ML19331A341

Forwards ALAB-391,ASLB Second Opinion Re Public Disclosure of Nuclear Fuel Supplier Cost & Pricing Provisions. Related Correspondence

ML19331A341
Person / Time
Site:	Midland
Issue date:	05/09/1977
From:	Renfrow R ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE
To:	Coufal F, Leeds J, Leubke E Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
ALAB-391, NUDOCS 8007160914
Download: ML19331A341 (4)

Text

f ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE COUNSELORS AT LAW ONC FIRST NAftONAL PLAZA FOATY-SCCOND FLOOR CHICAGO,lLLINCIS 60603 N TCLCPHONC Ji2 786-7500 TCLCX; 2-52 8 8 WASMtNorON oFFICc g May 9, 1977 ioso im staccr. a. .

g 7 g Scveur Ftoo.

wAsa ~orou, o.C.aaose

.) aca-esa.orso

~ o 8"  %.6 .- -

},, #h' U '222: ;,;- ,. ,

at Dr. J. Venn Leeds, Esq. Dr. Emmeth A. Leubke, Esq.

10807 Atwell Atomic Safety and Licensing Houston, Texas 77096 Board Panel

, 29 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory p "p .J I Commission

% Washington D. C. 20555 bO7DO Frederic J. Coufal, Esq.

Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington D. C. 20555 RE: M_idland Proceeding - Proprietary Date Gentlemen:

Enclosed for your use is the ALAB-391, the second opinion by the Appeal Board on the public disclosure of cost and pricing provisions for nuclear fuel suppliers.

Si c.ly Os,

/

/

R R. enfr

/ .

RRR/rf Enclosure THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS cc: Service List (w/ Encl. ) P00R QUAUTY PAGES 8007160 7/y Q

x

~

4 -

m . . . _ :.

, n s.m Wolf Creel:Statioit 27,CG7 j- DECISION NRCI.76/11 SSO. As at least impI!ritty au-

. thoriscel by AI.An-327 the appbrants f.h-l I Al#51 18. 1977

• A a umtion scckim: riview of that or.ls r.' un Dsccmber 21, In76 we granted the m.. tion

' \ -)

(Al.All 301) .*

. . and c3tablished a bricting schr lutc.' On Returning to us for a second, time is the gn;; enns;A ration of the an:uments tranceil controver<y w hich has ari-en ni tln,s con. in support of and in r*pposition in the drei-

. stn cti c permit pincrilim: re factur: whether siini 1.clow, we afGrm in part an.1 reverse the applica.it.+ whnuld be compe llol, m re. in part.

' sponse to a di*rovrry dcinas.d made by the [.02 Durdenof Proof]

p intervs mirs. t.. make pu!lic, disek.sure of the co t an.! 3 ricme, pn.vt-:nns of g g g y ,g,,,g ,g,, ,

, , , , ,p, (y nuc!c r farl >upply contract entered mto ,the plicants had the af.innative buriter on the '

Wm Whh h ky w N'm the t r.imehouse Elec. In.u<e might sufier competitive injurv were liy tric thent ilves'and,The ,harkgtmral of g Corp.v.a:an. the , g ; p,.;,; , g4 contr..yem an 1 the ; .mie les which govern its tract publicly disclosed. Our scrutiny of reu.h:ine are tully devrh.p d , AI.All-327. the record convicees us that this Ididen 3 NIM * .tdS (l'f6), and rr.ju,,r: tre no deladed was not met insofar as potential itinry to trpetition here. It is sunicient to restate the applicants is concernerl. Tbc only real

ll.c conclesmns there reached

que tim is whether the pos ihility cf harm t (1) in support of their claim that the to Westinghouse was demonstrated with the 5

contract pri visions in issue were entitled requisite degree of particularity.

- in receive protectim against pnhhe shs. The starting point of our inquiry is the I

clo ure, the aphcant;s ha,d betu reqmred mye. of .the contract itself, which"l ecame

. to c<taf 4ish, vitcr ahe, that ths te is a

' rational hasi/ for treating :ss con 6.!rntial eticetive m Cecember 1973 and appcars to the cost and pricing prouvions of nuctsar have a life span of 20 years. Spec,tfically, fuel supple contracts; i.e., that significant the contract covers two major coinponents commercial injury might he su<tained by of the fuel supply which will 1c ret:nited to one or more of the parties to such con- operate the Wolf Creck facility: (1) catu-tracts were those prosi>ious to be publicly ral (i.e., unenriched) uranium; and (2) disclosed ; fabricated fuct assemblics. The dual nature

(,,, (2) no suelt showing had been maile; of Westinghouse's undertaking is of present (3) in the circumstances of the case, risincance because it is conceded that that the applicants were entitled to a second company is nci longer "makm future sales i . opportunity to make the showing; and of stranium to utilities" (Tr. SN*.O. Given (4) if the applicants successfully availed "*"!"* * * #'. ""'.

