ML19323E683
| ML19323E683 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/31/1980 |
| From: | Abramson L, Berkow H, Boyd S NRC OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND PROGRAM ANALYSIS (MPA), Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19323E678 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8005270127 | |
| Download: ML19323E683 (43) | |
Text
_.
s
,,e 0
NRC CASELOAD PLANNING PROJECTIONS FOR FISCAL YEARS 1982-86 i
Prepared by NRC Caseload Panel
.?
P};/$4 m
0: lQst) _
Sybil M. Boyd, Chairman
(
b'
.4vw %
drf *v/k, A
Lee Abramson Ge~rge Maphews, III o
Management and Program Analysis Inspection and Enforcement C.k fWf
%k b
L- -
/
Herbert N. Berkow
.Jpck E. Rothfleisch4 Nuclear Reactor Regulation
' Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards
/d
. c ? /c.
l w A-fl.a.-en!--
William H. Lovelace Lester J. Schaub Management and Program Analysis Office of the Controller March 1980 (Data as of February 1980) 8005270{ M
i i
Planning Projections for Fiscal Years 1982-1986 Table of Contents Page No.
1.0 Background and Summary....................................
1 2.0 Power Reactors Casework Program...........................
4 3.0 Fuel Cycle and Materials Program..........................
6 4.0 Waste Management Program..................................
11 4.1 High-level Waste.....................................
11 4.2 Low-Level Waste......................................
11 4.3 Uranium Recovery.....................................
12 5.0 Spent Fuel Storage Program................................
18 6.0 Transportation Program....................................
19 7.0 Safeguards Program........................................
20 8.0 International Program.....................................
26 APPENDICES A.
Procedures for Estimating Fuel Load Dates for Reactors Under Construction 28 B.
Urarium Recovery - Agreement States Assistance Program (Requests In-House).....................
37 C.
Potential Additional Agreement States Assistance Projects........................................
38 D.
Data Sources...............................................
39 E.
Glossary...................................................
40
i 11 8
0 List of Tables '
Page No.
1.
Power Reactor Caseload.......................................
5 2.
Uranium Fuel Fabrication Facilities..........................
7 3.
Plutonium R&D and Pilot Facilities...........................
8 4.
UF Production Facilities....................................
9 6
5.
Radioisotopes Licensing......................................
10 6.
LLW Disposal Sites...........................................
13 7.
Uranium Milling..............................................
14 8.
Other Uranium Ore Processing.................................
15 9.
Solution Mining (Commercial Scale)...........................
16
- 10. Other Solution Recovery 17 11.
Independent Spent Fuel Storage Facilities....................
18 12.
Transportation Reviews.......................................
19 13.
Material Control & Accounting Reviews........................
21 14.
Physical Security Reviews....................................
23 15.
Export / Import Licensing......................................
27 16.
Plants Visited (Table A-1)...................................
33
- 17. Sources of Panel Estimates (Table A-2).......................
34 18.
Projected Number of Reactors Ready for Fuel Loading by Year (Table A-3)..................................
35 List of Figures 1.
Reactors in Commercial Operation (No. of Plants).............
3 2.
Reactors in Commercial Operation (GWe).......................
3 3.
Model Curve for Estimating Fuel Load Dates (Figure A-1)......
36
i 1
NRC CASELOAD PLANNING PROJECTIONS F0P. FISCAL YEARS 1982-86 1.0 The Caseload Panel was designated in late 1975 to assist the Budget Review Group (BRG).
The Panel is chaired by a repr5sentative from the Office of Management and Program Analysis. Membership on the Panel is designated by the Office Directors for Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Inspection and Enforce-ment, Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards, the Controller, and Management and Program Analysis.
The Panel develops caseload projections for use by the NRC staff in budget preparation and longer range program planning. The projections are to be utilized within the overall policy and planning framework contained in the NRC FY 1982-86 " Policy, Planning, and Program Guidance" (PPPG).* Specific workload and manpower loadings based on these projections are developed by individual offices. The projections herein are based primarily on surveys conducted by NRR and NMSS of industry plans over the next three years.
Additional workload is also generated on a continuous. basis as a result of NRC's post-licensing activities and inspection purview of all operational facilities.
The caseload projections as detailed in the following sections are summar-ized below:
1.
By the end of FY 86 there are expected to be about 135 reactors (124 GWe) operating or ready for fuel loading;**
2.
Only one new Construction Permit application *** is expected in the early to mid-1980's; about 2-8 applications per year will be tendered for operating licenses for plants already under construction; 3.
NRC will be conducting site characterization reviews (in a variety of media) for a high-level waste repository application throughout FY 81-86; an application is expected to be tendered by DOE by 1987; i
Draft issued by the Chairman March 10, 1980.
(See also E00 comments dated March 24, 1980.)
If comercial operation is assumed to occur about 1 year after initial licensing, the equivalent number of reactors in commercial operation by FY 86 would be about 124 (111 GWe).
Based on a separate analysis done by MPA, time from CP application'in the 1983-1984 period to commercial operation for a large reactor is, based on historical trends, expected to be about 15-16 years; thus any reactor application tendered after that time would not be expected to be in commercial operation by the year 2000. Based on the FY 82-86 projections, Figures 1 and 2 depict the projected trend of reactors in commercial operation from 1965 to 2000.
If the lower projections (Curves (2) or (3)) prove to be more accurate, the curves will likely not flatten out by the mid-to-late 1980's but will probably more gradually slope to an overall projection of about 123 GWe by the year 2000.
The only plant currently on order for which a CP application has not been j
tendered is Commonwealth Edison's proposed Carroll County 1 and 2 plant.
l 2
'4..
Four additional facilities for storage of spent fuel away from reactors are expected to be licensed during the planning period; these should meet the demand of about 5,000 MT anticipated by about FY 83; 5.
By the end of the planning period, there are expected to be 23 fuel cycle facilities under NRC licensing authority and approximately 10,500 radioisotope licenses:
6.
Up to 9 licensed LLW disposal sites (including the 3 currently li-censed) are expected by the end of FY 86, and NRC assistance on 6 other sites is expected to be provided to Agreement States; 7.
By the end of the planning period there are expected to be about 24 licensed uranium mills and about 70 additional licenses for other types of activities, such as solution mining and ore-buying stations;
- 8. ' Transportation reviews will average about 55 per year throughout FY 82-86; about 300-400 shipments of radioactive material per year will require a safeguards review and will be monitored in transit; 9.
About 400 material control & accounting and about 500 physical security reviews for various fuel cycle facilities, power and non-power reactors will be required each year throughout the planning l
period; and i
10.
Export and import licenses will average about 1,000 reviews per year throughout the planning period; approximately 15% are designated major cases (which require Commission approval); and another 15-20%
require safeguards reviews.
l l
i l
J
ESTIMATES OF REACTORS IN COPNERCIAL OPERATION
~
FIGURE I Fl@RE 2 Number of Reactors Capacity (GWe)
No. of Reactors S
200 200<
180 180.
