- 119 -
the property for which it claims ITCs.104 Particularly,
petitioner cites: (1) The nuclear fuel fabrication and related
services contract between Westinghouse and FPL (Westinghouse
contract), entered into as of November 5, 1979, and amended in
February 1990 and June 1992; (2) the nuclear fuel fabrication and
related services contract between FPL and Exxon Nuclear Co.
(Exxon contract), dated January 30, 1982; (3) the A.B. Chance LMS
Contract (A.B. Chance contract); and (4) the LMS specifications,
dated November 1983.
Petitioner contends that article 5.1 of the Westinghouse
contract provides the quantity of enriched uranium necessary for
the fuel assemblies. Article 5.1 states that FPL shall:
a. Supply one hundred percent * * * together with an
Excess of eight tenths of one percent * * * of the
enriched uranium hexafluoride required to meet the
final design uranium loading for each Region to be
fabricated in the quantity, and enrichment and at
the times specified by Westinghouse consistent
with Article 31, SCHEDULES. The enriched uranium
hexafluoride shall be of the quality supplied by
DOE as of February 1, 1979.
Petitioner asserts that the amount of nuclear fuel
assemblies that it acquired was “determinable from” the
fabrication contracts and the 18-month refueling cycle for the
nuclear reactors. Article 5.1 of the Westinghouse contract
identified the percentage of the enriched uranium hexafluoride
104 Petitioner does not argue that these contracts are
themselves supply or service contracts.
Page: Previous 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011