I themselves of that opportunity,r p'ntcctive nudiouac is n t now m competition wuh treatment then was to be accs.rded the other concerrs for contracts to supply natu-

. t cimiract prosisions unicchuurc . Westim;hou>c's hurden on this p'iase of g

3 NRC at 417-18. The matter was remanded the matter was especially heavy.

to the I.icen>ing lioant for further con. ~

In an endeavor to satisfy that bur len,

~

, sider.um, n m confonmty with thee conthynns, g.cninchmue (through the applie.nita 1.re.

t On November 24,10M. Follmvim: an a.hti. scuted the tc<timony of two or its uf.eials:

, tional evielentiary hearing. the 1.icensim: Sam W. Shsthy,' tile Gensral 11anant of

[ ) Ihtnl entereil its onter on the reinand, in W. iter Reactor IEisiniis alarl.i tieg; and i \f whic!: it determined h> a divi.l..I vote that Rahert A. Wic>rmann, the l!.uiamr of public di>cto<ure was required. l.Ill'Je W . I.icensing l'rograms in the Nuchar Sairty t

{i

• The divtosuae tasue first c.mv tefe.re us on tVr.t;ne the sautswuc of stic retn irst t Ls rein an nepti.uth.n for etircried evrtoiva'len of an direct st a.ut turther provhlest th.it. Sb*t.I the cartl.r nester of the I.!crutin t'eint w h!rh 1.9.s talm: I:sunt again rute agains t the ..;P3b In.t tequirest the appiteants t. s..mply ullis the e int s' clatus, the st4 es gmo w as t.. t.. re sici. l l thienenor** tlLm ery att m.ar t u it b.ut tenent 1.one1 for a tvtl.nl e.f 11 i!.ns 't* ruve'e t he

• e

I J I est i l. t te.n nts.n fuather ellee.ure. Tn applicants f.e apply, sho sht they b . u in.Gmst.

e all'V Mu'.cient Ilmo for eeur enrA.*cr.ition mut fer fuisher retsef (nun this it unt* a h t ti.'

j j *thtwitt..n e.f the matter. w e pe nniptly e nf rir.I at 11 9.

. r's intetim t ratnthe unicr. See .grat: 3rf. 3 ' t is tal.tm; this action. we rst n l. t the 1 l hlh' 17 t t W in .\taliM.*, we dwis ed ttut Inis sim pn.tiethe unter tes .thute the es.o.t of i

the pn.tnihe i.rder shoubt ominutee in c.%vt o.ar dsyb6un tare (n. i a*rped.

j Nuclear Rci:nt.stion Reports y 30,177.02

,s .

~'** M W'*m-*==-. pe. =. - _ n - -_ e==v =was * "- w e

• l I . .

g n s.2 n I 27,Sti N!!C Decis'ons .

i

• I Department of the Pressurired Water 1:c- sions addo ssed to fabricated fuel a< <mh:;rs.

}

actor Syrtimil>hisi..n. The thru t ei their On the first score, it nut t be empha.irc.I '%.

• testimony was that exact 1.nemleder e.i the that nur hol. ling rests c.srInsisclv n: c.::r '

I details of the co-t an.1 pricing 1.royi3 ions of appraisal nl the rimtent of this t ecar.l. '

f the contract inicht convey to a ceiintictitor Nothine that we have sa:d shoubt he ta!.rn t

useful iniormation 1,carin g upon We3 ring- to imtel a livlief t!iat in no circumst:mecs I

h<we's hu inc u practiers in get.crat aml coul.! the public disclosure of the co-t and '

pricing stratrnies in particular. W. hase pricing terms of a particular contr:irt ran-4 cxamined this evidence with con 3iderahic. competitive injury to c.ne c.f the contrnetina care in quest, of specif:es with rc*,mrd to partica in some area ni busincu rini.av..r '~-

precisely haw a liresent or inture con:prti- nr,t embraced by . that cr.ntract. !<ather. I tor of Wotinghouse in some cc,mniercial the rc<uh we reach on the natural tiranium -

Gehl othcr tiran the supplying of natural partian of the enntract before us rc<ts en-uranima might be advantagrd by access to tirely on onr conviction that, in this in-those terms of titis contract which rdate stance, there was a failure of prrmf ont the exchtsively to the pricing of natural ura- part of the claimant > ior erw.fidential trc: t.

