University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Life without nuclear power: a nuclear plant retirement formulation model and guide based on economics: San Onofre nuclear generating station case: economic impacts and reliability considerations ...

(USC Thesis Other)

Life without nuclear power: a nuclear plant retirement formulation model and guide based on economics: San Onofre nuclear generating station case: economic impacts and reliability considerations ...

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content “LIFE WITHOUT NUCLEAR POWER” A NUCLEAR PLANT RETIREMENT FORMULATION MODEL AND GUIDE BASED ON ECONOMICS SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION CASE: ECONOMIC IMPACTS AND RELIABILITY CONSIDERATIONS LEADING TO PLANT RETIREMENT by Frank Wasko A Professional Dissertation Presented to the FACULTY OF THE USC PRICE SCHOOL OF PUBLIC POLICY UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF POLICY, PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT May 2015 Copyright 2015 Frank Wasko ii DEDICATION First and foremost, I dedicate this professional doctoral dissertation to God. I am so thankful that God gave me a second chance (late in my life) to obtain a doctorate degree from such a prestigious university as USC. Secondly, I dedicate this professional doctoral dissertation to my mother, Genevieve Marie Wasko, and my deceased father, Frank N. Wasko. My parents were always two of my closest and most supportive friends here on earth. They taught me the importance of hard work, perseverance, dedication, and the true value of education. Most importantly, they motivated me through example and opportunity. This effort and example instilled in me the values and principles that are most dear to my heart today. Additionally, I will never be able to thank my parents enough for the love, devotion and opportunities that they afforded me throughout my lifetime. I know that becoming the first doctor in the ‘Wasko’ family is of great importance to both of them and at the same time, this achievement will bring them eternal joy. Finally, I am hopeful that this accomplishment will motivate those that travel behind me to set and reach their academic goals (especially Amanda, Jessica, Christian and Jonathan). My forever love, Frankie iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I acknowledge and share my sincere appreciation to Dr. Robert Denhardt, my committee chair and mentor. His brilliance, dedication and professional leadership throughout this process was immeasurable. In the same light, I want to acknowledge Dr. Debbie Natoli for her tenuous dedication, servant leadership and guidance while I studied at the USC Sol Price School of Public Policy. Dr. Natoli’s love for human development and her passion for teaching have made a positive change in my life. Dr. Natoli is a born leader and an asset to the faculty of USC. Finally, I acknowledge Dr. Detlof von Winterfeldt. Dr. von Winterfeldt’s expertise in nuclear power, energy policy and decision analysis was tremendously valuable to both my work and model design. Outside of USC, various professional experts need to be acknowledged for their contribution to my professional doctoral dissertation. Mr. Gary Capata and Mr. Paul Glaab provided a unique governmental public policy perspective which strengthened my conclusions. Ms. Kerrie Merrifield brought a strong economics and financial background that served as a check and balance to my overall project deign. Mr. David Hayward was extremely valuable in the land use development and planning side of my project design. His knowledge of real-estate development was also extremely valuable in relation to my project scope. iv On the academic side, and, given that my Nuclear Plant Retirement Model and Guide are primarily based on meta-analysis / formulation, I acknowledge the nuclear plant retirement work of Mark Cooper. Through formulation from his initial work, I was able to develop this model and guide. I also want to thank my friends and colleagues at Southern California Edison, especially Mr. Gaddi Vasquez, Dr. JoEllen Chatham, Mr. Cody Tubbs, Mr. Larry Labrado, Ms. Karolina Grechuta, Ms. Donna Scharf, Mr. Bill Craycraft, Mrs. Helen Roubian, Ms. Cathy Allen and Ms. Carolyn Kluss for supporting me during this worthwhile endeavor. Lastly, without the encouragement and kindness given to me from all the aforementioned individuals in this acknowledgement section, I could not have been able to complete this extremely challenging academic doctorate degree program which included completing 60 units of course work at USC, passing both oral and written board exams, successfully defending my doctoral research proposal and, finally, successfully defending my professional doctoral dissertation. Finally, I acknowledge all of the faculty at the USC Sol Price School of Public Policy (especially Dr. Martin Krieger) as they are truly exceptional professors and are making a positive difference in students’ lives at one of the finest research universities in the world. Fight On USC! v TABLE OF CONTENTS DEDICATION ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii LIST OF TABLES viii LIST OF FIGURES ix ABSTRACT xi CHAPTER 1—INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Nuclear Power Overview 1 1.2 Research Problem 6 1.3 Research Questions 8 1.4 Research Purpose 9 1.5 Overarching Paradigm and Theoretical Orientation 10 1.6 Research Methodology 11 CHAPTER 2—LITERATURE REVIEW 13 2.1 Introduction 13 2.2 History of Nuclear Incidents 13 2.3 Opposition to Nuclear Power 16 2.4 U.S. Nuclear Plant Retirement Risk Factors 21 2.5 Obstacles to Nuclear Replacement Power 27 2.6 Literature Review Map 32 CHAPTER 3—SONGS CASE STUDY: ECONOMIC AND RELATED IMPACTS LEADING TO PLANT RETIREMENT 35 3.1 Introduction 35 3.2 SCE Organizational Characteristics 35 3.3 Case Background 37 3.4 Role of SONGS 39 3.5 NRC Authorization Needed for Re-Start 41 vi 3.6 Analysis of NRC Outreach and Collaboration Process 42 3.7 Major Stakeholders 44 3.8 Major Event Time-Line 45 3.9 Mission of NRC 47 3.10 Anti-Nuclear Opposition 47 3.11 SCE Re-Start Proposal 49 3.12 NRC Public Participation Hearings and Information Release Dates 50 3.13 CPUC Public Participation Hearings 54 3.14 Financial Implications 54 3.15 Economic and Ratepayer Cost Effectiveness Considerations 55 3.16 Ratepayer Benefit Analysis 59 3.17 SCE Submitted a License Amendment Request 62 3.18 SONGS Retirement Decision 63 3.19 Notification to Agencies 66 3.20 Pending Litigation and Arbitration 66 3.21 Summary / Post Case Discussion 67 CHAPTER 4—RELIABILITY CONSIDERATIONS / SONGS POWER REPLACEMENT PLAN 70 4.1 Introduction 70 4.2 Replacement Power Concerns 71 4.3 Replacement Power Contingency Planning 71 4.4 Replacement Power Contingency Plan for 2012 73 4.5 Replacement Power Contingency Plan for 2013 75 4.6 Demand Response Program 76 4.7 SCE Outreach Plan 79 4.8 2021 CAISO and CPUC Increased Local Capacity Requirements 79 4.9 Summary 80 vii CHAPTER 5—NUCLEAR GENERATION COSTS / SONGS COMPARISONS 84 5.1 Introduction 84 5.2 U.S. Nuclear Generation Costs 85 5.3 Nuclear Capital Spending Areas 87 5.4 Energy Market Pricing Components 88 5.5 SONGS / U.S. Nuclear Plant Cost Components 89 5.6 2013 Market Price of Energy vs. SONGS / New Gas 90 5.7 10-Year Trend of U.S. Nuclear Plant Costs 94 5.8 Summary 95 CHAPTER 6—NUCLEAR PLANT RETIREMENT MODEL AND GUIDE BASED ON ECONOMICS 97 6.1 Introduction of Model and Guide 97 6.2 The Nuclear Plant Retirement Model and Guide with SONGS Data 98 6.3 Nuclear Plant Retirement Model 99 6.4 Nuclear Plant Retirement Guide 102 6.5 SONGS Retirement Model with Data 104 6.6 SONGS Retirement Work Sheet Guide with Data 107 6.7 Summary 110 CHAPTER 7—SUMMARY AND APPLICATION DISCUSSION 113 REFERENCES 121 APPENDICES Appendix 1 127 Appendix 2 150 Appendix 3 253 viii LIST OF TABLES Table 1.1: Generation Unit Characteristics 8 Table 2.1: Retirement Risk Factors for Nuclear Plants 25 Table 3.1: Key Event Time-Line Leading to SONGS Retirement 45 Table 3.2: FoE Petition & NRC Response Table 48 Table 3.3: NRC Public Participation Table 53 Table 4.1: 2012 Transmission Projects 74 Table 4.2: 2012-2013 Demand Response Program Table 77 Table 4.3: SCE Outreach Plan with SONGS Off-Line 79 Table 5.1: 10-Year Trend of U.S. Nuclear Plant Costs 94 ix LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1: Nuclear Energy: Safe and Reliable 2 Figure 1.2: Nuclear Energy: Sustained Reliability and Productivity 3 Figure 1.3: Total U.S. Generating Output for 2012 5 Figure 2.1: Capital Costs of New Generation Sources 27 Figure 2.2: Levelized Cost Comparison (Nuclear vs. Gas) 29 Figure 2.3: Literature Review Map 32 Figure 3.1: Nuclear Reactor Disposition 38 Figure 3.2: SCE Generation Mix 41 Figure 3.3: SONGS State of Readiness vs. Time Graph 56 Figure 3.4: SONGS Ratepayer Cost Effectiveness Graph 58 Figure 3.5: Declining Ratepayer Benefits Graph (SONGS) 61 Figure 3.6: NRC/ASLB Decision: Impact on Costs & Ratepayer Benefit 64 Figure 4.1: 2013 Transmission Projects 76 Figure 4.2: CPUC D.13-02-015 Procurement Order 80 Figure 4.3: SCE 2012-2013 Reliability Considerations 82 Figure 5.1: Snapshot of U.S. Nuclear Plant Costs ($MWh) 86 Figure 5.2: Nuclear Capital Spending Data 87 Figure 5.3: Energy Market Cost Components 88 Figure 5.4: SONGS / U.S. Nuclear Plant Cost Components 90 x Figure 5.5: Cost Comparisons of Energy: New Gas, SONGS and U.S. Nuclear Plants (Worst 25%) 93 Figure 6.1: Nuclear Plant Retirement Model 99 Figure 6.2: Nuclear Plant Retirement Work Sheet Guide 102 Figure 6.3: Nuclear Plant Retirement Model for SONGS 104 Figure 6.4: SONGS Retirement Work Sheet Guide with Data 107 xi ABSTRACT Traditionally, electric utilities have been slow to change and very bureaucratic in nature. This culture, in and of itself, has now contributed to a high percentage of United States electric utilities operating uneconomical nuclear plants (Crooks, 2014). The economic picture behind owning and operating United