U.S.

Response To Lessons Learned from the Nuclear Accident In Japan

Rod McCullum Nuclear Energy Institute POWER-GEN Intl, Las Vegas, NV December 13, 2011

Nuclear Safety Lessons Learned

3/28/11 - Goldsboro, PA, 1 mile west of Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station

3/11/11 - Extreme Events Initiate Nuclear Accident at Fukushima Daiichi

A magnitude 9 earthquake occurred off the east coast of Japan. A massive tsunamiabout 45 feet highstruck the east coast. Result
All electric power lost All reactor cooling capability lost

At the time of the earthquake Reactors 1, 2 and 3 operating Reactors 4, 5 and 6 shut down for maintenance and refueling

U.S. Nuclear Energy Facilities Prepared for Extreme Events

Industry is prepared for the unexpected; exceeds NRC safety requirements. Can respond to maximum credible earthquakes, floods, other natural events at each site. Can withstand loss of off-site power and station blackout. Since Sept. 11, 2011, have added capacity to respond to aircraft impact, large fires and loss of large areas of the plant. U.S. industry dedicated to continuous learning.

U.S. Nuclear Energy Industrys Aggressive Response

Verified that all critical safety components, procedures and staffing to mitigate potential damage from extreme events are in place and functioning . Completed inspections of systems that protect nuclear energy facilities against extreme events. Enhancing protection of used fuel storage pools, including the potential for adding backup sources of cooling water.

Industry Goal
Apply the lessons-learned from the Fukushima accident to enhance the safety of the U.S. reactor fleet Implement an improved and integrated approach for Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) near term recommendations
Achieve greater safety benefit in a shorter time Establish Diverse and Flexible Mitigation Capability (FLEX)

U.S. Industry Steering Committee

Includes executives and chief nuclear officers from:
Electric utilities Industry associations Reactor technology groups

U.S. Industry Response

Coordinating activity in 8 areas:
1. Existing plant performance 2. Lessons learned from Fukushima 3. Effectiveness of industry response 4. Strategic communications and outreach 5. Regulatory response 6. Support for international organizations 7. Technical research and development 8. Radiation monitoring
8

Actions to Enhance Safety

Validate design bases for natural phenomena Provide FLEX mitigation capability for beyond design basis events Key actions
Assessing effectiveness of reactor operator training, including guidelines for managing severe events. Assessing each facilitys ability to cool fuel in the reactor, maintain containment integrity and cool used reactor fuel even if a plant loses all AC power. Evaluating the use of equipment and supplies located at regional facilities to provide additional rapid emergency response capability for extreme events.

Diverse and Flexible Mitigation Capability (FLEX)

Additional layer of safety to mitigate beyond design bases events Focuses on maintaining key safety functions
Core cooling, containment integrity, SFP cooling

Multiple supplies of power and cooling water Portable equipment reasonably protected Symptom-based guidance and instructions Programmatic controls Regional support centers

10

FLEX Addresses
Extended loss of all AC power conditions Loss of spent fuel pool cooling Loss of the Ultimate Heat Sink Large fires and explosions Reliability of BWR hardened vents Beyond-design-basis events:
Seismic Flooding Other extreme natural phenomena

11

NRC Staff Priorities

Tier 1 Near-term actions, high priority. Tier 2 Priority, but need more assessment, dependencies on Tier 1 and resources. Tier 3 Need further study, resource limitations and dependent on decisions on new regulatory framework. Other items Recommended by stakeholders, need more assessment. Other facilities as directed by commission.

NRC Near-Term (Tier 1) Actions

Seismic and flood hazard re-evaluations and inspections. Regulatory actions related to loss of electricity at sites. Contingency equipment to mitigate fires and explosions. Reliable hardened vents for BWR Mark I containments*. Spent Fuel Pool Monitoring** Integration of emergency operating procedures, severe accident management guidelines and extensive damage mitigating guidelines. Regulatory action related to emergency preparedness.
*Commission also considering for Mark II Containments **Subject to Commission approval

Longer Term Items

Tier 2 Lower Priority
Additional capability to add water to spent fuel pools. Emergency preparedness Emergency

Other Items and Facilities

Filtration of containment vents. Instrumentation for seismic monitoring. Emergency planning zone size. Prestaging of KI beyond 10 miles. Transfer of spent fuel to dry cask storage. Loss of ultimate heat sink. Fuel facilities. Test and research reactors. Dry cask storage facilities. Fuel pools at decommissioned sites.

preparedness Tier 3 Further Evaluation

14

10-year confirmation of seismic and flooding hazards. Seismically-induced fires and floods. Reliable hardened vents for other designs. Hydrogen control and mitigation ERDS capability. Radiation monitoring and public education. Staff training on severe accidents.

NRC Activity Continues Apace

Licenses for new facilities in Georgia and South Carolina expected soon; significant early site work in progress. License renewals approved for facilities since Fukushima. Certification progressing for Westinghouse and GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy reactor designs. Power uprates approved for 4 facilities since Fukushima. Work progressing to refurbish TVAs Watts Bar 2 reactor.

15

Outlook for U.S. Nuclear Industry

Significant capital investment of $1.5-$2 trillion required in electricity system over next 20 years for electricity production, transmission, distribution and environmental projects. Demand for electricity will increase 24% by 2035.
Nuclear energy will remain an option to provide low-carbon, affordable electricity. U.S. reactor manufacturers and suppliers will participate in the $400 billion global market for nuclear energy.

Industry is updating equipment, training and operational procedures to address lessons learned from Fukushima. Four to eight new U.S. reactors operational by 2020.

16

Perceptions of Nuclear Energy Facility Safety Unchanged from February

% High Safety Rating (5-7)

% Low Safety Rating (1-3)

67 67

46

35 16 16
Sep-11 Feb-11 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1993 1994 1995 1997 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Bisconti Research, Inc. with GfK Roper

17

Public Opinion Begins To Recover

Slight increase in favorability of nuclear energy: Feb. 2011: 71% April: 46% September: 62% 82% agree U.S. should learn from Japan and license new plants rather than stop progress entirely. 61% said it would be acceptable to build a new reactor at the nuclear energy facility closest to where they live.

Bisconti Research Inc./GfK Roper Sept. 2011

18

Summary
Nuclear Safety in the US is built on a culture of continuous learning The lessons learned from the accident at Fukushima are being intensively addressed Industry actions and regulatory response are well underway FLEX approach to provide additional layer of safety Foundation of US nuclear industry remains strong

Information Sources
Nuclear Energy Institute (www.nei.org) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (www.nrc.gov) U.S. Department of Energy (www.energy.gov) International Atomic Energy Agency (www.iaea.org) American Nuclear Society (www.ans.org) Health Physics Society (www.hps.org) Japanese Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (http://www.nisa.meti.go.jp/english) Japan Atomic Industrial Forum (www.jaif.or.jp/english) Tokyo Electric Power Company (http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/indexe.html)