Npi20151112 DL

NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2015
Volume 8
No. 6
Ups & Downs for 8

N. American Nuclear
MORE INSIDE
Executives Discuss the Nuclear Industry
Clean Power Plans Affect on Nuclear
Nuclears Unique Emergency Plans
Publication
Publication
NOVEMBER/DECEMBER | 2015
NUCLEUS
N. AMERICA MARKET OVERVIEW
A license approval and impending plant closures are

just some of the latest issues in the industry.
NUCLEAR EXECUTIVE ROUNDTABLE
Executives from different segments of the industry

discuss the present and future state of affairs.
CLEAN POWER PLANS

EFFECT ON NUCLEAR
What must be done for nuclear power to

be considered an integral part of the EPAs latest rule?
PREPARING FOR AN EMERGENCY
Nuclears unique properties mean companies

must take special steps to plan for an emergency.
ENGINEERS & MANAGEMENT MUST

SPEAK THE SAME LANGUAGE
Engineers and management can mitigate issues quickly

and at lower costs if they can get on the same page.
DEPARTMENTS
4 ENRICHMENT
6 FUEL FOR THOUGHT
COVER
8
12
19
21
24
26 NEWS
TVAs Watts Bar 2 received its operating license.

Senior Vice PreSident, north AmericAn Power
GenerAtion GrouP Richard Baker
(918) 831-9187 richardb@pennwell.com
nucleAr Power internAtionAl mAGAzine
editorSharryn Dotson
(918) 832-9339 sharrynd@pennwell.com
Power enGineerinG mAGAzine
mAnAGinG editorRussell Ray
(918) 832-9368 russellr@pennwell.com
GrAPhic deSiGnerDeanna Taylor
Production mAnAGerDaniel Greene
nAtionAl BrAnd mAnAGerJenna Hall
(918) 832-9249 jennah@pennwell.com
Senior mArketinG mAnAGerRachel Campbell
(918) 831-9576 rachelc@pennwell.com
Senior Vice PreSident, Audience deVeloPment
& mArketinGJune Griffin
Audience deVeloPment mAnAGerJesse Fyler
For ASSiStAnce with mArketinG StrAteGy or Ad creAtion,

PleASe contAct Pennwell mArketinG SolutionS
Vice PreSident: Paul Andrews
Phone: 240.595.2352
Email: pandrews@pennwell.com
chAirmAn Robert F. Biolchini
Vice chAirmAn Frank T. Lauinger
PreSident/chieF executiVe oFFicer Mark C. Wilmoth
executiVe Vice PreSident, corPorAte deVeloPment
And StrAteGy Jayne A. Gilsinger
Senior Vice PreSident, FinAnce And chieF FinAnciAl oFFicer Brian Conway
SuBScriBer SerVice
P.O. Box 3264
Phone: (847) 763-9750
Fax: (847) 763-9607
rePrint SAleS Rhonda Brown
Tel: 866.879.9144 ext 194 Fax: 219.561.2023
rhondab@fosterprinting.com
corPorAte heAdquArterSPennwell corP.

1421 S. Sheridan Road, Tulsa, OK 74112
telePhone: (918) 835-3161 FAx: (918) 831-9834
e-mAil: pe@pennwell.com world wide weB: http://www.power-eng.com
NUCLEAR POWER INTERNATIONAL > NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2015
NUCLEAR POWER INTERNATIONAL is published six times a year by PennWell Corp., 1421
S. Sheridan Rd., Tulsa, OK 74112; phone (918)
835-3161. Copyright 2015 by PennWell Corp.
(Registered in U.S. Patent Trademark Office). Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use, or the internal or personal use of specific
clients, is granted by POWER ENGINEERING,
ISSN 0032-5961, provided that the appropriate
fee is paid directly to Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923
USA 978-750-8400. Prior to photocopying items
for educational use, contact Copyright Clearance
Center. For reprints, contact Foster Printing for
a price quote. For more information, please call
866-879-9144 or email us at pennwellreprints@
fosterprinting.com.
ENRICHMENT
A Lesson Not Learned

I
By Sharryn Dotson, Editor
was born and raised in the suburbs of Detroit, Michigan,

where the accents are an interesting blend of Midwestern
and Canadian. We also have our own phrases that others may
deem strange, yet seem perfectly normal to us (Waddup doe
immediately comes to mind. Its a common greeting.) I have
lived in Pennsylvania and Louisiana, and have called Oklahoma
home for the past eight years. During my time living in the
South, I have picked up even more interesting vernacular.
Whenever my two small children, especially my stubborn
4-year-old son, ignore my warnings of caution and are subsequently -- though not
seriously -- injured, the first thing that comes out of my mouth is Thatll learn ya!
Along those same lines, it doesnt seem like the U.S. electricity markets are
listening to the nuclear industrys warnings when it comes to compensating merchant
power plants, and the electricity grids and residents are the ones getting bruised. On
Oct. 13, Entergy announced that it would close the Pilgrim nuclear power plant in
Massachusetts by June 2019 due to poor market conditions, reduced revenues and
increased operational costs. Entergy said the Pilgrim plant is losing money fast with
no foreseeable fix to the issue.
The Nuclear Energy Institute sounded
alarms in 2013 and 2014 and say the
closing of Pilgrim is a sign that some are
not paying attention. When Wisconsins
Kewaunee nuclear plant was retired
prematurely in 2013, we warned that market reforms are needed to ensure that the
nation maintains a diversified portfolio of electricity options. We continued to sound
those warnings when Entergy prematurely retired the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant
a year ago, said Marvin Fertel, president and CEO of the Nuclear Energy Institute.
Todays announcement is more proof that the reforms urgently needed in competitive
electric markets are too slow in coming. Design flaws in wholesale markets such as
New England continue to result in artificially low electricity and capacity prices.
Sadly, history continues to repeat itself. Another plant closing means more jobs
lost, a need to fire up more gas and coal plants which leads to increased emissions;
and a strained local economy because tax payments and spending decreases. In
Carlton, Wisconsin, where Kewaunee was sited, the tax payments from the plant
continue to decrease annually by 20 percent since it closed in 2013. The number of
jobs dropped from 632 employees at the time it closed to 140 who remain on hand for
decommissioning activities. Once the plant is completely shut down, those jobs will
go away or be absorbed elsewhere or in other industries. Pilgrim currently has 633
employees and will also decrease workers as the plant undergoes decommissioning.
Unfortunately, we have not learned our lesson soon enough. Entergy recently
announced that it will close the FitzPatrick plant in New York by late 2016 or early
2017 because it is facing similar financial conditions as Pilgrim. Exelon is evaluating
whether to continue operating six nuclear stations in Illinois, New Jersey and
Pennsylvania because of unfavorable market conditions and low natural gas prices, plus
many of the plants were not priced into the PJM Interconnections capacity market
auction for 2018-2019. That totals more

than 7,000 MW of generating capacity
that could potentially shut down
because the plants are not being properly
compensated for benefits like zero
emissions, around-the-clock generation
and the ability to reliably supplement
the increasing number of renewables
coming online. Nuclear executives have
said they only want nuclear power to be
treated equal to renewables and natural
gas. Nuclear power plants are inherently
expensive to build and operate, but they
pay for themselves over the long run.
The U.S. says it wants to cut emissions
and generate clean power, yet we are
pricing out some of the cleanest energy
that we own.
The Nuclear Energy Institute sounded alarms in 2013 and 2014 and
say the closing of Pilgrim is a sign that some are not paying attention.
The effects of nuclear plants shutting

down early is not just felt in the U.S.
Germany will permanently close all
nuclear plants by 2022 and replace them
with new renewable energy sources after
the 2011 Fukushima accident. Emissions
have increased, coal-fired power plants
are closing the capacity gap until the
renewables are built and the price of
electricity has gone up. It is estimated to
cost up to 1 trillion euros ($1.54 trillion)
to rebuild Germanys energy sector.
During a time when the world is taking
notice of the emission reduction efforts
of everyone, it seems counterproductive
to shut down sources of power that do
not emit any pollutants.
Maybe this will be the necessary wake
up call so we can stop the tide of nuclear
plants closing, though it may be too late
to heed the warnings before even more
pain is inflicted.
If you ask around, talk to peers,

and study the total life cycle of N-stamp valves,
Conval truly is the smartest choice.
Thats not marketing hype.
Thats based on decades of dramatic,
real-life experience in various nuclear power
generation applications around the world.
Check out User Group feedback, and see
if our claims are valid.
We also offer references, case studies,
a 900-page Engineering Binder, world
class engineering and technical support.
Clampseal globe valves (above),
Swivldisc gate valves (below left) and
Camseal zero-leakage, top-entry ball valves
(below center and right) are global favorites.
Please contact us today at P.O. Box 1049,

Somers CT 06071; phone 860.749.0761;
fax 860.763.3557; sales@Conval.com;
High-performance valves and accessories

for the worlds most demanding applications
FUEL FOR THOUGHT
Why Georgia Marches

on Towards More Nuclear
Tim G. Echols
hile the rest of the nation toggles between natural gas

and renewables, Georgia maintains a strong commitment
to building new nuclear. Some scratch their head in
disbelief, but those who live in this bright red state understand our
determination. Let me explain.
First, our state has no Columbia or Colorado Rivers to produce big
hydro power. We have no power plants on mine-mouths, natural gas
fields, or Hoover Dams. A significant portion of Georgias fuel for
electricity production has to be transported over 1,000 miles. Yet, our
energy prices are still low. Chalk that up to good planning and management by Georgia
Power and constructive regulation from an all-Republican public utility commission
elected statewide every six years.
What we do have is nuclear power, and it enjoys widespread support. After all, our state
is situated in the Silicon Valley of Nuclear Power. Plant Vogtle is south of Augusta on the
Savannah River directly across from the Savannah River Site210 square miles of all-thingsnuclear including reprocessing, storage, five decommissioned reactors, and an Areva-built
MOX facility under construction. Just up the road from that federal site is Plant V.C. Summer
where SCANA is building two Westinghouse AP1000 reactors just like the ones being built
at Plant Vogtle in Georgia. To the northwest is the Oconee Nuclear Stationa reactor
operating since 1973. Finally, to the east is Barnwell, the low-level waste storage site that has
been in operation since 1971.
So you see, our citizens are familiar with nuclear power and in fact, attribute our low rates
to nuclears low life cycle cost. The two new 1,100 megawatt nuclear power units that are
under construction will increase Georgias capacity to generate nuclear electricity by more
than 50 percent. Once the new zero-emissions nuclear units are in operation they will supply
a substantial portion of our states baseload generation.
And for those coal haters out there, I have good news. According to retired Georgia Tech
engineering professor James Rust, a factor not mentioned in support of nuclear power is its
influence on domestic reserves of coal and natural gas. Rusts research demonstrates that
just one of the new nuclear units at Plant Vogtle, if it had been a fossil-unit instead, would
consume 230 million tons of coal or 5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas over its 60-year
lifetime. In essence, nuclear power plants extend the life of our fossil fuel reserves far out into
the future and reduce future price increases. I guess that is good news for India, China and
Germanywho will have the opportunity to buy up cheap American coal.
Nuclear power is the poster child of reliability. It is no accident that Georgia doesnt
experience the blackouts or rolling brownouts as experienced by northeastern states, Texas or
California. The Vogtle co-owners, Georgia Power, Oglethorpe Power (the EMCs), MEAG
(city-owned electric utilities), and the City of Dalton, enjoy the benefits of these reactors
operating 24/7 for 18 months at a timerain, shine, snow, with wind, or without. Remember
the polar vortex when the price of natural gas spiked 800 percent in certain northeastern
states. Georgia didnt experience any of that mess. Yet, the equally-reliable Vermont Yankee
nuclear plant located in the New England ISO (Independent System Operator) shut down
6
with no objection from President Obama or

