- 115 -
cites: (1) The licensee event report, dated July 29, 1985; (2)
the substantial safety hazards evaluation, issued July 1985; (3)
action item No. 19850484, dated April 30, 1985; (4) spent fuel
disposition management action plan, dated February 4, 1986; (5)
energy management plan for the ‘80s (energy management plan),
dated November 1, 1980; (6) the bidirectional communication
system (BCS) requirements studies, Vols. I and II, dated January
1983; and (7) FPL’s request for engineering assistance, dated
November 5, 1985. With the exception of the request for
engineering assistance, we disagree with petitioner and find that
these documents fail to readily identify the specifications and
amount of property for which petitioner claims ITCs.
For example, Mr. Bible testified that the second corrective
action listed in the licensee event report described the
specifications and amount of the MSIV air accumulation system
property for which petitioner claims an ITC. Specifically, the
second corrective action provides that “The design of the MSIVs
will be upgraded to assure that each MSIV will meet the Final
Safety Analysis Report closure criteria without steam flow
assistance.”
In addition to the licensee event report, petitioner relies
on the substantial safety hazards evaluation to readily identify
the MSIV air accumulation system. The evaluation states:
It is recommended that design modifications be
implemented on an expedited basis that will assure MSIV
Page: Previous 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011