States nuclear plants is less than favorable for many reasons including rising fuel, capital and operating costs (EUCG, 2012). This doctoral dissertation is specifically focused on life without nuclear power. The purpose of this dissertation is to create a model and guide that will provide electric utilities who currently operate or will operate uneconomical nuclear plants the opportunity to economically assess whether or not their nuclear plant should be retired. This economic assessment and stakeholder analysis will provide local government, academia and communities the opportunity to understand how Southern California Edison (SCE) embraced system upgrade import and “voltage support” opportunities to replace “base load” generation from San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) versus building new replacement generation facilities. This model and guide will help eliminate the need to build large replacement generation units as demonstrated in the SONGS case analysis. The application of The Nuclear Power Retirement Model and Guide will provide electric utilities with economic assessment parameters and an evaluation assessment progression needed to better evaluate when an uneconomical nuclear plant should be retired. It will xii provide electric utilities the opportunity to utilize sound policy, planning and development skill sets when making this difficult decision. There are currently 62 nuclear power plants (with 100 nuclear reactors) operating in the United States (EIA, 2014). From this group, 38 are at risk of early retirement based on the work of Cooper (2013). As demonstrated in my model, 35 of the 38 nuclear power plants qualify to move to the economic assessment review and then on to the stakeholder cost benefit analysis (if model qualifications are met) leading to a final plant retirement decision. This application via the model and guide, in turn, will lead electric utilities to explore system upgrade import opportunities and mitigation measures versus building new replacement generation facilities. United States nuclear reactors are licensed for 40 years with a 20 year extension available prior to the expiration date (EIA, 2013). Since late 2012, electric power companies have announced the early retirement of four uneconomical nuclear power plants while other studies have indicated that as many as 70 percent of United States nuclear power plants are potentially at risk for early retirement (Crooks, 2014 and Cooper, 2013). A high percentage of these aforementioned nuclear plants have operating licenses that will not expire until 2030 and beyond. Thus, for the most part, replacement power contingency planning has not been initiated for these plants or is still in preliminary stages. xiii The recent nuclear plant retirements are the first since 1998 (EIA, 2013). Decisions to retire the plants involved concerns over maintenance and repair costs as well as declining profitability (EIA, 2013). In addition, the Energy Information Administration (2010- 2012) released data that demonstrated that the worst 25 percent of United States nuclear plants are far more expensive to operate and generate electricity than new gas plants. It is equally important to understand and explain the economic and power replacement implications to both ratepayers and end-users. A SONGS case study analysis will review the economic, operational and political challenges that SCE faced leading to the retirement decision of SONGS. As preface to the case study, replacement steam generators (RSGs) were installed in Unit 2 in 2009 and in Unit 3 in 2010. In January 2012, while Unit 2 was down for routine maintenance, a small leak was discovered inside a steam generator in Unit 3. Because of the situation, both units remained shut down to evaluate the cause of the leakage and to make repairs. SCE submitted plans to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to re-start Unit 2 at reduced power. However, concerns over the length of the review process and the high costs associated with steam generator repairs led SCE to retire both reactors (SCE SONGS Fact Sheets, 2012-2013). Finally, collaborative resource power replacement planning is needed more than ever as nuclear facilities in the United States are now being retired for economic related reasons xiv (Crooks, 2014). This collaborative power replacement process and implementation must encompass all relevant stakeholders including state grid operators, ratepayers, shareholders and the electric utility company. 