northern politicians. Go figure.
Understand Georgia politics. The Georgia
legislature passed a bill that allows Georgia
Power to collect the financing cost of the
Vogtle project during construction. The
PSC, prior to my arrival, approved a similar
measure. Why? Because it reduced the
certified costs of the project by $300 million
and reduced the companys borrowing
cost by tens of millions of dollars. But lets
be clear, it also vested the leadership of the
legislature. So with all the utilities investing
in Vogtle, and many of the politicians vested
in the projects success, the state was all-in
on new nuclear. The addition of production
tax credits, the federal loan guarantee, and
the current low-interest cost environment
further sweetened the deal.
Then along came the Clean Power Plan.
You probably can understand now why we
focused so much of our official comments,
lobbying, and political capital towards
getting full credit for these reactors. The
draft plans formula shortchanged our
state, but when the final plan was issued
new nuclear received favorable treatment
making those reactors worth 10 percent of
our total compliance with the Clean Power
Plan. Both the PSC and Georgia Power
had envisioned a carbon-constrained future
when they certified the reactors, and that
future is now reality.
There are concerns about using nuclear
power from both economic and societal
perspectivesincluding concerns regarding
the nuclear waste. One day I hope to see
a commercial reprocessing facility in the
aforementioned Silicon Valley of Nuclear
Power. These areas are legitimate concerns
and some of the smartest minds in the world
are working on these issues. I am confident
that we will work out a sustainable solution.
But in the meantime, Georgia and South
Carolina will use our competitive advantage
of cheap nuclear energy to bring more jobs
to our states.
Tim Echols is a Commissioner in the state of
Georgia and strong advocate for nuclear power. He
owns two electric cars and promotes utility scale solar.
NuScale Power has attained the Triple Crown for Nuclear Plant Safety. With NO
operator action, NO AC or DC power, and NO added water, the NuScale Power
Module will achieve safe, self-cooled shutdown, and maintain it indefinitely. Using
natural forcesconvection, conduction, and gravitythe NuScale Power Module
eliminates many of the complex mechanical systems found in conventional nuclear
power plants and other small modular reactor designs. Safety: The Element of Nu.
NuScale Power
@NuScale_Powe
er
nuscalepower.com
2015 NuScale Power, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
NUCLEUS
Highs and Lows in the

N. American Nuclear Industry
By Wayne Barber, Chief Analyst, GenerationHub
he recent issuance of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) operating license

for the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)s Watts Bar 2 nuclear project in Tennessee provided the industry with an infusion of badly-needed good news.
TVA said Oct. 22 that it had received its long-sought license from the NRC for the
1,150-MW Watts Bar Unit 2 nuclear reactor near Spring City, Tennessee. When it comes
online early in 2016, Watts Bar 2 will be the first new nuclear plant deployed in the
United States since the 1990s.
Like much of the U.S. nuclear industry, Watts Bar has a long and complex history.
TVA received a construction permit for Watts Bar units 1 and 2 in 1973. Construction
on Unit 2, however, was suspended in the 1980s though many major structures were
in place.
In 1999, TVA sought and would ultimately receive NRC approval to revive construction at the deferred Watts Bar 2 reactor. In 2007, the TVA Board of Directors
decided to resume construction at Watts Bar 2, but the resurrection did not get off to
a good start.
The project was not successful in meeting the milestones outlined in the project
approval. Previous efforts at project recovery were not successful, TVA said in a 2012
report.
TVA put a new management team in place to get the project back on track. TVA
also acknowledged in 2012 that finishing Watts Bar 2 would be more expensive than
originally anticipated. TVA announced in the spring of 2012 that completing the unit
could cost up to $4.5 billion, rather than the $2.49 billion that was originally forecast
back in 2007.
Nevertheless, TVA said in its 2012 report on Watts Bar 2 that the nuclear plant would
remain a cost competitive baseload source of electricity even if natural gas stays around
$2.50/mmBtu long-term.
Together with the currently-operating Unit 1, Watts Bar will produce nearly 2,300
MW of carbon-free energy. Thats enough to power 1.3 million homes in the TVA service territory, said TVA President Bill Johnson.
SOUTHERN, SCANA OPTIMISTIC ABOUT

REVISED CONTRACTOR ARRANGEMENT
Elsewhere in the Southeast, construction continues in earnest on four new units in Georgia and South Carolina that will use the Westinghouse Electric AP1000 reactor design.
Southern unit Georgia Power and SCANA unit South Carolina Electric & Gas
(SCE&G) think that a recent agreement that places Westinghouse as the sole contractor
on the projects will increase the likelihood that the new reactors get deployed in 2019
and 2020.
The owners of Vogtle Units 3 and 4 in Georgia as well as V.C. Summer Units 2 and 3
in South Carolina agreed to an amendment to the existing Engineering, Procurement,
and Construction (EPC) contract. The owners of the respective projects had been work-
The NRC approved Watts Bar 2 for its operating license.
ing with a consortium of Chicago Bridge

& Iron (CBI) and Westinghouse Electric.
But the contractors announced Oct. 27
that Westinghouse, which is part of Toshiba, will acquire the stock of CB&I nuclear
construction affiliate Stone & Webster.
Westinghouse also announced that it
will hire Fluor as a subcontracted construction manager.
As a result of the new contractor arrangement, the owners of Vogtle and
2007 have either been suspended or withdrawn. As of mid-October, the NRC still
has plant applications under review for
projects in Pennsylvania, Florida, Virginia,
Texas and South Carolina.
In addition, the NRC expects to receive
a small modular reactor (SMR) application in the next year or so from NuScale
Power. NuScale is looking to develop its
first commercial SMRs in connection with
Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems
(UAMPS).
The NRC has also said that it expects
to receive an early site permit application
from Blue Castle Holdings, which hopes
to develop a nuclear plant in Utah.
SOME REACTORS RETIRE EARLY,

OTHERS ON ENDANGERED LIST
Summer have agreed to a settlement of

legal disputes with the contractors. The
settlement includes incentives for the
contractor to get the nuclear units completed on time, said Southern CEO Tom
Fanning.
In addition to these plants, the NRC
earlier this year issued a license to a DTE
Energy affiliate to build and operate a new
nuclear reactor, Fermi 3, in Michigan.
Dont look for DTE to break ground on a
new nuclear plant anytime soon, however.

We dont have a date. We dont have a
timetable, a DTE nuclear spokesman said
this spring.
DTE said it plans to hold the license for
potential future power generation. The
new nuclear energy facility would be built
on the site of the existing Fermi 2 nuclear
plant in Newport, Mich.
Most of the new nuclear power plant
applications that NRC has received since
When Watts Bar 2 starts commercial

operation, it will increase the U.S. reactor
fleet from 99 units to 100 for a while at
least. Nuclear power accounts for about 20
percent of the nations electric generation.
Meanwhile the U.S. nuclear industry is
coping with premature plant closings and
rumors of closings.
Nuclear is having a tough time competing in markets that are dominated by
power generated by subsidized renewables
and two-dollar gas as one industry official put it.
While regional carbon trading, encouraged by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Clean Power Plan,
could eventually enhance market value of
nuclear power that hasnt happened yet,
officials say.
U.S. nuclear power could also benefit
from capacity market changes in the PJM
Interconnection (PJM). Elsewhere, most income from non-utility nuclear plants comes
from energy , not capacity, officials say.
Entergy announced plans in mid-October to close the 680-MW Pilgrim plant
in Massachusetts by June 2019. The shutdown could come in 2017 depending on
whether Entergy elects to go ahead with
its next refueling outage.
NUCLEUS
Entergys FitzPatrick nuclear plant is set to shut down by 2016 or 2017.
In addition, Entergy will close the 850MW FitzPatrick plant in Oswego County,
N.Y. by late 2016 or early 2017.
Exelon has long planned to shut the
636-MW Oyster Creek nuclear plant in
New Jersey by the end of 2019.
Exelon recently announced that it
would defer any decision about the future operations of its 1,100-MW Clinton
nuclear plant for one year and plans to bid
the plant into the Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO) capacity
auction for the 2016-2017 planning year.
Plants that have already closed in recent
times include Duke Energys 800-MW
Crystal River 3 nuclear unit in Florida.
Duke announced in early 2013 that it
would permanently close the nuclear facility that it acquired as part of the Progress Energy merger. The plant had already
been offline since late 2009 after it was
damaged during a planned outage.
Dominions 550-MW Kewaunee nuclear plant in Wisconsin stopped operating in
May 2013. It was Dominions only nuclear
unit in the Midwest.
Entergy closed the roughly 600-MW
Vermont Yankee nuclear plant at the end
of 2014. While Entergy was frequently in
fights with Vermont officials about the
plant, Entergy said market factors were the
10
primary cause.
Then there is Edison International
(NYSE:EIX)s dual-unit San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) in California. Edison announced in June 2013
that it would permanently retire units 2
and 3, rather than seek to resume operations of SONGS. The move effectively removed 2,200 MW of baseload power from
the California market.
NUCLEAR POWER REMAINS

STEADY IN CANADA, MEXICO
There are 19 power reactors currently
operating at four nuclear power generating stations in Canada, according to the
Canadian Nuclear Association. Nuclear
power provided approximately 16 percent
of Canadas electricity in 2014.
Ontario Power Generation (OPG) has
said that it continues to make investments
to improve the performance of the Pickering station through 2020.
OPG owns and operates the Pickering
and Darlington Nuclear Power Stations
in Ontario. The two stations have a combined generating capacity of more than
6,000 MW.
Bruce Power says Ontarios power from
its eight-unit facility along the Lake Huron
shoreline produces roughly 30 percent, or
6,300 MW, of Ontarios electricity. The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC)
decided in May to renew, as a single license,
the power reactor operating licenses for the
Bruce A and B Nuclear Generating Stations
in the Municipality of Kincardine, Ontario.
The license will be valid from June 1, 2015
until May 31, 2020.
The 680-MW Point Lepreau nuclear
plant owned by NB Power in New Brunswick continues to operate. It returned to
service Oct. 20 after the operator completed repairs to a turbine auxiliary system
on the conventional (non-nuclear) side of
the plant.
Mexico has a single nuclear power plant,
Laguna Verde, in Veracruz. The Laguna
Verde power plant is operated by Comisin Federal de Electricidad (CFE). The
plant includes two boiling water reactors
(BWRs) with a combined generating capacity of 1,400 MW.
The Laguna Verde station accounted for
4 percent of Mexicos total electricity generation in 2014, according to a report from
the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).
Current operating licenses for the reactors expire in 2020 and 2025, but they
are expected to receive extensions, EIA
said. There are plans to expand Mexicos
nuclear generation capacity by building
additional plants; however, low natural gas
prices have delayed these plans.
In other words, cheap natural gas continues to trump new nuclear construction
for the most part in both Mexico and the
United States.
Wayne Barber, Chief Analyst for the GenerationHub, has been covering power generation, energy
and natural resources issues at national publications for more than 22 years. Prior to joining PennWell he was editor of Generation Markets Week at
SNL Financial for nine years. He has also worked
as a business journalist at both McGraw-Hill and
Financial Times Energy. Wayne also worked as a
newspaper reporter for several years. During his
career he has visited nuclear reactors and coal
mines as well as coal and natural gas power plants.
ENGINEERING STRENGTH
Nuclear power plant operation and maintenance practices and related decision making are highly scrutinized by
many stakeholders. Structural Integrity can provide our engineering strength and knowledge to help you meet your
demands so you can focus on delivering power.
Our engineering strength comes in many forms -- from our 30 + years of experience, to our team of over
200 technical experts, to our new Training Program.
Call us today to put our engineering strength to the test.
(877-4SI-POWER)
8 7 7 - 4 7 4 - 7 6 9 3
Scan the QR Code for more information
www.structint.com/NPI
NUCLEUS
Upgrade projects, like the one at the

