- 185 -
Q: Do FPL’s nuclear engineers such as yourself
view the total capacity of both spent fuel pools at
each of the nuclear power facilities as available for
the storage of any spent fuel generated at that
facility?
A: Yes, with any of our design activities, we’re
looking at spent fuel storage capability. We consider
the sum total of the pools as the useable inventory.
We find that the spent fuel racks in issue and the spent
fuel racks at St. Lucie Unit 2 and Turkey Point Unit 3 are
separate properties. The spent fuel racks added at St. Lucie
Unit 1 and Turkey Point Unit 4 increase FPL’s overall storage
capacity. While the spent fuel racks in issue might have become
necessary or essential at some future date, components constitute
a single unit of property only when they are necessary for the
unit to perform its intended function at the time the unit is
placed in service. See Armstrong World Indus., Inc. v.
Commissioner, 974 F.2d at 432, 434; Consumers Power Co. v.
Commissioner, 89 T.C. at 725. Here, the nuclear power plants and
the respective spent fuel rack systems operated before the
installation of the spent fuel racks in issue. Once petitioner
placed operational spent fuel racks into service, any subsequent
racks added to the power plants constitute separate units of
property.
Further, the fact that the spent fuel rack system is
designed to “accommodate” fuel from another unit fails to show
that the units are functionally interdependent. Although the
Page: Previous 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011