ML20197E209
| ML20197E209 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/31/1979 |
| From: | Abell A, Berkow H, Lovelace W, Mathews G, Rothfleisch J, Schaub L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE), NRC OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND PROGRAM ANALYSIS (MPA), NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS), Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, NRC OFFICE OF THE CONTROLLER |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20197E179 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-86-172 NUREG-0542, NUREG-542, UREG-542, NUDOCS 8605150194 | |
| Download: ML20197E209 (53) | |
Text
r )
,f, .
} NUREG-0542 NRC' CASELOAD Pl.ANNING ' PROJECTIONS ' FOR FISCAL ' YEARS '1981-85 5
Prepared by -
NRC Caseload Panel Sybil M. Kari. Chainnan ha $
Anthony *f. Abell ;WO >
Management and Program Analysis Georg#'Mathews ' III ~
f Inspeetion and Enforcement s
s Herbert Berkow y Nuclear Reactor Regulation Qfck E. Rothfl(1sch Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards II _
William H. Lovelace M Mh Management and Program Analysis Lester J. Schaub Office of the Controller March 1979 (Data as of February 1979) 8605150194 060429 .
BREAD -172 PDR
t 5 *.*
T
- f. .' __
4 PLANNING PROJECTIONS FOR FISCAL YEARS 1981-85 TABLE OF CONTENTS -
Page No.
1.0 Sunnary and Highlights . .\. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2.0
~~
Caseload Panel ,
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
) 3.0 Reactor Forecast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4.1 Fuel Cycle Facilities - /- '
Front End . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . r '* 7 -
4.2 Fuel Cycle Facilities -
Back End . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 i 5.0 Other 5.1 Export /Impo'rt Licensing
- .............. 21 j 5.2 Special Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 5.3 Transportation Reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 5.4 Radioigotopes(MaterialsLicensing) ........ 27 5.5 Agreement States Assistance ............ 29 5.6 Safeguards Evaluations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 APPENDICES -
A. Methodology for Fuel Load Dates for j
Reactors Under Construction ............ 35 B.
Data Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 C. Agreement States Assistance 47 D. G l o s s a ry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49-t
.'.4
- . )
~
t .' .
~
LIST OF TABLES Page No.
- 1. Power Reactor Caseload . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
- ,, 2. Uranium Milling ................... 8
'= 3. Other Uranium Ore Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . I
- 4. Solution Mining (Commercial Scale) . . . . . . . . . . -' 10
- 5. Other Solution Recovery ............... 11
- 6. Uranium Fuel Fabrication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,
12 .
- 7. Plutonium R&D and Pilot Facilities . . . . . . . . . . 13
- 8. UF6 Production Facilities .............. 14
- 9. Waste Processing Plants ............... 16 '
, 10. S pen t Fu el S to ra g e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 4
- 11. H LW Re po s i to ri e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
- 12. LLW Disposal Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 i 13. Export / Import Licensing ............... 22
- 14. S pec i a l P roj ects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 15 *. Transportation Reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
- 16. Radioisotopes Licensing ............... 28
- 17. Safeguards Evaluations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
- 18. Plants Visited (Table A-1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
- 19. Comparison of Estimates (Table A-2) ......... 41 4
t
- , , 9,
\;
,- .pi a.
I R. ..;-
I' 3 Ye.
y.
l i
_ LIST OF FIGURES -
i Page No.
l
! T
- 1. Model Curves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
42 l 2. Comparison of NRC Estimate w/ Applicant Date i . . . . . 43
- 3. Comparison of NRC Estimate w/Model Estimate . . . . . 44
- 4. Compa ri son o f Es tima tes.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
/-
i t a.
f 9
e l
i
[
i I
i I .
i 1
1 1
I
, - . - - - - - - - , . - _ ,,.w,-n..---,,,.,--.- - - - . , , ,,.n,, - - - - --y_, . , . , , ,,-,-.,.n----m,v--,c.- ,,-,. , , . , - . - - - - - , -
- - - - - - - - - - --,w, .,-. - - - - ---,,,,_,w, e
, , ) )
1
! NRE CASELOAD PLANNING PROJECTIONS i .
I (FY 1981-1985) i l 1.0 Sunnary and Highlights The Caseload Panel has prepared its fourth annual update of the NRC Projections for reactors, fuel cycle facilities and other nuclear licensing activities. These projections should be used for all agency planning ahd budgeting activities. -
, The caseload projectiohs as detail.ed in the following sections relate to about one-third of NRC's resources. Some highlights are: .
4 new applications for construction permits for 8 nuclear power reactors are expected during FY 1979-1981; for planning purposed -
i the Panel projected approximately 8 additional applications (16 i reactors) by the end of FY 1985; 17 applications for operating licenses inv61ving 36 units are expected during FY 1979-1981, with an additional 23 applications '
j for 40 units by the end of-FY T985; ~
Reviews for standardized NSSS/80P are expected to continue at about the current rate with an average of 4 applications per year during the planning period;
- - By the end of FY 1985, as many as 139 reactors representing about 127 GWe could be licensed (this can be compared to 150 reactors i '
for 139 GWe if the projections were based on completion dates as estimated by applicants). .
15 new applications for uranium mills are expected'in FY 1979-1981; i -
One new applica, tion is expected in FY 1980 for a fuel fabrication j plant; 5 applications for spent fuel storage or HLW Repositories are anticipated during FY 1979-1981; l
l 1
I -
. n r -
2-i By the 6.nd of the planning perhod, there are expected to be about 75 fuel cycle facilities unifer NRC licensing authority; in addition, there could be about 90 licenses by the end of FY 1985 for other types of activities, such as solution mining, ore-buying stations. I SNM licenses at LLW burialg grounds; and 10,200 other radioisotopes licenses; I
During FY 1979-1987 NRC expects to issue about 570 major types of export / import licenses.
Data sources are listed in Appendix B.
.; 1
- j. -
e Y h e
og m
I e
\.
w 9
W
.3' s ew
\
e m
w'
-e> w w w- ~ --~er,y,o ,e--- -w-- y . - - - - , - - n- -, m -
-eo, -m,-- w w
,,4 m,- -- y,p ,- -
[. .
._ ) -
~
i - 3-2.0 caseload Panel - Background ...._._ ..
The Caseload Panel was designated in late 1975 to assist the Budget Review Group (BRG) in its deliberations. Membership on the Panel is designtted by the Office Directors for Nuclear Reactor Regulation. l Inspection and Enforcement Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards, !
Management and Program Analysis, and the Controller. Assistance was also provided to the Panel by Lee Abramson, Applied Statistics Branch, MPA, and Neal Moore, International Programs.
The Panel develops planning projections only; specific workload and <
manpower loadings are the responsibility of individual offices. l The FY 1981 projections for reactors and fuel cycle facilities are -
based on written surveys conducted by the~ offices of MRR and NMSS.
The projections for operating reactors are based on the methodology -
described in Appendix A.
The Panel expects to prepare an annual forecast in April each year in conjunction with initiation of the new year's budget cycle. The annual forecast will be published in the " Program Sunnary Report" (Brown Book) and revised when necessary. The Office of Management and Program Analysis will maintain the supporting data base and special updates may be requested by contacting that office.
In the discussion sections and tables which follow, all years mentioned refer to fiscal years (October 1 through September 30).
G 9
i l l
4
-r+ , ,- --
-,w,,,-g.-+.w,,4ym,n,,.,,ry-y,m.,.,_wv4-,g--m--.-wpn-s- ,y,p--v--mm---rs,-, ,- as - , . , , . -q, s r -----
r .a
. 4 /'.
~
kh i
3.0 Reactor Forecast ,. ,
The Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation sent letters to approximately 100 utilities, vendors and architect-engineers requesting specific information on new applicatioqs expected to be submitted through the end of 1981. Results of this survey are available from NRR. To make the projections as realistic as possible, the Panel did not count all applications, but exercised judgment in those cases where the pros-pective applicant indicated that its plans were tentative. For operating license applications, survey results were used. where possible, or an application date three years prior to the NRC esti-mated fuel load date was chosen for those applications projected for 1982-1985. -
For operating plants, the applicant's projected date for construction -
ccepletion and the date predicted by the NRC model (see Appendix "A")
were reviewed by the Regional Offices of Inspection and Enforcement.
During the past year, the Panel also visited 22 plants (37 reactors) to observe construction progress first-hand. Adjustments were then made for plant-specific factors to arrive at NRC projections.
For 1981, standardized applications for NSSS/ BOP reviews or early site reviews are those identified by the NRR surveys. For 1982-1985, an average, across the planning period, was used to arrive at pro-jected applications for NSSS/ BOP and early site reviews.
, Based on the above assumptions, the caseload for power reactors is sumarized in Table 1.
As of the-end of 1978, seventy-one (71) research reactors were licensed.
, The number is, expected to remain fairly constant throughout the planning period. Any new applications would not likely require sufficient man-power to justify the Panel making projections for research reactors.
m
~
+ .
. 3 5- 3 TABLE 1 POWER REACTOR CASELOAD .
l l
FY1979 FY1980FY1981 FY1982 FY1983 FY1984 FY1985 l NewApplications/ 1 CP's 2(4) 2(4) .
2(4) 2(4) 2(4) 2(4)
OL's 1(2) 8(18) 8(16) 5(11) '6 (8') 7(12) 5(9)
New Issuances CP's .3/ 8,(15) 4(6) 3(6)- 2(4) 1(2) 2(4) 2(4)
OL's 5 6 13 7 14 11 13 Total Reactors i~
. Licensed 75 81 94 101 115 126 139 Total Reactors Under Constr.2_/ 98 98 91 88 76 69 60 New Applications NSSS/ BOP 8 4 3 4 4 4 4 Site Reviews 4 0 0 1 1 1 1 ,
NOTES:
1/ Number in parentheses . denotes units of plants.
2/ The number of plants under construction consists of those under construction the end of the previous year, plus those authorized construction (CP or LWA)'
during the year, less those licensed; the number of plants at the end of FY 78 included six units already constructing under an LWA but which are not projected for CP's issued until FY 79, arid thus th'e.y were not re-added toi units under construction in 79.
-3/ Assumes 33 months CP review from tendering of an application; for already docketed reviews, actual Blue Book schedules were used. -
e S
, . - _ ,. ,___,,. . _ . . . . _ . , _ _ - . _ . . . - _ _ , . ,,~ , - . , -
9) t *_
g l .
W E 6 l
T e
/ e G
O e
e h
e
- t o
O 9
e
-- .,, - y-_ , _ _ _ _ _ , - . , - _ , _ v ., ,,r,--,, ,,m_, ,e, . - - . - ~ - - - - - , - - .m,__,, or,w..,--- , - - - , , , . _ ,
, O
_ )
. l l
4.1 Fuel Cycle Facilities - Front End A number of factors influence the planning projections for the front s end of the uranium fuel cycle. The increase in uranium milling l activities and other recovery processes-experienced during prepara- l tion of last year's forecast still continues for the near term but should taper off substentially by 1981, returning more nearly to the pre-1978 levels. :
The specific applications for new mills in 1979-1981 were identified primarily by an industry survey conducted by the Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards. Additional categories in the front end of the fuel cycle include fuel fabrication facilities and UF6 Pro-duction plants. 1979-1981 activities were identified by the NMSS industry survey. Amendments to current licenses are, for the most '
part, not identified with specific companies, but generally track the previous proportion of enendments to licensed activities.
