ML20197F508
| ML20197F508 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/30/1976 |
| From: | Riordan B NRC OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND PROGRAM ANALYSIS (MPA) |
| To: | Karen Chapman, Dircks W, Friedman R NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS), NRC OFFICE OF THE CONTROLLER, NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20197E179 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-86-172 ZECH, NUDOCS 8104230615 | |
| Download: ML20197F508 (25) | |
Text
- '
- ~ ""%,
-D uniTem svaras [
. [k
- NUCLEAR REGULATCRY COMMISsit j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
,,,,,# March 30,1976 MEMORANDUM FOR: R. J. Friedman, Controller W. J. Dircks, Assistant Executive Director for Operations K. R. Chapman, Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards D. J. Eenoghue, Director, Office of Administration J. G. Davis, Acting Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement H. J. C. Kouts, Director, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research R. B. Minogue, Director, Office of Standards Development B. C. Rusche, Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation B. A. Cooper, Office of the Controller FR0th Barrett J. Riordan, Director
. Office of Planning and Analysis SUBJECT': SUBMISSION OF FORECAST PANEL REPORT Attached is the report of the Forecast Panel that estimates overall caselcad projecticns through FY 1982. The Panel submits this report with the recommendation that the PRC adopt its estimates for five-year planning purposes. We would appreciate any comments and suggestions you might have. *
' k%
Barr tt Riordan, Director Office of' lanning and Analysis
Attachment:
Report of Forecast Panel cc: L. V. Gossick W. G. Mcdonald H. K. Shapar J. D. Lafleur S. S. Hanauer E. G. Triner A. F. Abellbm.. - - -
W. A. Nixon' '
D. K. Davis -
I Royz3aaxa !
w}t- i !
j
. , e, >,- .
NRC CASELOAD FORECAST Summary The following sections detail the derivation of a forecast of new applications for permits and licenses. The forecast has been reconciled in two ways: first, with current overall projections of national economic trends and energy consumption; second, with NRC survey information on utility construction plans.
The more important components of the forecast for reactor licensing actions are shown in the Summary Table. In general, the forecast portrays a much lower level of nuclear reactor licensing activity in the near-term future than has occurred in the recent past. For example, the average number of construction permits tendered during the FY 1973-77 period was slightly over 12 per year as compared with the average of 8 projected for FY 1978-82.
a
" Summary Table (Fiscal Years)
Nuclear Reactors 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982
~
cps Tendered 17(32)22(42) 6(15) 9(16) 7(13) 7(9) 8(16) 8(16) 8(16) 8(16) cps Issued 11(15) 9(16) 8(14)18(33)15(28) 9(16) 7(13) 7(9) 8(16) 8(16)
OLs Tendered 4(5) 4(5) 2(2) 5(7) 6(11) 8(17) 2(3) 7(10) 13(27) 11(21)
OLs Issued 8 11 9 11 10 6 8 10 10 13 Total Licensed Plants 34 45 53 63 73 79 JB'7 97 107 120 Total Licensed GWe 19.6 28.0 36.7 45.7 55.5 61.7 70.0 81.4 92.2 105.2 It should be stressed that the record of forecasting nuclear power additions has been very poor (the 1964 AEC forecast for instance, appears to be much more accurate than the 1974 forecast) and there is no assurarce that the projections shown here are any improvement. It should also be noted that while the uncertainty associated with cumulative projections through 1982 is high, the uncertainty associated with any given year's projection is even higher. We can almost certainly expect the flow of casework to be more uneven than portrayed in the forecast. All things considered, however, O
l
2-it is the opinion of the Forecasting Panel
- that the projections
' contained herein represent the best effort that can be made at this time.
Assumptions Any forecast or projection of future events must be predicated upon certain key assumptions. In this case the assumptions fall into two categories: those characterizing overall economic activity and those characterizing behavior of the principal energy sectors.
- 1. Macro-economic assumptions:
Federal personal tax rates are reduced substantially over ten year period but total tax collections continue to rise rapidly. Federal. expenditures continue to rise but at a slower rate than over the past ten years. The Federal deficit falls from the $30-$40 billion level to the $10-$15 billion level in the 1980s.
Monetary and fiscal policy as described above will lead to economic conditions as described below:
1965-74 1975-85 GNP growth rate 8.2% 9.4% '
Inflation growth rate 4.8% 4.6%
Real GNP growth rate 3.2% 4.5%
Unemployment rate 4.6% 6.2%
High grade (Aaa) 6.7% 8.6%
corporate bond rate These figures describe a period of strong economic growth, stability, and widespread prosperity.
- 2. Micro-economic assumptions:
Price controls will gradually be removed from petroleum and natural gas. OPEC prices will remain about $13 per barrel in -
real terms.
Environmental or other restrictions will not be applied to the point of banning use of any single fuel source.
- B. J. Riordan -
PLA E. G. Triner CON .
A. Abel MIPC D. K. Davis NRR R. Dube NMSS ip
( .
et
Coal and uranium prices will rise at higher rates than petroleum as long-term contracts are renegotiated.