(1) 160 -
160-gjy 140 -
(2) 140-120 -
120 -
(3) 100 100 w
80 80-60 60-40 40_
1 l
- 'O 20-0 0'
End of FY FY FY FY FY FY End of FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1 5 2000 FY 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 i
a p
Legend:
1 Curve (1) - All reactors in caseload pipeline l
Curve (2) - All reactors with CP's issued Curve (3) - All reactors with first concrete poured
s 4
2.0 Power Reactors Casework Program
- Casework consists of licensing effort associated with the safety, environ-mental, and antitrust reviews of applications for a construction permit (CP),
operating license (0L), Preliminary or Final Design Approval (PDA or FDA) of a standard plant design, early site approval, and post-construction permit activi ties.
This effort also includes the safety review of DOE facilities.
The CP review includes the safety aspects of the applicant's preliminary de-sign of a nuclear facility, and also includes a detailed review of the site selection process, and the environmental aspects of the proposed site. This review must be completed prior to the start of any construction. A limited work authorization (LWA) may be issued prior to issuance of a CP if all NEPA and site suitability considerations are satisfied.
The OL review addresses the final design of the plant. This phase starts approximately three years prior to the expected fuel load date.
The standard plant design concept offers an opportunity for reactor designers and architect / engineers to sub-mit for review standard designs that can be referenced by future license applicants, thereby reducing the staff manpower and the time required for review of individual applications.
Early site reviews (ESR) are conducted to evaluate the environmental and site suitability aspects of sites to be used in future CP applications.
Only one new construction permit application will be received in the early to mid-1980's.
No new orders are expected beyond-those already announced.
(The only plant currently on order for which a CP application has not been tendered is Comonwealth Edison's proposed Carroll County 1 and 2 plant.)
The specific projections for licensed reactors were estimated by reviewing the applicant's projected date for construction completion, the date predicted and' estimates made by the Regional by the NRC model (see Appendix "A"), t.
Uffices of Inspection and Enforcemen During the past year, the Panel also visited 18 plants to observe construction progress first-hand.
The projections did not include any additional slippages stemming from TMI lessons-learned unless specific information was known. Adjustments were then made for plant-specific factors to arrive at the NRC projections.
The projections for this program area are shown in Table 1.
- As of the end of 1979, seventy-one (71) research reactors were licensed.
The nurber is exoected to remain fairly constant throughout the planning period. Any new applications would not likely require sufficient manpower to justify the Panel making projections for research reactors.
5 s
Table 1 POWER REACTOR CASELOAD FY1980 FY1981 FY1982 FY1983 FY1984 FY1985 FY1986 I
New Applications CP's 1(2) 4 OL's 8(15) 3(8) 6(13) 2(3) 2(2) 2(3) 5(11) l New Issuances 3
Construction Permits 6(11)2 1(2) 5 Licenses 5
9 12 9
11 11 11 Total Reactors 6 LicensedS 72 81 93 102 113 124 135 Total Reactors Under Constr.2 85 85 73 64 53 44 33 New Applications NSSS/B0P 1 1 Site Reviews 1 Reviews for DOE 5
1 3
2 2
2 2
NOTES:
1Number listed is total number of plants or applications; number in parentheses is total number of reactors.
2 The number of plants at the end of FY 79 includes two units already being constructed under an LWA but which are not projected for CP's issued until FY 1981; thus they were not re-added during those respective years.
Two additional units being constructed under an LWA at the end of FY 1979 were cancelled early in FY 1980. Also, tiie number of reactors under construction excludes Sterling 1 and James-port 1 & 2 which have been denied certification by the N.Y. State Siting BoPrd.
3 1ssuances are based on the assumption that CP reviews are resumed in FY 1980.
4New OL applications are based on tendering dates, but as a practical matter the actual reviews may not start until a later date, depending on NRR manpower constraints.
5 Projections are based on dates when construction is estimated to be complete enough to permit issuance of an initial fuel load and/or low power testing license.
0Excludes 3 which have operating licenses but are shut down indefinitely -
Three Mile Island 2, Humboldt Bay, and Indian Point 1.
f o
6 3.0 Fuel Cycle and Materials Safety Program This program area covers licensing of byproduct material, source mater-ial, and special nuclear material, as well as the facilities that process and fabricate fuel for reactors.
NRC exercises licensing authority over UF6 production facilities, uranium fuel fabrication plants and plutonium R&D facilities. (See Tables 2-4.)
Standard assumptions for specific review times were supplied by NMSS.
Depending on the type of facility, renewals and amendments could be completed within six months to two years after receipt.
Enrichment plants are government owned and are not subject to licensing.
The fuel cycle program area also includes safety reviews of DOE-owned waste processing facilities, such as the Savannah River High Level Waste Treatment Facility. One review of this type per year is anticipated in FY 1982-84.
Table 5, " Radioisotopes," includes projections for byproduct, source, and special nuclear material.
It is anticipated that by the beginning of FY 81, radioisotopes licenses will be processed within 30-45 days from receipt.
The projections in Table 5 do not reflect any increase in new applications / licenses which might be required as a result of the study currently underway on consumer products (to be completed FY 1981) or the re-examinations of existing NRC policy in the use of general licenses (to be completed in FY 1983).
7 TABLE 2 URANIUM FUEL FABRICATION FY1980 FY1981 FY1982 FY1983 FY1984 FY1985 FY1986 New Facilities Received 1
0 0
0 0
0 0
Completed 0
1 0
0 0
0 0
Major Amendments Received 9**
21***
22*
9*
9*
9*
9*
Renewals Received 1
5 5
1 2
4 6
Total Licensed End FY 17 18 18 18 18 18 18 NOTES:
New Facility - Little growth projected. Application in FY 80 is for Westinghouse, Prattville, Alabama plant.
Major Amendments - Identified companies partially for FY 80 and FY 81.
Estimates for FY 80-86 based on past experience.
In FY 81, 8, and, in FY 82, 9 major amendments to existing emergency plans are projected. Also in FY81 and FY82, 4 major amendments per year are pro-jected to incorporate Clean Air Act requirements for certain fuel fabrication plants.
Renewals - All renewals based on identified companies.
- .sil unidentified
- Two unidentified
- Two identified h
8 Table 3 PLUT0NIUM R&D AND PILOT FACILITIES FY1980 FYl981 FY1982 FY1983 FY1984 FY1985 FY1986 New Facilities Receivej 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
Completed 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
Major Amendments
- Received 1
2 3
1 0
0 1
Renewals Received 0
0 0
0 1
2 1
Total Licensed End FY 8
6 3
3 3
3 3
NOTES: Major Amendments - Identified companies for 80 and partially for 81.
Estimates for 82-86 based on continued moratorium on Plutonium recycle.
Renewdls - All renewals are based on identified companies.
- Including decommissioning.
Licensees have adequate authority to conduct decontamination activities leading to decommissioning of their facilities.
