ML20081B179

Forwards Audit Rept ARP 95-1, QA Audit of Sbwr Giraffe Test Program by Svc & Projects Quality 950124-26. Audit Rept Withheld,Per 10CFR2.790

ML20081B179
Person / Time
Site:	05200004
Issue date:	03/01/1995
From:	Quinn J GENERAL ELECTRIC CO.
To:	Borchardt R NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM), Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML19311B757	List: ML20081B179
References
MFN-036-95, MFN-36-95, NUDOCS 9503160067
Download: ML20081B179 (5)

Text

..

GENuclearEnergy 5 E. Quin.1 Projects Manager GeneralElectric Company LMR and SBWR Programs 175 Curtner Avenue. M/C 165 San Jose, CA 95125-1014 408 925-1005 (phone) 408 925 3991 (facsimile)

March 1,1995 MFN No. 036-95 Docke STN 52-004 Document Control Desk U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington DC 20555 Attentiori: Richard W. Borchardt, Director Standardization Project Directorate

Subject:

GE GIRAFFE Audit Report

)

Transmitted herewith is a copy of GE Audit Report No. ARP 95-1, Quality Assurance Audit of the SInVR GIRAFFE Test Program by Senices & Projects Quality, datedJanuary 24 - 26,1995, as requested by NRC staff. This audit examined the adequacy, implementation and resulting documentation of the Toshiba Quality Assurance Program for the SBWR, GIRAFFE Qaality Assurance Plan, and ap >1icable procedures which implemented the requirements of the SInVR Design anc Certification Progmm Quality Assurance Plan. The applicable elements ofjEAG-4101 and NQA-1 were covered. The report concludes that testing can be started upon satisfactory disposition of corrective actions and recommendations identified in the report.

Please note that the information contained in the attachment is of the type which GE maintains in confidence and withholds from public disclosure. It has been handled and classified as proprietary to GE as indicated in the attached affidavit. We hereby request that this mformation be withheld from public disclosure in accordance with the provisions of 10CFR2.790.

Sincerely,

/ o-W

[}nfi$ LMR E.andQhinn, SIlWR Programs Projects Manager

Enclosure:

Audit Report No. ARP 95-1, Quality Assurance Audit of SilWR GIRAFFE Test Program by Senices & Projects Quality, dated Januaq 24 - 26,1995 cc: P. A. llochnert (NRC/ACRS)

1. Catton g

(ACRS)

S. Q. Ninh (NRC) /)

J. I1. Wilson (NRC) f ff g) (pg i p j fyL t 0 kSD00$ NEE PDR

@88bo4 $f l{l t 1 w_-___-- _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ ._ ._ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ - a

l .

l '

I GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY l

AFFIDAVIT I, DavidJ. Robare, being duly sworn, depose and state as follows:

(1) I am Manager, ALMR Project Manager, General Electric Company ("GE")

and have been delegated the function of reviewing the information described in paragraph (2) which is sought to be withheld, and have been authorized to apply for its withholding.

(2) The specific inform,, tion sought to be withheld is contained in the attachment entitled: Audit Report No. ARP 95-1, Quality Assurance Audit of SBWR GIRAFFE Test Program by Senices & Projects Quality, January 24 -26, 1995. The proprietary information is delineated by bars marked in the margin adjacent to the specific material.

(3) In making this application for withholding of proprietary information of which it is an owner, GE relies upon the exemption from disclosure set forth in the Freedom ofInformation 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 2.700(d)(1) for " trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtaiW Nom a person and privileged or confidential" (Exemptica 4). . ht inaterial fer which exemption from disclosure is here sought is all "cou..Jential commercial information", and some portions also qualify under the narrower definition of " trade secret",

within the meanings assigned to those tenns for purposes of FOIA

, Exemption 4 in, respectively, Critical Mass Energy Project v. Nuclear l Regulatory Commission,975F2d871 (DC Cir.1992), and Public Citizen l IIealth Research Group v. FDA,704F2dl280 (DC Cir.1983).

(4) Some examples of categories ofinfonnation which fit into the definition of proprietary information are: I

a. Information that discloses a process, method, or apparatus, including i supporting data and analyses, where prevention ofits use by General j Electric's competitors without license from General Electric 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:

1

o , l d

c. Information which reveals cost or price information, production ,

capacities, budget levels, or commercial strategies of General Electric, its customers, or its suppliers; l d. Information which reveals aspects of past, present, or future General Electric customer-funded development plans and programs, of potential commercial value to General Electric;

c. 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.b and 4.d, above.

(5) The information sought to be withheld is being submitted to NRC in confidence. The infmmation is of a sort customarily held in confidence by GE, and is in fact so held. The information sought to be withheld has, to the best of my knowledge and belief, consistently been held in confidence by GE, no public disclosure has been made, and it is not available in public sources.

l 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. Its initial designation as proprietary infonnation, and the subsequent steps taken to prevent its unauthorized disclosure, are as set forth in paragraphs (6) and (7) following. i (6) Initial approval of proprietag treatment of a document is made by the manager of the originating component, the person most likely to be acquainted with the value and sensitivity of the information in relation to industry knowledge. Access to such documents within GE is limited on a "need to know" basis.

(7) The procedure for approval of external release of such a document typically requires review by the staff manager, project manager, principal scientist or other equivalent authority, by the manager of the cognizant marketing l function (or his delegate), and by the Legal Operation, for technical content,  !

i competitive effect, and determination of the accuracy of the proprietag 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, and then only in accordance with appropriate regulatory provisions or proprietary agreements.

2-

~

u

~-

e.

(8)' The information identified in paragraph (2), above, is classified as proprietary because it would provide other parties, including competitors, with information related to validation of General Electric proprietary design and analysis computer code which were developed at a considerable expense to General Electric.

(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 profit-making opportunities. The information is part of GE's comprehensive BWR technology base, and its commercial value extends beyond the original development cost. The value of the technology base goes beyond the extensive physical database and analytical methodology and i

includes development of the expertise to determine and apply the appropriate evaluation process.

The research, development, engineering, and analytical costs comprise a substantial investment of time and money by GE.

The precise value of the expertise to devise an evaluation process and apply the correct analytical methodology is difficult to quantify, but it clearly is substantial. l GE's competitive advantage will be lost ifits competitors are able to use the ,

results of the GE experience to normalize or verify their own process or if l they are able to claim an equivalent understanding by demonstrating that they can arrive at the same or similar conclusions.

The value of this infonnation to GE would be lost if the information were disclosed to the public. Making such information 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 of the opportunity to exercise its competitive advantage to seek an adequate return on its large investment in developing these very valuable designs.

s.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )SS:

COUNTY OF SANTA CIARA )

1 DavidJ. Robare, being duly sworn, deposes and says: I That he has read the foregoing affidavit and the matters stated therein are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, Executed at SanJose, California, this 8 day of MMcif .19_2 5 bhbb VL/

DavidJ. Robare General Electric Company Subscribed and sworn before me this N day of hrcb .19 CdM4dWA Notary Public, State of Cal @ornia

-m

...m  ;

PALAA F. HUSSEY

~

COMM. 41046120 E Notary PubLe - Cohtorrno 9 E SANTA CLARA COUMY 7 1 My Comm. Expkes DEC 1.19M r r,- - , - - , . , , , . , , _ ,

e

~

l

\

4

. . , _ _ . _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _