ML19347D431

Forwards Affidavit Requesting That Analytical Results of Impact of Increased Rod Misalignment on Peaking Factors Be Withheld (Ref 10CFR2.790)

ML19347D431
Person / Time
Site:	Beaver Valley
Issue date:	01/21/1981
From:	Wiesemann R WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY, DIV OF CBS CORP., WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORP.
To:	Varga S Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML19260G752	List: ML19347D420 ML19347D424 ML19347D427 ML19347D431
References
CAW-81-6, NUDOCS 8103170593
Download: ML19347D431 (9)

Text

, __ _ _

O NuclearTect:ncicgyOlvision Westinghouse Water Reactor Electric Corporation Divisions gc,333 PittsuurgnPennsylvania 15230 Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation January 21, 1981 Attn: Mr. S. A. Varga, Chief CAW-81-6 Operating Reactor Branch 1 Division of Licensing U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Phillips Building 7920 Norfolk Avenue Bethesda, Maryland 20014

SUBJECT:

Proprietary Analytical Results of Impact of Increased Rod Mis-alignment on Peaking Factors (Proprietary)

REF: Duquesne Light Company letter, C. N. Dunn to S. A. Varga dated March 13, 1981.

Dear Mr. Varga:

The proprietary material for which withholding is being requested by Duquesne l Light Company is of the same technical type as that proprietary material sub-

! mitted by Westinghouse previously in application for withholding AW-76-8, and was accompanied by an affidavit signed by the cwner of the proprietary infor-mation, Westinghouse Electric Corporation.

l Further, the affidavit AW-76-8 submitted to justify the previous material was approved by the Comission on November 9,1977, and is equally applicable to the subject material . The subject proprietary material is being submitted in support of Duquesne Light Company, Beaver Valley Unit 1.

Accordingly, this letter authorizes the utilization of the previously furnished affidavit in support of Duquesne Light Company, Beaver Valley Unit 1. A copy of the affidavit is attached.

Correspondence with respect to the proprietary aspects of the application for withholding or the Westinghouse affidavit should reference CAW-81-6 and should be addressed to the endersigned.

Very truly yours, MC i

/bek Robert A. Wiesemann, Manager Attachment Regulatory & Legislative Affairs E. C. Shomaker, Esq.

cc:

Office of the Executive Legal Director, NRC 8103170 p 3

+

AW-76-8 AFFIDAVIT COPNONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: .

ss COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY:

Before me, the undersigned authority, personally appeared Robert A. Wiesemann, who, being by me duly sworn according to law, de-poses and says that he is authorized to execute this Affidavit on behalf i of Westinghouse Electric Corporation (" Westinghouse") and that the aver-

! ments of fact set forth in this Affidavit are true and correct to the ,

best of his knowledge, information, and belief:

. - uta:h P0bert A. Wiesemann, Manager l Licensing Programs I

Sworn to and subscribed before me. this // day of-

b 4d 1976.

. 4. #4 @

/ Notary Public/

Sep

. . . NS N

~

AW-76-8 (1) I am Manager, Licensing Progracs, in the Pressurized Water Reactor Systems Division, of Westinghouse Electric Corporation and as such, I have been specifically delegated the function of reviewing the proprietary information sought to be withheld from public dis- ,

closure in connection with nuclear power plant licensing or rule- ,

making proceedings, and am authorized to apply for its withholding '

on behalf of the Westinghouse Water Reactor Divisions.

/

(2) I am making this Affidavit in conformance with the provisions of 10 CFR Section 2.790 of the Commission's regulations and in con-junction with the Westinghouse application for withholding ac-companying this Affidavit.

(3) I have personal knowledge of the criteria and procedures utilized by We: tinghouse Nuclear Energy Systems in designating information as a trade secret, privileged or as confidential commercial or financial infonnation.

1 (4) Pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (b)(4) of Section 2.790 of the Commission's regulations, the following is furnished for consideration by the Commission in determining whether the in-formation sought to be withheld from public disclosure should bu withheld.

l (i) The information sought to be withheld from public disclosure is owned and has been held in confidence by Westinghouse.

9 e

=

(

l - . .

l AW-76-8 l

l

, (ii) The information is of a type customarily held in confidence l

j by Westinghouse aad not customarily disclosed to the public.

Westinghouse has a rational basis for determining the types of information customarily held in confidence by it and, in that connection, utilizes a system to determine when and whether to hold certain types of information in confidence.

The application of that system and the substance of that system constitutes Westinghouse policy and provides the rational basis required.

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 com-petitive advantage, as follows:

(a) The infonnation reveels the' distinguishing aspects of a process (or component, structure, tool, method, etc.)

where prevention of its use by any of Westinghouse's

[

competitors without license from Westinghouse consti-i tutes a competitive economic advantage over other companies.

(b) It consists of supporting data, including test data, -

relative to a process (or component, structure, tool, l -

method, etc.), the application of which data secures a i

competitive economic advantage, e.g., by optimization or improved marketability.

o 4

AW-76-8 (c) Its use 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 a similar product.

(d) It reveals cost or' price infomation, production cap-acities, budget levels, or comercial strategies of -

Westinghouse, its customers or suppliers. f (e) It reveals aspects of past, present, or future West-inghouse or customer funded development plans and pro-grams of potential comercial value to Westinghouse.

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

(g) It is not the property of Westinghouse, but must be treated as proprietary by Westinghouse according to agreements with the owner.

There are sound policy reasons behind the Westinghouse system which include the following:

(a) The use of such information by Westinghouse gives Westinghouse a competitive advantage over its com-petitors. It is, therefore, withheld from disclosure to protect the Westinghouse competitive position.

AW-76-8 1

(b) It is information which is marketable in many ways.

The extent to which such information is available to ,

competitors diminishes the Westinghouse ability to sell products and services involving the use of the infor1 nation.

(c) Use by our competitor would put Westinghouse at a competitive disadvantage by reducin.g his expenditure of resources at our expense. .

! (d) Each component of proprietary information pertinent to a particular competitive advantage is potentially as valuable as the total competitive advantage. If

! competitors acquire components of proprietary infor-nation, any one component may be the key to the entire  ;

puzzle, thereby depriving Westinghouse of a competitive advantage. .

(e) Unrestricted disclosure would jeopardize the position of prominence of Westinghouse in the world market, and thereby give a market advantage to the competition in those countries.

(f) The Westinghouse capacity.to invest corporate assets in research and development depends upon the success in obtaining and maintaining a competitive advantage.

1 e

O

AW-76-8 (iii) The information is being transmitted to the Commission in confidence and, under the provisions of 10 CFR Section 2.790, it is to be received in confidence by the Commission.

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

(v) The proprietary information sought to be withheld in this submittal is that which is appropriately marked in the attach-ment to Westinghouse letter number NS-CE-ll39, Eiche1dinger to Stolz, dated July 19, 1976, concerning supplemental infor-mation for use in the Augmented Startup and Cycle 1 Physics Program. The letter and attachment are being submitted as ,

part of the above mentioned program in response to concerns of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards with the new Westinghouse PWR's,.which are ra'ted at higher power densities than currently operating Westinghouse reactors.

This information enab1'es Westinghouse to:

(a) Justify the Westinghouse design correlations.

(b) Assist its customers to obtain licenses.

(c) Provide greater flexibility to customers assuring them of safe reliable operation.-

(d) Optimize performance while maintaining a high level of fuel integrity.

/

7- AW-76 ,

(e) Justify operation at a reduced peaking factor with a wider target band than normal.

(f) Justify full power operation and meet warranties.

Further, the information gained from the Augmented Startup and Cycle 1 Physics Program is of comercial value and is sold for considerable sums of money as follows: ,

(a) Westinghouse uses the information to perform and justify analyses which are sold to customers.

(b) Westinghouse uses the information to sell to its customers for the purpose of meeting NRC requirements for full power licensing.

(c)' Westinghause could sell testing services based on the experience gained and the analytical methods developed using this information.

Public disclosure of this information concerning the Augmented Startup program is likely to cause substantial harm to the competitive position of Westinghouse by allowing its com-petitors to develop similar analysis methods and models at a much reduced cost.

, m, ' . ._,- . _ . , - - - , - _ _ , - - - , __

. .. . ~

AW-76-8 The analyses performed, their methods and evalua epre-3ent a considerable amount of highly qualified d evelopment effort, which has been underway for many years.

If a com-petitor were able to use the results of the analyses the attached document, to nonnalize or verify n their methods or models, the development effortpen- and m diture required to achieve an equivalent ucapability be significantly reduced.

In total, a substantial amount of money and effort has been expended by Westinghou could only be duplicated by a competitor if he were to invest priate similar talent sums available. of money and provided he h -

Further the deponent sayeth not.

l i

I e