1 CHAPTER 1—INTRODUCTION 1.1 Nuclear Power Overview For decades, nuclear power has been critical in helping the United States meet its long- term goal for cleaner air and reliable, emission-free power. Nuclear energy provides roughly 20 percent of all generation output in the United States (EIA, 2012). Nuclear plants provide two critical functions in serving customer energy needs. First, nuclear power plants provide “base load” generation, meaning its power serves customers’ needs day and night, regardless of whether the sun is shining or the wind is blowing. Second, they also provide critical “voltage support” for all customer class levels including residential, commercial and industrial. V oltage is much like water pressure. To keep water flowing, constant pressure must be applied. In addition to these two critical functions, nuclear energy provides consistent power output, thus, it enables electric utilities to focus on the importation of renewable energy such as wind and solar power on a consistent basis (SCE SONGS Fact Sheets, 2012-2013). According to the Nuclear Energy Institute (2014), nuclear power supports the electric grid, promotes stable pricing, helps ensure better air quality, and provides both jobs and a solid tax base in the local community where the plants reside. 2 As shown below in Figure 1.1, nuclear energy is a safe and reliable source of “base load” energy that can be counted on 24 hours a day and 365 days a year (NEI, 2014). The U.S. Department of Energy (2013) forecasts the United States will need about 250,000 megawatts of new electric generating capacity by 2035, the equivalent of 250 new large power plants. This rise in electricity demand, along with concerns about greenhouse gases and pollution, make renewable power (geothermal, wind, solar, hydro, etc.) important components of California’s energy mix (SCE SONGS Fact Sheets, 2012- 2013). Figure 1.1 Nuclear Energy: Safe and Reliable Source: NEI, 2014 3 However, these energy sources alone cannot provide enough energy to power our digital economy, our everyday lives, as well as our homes and small businesses that require 24 / 7 energy production (SCE SONGS Fact Sheets, 2012-2013). Energy efficiency and conservation will help offset future energy demand somewhat. However, conservation will not be enough to meet the growing demands set forth by the U.S. Department of Energy forecasts from 2013. California’s energy future needs the stability and predictability of nuclear power in the mix. According to the Energy Information Administration (2013) and as shown below in Figure 1.2, nuclear power has provided sustained reliability since the 1990’s. Source: NEI, 2014 Figure 1.2 Nuclear Energy: Sustained Reliability and Productivity 4 According to the EIA (2013), some nuclear energy facilities are among the lowest-cost producers of ongoing electricity, while nuclear facilities as a whole; generate roughly 19 percent of the United States’ power. The energy produced from nuclear reactors has tremendous price stability because only about one-quarter of production costs are fuel costs (EIA, 2013). Fuel accounts for 80 to 90 percent of the cost of electricity produced by fossil fuel generation, making it highly susceptible to fluctuations in coal and natural gas prices (SCE SONGS Fact Sheets, 2012-2013). Nuclear power has been essential in helping the United States meet its long-term goal for cleaner air and reliable, emission-free power (SCE SONGS Fact Sheets, 2012-2013). This environmental benefit has always helped keep nuclear power as a favorite energy source for most environmentally based organizations. Data below in Figure 1.3 from the Energy Information Administration (2012) shows that nuclear energy provides roughly 19 percent of all generation output in the United States. Additionally, coal and natural gas were the two highest percentages of U.S. generation output in 2012. Even though coal is the highest percentage of total U.S. generating output, it takes 5+ years to permit and build a coal plant primarily due to the high environmental impacts related to permitting a coal plant. 5 Figure 1.3 Total U.S. Generating Output for 2012 Finally, nuclear, hydro and renewable percentages followed coal and natural gas respectively (EIA, 2013). Finally, renewable energy is comprised of mainly wind and solar energy. 6 1.2 Research Problem The recent closure of uneconomical nuclear plants in the United States is a problem that should be researched. This professional dissertation seeks to investigate the main drivers behind the increasing pressure to retire uneconomical nuclear power plants in the United States. Research has shown that as many as 25 percent of nuclear power plants in the United States are now uneconomical to operate and could be facing retirement in the near future (EIA, 2012). However, a high percentage of these nuclear plants have operating licenses that will not expire until 2030 and beyond. Thus, replacement power contingency planning has not been initiated for these plants or is still in preliminary stages. Specifically, electric utilities will have serious issues and challenges building timely replacement generation for these “mega-projects” due to land use and environmental constraints (Altshuler and Luberoff, 2003). Many of these uneconomical nuclear plants have operating licenses that will not expire for decades and, thus, are still being depreciated, decommissioning funds are still being collected and replacement resource planning has not been completed. 