However, assessment of the status of the facility following decontamination to provide approval for release of the facility for unrestricted use requires staff effort comparable to that of a major amendment.
l l
g o.
Table 4 FUEL CYCLE FACILITIES UF Production Facilities 6
FY1980 FY1981 FYl982 Fvl983 FY1984 FY1985 FY1986 New Facilities Received 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
Completed 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
Major Amendments Received 1
3 1*
1*
1*
1*
1*
Renewals Received 0
0 1
1 0
0 0
Total Licensed End FY 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
NOTES: New Facility - None projected by industry for this period.
Major Amendments - Identified companies for 80.
Estimates for 81-86 based on past needs.
Includes 2 major amendments to incorporate emergency plans into existing licenses.
Renewals - Identified companies for all renewals.
- All unidentified
o -
10 Table 5 RADI0IS0 TOPES LICENSING _,
FY1980 FY1981 FY1982 FY1983 FY1984 FY1985 FY1986 1
Appls. Received:
New Licenses 710 720 760 840 845 780 760 Amendments 3300 3300 3300 3300 3300 3300 3300 Renewals 800 850 1100 1700 1715 1285 1100 Total Licenses 8950 9200 9450 9700 9950 10200 10500 NOTES: New Licenses - Based on historical data for new licenses; includes about 10% of expired licenses which are not renewed, but are issued as new licenses.
Amendments - Based on historical data, but expected to remain constant.
Renewals - Approximttely 70% of licenses up for renewal are actually renewed.
Total Licenses - About a 3% net increase per year.
l 1
11 4.0 Waste Management Program NRC's Waste Management Program is composed of three parts:
high level waste (including transuranic wastes and spent fuel to be placed in deep geologic respositories for permanent disposal), low level waste, and uranium recovery.
High level and 1cw level waste disposal were addressed by the Interagency Group Report on Nuclear Waste Management (IRG).
4.1 High Level Waste NRC's authority to license and regulate the disposal of high level radioactive waste is derived from three statutes:
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, and the National Environmental Policy Act ofIM9.
DOE has been given sole authority to dispose of commercially generated high level waste.
In anticipation of the first DOE Application, NRC will con-centrata on regulations, guidance, and supporting data.
The :esident's recent message to Congress outlined the time frame for resolving technical issues leading to an operational waste repository in the early 1990's. The exact timing of a specific 00E application to NRC is unknown at this time, but it is anticipated that NRC will.be conducting site characterization reviews and will be involved in other pre-licensing efforts during FY 1981-86.
4.2 Low-Level Waste NRC's authority to license and regulate the disposal of low-level radioactive waste is derived from three statutes:
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
The low-level waste management program is divided into two major areas:
regulatory development and licensing casework. A regulation is in prepara-tion on the disposal c f low-level waste (10 CFR 61).
Regulatory guides and review procedures are uso included..NRC licenses low-level waste disposal sites in non-Agreement States and provides technical assistance, as resources permit, to Agreement States in the licensing of disposal sites within State jurisdiction.
The low-level waste management program requires input and coordinatior, from other NRC offices and other Federal agencies.
The new LLW applications projected in Table 6(a) are new commercial sites, assuming no changes from existing Federal and State regulatory roles.
Technical assistance to Agreement States is also part of the LLW program.
The three existing operational sites - Barnwell, Beatty, and Hanford - are located in Agreement States.
(See Table 6(b).)
Although specific sites are not yet identified, it is anticipated that more capacity will be required, due to the current position held by the Governors of the three States (Washington, South Carolina, and Nevada) s
o with operating sites.
The Governors do not believe that three States should bear the nation's low-level waste burden.
Each State should be responsible for its own low-level wastes and the Governors are taking measures to assure that other States accept this responsibility.
The States are evaluating options for establishing new sites in their own State and for forming compacts to jointly sponsor sites.
Additionally, if the IRG recommendations and the President's recommenda-tions are implemented through legislative action, NRC will be required to license new 00E shallow land burial sites.
In addition, the recom-mendations of the Congressionally requested NRC study entitled, "Regu.
lation of Federal Radioactive Faste Activities" (NUREG-0527), would have NRC conduct in conjunction with DOE a pilot program to test the feasi-i bility of extending the NRC regulatory authority on a consultative basis to existing DOE waste management activities. The Commission has assumed there will be no extension of NRC regulatory authority to DOE waste activities unless required by Congress and thus projections for this activity are not included in this report.
4.3 Uranium Recovery NRC's authority to license and regulate uranium recovery operations is derived from four statutes:
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (UMTRCA).
The uranium recovery management program consists of the licensing and regulation of uranium recovery operations.
Such operations include uranium mills, heap leaching, are buying stations, commercial solution mining (in-situ), and research and development uranium extraction.
Pro-jections for these licensing actions are shown in Tables 7-10.
The NRC also provides technical assistance to Agreement States in assessing environmental impacts of uranium recovery facilities under State juris-diction. As of the end of FY 1979, 21 requests were in-house and an additional 24 projects in Agreement States are identified which may result in requests for NRC assistance during the next year or two.
(See Appendices B and C.)
In addition to the potential projects listed in Appendix C, a distinct
-possibility exists that some of the current Agreement States, who perform their own uranium mill licensing, may return this licensing authority to the NRC. This would increase current casework. At this time, however, it would be pure speculation to try to predict the increased future work-load due to this possible occurrence.
Pursuant to the requirements of Title I of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (Public Law 95-604), NRC will also be in-volved in the remedial action program for 25 inactive tailings sites under DOE. control.
This involvement will take the form of providing reviews and comments, concurrences, and licensing actions at appropriate points-in the remedial action process.
It is expected _that efforts will be initiated on all 25 projects during FY 1980, and that these efforts will be continued concurrently for all of the projects until all_are completed in about 5 years.
o l
13 The workload is expected to be evenly distributed during this period.
Therefore, for purposes of projecting the required expenditure of man-power, a good approximation is that 5 cases will be incoming over each of the next 5 years (FY 1980 through FY 1984).
Table 6(a)
Licensed LLW Disposal Sites FY1980 FY1981 FY1982 FY1983 FY1984 FY1985 FY1986 New Sites
- Received 0
2 3
1 0
0 0
Completed 0
0 0
2 3
1 0
Major Amendments Received 2
0 2
0 0
2 0
Rene4als Received 1
0 1
0 0
1 0
Total Sites Licensed 3
3 3
5 8
9 9
Identified 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
Unidentified 0
0 0
2 5
6 6
Table 6(b)
Assistance to Agreement States LLW Disposal Sites FY1980 FY1981 FY1982 FY1983 FY1984 FY1985 FY1986 New Sites
- O 2
3 1
0 0
0 Modifications for existing sites 5
4 6
5 7
10 10
- NOTE: All new sites are unidentified.
i I
e
14 Table 7 URANIUM MILLING FY80 FY81 FY82 FY83
.FY84 FY85 FY86 NewFacilijies Received 3
4 2
1,,
0 0,.,
O 4
f Completed 0
3 4
2 1
0 0
2 l
Major Amendments 4
4 5
5 5
5 Received 6
7 8
8 9
9 10 3
Renewals Received 0
1 3
1 5
3 3
2 Total Licensed End FY 15 17*
21 23 24 24 24 Identified 15 17 21 23 24 24 24 I
NOTES:
New Facilities - Identified companies through FY83.