Standard assumptions for specific review times were supplied by NMSS which assumed any new uranium recovery applications would be completed within a year. Depending on the type of facility, renewals and amend-ments could be completed anywhere from six months to a year or two after receipt. -
One other type *of front end fuel cycle facility, an enrichment plant, is not presently licensed by NRC. No commercial licensed facility is anticipated during the planning period for the enrichment process.
. Tables 2 through S show projections for facilities associated with the front end of the fuel cycle.
e O
e
+
- , - ,. --.,w y , - _ _..,_ ,--,-__,.-.--..e.,
' TABLE 2 ,
hRANIUM' MILLING , ,._ _ _ ,
a
FY1979 'FY1980F 1981FYl982FY1983FY1984 FY1985 New Facilities Received M 3 11 lE 2F 2F 2E 2E Completed F 4 4 6 6 ,
2/ 5 2F 2M Major Amen h nts 2]
Received 7 7.5/ 8 F- 9El 101/ 11 1/ ' 12 _/
5 Renewals F Received 0 0 1 3 1 8 5 Total Licensed End FY 14 18 24 30 32 34 36
( 14
~
Identified . ) 18 24 b 30' 30 30 )
) ( )
(Unidentified) ) ( 0 0 0 0 2 4 6 )
NOTES:
y New Facilities - Identified companies in 79-80. Estimates for 81-85 based
. on FUELTRAC U 03 8 projections, y . Major Amendments - Identified companies in 79-80, except as noted below.
For 81-85 estimates based on experience and number of licensed mills.
y Renewals - All renewals based on identified companies 79-85.
y Completions - Completions shown in 79 were for application: received prior to 79. One completion in 80 was for application received prior to 79.
5/ All unidentified 6] Four unidentified _
y NMSS believes two additional mills which are not yet identified should be included, but the Panel did not include any unidentified cases for major casework; it should be noted that the FY 1980 caseload is greater than anticipated.when the FY 1980 budget was submitted to OM8 and it is likely there will be a backlog continuing into FY 1981 as a result.
^
-wm~,--,
~
o o
, 3 )
, TABLE 3
~'OTHhRURANIUM'ORN'PROCES5IN5F FY1975' 'F 1985' 'F 1951 ' 'FY1982' 'FY1953 ' Fh1984 ~ 'FY19 New Facilities F Received 3 2 29 2F 2F 2E 2E Completed 3 3 2 2T 2F 2F 2F Major Amendments F Received 1 0 0 -
0 0 0 'O Renewals 3_/
Received 0 1 0 1 0 3 2 Total Licensed End FY 5 7 9 11 13 15 17
' ))
Identified ( 5 7 9 10 10 10 . 10 )
( )
(Unidentified) ) ( 0 0 0 1 3 5 7 )
1 NOTkS:
y New Facilities - Identified companies in 79-80, one in 81. Estimates for 82-85 based on expected growth in heap leaching activities. ~"
y Major Amendments - Identified in 79 (decommissioning). No Major ,
amendments expected 80-85 because of relatively '
short lives of most installations.
y Renewals - Based on identified companies 79-85.
y Includes ore buying stations and heap-leach operations.
5/ All unidentified.
6/ One unidentified.
~
e
- - - , - , - - - - ,,-,,.-----.n,, -,,,,,w --._-..,..--,._,.,w_ _ , . _ , . , - - , - - - - , , , , - .
TABLE'4 SOLUTIONMINkNG(CbMMERCIAL'SCkLE)
F 19f9 ' 'F 1980 ' iY1981 ' 'F 1982 ' i 1953 ' 'FY1984 FY1985 x
New Facilities Received 2 4 4 49 4 1/ 41/ 49 Completed 2 2 4 4 43/ 43/ 48 Major Amendments .
/
Received 0 1 23/ 231 2/ 4 31/ 33/
Renewals Received 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 Total Licensed End FY 2 4 8 12 15 20 24 Identified ) (2 4 9 12 11 12 12 )
) ( )
, (Unidentified) ) ( 0 0 0 0 4 8 12 )
NOTES: ,
1/ New Facilities - Identified companies 79-81. Estimates for 82-85 based on expected conversions of R&D facilities to commercial scale operations.
2f Major Amendments - Ide,ntified companies 79-80. Estimates for 81-85 based on expected increased number of licensed operations.
3f Renewals - Based on identified companies 79-85.
4/ All unidentifled.
_ ..,,--,,-,,,,w.--n...- --- - - - - - ..---..._-n,.n,. p--,,,,-,,,n- . , , + . - - - - , - - . .
' )
TA8LE 5
'dTHER' SOLUTION'REbOVNRYU
'FY1979'FYlh80'FYlhb1FY1952FY19b3-~FY1984'FY1985 New Facilities U Received 6 5 43 4E 4.f 5 4y 4y Completed 3 5 61/ 4.f5 4y 41/ 4jf Major Amendments 8 -
Received 0 25/ 2El 3 E/ 41/. 5El 6El ,-
Renewals 1/
Received 3 2 2 1 6 6 7 Total Licensed End FY . 17 22 28 32 36 40 44 identi fled . 1 ( 17 22 27 27 27 27 27 )
(Unidentified) 0 0 1 5 9 13 17 NOTES:
p y Includes R&D solution mining and extraction of uranium from byproduct sources.
y_ New Facilities - Identified companies in 79 and partially for 80. Estimates based on expected growth in R&D solution mining for 81-85.
y Major Amendments - Ide'n tified companies in 79-80, except as noted below.
Estimates based on number of licensees for 81-85.
4j Renewals - All renewals based on identificd companies for 79-85.
Sj All unidentified.
1/ One unidentified.
~
-7/ Three uni.dentifled. l 1
,. , .. , ,_., , _ . _ . .,,_,m. , - . . . _ _ - - . . , c , ,r_ , _ ~ - . . , _ , _ . . _ _ _ . , . .
. .. _~~ .. -
s
~
. 1
-1 TABLE 6 l
. l
' URANIUM' FUEL FABRICATION
~_FY1979' FY1980 FY1981'_FY1982 FY1983FY1984 FY1985 New' Facilities M T Received 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Completed 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Major Amendments 2f Received 11 9 ,f5 gpf 9 .4f 9 ,f.
4 94 f ' 9 ,f4 Renewals 3.1
. Received 4 1 5 5 1 1 4 Total Licensed 1/
End FY 17 17 17 18 18 18 18 NOTES:
1/ New Facility - Little growth projected. Application for 80 is for identified (confidential) company.
2_/ Major Amendrnents - Identified companies for 79 and partially for 80 and 81 . Estimates for 80-85 based on past experience.
3J Renewals - All renewals based on identifed companies.
- 4) All uriidentified.
l Sf Two unidentified.
l 6/ Seven unidentified.
2/ All identified.
9
, _ , , ,. - - , , .--,n , , - , - - -...,,_n , , , , , . ,
't TABLE T ,
PLUTbNf0MRDAND' PILOT'FACfLIh!Eh bl97h bk985' 'bl981 ^ 'bl982 ~ 'FY1983 FY1984 FY1985 New Facilities Received 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Completed 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mafor Amendments .ll Received 2 2E 1M 1E 18 1M 1E ,
Renewals2./
Received 1 0 0 2 0 4 1
~
Total Licensed $l End FY 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 NOTES:
if Major Amendments - Identified companies for 79 and partially for 80.
t Estimates for 81-85 based on past needs, 2] Renewals - All renewals are based on identified companies. 0 y One unidentified.
y All identified.
I I
., _ . _ _ _ . , _ _ _ _ _ . - _ _ , _ _ _ . _ , _ _ . _ _ . _ . . . _ . . _ _ _ . . _ , - . _ . . _ . . . _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ . . - . , _ . . . _ . . _ _ . _ , ~ . . . . . _ . , . . _ _ .
- - - - = - -.- _.
~
+
~
TABLE 8.i UF6 PRODUCTION FACILITIES
'Y
'FY1979'FYi955FY981FY1952FY1983-'FYi984FY1985 New Facilities -
Received o o o 0 0 0 . O Completed 0 0 /' O 0 0 0 MajorAmendments.l/
. Received 1 0 1* O 1 0 1 Renewals U 4
Received 0 0 0 0
, 1 1 0 Total Licensed 31 i
End FY 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 NOTES:
1/ Major Amendments - Identified companies for 79-81. Estimates for
- 82-85 are unidentified but are based on past needs.
2.] Renewals - Identified companies for all renewals.
.3] All identified. .
l l
i 9
9 9
.--w-,-,,. ---e> ,.- - - - p,,,.-,--,,-,-
9me--c wg-- .m,---,my999, ,,-9-,e-+,.,,e- ,,.--,.,e,,-,.cc, - w w yyyg.-g-p-,.-, -r-r py s eww-,.-gp-www w-tWM"r-tA*W'-er M W w F e-'@
- 1
~
15 -
~
4.2 Fuel Cycle Facilities - Back End l
The back end of the fuel cycle includes those facilities associated with waste processing, interim spent fuel and long-term high level waste (HLW) repositories,*/ and low-level waste (LLW) burial grounds. ,
For 1981 NMSS survey data and DOE's proposed schedules for license !
submittals were used. For the outyears 1982-1985, the projections are highly tentative. They rely on DOE's plans for HLW storage repost- ;
tories and/or interim spent fuel storage facilities, as'well as l the reactor industry's needs for interim storage until long tem l storage is available. Both DOE's and industry's specific plans are not yet firm.
. The new LLW applications projected for 1981,1982, and 1983 are new -
comercial sites assuming no changes from existing Federal and state regulatory roles. Although the specific sites are not yet identified, it is anticipated that more capacity will be required for the expected disposal needs. . Sites would be comme,rcially developed and located on
- state or Federal land. The sites were assumed to be located in non- 1 Agreement States. l
.I
) The Interagency Review Group on Nuclear Waste Management has recommended i
increased responsibilities for the Department of Energy in comercial LLW disposal that may result in. NRC licensing of DOE-owned commercial LLW disposal sites. Further, the _IRG considered NRC licensing of DOE l
defense LLW disposal sites and legislation may be forthcoming so that NRC would have new responsibilities in this area. The IRG also recom-i mended that States may voluntarily request DOE ownership of commercial low-level waste disposal sites. For these reasons and for the purposes 1 of these planning projections, the Panel has assumed that, in 1980, the '
! . NRC would be required to license two DOE owned comercial waste disposal , l sites located in Agreement States. It is also assumed that NRC will be " l required to license a new DOE low-level waste disposal site in 1984.
NRC may be required to provide technical assistance to DOE on 14 existing defense low-level waste sites but these facilities are not included in the tabulations.
- Pr'ojections for facilities associated with the back end of the fuel cycle are shown in Tables 9 through 12.