The move to redesign utility rate structures will accelerate, but will show little payoff in terms of shifts in demand patterns and, thus, in the need for peakload capacity.
Projections of Electricity Consumption Growth Electricity consumption is dependent upon many variables. Among them are electricity prices, prices of competing fuels, growth in income, demographic factors, mix of industrial and commercial activity, and personal tastes. The complex manner in which these factors interrelate makes forecasting electricity growth a very uncertain process.
The following table presents some results of recent attempts at forecasting electricity consumption growth.
Projected Growth Rate Source and Year of Study 1974-85 Oak Ridge (1973) 4.4%
Arthur D. Little (1974) 6.4 Lawrence Livermore (1974) 5.6 '
Hudson-Jorgenson (1974) 5.5 FPC Technical Advisory Committee (1974) 6.0 OakRidge(1975) 5.1 Westinghouse (1975) 5.0 Electric World (1975) 5.8 Although the Federal government publishes no single " official" forecast of energy growth, those projections prepared by the Federal Energy Administration using the Project Independence Evaluation System (PIES) have come the closest to representing an " official" position. For that reason and because the FEA projections are analytically sound and extremely comprehensive, the most recent PIES report will provide the basis for the caseload forecast derived below.
The current National Ener,gy Outlook published by FEA examines electricity consumption under a number of different policy assumptions combined into
" scenarios" and under a number of different energy price levels for each scenario. Electricity grew about twice as fast as the total of all energy sources over the past twenty years and will continue to do so over the next ten years, although at a slower overall rate. In thef'r Reference Scenario, or base case, FEA estimates that electricity wilJ grow at a rate of 5.2-5.5j from 1974-85, depending upon the price of oil.
?
_4 .
Moving away from the base case, FEA shows that there are a wide range of policy actions that can be taken to change the course of electricity growth.
In the event of a strong national policy thrust (ban on oil and gas heating equipment, mass conversion of industrial oil and gas boilers, prohibitions on oil and gas electricity generation, etc.) towards greater reliance on electricity, demand could grow at nearly 6.5% per year. Alternatively, a strong conservation program (national insulation standards, appliance efficiency standards, utility load management, etc.) coupled with local coal mining and nuclear power limitations and moratoria, could reduce the annual growth rate to 4.8%.
It should be noted that hlectricity consumption growth rates do not translate directly into generating capacity growth rates. First of all, the utility industry is today characterized by very high excess capacity
- 40% as opposed to a probable desired reserve of from 15-20%
nationally. This excess capacity could support 3-4 years of consumption growth with no concurrent growth in generating capacity. Secondly, capacity growth is quite' sensitive to changes in load factors. If peak constation growth were to fall relative to base cc:.sumption, the present generating capacity could support much more total consumption.
- The FEA reference case continues the trend of peak to base relative growth at a rate of .5% annually. The conservation scenario, on the other hand, hypothesizes a 1% annual decline in peak consumtpion relative to base.
- This leads to a need for 60 GWe less generating capacity in 1985.
Nuclear Share The manner in which future electricity demands are satisfied depends on many additional factors: the relative price of substitute fuels, the price of labor and capital equipment, Federal and state policy actions, and the commercial development of certain key technologies. The primary choice in planning future base-load electricity generating capacity lies between coal and nuclear power and the uncertainties associated with each power source make projections of this aggregate choice extremely tenuous, particularly beyond 1985.
Perhaps the most important factor to assess here is the relative behavior of capital costs. Nuclear plants cost more to build than do coal plants.
The differential is due to many things: a more complex basic technology, the need for expensive safety systems, longer construction times that build up carrying charges. Despite their heavy capital costs, nuclear nuclear plants until recently appeared much more attractive than coal plants particularly with coal prices soaring. Today, however, it appears that nuclear no longer holds a definite advantage over coal and, indeed, in some instances coal now appears to possess a financial edge.
The reason for this change in balance appears to lie with ari extreme acceleration of nuclear plant capital costs. Construction costs of all types have skyrocketed during the past few years and the costs of coal-fired plants have increased dramatically, but those for nuclear plants appear to have risen considerably more (see Fig. 1*). Several explanations have been advanced to account for the relative increase in nuclear capital costs: monopolistic elements in the nuclear vendor industries, increasingly strict regulation, and lack of managerial ability to cope with the complex nuclear technology are all possibili-ties that have been raised. None of these, however, has been subjected to thorough investigation.
Perhaps even more important has been the uncertainty surrounding govern-ment actions with regard to critical elements of the nuclear fuel cycle.
Expansion of enrichment capacity, development of consnercial fuel reprocessing, plutonium recycle, and radioactive waste management are all components of the fuel cycle subject to Federal action that present unresolved problems and thus make nuclear planning extremely difficult.
