ML20072L431

Authorizes Utilization of Encl Affidavit AW-77-47 in Support of Northern States Power Request to Withhold Proprietary Info Per 10CFR2.790

ML20072L431
Person / Time
Site:	Prairie Island
Issue date:	03/17/1983
From:	Wiesemann R WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY, DIV OF CBS CORP.
To:	Thomas C Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML19268D688	List: ML20072L414 ML20072L431
References
CAW-83-20, TAC-49353, NUDOCS 8303310287
Download: ML20072L431 (6)

Text

o .

. T

.1 % T

. c. i 1 Q

Westinghouse Water Reactor sue: ear reennetegy civis:an Electric Corporation Olvisions eu sss Ptsourgn Pennsylvania 15230 CAW-83-20 d

March 17, 1983 Dr. Cecil O. Dxxnas, Clief Standard 4?a*4em & Special Projects Brandi Division of Licensing U. S. Nuclear Regulatory h4==iews phil14na milding 7920 Norfolk Avenue Bethesda, Maryland 20014 APPLICATICN ER WIIHBOEDIN3 PROPRILTARY INERMATICN FBCM PUBLIC DISCEDSURE

REFERENCE:

Northern States Power Ccznpany letter to C. O. Oxznas, dated March,1983

Dear Dr. Oxznas:

Tie proprietary material for which withM1 ding is being requested by'He Northern States Power Canpany is further 4danti#ied in an affidavit signed by the owner of the proprietary information, Westinghouse Electric Corporation. Die proprietary material for which withholding is being requested is of the same tachnical type as that proprietary material previously sulznitted with application for withM1 ding AW-77-47. The affidavit AW-77-47 sulznitted to justify the previous material is equally applicable to this material.

It is resgtfully requested that the information which is proprietary to Westinghouse and which is further identified in the affidavit be withheld fran public disclosure in accordance with 10CFR Section 2.790 of the Catmission's

, regulations.

Accordingly, this letter authorizes the utilization of the a >, - +sying affidavit in support of the Northern States Power Canpany.

Cou.es@rdence with respect to the proprietary aspects of the application for withholding or the West 2nghouse affidavit should reference this letter, CAW-83-20, and should be addressed to the undersigned.

Very truly yours, 8303310287 830322 PDR ADOCK 05000282 P PDR M M[

Robert A. Wiesenann, Manager Regulatory & Legislative Affairs

! cc: E. C. Shanaker, Esq.

Office of the Executive Legal Director, NBC

, WKSTiliCliOUSE Pii0fRIETr'P.Y Clil5_1 A!!-77-47 AFFIDAVIT -

CO:C:0::WEALTil 0F PEi!!!SYLVAilIA:

ss

'COUi:TY OF ALLEGHEtiY:

!!cfore me, the undersigned authority, personally appea' red Robert A. Wiesemann, who being duly sworn according to law, daposes and says that he is authorized to e.xecute this Affidavit on behalf of Westinghouse Electric Corporation (" .2stinghouse")

and, that the averments of fact set forth in this Affidavit are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief:

4',.t$b ilb t' lb'!bIll.'t.-

Robert A. Wiesemar.n, itanager Licensing Programs I

Suorn to and subscribed before pe this 27 day ,

of [ buy'5.'1,197.7.

p/a/ w .//l0 mw tiotary Pualic O

• • - , - - . , , , , , - ,- . ,y

Sh> .

}IESTI!!GHOUEEPROPRIEII.R7Cl. ASS 2

, AW-77-47 Tile NATUPE OF Tile C0".PETITIO:: If! THE NUCLE /.R BUSli:ESS Westinghouse's ' principal competitors in the nuclear steam supply business are Babcock & Wilcox, Combustion Engineering, and General Electric. The principal U. S. competitors in the nuclear fuel fabrication business are Babcocli & Wilcox, Combustien Engineering, Exxon, and General Eltetric.

With the exception of General Electric, these competitors are new entries in the business with substiantially smaller investmants in technology.

Westinghouse also has competition from foreign fabricators. This com-petition can drastically affect our ability to obtain contracts in the international market. Specific competitors include ASEA-ATO:4 (Sweden),

Kraftwerk AEG (Germany), Framateme (France), S"FL (Great Britain) Enusa (Spain) Hitsubishi (Japan), and Fabricazione flucleari (Italy).

Both the nuclear steam supply and the nuclear fuel fabrication businesses involve high technology, and competition is on the basis of that high technology rather than on price. Only if competition centinues based on technology will Westinghouse be able to recover its substantial invest-ments in technology and product development.