2 J
Major Amendments - Identified companies in FY80.
For FY80-85 estimates based on experience and number of licensed mills.
3Renewals - All renewals based on identified companies.
4Two identified I
SAll unidentified TVA mill expected to be decommissioned in FY 81.
NMSS had suggested two new mill applications per year (based on reactivation of projects projected by industry but omitted in recent survey) for the years
)
1983-87, although only application 'in FY 1983) was identified. The Panel did
(
1 not believe there was sufficient basis for these estimates in view of the projected reactor capacity growth from 49 GWe at the present time to a maximum of 160 GWe by 1995.
If one assumes a 6,000 ton U 0 requirements per 1 GWe over a 30-year 3g life of a reactor, it appears that the dcmestic reactor industry would require only about 185,000 tons U,0 by 1995. Given recent DOE projections Statistical g
DataoftheUraniumIndustry(GJ0-100(7917ofa220,000tonU,0 U1. production g
capability through 1986 from already existing mills, with anotMer 100,000 tons additional capability becoming available during the early 1980's from already committed mills, it appears to the Panel that there is no strong basis for be-lieving the new licensed mill applications will continue into the mid to late 1980's without some reversing trend in the present downward slide of the U.S.
reactor projections. A similar situation could also be expected for mills in Agreement States.
The Panel recognized the market uncertainties caused by price and export considerations but believed,1f the above estimates of production capability are not greatly understated, there is indeed sufficient margin to handle these uncertainties.
~-
a.
15 Table 8 I
OTHER URANIUM ORE PROCESSING f (80 FY81 FY82 FY83 FY84 FY85 FY86 2
New Facilities 5
5 5
5 5
Received 2
3 1
1 I
I I
5 S
5 5
Completed 0
2 3
1 1
1 1
3 Major Amendments Received 0
0 0
1 0
0 0
4 Renewals Received 0
0 1
0 2
0 2
Total Licensed End FY 5
6*
9 10 10**
11 12 Identified 5
6 9
9 8
8 8
Unidentified 0
0 0
1 2
3 4
- Expect Plateau Resources facility to be decommissioned in FY81.
- Expect Energy Fuels Nuclear OBS to be decomissioned in FY84.
NOTES:
l Includes are buying stations and various above ground leaching operations.
2New Facilities - Identified companies in FY80-81.
Estimates for FY82-85 based on expected growth in heap leaching activities for low grade cres in place of conventional mills.
3Major Amendments - None expected except for FY83 decomissioning of OBS facility.
4Renewals -Based on identified companies FY80-86.
5 Unidentified.
1 4
16 Table 9 4
SOLUTION MINING (COMMERCIAL SCALE)
FY80 FY81 FY82 FY83 FY84 FY85 FY86 l
New Facilities 4
5 5
5 Received 1
4 3
3 3
3 3
4 5
5 Completed 1
2 4
3 3
3 3
2 Major Amendments 5
5 5
5 5
Received 0
1 2
2 2
2 3
3 Renewals Received 0
0 0
1 0
1 2
Total Lirensed End FY 2
4 8
11 14 17 20 Identified 2
4 8
11 12 12 12 Unidentified 0
0 0
0 2
5 8
NOTES:
1New Facilities - Identified companies in FY80-82.
Estimates for FY83-86 based on expected conversion of R&D facilities to commercial scale operations.
2Major Amendments - Identified company FY81.
Estimates for FY82-86 based on expected increased number of licensed facilities, j
3 Renewals - Based on identified companies.
40ne company identified.
5All unidentified.
9
17 Table 10 I
OTHER SOLUTION REC 0VERY FY80 FY81 FYS2 FY83 FY84 FY85 FY86 2
New Facilities 5
5 5
5 5
Received 3
5 3
3 3
3 3
5 5
5 5
Completed 2
7 1
3 3
3 3
3 Major Amendments Received 2
2 2
2 3
3 4
4 Renewals Received 2
2 1
5 2
6 5
Total Licensed End FY 17 24 25 28 31 34 37 Identified 17 24 25 25 25 25 25 Unidentified 0
0 0
3 6
9 12 NOTES:
l Includes R&D solution mining and recovery of uranium as a byproduct from solutions.
2New Facilities - Identified companies in FY80-81.
Estimates based on anticipated increased interest in solution mining for FY 82-86.
3Major Amendments - Identified companies in FY80.
Estimates for FY81-86 based on number of licensed facilities.
4Renewals - All renewals based on identified companies.
5All unidentified.
1 s
o 18 5.0 Spent Fuel Storage Program Without reprocessing, spent fuel now has to be stored at reactor sites.
Such storage will soon become inadequate.
Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installations need to be operating beginning in the period FY83 to FY85 to meet off-site storage demand.
Installed capacity of about 5,000 MT will bA required to cover the needs up until the late 1980's.
Expansion of two existing facilities, Barnwell and GE-Morris, and one new facility for the storage of. spent fuel outside of operating reactor pools will require licensing review if DOE implements its spent fuel storage policy.
Implementation of that policy is dependent upon passage by Congress of the Spent Fuel Storage Bill.
(If the Bill is not passed, and there are no government-owned facilities, similar types of applications may be submitted by commercial utilities.) Notwithstanding the passage of that Bill, another large capacity ISFSI application is anticipated by TVA in FY84.
The total casework projections are shown below:
Table 11 Independent Spent Fuel Storage Facilities FY1980 F_Y1981 FY1982 FY1983 FY1984 FY1985 Fil986 Applications Received 0
2 1
0 1
0 0
Approval to Construct 0
0 0
2 1
0 1
Total Licensed 2
2 2
2 2
4 5
NOTES:
- 1) Also expect to complete in FY 1980 the review of Duke Power Company's request for transhipment of spent fuel, but this does not result in a license.
- 2) The FY 1981 applications are for DOE facilities A (Barnwell) and B (Morris).
3)
The FY 1982 application is for DOE acquisition of the NFS-West Valley spent fuel pool.
4)
Currently licensed by NRC is the Morris facility, noted above, and NFS-West Valley.
5)
The FY 1984 application is for a TVA ISFSI.
19 6.0 Transportation Program The Transportation Program Area deals with the regulation of transportation of radioactive materials.
Certificates of Compliance are issued for packaging designs for radioactive materials on the basis of their satis-fying the requirements of 10 CFR Part 71. A memora..Jum of understanding to resolve overlapping regulatory authority in this area has been devel-oped between NRC and the Department of Transportation.