Adding to the uncertainties are potential state actions that could halt nuclear construction at least temporarily. l Thus, the current time is a very difficult one in which to project nuclear growth, although probably no more difficult than any other time in the past. The attached table shows past projections by the AEC and more recently by FEA. The history of nuclear power forecasting has been l characterized by massive swings in sentiment and it now appears that the projections of ten years ago were cuch more accurate than the projections of five years ago.
The table below shows the most recent FEA projections for on-line nuclear capacity under different scenarios.
INSTALLED ELECTRICAL GENERATING CAPACITY 3
(MWex10)
End of Year Nuclear All Other Total 1974 Actual 36 420 456 f
1984 Moratorium 95 641 736 !
1984 Reference 141 652 793 i Electrification 162 685 847 l 1989 Reference 217 792 - 1,009
' Source: FEA, National Energy Outlook,1976. .
et al, " Trends in LWR Capital Costs in the
- U.S.
Fig.1 is taken Causes from Bupp, F TCenter for Policy Alternatives, M I T )
and Consequence ....
This chart is shown here for illustrative purposes only and in no way implies endorsement by the Forecasting Panel either of the data or of the conclusions drawn in the paper.
A
, 280 -
o Nuclear Reactors ( All Plants (970-1975)
O Coal Plants ( All Plants 1970-1975) .
. 260 - o Refineries ( Nelson True index) / Nuclear COST IN CURRENT $ ,
g ,
' S' 240 -
. '97 ' / !
. /
220 -
/
/
200 -
/
/
O 180 -
7 o Coal 160 - - /
/
I f a 140 -
/
120 Y
o O Refineries
/
- ',_,.c7-O 100 '
O s/
y._ -D ~/ ,
O O 80 -
O o o O 1 i
60 -
40 -
20 I I I I I I I I I .,
60 62 64 66 68 1970 72, 74 76 Year of Commercial Opera tion ,
Fig. 1 Cost Index Trend for Nuclear Plants, Coal Plant s, i
and Refineries
. . o COMPARISON OF AEC AND FEA FORECASTS Cumulative Capacity of Nuclear Power Plants Forecast Made (End of CY, AEC - Beginning of CY, FEA) in Year: in Thousands of Electrical Megawatts 1970 1975 1980 1985 1962I (AEC) . . . 5 16 . 40 -
19642 (AEC) . . . 6 29 75 -
19663 (AEC) . . . 10 -
40 95 -
19674 (AEC) . . . 10 61 - 145 255 19695 (AEC) . . . 6 62 149 277 1970 (AEC) . . . 5 59 150 300 19746 (AEC) . . . -
43 85 231 19757 (FEA) . . . - -
79 204 19768 (FEA) . . . - -
64 141 I
j Table 16 of Appendix IV of AEC Report to the President on " Civilian Nuclear Power" of December 1962. ,,
2 AEC Report WASH-1055 on " Estimated Growth of Civilian Nuclear Power",
published in March 1965.
3 Page 6 of AEC press release S-20-66 of June 7,1966, and Table 1 of AEC press release S-23-66 of September 8,1966.
4 AEC Report WASH-1084 on " Forecast of Growth of Nuclear Power",
published in December 1967.
5 Unpublished AEC forecast made in May 1969.
6 AEC Report WASH-1174-74 "The Nuclear Industry" 1974.
7 Project Independence Report, Federal Energy Administration, 1974.
O " National Energy Outlook", Federal Energy Administration,1976.
O 4
I wn-- - , -- . . , - . , - - + ---,- , ,
-m--- ,4. -,,,-.m- .- --,w - -e-a w -.--v~---,m---se---s-~~ ~+mn'-w*-"-- - * -- *w--' em^v-'
4 - 8 i i i i .
i l .I l l i . ; ! ! ! .
i .
, . 6 . -
l ;
- j i ; 1 .
l l ! ! #
- a ?
t i .
l Figure 2i, l , .
i ,
' 250
' ' .l q __ _i.__..____
- - l g i
i l i !
I l
h
+3 t
i i
t -
M t l
g . 200
[ /
h--------'--'
s
_. _t
. l .___..- r- - - - -i. . ; - ----------;~----~-!
.a
.! .' l o
v f '- .
1, i
e 1 b . i E "Bl ueboo k." ' FEA Reference i 0 _ _.l_50 , _ . _ i.....__. Trac k i
._ / _ Ca s e_ Proj ec t.i o n ___ [._.. .. . . _ . .
._ e. r. - i i
i (, , .
i
~
. e
$ 1
, 1 i
- j . . ,
u
--100 - -
i ! I
t---- - - - - - -
r- -t--
3 e t
z . - .
{
,/ l l
- I' -
. ./ ! I
- - Ef l I
5.0 - I !
l
! i l i
. s
.74
. .7.6 78 80 82 8.4 86 88 90 ;
I a
. 'l f . t . .
4
. . .Calendad, Years l
. -. . . . i
. i l
p .
- _~.
=
. . , j The FEA Reference case compares favorably to current NRC projections of around 160 nuclear plants and 150 GWe on-line by the end of 1984
- (see Fig. 2). Nuclear makes up about one-third of all capacity addi-tions to 1985, but this is deceptive since the total includes both peak and baseload plants. Nuclear is competitive only for baseload use and
. represents closer to 50% of estimated baseload additions. It is rela-tively unaffected by any of the load management schemes hypothesized by FEA.
It is the. period beyond 1984, however, that presents the greatest forecasting problem and is also most critical in formulating an NRC caseload forecast for the next five years (fiscal years 1978-82).
The FEA projection of 217 thousand megawatts on-line by end-of-year 1989 is considerably lower than other recent long range forecasts.
ERDA's unofficial estimate; for instance, is around 270 thousand megawatts.
Is the FEA estimate too low? Their figures are determined principally
- by electricity demand estimates calculated on a regional basis. Supply i estimates attempt to account for regional differences in the relative i economics of coal and nuclear power. There is little reason to fault the analysis on a conceptual basis. The numbers reflect a slightly higher demand for energy during the 1984-89 period than in previous years and a nuclear penetration of roughly 50 percent. These are not unreason-able expectations, although of course it is possible to think of other , .
reasonable scenarios that would push nuclear estimates much higher.
! On the other hand, the FEA estimate is by no means a lower bound. It is entirely conceivable to hypothesize a period of virtually no nuclear growth in the late ' eighties and early ' nineties, although it would be much more difficult to envision beyond that point.
Reactor Licensing cps Tendered - If the FEA estimate is accepted as reasonable, it implies l
that 35 nuclear stations (dual 1.1 GWe plants) must come on-line during 1985-89 in order to satisfy the increment of 76 GWe nuclear. Given a nine year period from initial tender of a construction permit to the granting of an operating licens, an average of seven dual reactor con-struction permits would be expected to be tendered during fiscal years 1976-80. Accepting current stated intentions
- for CP submissions during i fiscal years 1976-78 (see Appendix A), actual submissions during the '
- subsequent two year period will rise slightly to 8 per year. Exponential 4
l
- As stated in answer to NRR survey initiated January 22,1976, with minor revisions.
l
a growth would raise the average beyond 1990 and eight cps could also be reasonably expected during fiscal 1981 and 82. These figures are presented in the attached Table.I.
The following briefly expiains derivation of the other important variables in Tables I and II.
cps Issued - FY 1972 through 1975 (actual), FY 1976 and 1977 (projected) for FY 1978 - 1982, assume that cps tendered two years previously will be issued during these years. (See Appendix S.)
OLs Tendered - FY 1972 through 1975 (actual), FY 1976 through 1982 (projected). (SeeAppendixC.)
OLs issued - FY 1972 through 1975 (actual), FY 1976 through 1982 (projected). (SeeAppendixD.)
i NSSS/B0P Tendered - FY 1974 and 1975 (actual), and FY 1976 through FY 1982 (Orojected). (See Appendix E.)
Early Site Reviews (ESR) Tendered - FY 1976 (projected); assume a constant influx of four applications for FY 1977 through 1982. (See Appendix F.)
Limited Early Site Reviews (LESR) Tendered FY 1974 and 1975 (actual);
assume constant rate of three a year for FY 1976 through 1982. (See -
AppendixG.)
Special Projects (SP) - FY 1973 - 1975 (actual), FY 1976 (projected);
assume constant rate of four for FY 1977 through 1982. (See Appendix H.)
Fuel Cycle Licensing Estimates of fuel cycle licensing actions based on the FEA estimates are presented in Tables II A and B. Table II A represents projections assuming no plutonium recycle; Table II B assumes that recycle occurs.
Estimates were prepared using NUFUEL, the computer model developed by the AEC for facility planning purposes.
O 9
4
TABLE I .
NRR CASELOAD, FY 1972-1982 (FY 72-75 actual. FY 76-82 estimated) ,
1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 CP's Tendered 4(8) 17(32) 22(42) 6(15) 9(16) 7(13) 7(9) 8(16) 8(16) 8(16) 8(16)
CP's Issued --
11(15) 9(16) . 8(14) 18(33) 15(28) 9(16)' 7(13) 7(9) 8(16) 8(16) i OL's Tendered 4(5) 4(5) 6(10) 2(2) 5(7) 6(11) 8(17) 2(3) 7(10) 13(27) 11(21)
OL's Issued 7 8 . 11 9 11 10 6 8 10 10 13 GWE Added 4.9 6.4 8.4 7.7 10.3 9.8 6.2 8.3 11.4 10.8 13.0 Total Licensed Plants 27 34 E 45 53 E 63 E 73 79 87 97 107 120 Total GWE 13.3 19.6/ I 3 28.0 35.72f 45.7_/ 55.5 61.7 70 81.4 92.2 105.2 NSSS/ BOP Tendered -- --
6 4 4 3 6 8 5 3 3 ESR's Tendered -- -- -- --
2 3 4 4 4 4 4 LESR's Tendered -- --
4 5 -- .
3 3 3 3 3 3 Special Projects 3
Tendered --
1 2 --
8 4 3 4 4 4 4 E Fe rmi i shut down (100 Kle)
Pe E ach Boftom 1 shut down (40 MWe)
E Indian Point 1 to be shut down (265 Mie) e
i TABLE IIA FUEL CYCLE PLANNINS PROJECTIONS WITHOUT RECYCLE Fiscal Year I 1977 .1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 Uranium Mills New Applications (Total)* 2 2 2 3 2 2 i New Applications (NRC) 0 1 'l 1 1 2
] Operating Mills (Total)* 18 19 20 23 24 26 Operating Hills (NRC) 9 , 10 10 11 12 12 UFs Conversion (Natural U)
New Applications 1 0 0 0 0 1
- Operating Plants 2 2 2 3 3 3 Enrichment Faciljties cps Tendered 4 0 0 0 0 0 1
OLs Tendered 0 0 0 1 3 0 Operating Plants 0 0 0 0 0 1 LWR Uranium Fuel Fabrication Major Expansions Tendered 0 1 G 1 1 0 Operating Plants 9 9 9 9 9 9 Transportation Irradiated Fuel Casks 3 5 6 6 7 7 Shipping Packages 40 50 50 60 60 70
- Includes Agreement States Waste Manage. tent _
I Projections on major licensing casework for nuclear waste repositories are highly dependent upon the prograns and schedules of ERDA. For planning purposes, we presently would forecast formal application for construction approval of the first demonstration waste repository (high level and transuranic wastes) in FY 1978.
Applications for two more demonstration repositories in other geologic formations i
l
TABLE II A
- (Continued) and/or locations are expected to follow over the next two fiscal years (FY 79 and FY80).
In addition, licensing work may involve review of certain new ERDA waste storage facilities at Hanford, Idaho and Savannah River, depending upon interpretion of the Legislative Reorganization Act. However, no deter-minations have been made in this regard, nor do we have sufficient informa-tion to make forecasts at this time on the licensing workload if it should be determined that NRC license approvals are required.
I
?
I e
er e
- e
- TABLE II B FUEL CYCLE PLANNING PROJECTIONS WITH Pu RECYCLE Fiscal Year 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 Uranium Mills New Applications (Total)* 1 1 1 2 2 3 New Applications (NRC) 0 1 0 1 1 1 Operating Mills (Total)* 18 19 19 21 21 23 Operating Mills (NRC) 9 10 10 11 11 11 UFs Conversion (natural U)
New Applications 0 1 0 0 0 0 Operating Plants 2 2 2 2 3 3
, Enrichment Facilities cps Tendered 4 0 0 0 0 0 OLs Tendered 0 0 0 1 3 0 Operating Plants 0 0 0 0 0 1 LWR Uranium Fuel Fabrication l Major Expansions Tendered 0 1 1 0 1 0 Operating Plants 9 9 9 9 9 9 Fuel Reprocessing Facilities cps Tendered 0 0 0 1 0 0 OLs Tendered 0 0 0 0 1 0 Operating Plants 0 1 1 1 1 2 Mixed 0xide Fuel Fabrication CAs Tendered -0 1 0 0 1 0 OLs Tendered 0 0 1 0 1 0 Operating Pilot Plants 4 4 4 4 4 4 Operating Production Plants 0 0 0 0 1 1 Transportation Irradiated Fuel Casks 3 5 6 6 7 7 Shipping Packages 40 50 50 60 60 70
- Includes Agreement States -
1 l l
e-- - ,- - - .-, , , - - , , . - , - - ,s . - , ,-
. o spendix A
'f CP's TENDERED FY 1972 - 4 (8) FY - 1974 (Continued)
WPPSS 2 8/71C Davis-Besse 2 & 3 5/74C North Anna 3 & 4 9/71C Harris 1 - 4 South Texas 1 & 2 5/74C 9/71C Pebble Springs 1 & 2 Nine Mile Pt. 2 S/74C 3/72C Koshkonong 1 & 2 5/74C Jamesport 1 & 2 6/74C FY 1973 - 17 (32) 81ue Hills 1 & 2 i 6/74C Beaver-Valley 2 9/72C Millstone 3 10/72C Catawba 1 & 2 FY 1975 - 6 (15) 10/72C Grand Gulf 1 & 2 ll/72C Hartsville 1 - 4 Vogtle 1 - 4 7/74C 4
1/73C Fulo Veroe 1 - 3 i Byron 1 & 2 7/74C i 2/73C Skagit 1 & 2 Braidwood 1 & 2 8/74C 2/73C Barton 1 - 4 Perry 1 & 2 8/74C 3/73C North Coast N. S.
