2012 Status of U S2012 Status of U.S. Nuclear Industry

Tony PietrangeloTony Pietrangelo

Senior Vice President and Chief Nuclear

Officer

March 16, 2012

Today’s BriefingStatus and outlook for nuclear energy in the United StatesUnited States

Industry response to Fukushima

C l iConclusions

Status and Outlook for Nuclear EnergyNuclear Energy

in the United Statesin the United States

Snapshot of U.S. Nuclear PerformanceU.S. Nuclear Capacity Factor, Percent

89 3% in 200589.3% in 200589.6% in 200691.8% in 200791.1% in 200890 5% i 200990.5% in 200991.2% in 201088.9% in 2011

Sources: Energy Information Administration, Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Steady Output From the Operating PlantsSteady Output From the Operating Plants

U.S. Nuclear Generation (billion kilowatt‐hours)

Highlights

789 in 2011

66 refueling outages in 2011 ( i ) 789  in 2011

807 in 2010799 in 2009806 in 2008806 in 2007

(55 in 2010)Several plants affected by 806 in 2007

787 in 2006782 in 2005754 in 2000

affected by natural phenomena

Sources: Energy Information Administration, Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Investing for the Future:Li R l d U t C tiLicense Renewals and Uprates Continue

Approved

71License Renewals

15

Under NRC Review

Intend to Renew

Unannounced 117

Cumulative Power Uprates Total Capital Spending Billions of Dollars

Sources: Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Electric Utility Cost Group

Impact of License RenewalU.S. Nuclear Capacity

120,000120,000 Capacity with 100% license renewal – 60 years

100,000100,000

Capacity without license renewal – 40 years

60,00060,000

80,00080,000

40,00040,000

00

20,00020,000

S N l E I tit t

7

Source: Nuclear Energy Institute

License Renewal StatusPlant Applications for License RenewalPlant Applications for License Renewal

1998 - 2017

13

111112

Extensions Granted

Applications Filed/Scheduled for Filing

71 Licenses Renewed71 Licenses Renewed15 Applications in Review15 Applications in Review9

8 8

10

9

~83% of U.S. nuclear plants~83% of U.S. nuclear plants

5

7

5

7

6

54

5

4

3

4

3

4 4

2 2

3

1 1 1

0

1

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

8

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Aging Management :The Focus of License Renewal

P g • Program scope

• Preventive actions

• Parameters monitored or inspected

• Detection of aging effects

• Monitoring and trending

• Acceptance criteriap

• Corrective actions

• Confirmation processConfirmation process

• Administrative controls

Operating experience• Operating experience9

Generic Aging Lesson Learned Report (GALL) NUREG-1801, Rev. 1

Catalog of generic aging management programs

Builds on previous aging studies

Reviews aging effects

Identifies relevant aging programs

Evaluates program attributes to manage aging effects

Evaluation conclusionEvaluation conclusion

Program is adequate and no further evaluation is needed should be augmented or a new program needed, should be augmented or a new program considered

10

Subsequent License Renewal(Long-Term Operation to 80 years)

• DOE/EPRI & NRC research into potential technical issues that may challenge long-term safe operationissues that may challenge long term safe operation

• Research areas include:

Reactor vessel and internalsReactor vessel and internals

Electric cable insulation

B i d/ b d t tBuried/submerged structures

Concrete exposed to high temperature and radiation

NEI/EPRI Comprehensive Review of GALL

11

Vogtle and Summer Projects Well Underway

Vogtle 3 & 4Photo courtesy Southern Company

Summer 2&3Photo courtesy SCANA

Other Designs, Licenses Under Review NRC

10 COLs and 2 early site permits under NRC review

at NRCy p

Design certification for Westinghouse AP1000 and GE Hitachi/Toshiba ABWRGE Hitachi/Toshiba ABWR

Final design approval for GE Hitachi ESBWR

AREVA’s EPR and Mitsubishi's US-APWR under NRC review

Industry Response to Fukushima

14

Immediate Industry ActionsImmediate Industry Actions

Verified that equipment procedures and Verified that equipment, procedures and staffing are in place to respond to threats

Verified capability to cope even during a complete loss of power p p

Verified each plant’s capabilities to protect g i t fl d d fi ft th kagainst floods and fires after earthquakes

Enhanced capability to protect spent fuel p y p ppools against extreme natural events

15

Fukushima Response: Industry ObjectivesFukushima Response: Industry Objectives

Prime focus is continued safe operation

Implement strategies and actions that provide the greatest safety benefit first

Focus on prevention of fuel damage (core and spent fuel pool) and containment integrity

Response to Fukushima:Response to Fukushima:Primary Focus Areas

Improved ability to cope with extended loss of AC power

Additional spent fuel storage pool instrumentation

Reliable containment ventingg

External hazard (seismic and flooding) evaluationsevaluations

Enhanced emergency planning for multi-reactor events events

Diverse and FlexibleCoping Capability (FLEX)

Additional layer of safety to mitigate beyond design bases events and prevent fuel damage

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 controlsg

Regional support centers

18

Specific Actions Taken at U S ReactorsSpecific Actions Taken at U.S. Reactors

More than 300 major pieces of equipment acquired or orderedq– 66 large portable generators

62 di l d i – 62 diesel-driven pumps

– 59 small load diesel generators

– 13 fire trucks

11 portable ventilation units – 11 portable ventilation units

19

FLEX Provides Additional SafetyFLEX Provides Additional Safety

Public Opinion RecoveringPublic Opinion Recovering

Slight increase in favorability of nuclear energy:

– February 2011: 71%

– April: 46%

– September: 62%

82% agree U.S. should learn from Japan and license new plants rather than stop progress entirelyp p p g y

61% said it would be acceptable to build a new reactor at the nuclear energy facility closest to where gy ythey live

Sources: Bisconti Research Inc./GfK Roper Sept. 2011Luntz Global April 2011

Perceptions of Nuclear Plant Safetyp yUnchanged From February

2011

Feb.

Sources: Bisconti Research, Inc. with GfK Roper

Responsible, Measured Response toResponsible, Measured Response to Fukushima In the United States

Disciplined regulatory response from NRC

Measured political response

“In spite of the worst atomic accident in 25 years, nuclear power is here to stay.”

Public attitudes (particularly opinion

— December 29, 2011, editorial

leaders) remain strong

Reasoned editorial reaction “Nuclear power remains an

indispensable part of the U.S. energy mix.”

— December 12, 2011, editorial

Nuclear Energy TodayNuclear Energy TodayNuclear energy benefits – Clean

– Safe and secure Gas

– Affordable and reliable

– Economically beneficial

24% Nuclear20%

Economically beneficial

Forward-looking actionsF k hi f t

Coal45%

Hydro6%

R bl– Fukushima safety enhancements

Renewable and Other

4%Oil1%

– License renewal

– New plant licensingU.S. Electricity Production

24

ConclusionsConclusionsU.S. plants continue to operate safely and reliably

License renewal and new plant licensing License renewal and new plant licensing extend the benefits of nuclear generation

U S k i di i fi U.S. took immediate action to reconfirm safety and response capability

Diverse, flexible coping strategy will meet NRC requirementsNRC requirements

Safe nuclear energy remains vital part of U.S. l t i it tf lielectricity portfolio

25

2012 Status of U S2012 Status of U.S. Nuclear Industry

For more information visit:For more information, visit:

www.nei.org