- 116 -
closure in 5 seconds without steam flow assistance.
(Note: This design activity would also resolve the ISI
deficiency identified in Inspection Report 85-05 in
that fail safe testing can be accomplished.)
We find that the licensee event report and the substantial
safety hazards evaluation do not satisfy the readily identifiable
requirement of TRA section 204(a)(3). Both the licensee event
report and the substantial safety hazards evaluation provide
vague summaries of the proposed upgrades; these descriptions of
the property fail to indicate the type of material used, the
specific components that it planned to upgrade, and the amount of
property needed to upgrade the MSIV system.
Similarly, we believe that the other memoranda, studies, and
documents that petitioner relies upon to readily identify its
property lack specific details, as required by TRA section
204(a)(3) and the conference report. Action item No. 19850484 is
a two-page document that contains no information relating to the
specifications or amount for the surveillance system property.
Although TRA section 204(a)(3) requires that transition property
be readily identifiable as of December 31, 1985, the spent fuel
disposition management action plan was not created until February
4, 1986. While the energy management plan establishes specific
goals for reducing the energy load, the document does not provide
any specifications relating to the LMS property or identify how
FPL will accomplish the goal of reducing the energy load. The
BCS requirements studies generally describe the property, the
Page: Previous 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011