1
- /
Spent fuel repositories refer to independent storage facilities not associated with an existing reai: tor pool, which are normally for interim storage up to 20 years.
i
.._..__._-..._.,__-,..._._._-___,..-..,_,,-..._.._.m_.. , _ _ . - _ _ _ . , -
.16 -
TABLE 9
WNTd'PRbCNSSfNG'PLNT5
'FY1979' b lh80FYfh8fFY 98h N 5983FY1984 'FY1985
.N New Facilities
.. Received -, .....-.: ,,- 0... -O~- 1 M--~ ~ --l M -- 0 ~-- -- - 0 -
Completed 0 0 0 0 13/ 0 1U Major Amendments ~
/-
Received 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Renewals Received 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Licensed 3./
End FY O O O O 1 1 2 NOTES:
If Savannah River High Level Waste Treatment Facility 2/ NFS West Valley High Level Waste Treatment Facility 3f Ai1 identified.
NOTE: Recent reports indicate DOE may have reached agreement with the State of New York with regard to NFS West Valley, but since details are unknown at this time, any actions as a result of an agreement were not l factored into the above projections, nor the ones in Table 12, until !
their impact on NRC licensing activities is better defined. ,
l
. I i
i i
- 17 -
. ' TABLE 10
' SPENT' FUEL'5TORAGE FY1979 FY1980 'FY1981 FY1982FY198bFY1984 'FY1 New Facilities (2) (3/4) (5) l Received 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 l (3/4) (5)
Approval to Construct 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 (1) (2) (3/4) (5)
Completion 1 1 0 0 '2 0 1 Ma.1or Amendments Received 0 0 0 O O O 0 Renewals Received 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Licensed .
End FY ,
2 2 2 2 4 4 5 Notes:
(1)
Duke Power transhipment of spent fuel (no new license).
NUS-StandardDesign(nonewlicense). -
(3)
DOE ISFSI (A), which may be a joint venture with private industry (e.g.
Barnwell)
(4)
Todd Shipyard. ,
May either be a second DOE ISFSI, or a TVA application for a centralized storage facility.
O
,, - - re-,. . - ,, ,,.,-r, ..w._, . , . - . , . . , . . , - , , . - , .
. a
~
s '
TABLE 11 ' '
HLWREPOSITORIES'(DOE'AND^COMMERCI[ SPENT' FUEL)
'FY1979FY1980FY1981FY1982' FY1983FY1984 'FY1985 New Facilities \'
Appis. Received 0 11/ 0 1 3/ 0 0 0 Completed 0 0 0 0 0 1 2/ 0 Major Amendments Appls. Received '
9 0 0 0' O O O O Renewals Appls. Received 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Repositories Licensed 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NOTES:
J/ WIPP Facility (May or may not be licensed) which may involve two reviews, one for the B,uffer above-ground storage and another for the deep-geologic storage.
2/ Provisional Construction Authorization Issued for WIPP Facility.
3/ The DOE Commercial Waste Repository Application may not be submitted until FY 1982, but it is anticipated that extensive preapplication review effort will be required in FY 1981.
m 9
')
TABLE 12
-'L(N'bISPdSA(' SITES
'FYi979 _FY980FYI98kFYf98h**FY1983~'FY1984 FY198 New Facilities Appls. Received 0 0 2 1 _/ jf2 j 2/ jy 0 Completed 0 0 0 0 10 1 2/ jy Major Amendments Appls. Received 0 2Y 3 0 0 0 0 Renewals Appis. Received 1 0 0 0 1 2 0 Total Disposal Sites Licensed 31/ SS 5 5 6 7 8 Identified ) (3 3 3 3 3 3 3)
) (
Unidentified ) (0 2 2 2 3 4 5))
l NOTES:
1/ In addition to Sheffield, includes two disposal sites (Barnwell and Hanford) which have NRC (SNM) licenses, not under the Agreement, State'.s authority.
2/ Unidentified new comercial sites. .
3/ New DOE site (unidentified)
P Two DOE-owned existing comercial sites now licensed by Agreement States, for which licenses would be transferred to NRC. Also see " NOTE" on Table 9.
- - 4_ _
Wal's.
O 9
0
-o O
e-t T
i J
,I
/ .
e
.6 5
e D
W 9
[
i ,
21 -
5.0 Other a .
! 5.1 Export / Import Licensing The NRC has the responsibility for licensing the export and import of nuclear materials and equipm' ent, including SNM, source materials, byproduct material, special reactor materials (such as heavy water
' and graphite), reactors and reactor components. Recent experience indicates that between 250 and 280 applications for export licenses are pending approval at any given time. Minor cases require from 3 to 4 months for processing and major cases can take from 6 to 18 months or longer to complete. Major cases are exports of large quantities of source material, reactors more f than 1 kilogram of SNM or those of an unusual nature with policy implications. Major cases-require Comission approval, whereas authority for approving minor cases has been delegated to the EDO.
- Reactor exports are projected at a constant level through the 1981-a 1985 time period. However, the erratic circumstances governing foreign reactor sales make yearly projections somewhat unreliable.
Export licensing activity rose sharply in 1978 because of new NRC responsibilities resulting from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act . '"
of 1977. This trend is expected to continue in the near term, level-ing off in the,latter part of the planning period. The legislation transferred to NRC licensing responsibilities previously assumed by the Departments of Energy and Comerce.
k j
i e
, . - -- - - . - , _ , - _ - , -.. ., , _ .-- . . . - . . . . _ ~ , _ , _ - - . . _ _ . - _ - - - . . _ _ _ , . - -
. _ _ _ ._. _ _ _c _ . _ _ .
i
- TABLE 13 EXPORT / IMPORT' LICENSING
' Export -
FY1979 FY1980 FY1981 FY1982 FY1983 FY1984 FY1985 Licenses Issued:
Major Cases If . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . :. ..
LEU 90 120 130 140 150 150 150 Source 10 10 15 15 15 15 15 Peactor 5 5 3 3 3 3 3
_Mir.or Cases
'iNM 200 225 250 250 250 250 250 Source ,
50 55 55 60 60 60 60 Syproduct 115 120 125 130 130 130 130 2/
ltg.cial Materials-225 250 300 350 350 350 350 Import Major Cases 15 20 25 25 25 25 25 1 Minor cases 45 45 50 50 50 50 50 1/
~ Includes license activities previously performed by DOE. -
y Special reactor material and components previously licensed by department of Commerce; cssumes there will be no provisions in 19 CFR Part 110 for general licenses for these materials.
)
)
5.2 Special Pro.iects a .- -
Several categories of work are included in this section. For the most part, they represent DOE activities or projects which are not expected to be licensed by NRC NRC has in the past reviewed safety aspects of non-licensed facili, ties, such as LOFT and FFTF, as well as land-based naval prototypes, naval ship reactor cores, and advanced reactor concepts. The data presented below are based on information supplied by the Department of Energy (DOE). The cate-gories of Reactor Facilities Naval Reactor and Fuel Cycle Facilities include these types of projects.
DOEalsohasunderwaytheNonProliferatjonAlternativeSystemAssess-ment Program (NASAP) which has the objectiye of evaluating alternativ~e reactor concepts that have enhanced proliferation resistance over the presently used LWR uranium fuel cycle. The fonnal NASAP Program will be finished by December 31, 1979 with a report to the President and Congress. Also at the direction of the U.S., an International Fuel Cycle Evaluation (INFCE) is being conducted but is scheduled to end in February 1980. There will probably be additional ac at DOE and NRC, with a few feel cycle candidates emerging as a.tivities
natives to the current once-through LWR. DOE will ask NRC to lter-evaluate six such candidates during FY 1979, with comparable NRC effort anticipated in FY 1980 and 1981.
Sumary data for these various categories are presented in Table 14 J g l
l 1
1
. . .. .. ..C.:~ . . - - . . . _ . . . J L. .- ~ T*L . . . . . - - . , . . - . . . - . . . . . . - . . . _ . -
~ - -- .. -- - .- _.- . - - . . . .
TABLE 14
'SPECIAL' PROJECTS
' FY1979 'FY1980' 'FY1981' 'FY1982FY1983' FY1984 FY1985 1 Reactor Facilities 33/ 1 1 2 2 2 2 Naval Reactors 0 1 1,.., . 1 .. 1 ... 1 1 l Fuel Cycle Facilities 3_/ 0 1 0 1 'O 1 0 NASAP Alternatives2 /
1 0 0 -
0 0 0 0 I
NOTES:
J/ Includes two preapplication reviewsfor Helium Breeder Associates, one for a gas-cooled fast reactor and one for a high-temperature gas reactor from Gas-Cooled Reactor Associates. It is anticipated that there will be continuing effort on this project through FY 1981.
2.] throughout FYIncludes 1980-1983.six or more concepts, but additional ac' fvfties Eill con'tinue t
3/ Includes a safety review similar to those requested of NRR by DOE; it is assumed no safeguards review would be required. !
O
. 1
- 7.
)
., )
r-
/
5.3 Transportation Reviews-fiRC performs safety reviews far designs of packages to be used for shipment of radioactive materials in quantities exceeding certain limits. This includes 3 major and 2 minor package designs, as described below.
- 1) Major I Spent Fuel Casks Plutonium Air Transport Packages High Level Waste Casks
- 2) Major II -
Normal /Form Type B Packages .
- 3) Major III Special Form Type B Packages l Fissile Type A Packages !
Amendments to Major I Packages
- 4) Minor I Amendments to Major II or Major III Packages .
- 5) Minor II Quality Assurance Programs Renewals l The categories used last year have been resolved into smaller cate-l . gories. Last year's major reviews are represented as Major I reviews and Major II reviews. Last year's minor reviews are now represented as l , Major III and Minor I reviews; renewals are now represented as Minor II l reviews. -
' Manufacturers of shipping casks were included in the HMSS survey;
, hence, the 1979-1980 projections are based on the survey results.
The years 1981-1985 contain a large number of unidentified reviews; however, a shorter lead-time is involved for package design manufactuers and they would not necessarily be able to respond to a survey three years in advance of their requirements for submitting an application.
The combined totals of unidentified reviews in minor casework is com-parable to those designs c' rrently approved and licensed, so that it may be reasonable to expect requests for renewal or requests for new package designs to replace existing ones. It was assumed that major package reviews would be completed within one year. Minor packages were assumed to be comparable to past average workload.
Summary data is presented in Table 15.
O 6
, TABLE 15 '
TRANSPORTATION REVIEWS FY 1979 FY 1980 FY 1981 FY 1982 FY 1983 FY 1984 FY19F' Applications 'Received for: **
Major I Reviews 2 1 (1) (1) (1) (1) (1)
Major II Reviews 16 13 9(5) 9(6),
9(7) (9) (9)
. p Major III Reviews 12 3 15(12) 15(14) 15(14) (15) (15)
Minor I Reviews 23 2 15'(10) (15) (15) (15) (15)
Minor II Reviews 11 12 15(10) 15(14) (15) (15) (15)
Total Reviews 64 31 55 55 55 55 55 l
NOTES:
Numbers in parentheses are unidentified cases.
See Section 5.3 for exp1hnation of different types of reviews.
- 1979-1980 were constrained to only those cases where a i positive reply was received to the survey conducted by NMSS.
{
9 4
em 9
'l
. . .; . .- : - . .. . m - . . _ _ --. -
- 5.4 Radioisotopes (Materials License 3)
It is not possible or practical to survey all radioisotopes licensees, but it was possible to examine historical data on number and types of licensing actions.
N The projection for new licenses is based upon the average number of applications received per month during 1977. 1978. and for i 3 months of 1!!79. iBased upon the monthly average for these time frames, it was determined that approximately 550 actual new appli-cations v C1 be received each year. In addition,10% of the licenses l that~ex;c - each year will be reinstated as new licenses. Therefore, l the numbce in the table for each year is based upon 550 new appli- . ,
j cations plus 10%.of the expired licenses for each fiscal year. l The projection for amendments is based upon the average number of
- applications received per month during 1977, 1978, and for 3 months ;
of 1979.
The projection for renewals is based upon the percentage of licenses j
that were renewed compared to the number that expired during FY 77 "~
and FY 78. It was determined that 70% of the lice'nses up for renewal during these years were renewed. Of the 30% that were permitted to i expire, 10% were reinstated as new licenses. Therefore, the renewal projections in the table are based upon 70% of the number of licenses that will be up for renewal during each fiscal year.
- The resultant improvements from the above administrative procedural changes has resulted in lower overall projections for all license case types. THere has been considerable consolidation of licenses which
. has contributed to a decrease in the projected numbers for all license case types. During the planning period, the amendments are expected to level off at about a 32-35% ratio of amendments to total licenses.
1 Based on past experience, there should be about a 3% net increase in j total licenses per year. By the end of the planning period, there i are expected to be over 10,200 radioisotopes licenses, unless additional :
Agreement States are in effect. Table 16 summarizes the projections i for this category.
9 S
- gg - .
l 1
TABLE 16 l
'RADIGISOTOPES LICENSING FYl979 FY1980 ' ' FY1981 FY1982 FY1983 FY1984 FY1985 Appls. Received: - - - - - - - - - - --- -
New Licenses 760 660 670 71 0 '800 790 730 I Amendments 3300 3300 3300- 3300 3300 3300~ '3300 Renewals 1450 800 850 1100 1700' 1650 1250 l 1
Total Licenses 8700 8950 9200 9450 9700 9950 10,200
- l
/N e
M O
w I
e
- - - - - - - .- -, - ..-y,-,.,, - , ,,n -
_,,--,~,-,.,,,n,,me, , - ,,---n--- - . . , , , - . , , _ - , -
l I
, . ) !
- - 29 - ).
i 5.5 Agreement States Assistance l ,
The Comission announced on April 20, 1978 that it had decided to I offer technical assistance to Agreement States.,in assessigg the j environmental impacts of uranium mills under agreement States i jur_1.sdiction._ It shou.1d be noted, that the Comission's policy ' ~ '
i
! statement spoke only of a limited, trial program to be, re-evaliiaTed , !
.upon completion. .
i The recently enacted Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of :
1978 gives NRC and Agreement States new responsibilities in the regu- : ,
lation and control of milling and tailings. However, there are. questions : i regarding whether NRC has concurrent licensing jurisdiction with States i during the three-year implementation per'fod and of the minimum review l procedures to be followed during the three years prior to the full -
, implementation required by the legislation. In addition, NRC will be
! providing technical assistance to DOE on abandoned mill sites. Since the States may find it difficult, and in some cases, impossible to assume the responsibilities immediately, the Comission may choose to lessen the Agreement States' burden by continuing the technical assis-tance program as provided in the April 20,1978 Policy Statement.
Depending on the interpretation of the above legislation, the NRC staff has not yet developed the scope of effort that might be required. Thus, no specific projections are included for this activity. As shown in
- Appendix r., there appear to be six Agreement States, where as many as
! 37 uranium milling licensing actions for active sites might occur during FY 1979-1980, and four States where assistance might be requested in connection with LLW burial grounds. Twenty-four abandoned sites
" have also been identified by DOE as ones requiring remedial action.
9 9
m O
_ - , . _ . . _ ._ _ , , _ . , , . - , , _ , , , . . , , . . . , ,,_-____m, , , . , , , _ . , , , . , , , , _ , , _ _ . _ . _ _ . .
2 a
- , % e k
.e 9
m e
%g
?
\
b
E M* 4 0 * * * **
- ew ege %e, ,m,. e e
~ ,
e W
6 e
I 9
a t
a,..
g e
9
{
t Y %
- e k
e j s
- W b
9 e
3
--,eu,,._, ,, . _ - - . _ , . _ _ . . _ _ _ .
i
~ ~
5.6 Safeguards Evaluations Nonnal casework is based on the projections in Tables 7-11 and is associated with_certain f.uel .tabrication facilities ylus the storage ',
of spent fuel and other waste disposal activ.ities of 00E. I In addition, there are a number of licensing reviews planned which are brought about by upgrade rule changes proposed during the 1979-1984 period. Other safeguards rule changes are anticipated during 1980-1982, on the assumption the U. S. and the I.A.E.A. will consumate a formal agreement. .
/
' Table 17 presents sumary data for all major fuel-cycle related -
safeguards reviews.
t 9
9 e
e 9
m I
1
~1 l t ,,
TABLE 17 l I
SAFEGUARDS EVALUATIONS (MAJORCASEWORK)
FY1979 FY1980 FY1981 FY1982 FY1983 FY1984 FY1985 Normal Casework 3/ 16 16 31 34 34 33 33 Upgrade:'
Physigal Security U 20 26 17 - ~ . MC&A 2/ 6 7 2 2 1 Contingency Plang 4./ 19 .
Integrated Rule ?) 6 6 International:
Part 75 El 18 11 9 Category II E 11 5 2 2 2 2 2 Category III 2/. 6 3 1 1 1 1 1 TOTAL 72 68 68 53 39 44 43 W
b t
F~ ~~" *
- 8-+++we -
1
~
" 'a - -
-(TABLE 17)
NOTES:
I 1/ Reviews of new applications major amendments, major modifications, and DOE projects are'includeb in this entry. (Anewapplication for one facility may requi m three safeguards reviews, i.e. fixed site plan, a guard plan and a contingency plan.)
2/ Workload data based on the guard rule which became effective in 1979 and the fixed site and transport upgrade rule are included in this entry. Programming for the upgrade rule is based on the supposition that it will be approved by the Commission in the near t
future'. It is anticipated that activity in this area will continue through 1981. -
3/ The review of plans submitted by the licensee in accordance with the Material Control and Accounting Upgrade Rule and reviews of any necessary revisions. It is anticipated that the Commission l
will approve the rule in time for it to be in force by 1981, 4/ The Contingency Plan Rule was published in 1978 with workload (plan reviews) being accomplished in 1979. Workload after 1979 will be carried as normal casework.
5/ To provide for the review of plans submitted by the licensee as a result of the integration into one rule the Safeguard regula-tions found in 10 CFR Part 70 and 73. It is anticipated that the Commission will approve the rule in time for its implementa-tion by 1984.
t
- 6) To provide for review of installation infomation provided by licensees per proposed rule 10 CFR 75. We will assist in the preparation and development of implementing procedures (Facility Attachments). This entry is in anticipation that the U S. and the IAEA will consumate a formal agreement. !
7/ The Category II/III Rule has not been approved by the Commission; however, we anticipate that it will be approved in 1979, other-wise it will slip to 1980. It is anticipated that there will be a few cases each year.
a j
,,. n - , , ,
,w - _ - _ . , , -
_ . , , . . . . _ , , . =., , , , , - - ,
,,,n .-
, . _ . , ,=-n_ a.-cm, w -, y , g w -vn,
k 4
b e
O e
- 34 - .
e 9- s e
S 9
GD 9
i I ,
Appendix A PROCEDURES FOR ESTIMATING FUEL LOAD DATES ^
FOR REACTORS UNDER CONSTRUCTION g /
I. Introduction The NRC estimates of expected y fuel load dates for reactors under construction 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. Sub-sequently, in early 1979, this model was refined to depict the rela-tionship between the percentage of construction completion of a nuclear power plant at any given time and the ' elapsed construction time from placement of first structural concrete. An estimate of the time
,j , required to complete construction can t' hen be determined.
i Additional data are obtaisied from regional inspectors NRR project managers and special team visits to arrive at a nominal date for I~
realistic completion of construction. The estimated completion dates for all plants expected to complete construction during the FY 1979-1985 time period were used to arrive at the planning projections shown in i Table 1 (p. 5).
II. Development of Model 1
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 sufficierttly large number of plants having experienced current repre-
. sentative construction histories.
! Construction durations for the sample plants were analyzed from two perspectives. The first analysis examined times from start of first structural concrete to fuel load. Sufficient data ** was only available By the Office of Inspection and Enforcement.
NRC did not begin collecting data on pla.1ts under construction until December 1973.
~
O l
- , - . -,,-.---,,.a_ , - , ---,--,.-v,i--.wwww-,.,,,m--. , . , - , - - ---,.,,s---e,-.-,--,,.-,.,,,-,,-,- ,,-w,.-,c.-y,.w,-,.vm-+%w.-,,ww,--.v----e,-e.,*
~
i to compare 14 units. Median, lower quartile and upper quartile *
)
plants were identified to reflect construction durations from place- 1 ment of first structural concrete to fuel load. The median plant ;
experienced a 77-month construction duration; the lower quartile plant l experienced a 69-month construction duration, and the upper quartile plant experienced a 90-month construction duration. In order to test the sensitivity of these results, a second analysis examined times from start of structural concrete to completion of cold hydro and times from completion of cold hydro to fuel load. It yielded the following results: -
Sample Lower Upper
' Size ' Quartile ' Median Quartile First Concret'e-Complete Cold Hydo 18 58 mos. 67 mos 75 mos.
Complete Cold Hydro-Fuel Load 14 7 mos. 10 mos. 12 mos.
~
TOTAL 65 mos. 77 mos. 87 mos.
Both analyses yield similar results. A 65-month schedule is commonly used by industry for establishing its earliest completion dates. The Panel concluded that 65, 77 and 87 months were reasonable for an early, median and late construction completion, respectively. These were used for the up er and lower bounds (reflecting a 22-month difference between the two .
After establishing the upper and lower bounds for construction durations. l
. it was then necessary, for develo9 ment of the refined model, to look
' at the relationship between perceqt 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.
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% or the plants had longer durations than .the upper quartile plant; thus 75% of the plants had durations not longer than the upper quartile. l
~
- Some utilities use different bases, such as money- expended, or apply a weighting facter based on contracts, to determine percentage ccm-plete, but this does not affect the relationship depicted on the model for any individual plant.
i During 1973-1978. 67 plants were in some phase of construction and information on their percentage complete was available; however, complete construction histories were not available for all 67 plants. " Percentage
' complete" was examined.at three-month . intervals of elapsed time from first coricretF. ~ For each such~ three-month . interval, media.n. lower !
quartileandupperquartileviluesofpercentagecompleteweredetermined for all plants reporting percentage complete at that time. The three smoothed curves depicting this data are plotted in Figure A-1. The l
~
"early finish" model has an average slope of 1.54% complete per month; 4
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% complete i 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. -
1 Subsequently, an analysis was made of elapsea time from placement of first structural concrete to the start of setting of the reactor pressure vessel, the start of NSSS work and the completion of cold hydro. These milestones were then superimposed on the foregoing early finish, median finish, and late finish curves, to depict a " typical" plant, although .
there is no direct correlation between percentage: complete and achieve-ment of a particular milestone.
l III. Estimating the Date of Construction Completion The curve in Figure A-1 which best approximates the plant's previous construction 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 completion is virtually the same for all three curves.
Thus, the difference between the early, median and late finish curves basically accounts for only elapsed time.
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 approxi-mating the early finish curve, and would thus require 37 months to complete. Utility "B" reports that its plant B-1 is also 50% complete 4
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 the fact 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 5
-_,,m, . , _ _ ,--,y,,, __---_m_._, ,.,,_s.,.,,g, . , . , , . , , , , _ . , _ _ . , , , , _ . _ . , _ _ . - . . , , , . , ,r,_,.,w__,,,p, y,. -,.,,,.m..,_,ny,,.,,,m,_
n..= _ ..
l
\
l
. . ~
38 - .
duration of 77 months plus 10 months additional time from groundbreaking to placement of first structural concrete for this category of plants.
~
- For example, Utility "C" has a Construction' Pemit 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.
l IV. Panel Visits to Specific Plant ~ Sites The aggregated curves in Figure A-1 give only a rough indication of the relationship between percentage complete and time to completion.
Many plant-specific variables can affect the actual time to completion.
I i . When appropriate, the Panel makes on-site . visits to obtain specific -
- . data. Durin the past year, the Panel visited 22 plants (see listing in Table A-1 . Data was obtainea on such matters.as labor availability,
- , engineering and procurement status, weather factors (-depending on stage l; of construction), integration of construction schedule with start-up schedule, status of procedures and pre-op test program (numbers of tests and time allowed for them). . Subjective judgments were made as to the j manning scheduled and capability and previous experience of the operations staff.
Spectfic data was obtained on achieved and planned installation l rates of bulk material quantities.
For example Utility "D" had been !
pulling cable for six months and had completed 4000 cables. They esti-mated 21,000 total cables were required for hot functional testing.
i . With 17,000 cables remaining and in order to achieve the hot functional milestone (12 months from the, visit) on their construction schedule, they would need to pull at least 1400 cables per month over a sustained oerior of time. Depending 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, J 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, teminations, etc.
After all of the above factors were discussed and evaluated by the team, 4 a most probable date was agreed on and discussed with the utility's management. If appropriate, follow-up meetings or telephone conference calls were held later to obtain 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 .
i .
In January the Panel reviewed the estimated dates for all plants com-prising the projections for the planning, period. The previous year's "model" date was recalculated, using the model as discussed in Section III above. Additional information was obtained from I&E Regional Offices
o .:
3 and NRR.
Where site visits had recently occurred, that information was factored in. In general, if the model date tended to confirm the previous date established at the conclusion of the visit, the Panel used '
the site visit date. Of the 69 plants expected to be ready for fuel loading by the end of FY 1985, the site visit date was used in 26 instances and the model date used in 27 instances.
Figures A-2 and A-3 depict the difference between the NRC estimate and the model estimate or the applicant estimate. As shown.in Figure A-2, the applicant estimates were all sooner than the NRC estimate, with the median difference between the two being seven months., Howevet. as shown
' -in Figure A-3 for 39 out of 69 plant s, the NRC estimate was the same as the model estimate within plus or minus one month. .
Table A-2 and Figure A-4 compare the year-by-year projections on number of plants and gigawatts, depending on whether it is the NRC Estimate, an estimate based solely on the model, or an estimate based on applicant's targeted completion dates.
s
[
i a
e 9
p 9
_ . . - - - - - . . - . - - - - - ~ ~ - - - ~ ~ ' ' ' " ' ~ ~ ~ " ~ ~ " ~ ~
~
TABLE S-/ '
.I ,
PLANTS VISITED March 1978 - February 1979 ,
j Plant Date of Visit March 21-22 Midland 1 & 2 South Texas 1 & 2 April 5-6 Bellefonte 1 & 2 April 12-13 Comanche Peak 1 & 2 April 18-19 Susquehanna 1 & 2 May 3-4 )
Byron 1 & 2 May 22-23 !
Braidwood.1 & 2 May 23-24 l Grand Gulf 1 & 2 May 31-June 2 )
/ ~
. Fermi 2 -
June 6-7 Washington Nuclear 2 June 14-15
- Washington Nuclear 1 & 4 June 14-15 4 Salem 2 July 12-13 LaSalle 1 & 2 Aug 1-2 Zimmer 2 Aug 3-4 McGuire 1 & 2 Sept. 26 '
j i North Anna 2 Sept.'1 (
1
- Waterford 3 Sept. 19 Perry 1 & 2 Nov. 14-15
] .
San Onofre 2 & 3 Nov. 28-29 Shoreham Jan. 9-10 Catawba 1 & 2 Jan. 24-25 Marble Hill 1 & 2 Feb. 27 .
m o
i f
-]
i "
TABLE A-2 f0MPARISON OF ESTIMATES NRC Estimate Model Applicant Estimate Estimate (Number of Plants Completed in Fiscal Year)
(nd FY 78* .70 % 70 70
~
FY 79 5 4 7 FY 80 6 6 12 FY 81 13 13 9 FY 82 7 11 16
/
FY 83 14 -
13 16 FY 84 11 12 13 FY 85 13 11 7 TOTAL M IT6 T55
.(Gigawatts Electrical Added)
End FY 78* 51 51 51 FY 79 6 4 7 FY 80 6 6 13 FY 81 14 14 10 FY 82 7 12 18 FY 83 16 14 18 FY 84 12 13 14 FY 85 16 13 8 TOTAL 127 M M Comparison not provided previously; represents actual plants licensed end FY e
+
_ _ . . _ . . _ . _ _ .. _ , _ _ , . , , . , , , , . ._ __,_ _ , , ,,_%-.- _,.,--,...~...%,. ..
1 1 . .
. ~ .
s k
l 83 7e 75 71 87 83 58 56 51 47 43 30 35 31 27 23 19 15 11 7 3g 0 g t a I B e a g g g g g g g g g g g g g g
, 7,3 80 0,6 S,1 5,7 5,3 4,9 46 4,1 3,7 33 29 25 9 4 10 2,1 1,7 1,3 a 41 57 53 40 45 41 37 33 29 25 21 17 13 9 5 10 e a e t I I I I I t I f f I I II 05 77 87 100 - COMP F.L. F.L. F.L.
START C.H.
-, PRE OP TEST ky g COMP C.H.
90 -
l START PRE OP 30 - TEST 6
1 YEAR
. gggg START PRE OP TEST 70 -
1 YEAR E =
8 SS -
1 YEAR START pessg N NS$$
v 50
- g h o START START NSSS i
et RPV i?
I E q - SET START RPV START SET START NSSS RPV 30
- SET 20 .
I i i
- 10 -
i i t i i t i t i I i t t i I I i i t t 0 4 8 12 14 20 24 28 32 38 40 44 48 52 54 80 64 80 72 78 30 34 38 ELAPSED TIME FROM FIRST CONCRETE Figure A-1 1
1 .
i O .
i.
- e 9* g. . - _ - .._ _ _ . . . . .
e g ,
y.- . -
a COMPARISION OF NRC ESTIMATE W/ APPLICANT DATE (NRC= APPL +A) 19 .' di:Siijt 18 - <If$k:h!b +s :xs e k.>
. $$y!!:2:fi:
17 - - g . :i:is::
,,N-kbhik
.- . .s 16 - ig'gf=lgigg.%
e:s ;: gi N$
s I.m Quartile d = 2 mot
. .p. . su.v.
$5?Mi5e:g *!
,s sf8i:ihiS.!$:1 Median d = 7mos.
N . .-;+:-A 15 - :>':p;b;g::
- s sx^ f g .>ll$g31' Upper Quartile d = 12mos.
i:iiv:i; s f y.: .
s,.. g+, :< 5b:
14 - !?!$:2M i: 'Esf]:!@iii
[
. .v.s .
ggsI."k.::g v sv.: :; s s e 13 - .B ' s B$:;;.
s ..
j ' a,' .*
s s y:
.s s+A:t :o ' :8
- 45m.
12 s;.es".:.
. .. < g.u.;
. i.:e:+-
' :0 :2 11 - 15 '< iit@is
...s 3 ss '.' ggg: ' ilM5 's 10 - ?
.)v:'.
+N-
..s...<v. ;Mgi:i - ':i$is: <.->.v.:i:MO o
d 9- ?# '+' ' IBM 3I Z i5$5!
~i<1E$$
8- !< '
, < , .e <
is. , -
s MA:3 ,. !!f.s:i
- :v , ,-
, ~,,
7- :x.::: s '
e s e -
f:!N:$N!$ '
. :.-<.- 'e$j:I'fe:i.f:
$i?.hi!!.: .:v ii+ii :.:!f;.g, b 6-. gggigi::<
" + - ,. .,.
< , A.;igy.:
- 9. .v[e ' NIfikI , 'y' $D$1 ikSIh! # #ibib 5- <-
i?Ms! ' ,":
s e i t' i sg, 4- .i I; '
I'
, DIEN;: << + s s.,.>
s , i j em. -,
< iihkIk;, # $$bI.
'. ..' :g:2./ ! b' ,'. .*[ ' ::.!jh.;I '
s'
- Nss:
% ,- x.. NN
, :gg: p.
- e ' ',^ ' " ' s 2
- g::: .:(i$i:.:
'N > < .pz.p.s;M
.g ::5 :.+. :.,:':[j:-
- .:g:p e . .'j.s
$5'. .;p,<
v
. < s , :gg::ipo . : .s ;. 3 :y,,..:.
e , ' ':i:Mip. <
e, e
< . :E: <v
. .g " "3,f+- , : o,g u s 1-
- i , i <
N9 vf^' ' s::xgy 8 , , . - s' N+ '..
> <, s.'
' < < , sis l ,r ij ,
,, ' i.- i i <
0 02 35 6-8 9 11 12 14 15-17 18 20 21 23 24 26 8 Months 1
1 Figure A-2 -
l 1
1 1
1
- y.. . . . .
l S5 '
':-]55; :..::: ""*- l l
g.
ai COMPARISON OF NRC ESTIMATE W/MODEL ESTIMATE (NRC =MODEL+A) 40 -
39 - 3::ss:
""ijspii-s isn5i!8i!!@
t.ower Quartile d "- h 37 - .:.. Median *= 0 mo.
m.:s :::.:::
- i Upper Quartile A = + 3mos.
'::isi??:t:i:j
. dE-36 - %..:..:::.:+:f:s 35 - :s:::f^3s
' $N!!
Si8si:
' .::::!!!$s'
- :.s "
e.. :.: <
jj_
O . i:ijs.i:
10 - sisiiinie f ,
O d
's 9-Z '$35
..+..
3- :s't3: ;;wj;j p .'n**.a
- :iS:!
< ::A:i :. . .
7- ,
^r<,8.:is.;.
g.. <-
,.s ::i$$ h:y+
- .
- $ - .: . .g .. ..
6- ,
insi! 'ii;;g;;: , $..!!E
.!)
1
+:::jih , :d:6s fe 5-gis. e <
aiks
.:<q:::
1 I
- 18:::s, , s ' $5!!$ < +<<<$I2.!
/ ,
^
5 iki i Ab h:(' !h 55h!:i.$,!{[
. h[. .hh hihhi I <. . .-
, + :,-:s . . .Q :.;b
-p
' .jss99W i
, <b: .
- s:
p., 9.. .iN? :jss 3- ' '
- j+.%,.:
s 3. e:.,
- i.,p'p-
< : j;.:.
'$s.: , :!.:
3 2 ies;4'i. ss
- sw::::-
. is.iii.l:!'.2.$)..'!
. : . <:::c : '.f.
- 8 :+ ~si:!.!!!fi!!' :ike.si iiSNiiniRI m n< <
':st::' :jitiji: , . . ...j:42: s:;.
- 9::s w,gs8isgs.
w g;:.;j:
1- ,. -
, i: isis .:i:ses:
e < ssi;;8 e <!:i;';;
'. . .[.:.' '
pini.? :5:jj[g;.
0-8 10 57 24 24 57 8 10 Negative : 0 : Positive 8 Months Figure A-3
i; . .
) ,
l
! COMPARISON OF ESTIMATES.
(GWe) 150
! i -
140 -
NRC Estimate .-
130 -
Applicant Ectimate ------------ ** ...******~~
t, 120 t e -
8 110 -
i e
I' 3 100 - ',+e,e
)
o
' 90 -
i 80 -
i i
i 70 i m i.
60
,*.,***,o -
i 50 I l l 1 1 I -
l End of 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 j Fiscal Year -
i Figure A-4 t
it 4
.t
}
46 - Appendix B .-
Data Sources:
- 1. "ProgramSummaryReport"(BrownBook)datedMarch 16, 1979: for currently licensed facilities.
- 2. " Status Summary Report to Nuclear Power Plants" (Blue Book) dated March 2, 1979.
- 3. " Construction Status Report" (Yellow Book) dated February, 1979.
- 4. " Status Summary Report-Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards" (GoldBook)datedMarch 16, 1979. -
e G
e 9
D
- s ,.
I . ' .:' , .
Appendix C AGREEMENT STATES ASSISTANCE
. , PROGRAM .
~
(Uranium Recovery) - ,
State & Company - Activity . Year
. g .
i Washington Dawn Mining Mill' License Renewal' FY-79 Dawn Mining . .New Application for-Heap Leach Facility FY-79 Western Nuclear Mill License' Renewal FY-80 (Wellpinit) . '
/
Colora'do -
! Cotter Corporation Mill License Renewal py-79 New Mill Operation Cotter Corporation Uranium Mine Ore Sorter .FY-79 Union. Carbide Ur' avan Mill License
. . Renewal FY-79 Union Carbide Rifle Mill License Re-
, activation FY Ranchers Exploration Durango Mill Tailings ~
Heap Leach FY-79 Wyoming Minerals . Comm1 Solu Mining (Keota) FY-79 Pioneer Nuclear New Mill (Naturita) FY-79
- Wyoming Minerals R&D Solu Mining FY-80 Cyprus Mining .
New Mill (Fremont Cnty) FY-79 Rocky Mountain Energy R&D Solution Mining '
FY-81 Gates & Fox Comp,any HeapLeach'(Naturita) FY-79 New Mexico Gulf Hineral New Mill MtTaylor) FY-79 Phillips Pet'roleum New Mill Nose Rock) FY-79 Bokum Resources hewMill Marquez) FY-79 i
TVA - UtJC - Burns So}uMining(NavajoRes.) FY-79 CONOCO New Mill (Crown Point) FY-79 Exxon Solu Mining L-BarRanch). FY-79 Pionier Nuclear -
Solu Mining R&D) FY-80 Homestake .
Solu Mining R&D) FY-79 )
Anaconda', Bluewater* Mill Renewal FY-79 Kerr-McGee . Ambrosia Lake
- Mill Renewal FY-79 UNC - Homestake, Grants
- Mill Renewal .
FY-79 CONOC0 NewHill(BernabeProject) '
FY-81
- Assi_ stance on Special Problems may be requested.
i l
l
~
- - - ..~~ - - -_ .- _ _---_ J __**~ - . _ - . - -
' Agreement Statei Assistance, page 2 ,
l
. \
Arizona .
~ -
1 Minerals Explor'ation New Mill (Anderson Pro.iict) 'FY-79' Wyoming M.inerals . Heap Leach .
FY-79 Wyomin.g Kinerals '
New Mill FY-79 Wyoming Minerals Heap Leach -
FY-80L . .
Idaho Undesignated ,' U Byproduct,fron .,
Phosphoric-Acid -
~
FY-79 .
Undesignated U Byproduct from .-
Phosphoric Acid FY-80 -
Nevada
!. ' Bobcat Properties New Mill (Lincoln Co) FY-80
' Bobcat Properties' Heap Leach or Solu Mining
. (Elko County) FY-80 Placer Development Corp. Solu' Mining FY-80 '
(NevadaorOregon) -
Chevron Resources Company New Mill FY-80
'U0C0 .
Heap Leach Undesignated (Low-Level Waste Disposal)
Kansas Lyons New License FY-79 Washincton Hanforc, License Renewal FY-79 Nevada Beatty . License Renewal FY-80 South Carolina Chem-fluclear, Barnwell License Renewal FY-81 l
APPENDH D
[
t i ,
) , 49 ,
)
GLOSSARY BOP -
Balance of Plant BRG - Budget Review Group ;
CP - Construction Permit DOE - Department of Energy EDO - Executive Director for Operations FFTF - Fast Flux Test Facility .
FLD -- Fuel Load Date FY - Fiscal Year (October 1 to September 30) -
GWe - Gigawatts (Electrical)
HLW - High-Level Waste IAEA - International Atomic Energy Agency INFCE - International Nuclear Fuel Cycle Evaluation .
i
Low-Level Waste i . LOFT - Loss-of-Fluid Test Facility LWA -
Limited Work Authorization i
MPA - (Office of) Management and Program Analysis I NASAP - Nonproliferation Alternative System Assessment Program NMSS - (Office of) Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards
! NRC - Nuclear Regulatory Commission NRR - (Office of) Nuclear Reactor Regulation NSSS - Nuclear Steam Supply System OL Operating License SNM - Special Nuclear Material ,
WIPP - Waste Isolation Pilot Project -
.i l
\ . -
-l' , .,
April 7,1980 ITEM 0RANDUf1 FOR: II. Denton, Director, NRR J. Davis, Deputy Dimetor, NMSS V. Stello, Director. IE R. Minogue, Dimetor, SD R. Budnitz, Director, RES J. Shea, Director. Ip FROM: E. Kevin Cornell, Chairman, Budget Review Gmup
SUBJECT:
CASEl.0AD PROJECTIONS FY 1982-86
- The Caseload Panel's report to the BRG is attached. You should use'these pmjections in preparing your FY 1982-86 budget request. Any deviations from these projections should be adequately justifled as I expect to adhere to them in mcomending to tha EDO resource allocations throughout the planning period.
(Signed) E. Xevin Cornell E. Kevin Cornell g Chaiman, Budget Review Group
Attachment:
NRC Caseload Planning Projections for FY 1982-86 cc: H. Dircks, Acting EDO
- 11. Shapar El.D W. Kerr, SP L. Barry, C0ff D. Donoghue, ADM Regional Directors. IE Commissioners OPE OGC SECY bec: E. Hanrahan, OPE d R/F J. Fouchard, PA APB R/F Commissioners' Assistants Central Files C. Kammerer, OCA E00s Read File R. McKinney, ACRS C0rnellReadFile.'hMC.r]C/2l W. Miller, ADM 1 E. Triner, CON E.{N l
3d ~
0///x. '
m r.cc ) .
1^$')......
g .APB , I A P. , , , , , , , , , , , M PA , , , , , , , b, ,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
su n .r ) ..sepyaidd . sConve.r . , HBus,qtt,,, . .N Ha l l e r, , , , . Ec o rn el 1, ,, , , ,,,,, , , ,, ,,
,m,,, 4/4/a9 4/f/80 4/o/80 , ,,
4/ /a0 4/y/a0 , ,,,, ,,,, ,, ,,,
,, l i
i NRC CASELOAD PLANNING PROJECTIONS FOR FISCAL YEARS 1982-86 Prepared by NRC Caseload Panel
~
5 '
l .J.a
,N<}bJ.d Sybil M. Boyd ' , /~5 Chairman s Y/.( 0$'.K d%){,
4 Lee Abramson George Maplews, LIL Management and Program Analysis Inspection and Enforcement
/
h]
Herbert N. Berkow tk Mpc. Rothfleischi KlhNo.
Nuclear Reactor Regulation 'Kuclear Materials Safety '
and Safeguards d.w $
.e n . t L- .
William H. Lovelace .
Lester J. Schaub Management and Program Analysis Office of the Controller March 1980 (DataasofFebruary1980) h/, / s C ") "I e ._ i m q vvvJr Vt u q -
HVlg- .
- -- - - - --- - _ -. . _ .. 1 . - _ -
e 1
. Planning Projections for Fiscal Years 1
1982-1986 4
Table of Contents i
Page No.
1.0 Background and Summary .................................... I 2.0 Power Reactors Casework Program ........................... 4
, 3.0 Fuel Cycle and Materials Program .......................... 6 4.0 Waste Management Program .................................. 11 i
4.1 High-Level Waste ..................................... 11 '
4.2 Low-Level Waste ...................................... ~ 11
- 4.3 Uranium Recovery ..................................... 12 1
5.0 Spent Fuel Storage Program ................................ 18 6.0 Transportation Progran .................................... 19 l
. 7.0 Safeguards Program ........................................ 20 1
8.0 International Program ..................................... 26 APPENDICES A. Procedures for Estimating Fuel Load Dates
, for Reactors Under Construction ........................... 28 B. Uranium Recovery - Agreement States Assistance Program (Requests In-House) ..................... 37 C. Potential Additional Agreement States Assistance Projects ........................................ 38 I
D. Data Sources ............................................... 39
. E. Glossary ................................................... 40 l
t I
, 11 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. UF6 Production Facilities .................................... 9
- 5. Radioisotopes Licensing ...................................... 10
- 6. LLW Disposal Sites ........................................... 13
. 7. Uranium Milling .............................................. 14
- 8. Other Uranium Ore Processing ................................. 15
- 9. SolutionMining(CommercialScale)........................... 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 *,
LoadingbyYear(TableA-3).................................. 35 List of Figures
- 1. ReactorsinCommercialOperation(No.ofPlants)............. 3
- 2. Reactors in Comercial Operation (GWe) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
- 3. ModelCurveforEstimatingFuelLoadDates(FigureA-1)...... 36 '
l
1 NRC CASELOAD PLANNING PROJECTIONS FOR FISCAL YEARS 1982-85 1.0 The Caseload Panel was designated in late 1975 to assist the Budget Review Group (BRG). The Panel is chaired by a reprisentative 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-M20's; about 2-8 applications per year will be tendered for operating 1 -enses for plants already under construction;
- 3. N2 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 3987;
- Oraft issued by the Chairman March 10, 1980. (See also EDO coments dated March 24, 1980.)
- If commercial operation is assumed to occur about 1 year after initial licensing, the equivalent number of reactors in comercial operation by FY 86 would be about 124 (111 GWe). 8ased on a separate analysis done by MPA, time from CP application in the 1983-1984 period to comercial 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 comercial operation by the year 2000. Based on the FY 82-86 projections Figures 1 and 2 depict the projected trend of reactors in comercial 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 tendered is Comonwealth Edison's proposed Carroll County I and 2 plant.
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 reac. tors will be required each year throughout the planning period; and
- 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 1
i
, , . - - - , . . . .,, , . , . .y _ . -. , _ . - v_
- -v - w i
I; ESilMATES OF REACTOS IN C0f9ERCIAL OPERATION 4
4 FIGURE 1 FIGURE 2 1
l Number of Reactors Capacity (GWe)
! No. of i
Reactors N j 200- 200 1
180. 180.
- (1) j 160 - 160-(2) (I) l 140- (2) 140 -
(3)
) 120 - 120< ~ (3)
I 100. 100 i "
i I 80 80-i- ,
60 60-i
{ 40 40-l i'
20 20-0 , , . -
0 ,
l - End of FY FY FY FY Eh_ FY FY End of. FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 FY 1965' 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995
- .- 2000 t
1 -
2 Legend:
j Curve (1) - All reactors in caseload pipeline l
i Curve (2) - All reactors with CP's issued
- Curve (3) - All reactors with first concrete poured
l g
l 2.0 Power Reactors Casework Program *
\
Casework consists of licensing effort associated with the safety, envimn- i mental, and antitrust myiews of applications for a construction permit (CP),
operating license (OL), Preliminary or Final Design Approval (PDA or FDA) of a standard plant design, early site appmval, and post-construction permit activities . This effort also includes the safety review of DOE facilities.
The CP mytew includes the safety aspects of the applicant's pmliminary 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 am 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 futum 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 envimnmental 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 estimates made by the Regional by the NRC Dffices model (see of Inspection andAppendix 'A"), t.andDuring Enforcemen 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 u..iess 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.
\ i l
- Asoftheendof1979,sehenty-one(71)researchreactorswerelicensed.
The number 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.
1 i
7 .. .
5 i .
Table 1 POWER REACTOR CASELOAD FY1980 FY1981 FY1982 FY1983, FY1984 FY1985 FY1986 New Applications 1 '
CP's -0 ,
' G-l(2) 4 OL's 8(15) 3(8) 6(13) 2(3) 2(2) 2(3) 5(11)
New Issuances Construction Permits 3 6(11)2 1(2) -~
Licenses 5 5 9 12 9 11 11 11 6
Tot.t] Reactors License 5 72 81 93 1G? 113 124 135 t
Total Reactcrs Under Constr.2 85 85 73 64 53 44 33 New Applications NSSS/B0P ,
1 1 Site Reviews 1 -03
- Reviews for 00E 3 2 2 2 2 5 1 NOTES- 1 Number 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. Alsq,the number of reactors under construction excludes Sterling 1 and James-port 1 & 2 which have been denied certification by the N.Y. State Siting Board.
3 Issuances are based on the assumption that CP reviews are resumed in FY 1980.
4 New OL applications are based on te'ndering 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.
6 Excludes 3 which have operating licenses but are shut down indefinitely -
Three Mile Island 2, Humboldt Bay, and Indian Point-1.
s s _ 4
_v
, _ __ __ _ _ _ _ . . . -... ~
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 liRC policy in the use of general licenses (to be completed in FY 1983).
e
s 1 .
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.
4 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. s Renewals - All renewals based on identified companies.
- All unidentified
- Two unidentified
- Two identified 1
s l
l
_- ~ .. . - , - - . - . . --
l_ ,
.. 8 Table 3 PLUT0NIUM R&D AND PILOT FACILITIES FY1980 FY1981 FY1982 FY1983 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 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.
Renewals - All renewals are based on identified companies.
i
- Including decannissioning. 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 1
8
. g Table 4 FUEL CYCLE FACILITIES UF6 Production Facilities FY1980 FY1981 FY1982 FY1983 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 -
Rece1ved 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 Total Licensed End FY 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 9 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
., 10 Table 5 RADI0 ISOTOPES LICENSING _.
t FY1980 FY1981 FY1982 FY1983 FY1984_ FY1985 FVl986 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 - Approximately 70% of licenses up for renewal are actually renewed.
Total Licenses - About a 3% net increase per year.
11 4.0 Waste Management Program NRC's Waste Management Program is composed of three parts: high level waste I (including transuranic wastes and spent fuel to be placed in deep geologic respositories for perinanent disposal), low level waste, and uranium recovery.
High level and low 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 of 1969. DOE has been given sole authority to dispose of commercially generated
. high level waste. In anticipation of the first DOE Application, NRC will con-centrate on regulations, guidance, and supporting data.
The President'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 DOE 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 g 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 of low-level waste (10 CFR 61). Regulatory guides and review procedures are also included. .NRC licenses low-level waste disposal sites in non-Agreement States and provides technical assistance, at resources permit, to Agreement States in the licensing of disposal sites within State jurisdiction. The low-level waste management program requires input and coordination 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 l
, Governors of the three States (Washington, South Carolina, and Nevada) !
e
,. _ - , _ _,,,,,,s ,,,. __,,,,._,w, , . , , , . _ . , _ , , . ...,,_.,__,.-w. p , _m.99q..,y
,.____,__-____,.__.,_,__,_m_.77,
12 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 recorrinendations and the President's recommenda-tions are implemented through legislative action, NRC will be required to license new DOE shallow land burial sites. In addition, the recom-mendations of the Congressionally requested NRC study entitled, "Regu .
lation of Federal Radioactive Waste Activities" (NUREG-0527), would have NRC conduct in conjunction with DOE a pilot program to test the feasi-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 00E waste activities.unless required by Congress and thus projections for this activity are not included in this report. .
4.3 , Uranium Recovery HRC'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 3 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- i volved in the remedial action program for 25 inactive tailings sites under '
DOE control. This involvement will take the fora 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.
I 13 The workload is expected to be evenly distributed during this period. l 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 O Completed 0 0 .0 2 3 1- 0 Major' Amendments Received 2 0 2 0 0 2 0 Renewals 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 i for existing i sites 5 4 6 5 7 10 10
- NOTE: All new sites are unidentified.
l
-n., , --
, , - e , - - . , . , n-r, , - - - - - - -
14 Table 7 URANIUM MILLING FY80 FY81 FY82 FY83 FY84 FY85 FY86 NewFacilijies ** ** **
Received 3 4 2 1** 0 0 O Completed 0 3 4 2 1 0 0 Major Amendments 2 4 4 5 5 5 5 Received 6 7 8 8 9 9 10 3
Renewals Received 0 1 3 1 5 3 - 3 Total Licensed .
17*
End FY 15 21 23 24 24 24 Identified 15 17 21 23 24 24 24 NOTES:
I New Facilities - Identified companies through FY83.
2 Major Amendments - Identified companies in FY80. For FY80-85 estimates based on experience and number of licensed mills.
3 Renewals - All renewals based on identified companies.
4 p Two identified 5
All unidentified
- TVA mill expected to be decomissioned 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 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 U3g 0 requirements per 1 GWe over a 30-year life of a reactor, it appears that the dcmestic reactor industry would require only about 185,000 tons U,0 g by 1995. Given recent DOE projections Statistical DataoftheUraniumIndustry(GJ0-100(7917ofa220,000tonU0 U.S. production capabilitythrough1986fromalreadyexistingmills,withanot$eh 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.
15 Table 8 OTHER URANIUM ORE PROCESSING I
FY80 FY81 FY82 FY83 FY84 FY85 FY86 New Facilities 2 5 5 5 5 Received 2 3 1 1 5
I I S
I5 S S Completed 0 2 3 1 1 1 1 Major Amendments 3 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 decocnissioned in FY81.
- Expect Energy Fuels Nuclear OBS to be decomissioned in FY84.
NOTES: l Includes ore buying stations and various above ground leaching operations.
2 New 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. -
3 Major Amendments - None expected except for FY83 decomissioning of OBS facility.
4 Renewals -Based on identified companies FY80-86.
5 Unidentified.
\
16 Table 9 SOLUTION MINING (COMMERCIAL SCALE)
FY80 FY81 FY82 FY83 FY84 FY85 FY86 New Facilities I 4 5 5 5 Received 1 4 3 3 3 4
3 3 5 5 Completed 1 2 4 3 3 3 3 Major Amendments 2 5 5 5 5 5 Received 0 1 2 2 2 2 3 3
Renewals Received 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 Total Licensed End FY 2 4 8 11 14 17 20 Identified 2 4 8 11 12 12 12 Unldentified 0 0 0 0 2 5 8 NOTES: 1 New Facilities - Identified companies in FY80-82. Estimates for FY83-86 based on expected conversion of R&D facilities to comercial scale operations.
2 r Major Amendments - Identified company FY81. Estimates for FY82-86 based on expected increased number of licensed facilities.
3 Renewals - Based on identified companies.
4 0ne company identified.
5 All unidentified.
9 l
l
~ . , , < . . ,
17 Table 10 OTHER SOLUTION RECOVERY I
FY80 FY81 FY82 FY83 FY84 FY85 FY86 New Facilities 2 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 Major Amendments 3 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: 1 Includes R&D solution mining and recovery of' uranium as a byproduct from solutions.
2 New Facilities - Identified companies in FY80-81. Estimates based on anticipated increased interest in solution mining for FY 82-86.
3
- Major Amendments - Identified companies in FY80. Estimates for FY81-86 based on number of licensed facilities.
4 Renewals - All renewals based on identified companies.
5 A11 unidentified.
9
. 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 l 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 be 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 FY1981 FY1982 FY1983 FY1984 FY1985 FY1986 Applications ^
Received 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 g 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 Pow r 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 00E acquisition of the NFS-West Valley spent fuel pool. ..
- 4) Currently licensed by NRC is the Morris facility, noted above, and i NFS-West Valley.
l l
m aan osO~ a e o n . .
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 memorandum 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 shown in Table 2, are classified as Category I, II, III, IV, or V, as follows:
l 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 t
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) 15(13) (15) (15)
Category V Reviews 20 15(8) 15(11) (15) (15) (15) (15)
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,
20 7.0 Safeguards Program Under the Atomic 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-
) 1al 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 remef'al licensing actions based on results of insp'ections and evaluation.
O
\
J t
21 Table 13 Material Control and Accounting Caseload FY 1980 - FY 1986 (Receipt)
Cat: gory FISCAL YEAR 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 Domestic Case Work Major Plan Change kNf (k) (h) (0) ( (0 (0 (0 Category I Physical Security Upgrade MC&A '
Review 2 9 0 0 - 0 0 0 O
~
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 Major Remedial Actions 4 7 5(b) 6(c) 2(c) 2(c) . 2(c) 2(c)
IAEA Facility 5 .
