ML20053B886
| ML20053B886 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 05/27/1982 |
| From: | Edgar G STONE & WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORP. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20053B887 | List: |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8206010317 | |
| Download: ML20053B886 (4) | |
Text
J UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
~
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY Docket No. 50-322 (OL)
(Shorham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
REQUEST OF STONE AND WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION FOR CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation (SWEC), pursuant to 10 CFR $ 2.790(b)(1), hereby requests that certain confiden-tial commercial information that is identified in the accompany-ing affidavit of Richard B. Kelly, be withheld from public disclosure.
Suffolk County has indicated its desire to use this information in the course of this proceeding in a way which, if not protected, would subject it to public disclosure.
Because of the confidential nature of this information, SWEC requests that it not be subject to public disclosure.
The information sought to be protected is proprietary in-formation related to SWEC's Quality Assurance activities.
It is owned by SWEC; it has been held in confidence by SWEC; it is not available from any public source; and it has not been made available to third parties, except in confidence.
It is the type of information customarily held in confidence by SWEC and g20 6 0103n C, Dso3 Jrf ol g
i -
not customarily disclosed to the public.
(See affidavit at 11 4(a) and 4(b).)
As the accompanying affidavit of Richard B. Kelly shows, the information sacisfies the criteria for confidential treat-ment outlined in 10 CFR $ 2.790(b)(4), and also would be exempt from disclosure as confidential commercial information pursuant to Exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C.
5 552(b)(4).
One of the established tests for c'cnfidentiality under both the Commission's regulations and under Exemption 4 is whether public disclosure of the informatfon is likely to cause substantial harm to the competitive position of the owner of the information.
National Parks and Conservation Ass'n v,.
Morton, 498 F.2d 765, 770 (D.C. Cir. 1974).
That this is lii;ely to occur is made plain by Mr. Kelly's affidavit.
There can be no dispute that there is actual competition among entities such as SWEC to provide engineering, design, procurement, and construction site functions for nuclear power plants.
SWEC's Quality Assurance services and management of those services are an indispensable aspect of the engineering services provided for nuclear power plants by SWEC.
See 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B.
If disclosed, this information about SWEC's Quality Assurance program would provide competitors, who furnish similar services, with valuable insights into SWEC's operations and would reveal areas of corporate emphasis and strategy which would not otherwise be known.
This information
could be used by competitors to gain an unfair adventage over SWEC in the marketplace.
Such considerations have been held sufficient to protect proprietary information from disclosure.
National Parks and Conservation Ass'n v. Kleppe, 547 F.2d 673, 684 (D.C. Cir. 1976); Burroughs Corp. v. Brown, 501 F. Supp.
375 (E.D. Va.1980), rev' d on other grounds, General Motors Corp. v. Marshall, 654 F.2d 294 (4th Cir.1981).
In addition, SWEC has spent many years and has expended a considerable sum of money in developing its quality assurance The information developed is the result of the appli-program.
cation and refinement of comprehensive management systems for many years, and would be extremely valuable to any entity seeking to provide similar services.
If disclosed, SWEC's competitors would be able to duplicate much of SWEC's expertise without incurring the substantial expeaditures of time and funds made by SWEC.
This information could not otherwise be obtainable by SWEC's competitors except at considerable cost.
It therefore has substantial commercial value which should be protected.
Worthington Compressors, Inc. v. Castle, 662 F.2d 45, 51 (D.C. Cir. 1981).
1 1
4 Therefore, for the foregoing reasons and for those set forth in the accompanying affidavit of Richard B. Kelly, SWEC requests confidential treatment of the identified information.
Respectfully submitted, Ge ge L.
ar Attorney or Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation May 27, 1982
_