St. Lucie 2 9/74C 4/73C Clinch River Sununit 1 & 2 4/73C 10/74C Seabrook 1 & 2 4/73C Bellefonte 1 & 2 FY 1976 - 12 (22)
^
5/73C Pilgrim 2 6/73C I Surry 3 & 4 Marble Hill 1 & 2 7/75C 6/73C Greene County Comanche Peak 1 & 2 6/73C 7/75C Greenwood 2 & 3 Ft. Calhoun 2 8/75C -
6/73C Black Fox 1 & 2 River Bend 1 & 2 6/73C 8/75C Phipps Bend 1 & 2 10/75C New England 1 & 2 5/76 FY 1974 - 22 (42) Yellow Creek 1 & 2 6/76 Douglas Point 1 & 2 Baltimore 1 & 2 7/76 7/73C Central Iowa Fulton 1 & 2 7/73C 7/76 WPPSS 1 & 4 DeSoto 7/76 7/73C South Dade 1 & 2 Clinton 1 & 2 8/73C 7/76 San Joaquin 1 - 4 8/76 i
Allens Creek 1 & 2 8/73C Quaincassee 1 & 2 10/73C Atlantic 1 & 2 1/74C FY 1977 - 9 (16)
WPPSS 3 & 5 3/74C Cherokee 1 - 3 Sundesert 1 & 2 FY 1977 3/74C Erie 1 & 2 )
Perkins 1 - 3 3/74C FY 1977 !
Fermi 3 Stanislaus 1 & 2 FY 1977 4/74C Rancho Seco 2 Callaway 1 & 2 4/74C 11/76 Sterling Zimner 2 12/76 4/74C WPPSS 6 & 7 Tyrone 4/74C 5/77 Wolf Creek Carroll 1 & 2 -
7/77 4/74C Vidal 1 & 2 Montague 1 & 2 5/74C 8/77 Summit 1 & 2 FY 1977 l
l
- -~ - _, _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ . _ _ _ _ _ L
.. a .
3/22/76 APPENDIX B CP'S ISSUED FY 1973 - 11 (15) FY 1976 - 18(33)
! Farley 1 & 2 8/72C Catawba l&2 8/75C i
Fermi 2 9/72C WPPSS 1 12/75C Zimer 1 10/72C South Texas 1&2 12/75C Arkansas 2 12/72C Braidwood 1&2 12/75C Midland 1 & 2 12/72C Byron 1&2 12/75C Hatch 2 12/72C Clinton l&2 2/76C Watts Bar 1 & 2 1/73C Callaway 1&2 4/76 McGuire 1 & 2 2/73C River Bend 1&2 5/76 WPPSS 2 3/73C Seabrook 1&2 5/76.
Summer 1 3/73C Palo Verde 1-3 6/76 Shoreham 4/73C Wolf Creek 7/76 Perry 152 -7/76
' FY 1974 - 9 (16) St. Lucie 2 7/76 '
WPPSS 3&5 8/76 Forked River 7/73C Pilgrim 2 8/76 LaSalle 1 & 2 9/73C UPPSS 4 9/76 San Onofre 2 & 3 10/73C Jamesport 1&2 9/76 Susquehanna 1 & 2 ll/73C Cherokee 1-3 9/76 Bailly 5/74C Beaver Valley 2 5/74C FY 1977 - 15(28)
Limerick 1 & 2 6/74C a i Nine Mile Pt. 2 6/74C Sterling 11/76 Vogtle 1 - 4 6/74C Pebble Springs 1&2 12/76 Hartsville 1-4 12/76 FY 1975 - 8 (14) Perkins 1-3 12/76 Davis-Besse 2&3 12/76 .
North Anna 3 & 4 7/74C Tyrone 1/77 !
Millstone 3 8/74C .Koshkonong 1&2 2/77 Grand Gulf 1 & 2 9/74C Skagit 1&2 3/77 Hope Creek 1 & 2 ll/74C Fort Calhoun 2 4/77 Waterford 3 ll/74C Marble Hill 1&2 4/77 Comanche Peak 1 & 2 12/74C Phipps Bend 1&2 6/77 Surry 3 & 4 12/74C Clinch River 7/77 Bellefonte 1 & 2 12/74C Atlantic 1&2- 7/77 Black Fox 152 8/77 Greene County 9/77 1
y -. -. -.,_w
%--- _ _ _ . ,, _ * - . , g- -y. w. y 9 , - w- .i. --w-. ,7--
3/22//6
. APPCilDIX C
. 0_L's TCitDiflQ FY 1972 - 4 (5)- FY 1979 - 2(3)
Beaver Valley 1 3/72C Perry 1&2 72/78
. Duane Arnold. 5/72C Beaver Valley 2 2/79 Brunswick 1 &'2 6/72C Millstone 2 6/72C FY 1980 - 7(10)
FY 1973 - 4 (5) St. Lucie 2 3/80*
l Nine Mile Point 2 3/80 St. Lucie 1 10/72C Millstone 3 5/80 Trojan 12/72C Hope Creek 1&2 6/80 Davis-Besse 1 2/73C Bailly 6/80**
North Anna 1 & 2 3/73C Callaway 1&2 8/80*
FY 1974 - 6 (10)
~
Diablo Canyon 1 & 2 7/73C Farley 1 & 2 7/73C Davis-Besse 2&3 12/80*
Sequoyah 1 & 2 12/73C Vogtle 1&2 4/81 Thru Mile Island 2 2/74C Seabrook 1&2 5/81*
Arka;isas 2 3/74C Hartsville 1-4 5/81*
McGuire 1 & 2 4/74C North Anna 3&4 6/81***
Forked River 6/81***
FY 1975 - #2) Palo Verde 1-3 6/81*