Reviews of package designs, for which projections are shewn in Table 2, are classified as Category I, II, III, IV, or V, as follows:
Review Category Description I
Spent Fuel Casks Plutonium Air Transport Packages High Level Waste Casks II Normal Form Type B Packages III Special Form Type B Packages Fissile Type A Packages Amendments to Major I Packages IV Amendments to Major II or Major III Packages V
Quality Assurance Programs Renewals Table 12 Transportation Reviews Applications Received FY 80 FY 81 FY 82 FY 83 FY 84 FY 85 FY 86 Category I Reviews 1
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
Category II Reviews 10 9(5) 9(6) 9(7)
(9)
(9)
(9)
Category III Reviews 13 15(11) 15(14) 15(14)
(15)
(15)
(15)
Category IV Reviews 15 15(5) 15(8) 15(11) 1E(13)
(15)
(15) j Category V Reviews 20 15(8) 15(11)
(15)
(10)
(15)
(15) l l
Total Reviews 59 55(30) 55(40) 55(48) 55(53)
(55)
(55) l NOTE: Numbers given in parentheses are for as yet unidentified reviews.
I i
20 7.0 Safeguards Program Under the Atcmic Energy Act of 1954 and the Energy Reorganization.Act of 1974, the NRC is responsible for the regulation of safeguards provided by certain of its licensees.
NRC currently has safeguards regulatory control over 19 fuel cycle facilities that are authorized to possess formula quantities of highly enriched uranium or plutonium, transpor-tation activities involving spent fuel or formula quantities of highly enriched uranium or plutonium (about 20 shipments per month), 70 licensed power reactors and 71 non-power reactors.
NRC also has safeguards responsibilities for other facilities which possess significant quantities of low enriched uranium as well as numerous small facilities that possess and ship SNM (48 licensees and 2 shipments per month ),
The NRC Domestic Safeguards Program is composed of two parts: (1) Mater-ial Control and Accounting (MC&A), and (2) Physical Security.
Under the MC&A portion (see Table 13), NRC reviews new MC&A licensee plans and revisions to existing plans and institutes remedial. licensing actions based on the results of inspections and. evaluations.
Under the physical security portion (see Table 14), NRC reviews physical protection plans, guard training plans, contingency plans and revisions to existing plans and institutes remedial licensing actions based on results of inspections and evaluation.
9
21 Table 13 Material Control and Accounting Caseload FY 1980 - FY 1986 (Receipt)
Category FISCAL YEAR 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 Dom:stic Case Work Major Plan Change hf
()
(h)
(0)
(
(
(0 (0)
Category I Physical Security Upgrade MC&A Review 2 9
0 0
0 0
0 0
Category I MC&A Upgrade Amendments 3 0
0 10 5(c) 2 (c ),
0 0
Integrated Rule 0
0 0
0 9
0 0
4 7
5(b) 6(c) 2(c) 2(c) 2(c) 2(c)
Major Remedial Actions IAEA Facility 5 Attachment reviews 10 90 90 50 20 20 20 (Major reviews)
(10)
(8)(a) 0 0
0 0
0 Minor Domestic Casework Plan Change Application 94 80 80 80 80 80 80 Remedial 11 10 10 10 10 10 10 International Case Work ForeignCogntryMC&A Analysis 10 20 20 25 J5 25 25 7
Export reviews 140 140 150 150 150 150 150 Regulatory Issue Cases 0
Generic issues 8
21 20 20 20 20 20 9
Regulatoryamendmegts 10 8
21 20 20 20 20 Guidance documents 20 16 42 40 40 40 40 9
Value-impgtanalyses 6
2 4
4 4
4 4
Testimony 0
1 0
2 1
1 1
. TOTAL REVIEWS 330 396 455 393-
-365-376 376 (a) Two cases are unidentified
'N (b) Four cases are unidentified (c) All cases are unidentified 9
22 Material Control and Accounting Caseload FOOTNOTES s
1.
Application submitted for a license or to amend a license.
2.
MC&A reviews of 9 Physical Security Upgrade licensing amendments.
3.
Amendments to existing licenses will be required in FY82 as a result of the MC&A upgrade rule scheduled in FY1981.
4.
Remedial action required from I&E reports.
5.
Review and assistance to licensees required to complete facility attachments as a result of the IAEA Agreement.
6.
Reviews required to support the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act.
7.
Reviews for the export of HEU, LEU, and source material and major imports as well as retransfers and agreements for cooperation.
8.
Specific generic issue cases have been identified through FY81, and partially for FY82.
Rt.laining FY82 and generic issue cases for FY83 through FY86 are based on past experience.
9.
Regulatory amendments, guidance documents, and value-impact analysis cases for FY81 are based on prior year generic issue cases.
Regulatory amendments result in licensing casework one year later.
10.
Testimony cases are based on generic issue cases from second pre-vious fiscal year.
i e
23 Table 14 Physical Security FY 1980 - FY 1986 (Receipt)
Ca tegory -
FISCAL YEAR 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 Domestic _CaseWofi.
Fuel Cycle:
Category I Physicall Security Upgrade Rule Fixed Site 9
0 0
0 0
0 0
Transportation 3
0 0
0 0
0 0
Category II/III Rule 2 Fixed Site 24 2
2(b) 2(b) 2(b) 2(b) 2(b)
Transportation 20 2
2(b) 2(b) 2(b) 2(b) 2(b)
Integrated Rule 0
0 0
0 9
0 0
Major Remedial Actions 3 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
3thar minor remedial cases Fixed Site 40 100 100 100 100 100 100 Transportation' 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 sajor Plan Change" Applications 0
3 1(a) 3(b) 2(b) 2(b) 2(b)
(new) 0 (2 )
(0)
(1 )
(0)
(0)
(0)
Transportation:s Spent Fuel Plans 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 Spent Fuel Shipments 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 Cat I/II Shipments 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 Power R5 actors:
Contingency Plan 6 6
6 6
6 6
6 6
Guard Training ~ Plans 6 6
6 6
6 6
6 6
Physical Security Plan 6 6
6 6
6 6
6 6
Vital Area Analysis 31 13 6
6 6
6 6
Minor Remedial Licensing 55 6
6 6
6 6
6 Minor Amendments for I&E 10 30 50 64 64 64 64
' Reports 7
Minor Plan Change 20 40 60 64 64 64 64 Applications 1 (a) one unidentified case l (b) two unidentified cases
24 TABLE 14 (Cont'd)
Physical Security FY 1980 - FY 1986 (Receipt)
Category FISCAL YEAR 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 Non-Power Reactor:
Cat II/III Rule 40 0
0 0
0 0
0 Cat I Rule Physical Security 2
16 0
0 0
0 0
Contingency Plans 0
0 18 0
0 0
0 Comp EvaluationB 0
0 0
18 a.
n 0
Plan Change Application 0 14 28 30 30 30 30 7
International:
Export Applications 195 168 178 1 78 178 178 178 Foreign Country 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
Evaluations (egulatory Issue Cases ieneric issues' 26 20 20 20 20 20 20 10 tegulatoryamendmeggs 1s 26 20 20 20 20 20 iuidance documents 38 52 40 40 40 40 40 10
/alue-Imp 99tanalysis 5
5 4
4 4
4 4
restimony 1
1 2
1 1
1 1
TOTAL REVIEWS 981 941 980 1001 991 982 982 l
o o
25 TABLE 14 Physical Security FOOTNOTES 1.
Physical security reviews of 9 fixed site and 3 transport Physical Security Category I Upgrade Amendments.