Callaway Energy Center, will become more
prevalent as reactors are pushed beyond
the 40-year timeframe.
2015 Nuclear Executive
ROUNDTABLE
By Sharryn Dotson, Editor
resident Obamas Clean Power Plan, electricity prices, and a lack of financial incentives
are just some of the issues that many feel are working against the U.S. nuclear industry.
There have been recent reports painting a negative picture of future operations of
nuclear power plants like Entergys Indian Point in New York, and Exelons Clinton and
Quad Cities in Illinois. Some lawmakers are calling for the closure of these plants. Despite
all the presumed doom and gloom, many others in the industry say that nuclear power will
continue to be an important and necessary part of the U.S. electricity mix , especially if
that includes an increased need for clean and reliable energy.
This years roundtable participants are: Terry Pickens, Director, Nuclear Regulatory
Policy, Xcel Energy; Andy Klein, ANS Vice President and professor of nuclear engineering
and radiation health physics at Oregon State University; Walt Sanders, President of Day &
Zimmermann NPS; and Simon Irish, CEO of Terrestrial Energy.
NPI: Do you think there is a chance for more new builds in the U.S. after the five under
construction are completed? If not, what would have to change? If so, why
do you feel that way?
Terry Pickens, Xcel Energy: I do think there is a chance for more new builds
in the U.S. after the five under construction. I think whats going to drive that is
the carbon reduction goals when folks start looking at the age of the existing fleet.
As they look to retire them, I think they will start to recognize that the role of
nuclear in keeping carbon emissions low is very important. While renewables are
very valuable, Im not sure that were going to find that they have the flexibility
with the fact that theyre not 24-7. They are interrupted when the sun doesnt
shine and the wind doesnt blow. With that, I think theyre going to find that
we need a good source of strong baseload generation with the growing concerns
over coal. If you start to replace too much of the clean nuclear with natural gas,
youre going to find that your emissions will start going back up again. For that
reason alone, as things settle out, we will see construction to replace the existing
Terry Pickens, Xcel Energy
Andy Klein, ANS
units as they get older.
Andy Klein, ANS: I agree 100 percent with Terry. Theres always a chance for
new builds, but it may be a few years until the ones currently under construction come online total nuclear energy capacity.
and have a chance to prove themselves as efficient and reliable and effective in meeting global
Walt Sanders, Day & Zimmermann: I
climate change and lead to greenhouse gas reductions. In my opinion, we cant reach the think its possible but as the other panelists
targets for greenhouse gas emission reductions that have been set without nuclear. Theres have said its not going to happen anytime
absolutely no possibility of doing it in the long run or the short run. We will need to keep the soon. There is obviously a lengthy process
nuclear plants currently running for the next 25 yearsand at least replace them or expand the for permitting and licensing new nuclear
12
national energy policy that really

supports a balanced portfolio
including nuclear generation in
a more direct way. So much of
the current plans for the future
seem focused on renewables,
but nuclear generation is also a
zero-emission energy source. I
Walt Sanders, Day & Zimmermann
Simon Irish, Terrestrial Energy
think its going to be important
to shift some of the public policy
generation facilities, and the regulatory and general conversation around nuclear
climate can make building a new plant quite before we see new construction take shape.
costly. As with most new construction,
Simon Irish, Terrestrial Energy:
financing becomes a central issue to Whether more light water reactors are
getting new plants built. I do think new commissioned in the future depends entirely
construction could be spurred if we had a on the economic considerations of doing
so. Traditional nuclear plants have become

enormously expensive to build and we do
not expect the costs of building a traditional
nuclear plant will decline.
Whether
more new builds are approved, therefore,
will depend on whether there are other
alternatives that are less costly.
We believe the next generation of nuclear,
such as the Integral Molten Salt Reactor
(IMSR) that we at Terrestrial Energy are
proposing, will prove to be a much less costly
alternative, and we are confident that it will
be available next decade, i.e., within the
planning horizon of utilities that might be
considering whether it makes sense to build
a new, traditional LWR.
13
NUCLEUS
NPI: Many U.S. nuclear plants are

undergoing uprates to increase capacity
and operations. Will that be the new focus
whether new nuclear plants are built or not
in the future?
Andy: I do think uprates will happen.
There have been quite a few over the last 20
years that have already been accomplished.
Pushing those plants a little harder might
work. Terry may have a better view on the
feasibility of doing that. This would be a
reasonable activity as we continue to develop
the understanding of the operations of these
plants and the safety margins under which
they operate.
Walt: Utilities have a responsibility to
optimize their operating assets, which is
why our focus has always been on plant
lifecycle solutions that lower the total cost
of ownership for customers. Obviously,
there are many factors that are considered
prior to undertaking an uprate project. If
the financial model supports an improved
return for investing the capital to increase
output, then well probably continue to see
asset uprate related activity. Were working
on some optimization projects now, and
expect this type of activity to continue.
Simon: We see that this will play a role
and has a place in the provision of clean
power in the U.S. However, the much
bigger opportunity is for the next generation
of nuclear reactors to deliver a new-build
nuclear solution driven by the very different
capital profile of some advanced nuclear
designs, a smaller reactor format and one
that is far more competitive on a dollar-perWatt basis.
Terry: We just completed a power uprate
at our Monticello Nuclear Generating
Plant in July of this year. We hit sustained
operations of 71 MW electric additional
capacity. It was an interesting experience
doing the power uprate. I think we found
that it was more challenging in the current
regulatory environment than we would
have thought of when we started. From the
time we first decided to actually putting the
additional 71 MW from the uprate online, it
14
was probably 10 years getting through all the

regulatory processes and ensuring the NRC
that it was safe to operate. I think because of
the value of investing in an existing power
plant and getting megawatts out without
having to build a new one, we will see more
in the future. I was just looking on the NRC
website, theyre listing so far that uprates
have resulted in some 7,000 additional
megawatts electric put on the system in the
U.S. There are many plants out there that
still have the capability to do additional
uprates. The other piece on the uprates is
that, in order to operate these plants longer
,we need to make lifecycle management
investments in order to keep them reliable
and those cost money too. But when you
look at the investments needed to do that,
its still small in comparison to bringing new
capacity online. So, I think we will see those
things moving forward.
NPI: Terry, the uprate that you did at
Monticello, how much did that cost and
what was the capacity before and what is
it now?
Terry: Nominally, it was 600 MW
(electric) before, now were up to about
671 MW, and the investment that we made
were in both power uprate and lifecycle
management, because we were entering
the 20 years of extended operation and the
license renewal about the same time we
were doing the power uprate. So, it was a
combined investment of over $600 million
that we invested in the plant in order to
operate it for 20 years and get the additional
71 MW.
NPI: And you mentioned there were
some regulatory issues with the uprate
project. We sort of see the same kind of
battle in New York with Indian Point against
lawmakers and government, though its
not quite the same situation. Why do you
think there are some lawmakers that are
against nuclear? Is it fear from Fukushima,
or is it the price tag?
Terry: Let me clarify in terms of regulatory.
We did go for a Certificate of Need in the

state of Minnesota and they agreed that they
wanted us to move ahead with the power
uprate. So we did have support for moving
ahead with it. The state agreed that having
additional nuclear generation was a good
thing in Minnesota. Then as we started to
progress, but with things like Fukushima
happening, there were issues that I think
were more difficult to navigate with the
NRC, like crediting containment pressure
in accidents. They took a much harder look
at that, so I dont think it was backlash or
somebody that didnt want us to do it. They
wanted to make sure that if we were going
to operate this unit at the higher power
level, that we considered everything that
went into the original licensing basis and
made sure that everything is okay. Thats a
little different, as you pointed out, than the
regulatory backlash that you see at an Indian
Point. Weve always had great support in
Minnesota for operating our nuclear power
plant. I just think there were more technical
issues and the NRC wanted to make sure
they dotted their Is and crossed their Ts
and had everything in order before they gave
us the approval to move ahead.
Andy: Fukushima did set us back as an
industry, but developments such as uprates
and license extensions have been continuing
even after Fukushima. We also continue to
see some new plants under construction. It
is important to note that there is still support
for nuclear energy technology.
NPI: At ANS annual meeting earlier this
year, many experts talked about educating
the public on how radiation is monitored
and also how it is located everywhere. Do
you feel the industry has done a good job
in educating the public on nuclear and
radiation, or does more need to be done?
Simon: We believe much more needs to be
done. As a society we must make our energy
choices based on a transparent and objective
assessment of risks; no energy choice is
without risk. At the moment, nuclear power
is a paradox. On the one hand nuclear has
been the safest energy technology in the US

for generations by a considerable margin.
On the other it attracts the most fear. Why?
The heart of this paradox is the linear no
threshold assumption that has been the
central tenet of radiation safety policy for 60plus years. Its continued use reinforces fear
by promoting the view that any radiation is
dangerous when after 50 years there is no
epidemiological evidence to support a no
threshold response theory for low doses
e.g., the population of Denver does not
have health issues arising from its higher
levels of background radiation. There
are arguments put forward today - by far
more credible voices - that say the use of
the unsubstantiated no threshold model
is in fact a far greater health risk e.g., the
forced evacuation of large populations based
on this unsupported theory can lead to a
very poor balance of risks. This issue of a
no threshold response must be debated
publicly and arguments communicated
clearly and openly. Its resolution must
be based on sound science and free from
connivance by other constituencies who
gain from promoting fear and from its
continued central place in policy. Without
this process, confidence will probably not be
restored. We will not reach a consensus and
we will make bad energy choices for future
generations. Is this not the real risk we face?
The nuclear industry, historically cowed into
submission from past errors, must now grasp
the no threshold nettle.
The industry can point to an encouraging
note in this matter. This year the NRC
published a policy paper suggesting that
the no threshold theory is no longer the
appropriate standard upon which to base
public safety policy.
Andy: As a nuclear educator, this is a
topic that has been difficult for us for quite
a while. I think the industry has done a
fairly good job of communicating about
radiation, especially in the communities
where they operate. That is a much easier
task than getting the word out to all of the
people in the U.S. Achieving broad popular
understanding is very difficult through a

national education campaign. We havent
seen much public education on radiation
recently from the Department of Energy.
There are conflicting messages in schools

and the general media. It is a really tough
thing for the public to deal with when they
see these conflicting messages. The industry
We sweat the [small] stuff.

Sample conditioning. Corrosion control. Water chemistry.
Aging assets. Regulatory compliance. Shrinking workforce.
The stuff that costs you time, money and resources.

It turns out its not small stuff after all. When your plant must
deliver reliable electricity at low cost, your most experienced
staff are retiring, and your plant resources are limited, what can
you do?
Trust the experts. We offer power generation steam & water
lifecycle products and services from sample conditioning to
corrosion control to water chemistry services a complete
range of solutions that no other company offers.
Issues solved. With proven sampling expertise since 1924,
Sentry products and services provide power plants the critical
insights to optimize processes for increased production output,
efficiency and safety.
Learn more at sentry-equip.com/power-gen.
15
NUCLEUS
needs to be consistent in the messaging

around radiation. Due to the distributed
nature of our educational systems, it is
challenging to reach into schools with
a technical discussion on radiation. It is
even more difficult to reach the general
adult population, but we still need to try
on both fronts.
Terry: Andy, let me ask you a question at
the same time Im answering. Im reading
all the work, and Im a mechanical engineer.
Im not a radiation protection specialist. I
think part of it is its so easy for the folks who
oppose us to use the inflammatory rhetoric
and things like that, and people always hear
that theres no safe level of radiation. Ive
been watching the recent discussion going
on about the linear no-threshold model
and it seems like thats extremely important
work that needs to progress because if we
can get to the point where we have a welldiscussed public debate, and we get away
from there is no safe level of radiation,
we correct linear no-threshold model that
weve been working on for 40 years. I think
that will go a long ways toward helping us
in the education process, because those who
oppose us will then have a more difficult
time, if you will, of just tossing out theres
no safe level and some of the inflammatory
rhetoric. Do you think that will be a help?
Andy Im not sure. The conversation
and the research to understand that very
low doses and long-term exposure to
slightly above or around background levels
of radiation are going to be very difficult
and very expensive. And, I am not entirely
convinced that it will be conclusive. Its
going to be very difficult to conduct that
research and is going to require researchers
to look at large populations of people over
quite a long period of time. The conversation
is important to have, but I am just not sure
that it will settle the argument once and
for all. I think that it is a very tough issue
because of the difficulty in dealing with a
large population, very low doses over long
periods of time.
Terry: And I think the answer to the
question is, and I agree with you, I think
16
weve done a fair job, but I think theres