Wolf Creek 7/81*
i Fermi 2 10/74C Skagit 1&2 7/81*
Zimmer 1 5/75C Perkins 1-3 7/81
. WPPSS 3&5 8/81*
FY 1976 - 5(7)
Pilgrim 2 8/81*
Jamesp rt 1&2 9/81*
Hatch 2 7/75C Shoreham - 9/75C FY 1982 - 11(21)
Watts Bar 1&2 6/76 WPPSS 2 7/76 LaSalle 1&2 8/76 Sterling 1181*
l Surry 3&4 12/81 FY 1977 - 6(11) Clinch River 12/81*
Marble Hill 1&2 12/81*
Summer 1 11/76 Harris 1-4 1/82 San Onofre 2&3 11/76 Greene County 1/82*
Grand Gulf 1&2 3/77 Koshkonong 182 2/82*
i Midland 1&2 6/77 Black Fox 152 2/82*
Comanche Peak 1&2 6/77 Cherokee 1-3 4/82 Susquehanna 1&2 7/77 Fort Calhoun 2 4/82*
1 Pebble Springs 152 7/82*
NOTE: Assumes FSAR tendtred two years to Limerick 1&2 12/77 fuel loading.
Bellefonte 1&2 12/77 South Texas 1&2 1/78
Byron l&2/Braidriood 1&2 6/78 ** Assumes 6 years construction from 6/76.
Catawba 1&2 8/78 *** Assumes 7 years construction from 7/76.
WPPSS l&4 9/78 Clinton 1&2 9/78
o - '
._0L's TENDERED continued NOTE: For applications not yet tendered assumes FSAR I years prior to fuel loading.
- Assumes 6 years construction from 6/76 start date.
- Assumes 7 years construction from 6/76 start date.
G e
9
- l 1
. e
3/22/7G Appendix D !
l OL's ISSUED FY 1972 - 7 (4,942) FY 1976 - 11 (10,317)
Indian Point 2 (873) 10/71C Millstone 2 (828) 8/75C Quad Cities 1 800) 10/71C Trojan (1130) ll/75C Point Beach 2 497) ll/71C Indian Point 3 (965) 12/75C VermontYankee(514) 3/72C Beaver Valley 1 (852) 1/76C Quad Cities 2 (800) 3/72C St. Lucie 1 (810) 3/76C Surry 1 (788) 5/72C Browns Ferry 3 (1067) 4/76 Pilgrim 1 (670) 6/72C Crystal River 3 (825) 4/76 Salem 1 (1090) 5/76 FY 1973 8 (6,355) Brunswick 1 (821) 6/76
. Diablo Canyon 1 (1084) 8/76 Turkey Point 3 (666) 7/72C Calvert Cliffs 2 (845) 9/76 Maine Yankee (790) 9/72C Surry 2 (788) 1/73C FY 1977 - 10 (9,843)
Oconee 1 (871) 2/73C Zion 1 (1050) 4/73C Davis-Desse 1 (906) 10/76 Turkey Point 4 (666) 4/73C North Anna 1 (898) 12/76 -
Fort Calhoun 1 (457) 5/73C Diablo Canyon 2 (1106) 2/77 Browns Ferry 1 (1067) 6/73C Farley 1 (829) 2/77 Sequoyah 1 (1148) 3/77 FY 1974 - 11 (8,436) North Anna 2 (898) 6/77 Three Mile Island 2 (906) 7/77 Peach Bottom 2 (1065) 8/73C McGuire 1 (1180) 8/77 Prairie Island 1 (530) 8/73C Cook 2 (1060) 9/77 Oconee 2 (871) 10/73C Arkansas 2 (912) 9/77 Zion 2 (1050) ll/73C FortSt.Vrain(330) 12/73C FY 1978 - 6 (6,188)
Kewaunee (541) 12/73C Cooper (778) ~ 2/74C Sequoyah2(1148) 11/77 Duane Arnold (535) 2/74C Zimmer 1 (810) 4/78 Three Mile Island 1 (819) 4/74C Hatts Bar 1 (1177) 6/78 Arkansas 1 (850) 5/74C Hatch 2 (795) 7/78 Browns Ferry 2 (1067) 6/74C LaSalle 1 (1078) 8/78 FY 1975 - 9 (7,712)
FY 1979 - 8 (8,343)
Peach Bottom 3 (1065) 7/74C Oconee 3 (871) 7/74C Summer 1 (900) 11/73 Calvert Cliffs 1 (845) 8/74C Shorcham (819) 12/78 Rancho Seco 1 (913) 8/74C Salen 2 (1115) 12/78 Hatch 1 (786) 8/74C Farley 2 (829) 12/78 Fitzpatrick (821) 10/74C WPPSS 2 (1103) 1/79 Cook 1 (1060) 10/74C Grand Gulf 1 (1250) _ 3/79 PrairieIsland2(530) 10/74C Watts Bar 2 (1177) 3/79 Brunswick 2 (821) 12/74C Comanche Peak 1 (1150) -
6/79 l
3/22/76 Appendix D
- FY 1980 - 10 (11,440)
LaSalle 2 (1078) 10/79 Bellefonte 1 (1213) 12/79 Fermi 2 (1093) 1/80 San Onofre 2 (1140) 2/80 WPPSS 1 (1218) 3/80 Susquehanna 1 (1050) 5/80 .
