ML20040D648

Forwards Affidavit Requesting Withholding of Proprietary Version of OPS-37A35, Verification of CLASIX-3 Computer Program

ML20040D648
Person / Time
Site:	Grand Gulf
Issue date:	01/15/1982
From:	Haga P OFFSHORE POWER SYSTEMS (SUBS. OF WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRI
To:	Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML19297F290	List: ML20040D647 ML20040D648 ML20040D651
References
NUDOCS 8202020118
Download: ML20040D648 (6)

Text

Offshore Power Systems am0 Ahpon E> pre,av 904 D M 00 Bax C000,inkransiN Flo:41 2211 T4 568400 January 15, 1982 FNP-PSF-103 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccmnissicn Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Washirgton, D.C.

20555 Attention: Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director Re: Docket Nos. 50-4V, and 50-417 P. B. Haga

Subject:

OPS-37A35, " Verification of the CIASIX-3 Canputer Program", Decenber,1981 (Proprietary), prepared Y

P e / stems lechnology Power Systens

Reference:

Mississippi Power & Light (bnpany Application for Withholdirg, L. F. Dale to H. R. Dentcn, dated January 15, 1982.

Dear Mr. Dentcn:

The proprieta_y material for which withholding is.being requested by the Mississippi Power & Light Ccmpany is further identified in an affidavit signed by the owner of the proprietary informaticn, Offshore Power Systans. This affidavit, which acconpanies this letter, sets forth the basis cn which the informaticn may be withheld frcm public disclosure by the Omnission and addresses with specificity the considerations listed in paragraph (b)(4) of 10CFR Section 2.790 of the Ommissicn's regulations.

Accortlingly, this letter authorizes the utilizaticn of the acconpanying affidavit in support of the Mississippi Power

& Light Ccmpany, Grard Gulf Nuclear Staticn Units 1 and 2.

Correspondence with respect to the proprietary aspects of the applicaticn for withholdirg or the Offshore Power Systens affidavit should reference this letter, ENP-PST-103, and should be addressed to the undersigned.

V truly s,

v.

/

P. B. Haga, irector Power Systens Technology 8202020118 820115 File A323(P)

PDR ADOCK 05000416 A

PDR

AFFIDAVIT STATE OF FLORIDA ss CDtNTY OF DNAL Before me, the tridersigned authority, personally appeared P. B. Haga, who, being by me duly sworn accordirg to law, deposes 'and says that he is authorized to execute this Affidavit on behalf of Offshore Power Systems (OPS) ard that the averments of fact set forth in this Affidavit are true ard correct to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief:

(1) I am Director, Power Systens Technology, of Offshore Power Systems and have been specuically delegated the function of reviewing the proprietary information sought to be withheld fran public disclosure in connection with nuclear power plant licensing or rulemaking proceedings, ard am authorized to apply for its withholding cn behalf of Offshore Power Systems, notification of which was sent to the Secretary of the Ccmnissicn on December 21, 1981.

(2) I am making this Affidavit in conformance with the provisions of 10 CER Secticn 2.790 of the Ccmnission's regulations and in conjunction with the Mississippi Power and Light 02npany application for with-holdirg acconpanyirg this Affidavit.

(3) I have personal knowledge of the criteria and procedures utilized by OPS in designatirg information as a trade secret, privileged or as confidential ocmnercial or financial information.

(4) Pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (b)(4) of Section 2.790 of the Otmnission's regulations, the following is furnished for consideration by the Ccmnission in determining whether the information sought to be withheld fran public disclosure should be withheld. _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

1 (i)

The infonnation sought to be withheld fran public disclosure is owned and has been held in confidence by OPS.

'(ii) The information is of a type custanarily held in confidence by OPS and not custamarily disclosed to the public.

OPS has a rational basis for determining the types of information custcm -

arily held in confidence by it and, in that connecticn, utilizes i

a systen to determine when and whether to hold certain types of l

informaticn in confidence.

The application of that systen and the substance of that systen constitues OPS policy and provides the rational basis required.