', nium. That quest has been in vain, The ment i most that we have found are smuc broad [.03 PublicIntere t]

• conclusory statements, totally wantuig in B. What is icit fr.r.lecision is whether, as any meaning (n! supporting detail. That to the fuel fal.rication provi inn <, there are plainly does not sufdce. ** *' "C I" The situation is otherwisc with respect ".

• • "' 'I

• to the cost and pricing provisims directed weigh th pote,utial,hann to M.d.py out-j r-tmrliouse

to the furnishing of fabricated fuel assem-blics. Although the witnesses might have *s,um ' . whicc. _Ep 3,ch n@smght In c ur uey, inure froni such a nya-furnished a more.comprehevisive explana- twe answer is requed. ,

j tion of the manper in which a competitor In A1.All 327, sterra. we trick note < f tl c

, in that line of endeavor might in.c those 1 provisions to the detriment of Westing- suo stente reliance of the 1.icensin:: near1

• house, there appears to be enough in the in its Grst order upon Irth the First Amind- , , '

! record to compel the conclusion that there ment to the Constitution and the antitrmt las. j

}

is a real (and not inst theoretical) possibil- For the reasons developed in that deci i.vi, t ity of such detriment. Westinghouse still is we rejected that reliance outright. 3 Ni:C

! soliciting contracts for fuct fabrication serv- at 414-15. Nonetheless, in the more recent ices ami, indeed, has a heavy investment in order now under resiew, the Chairman of

] facilitics designed to provide tho-e services. the I.icensing Ileard.apparently speakim: for l

Even if (given the age of this contract) it himself alone. has once again pointed to pur-l might reasonably be assumed that the prc. perted Fir >t Amendutent and antitrust coa.

cise cost ihmres contained therein would no siderations to buttre.s his condusien thst longer obtain in any event, allied with those pnblic di.sch.<ure is mandated here. NNCl-figures are price adjustment clauses. On 76/11 at IESS. As on the prior occasion, their face, the clauses ilhune Westinghouse's none of the partie.< has endorsed his vic.o in pricing stratedes as applied to fuel fabri- this regard. And justi6 ably so.

cation services and give suintantial cr .lence insofar as the l'ir>t Anwndment is con-l cerned, we I. ave been dven no can<e ta clah-

to th,e concerns trticulated by the witnesses, j 1 or its part, the no-4-ex..mination ei Estrs., was said in Al.All G-Shelby am or. ate upon whatg e hm bem hierd, hnwever l otl,ier part,I Wi semann by counselwfor theies . cedre (y ho adduced Jtion of the no ath evidence of t,uei own) did rot to any extent in M 6 1.1o- P.med Wir- ' '

studermme the tenttimacy of thoa.c conectns. , .s thinhine re. tar ling the tv.<iNe attfi -

ention of the amitrii-t laws,' i'et the c't" it di I '-"'

In sum, we agree with the !.iecnsing is unper3ua<ive. We di3cern no:hin" in any of the deci< ion < cited by him which uht Iloard that a rational basis has not been establi.hed for treating as contidential the he taken to stand for the pre;.0,iti..n that natural uranium co t and pricing 1.emi i.ms there are antitrust implications attrn U"t of the contract but cannot accept the I:.e. ors upon the unwithnene-s of a comi..ms- tg like conclusion with n spect to the provi- have its competit..rs ! carn of the to I a"d ,...

• In .\l.\tt 35. w'c omun. ntest iipost the faiture ' pile.utn terms offint thofsom'ract

.tt clow"niar tre o' t  ?" t'f"T givlate'* "# th't I"*b

• of tne IReitalmt it.1r.1 to hme estein t.st ut*m $ce 3 NtW nt til. -114.

the tuht stancinent in its first utsler that the .

frtreetsient t eture*g Wottnghou:e anst trae JP* .

H 30,177.03 O 1977, Commerce Clearinc !!onre. Inc.

=

ye.-- _ ...w-- --.-=.y-w=**~~~~*""~****~

m. .. x c~ m

es5+n Vermont Yankee Station 27,0G0 f~ pricing terms of a net:otiated contract which crat a:rrement with the siews eq,. .. 4 it has entered into with third partic<. Those by .'st r. Kr,ruhlith .in hi di. rutim. ..;. .

deri 1.;ns dealt ce.cntially with allenrd en- hth w ( NiiCl 7tVll at *Pl '87). wlu.h v. .

dcavors by two or mrere consprtitors in a also h.sd the cmlon.cment of Dr. And.w.. ,

('- market to f x pricc4 for particular gnc 1< er (~d.atPrd),

services sold in that market. To the c. stent

. that there was a cimdemnation of <reecry. For the furet:oint; reasans. the r r.1 r e .

