ML19317F110
| ML19317F110 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee, Mcguire, McGuire  |
| Issue date: | 08/16/1973 |
| From: | Engelhardt T US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | Knuth D US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19317F111 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8001080799 | |
| Download: ML19317F110 (2) | |
Text
.
V,
., w AUG 161973 Donald F. Knuth. Director. Regulatory Operations DUKE POWER COWANY (OCONEE 1) - REQUEST TO DELETE PROPRIETARY INFORMATION FROM R0 REPORT NO. 50-269/73-4 By letter of July 3.1973 Duke Powar Company again notified us that on the behalf of Babcox & Wilcox they were requesting that certain numbers in R. O. Inspection Report No. 50-269/73-4 be withheld fmm public inspection because the numbers are considered to be propri-etary data the disclosure of ediich "could jeopardize their Coopet-ative position". Duke asserted this san.a position in correspondence directed to Mr. Norman Mosely (Director of R. O. for Region II) under date of May 25, 1973. Mr. Hamid Thornburg has requested OGC to expmss its views, as the R. O. staff does not agree with the claim of the Company.
The regulation which permits this request by a licenses for itself.
or its venders. is 10 CFR 2.790 which states in relevant part:
"..... final AEC records and documents.....shall not in the absence of a compelling reason for nondisclosure after a balancinc of the interests of the person or agency urging nondisclosure anc the public interest [ SIC] disclosure. and will be made available for inspection and copying in the AEC Public Document Room, except for:
....... (6) Proprietary data.."
The phrase "preprietary data is nowhere defined, and doesn't lend itself to definition. The most recent AEC decision on the question is Wisconsin Electric Power Co. - Point Beach Nuclear Plant Unit No. 2
- ALA8137-RAl-1973 (dated July 17. 1973).
In this case the Board gave close study ano attached great importance to the company's proceedures for supporting their claim of proprietary data. Further, the written support for the claim was in detail. This suggests a solution for this case.
A letter could be written to Duke stating that based on the present information we still do not agree with the claim for propriety informa-tion. The letter should twquest that a written presentation of the
'N
_- e.o h mm. %..
%,,s,
.,,g,,
"N
'=
m..
- p. - i g A-' s,b. -
gs'- -D W f 9 4M* W4 M7 b *-M* b 4
L
=
I 8001080 7 7 I 9
2-Donald F. Knuth
. justification for such a claim be supplied. A time period should be suggested for reply, and then we can make our determination based on the reply. To be of maximum effect the letter should be written to a level of management at Duke where effective action could be taken.
We will be happy to review the proposed letter to Duke prior to dis-patch or to assist in the preparation of the letter.
DI}ginal Signcil by Thom;ts F. Engelhardt Thomas F. Engelhardt Chief Hearing Counsel
?
Office of the General Counsel Distribution H. D. Thornburg T. F. Engelhardt G. Staples OGC - G' town /Bethesda REG Central f
[.)C T UGC oma > g,p3 8/1.n.9.e.B.a.rdt d t. gf, SURNAMC>
.. 6/73 j
om>
ano
.sa-se-staas-a ses-47s Form AFC-Sl8 lRev.9-53) AECM 0240
,