- EFFECT OF RELEASE OF INFORMATION ON WESTIMGHOUSE C0f4PETITIVE p0SITION If, as a matter of general practice, cost or price information or infor-mation about the basis on which Westinghouse makes its business judge-ments were made publicly available, it would have the general effect of altering the nature of comoetition from a technology base to a price .

base. This would change the entire complexion of the business and drive it toward a low investment-low technology development business. Under

. such circumstances, those in the business with heavy unrecovered invest-ments in technology such as Westinghouse would have difficulty competing successfully with those who have made relatively small investments since 2

7:34

v

.s . . . .

WESTIf!CI;CU5d PP.uPRIETAP.Y Cf. ASS 2

~

A* !- 77-,*. 7 business would tend to go to the lowest c,ualified idder. The general public would also suffer in that they would be dcreived of the benefits

'of technoicgical developments that would most li::. i. far exceed any short-term benefits derived .frca lower prices. Lil.riise, a general practice of making publicly available information .btained from invest-ments in. technology would enabic competitors to beaefit without having to maka commensurate investments. This would stif'.a the incentive for further investments in technology and drive the busir. ass to price-based competition instead of competition on the ba:is,of te'chnology with the scme end results as in the case of disclosura Of cost or price infor-mation. . .

WHAT WESTII!GHOUSE SEEKS TO PP.0TECT Westinghouse seeks to protect its abili'ty to recev2r its investcents in: *

(1) Basic data resulting from research and development.

(2) Analytical methcds and models.

(3) Details of our, designs including margins, tolerances, etc.

(4) The knowledge of what data to present and how to pr:sent the data to satisfy NP.C licensing requirements. NOTE: In the current licensing environment, die cacability to obtain ,

licensing approval has bece=a very important in the market-place.

. 336 619 .

. ". T ,

WijsTI-:5:0"CE P"092IETAin' Ct.'.CS 2 .

A'<.'- 7."- 4 7 The above identified information is of considerable ccmmercial advantage

.to the competitors of "estinghouse to the extent that it climinates the need for similar investments in technology.

REl.ATIO::S!!IP OF I :FOR:*.'sTIO:: 50"3HT TO BE WITHHELD Fr.C". FUPLIC DISCLOSURE TO WHAT IS SOUGHT TO BE PROTECTED INFORMATI0 ! SOUGHT TO CE UITPHEl.D, r

The information sought to be withheld in this report includes conclusions regarding thermal, physt:al, ch:mical' and mechanical properties of fual and core component matericls based upon Mastingh:use experimental data and an extensive literature survey and data reduction progrca. The report also contains Uestinghouse material specifications. The release of this information would result in the following competitor benefits:

POTENTIAL ADVA:lTAGES TO COMPETITORS

1. It would allow cc:rpetitors to verify their material property

. design values by mare reference to the Westinghouse Report without having to expend the time, . resources and funding otherwise necessary.

2. For. the materials listed in the report, the data presented would enable competitors to determine to a close approximation some of the final heat treatments , processes, densities, etc. , used by ,

Westinghouse.

3. Knowledge of the materials properties presented, or the implied .

specifications may permit competitors to either relax their material specifications or reduca design margins, either of which circum-stances could lead to sales advantagas detrimental to the Westinghouse

' :t :c positica.

_4 .

'k . .

WESTINGi!OUSE Pr.0PP.IETAP.Y f.L/iSS ?

Ai!-77-47 ITNESTMEiii BY WESTINGHOUSE Ill WHAT IS SOUGHT TO BE Pfl0TECTED It is estimated 'that four to five man-years of engineering and one mar.-

year of technician effert, amounting to approximately $500,000 was expended to perform the literature survey, obtain Westinghouse experi-

- mental data,' perform detailed analysis of selected data and to derive acceptable design equations and valu2s.

Competitors could obtain the equivalent information, Nith difficulty, by investing a similar sum of money and provided ,they had the appropriate resources available and the requisite experience.

~

-P0TENTIAL HARM TO HESTIt:GHOUSE We believe there is a likelihood of substantial harm to the competitive position of Westinghouse if the information sought to be withheld is publicly disclosed, which could result in a loss of revenue to desting-house of approximately $10,500,000 in potential first-core and $7,000,000

-in potential reload fuel business.

Further the deponent sayeth not.

8612 .

t *

• we+ 9 * *

+ -v. . - . , . ~ . - - - - ,