ML20148D119
| ML20148D119 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Pilgrim |
| Issue date: | 02/01/1974 |
| From: | Muntzing L US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | Staszesky F BOSTON EDISON CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20148D021 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8009150085 | |
| Download: ML20148D119 (3) | |
Text
,
Ac
- , f.,7 9,g
'uNirEo 57 Is. 1.
5
~.... ",
- ,..* 4,' qR ATOMIC: ENERGY C OMMISSION
..R (*
'wisaincros, o.c. sms y
.,f j) l"V A
?a s e
E.'-a cka t 4. 50-293
=
^
~S!? -
y, 77._ncis M. S taszesky
- 2.;,.
- hecutive Vice President d:g ~
Boston Edison Co=pany 800 3oylston Street
~
Boston, 11assachusetts 02199
=e
Dear *.tr. Staszesky:
-.=
2~. :: =
g="
Ua are pleased to respond to your lettar dated Dece=ber 25, 1973, to
,ify Ch s.ir-e- ~ Aap regarding the shutdown of the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station.
- 3 Your letter addresses two basic areas of concern.
The first of these L.h.:
4 relates to the' selection of the shutdown date specified in our 7"
Dececber 17 Deterninstion and Order which required the Pilgris Station,
":F to'shu: down during the week of Dececher 23, 1973.
The second concern
. identifies a potential unproductive outage which cay result from your "W
decision to perform a partial refueling, with fuel elecents of a new t
S design, during the shutdown for fuel chenel box replacecent and -
urges that the AIC review and approval of the anticipated license
'~~
submittal be expedited.
g ;..f..
In response to your co==ents relating to the required shutdown date g
for the Pilgrim Station, it continues to be the judgcent of the P.egulatory s taff that'only a li:1ted period of operation at reduced power level and coolant flow could be justified in view of the fuel chancel box 7,.
degradation, that was likely to have occurred.
In setting the period
'Je of about 60 days' frem October 16, 1973, the staff had considared all of the ele = ente presented in your subsequent subsittal of November 14 and presentation of Move ber 15.
Your sub=1ttal and presentation provided no significant information not previously considered by the staff.
Your subtirtal and presentation confirmed the bases for the staf f's previous conclusions and thus, in the staff's view, supported continuation of operation et the reduced conditions for the balance of the designated period, but of fered no basis for a::tanding that period.
+ l
=.
bN
" 'b d
..(J 8 009150 O P.6
', 1-12
.,-a
- '.r. Trancia M. Staszesky ~he 2egulatory s taff 's position regarding i~cs approval to allow the 1-1gri=. Station to operate for a linited time of about 60 days uas statei in our letter dated October 16, 1973, in the Determination by g
the Jirector of Regulation dated October 26, 1973, and in the Safety Ivaluation by the Directorate of Licensing Relating to Channel Box 1
' lear at Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station dated October 26, 1973.
This j
_ pesition was further clarified by the con =ents of Dr. J. M. Hendrie,
..f4 Deputy Director f or Technical Review, during the meeting of Boston
- [
Ifison and co=nission representatives on Novenber 13, 1973. At that-l tice,'it was stated thet operation until the March 1974 refueling outa;e could not be justified and that the existing plan for a shut-
. u..
~
d:wn af ter the expected Christcas peak load period in the latter part of Dececher should be carried out.
=i The scaff continues to believe that the period of about 60 days of
? N continued operation at reduced conditions was sufficient for prepara-a tion for shutdown and repair of any damaged fuel channel boxas. You H
have elected to extend this shutdown to include refueling operations, with consequent increases in the preparation ti=e required for the
~
shutdown mad in the length of the shutdown itself.
You report that
~
refueling now will elicinate the need for another shutdown for refueling in the f all of 1974 and will reduce the outage time of Pilgrim Station in 1974 by one conth or core.
Your analyses of your fual situation and generation needs presumably show this to be a.= ore desirable course enan -limiting the present shutdown to repair ef channel box damage and returning pilgris Station core quickly to full power operation.
' ith regard to your request urging pronpt review of licensing require =ents 7=
associated with this shutdown, the Regulator / staff will continua to (xpedite its review of any licensing actions associated with the return to power iron the fuel channel box shutdown.
'dovever, we are snee that you appreciate the need for a reasonable leac tice to per=1t the staff to review and evaluate a proposed ecdification to the f acility or its operation.
The amount of lead time and the langth of review is, of course, dependent upon the co=plexity of the requewted s an;e and whether the proposed change represents the first of a class of odifications which cay have generic inplications.
A change such as t.:e utiliz2ci:n of a new fuel design, not previously reviewed, j
~
nust be choroughly evaluated by the staff prior to appr. oval.
The a
i
~?h" m
b L:
i h
j r
t L
1
, 1-12
., ]*
4.
- a..
i.:r. Francis 't.
Staszesky r I
}
date for the'conpletirn of the revied is highly dependent upon a ti=ely submission of the request f or tha ' change,. and a complete and thorough analysis of the change, including all necessary supporting It should also be no ted that a possibility for hearing exis ts d :a.
vich respect to the petition filed with the Co=nission by the Friends All of these factors must be considered in developing of de Earth.
~
your schedule for returning the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station to operation.
i Sincerely, l
)
2..C..
WE::
i 2.E:-
L. *.!anning Muntzing. ~
Director of Regulation-
~
i
."'f'..
("
i
^
t s
I m
4 k
[
O g
n
.*.j j
'Tr.)
[0 1
l e
I e
i l
i
?
_ _-