merit.
Disclosure of the requested information would not be
'I'. cly to cause substantial harm to the competitive position aECL, as AECL no longer manu-factures the units. We are hard pressed to understand how "irre-sponsibic use of such information by a competitor would undoubtedly cause injury to" AECL's reputation as it claims.
It is also diffi-cult for us to follow the logic behind the claim that AECL-CP might be " vulnerable to liability suits resulting from improper adulteration of its equipment."
In his closing paragraphs, Mr. Rideout argues that the requested information is of questionabic value to the public at large, and that it is not representa-tive of the full investment into the production design.
We fail to see the relevance and importancu of each of these statements.
1048 004 mi v m o n n. r. m..,_..., vo me im
.i
,.m
rt s,
. +
Mr. J. M. Felton U. S. Nuc1 car Regulatory Commission Page Three Letter Dated bby 10, 1979 1.
We feel that even though AECL continues to service these units and has developed several more advanced units, this should not mitigate the fact that production of these units has ceased.
Since AECL's newer units are arguably more advanced, it is not apparent how the release of information dealing with " inferior" units would affect AECL.
2.
From Mr. Rideout's preamble, it is apparent that he was attempting to clarify Item 6 in his first Ictter. We do not believe that his statements add very much substance to Item 6, in that it appear _s his original statement was intended to discourage the CommissiQn from releasing the infomation because of the possibility of irie-sponsible use. The " clarification" deals with the scope of the _
drawings and conjecture on the part of AECL as to possible use ofL the drawings.
In fact, AECL's statement that "the drawings...do not contribute any infomation which would be useful in maintaining and servicing those production models which are currently in use.
seems to contradict the warnings and caveats contained in this first letter, Items 6, 7, and 8.
These three it ems lead the reader to believe that although care is required, it should be possible to use the drawings to assist one in the repair of the unit.
The statement that AECL considers the requested information to be a trade secret does not, absent any showing, make it thus. AECL has admitted that some of the information is available through a casual investigation of the unit. The claim "the information in-dicates the manner in which a responsible and skilled designer / man-ufacturer performs his task" is both irrelevant and meaningless in its context.
Furthemore, the claim that "the business advantage.
would constitute a breach of confidcnce which would be morally reprehensible and a proper subject for legal redress "provides
_ hing in the way of strengthening AECL's argument not to pro-6de us tne infomation, and might lead one to believe that because AECL did not feel confident in its legal position, it included an argument of rhetoric.
1048 005 neLJTRon pnODlKliS inc
Mr. J. M. Felton U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Page Four Therefore, we again resp ctfully request all of the drawings and specifications of the cobalt-60 teletherapy unit, Model Number Thera tron 80, manufactured by Atomic Energy of Canada, Ltd.
Thank you.
Sincerely, NEUTRON PRODUCTS, INC.
0
,uxue /
s n-w Francis Jph' Kreysa Corpora e ecretary g
FJK/dje
, ~
1048 006 nCLTiROn JRODUrTS inc
,