always room for us to improve. Some of
what we try to do is get more independent
folks involved because somehow, the
DOE, government, NRC or utilities arent
viewed as the most credible source. So were
working with science teachers to try and
educate them in the most basic settings of
the classroom.
Andy: Thats absolutely critical to
continuing the publics understanding of
radiation and nuclear activities. It is easiest
to do locally, and thats why I have observed
that power plants have done a fairly good job
of doing it locally. Power plants have been
getting that broad public message out, but
getting this information into textbooks
and teachers nationwide makes it a very
challenging educational problem.
Terry: Yeah, I agree.
Walt: I think the industry has done a
decent job in this area, but there is always
room for improvement. I would echo what
Terry and Andy have said as it relates to
local education. Individual plants do a
really good job of getting information
out in the community. I think nationally
thats a bigger challenge. Andy mentioned
schools, and I believe engagement at that
level is really important in changing the
national conversation. Effort is required at
both the federal and local level. Individual
plants can reach out to their local school
districts to open lines of communication.
Maybe they encourage field trips to on-site
learning centers or offer to speak to classes.
We need students to have an outside-theclassroom perspective on nuclear energy.
Service providers have a responsibility, too,
since we need to keep the nuclear talent
pipeline filled.
NPI: We have seen an emergence
of companies developing advanced
reactor technologies such as SMRs,
Westinghouses AP1000, molten salt
reactors and GE Power & Waters PRISM.
Is there enough support to encourage
more innovation like this?
Walt: I think there is support from an
intellectual perspective, but the real question

is whether the R&D money is available
and if there is enough financial backing
for a first of its kind deployment of the
technology. The investment community is
going to evaluate the risks associated with
investing in unproven technology. You
know, the industry has implemented many
smaller innovations over the years that
already have a tangible impact. Although
many of the nuclear plants are 40-yearsold, there has been significant investment
in new operating equipment and system
modifications. I would like to see more of
this innovation over time, but it really does
come down to funding.
Simon: In a word, no. As it turns out, this
situation may confer a special competitive
advantage upon our company. In the main,
however, this area of technological endeavor
is not yet given its proper place either in the
pantheon of base-load power solutions or
as an engine for de-carbonization. Nuclear
power is responsible for 60 percent to 65
percent of Americas total carbon-free
energy every single year, yet the innovation
in commercial nuclear technology has
moved at a glacial pace since the 1970s. This
is purely a function of lack of investment and
a lack of vision. Government and industry
in the West have tacitly overseen the decline
of nuclear power, while in the non-OECD,
nations like China, India and Russia
have been aggressively investing in new
technology and widespread deployment.
One conceivable issue is that people
may not be thinking broadly enough
about advanced nuclear. It is a far richer
tapestry than is reflected in the current
industry narrative. By way of example,
even your question suggests lumping the
whole universe of liquid-fueled reactor
technologies into one collective noun:
molten salt reactor. Within this group,
however, there are many different systems;
fast and thermal spectrum, different fuel
cycles, different salt chemistries whether
fluoride or chloride, different design
configurations, different market objectives.
Each is a unique technology and has its
own commercial merits. Some designs

are viable and some may not be, and some
will come to market perhaps faster than
people realize today. A broader and deeper
understanding of the market opportunities
within this rich tapestry of advanced nuclear
has only just begun, but it is progressing
very quickly and a number of the largest
industrial concerns in the U.S. are now
paying serious attention. This is not an area
that anyone in the nuclear industry today
should dismiss. Times are changing. Each
week brings a new development and another
data-point showing the fast broadening
interest in advanced nuclear and molten salt
technologies (plural) in particular.
Andy: As a researcher, theres never
enough support. The important part is that
I think that there has been good support
federally and from industry. The industry
is very focused on operating plants safely
and making sure that they can do those
things that they need to do effectively to
operate and even construct new plants.
The advanced reactor technologies such as
small modular reactors, AP1000s, molten
salt reactors, liquid metal reactors all came
from large, federally-sponsored research
and development programs. These are
important to continue over the long run.
NuScales small modular reactor grew
out of a research program at Oregon State
University that was federally funded. Those
are important ideas to keep generating in
the universities and the national labs. All of
these concepts were federally funded, some
of them were very long ago. The molten
salt and liquid metal reactors grew out of
federally sponsored research program from
30 or 40 years ago. These advanced reactor
products grew out of important R&D
programs that were aimed at successfully
demonstrating these technologies. Taking
those ideas to the marketplace has proven to
be very challenging. The product life cycles
of nuclear reactors are 60 to 80, up to 100
years long. Its not like the product life cycles
of electronic chips that have an 18-month
lifecycle. Our innovation happens quickly,
but the development and implementation to
the marketplace tends to be very slow. Thus,

NPI: As the utility perspective on this
federally-sponsored R&D is incredibly call, would you say when youre looking
important.
at these advanced technologies, you may
Terry: I agree completely with what An- have some interest in using them in the fudys saying. I have watched over the 39 years ture? Would you say right now, its a wait
of my career. Just look at Xcel Energy, and and see if it gets developed, at what cost,
one of its subsidiaries, NSP-Minnesota. We and then decide if you want to use it? Or
used to have programs where utilities would do you plan ahead, get things in place,
work with the Atomic Energy Commission then when it is licensed, go ahead and get
(now the Department of Energy) to develop this going?
new technologies. Then, when we got to the
Terry: Its difficult to predict the future.
point of actually wanting to demonstrate One of the things were kind of hamstrung
these new technologies on a smaller com- by is the fact that, for instance, in Minnemercial basis, we would form partnerships sota, theres a state law that prohibits the
like the Pathfinder Plant that we did out in Public Utility Commission from issuing a
South Dakota, where we had an opportunity certificate of need for a new nuclear power
to build it, learn, see what works and doesnt plant. So right now, we are not doing anywork. That piece, I think, is kind of missing thing. We have no plans, other than contoday. Most utilities, because of the pres- tinuing to operate our existing fleet for as
sures of Wall Street
and everything else,
were very hesitant to
get into things that are
still not commercially
demonstrated. Theres
that interim step that,
somehow, we have to
fill the gap where we
dont put the financial
responsibility on utilities. We have the utilities work with the Department of Energy
and partner and come
ESI-Energy Consultants (ENERCONs) in-house sta numbers more
up with something.
than 1,600 including experienced professionals with advanced
I dont know that we
degrees, professional licenses and certications. Our key personnel
have a program like
and associates average over 20 years of experience in project
that today.
engineering and regulatory compliance. When operating experience
Andy: Not currentin the commercial nuclear industry counts, we have the resources you
ly. The small modular
need professionals with new plant licensing, regulatory, startup and
reactor program in the
engineering experience that matters. With 31 oces, we can take on
Department of Enerthe most challenging nuclear projects.
gy is a step toward that
direction to develop
design certifications.
Terry: Its hard for
Enercon Services, Inc. (USA), doing business internationally as ESI-Energy Consultants
utilities to take that
financial risk. Its not
500 TownPark Lane Kennesaw, GA 30144
possible in the present
t +1 770.919.1930 f +1 770.919.1932
climate.
enercon.com
ESI-Energy Consultants
17
NUCLEUS
long as it makes sense. So, if something came

along, Im not sure we would have the flexibility to jump into something like that right
now, simply because of some of the impediments that have been put in place. Last time
I looked, were one of 13 states that have a
prohibition against new nuclear power. Our
current view is, we would wait for things to
be developed to the point of being commercially viable. It used to be when I first started
at Commonwealth Edison at the time, we
were much more willing to look at things,
kind of straddle the line between research
and commercial in terms of viability, and
push them over to the commercial side.
I think folks were much more open to
that back then. Today, I think utilities,
not just Xcel Energy, we are waiting for
things to be shown as commercially viable before we even consider it. There is
just too much risk in jumping in while it
is still in the research stage.
NPI: Critics of the Presidents Clean Power Plan have said it does not sufficiently address the benefits of nuclear, or that it does
not include nuclear at all. What do you think
the plan is missing in terms of nuclear power? Or do you believe the plan is good save
for some necessary tweaks?
Terry: I know our company views that its
a good thing thats been put forward. That
being said, does it do everything we wanted it to do in terms of recognizing nuclear
power as a valuable resource? Probably not.
Its going to take some tweaking to see that
it gets the proper incentives going forward.
Walt: I believe the intent of the CPP is to
stimulate carbon-free forms of energy; but
the way the plan is currently outlined, nuclear does not receive the same type of credits
as renewable technologies. That needs to
be addressed. Renewables alone cannot displace the need for base load generating capacity, without dramatic advances in energy
storage. Im sure that the plan will continue
to evolve over time and I would hope theres
more of a place for nuclear as it is tweaked.
Simon: We have been encouraged by
what we hear from the government which
has acknowledged that nuclear must play
18
an important role in a carbon-free energy

future; however, though it includes new
nuclear power plants as part of the strategy,
the CPP falls short of acknowledging the existing fleet. The CPP is not perfect in this
regard, but it is a start in the right direction.
Andy: In the end what we really need is
a plan that treats all clean power equally so
that the playing field is level for all electricity
production technologies. At some point, we
will need to appropriately value the externalities of power generation and distribution.
Terry: When I looked at Minnesota where
we operate, one of the reasons I think were
okay with the Clean Power Plan is that we
have done so much in terms of developing
our renewable power resources in the state.
Xcel is the number one wind energy provider in the U.S., and we also have our nuclear
power plants. So when you look at a utility
like us in the upper Midwest, 53 percent of
the energy that were generating today is
clean already. It puts us in a good position to
meet the requirements of the Clean Power
Rule. Of the half that comes from clean energy, over half of that is from nuclear generation. I think were in a good position today.
When I look at things like life after 60, my
understanding -- and Im not an expert on
the Clean Power Rule -- my understanding
is, Im not sure we will necessarily get any
benefit or credit, if you will, from extending
the lives of our existing nuclear fleet from
the Clean Power Rule. Theres going to be
a lot of nuclear power plants that will have
to make the decision as to whether or not
they operate beyond 60 out to 80 years, and
somehow, if were not going to get the credit
for that, thats going to make that decision
that much more difficult.
Andy: Thats one of those tweaks that
needs to be taken a close look at.
Terry: Right, and Im not sure anyone
fully understands the Clean Power Rule.
NPI: Will U.S. vendors have to increasingly look overseas to keep business going?
Simon: We believe that the global market represents the bigger economic oppor-
tunity for the U.S. nuclear industry because

demand outside the U.S. is growing so
rapidly and it is such a large market. We
are confident, however, that there will be
a very good market in the U.S. as well as
market needs and policy, of which the CPP
is an example, continue to align to drive the
development of cleaner alternatives to coal
and natural gas power plants.
Andy: Globalization of the marketplace
for nuclear energy technologies is real. The
companies and vendors of nuclear technologies need to operate where the markets are. With a level playing field they can
compete very well. There are some excellent
companies and technologies available in the
global marketplace.
Walt: I think specialty service providers
who rely solely on the nuclear industry for
revenue would have to consider extending
their geographic reach. Without any new
nuclear units on the horizon in the immediate future it only makes sense. For a
company like ours that is diversified, there
is still a lot of opportunity in the U.S. market. For us in the U.S. power market, the
existing plants are likely to remain operational for quite some time and were going
to continue to provide maintenance, modifications, and project-related services. As
older plants are decommissioned, we see
opportunities there as well. Once the new
plants under construction come online,
we are well-positioned to provide services
to those plants. We are committed to the
U.S. nuclear industry and will continue to
participate in the training and development
of the new nuclear workforce.
Terry: We talked earlier about how long
its going to take before we maybe see the
next round of plants after the ones currently being constructed. I think our U.S. vendors, in order to sustain their expertise, and
ensure that they can continue to fund their
research and everything else, they have to
go overseas. They have to get folks who are
ready to go right now on nuclear, and take
advantage of those things in order to maintain their participation in the worldwide
market.
NUCLEUS
The Role of Nuclear Energy in the Clean Power Plan:
Important Contributions
and Missed Opportunities
By Scott Segal, Founding Partner, Policy
Resolution Group at Bracewell & Giuliani LLP
hen the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

