ML19256A279

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Notes 781103 Conversation W/G Pollak Re Inconsistencies in Estimates of Cost & Exposure Values for Transshipment Between 780602 Study & Proposed Licensing Action:Environ Impact Appraisal
ML19256A279
Person / Time
Site: 07002623
Issue date: 11/07/1978
From: Spitalny B
NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS)
To:
NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS)
Shared Package
ML19256A277 List:
References
NUDOCS 7811280019
Download: ML19256A279 (2)


Text

/

' /[

%,*g UNITED STATES

/

j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION p

g WASHINGTON, D. C. 20556

~

Docket 70-2623 NOV 7 1978 NOTE T0: Files FROM:

B. S. Spitalny Fuel Reprocessing and Recycle Branch

SUBJECT:

DOCUMENTATION OF TELEPHONE CONVERSATION BETWEEN MYSELF AND GREG POLLAK (DUKE POWER COMPANY) WITH RESPECT TO COST AND EXPOSURE ESTIMATES OF SHIPPING SPENT FUEL FROM OCONEE TO McGUIRE BACKGROUND:

As a result of reviewing the Environmental Impact Appraisal (EIA) for the proposed licensing action, inconsistencies in estimates of cost and exposure values for transshipment were uncovered.

At a meeting held on June 2,1978 at NRC, the applicant furnished a study pertaining to the subject estimates. This study, in brief, estimated the cost and exposure relative to the shipment of fuel (through 1982) to be approximately $3,000,000 and 240 man-rem respectively. Present values for the sanie two considerations are

$600,000 and 120 man-rem. The sources for these revised numbers are:

1) verbal ormiunication between the applicant (Greg Pollak) and myself on 10/18/78,2) letter from the applicant dated 10/18/78 discussing alternative of reracking Oconee 1 and 2, and 3) letter from applicant dated 10/20/78 discussing numerous topics for additional information. The substantial discrepancy in these numbers was the rcason for this phone call.

DISCUSSION:

On 11/3/78, I called Greg Pollak to alert him of these inconsistencies.

His response was that he agreed there was quite a difference, however, there were a number of factors that were being considered, e'id he felt that the change could be justified.

I told him that I would like to see a justification in writing to clarify the inconsistencies in docu-ments furnished by the applicant. He said he would contact the appropriate people on Monday (11/6) and resolve this issue.

78112800d'

i NOV 7 1978 Files 2-I reiterated the fact that the staff documents are to be issued within two weeks, and that this matter must be addressed as soon as possible.

ht_ctt 6. 5%g -

8. S. Spitalny

\\

Fuel Reprocessing and Recycle Branch Division of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety cc:

W. Parker, Duke Power Co.

\\