2.
Physical security review of Category II/III rule amendments (after FY1981 cases are new Cat II/III licensees and amendments).
3.
Remedial actions required from I&E reports.
(Because major amendments will result from the new rules no major remedial action is forecast.
Only minor ations are anticipated.)
4.
Applications submitted for a license or to amend a license.
The Westinghouse application in FY1980 is for a Cat II facility and is shown under the Cat II/III rule case work.
5.
Reviews of transportation plans and monitoring of shipments (based on FY1980 workload).
6.
Contingency, guard, and physical security plan reviews and vital area analysis for power reactors.
(Projections based on the number of OL applications and back log.)
7.
Minor plan changes requested by the licensee.
8.
Remedial amendments as a result of the comprehensive evaluations.
9.
Specific generic iscue cases have been identified through FY81, and partially for FY82. Remaining FY82 and generic issue cases for FY83 through FY86 are based or. past experience.
Sources of generic regulatory issues include Commission concerns, Congressional concerns, public comments, licensee safeguards system reviews, and safeguards incidents.
10.
Regulatory amendments, guidance documents, and value-impact analysis cases are based on prior year generic issue cases.
Regulatory amendments result in licensing casework one year later,
- 11. Testimony cases are based on generic issue cases from second previous fiscal year.
o.
26 8.0 International Program This program encompasses NRC's nuclear export and import licensing and related functions, and a broad spectrum of cooperative activities with international organizations and foreign regulatory and safety agencies.
More specifically, within this program, NRC licenses exports and imports of nuclear equipment and materials, including components of nuclear reactors, and interacts with other U.S. Government agencies having j
nuclear export functions. Major cases are exports f large quantities i
of source material, reactors, more than 1 kilogram of SNM or those of an unusual nature with policy implications. Major cases require Com-mission approval, whereas authority for approving minor cases has been delegated to the EDO.
Several offices participate in NRC's international program. While IP has lead responsibility for processing applications, certain cases as
,noted below, require NMSS review as well.
These include:
1 Production and utilization facilities; One effective kilogram or more of special nuclear material if such material is destined for a nation to which the Commission has not previously authorized the export of nuclear components or materials pursuant to Section 127 of the Atomic Energy Act; Any quantity of source material if such material is destined for a nation to which the Comission has not previously authorized the l
export of nuclear components or materials pursuant to Section 127 j
of the Atomic Energy Act; i
1,000 kilograms or more of heavy water or nuclear grade graphite; j
NRC-licensed components destined for use in a reprocessing, enrich-ment or heavy water production facility; 4
Any other license application determined by the staff or a Com-missioner (or a majority of the Commissioners) to warrant review by the Comission.
All major HEU cases.
Export licensing activity rose sharply in 1978 because of new NRC respon-sibilities resulting from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act of 1977. This j
trend is expected to continue in the near term, leveling off by FY 1982 and remaining constant.(at about 1,000 cases per year) thereafter.
national safeguards. reviews for either physical security or material (Inter-control and accounting represent about 15-20% of the cases.)
o 27 T_able 15 EXPORT / IMPORT _ LICENSING Export FY1980 FY1981 FY1982 FY1983 FY1984 FYl985 FY1986 Licenses Issued:
Major Cases I
HEU 30 40 40 40 40 40 40 LEU 80 90 100 100 100 100 100 Source 10 15 15 15 15 15 15 Reactor 1
2 2
3 3
3 3
Minor Cases SNM 150 200 200 200 200 200 200 Source 50 55 60 60 60 60 60 Byproduct 400 450 450 450 450 450 450 2
Special Materials 400 450 450 450 450 450 450 Import Major Cases 15 20 20 20 20 20 20 Minor Cases 15 20 30 30 30 30 30 I Includes license activities previously performed by D0E.
2Special reactor material and components previously licensed by Department of Commerce; assumes there will be no provisions in 19 CFR Part 110 for general licenses for these materials.
28 APPENDIX A PROCEDURES FOR ESTIMATING FUEL LOAD DATES FOR REACTORS UNDER CONSTRUCTION I.
Introduction The NRC estimates of expected fuel load dates for reactors under construc-tion are based on a number of factors.
As a point of departure, a model was developed in 1977 which depicts the average time required to construct nuclear power plants. Subsequently, in early 1979, this model was refined to depict the relationship between the reported percent of construction completion of a nuclear power plant at any given time and the elapsed construction time from placement of first structural concrete. Using this model, an estimate of the time required to complete construction can then be determined based on the reported percent complete.
Additional data are obtained from regional inspectors, NRR project managers and special team visits to arrive at a nominal date for realistic completion of construction. The estimated completion dates for all plants expected to complete construction during the FY 1980-1986 time period were used to arrive at the planning projections shown in Table 1 (p. 4).
II.
Development of Model A 22-plant sample was selected. All plants included in the sample were either the first unit of a multi-unit application, or a single unit. All of the sample plants were completed and certified
- ready for fuel-loading between December 31, 1974 and December 31, 1978. These years were selected because they are recent and included a sufficiently large number of plants having current construction histories.
Construction durations for the sample plants were analyzed from two per-spectives. The first analysis examined times from start of first concrete to fuel load.
Sufficient data **were available from only 14 units.
Median, lower quartile and upper quartile *** plants were identified to reflect construction durations from placement of first structural concrete to fuel load.
The median plant experienced a 77-month construction duration; the lower quartile plant experienced a 69-month construction duration, and the upper quartile plant experienced a 90-month construction duration.
In By the Office of Inspection and Enforcement.
NRC did not begin collecting data on plants under construction until December 1973.
50% of the plants had longer durations and 50% had shorter durations than the median plant,' 25% of the plants had shorter durations than the lower quartile plant, and 25% of the plants had longer durations than the upper quartile plant; thus 75% of the plants had durations not longer than the upper quartile.
March 1980
29 order to check these results, a second analysis examined times from start of first concrete to completion of ccid hydro and times from completion of cold hydro to fuel load.
It yielded the following results:
Sample Lower Upper Size Quartile Median Quart _ile First Concrete -
Complete Cold Hydro 18 58 mos.
67 mos.
75 mos.
Copmlete Cold Hydro -
Fuel Load 14 7 mos.
10 mos.
12 mos.
TOTAL 65 mos.
77 mos.
87 mos.
Since both analyses were based on substantially the same data, it is not sur-prising that they yielded similar results.* The Panel concluded that 65, 77, and 87 months were reasonable estimates for an early, median, and late con-struction completion, respectively. These were used for the upper a'nd lower bounds (reflecting a 22-month difference between the two).