! Byron 1.(1120) 5/80 l South Texas 1 (1250) 5/80 j Limerick 1 (1065) 8/80 Bellefonte 2 (1213) 9/80 FY 1981 - 10 (10,826)
Waterford 3 (1113) 11/80 Midland 2 (808) 11/80 Catawba 1 (1153) 1/81 Beaver Valley 2 (852) 2/81 Grand Gulf 2 (1250) 3/81
San Onofre 3 (1140) 3/81 Braidwood 1 (1120) 5/81 Comanche Peak 2 (1150) 6/81 Catawba 2 (1120) 8/81 e Byron 2 (1120) 8/81 FY 1982 - 13 (13,000)
Perry 1 (1205) 10/81 South Texas 2 (1250) 10/81 Susquehanna 2 (1050) 11/81 Midland 1 (458) 11/81 Limerick 2 (1065) 1/82 l St. Lucie 2 (810) 3/82 Nine Mile Point 2 (1080) 3/82 i Braidwood 2 (1120) 5/82 Bailly (685) 6/82 Hope Creek 1 (1067) 6/82 Millstone 3 (1156) 6/82 Callaway 1 (1120) 8/82 River Bend 1 (934) 9/82
a m 3/22/76 APPEl XE NSSS/60P TENDEREll FY 1979 - 8 .
FY 1974 - 6 RESAR-38 FDA FNP 1 - 8 RESAR (Modification)
. 7/73C GESSAR 238. GESSAR (Modifica' tion) 7/73C B-SAR-205 FDA CESSAR 9/73C Resar 41 12/73C CESSAR(Modification)
SWESSAR-PWR FDA B-SAR-251 3/74C RESAR-41 FDA SWESSAR/PWR 4/74C C. F. Braun FDA FY 1975 - 4 FY 1980 - 5 GASSAR 8/74C GESSAR-251 (MODIFICATION)
GESSAR 251 8/74C B-SAR-205(N0DIFICATION)
C.' F. Braun 10/74C FNP 1 - 8 (FDA)
GESSAR Interface 2/75C Flour (FDA)
Brown & Root BWR (FDA)
FY 1976 - 4 '
FY 1981 - 3 RESAR-38 7/75C B-SAR-205 10/75C Flour flodification '
Fluor ll/75C Brown & Root PUR (FDA)
SWESSAR/8-SAR-205 12/75C Gilbert (FDA) j FY 1977 - 3 FY 1982 - 3 l
! Gibbs & Hill 11/76 Gibbs & Hill (FDA)
{ GASSAR-6 3/77 SWESSAR/ BUR (FDA)
MARAD 3/77 Bechtel (FDA)
] e j . FY 1978 - 6 GESSAR-238 N.I. 11/77 SWESSAR-BWR 1/78 Bechtel 1/78 CESSAR FDA 3/78 GESSAR-238 FDA 7/78 GESSAR-251 FDA 7/78 i
Q i
i I
3/22/76 Appendix F
. ESR's TENDERED FY 1976 - 2 Wood 8/75C Haven 8/75C i
FY 1977 - 3 Sears Island 10/76 Stanislaus 11/76 South Dade 2/77 ,
A 9 8 m
)
~
l l
I I
e. s s
' ~
. 3/22/76 APPENDIX G LESR's TENDERED i
FY 1974 - 4 Islote 10/73 Perryman 10/73 Vidal 2/74 i . San Joaquin 2/74
-1 FY 1975 - 5 .
Vidal 10/74 Yellow Creek
- 1/75 Greene County 4/75 Sundesert 4/75 ,
South Dade
~
6/75 -
O e
+
i e ; ;
)
= ,
-l l
)
1 1
3/22/76 Appendix 11
~
SP's TENDERED FY 1973 - 1 MARAD 2/73C FY 1974 - 2 NIMITZ 7/73C LOFT 3/74C FY 1975 - 0 FY 1976 - 8 Gas Turbine HTGR 7/75C LWBR 7/75C D2W 8/75C S7G 10/75C GCFR 3/76C FFTF 4/76 S8G Prototype 7/76 Prototype Breeder Reactor 9/76 FY 1977 - 4
- Foreign Breeder 3/77 S8G Ship 6/77 MARAD 9/77 Breeder PSAR 9/77
~
, , .-