ML19309A561
| ML19309A561 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/12/1980 |
| From: | Martin D NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Montet G ARGONNE NATIONAL LABORATORY |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19309A562 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-PROJ-M-25 NUDOCS 8003310437 | |
| Download: ML19309A561 (2) | |
Text
D A 90
}l O
f
[/) I gwogb UNITED STATES
~
['
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 54 Ly WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 k.u,/
FEB 121950
..+
Dr. George Montet Environmental Impact Studies Division Argonne National Laboratory 9700 South Cass Avenue Argonne, Illinois 60439
Dear Dr. Montet:
As per our telephone conversation cf February 4,1980, I have enclosed a copy of a draft DOE " Analysis Report" which updates the U. S. installed nuclear power projections presented in the 1978 DOE Annual Report.
The revised projections, which ostensibly account for recent events such as Tl1I are 106 GWe in 1985,140 GWe in 1990, and 179 GWe in 1995. A simple extrapolation of the 1985 to 1995 growth rate (7.3 GWe/yr) yields projection of 216 GWe in the year 2000.
It is requested that ANL use these data in updating and revising Chapter.3 of the draft GEIS.
In addition, a conversion factor of 160 tit V 08 (in 3
yellowcake form) per GWe-yr should be utilized in estimating uranium requirements. The time iag between yellowcake production and rod placement in the core should also be incorporated, unless an inordinate amount of effort would be necessary. The history and future trend of the average ore grade being processed should also be characterized, based on available DOE estimates of the average grade of the various categories of U. S.
uranium reserves.
The basis for the conversion factor of 160 NT U 0 /GWe-33 yr is provided in the attached copy of a page from a draft NUS Corporation report, modified to reflect an average capacity factor of 65 percent as used in the DOE analysis. This basis should be fully presented in the final GEIS as the NUS report is not likely to tie published in the near future.
Also in accordance with our February 4 conversation, it is requested that ANL prepare two new appendices for the final GEIS, devoted to:
a) Summarization of all research efforts; and b) Characterization of current or anticipated U. S. milling facilities (conventional and insite).
The appendix summarizing research efforts should require only relabeling and minor editing of a similar report already being generated by ANL under Task 3 of FIN A2143.
The appendix characterizing known U. S. milling facilities should be costed under Task 2 of A2143, should be as complete as possible, and should be detailed enough to allow tentative analysis of the necessity, feasibility, and cost of imposing the proposed regulations on existing facilities.
I too w o+ n
.G Dr. George Montet IES I2 580 l
I have begun the process of synthesizing individual public comments and hope to begin distributing these to appropriate responsible parties in the near future. As previously outlined, NRC will be responsible for responding to comments of a legal or policy nature, all comments on the proposed regulations per se, and comments on the portions of the overall radiological analysis which we authored.
Please keep me fully informed of your progress with respect to your assigned responsibilities.
In addition, please do not hesitate to call to my attention any problems, or any ideas you or your staff may have as to how we might improve the quality and relevance of our final product.
Sincerely, 49 f/ m/D g3H Go
/ cLWO j
Dan E. Martin, G IS Project Manager l
Uranium Recovery Licensing Branch Division of Waste llanagement
Enclosures:
Copy draft DOE /EIA Analysis Report Copy of page A-5 of draft NUS S-3 update report cc:
C. Roberts, ANL/EIS D. Harmon, NRC/OSD E. Grammer, NRC/ ELD K. Hamill, NRC/NMSS
.