After establishing the upper and lower bounds for construction durations, it was then necessary, for development of the refined model, to look at the relationship between percent complete and elapsed construction durations.
" Percent Complete" refers to the extent which physical construction is actually complete and usually relates to craft manhours expended versus' total craft manhours forecast for the project.** Since December 1973 this percentage has been reported monthly to the NRC by utilities.
During 1973-1978, 67 plants were in some phase of construction and infor-mation on their percent complete was available.
" Percent complete" was examined at three-month intervals of elapsed time from first concrete.
For each such three-month interval, median, lower quartile, and upper quar-tile values of percent complete were determined for all plants reporting percent complete at that time. The three smoothed curves depicting this data are plotted in Figure A-1.
The "early finish" model has an average slope of 1.54% complete per month, the " median finish" model has an average slope of 1.30% complete per month, and the " late finish" model has an average slope of 1.15% cortplete per month.
It is important to note that relationships were developed on the basis of empirical data from 67 plants.
The family of curves represent an aggregate, or general relationship, and are not plant specific.
Subsequently, an analysis was made of elapsed time from placement of.
first concrete to the start of setting of the reactor pressure vessel, A 65-month schedule is commonly used by industry for establishing its earliest completion dates.
Some utilities use different bases, such as money expended, or apply a weighting factor based on contracts to determine percent complete.
March 1980
30 the start of NSSS work and the completion of cold hydro.
These milestones were then superimposed on the foregoing early finish, median finish, and and late finish curves, to depict a " typical" plant, although there is no direct correlation between percent complete and achievement of a particular milestone.
III.
Estimating the Date of Construction Completion lhe curve in Figure A-1 which best approximates the plant's previous con-struction history is used to estimate the fuel load date.
If the plant is less than 40% complete, the additional months to completion vary with the curve. However, if the plant is more than 40% complete, the time to com-pletion is virtually the same for all three curves. Thus, the differences between the early, median, and late finish curves mainly stem from differ-ences in elapsed time until plants are 40% complete.
For example, in February 1978 Utility "A" reports that its plant A-1 is 50% complete. The elapsed time from placement of first concrete is 30 months.
From Figure A-1 it can be seen that " Unit A-1" is approximating the early finish curve, and would thus require.37 months to complete.
Utility "B" reports that its plant B-1 is also 50% complete but 50 months have elapsed since first concrete.
It falls close.to the late finish curve and would also have 37 months to completion. Overall, Plant A-1 would have a shorter construction duration than Plant B-1 but both could be expected to load fuel March, 1982 (37 months from February 1978).
Recognizing that the refined model could not be applied for plants whose construction status was not yet far enough along for first structural concrete, the Panel assumed the median construction duration of 77 months plus 10 months additional time from groundbreaking to placement of first structural concrete fcr this category of plants.
For example, Utility "C" has a Construction Permit but states that it will not break ground until April, 1980. The estimated completion for this plant would then be 87 months from April, 1980, or about July, 1987.
IV.
Panel Visits to Specific Plant Sites The aggregated curves in Figure A-1 give only a rough indication of the relationship between percent complete and time to completion. Many plant-specific variables can affect the actual time to completion.
When appropriate, the Panel made on-site visits to obtain specific data.
During the past year, the Panel visited 18 sites containing 30 units (see listing in Table A-1).
Data was obtained on such factors as labor availa-bility, manning schedule, engineering and procurement status, weather constraints (depending on stage of construction), integration of construc-tion schedule with start-up schedule, status of procedures and pre-op test program (numbers of tests and time allowed for them). The Panel also evaluated the capability and previous experience of the operations staff.
March 1980
31 Specific data was obtained on achieved and planned installation rates of bulk material quantities. For example, Utility "D" had been pulling cable for six months and had completed 4000 cables.
They estimated a total of t
21,000 cables were required for hot functional testing. With 17,000 cables remaining, in order to achieve the hot functional milestone (12 months from the last visit) on their construction schedule, they would need to pull at least 1400 cables per month over a sustained period.of time. De-pending upon their targeted productivity (probably 1000-1200 cables per month) 14-17 months might be required to achieve the milestone. The Panel team estimated a probable installation rate depending on the nature of the problem causing the previous low installation rate (strike, craft shortage, late equipment delivery), recovery steps taken by the applicant, and the prognosis for improvement.
Similar analyses were done on other quantities, such as hangers, piping, terminations, etc.
Afteralloftheabohefactorswerediscussedandehaluatedbytheteam,a most probable date was agreed on and discussed with the utility's manage-ment.
If appropriate, follow-up meetings or telephone conference calls were held later to obtain. construction status and discuss progress on certain items that may have been on the critical path at the time of the team visit.
V.
Establishing Planning Projections In March 1980, the Panel reviewed the estimated fuel load dates for all projected units.
In addition to the site visit and applicant estimates, fuel load dates were estimated using the model discussed in Section III and estimates were obtained form I&E Regional Offices for each reactor.
Except for the three reactors expected to load fuel over the next three months
(~NRR estimate) and for some reactors not expected to be completed until 1990 or later, the Panel chose as the estimated fuel load date either the site visit, the applicant's,
the model or the I&E estimate.
Except for the three near-term reactors, no TMI-induced slippage was explicitly incorporated into these estimates.
The Panel made its choice of the four estimates according to the following procedure:
(a) The applicant's estimate was used whenever it was the latest of the four estimates.
(b) The site visit estimate was used provided it was later than or no more than three months earlier than the model estimate.
(c)
If the model estimate was more than three months later than the site visit estimate, the model or the I&E estimate was used, according to the Panel's judgment.
(d)
If no site visit was made in the past year, the model estimate was compared with the previous model estimate made for the March 1979 Caseload Projections. When the two model estimates differed by six March 1980
32 months or less, the current model estimate was used. When the two model estimates differed by more than six months, either the model or the ILE estimate was used.
(e) The above procedure was used for all sites with only one unit under construction and for all first units
- when more than one unit is pro-jected for a site.
The estimated fuel load date for a subsequent unit was estimated by adding the time differential estimated by the applicant to the Panel estimate for the first unit.
(f) The Panel made its own estimate for all the remaining reactors. None
~
of these is expected to be completed before 1990.
A compilation of the sources of the Panel estimates is given by Table A-2, j
and a summary of the projected. number and total capacity of reactors ready j
for fuel loading by year is given by Table A-3.
1 Here, a first unit is the first unit not yet completed.
In some cases, it may be the second or third nuclear reactor at a site.