finalized its Clean Power Plan, or CPP, in August 2015,
several substantial changes from the proposed rule were
immediately evident. Because CPP is the centerpiece of the Administration strategys to reduce global greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions, the question of the preferred combination of electric
generation is a critical one for determining the effectiveness of
the rule, its cost, and the impact on reliability.
The final rule expressed a marked preference for renewable energy sources and seemed to hold natural gas-fired generation to a business as usual
level given current market conditions. While natural gas has half the GHG footprint
of the coal capacity it replaces, it shares the base-load convenience of coal to the extent
that it can be dispatched as needed to meet consumer demand. Traditional renewables
like wind and solar power are critical elements but, by contrast, are variable energy
sources that cannot be dispatched like coal, natural gas or nuclear.
The only other dispatchable energy source with a zero-carbon profile is nuclear
power. While nuclear plants that are currently under construction can be credited
toward the GHG emission reductions of 32 percent from 2005 levels, CPP stopped
short of the ringing endorsement for which many in the nuclear sector had hoped.
Six percent of existing nuclear generation is no longer considered as part of the best
system of emissions reduction, the calculation that determines the carbon rate or
mass reduction necessary to be achieved in each state. But the carbon-abatement value
of plants under construction may be counted once those plants begin operation. Socalled power uprate projects that enhance production at existing plants can also
count. These are marked improvements in the final rule.
For the five new nuclear reactors currently being developed, the acknowledgement of
under-construction credit is no doubt welcome and appropriate. For example, state officials and the regulated community in Georgia had argued that the proposed CPP worked
an essential unfairness on the state for failing to give credit for the new construction at
the Alvin W. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant near Waynesboro, Georgia. The Georgia
Power-led project at Vogtle 3 and 4 will add over 2,200 MW of carbon-free power when
the project is complete. The Vogtle project is arguably the largest job-producing project in
the state, with over 5,000 construction jobs and 800 permanent operations jobs.
Despite the gains for new construction like Vogtle and power uprates, there is little
doubt that nuclear advocates were hoping for a bit more from the rule, particularly for the
existing nuclear fleet. Currently, just under a hundred nuclear power plants in the United
States generate about 19 percent of our nations electricity. The trouble is that much of the
existing fleet is over three decades old. According to the Nuclear Energy Institute, these
plants are the largest source of zero-carbon

electric generation in more than half of the
states. The existence of a mass-based approach to state compliance with the rule
places some importance of maintaining the
existing fleet. As EPA axiomatically observes in the final rule, Existing nuclear
generation helps make existing CO2 emissions lower than they would otherwise be.
Given the age of the nuclear fleet, an
increasing number of nuclear operators
are coming up for license renewal before
the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC) in coming years. The sustained low
commodity price of natural gas coupled
with needed capital expenditures and poor
market conditions in several states makes a
certain number of retirements likely. The
baseline CPP assumptions include the prediction that nuclear power will retain its
current market share through 2030. However, CPP includes no affirmative steps to
ensure against nuclear retirements in order
to ensure this necessary result. The Third
Way organization, with the assistance
of MIT-trained researchers, found that,
Emissions increases due to nuclear retirements would sabotage the carbon reductions targeted by the EPAs Clean Power
Plan and, in the worst case, could wipe out
a decades worth of progress by effectively
returning U.S. electricity sector emissions
to 2005 levels.
As President Obama himself noted in
2010, To meet our growing energy needs
and prevent the worst consequences of climate change, well need to increase our
supply of nuclear power. Its that simple.
But what is then missing from CPP that
could encourage re-licensing? License renewals are themselves major investments
costing anywhere from $500 million to
$1.5 billion. Expenditures of this magnitude are in the range of new natural gas
and renewables projects. One missed opportunity in the final CPP is the failure to
19
Georgia officials said the Clean Power Plan did not fairly give credit to the Plant Vogtle expansion project. Photo courtesy: Georgia Power Co.
heed the suggestion that facilities subject to

license renewal explicitly count, in whole or
in part, towards CPP compliance.
The CPP does not exist in a vacuum.
For example, renewable energy projects
require construction of power lines or offshore cables. Enhanced reliance on natural gas requires construction of pipelines.
In the same way, enhanced reliance on
nuclear power and prolonging the lifespan
of the existing fleet would benefit significantly from a smarter nuclear waste policy.
Despite the fact that CPP attempts to transition to a low-carbon energy future, neither the rule itself nor any related policy
pronouncements seeks to deal with storing or reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel.
As the U.S. Energy Information Administration notes, electric generation adds
about 2,000 metric tons of nuclear waste
each year to the 75,000 tons currently
being stored on site around the country.
The Administration, while formulating
the CPP, perhaps should have considered
changes to waste policy, including responsible options for a secure national repository and fuel reprocessing.
The failure to fully embrace nuclear power, as well as efficient natural gas facilities
and even advanced clean coal technologies,
20
has resulted in a rule that is far less likely

to achieve the kind of deep decarbonization
which many climate change activists called
upon western governments to produce. A
report soon to be released by the Energy
Innovation Reform Project indicates that
variable or intermittent sources of energy
like renewables at penetration rates of 30
percent or greater of electric generation
substantially exceed the cost of dispatchable zero-carbon sources like nuclear power. Even if intermittency is controlled for by
the use of advanced storage technology, the
fact that solar and wind power varies by season (and not just over the course of a day or
two) still dictates superior cost-effectiveness
for deep decarbonization up to 60 percent
or more reductions for dispatchable sources like nuclear power. An optimal policy
would lead the electric generation mix with
dispatchable sources, followed by solar and
then wind. Ironically, the centerpiece of
the Administrations GHG reduction policy the Clean Power Plan has it backwards, leading with variable sources and
holding dispatchable low-carbon sources to
business as usual or worse.
In conclusion, the CPP gets some things
right for a nuclear future, such as favorable
treatment for new construction, uprates,
and clearer discussions of mass-based compliance strategies. But the Administration does not go out of its way to enhance
the prospects for license renewals or safe
and appropriate waste policy. Further, by
expressing favoritism for variable energy
sources like solar and wind over dispatchable sources like nuclear, EPA has not put
the power system on the road to substantial carbon reductions at anywhere near
acceptable affordability or reliability. This
situation is all the more troubling as the
U.S. prepares for the international climate
negotiations scheduled for December in
Paris. State Department Special Envoy
for Climate Change Todd Stern recently
stated that, We have proposed and pushed
the idea of successive rounds of targets,
so you keep ratcheting ambition up. The
first round of targets is hugely significant.
Theyre very good, but theyre not enough.
What we need is a multi-part package for
ambition, successive rounds of ratcheting up targets over time [and] long-term
targets as well. If the CPP is the initial
round, then successive rounds must include
a more robust role for nuclear power, efficient natural gas, and cleaner coal technologies. Ideally, we should reverse the
order to maximize effectiveness.
NUCLEUS
Emergency Preparedness
for Nuclear Power Plants
S
By Eileen K. Unger, President, Emergency Preparedness Partnerships
o far, so good despite the fact that there are 99 nuclear power
plants in operation across 31 states in the U.S., there have been
no injuries or fatalities from radiation exposure in the country.
Even the Three Mile Island accident in 1979 resulted in no fatalities
or identifiable health impacts. That said, other countries have not
been so lucky.
The 1986 Chernobyl nuclear accident in Ukraine, which involved
an explosion and fire that caused the release of massive amounts of
radioactive particles, is considered the worst nuclear accident in history.
It resulted in at least 31 deaths during the accident itself, as well as substantial long term
negative health effects (the average life expectancy of Chernobyl evacuees dropped from 65
to 58 years). The earthquake and tsunami-induced Fukushima accident in March 2011 was
another devastating incident. While no immediate deaths occurred, the resulting nuclear
meltdown and release of radioactive materials is likely negatively impacting peoples health
throughout the region.
As you can see, nuclear power plants present unique challenges when it comes to emergency
preparedness. Not only do they produce radioactive materials, but they are also thought
to be viewed as prime targets by terrorists. These unique characteristics make emergency
planning for nuclear plants far different from that of fossil-fueled plants. Nuclear plant
emergency plans must include provisions for onsite as well as offsite measures, including
evacuations, sheltering, and other actions to protect nearby residents in the event of a serious
incident. This makes it critical for nuclear utilities to continuously build strong relationships
with municipal leaders and their state and local emergency management communities.
ROLE OF THE NRC AND FEMA

Ultimately, here in the U.S. the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has federal
statutory responsibility for overseeing nuclear power plant emergency preparedness and
accident response, and this oversight is also tied to the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA). Conversely, fossil-fueled plants are mainly regulated by the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), which is primarily focused on reducing carbon emissions.
FEMA is responsible for offsite planning for nuclear plants, including coordinating
with state and local governments to carry out response functions, whereas the NRC is
responsible for onsite planning such as conducting onsite inspections, regularly reviewing
plans, and monitoring ongoing training in the form of drills and exercises. Based on inputs
from FEMA as well as its own onsite analysis, the NRC makes the final determination on
each plants overall state of emergency preparedness and, if warranted, issues the required
operating license.
Each nuclear power plant in the U.S. is required to exercise its emergency plan with
the NRC, FEMA, and numerous other offsite authorities at least once every two years.
However this should be considered the bare minimum some utilities conduct drills and
exercises much more frequently. For example, Exelon conducted more than 100 emergency
preparedness drills at its six Illinois nuclear plants in 2014, and the company regularly provides
emergency training to first responders like

law enforcement and fire departments, as
well as local community leaders and other
important stakeholders.
A WORD ON COMMUNICATIONS
Before we address the key differences
between emergency planning for nuclear
plants versus that for fossil-fueled plants, lets
touch briefly on the role of communications
during a crisis.
Following the 2011 Fukushima incident,
nuclear utilities have upped the ante in
terms of their propensity to communicate,
especially through digital channels like
social media and even smart phone apps.
For example, soon after the 2011 incident,
Duke Energy created an information portal
called the Nuclear Information Center,
which is essentially a blog with full social
media integration. The goal of the Nuclear
Information Center is to increase Dukes
level of proactive communications to the
general public.
In terms of what to communicate during
a nuclear emergency, this comes down
to identifying all the potential questions
that local residents and other community
stakeholders are likely to have. These
frequently-asked questions should be
derived as part of the planning process. In
general, emergency communications must
revolve around providing an early warning
so communities can prepare and take
action, explaining the situation, protecting
the public, and providing updates on the
progress of the emergency response and
recovery.
The overall communication
strategy should facilitate the delivery of
cohesive, consistent messages designed to
build trust and confidence in the utilitys
ability to resolve the emergency as quickly as
possible.
NUANCES OF EMERGENCY
PLANNING FOR NUCLEAR PLANTS
Electric utilities that operate nuclear
reactors strive to operate their plants safely,
utilizing robust protocols executed by highly
trained personnel capable of maintaining
21
NUCLEUS
each reactor in a safe condition. This

involves constantly monitoring radiation
levels, and utilizing analytical software
platforms to deliver accurate information
both internally and externally. During an
emergency, trained employees immediately
implement procedures to respond to the
incident, classify the emergency, activate
the emergency operations center, and notify
state, local and federal authorities. The
state and local authorities then make the
determination of what actions, if any, will be
communicated to the public.
In a nutshell, emergency preparedness
for nuclear power plants involves three
primary objectives the shutting down of
a compromised reactor, maintaining the
shutdown condition as long as necessary,
and mitigating the spread of radioactive
materials. Its that last factor that truly
differentiates nuclear plant emergency
plans from those of traditional fossil-fueled
plants the presence of radioactive materials
that literally blow with the wind. The
implications of this to emergency planning
are far-reaching in terms of minimizing
the amount of contaminants released into
the air, and maintaining open lines of
communication with local residents and
stakeholders to keep them informed and
protect them from exposure.
One such protection measure is the need
to differentiate between two emergency
planning zones (EPZs) based on the distance
from ground zero. The first zone, called the
Plume Exposure Pathway, covers the 10mile radius around the plant, and the main
concern here is the exposure of local residents
to, and the inhalation of, airborne radioactive
particles. In this zone, evacuation plans are
paramount. The other zone, the Ingestion
Pathway, covers the 50-mile radius around
the plant, and the main concern here is the
ingestion of contaminated food and water
(radioactive materials expand and become
less concentrated the farther they travel from
the source).
Within each EPZ, evacuation plans
should be developed in conjunction with
the local jurisdictions, which in turn should
22
make this information available to their