I Under that system, information is held in confidence if it falls in one or more of several types, the release of which might result in the loss of an existing or potential ocrnpetitive advantage, as follows:

(a) The information reveals the distinguishing aspects of a process (or conponent, structure, tool, method, etc.) where prevention of its use by any conpetitors of OPS without license fran OPS constitutes a canpetitive econonic advan-tage over other companies.

(b) It consists of supporting data, including test data, relative to a pocess (or crmponent, structure, tool, methcx1, etc.), the application of which data secures a conpetitive economic advantage, e.g.,

by optimization or improved marketability.

(c) Its use by a competitor would reduce his expenditure of resources or improve his competitive position' in the design, manufacture, shipnent, installation, assurance of quality, or licensing of a similar product.

(d) It reveals cost or price information, production capaci-ties, budget levels, or camercial strategies of OPS, its custoners or suppliers.

(e) It reveals aspects of past, present, or future OPS or custoner funded developnent plans and programs of potential comnercial value to OPS.

(f) It contains patentable ideas, for which patent protection may be desirable.-

(g) It is not the property of OPS, but nust be treated as proprietary by OPS according to agreenents with the owner.

There are sound policy reasons behind the OPS systen which include the following:

(a) The use of such information by OPS gives OPS a competitive advantage over its conpetitors. It is, therefore, withheld fran disclosure to protect the OPS cxxnpetitive position.

(b)

It is information which is marketable in many ways.

The extent to which such information is available to canpet-itors diminishes the ability of OPS to sell products and services. involving the use of the information.

(c) Use by our conpetitor would put OPS at a canpetitive disadvantage by reducing his expenditure of resources at our expense.

(d) Each ctrnponent of proprietary information pertinent to a particular conpetitive advantage is potentially as valuable as the total canpetitive advantage. If conpetitors acquire conponents of proprietary information, any one conponent may be the key to the entire puzzle, thereby depriving OPS of a conpetitive advantage. !

6 (e) Unrestricted disclosure would jeopardize the position of OPS in the world market, and thereby give a market advan-tage to the omnpetition in those countries.

(f) The OPS capacity to invest conpany assets in research aryl developnent depends tron the success in obtaining and maintaining a a:2npetitive advantage.

(iii) The information is being transmitted to the Ocmnission in confidence and, under the provisions of 10 CER Section 2.790, it is to be received in confidence by the Chtunission.

(iv) The informaticn is not available in public sources to the best of our knowledge and belief.

(v)

The proprietary information sought to be withheld in this subnittal is that which is bracketed in OPS-37A35 transmitted by Mississippi Power & Light Canpany letter fran L.F. Dale to H. R.

Denton, dated January 15, 1982.

This informaticx1 enables OPS to:

(a) Justify the design basis for certain energency systems (b) J:'.stify the basis for design of contairrnent structures (c) Assist its custaners to obtain licenses (d) Justify the model arr3 asstrnptions used in containnent analyses with the CULSIX-3 conputer program.

Further, this infonnation has substantial ccmnercial value as follows:

(a) OPS sells the use of the information to its custcmers for purposes of meeting NRC requirtsnents for licensirg doctanen-tation. _ - _ _ _ _ _

o (b) OPS uses the information to perform and justify analyses which are sold to custcmers.

Public disclosure of this information is likely to cause substantial harm to the canpetitive positicn of OPS because it would enable others to use the information to meet NRC require-ments for licensirg docunentation without purchasing the right to use the information.

The developnent of this information is the result of substantial OPS effort and the expenditure of a considerable sun of money.

In order for cx2npetitors of OPS to duplicate this information, experimental test programs may have to be performed and a significant manpower effort, having the requisite talent and experience, would have to be expended for data analyses and conputer program developnent.

Further the deponent sayeth not.

i P.B. Haga, Di(/ector Power Systens Technology Sworn to and subscribcd before me this 15th day of January, 1982.

M,_V8M

'ubl.ic, B1(,5ke of Florida at Large My Ocmnission Expires:

• "'N'I M 8'M' Mr Commission heires Oct. 5,1982 t

80sM B, Amea es fee a Camassy Cameney s

i

_