7 Many United States nuclear plants are being forced to retire and decommissioned for economic reasons due to the costs associated with making corrective actions as required by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). For utilities, the economic premise behind owning and operating U.S. nuclear plants is less than favorable for many reasons including rising fuel, capital and operating costs (EUCG, 2012). It is no surprise that electric utilities have been slow to accept change when it is needed and tend to be very bureaucratic by nature. This culture, in and of itself, has now led to a high percentage of U.S. electric utility nuclear plants operating uneconomically when compared to other energy sources such as a new gas plant (Crooks, 2014). As shown below in Table 1.1, there are several key factors to consider related to building replacement generation such as operational flexibility, time to permit and build, and environmental impacts (Enerdynamics Corp, 2014). As example, even if an electric utility wanted to replace nuclear generation with a hydro facility, it would take more than 8 years to permit and construct. Additionally, if an electric utility wanted to replace nuclear generation with gas, it would take 2 plus years to permit and build. Thus, electric utilities must strategically plan ahead and consider these factors when determining whether or not a nuclear plant can be retired. 8 1.3 Research Questions This professional doctoral dissertation and its answers to its research questions at its conclusion, is important, especially with the retirement of SONGS, as it affects many stakeholders including ratepayers, shareholders and the end-users. In-depth analysis is Source: Enerdynamics Corp, 2014 Table 1.1 Generation Unit Characteristics 9 needed to validate the economic and cost benefit implications to ratepayers, shareholders and the electric utility company. In addition, it is important to determine whether or not SONGS should have been retired based on economic principles. Lastly, it is critical to review the replacement power decision derived from SCE and the economic impacts to ratepayers. Thus, the following three research questions need to be addressed: (1) Should uneconomical nuclear plants be retired before their operating license expires, specifically SONGS? If so, how will this retirement decision impact ratepayers, shareholders and the electric utility company? (2) If a nuclear plant is retired for economic reasons before its operating license expires, how will the “base load” nuclear generation and “voltage support” be replaced in a timely manner without building new generation facilities, specifically in SCE’s case? How will “blackouts” be avoided? (3) How are state agencies handling replacement power needs for nuclear plants that retire prior to the expiration of their operating license? How will they ensure all neighboring areas have adequate power in the future to serve customers, specifically in SCE’s case? 10 1.4 Research Purpose The purpose of this professional doctoral dissertation is to create a model and guide that will provide electric utilities (who currently operate or will operate uneconomical nuclear plants) a tool to evaluate if a nuclear plant should be retired before the end of its operating license. This model and guide will help eliminate the need to build large replacement generation units. This model and guide will provide both state and local government and communities the opportunity to understand how SCE embraced system upgrade import opportunities and mitigation measures versus building new replacement generation facilities for SONGS. In addition, this approach will enable electric utilities, local government and communities the opportunity to work together in the future to build and create their own unique preferred resources portfolio. These preferred resource options can include distributed generation, energy efficiency, energy storage, and demand response while at the same time minimizing impacts to land-use and the environment. 1.5 Overarching Paradigm and Theoretical Orientation The overarching umbrella for my professional doctoral dissertation is purely pragmatic in nature. My theoretical orientation is inductive based and, thus, will require data 11 collection and analysis. My theoretical orientation is congruent with Systems Theory. My professional doctoral dissertation has a strong alignment with Systems Theory as it seeks to explore how and why the electric system functions as a whole. This Systems Theory approach is a model that will provide electric utilities, local government and communities the opportunity to collaboratively work together to embrace system upgrade import opportunities, utilization of preferred resources and mitigation measures versus building new replacement generation facilities. My assumptions or dimensions include all of the following (1) ontological or reality based assumptions, (2) epistemological or knowledge creation and (3) axiological or value driven behavior. 