residents (in fact, the NRC requires making
this information available to residents
located within the 10-mile EPZ). While the
NRC does not require evacuation planning
for jurisdictions beyond the first 10-mile
EPZ, its a good idea to create these plans
for both EPZs where possible to account
for worst-case scenarios. Additionally, the
biannual emergency exercises mandated by
the NRC should occasionally incorporate
areas beyond the 10-mile EPZ.
Evacuation planning should generally
account for transportation options, the
composition of the population to be
evacuated, shelter factors, and scenarios
around wind direction and speed, how
quickly an incident develops, the duration
of the radiological release, and other
conditions. This planning should also
include the development of mitigating
actions for shadow evacuations, which
occur when panicked residents unnecessarily
evacuate and clog roadways.
Thresholds for evacuation and sheltering
should also be defined. Importantly, only in
extreme cases would an entire area require
evacuation usually, only certain portions of
the area would be targeted. For example,
if a General Emergency is declared, total
evacuation would be the preferred option for
people within a two-mile radius around the
plant as well as people living within the fivemile zone directly downwind. Residents
in the remainder of the 10-mile EPZ may
be instructed to take shelter in their homes
and monitor Emergency Alert System (EAS)
broadcasts.
Another element of nuclear plant
emergency plans that is unique compared
to those of fossil-fueled plants is the
incorporation of the four emergency
classifications,
designated
by
NRC
regulations, which indicate the level of risk
to local residents. These are listed below, in
order of increasing severity.
1. Notification of Unusual Event a
potential issue has been detected. This
was declared 19 times in 2014.
2. Alert an issue has occurred but the
level of radiological release is limited.

This was declared four times in 2014.
3. Site Area Emergency an event has
occurred that results in a major failure
of plant functions. This has only been
declared twice in the past 30 years.
4. General Emergency indicates
substantial damage to the core that will
likely result in a release of radioactive
material. This classification was created
after the Three Mile Island accident and
has never been declared. The federal
response to a General Emergency (or a
terrorist attack) would be coordinated
by the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS), while the NRC would
continue to retain a technical leadership
role.
Another unique characteristic of nuclear
emergency plans is that processes and
procedures regarding usage of KI (potassium
iodide) tablets must be documented. KI
is said to help prevent the thyroid from
absorbing radioactive iodine to reduce the
risk of thyroid cancers and similar diseases. It
is generally seen as something of a last resort,
but must be accounted for nonetheless.
Additionally, contingencies for power
outages must be developed. Specifically, the
plant must have backup generators that are
located away from flood zones, to ensure
the cooling system remains operable. The
location of the backup generators should
be behind water-tight, blast-resistant doors.
And if necessary, near coastlines, a sea wall of
appropriate height and strength could also
be present.
Finally, nuclear plant emergency plans
typically include technical details on systems
and technologies that have been deployed
to harden systems. As you might imagine,
hardening tactics are more important
for nuclear facilities than for fossil-fueled
facilities, because a nuclear system failure has
the potential to cast a wider net of negative
consequences. Although a comprehensive
list of nuclear plan hardening tactics is
beyond the scope of this article, a few
examples include:
A Reactor Protection System, which
TVA built a FLEX storage building that houses backup emergency equipment at Watts Bar 2. Courtesy: TVA
is designed to immediately terminate

the nuclear reaction and eliminate
the heat source when necessary,
while utilizing additional systems
like control rods and neutronabsorbing liquid injections to then
remove the decay heat from the core.
Controls for the plants essential
service water system (ESWS),
which cools heat exchangers and
similar components and removes
decay heat, as well as the plants
emergency core cooling systems
(ECCS) encompassing high
pressure coolant injection, automatic
depressurization,
low
pressure
coolant
injection,
core-spray,
containment spray, and isolation
cooling systems which are designed
to shutdown the reactor during an
emergency.
Controls to make sure containment
functions such as fuel cladding,
reactor vessels, core catching and
physical containment structures are

adequate to prevent the radiological
release.
Passive Auto-catalytic Hydrogen
Recombiners (PARs), which do not
require electricity to operate. These
devices turn potentially explosive
gases such as hydrogen into water.
CONCLUSION
As you can see, emergency preparedness
for nuclear power plants is its own animal.
Thanks to the presence of radioactive
materials, nuclear plant emergency plans
must account for the release of these
contaminants into the atmosphere. This
factor is what primarily differentiates nuclear
plant emergency planning from that of
other types of power plants, as it requires
coordinated planning with neighboring
stakeholder groups, as well as procedures
around evacuations, sheltering, radiation
monitoring, wind forecasting, and KI
distribution, among other things.
Eileen K. Unger is a licensed professional engineer

in the State of New Jersey with over 35 years of
experience, and is the founder and President of
Emergency Preparedness Partnerships (EPP), a
15-year-consulting company based in Hammonton,
NJ. Eileen founded EPP with an overarching mission
to help utilities engage in proactive planning and risk
management to optimize their disaster readiness and
emergency response. Prior to forming EPP in 2001,
she spent 16 years with Atlantic Electric / Conectiv
(now Pepco Holdings, Inc.), a Fortune 500 electric
and gas utility based in Wilmington, Delaware, where
she assumed managerial responsibility in a variety of
capacities including Business Development, Market
Support, Major Accounts, and Customer Service
and Sales. She developed and maintained the
regional emergency operations plan for over 500,000
customers. Prior to Conectiv, she worked for Bechtel
Construction Company at the Hope Creek Nuclear
Generating Station. Prior to that, she worked for United
Engineers and Constructors, based in Philadelphia, PA.
Eileen graduated from Rutgers College of Engineering,
and received her Masters degree in engineering from
the New Jersey Institute of Technology.
23
NUCLEAR WORLD
Ways
Engineers Can Im
Their Relationsh
with Finance
By Tony McGrail, Solutions Director of Asset Management

and Monitoring Technology, Doble Engineering Co.
f engineers do not talk the language of business, they do

not deserve to be heard. If top management doesnt talk
the language of risk and criticality and understand why
maintenance can be an investment they do not deserve to be leaders. David McKeown, CEO of the Institute of Asset Management
Whether we realize it or not, all professionals speak multiple
languages. Not necessarily languages that we learn in school or
from our families, but languages that we adopt in the workplace.
Whether its industry acronyms, corporate buzzwords, or technical
words that those in others industries wouldnt understand, we all have learned new languages. However, in order to be successful in our careers, its important to acknowledge
the language that we speak, as well as the languages that our co-workers speak every
day. Although the quote above from Mr. McKeown may seem to be a bit extreme, his
message about the need for a common language between engineers and management is
completely relevant for all power engineering organizations.
Theres no question that it takes a team of experts in all fields to effectively run a
business, but the reality is that the finance department often holds the purse strings,
and it can appear that they wield more power than others. The challenge is that this
power difference often results in engineers feeling like theyre fighting for approvals and
against finance to get what they know is right, rather than working together to achieve
the shared goal of bettering their company. In order to change this, there needs to be
concerted efforts on both ends to understand each others goals and motivations and to
find a common language. Here are five tips to help you improve your communication
with finance and management:
24
1. Think like a CFO: CFOs are

responsible for the complete financial
health of a company. Just as engineers
manage the risk of their assets,
CFOs must manage the risk of every
investment that they make. Examine
every physical asset owned by the
company and assign a risk value to
it. Consider each assets probability
of failure, as well as its cost to repair,
the cost of the business interruption
and the overall risk associated with
each asset. It may be that smaller
assets, such as post insulators, are less
impactful and thus likely to be less
expensive than larger capital intensive
assets such as power transformers. By
analyzing each asset from a physical
and financial standpoint, engineers are
better prepared to talk with finance and
make their case for why infrastructure
investments need to be made. In the
end it shifts the mentality from its
broke, we must fix it to its likely a
big impact on the business we should
do something.
mprove
hips
2. Act like a translator: Once engineers can put themselves in the finance departments shoes, they need
to share information in a way that
will resonate with them. Engineers
should frame their messages about
infrastructure replacement with financial terms. Compare the financial impact associated with failure,
replacement and maintenance so that
they can see the long-term effects of
each option. Its often difficult to
accept the upfront costs associated
with maintenance programs especially if nothing has gone wrong
yet but its up to you to prove the
value to the finance department.
Annualized inspection and maintenance can cost a few thousand dollars for a large transformer, but it
pales in comparison to the cost of a
new generator transformer at several
million dollars -- which itself may be
significantly less than the business
interruption cost of millions per day.
3. Teach the basics: The onus is
on engineers to learn the basic
financial terms needed to make
business
decisions.
However,
finance should be open to learning
the basics of power engineering
and the physical infrastructure on
which their business relies. Take

members of the management and/
or finance team on a walk through
the power station. Although people
working in finance may see the words
circuit breakers, bushings and fans
as line items every month, walking
them through the power station and
allowing them to get up close to the
assets can make a huge difference in
their understanding of each machines
importance. Additionally, having this
shared experience can help create a
foundation for future conversations.
If new purchases or repairs need to
be made, its easier to point back and
talk about a specific thing that you
showed them in the field, rather than
discussing a machine that holds no
context for them.
5. Be a storyteller: When youre an

expert in something, its often hard
to remember that not everyone has
the same depth of knowledge as you.
When asking for finances approval
on a situation, make sure that youre
speaking on the same level. A good
way to get on the same level with
non-engineers is to use metaphors,
examples and anecdotes. One common metaphor we use when discussing testing and diagnostics is that
transformer oil is like our blood in
that we can test it to see how healthy
our transformer is, and while theyre
a great diagnostic aid, the tests wont
tell you everything.
Engineers often need to provide more
contextual information than if they were
talking with other engineers but its im-
(McKeowns) message about the need for a common language

between engineers and management is completely relevant for all
power engineering organizations.
4. Show that youre the expert: In
todays on-demand world, anyone
can go to Google with a question
and find an answer, but that doesnt
make everyone an expert. Consider
this metaphor: in the United States,
its up to the patient to decide if they
want treatment, but its the doctors
responsibility to provide all of the
information in simple terms, so
that the patient can make the right
decision. Even if a patient has spent
a bit too much time on WebMD,
a doctor is still crucial. Dont let
management and finance get away
with just using Google to research
the assets, tests and processes that
you are an expert on. Prove your
value by showing the importance
of having an expert who not only
understands the infrastructure,
but how its configured and works
together for your organization and
why its important for the overall
business.
portant to include the right details, not

every detail. Engineers should provide the
backstory of how they got to their current situation and explain the options for
resolving the problem as well as how each
option differs from another.
When working with nuclear power, the
need for strong collaboration between
management and engineers is only heightened. Its important to agree on protocols
and procedures to deal with new or varying
information. If a new oil lab test indicates a
problem, or if condition monitoring shows
an issue, that is the time organizations
need to act on a pre-agreed upon plan
that is not the time to start developing a
plan. There are so many procedures that
must be followed to a tee that making realtime decisions based purely on judgment
is incredibly risky. Engineers and finance
need to work together to ensure the companys technical procedures and courses of
action are pre-approved so that everyone is
on the same page the moment that something goes wrong.
25
NEWS
Westinghouse to Dismantle 2 Swedish Nuclear Reactors

NOVEMBER 2
Barsebck Kraft AB picked Westinghouse Electric Co. to dismantle a commercial nuclear power plant in Sweden.
Westinghouse will dismantle, segment and package the reactor
pressure vessel internals at the dual-unit Barsebck Nuclear Power
Station. The plant is an ABB-designed boiling water reactor. Westinghouse will use its controlled underwater mechanical-cutting
techniques and will use specifically designed equipment the company will fabricate and test at its facilities in Sweden to remove them.
The project will begin immediately and is expected to take four
years to complete. Mechanical segmentation will begin in 2016.
The first plant ended operations Nov. 30, 1999. The second
ceased operations May 31, 2005.
Westinghouse has been contracted for dismantling work at the
Chooz nuclear power plant in France, the Zorita plant in Spain and
the Neckarwestheim 1 plant in Germany. Westinghouse is also part
of a consortium to dismantle the Philippsburg 1 plant in Germany.
Hitachi-GE Nuclear Reactor

