ML20059A537

Forwards Proprietary Response to Question Number 5 Posed During 931001 Meeting Re Sbwr Giraffe Testing Program. Response Withheld

ML20059A537
Person / Time
Site:	05200004
Issue date:	10/20/1993
From:	Marriott P GENERAL ELECTRIC CO.
To:	Joshua Wilson NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM), Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML19311B140	List: ML20059A537
References
MFN-171-93, NUDOCS 9310260374
Download: ML20059A537 (4)

Text

-

t

(

l GE Nucle:rEnergy Gerwnal Dectnc Compecy

. 17b Cartr'er Avenue SanJose. CA 95125 October 20,1993 MFN No.171-93 Docket STN 52-004 t

Document Control Desk U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attention: Jerry N. Wilson, Acting Director Standardization Project Directorate

Subject:

SilWR Test Program

Reference:

Purdue Testing Meeting, G1RAFFE Testing Program RAls, October 1,1993 This letter transmits the proprietary response to question Number 5 posed during the referenced meeting.

Sincerely,

\

P. W. hjhrriott SBWR Project Manager M/C 781, (408)925-6948  ;

Enclosure:

Two (2) copies of the proprietary response to question Number 5.

cc: M. Malloy, Project Manager (NRC) kr l# '

260032 tr m n s> pgG j'A k- l ff!

0260374 931020 a A ADOCK 05200004 b""l PDR V:I.  :

s GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY AFFIDAVIT I, Patrick W. Marriott, being duly sworn, depose and state as follows:

(1) I am the SBWR Project Manager General Electric Company GE") and have been delegated the function ofrev,iewing the information desen(" bed in para 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 the GE proprietary response Number 5 to questions raised at the October 1,1993, Purdue SBWR.

Testing Meeting. t t

(3) In making this application for withholdmg of propnetary information of which it is an owner, GE relies upon the exemption from disclosure set forth in the -

Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"),5 USC Sec. 552(b)(4), and the Trade Secrets Act,18 USC Sec.1905, and NRC regulations 10 CFR 9.17(a)(4),

2.790(a)(4), and 2.790(d)(1) for " trade secrets and commercial or fm' ancial '

information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential" (Exemption 4). The material for which exemption from disclosure is here sought is all ,

" confidential commercial information", and some portions also qualify under the

- narrower definition of" trade secret", within the meani s assigned to those .

terms for purposes of FOIA Exemption 4 in, respective , Critical Mass Enerev -

Project v. Nuclear Reculatory Commission. 975F2d871 DC Cir.1992), and - -

Putilic Citizen Health'Research Group v. FDA,704F2d1280 (DC Cir.1983).

(4) Some examples of categories ofinformation which fit into the definition of proprietary mformation are: ,

a. Information that discloses a process, method, or apparatus, including  ;

supporting data and analyses, where prevention of its use by General  !

Electric's competitors without license from General Electnc constitutes ,

a competitive economic advantage over other companies; ,

b. Information which,if used by a competitor, would reduce his expenditure of resources or improve his competitive position in the design, manufacture, shipment, installation, 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 General Electric, .  !

its customers, or its suppliers; l 1

h

'I Affidavit Page 1 I

i i

l

x 3

~

d. Information which reveals aspects of past, present, or future General Electric customer-funded development commercia value to General Electric; plans and programs, of pote.ntial 1

e. 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)h., above.

(5) The information sought to be withheld is being submitted to NRC in -

confidence. The information is of a sort customarily held in confidence by GE, and is in fact so held. Its initial designation as pro?rietary information, and the.

subsequent steps taken to prevent its unauthorized disclosure, are as set forth in (6) and (7) followmg. The mformation sought to be withheld has, to the best of my knowledge and belief, consistently been held in confidence by GE, no pubhc disclosure has been made, and it is not 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.

(6) Initial ap of the onproval ginating of proprietary component, thetreatment person mostof likely a document is madewith to be acquainted by the the manager value and sensitivity of the information in relation to industry knowledge.

Access to such documents within GE is Umited on a "need to know" basis.

(7) The procedure for approval of externsi release of such a document typically requires review by the staff mangc., project manager, other ec uivalent authority, by ; tie manager of the cogm, principal scientist or.z (or his c elegate), and by the 1_cgal Operation, for technical content, competitive effect, and determination of the accuracy of the proprietary designation. Disclosures outside GE are limited to regulatory bodies, customers, and potential customers, and their agents, suppliers, and licensees, ,

and others with a legitimate need for the information, mad then only in 1 accordance with appropriate regulatory provisions or proprietary agreements.

(8) The information identified in paragraph (2) is classified as proprietary because .-

it contains detailed test information which GE and its associate have conducted 1

and applied to evaluate the loss-of-coolant accident for the SBWR.

The development and performance of the test program was achieved at a t

^

significant cost, on the order of several million dollars, to GE and its associate.

Dis information cre GE and associate information which, by nature of i the collaboration w . [ ie aare the information, cannot be easily separated into its respective pt t .m z d dition to its direct competitive value to GE, the treatment of the infox D. is bound by contract provisions of an Agreement between GE and the av ' tte which provides for proprietary handling of the -  !

information.

i Afrsdavit Page 2 l

QL a --

i

~

(9) - Public disclosure of the information sought to be withheld is likely to cause  !

substantial harm to GE's competitive position and foreclose or reduce the '

availability of prc0t-making opportumties. The information is part of GE's.

comprehensive BWR safety and technology base, and its commercial _value .

extends beyond the original development cost. The value of the technolo gy .

base goes beyond the extensive physical database and analytical methodo fogy and includes the value derived from providing analyses done with ,

NRC-approved methods.  !

The research, development, engineering, analytical, and NRC review costs comprise a substantial investment of time and money by GE and its associate. i The precise value of the ex aertise to devise an evaluation process and apply the correct analytical methodo: ogy is difficult to quantify, but it clearly is i substantial.

GE's competitive advantage will be lost ifits competitors are able to use the i results of the GE experience to normalize or verify their own process or if they are able to claim an ecluivalent understanding by demonstrating that they can 1 arrive at the same or similar conclusions.

The value of this information to GE would be lost if the information were disclosed to the public. Making such informanon available to competitors without their having been required to undertake a similar expenditure of ,

resources would unfairly provide competitors with a windfall, and deprive GE - '

and its associates of the opportunity to exercise their competitive advantage to seek an adequate return on their large investment in developing these very valuable analytical tools. .

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

• COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA )33 ,

Patrick W. Marriott, being duly sworn, deposes and says:

That he has read the fcv L ing affidavit and the matters stated therein are true and correct to the best of h , mdge, Executed at San Jose, Calif anna, this 27. day of ockw ,19 93

< b Pathck W.Marriott General Electric Company Subscribed and sworn before me this day of br4thtr ,19D 00-- YkW Notary Public, State of CaWornia Afridavit page 3 OFFICIAL SEAL k

4s g)a .. PAULA F. HUSSEY-

.Nott.RY P&C - CAUFORNtA (g SMTA cl>&A COUNTY My comm. expires AFR s, WJ4

.x w wmm~_~

e - u