the contett was its use in aid of price fhing der review I4 06rmed in p:nt an.1 r.;vr..

mereng the comrctifors t!smer!res. In the case part. The furties are to emlear..r t.. i. ..

before us. there i< of course no sm:gestion agreement amnne th(m t!ves, withm .S . .s

' that Westinghouse's .lcsire to withhnid . of the date of this desi.< ion, tr>lvctme t:..

pricing information from its compctitors - ~ resisi..ns in the ont>tanding intt rim t t. '.s

'- mirh! serve as part of an attmpt--invo! ring tive onter frec Al Alt .4~. sutra) ul kh .-.-

both Westinghouse amt the competi'c.rs-to called for by our determiratir.ns hersin. T;-

fix* prices in the fabricated fuel assemblics substance of any such :greement >b's ! <

market. communicated to this I;o.trd pron.pt!v. In In these circumstances, the matter comes the event of a faDure to scach pun i t.

n,tinn # itays of the date of slus dce . -a down to whether public disefosure of the the parties shall (de memoranda w e:::- .-

cost and pricim- terms of the fabricated fuel """

assemblics portion. of the contract was re. ."***

I'".I8 ter '"' # (#80'C' .'" MUmni its rcceipt and l riuired either (1) to enahic the Licensing

.. Board to dischars:e properly its functions, or thy snbunss, ion r sutumnicnp t!n< Ur.ml w H enter a pennanqu pustective mdv. In

(2) to furnish the' citizens of Kan<as with data which the public interest requires they the, m,canwhile. the mtcrnn order shall re-

• • • '" I"U "' * *I ""*

• I*

possess. In resolving this point in Wciting.

house's favor, we need simply note our gen. It is so ORDERED. ,

l CCH f

VERMONT ; ANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION, ET AL j -

[7 30,178]

l ") >- For prcvious decision, see 5 30.I71.

i

• Environmental consideratiens-Nuclear fuel cycle--Cost-benefit balanc-

l. ing.-The greater the investment in a particular facility the smaller the p . i-i hility that the numerical values assigned to the envir'nmental c!Tects of the

' nuclear fuel cycle couhl have the effcet of tipping the overall cc,st iene..t balance against the facility. Moneys alreaty spent are irrelevant on!v v.hcre l the NEPA comparison is between (1) completing the propc, sed facility and j (2) abandoning that incility and not substituting another facility for it.

2).

i .01 in the hf atter of Vermont Yankee Nu- Generating Station. Units I an.1 c! car Power Corporation (Vermont Yankee Docket Nos. 50-354 and 50-355. Pine -

i Nuclear Power Station), Docket No. 50 271 vania Power and Light Company tkv-i i P d,lic Settice E!cetric and Gas Company hanna Steam E!cetric Station. Uni:5 t . rt I (Salem Nudcar Generating Station. Units 2). Decket Nos. 50-3s7 and 53-M IV -

I and 2). Dochet Nos. 50-272 and 50-311. Powtr Company (Catawba Nu. ic.it .4. -'..

• Ur.its 1 and 2). Docket Nos. 50 s t.'

tom Atomic Power Station. Units 2 and 3). 50-414. Georr,ia Power Company (Ahn b

. h' ] Philadelnhia E!cetric Company (Peach Bot.

Docket Nos. 50 277 and 50-273. Idetropoli- Vo;;tle Nuclear Plant. Units 1 d , ' '.

P- -

tan Edison Company, et al. (Three fdile Docket Nos. 50 424 am! $0-425 l

i Island Nudcar Station. Units 1 and 2). Service Company of New llamraire. et F--

• Docket Nos. 50 2M and 50 320. Duquesne (Scabrcok Station. Units 1 an.t 2). De

! IIcht Company. ct al. (Beaver Valley Nes. 50-443 and 50 444 Unden 11.!* *-

Power Station, Units 1 and 2). Docket Company (Callaway Plant. Unif- I .

• i Nos. 50-334 and 50.412, Philadelphia De,het Nos. STN 50-uJ and S'i !. :

i E!cetric Company (I.imeri6k Generating and Tennevec Valley An:l erry ( 11 *  !

I Station. Ifnits 1 and 2). Docket Nos ville Nuclear Plant, tini: . I A. 'A.15 -

50 352 and 50-353. Public Scryice E!cctrie 2 11 ). Docket Nos 50Sts. S'MP'. E % -

l and Gas Company, ct al (llope Creek and 50 521.Memorandumand Order. A' t

'j 3 0,17 C.S 1 Nue! car Regulat on Reports M - -[A

, W.O % W gg em m , _