Design Completes Latest
Assessment Process
NOVEMBER 2
The U.K. Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) completed step 3 of the Generic Design Assessment of Hitachi-GEs
U.K. Advanced Boiling Water Reactor
(ABWR) design.
The third phase of the assessment looks
at the safety and security arguments presented by Hitachi-GE to underpin the
safety and security claims. Hitachi-GE
expects to complete the final assessment
stage in December 2017.
The assessment process moves into
the final stage, which calls for the start
of the Environment Agencys and Natural Resources Wales (NRW) consultation
on the environmental section of the assessment, which is scheduled to start in
October 2016. Once the overall assessment is complete, ONR, the Environment Agency and NRW will use the work
to inform any subsequent assessments for
site specific proposals that use the reactor
26
design, such as Horizon Nuclear Powers

proposed developments at Wylfa Newydd
and Oldbury in the UK.
Uptick in U.S. Nuclear

Capacity Expected Despite
Recent & Upcoming
Closures
NOVEMBER 2
A net increase in total U.S. nuclear capacity is expected despite more than 2,000
MW of capacity slated to close by 2019.
Scheduled additions of 5,618 MW of
capacity between 2016 and 2020 could
boost U.S. nuclear capacity, according
to numbers from the U.S. Energy Information Association (EIA). The additions are the 1,150-MW Watts Bar 2 in
Tennessee, expected to begin operations
in 2016, and four reactors being built at
Plant Vogtle in Georgia and V.C. Summer in South Carolina, both scheduled
for completion by 2020.
EIAs analysis was released before Entergy
announced it would shut down the 843-
MW FitzPatrick nuclear power plant in New

York by 2017. The numbers did include the
closure of the 685-MW Pilgrim Nuclear
Power Station in Massachusetts, which is set
to shut down by 2019 at the latest.
Exelon has said it would close down the
678-MW Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station in New Jersey in 2019.
The largest nuclear plant in the U.S.
is the three-unit, 3,937-MW Palo Verde
Nuclear Generating Station in Arizona.
The smallest is the single-unit, 479-MW
Fort Calhoun plant in Nebraska.
Thirty states have nuclear power plants,
with most located east of the Mississippi River. Illinois is home to the most nuclear plants
followed by Pennsylvania. In the past four
years, four nuclear plants have shut down,
accounting for 6,000 MW of capacity.
S. Korea Nuclear Reactor to

Begin Operational Testing
OCTOBER 29
South Koreas Nuclear Safety and Security Commission gave operational approval for the countrys 25th reactor.
NEWS
Operator Korea Hydro and Nuclear
Power Co. Ltd. will start a test run of the
1,400-MW Shin Kori 3 that is expected
to take six months, according to Reuters.
KHNP submitted an application in June
2011 to operate the reactor beginning in
2014, but approval was delayed as KHNP
replaced cables supplied with forged safety documents. The country currently has
24 reactors operating and plans to add 13
more for a total of 36 units by 2029.
The 1,400-MW Shin Kori 4 reactor
is also offline because of the cables, but
no start date has been set. Both units are
APR1400 nuclear reactors.
Exelon Will Defer

Decision on Clinton Nuclear
Power Plant
OCTOBER 29
Exelon Corp. (NYSE: EXC) said it

would defer any decision on operations
of the Clinton nuclear power plant until
next year.
Exelon said it plans to bid the power
plant into the Midcontinent Independent
System Operator (MISO) capacity auction for the 2016-2017 planning year. It
was an announcement from MISO that
prompted Exelon to defer the decision for

an additional year.
MISO posted an issues statement saying reforms to its capacity market process
may be required to drive future investments and ensure reliable electricity supply for customers.
Positive results from the Illinois Power
Agencys capacity procurement for 2016
and the long-term impact of the Clean
Power Plan were other reasons behind
Exelons decision.
We are encouraged by MISOs
statement and the potential for market
reforms that are necessary to ensure long
Entergy to Close FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant by 2017

NOVEMBER 2
Entergy (NYSE: ETR) said it would

close the 838-MW James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant in New York
at the end of the fuel cycle in late 2016
or early 2017 due to continued deteriorating economics of the plant.
The utility said it reported its decision to the New York Independent
System Operator and to the New York
State Public Service Commission. Entergy and state officials worked over the
past two months to reach an agreement
to avoid a shutdown but were unsuccessful.
State Senator Patty Ritchie said
she was one of many lawmakers who
showed support for FitzPatrick.
I joined with the regions other representatives to show our support for the
plant, the workers and the impacted
communities, Ritchie said. Notwithstanding todays announcement, I am
urging the company and the state to
continue discussions aimed at finding
a way to reverse the decision.
The decision to close the plant was
based on several factors, including low
current and long-term wholesale energy prices driven by low natural gas
prices, flawed market design that does
not adequately compensate nuclear
power plants for their benefits, and the

high operating costs of the single-unit
power plant. The plant employs more
than 600 workers and had been generating electricity since 1975.
We recognize the consequences
of the shutdown for our employees
and the surrounding community and
pledge to do our best to support both
during this transition, said Leo Denault, Entergys chairman and chief executive officer. As a company, we are
committed to ensuring the well-being
of our employees, and appreciate their
continued dedication to making safe,
clean, secure and reliable operations a
top priority.
Entergy announced in October that
it would be closing the 680-MW Pilgrim nuclear power plant in Massachusetts due to the same conditions as
FitzPatrick. When FitzPatrick closes,
Entergy will only have one operating
nuclear plant in New York, the Indian Point plant, which has been facing
much opposition from lawmakers and
environmental groups.
Dominion (NYSE: D) shut down the
Kewaunee nuclear power plant in Wisconsin in 2013 and Entergy closed the
Vermont Yankee nuclear plant the fol-
lowing year due to the same conditions.

The fact that the FitzPatrick nuclear energy facility in New York is the
industrys fourth nuclear power plant
to prematurely close due to uncorrected flaws in competitive electricity markets is alarming, said Marvin Fertel,
president and CEO of the Nuclear Energy Institute. It is clear that, despite
providing reliable electricity and enormous environmental and economic
benefits in upstate New York for more
than 40 years, FitzPatricks benefits
are grossly undervalued and are not
fully compensated.
27
NEWS
term reliability in southern Illinois,

said Chris Crane, president and CEO
of Exelon. However, the Clinton plant
remains unprofitable and more needs to
be done.
A report by the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency determined that the
loss of two nuclear power plants in the
state would increase emissions by about
24 million short tons, more than doubling
the emissions reductions required under
federal carbon reduction rules.
Testing of AP1000 Nuclear

Reactor Coolant Pump
Successful
OCTOBER 29
Curtiss-Wright Corp. (NYSE: CW),

Westinghouse Electric Co. and State
Nuclear Power Technology Corporation
of China (SNPTC) completed testing of a
nuclear reactor coolant pump (RCP).
The companies said they completed
final performance testing and post-test
inspections of the lead AP1000 RCP.
The RCP met the design requirements
necessary to support operation of an
AP1000 nuclear plant. The first and
second RCPs will be shipped to the
Sanmen Unit 1 under construction in
China for arrival on site by year-end
2015. The completed test will also lead to
fabrication and delivery of the remaining
two RCPs for Sanmen 1, and RCPs for
the seven additional AP1000s under
construction in China and the U.S.,
including the second unit at Sanmen,
and two each at Haiyang, Plant Vogtle
in Georgia and V.C. Summer in South
Carolina.
The final performance testing verified
RCP operation during a full range
of AP1000 operating conditions for
more than 1,600 total hours, including
more than 600 start-and-stop cycles.
Curtiss-Wright conducted the testing
and inspection at its Electro-Mechanical
Division facility in Pennsylvania.
28
Vietnam to Learn More

About Nuclear Reactors From
GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy
OCTOBER 28
GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy (GEH)

signed a memorandum of understanding
with the Vietnam Atomic Energy Agency
(VAEA) to enhance the agencys understanding of light water reactor technology
and nuclear project management.
GEH and VAEA will cooperate to promote training and development of qualified
human resources associated with Vietnams
civilian nuclear power program. GEH will
provide practical work experience for VAEA
staff in such areas as nuclear safety culture,
project management and quality assurance.
GEH signed MOUs with Hanoi University of Science and Technology and Electric
Power University to cooperate in the field of
nuclear engineering and technology. Twelve
students from the two universities completed internships at GEHs world headquarters
in North Carolina.
Vietnam is planning to build more
than 10-GW of nuclear generating capacity by 2030.
Braidwood Station Unit 2

Back to Full Power After
Refueling Outage
OCTOBER 27
Exelons Braidwood Station Unit 2 returned to full power Monday after a threeweek refueling outage beginning Oct. 5.
Unit 1 continued operating at full
power while workers completed more
than 9,000 inspections, tests and improvements on Unit 2, replacing about
one-third of the reactors fuel.
Our refueling outages are critical to
maintaining long-term reliability, said
Mark Kanavos, site vice president. The
work completed during this outage ensures
that we will continue to provide safe, reliable
and clean electricity whenever it is needed.
Exelon operates 11 nuclear units at six

sites across Illinois, providing nearly half the
states total electricity and 90 percent of Illinois carbon-free electricity.
Situated about 60 miles southwest of Chicago, Braidwood Station provides enough
electricity to power more than 2 million average homes.
Development of Floating
Nuclear SMR in China in
the Works
OCTOBER 26
Lloyds Register Energy signed a cooperation framework agreement with the Nuclear
Power Institute of China (NPIC) to design
and develop a floating vessel containing a
small modular reactor (SMR) in China.
The first contract under the agreement is
to develop new nuclear safety regulations,
guidelines, and nuclear code and standards
for the floating vessel that are consistent
with the Offshore and International Marine
Regulations and the IAEA Nuclear Safety
Standards. The vessel will be used in Chinese waters to supply electricity to offshore
installations.
This marks the beginning of a groundbreaking initiative for the Chinese nuclear
industry, taking nuclear power generation
offshore, said Melvin Zhang, Lloyds Register Energys Vice President of Strategic
Development for Greater China. It is also
excellent news for the people of China and
those working offshore in Chinese waters
with the need for consistent and safe power
supply. This project is expected to set the
pace for how nuclear power can be used and
applied to support sustainable power generation in both energy and marine sectors.
NRC Awards Operating

License to Watts Bar Unit 2
OCTOBER 26
Construction on Spring City, Tennessees 1,150-MW Watts Bar Unit 2 officially

wrapped Thursday as the Tennessee Valley
Authority received the nuclear reactors operating license.