Attachment reviews 10 90 90 50 20 20 20 (Major reviews) (10) (8)(a) 0 0 0 0 0 9
Minor Dome'stic 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 5 5 25 25 Export reviews 7 140 140 150 150 150 150 150 Regulatory Issue Cases Generic issues e 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- '
(b) Four cases are unidentified (c) All cases are unidentified
, < ,-,w,, -
-,a ,,- w- ,
i r
22 Material Control and Accounting Caseload FOOTNOTES
- 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. Remaining 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 l
1
. . ~ ,- - - - -
l I
23 Table 14 Physical Security FY 1980 - FY 1986 )
(Receipt) i Category FISCAL YEAR 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 Domestic _CaseWofjt Funi Cycle:
Cat; gory 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 2(b) 2(b) 2(b) 2{b) 20 2 2(b) ,
Integrated Rulg 0 0 0 0 9 'O. O Major Remedial Actions 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other minor remedial cases Fixed Site 40 100 100 100 100 100 100 Transportation 10 10 10 10 la 10 10 Major Plan Change" Applications 0 3 1(a) 3(b) 2(b) 2(b) 2(b)
- (new) .0 (2 ) (0) (1) (0) (0) (0)
Transportati~on:5 Spent Fuel Plans 35 35 35 35 , 35 35 35 Spent Fuel Shipments 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 Cat 1/II Shipments 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 s
Power Reactors: -
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 Min:r Amendments for I&E 10 30 50 64 64 64 64
' Reports Minnr Plan Change 7 20 40 60 64 64 64 64 Applications l
a) one unidentified case b) two unidentified cases
. -. ~
, 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 C:ntingency Plans 0 0 18 0 0 0 0 Comp Evaluations 0 0 0 18 n 0 0' Rlan Change Application7 0 14 28 30 30 30 30 International:
Export Applications 195 168 178 178 178 178 -
178 Foreign Country 4 4 4 '4 4 4 4 Evaluations .
~
Rtgulatory Issue Cases 5.;naric issues' 26 20 20 20 20 20 20 10 Regulatoryamendmegs 19 26 20 20 20 20 20 .
Guidance documents 38 52 40 40 40 40 40 10 Valus-Impgtanalysis 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 Testimony 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 TOTAL REVIEWS 981 -
941 980 1001 991 982 982 e
6 5
~ -.n.~. ,s.~.. ~ . .
., ~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 FYl980 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 pian changes requested by the licensee.
g 8. Remedial amendments as a result of the comprehensive evaluations.
- 9. Specific generic issue cases have been identified through FY81, and partially for FY82. Remaining FY82 and generic issue cases for FY83 through FY86 are based on past experience. Sources of generic . )
regulatory issues include Comission concerns, Congressional concerns, public coments, 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.
l l
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. i 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 nuclear export functions. Major cases are exports of large quantities 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:
- Production and utilization facilities; One effective kilogram or more of special nuclear material ~ifisuch material is destined for a nation to which the Comission 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 export of nuclear components or materials pursuant to Section 127 of the Atomic Energy Act; 2 -
1,000 kilograms or more of heavy water or nuclear grade graphite; NRC-licensed components destined for use in a reprocessing, enrich-ment or heavy water production facility; 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 cf new NRC respon-sibilities'resulting from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act of 1977. This 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. .(Inter-national safeguards reviews for either physical security or material control and accounting represent about 15-20% of the cases.)
i
, 27 Table 15 l l
EXPORT / IMPORT LICENSING l l
Export M 980 FY1981 FY1982 FY1983 FY1984 FY1985 FY1986 Licenses Issued:
Major Cases I 40 40 40 40 40 40 HEU 30 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 l Includes license activities previously performed by DOE.
2 Special 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.
i l
\
m . - .- . . . _ . m. _ __ - . . .- _ - - - -
28 APPENDIX A
-l i !
PROCEDURES FOR ESTIMATING FUEL LOAD DATES '
FOR REACTORS UNDER CONSTRUCTION l
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 cmplete 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 l to complete construction during the FY 1900-193G tir,a pcriod were used to ,
arrive at the planning projections shown in Table 1 (p. 4). '
II. Development of Model -
I 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 c 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 M 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 iegin collecting oata 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-o .
-~ ~- -- - - - - -. .. . , . - _ _ . --. .
29 order to check these results, a second analysis examined times from start of first concrete to completion of cold hydro and times from completion of cold hydro to fuel load. It yielded the following results:
Sample Lower Upper Size Quartile Median Quartile First Concrete -
Complete Cold Hydro 18 58 mos. 67 mos. 75 mos. l l
Copmlete Cold Hydro - i 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. Thesi 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 exp4nded 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-5 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 1.155 complete 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
. . - _ - , - , y. - - , . < - ,,% , ..r...--,mwg.w,~,,
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 1he 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 8-1 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. Over.il, Plant A-1 would have a shorter construction duration than Plant B-1 bu'. 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 i
structural concrete for 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 Dast 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 j for.six months and had completed 4000 cables. They estimated a total of '
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 l pull at least 1400 cables per month over a sustained period.of time. De- l 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.
After all of the above factors were discussed and evaluated by the team, 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. I V. Establishing Planning Projections In March 1980, the Panel reviewed the estimated fuel load dates for all I projected units. In addition to the site visit and applica'nt 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 l 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 4 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 l for the three near-term reactors,.no TMI-induced slippage was explicitly I incorporated into these estimates. '
ThePanelmadeitschoiceofthefourestimatesaccordingtothefollowing procedure:
(a) The applicant's estimate was used whenever it was the latest,of the four estimates.
O i (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 v'isit 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 l
-.,,~~-,,.-,,,,,~~~c.. , , - , +--,-m , r-nnn,,n--,-, - ,,-..,,, ,,~ ~ w ,- ~ . nm en. -,
4 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 I&E 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, and a summary of the projected. number and total capacity of reactors ready for fuel loading by year is given by Table A-3.
F
?
- 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
,, s
, . . ~
33 TABLE A-1 -
P,LANTS VISITED l
s March 1979 - February 1980 l
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 -
Summer -
Oct. 15-16 Farley 2 Oct. 24 -
Perry 1 & 2 Noy. 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 O
O I
p b
e - , , - , , --.-e e , - - ,, n , -- - - , -
, l
. l 34 TABLE A-2 SOURCES OF PANEL ESTIMATES Source Number of Reactors NRR II) 4 Site Visit 16 Model 25
~
I&E 7
. Applicant 30 Panel (2) 17 Total 99 0 )'Seauoyah 1, plus the other three near-term (2) 1990 or later l
. . _ . = . . , _ . , _ - . , , _ . - - - - . - , - - . - - - - - - - - - - - . - < -
l 35 TABLE A-3 l
PROJECTED NUMBER OF REACTORS READY FOR FUEL LOADING BY YEAR Year Number of Reactors Capacity (GWe)
FY80 5 5 FY81 9 10
~
FY82 12 -
13 FY83 9 10 FY84 11 11 FY85 11 13
~
FY86 11 13 i
FY87-90 16 18 Beyond FY90 15 17 Total 99 110 3
m
, . . - . . - - - - ,- . - - , , . , , , e- , -m.-,.~ , , ~- ., ,---
P l .
27 23 19 15 11 7 3 0 75 71 67 63 59 55' 51 47 43 39 35 31 l i I l 83 79 f I t i I i I I I I I I I f f f f I 29 25 21 ** 17 13 9 4 10 73 69 65 61 57 53 49 .45 e
41 I
37 e
33 e I t 9 i i l i i1 t e f e f i i 49 45 41 37 33 29 25 21 17 ~13 9 5 10 61 57 53 I I I I I I i1 l i I 'I I I I I I G!i 77 III F.L. F.L. F.L.
COMP 100 -
STA RT C.H' COMP PRE OP C.H. COMP TEST C.H.
90 -
START PRE OP 80 - 1 YEAR START
. NSSS PRE OP TEST 70 - 1 YEAR
, NSSS H
1 YEAR 60 .-
START NSSS so o
'h NSSS -
MF STAllT 2 50 -
STAllT NSSS U IIPV cc
- SET STAHT
- 40 -
RPV START SET START NSSS RPV 30 - SET 20 -
10 -
I I I I I i i I i I I i 1' I I I I I I 40 44 48 52 56 60 G4 G8 72 7G 80 84 88 O 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 30 p.s ELAPSED TIME FilOM FillST CONCRETE Figurn A- I e
9
~
. J.
APPENDIX B i
37 URANIUM REC 0VERY AGREEMENT STATES ASSISTANCE PROGRAM ASSISTANCE REQUESTS IN-HOUSE END OF 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 a Anaconda TX Land ownership Placer-AMAX OR Env. and Rad review.
Cotter Corporation C0 Canon City - rad. review l
1
- Request is pending from the State of Arizona that NRC reassert licensing authority for all uranium recovery activities; thus these actions would be added to Table 7 (p.14).
o O
w
38 APPENDIX C l P0TENTIAL ADDITIONAL AGREEMENT STATES ASSISTANCE PROJECTS STATE AND COMPANY ACTIVITY CALIFORNIA Undesignated ISL(onforestserhiceland)
COLORADO Union Carbide Rifle Mill Reactivation Union Carbide Expand Maybell heap leach Wyoming Mineral R&D In-situ leach (ISL)
ARIZONA **
f Phelps Dodge ByproductRecoheryRenewal Anamax Byproduct Recovery. Renewal Heap Leach t Exxon Minerals .
Atlas Minerals Tailings Recovery (Tuba City) u NEVADA Bobcat Properties New mill Bobcat Properties Heap leach or'ISL Chevron Resources New mill U0C0 Heap leach IDAHO
,Undesignated UraniumRecoheryfrom Phosphate Operations WASHINGTON Dawn Mining Mill renewal Dawn Mining Heap leach Western Nuclear Wellpinit Mill Renewal NEW MEXICO TVA-UNC-Burns ISL(NahahoReserhation)
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 i
- Assistance on special problems may be requested. '
- Request is pending from the State of Arizona that NRC reassert licensing )
authority for all uranium recovery. activities.
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 9
e l
l
. J. :
~
40 l l
GLOSSARY l l
l 80P -
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) -
GWe - Gigawatts (Electrical)
HLW - High-Level Waste IRG -
Interagency Group Report on Nuclear Waste Management ISFSI - Independent Spent Fuel Storage Facility LLW -
Low-Level Waste LWA -
Limited Work Authorization 1
MC&A - Material Control & Accounting MPA - (Office of) Management and Program Analysis NMSS -
(Office of) Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards -
NRC -
Nuclear Regulatory Commission NRR -
(Office of) Nuclear Reactor Regulation NSSS . Nuclear Steam Supply System OL -Operating License PDA -
Preliminary Design Approval SNM - Special Nuclear Material i
., . =
gkA 4G0
- /'. h, UNITED STATES 3
'{)~q#
.E g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 s; :.s MAY 5 1981 MEMORANDUM FOR: John G. Davis, Director, NMSS Harold R. Denton, Director, NRR Victor Stello, Director, IE Robert B. Minogue, Director, RES James R. Shea, Director, IP G. Wayne Kerr, Director, SP FROM: Norman M. Haller, Director Office of Management and Program Analysis
SUBJECT:
FY 1983-87 CASELOAD PROJECTIONS Here is the final report of the Caseload Panel, referenced in the FY 1983-87 Budget Call.
MW. k . Ol: DDJ-No n M. Haller, Director Office of Management and Program Analysis
Attachment:
As stated cc: w/ attachment W. J. Dircks, EDO E. K. Cornell, DEDO L. W. Barry, CON E. G. Triner, CON H. K. Shapar, ELD M. Karman, ELD R. E. McKinney, ACRS C. J. Bishop, ASLAB C. J. Fitti, ASLBP Caseload Panel Members
,n nifi ~I o c c i vuuu > [
L("-