March 1980
33 TABLE A-1 PLANTS VISITED March 1979 - February 1980
_ Plant Dates of Visit Comanche Peak 1 & 2 March 20-21 Palo Verde 1 - 3 April 25-26 Watts Bar 1 & 2 May 1-2 Susquehanna 1 & 2 May 15-16 Clinton 1 & 2 June 12-14 & Dec. 4-5 Limerick 1 & 2 Aug. 6-7 Grand Gulf 1 & 2 Aug. 21-22 Midland 1 & 2 Sept. 18-19 Waterford 3 Sept. 25-26 Sumer Oct. 15-16 Farley 2 Oct. 24-25 Perry 1 & 2 Nov. 13-14 San Onofre 2 & 3 Nov. 19-20 Callaway Nov. 27-28 Wolf Creek Nov. 29-30 St. Lucie 2 Feb. 13-15 WPPSS 2 Feb. 25-29 WPPSS 1 & 4 Feb. 25-29
34 TABLE A-2 SOURCES OF PANEL ESTIMATES Source Number of Reactors NRR(I) 4 Site Visit 16 Model 25 I&E 7
Applicant 30
. Panel (2) 17 Total 99
(
)gggogah1,g10stheotherthreenear-term Se 4
0 e,. -
r m
-7..
-+-
35 TABLE A-3 PROJECTED NUMBER OF REACTORS READY FOR FUEL LOADING BY YEAR Year Number of Reactors Capacity (GWe)
FY80 5
5 FY81 9
10 4
^
FY82 12 13 FY83 9
10 FY84 11 11 FY85 11 13 FY86 11 13 FY87-90 16 18 Beyond FY90 15 17 Total 99 110 I,
i
, --.- -~
..o.-
8 l
L.
8 0I 7
1F 1
3I I
4 8
0 7I I
8 L..
/
0 7F G
1I 1
I 7
1 PM.
OH.
2 5I CC I
7 4
1 8
9i 9
I G
1 P
. L. ' M.
t 0I cF O.
I G
H 4
3t 3,
1I CC 2
1 P
T 0
71 7,
5I RO I
G 2
1 T
AES TRE E
P SPT T
M 0
E 3f 1,
9I O
I 5
l 1
2 P
l CC T
C RO R
T N
AES A
O S
5I 2,
1I TRE E
5 3
S 2
C 3
SPT YS I
5 T
1N P
S T
ll 1
RO i
T 8
F A
9 9
7 AES I
4 31 2,
1I TRE R
M e
SPT r
A 0
u ES I
iq 1
S 3i 3, 2I YS I
44 F
F 3
1 4
1N T
E RS IM R
AS A
TS T
S SN 0
7f 7,
5l E S 4
D I
4 3
2 YS E
1N SP T
A 1
1 9
G 5i 4,
2i T
R 3
L I
llS AVT E
51 5,
3I I
3 5
4 3
T l
T lAVT RS 8
2 TS SRS SN T
3 1
ll 4
3t 5, 4I AVT I
2 G
TPE l
SlS GI 5, 4I I
0 7
7 5
2 1
1 9
6 7I 6, 4 'l l
1 2
5!
5, 3i 1
7 6
5 9t 6, 5t 8
9 7
7 3t 3,
1 8
7 6i 4
~
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 9
8 7
6 5
3 2
1 1
$" 'go Hz* rm*
a i
c k
i APPENDIX B 37 URANIUM REC 0VERY AGREEMENT STATES ASSI3TANCE PROGRAM ASSISTANCE REQUESTS IN-HOUSE END O'F FY 1979 COMPANY STATE ACTIVITY Bokum Resources NM Marquez - new mill Cotter Corporation C0 Canon City - Groundwatter Cotter Corporation C0 Canon City - Soil & Veg.
Cotter Corporation C0 Schwartzwalder-Ore sorted Cyprus Mining C0 New mill Gates and Fox C0 U Recovery - Tailings Gulf Mineral NM Mt. Taylor - new mill Homestake Mining C0 New mill - tailings disp.
Minerals Exploratory AZ*
Anderson - new mill Phillips Uranium NM Nose Rock - new mill Pinal Mining AZ*
Renewal Pioneer Uravan C0 New mill Union Carbide, Uravan C0 Dam review Union Carbide, Uravan C0 Radiological review United Nuclear, Church Rock NM Dam review United Nuclear, Church Rock NM Radiological review Placer-AMAX OR Pre. Oper. - new mill Wyoming Mineral, Keota C0 New ISL Anaconda TX Land ownership Placer-AMAX OR Env. and Rad. review.
Cotter Corporation C0 Canon City - rad. review
- Request is pending from the State of Arizona th.at NRC reassert licensing authority for all uranium recovery activities; thus these actions would be added to Table 7 (p.14).
38 APPENDIX C P0TENTIAL ADDITIONAL AGREEMENT STATES ASSISTANCE PROJECTS STATE AND COMPANY ACTIVITY CALIFORNIA Undesignated ISL (on forest service land)
COLOT. ADO Union Carbide Rifle Mill Reactivation Union Carbide Expand Maybell heap leach Wyoming Mineral R&D In-situ leach (ISL)
ARIZONA **
Phelps Dodge Byproduct Recovery Renewal Anamax Byproduct Recovery Renewal 1
Exxon Minerals Heap Leach Atlas Minerals Tailings Recovery (Tuba City)
NEVADA Bobcat Properties New mill Bobcat Properties Heap leach or ISL Chevron Resources New mill U0C0 Heap lec:h IDAHO Undesignated Uranium Recovery frora Phosphate Operatims WASHINGTON Dawn Mining Mill renewal Dawn Mining Heap leach Western Nuclear Wellpinit Mill Renewal NEW MEXIC0 TVA-UNC-Burns ISL (Navaho Reservation)
Comoco Crown Point Mill Exxon Minerals ISL (L Bar Ranch)
Pioneer Nuclear ISL R&D Homestake Mining ISL R&D Anaconda, Bluewater*
Renewal Kerr-McGee, Ambrosia Lake
- Renewal UNC-Homestake, Grants
- Renewal
- Assistance on special problems may be requested.
39 APPENDIX D DATA SOURCES 1.
" Program Summary Report" (Brown Book) dated February 22, 1980 for currently licensed facilities.
2.
" Status Summary Report to Nuclear Power Plants" (Blue Book) dated February 29, 1980.
3.
" Construction Status Report" (Yellow Book) dated February 1980.
4.
" Status Summary Report - Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards" (Gold Book) dated January 18, 1980.
. e.,
APPENDIX E 40 GLOSSARY BOP Balance of Plant BRG Budget Review Group CFR Code of Federal Regulations CP Construction Permit DOE Department of Energy FDA Final Design Approval FLD Fuel Load Date FY
- Fiscal Year (October 1 to September 30)
Gigawatts (Electrical)
GWe High-Level Waste HLW IRG Interagency Group Report on Nuclear Waste Management ISFSI Independent Spent Fuel Storage Facility LLW Low-Level Waste LWA Limited Work Authorization l
MC&A Material Control & Accounting (Office of) Management and Program Analysis MPA NMSS (Office of) Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards Nuclear Regulatory Commission NRC (Office of) Nuclear Reactor Regulation NRR NSSS Nuclear Steam Supply System OL
' Operating License PDA Preliminary Design Approval SNM Special Nuclear Material
/
e