This achievement signifies more than
a stage in construction for TVA, said Bill
Johnson, TVA president and chief executive
officer. It demonstrates to the people of

the Valley that we have taken every step possible to deliver low cost, carbon-free electricity safely and with the highest quality.
Speaking at a news conference Thursday,
Johnson said bringing a nuclear plant online

is a substantial responsibility.
It is one of the most profound responsibilities you can have in this life, and operating a nuclear plant has the same responsi-
CB&I Sells Nuclear Construction Unit to

Westinghouse, Fluor Takes Over U.S. Projects
OCTOBER 28
Westinghouse Electric Co. will take

over the nuclear construction business of
CB&I (NYSE: CBI) for $229 million,
and Fluor (NYSE: FLR) was picked to
continue building the four AP1000 reactors in Georgia and South Carolina.
CB&I entered a definitive agreement
with Westinghouse for the company to
acquire all of the outstanding equity interest in the nuclear construction business, Stone & Webster Inc.. The deal is
expected to close in late 2015 subject to
customary closing conditions. WEC will
purchase the business of engineering,
construction, procurement, management, design, installation, start-up and
testing of nuclear power facilities, including the V.C. Summer project in South
Carolina owned by SCANA Corp., and
the Vogtle project in Georgia owned by
Southern Co. (NYSE: SO) and nuclear
projects in China. CB&I will continue
to supply discrete scopes of modules,
fabricated pipes and specialty services to
Westinghouse on a subcontract basis for
the U.S. nuclear projects. Excluded from
the deal are CB&Is fossil power generation capability, its nuclear and industrial
maintenance business, the MOX fuel
conversion project at Savannah River,
the federal decommissioning business,
and the NetPower program for the development of projects that emit zero carbon dioxide.
When the deal closes, Westinghouse
will assume, and indemnify CB&I for,
previous, current and future liabilities
associated with the AP1000 nuclear
projects. CB&I expects cash payments
of $229 million, of which $161 million is expected to be received upon

completion of the nuclear projects and
$68 million upon attainment of certain
milestones related to CB&Is continued
supply of discrete scopes of modules,
fabricated pipe and specialty services to
WEC on a subcontract basis.
South Carolina Electric & Gas
(SCE&G), a unit of SCANA Corp.
and co-owner of the Summer plant,
said the move is a positive one for the
new build projects.
We have strengthened the language
in the EPC contract defining regulatory changes which has been the basis
for many of our disputes with the consortium in the past, said SCE&G said
in a statement. We also have negotiated
a fixed price option which, if exercised,
would limit the construction cost of the
new nuclear plants.
The amendment revises completion
dates for Summer 2 & 3 to August 31,
2019 and 2020, respectively. It also
says total project costs will increase by
approximately $286 million over the
$6.827 billion approved by the South
Carolina Public Service Commission,
bringing the total gross construction
cost to approximately $7.113 billion.
For Vogtle 3 & 4, the units are set
for completion in 2019 and 2020 as
well. Georgia Power said its share of the
settlement is $350 million, significantly
less than current litigation claims.
This settlement is extremely positive for the Vogtle project and now the
contractors can focus 100 percent on
project execution, said Buzz Miller,

executive vice president if nuclear development for Georgia Power. The
agreement resolves current and pending disputes, reaffirms the current
schedule and increases efficiencies
by streamlining resource deployment
with Westinghouse and its affiliates
as the prime contractor over the Vogtle expansion.
The same day, Westinghouse announced that Fluor Corp. would
manage construction of the expansion projects in Georgia and South
Carolina. Fluor will be subcontracted
in the development of transition plans
and definitive agreements. Westinghouse said Fluor will manage a significant portion of the construction
of the four units and will be providing project execution and direction,
accountability for and management
of professional staff and craft workers, and a focus on safety, quality
and project delivery certainty. Fluors
management plans for construction
would become effective at the close
of the deal.
Fluor said it will begin work immediately under a professional services
agreement to assess the two projects,
engage the workforce and plan a transition of duties and responsibilities to
manage construction.
29
NEWS
bilities, said Johnson. We understand that
responsibility and we take it seriously.
Issued Thursday by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the operating license
allows TVA to move forward with preparations for Unit 2s initial fuel load, which requires several weeks of work while the NRC
continues inspections and the reactors systems are readied for operation.
Watts Bar 2 is the first unit to comply
with Fukushima-related safety requirements
on mitigation strategies and spent fuel pool
instrumentation.
Completing Watts Bar Unit 2 and successfully licensing one of the nations largest new nuclear generation projects is (an)
historic milestone for TVA and the nuclear
industry, said Joe Grimes, TVA chief nuclear officer. With the delivery of this unit,
we are further positioning nuclear power as
a key player in TVAs and the nations
energy portfolio and instilling confidence in
TVA and the nuclear industry.
TVA maintained Unit 2 in an incomplete
state since 1985, extending the units construction permit since then. In 2007, TVA
began efforts to complete Unit 2 and updated its operating license application in March
2009. NRC staff completed the environmental review in May 2013 and continuously supplemented the safety evaluation report.
During Thursdays news conference,

Mike Skaggs, senior vice president of Watts
Bar construction and operation, called the
project one of the hardest things hes ever
done in his career.
But its also been the most rewarding
when you take a step back and look at it,
said Skaggs. In 2011, we were approximately 45 percent complete. Today we are
99 percent complete.
This is 20 years in the making and we
welcome todays announcement for Watts
Bar Unit 2, said members of the Energy
and Commerce Committee, Energy and
Power Subcommittee and Environment and
the Economy Subcommittee. This nuclear
plant will help fulfill the regions need for affordable, reliable and abundant electricity for
decades to come.
Skaggs said the project included the replacement and refubishment of equipment
so Unit 2 mirrors Unit 1.
We essentially have a new plant in an old
footprint, said Skaggs.
The Nuclear Energy Institute congratulated TVA on the achievement.
This is a hallmark day for the U.S. nuclear energy industry, said Marvin Fertel,
NEI President and CEO. Even more importantly, this is cause for celebration for the
millions of people in the Tennessee Valley
Authoritys service territory who can count

on Watts Bar 2 as another source of reliable,
carbon-free electricity for decades to come.
Bechtel, Watts Bar 2 construction contractor, released a statement, noting that the
workforce amassed 33 million work hours,
or nearly five years, without a day lost to injury and a 98-percent quality control acceptance rate during the first inspection.
Watts Bar Unit 2 is on schedule for operation in early 2016. Unit 1, in operation since
1996, and Unit 2 will produce 2,300 MW
of carbon-free energy, enough to power 1.3
million homes in the TVA service area.
S. Africa to Invest
$15B to Prep Nuclear
Energy Program
OCTOBER 21
South Africa says it has put aside 200 million Rand ($15 million) in preparation for its
nuclear energy program.
The Treasury said to Reuters that it has already funded 23 billion Rand ($1.7 billion)
into state power utility Eskom through the
sale of its stake in mobile phone company
Vodacom.
South Africa is facing electricity shortages
and wants to diversify its generating sources.
SONGS Co-Owners Reach $400M Insurance Settlement

OCTOBER 23
Southern California Edison (SCE) reached a $400 million settlement

for the outages resulting from a shut down nuclear power plant.
SCE said the settlement with Nuclear Electric Insurance Limited
(NEIL) resolves their claims under the insurance for the San Onofre
Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS). Pedro Pizarro, president of SCE,
said that 95 percent of the net insurance proceeds will benefit customers
and be allocated to all of the plants owners. SCE will receive $312.8
million; San Diego Gas & Electric, $80 million, and the city of Riverside, $7.16 million.
SCE announced in June 2013 that it would retire both units at
SONGS after replacement steam generators were found to be defective.
Under the auspices of the International Chamber of Commerce, SCE is
still seeking arbitration from Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, the company
who built and supplied the generators, and Mitsubishi Nuclear Energy
Systems. The failure of the generators led to the shutdown of the units.
30
ADVANCING CLEAN ENERGY

DECEMBER 810, 2015
LAS VEGAS CONVENTION CENTER
CENTRAL AND NORTH HALLS
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
Nuclear energy remains a viable, clean and safe option for

meeting the global demands around the world. Advancing
clean energy continues to be the main emphasis because
of the benefits it provides for our health, economy and
environment.
Nuclear Power International provides the nuclear power
industry the perfect venue to gather, network and exchange
information about advancing clean energy in todays
changing world.
REGISTER TODAY! WWW.NUCLEARPOWERINTERNATIONAL.COM

OWNED
& PRODUCED BY:
PRESENTED BY:
SUPPORTED BY:
Call for Abstracts
august 23-25, 2016

greater columbus convention center
Columbus, Ohio, USA
Dont miss this opportunity to present

your ideas with industry colleagues!
POWER-GEN Natural Gas is currently accepting abstracts that provide a unique opportunity to hear first-hand from
leading energy professionals with environmental, technical, social and regulatory perspectives. SUBMIT YOUR
ABSTRACT FOR A PRESENTATION BY JANUARY 8, 2016 and take advantage of the opportunity to share your
insights and experiences with industry colleagues. Listed below are a few suggested topics, or propose your own
industry-related topic.
TOPICS OF INTEREST
Large Frame Gas Turbines
Flexibility and Integration

Efficiency Improvements
Gas Turbine Performance
Combustion Optimization
Combined Cycle and Simple
Cycle Configurations
Exhaust Flow
Aerodynamics
Cooling Efficiency
Advanced Turbine Materials
Low NOx Combustion
Water Management
HRSGs
POWER
Operations AND
Maintenance
Data Monitoring
Repair Processes
Preventive Maintenance
Gas Turbine Coatings
Outage Management
Layup Practices
Fouling, Erosion and
Corrosion Mitigation
Inlet Filter Selection
O&M Regimens
Metallurgy
Quality Controls
Siting and Construction

Site Preparation
Requirements
Environmental Impacts and
Compliance
Land Use Impacts
Development Costs and
Schedules
Site-Related Studies
Licensing & Permitting
Geography
Access
Air Quality Requirements
Land Requirements
Risk Management and
Safety Protocol
Small Gas Turbines and

Gas Engines
Aerodynamic
Turbine Design
CHP Applications
RICE NESHAP Compliance
Gen-Set Ratings
Gen-Set Maintenance
Monitoring and Controls
Rice Designs
Remote Monitoring
ISO Standards
Maintenance Practices
submit your abstracts by JANuary 8, 2016

FOR DETAILS ON SUBMITTALS, PLEASE VISIT WWW.POWER-GENNATURALGAS.COM.
PRESENTED BY:
OWNED & PRODUCED BY:
p o w e r - g e n n a t u r a l g a s . c o m

Npi20151112 DL

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Npi20151112 DL

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2015

Ups & Downs for 8

N. AMERICA MARKET OVERVIEW

A license approval and impending plant closures are

NUCLEAR EXECUTIVE ROUNDTABLE

Executives from different segments of the industry

CLEAN POWER PLANS

What must be done for nuclear power to

PREPARING FOR AN EMERGENCY

Nuclears unique properties mean companies

ENGINEERS & MANAGEMENT MUST

Engineers and management can mitigate issues quickly

TVAs Watts Bar 2 received its operating license.

For ASSiStAnce with mArketinG StrAteGy or Ad creAtion,

corPorAte heAdquArterSPennwell corP.

NUCLEAR POWER INTERNATIONAL > NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2015

A Lesson Not Learned

By Sharryn Dotson, Editor

was born and raised in the suburbs of Detroit, Michigan,

auction for 2018-2019. That totals more

NUCLEAR POWER INTERNATIONAL > NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2015

The effects of nuclear plants shutting

If you ask around, talk to peers,

Please contact us today at P.O. Box 1049,

High-performance valves and accessories

FUEL FOR THOUGHT

Why Georgia Marches

hile the rest of the nation toggles between natural gas

NUCLEAR POWER INTERNATIONAL > NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2015

with no objection from President Obama or

Highs and Lows in the

By Wayne Barber, Chief Analyst, GenerationHub

he recent issuance of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) operating license

SOUTHERN, SCANA OPTIMISTIC ABOUT

NUCLEAR POWER INTERNATIONAL > NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2015

The NRC approved Watts Bar 2 for its operating license.

ing with a consortium of Chicago Bridge

SOME REACTORS RETIRE EARLY,

Summer have agreed to a settlement of

new nuclear plant anytime soon, however.

When Watts Bar 2 starts commercial

NUCLEAR POWER INTERNATIONAL > NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2015

Entergys FitzPatrick nuclear plant is set to shut down by 2016 or 2017.

NUCLEAR POWER REMAINS

NUCLEAR POWER INTERNATIONAL > NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2015

Call us today to put our engineering strength to the test.

Upgrade projects, like the one at the

2015 Nuclear Executive

By Sharryn Dotson, Editor

NUCLEAR POWER INTERNATIONAL > NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2015

national energy policy that really

so. Traditional nuclear plants have become

NUCLEAR POWER INTERNATIONAL > NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2015

NPI: Many U.S. nuclear plants are

was probably 10 years getting through all the

NUCLEAR POWER INTERNATIONAL > NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2015

We did go for a Certificate of Need in the

been the safest energy technology in the US

understanding is very difficult through a

There are conflicting messages in schools

We sweat the [small] stuff.

The stuff that costs you time, money and resources.

Learn more at sentry-equip.com/power-gen.