ML20148D105
| ML20148D105 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Pilgrim |
| Issue date: | 02/04/1974 |
| From: | Hendrie J US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | Ray D US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20148D021 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8009150074 | |
| Download: ML20148D105 (1) | |
Text
_
.J.
9 D. 1-10 din nsvTwa :
L-Docket File T N L-Rdg h JMHendrie-Rdg (2)
(g)
FEB
974
/ LMMuntzing g
DR-Rdg h
GErtter-DR-6513 H
MCTE TO Chairman Ray MCroff-DA-6513 j
' ~
R RE: 1.ETTER F20M BOSTON EDISON CCefPANT AND MR. MUNTZING'S REPLY W
T The Secretariat par ed along a notation from your reading file copy of the Deces
- 6, 1973, letter from Boston Edison. The note asked that we, lude in our reply the substance of the s taff view on their "need for power" case. As we have said j
previously, we do not believe that Boston Edison made any sub-a s tantive and specific case on their need for power. Copies of the Bos ton Edison submittals of November 14 and 30 are athchad.
The former does not mention the need for power (although there
~
vas a limited discussion of the point at a meeting on Novecd>cr 15),
and the latter makes only a general plea about fuel conservation and storage vs. delivery considerations.
We have included in Mr. Hunt:ing's reply the two essential points made to the t'ermission in discussions of the Boston Edison case.
The firs t was that their mid-Nove:aber submittals contained nothing new on safety matters and served only to confirm the staff's previous judgment as to an acceptable operating period.
The second point was that it appeared to the staff that the mos t effective use of the Pilgrin Station to 3.vc fuel oil would be to shut down as soon as practicable, repair the core dinage, and return the machine to full power for the balance of the winter.
However, Soston Edison proposed to incorporate refueling operations into the snutdown and thus to extend the shutdom substantially, both vitn regard to the need for preparation and with regard to the lengtn of the shutdown itself.
Although both these points are made in our letter, we have atte=rpted to s tate them without any undue detail or emphasis of the sort that might attract some further intervenor action against Boston Edison.
Also, we think it best not to point out that Boston Edison's estimates of the ti:ne of the peak vinter load have changed from
~
the week preceding Christmas (in their utid-Horember sutraittal) ta mid-January (in their re.cnt letter), to suit their arg.=nents of the momen t.
bisinal sismed by
'~
J. y,.ge %
Joseph M. Hendrie, Deputy Director f
for Technical Reviev q
Directorate of Licensing Atac hmen t s :
1.
L:tM ltr. to Bos t. Ed, Feb. 1, 1974 p-/,9 l
2.
3ost. Ed l tr. to Chm., Dec. 26, 1973 L: a 3.
Bost. Ed l tr. to V. Moo re, Nov. 30, 1973 4.
3ost. Ed l tr. to 474, Nov. 14, 1973 JMHendrie._:s j
8 0091500 h o
-.