1.6 Research Methodology My research methodology will be based on meta-analysis / formulation. I will perform a case study analysis utilizing SCE and the now retired SONGS as my sample. From a regional public perspective, SONGS has always been viewed as the critical component in meeting the region's electricity needs and “voltage support” levels, representing 2,200 MW of generation (SCE, 2012). To provide perspective, 2,200 MW’s of power is needed to meet the electrical needs of approximately 1.4 million homes on a daily basis (SCE, 2012). My case analysis study will look at how this “base load” electricity is being 12 replaced and secondarily, how demand response and mitigation measures can be factored in the portfolio replacement power equation. I will use a formulation based approach to review secondary data including current “base load” import and “voltage support” data. I will also obtain and review secondary data pertaining to preferred resource options and mitigation measures. This secondary data collection will take place at SCE in the form of an internal data request. Qualitative case study data collection will be performed. Mixed methods data analysis and formulation will be utilized during data analysis. Lastly, I will use decision analysis as my tool to evaluate model outcomes. As a starting point, the decision analysis model will evaluate economic, operational and safety related risk factors (Cooper, 2014). A detailed economic assessment will follow and will close with a stakeholder cost benefit analysis before determining whether or not to retire a plant. The detailed economic assessment will validate whether or not transmission / substation upgrades will allow for purchase power importation with adequate “voltage support”. This model and guide will help lead to a stronger collaborative effort between utilities, local government and communities to create future preferred resources and mitigation measure options such as energy efficiency and energy storage versus building large new replacement power generation facilities. 13 CHAPTER 2—LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Introduction The literature review section below demonstrates the sequential causation flow from past history of nuclear catastrophes, to increased regulation and opposition to nuclear power, to nuclear facilities now becoming uneconomical to operate, and finally, to identifying the gap in research of nuclear replacement power. 2.2 History of Nuclear Incidents Patel (2011) compares the three worst nuclear reactor calamities in history which occurred at Chernobyl, Fukushima, and Three Mile Island. In his research and study, he uses the International Nuclear Event Scale to compare the severity of these events. Chernobyl was by far the most severe with a 30-km evacuation zone with 116,000 people evacuated in 1986 and another 230,000 evacuated in the following years. Fukushima was the next in severity with a 20-km evacuation zone and 80,000 people evacuated. Three Mile Island had an advised evacuation area of 8-km and a voluntary evacuation area of 32-km. Patel (2011) also compared the number of immediate deaths resulting from the nuclear accidents with 30 deaths at Chernobyl, 3 deaths at Fukushima, and no deaths at Three 14 Mile Island. These findings and quantitative data demonstrate the dangers of nuclear power. In describing the events at the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant, Nakoski and Lazo (2011) cited principle causation can be attributed to lack of planning and inefficient safety reviews. Additionally, research reported in the U.S. National Academy of Sciences Report (2014) and from Luntz (2012) confirms that researchers in Japan are now exploring new ways to eliminate radiation from the Japanese soil. The World Nuclear Association (2001) acknowledges that nuclear accidents such as Three Mile Island have led to a decrease in nuclear plant construction. At the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant in 1979, a cooling malfunction in one of the two pressurized water reactors occurred which destroyed the reactor. Part of the core melted and some radioactive gas was released. The cleanup took nearly 12 years and cost approximately 973 million. There was much public confusion about the accident. There were problems of communication between state and federal agencies that later became public. From the Three Mile Island incident, public confidence in United States nuclear energy operations declined. This led to a serious decrease in nuclear power plant construction and an increase in nuclear safety regulations. Because of the incident, public opposition 15 to nuclear power was greatly increased (Schwartz, 1979). Additionally, the Three Mile Island Nuclear incident resulted in a loss of trust in the nuclear industry as a whole. The public lost trust in the utility’s ability to operate the power plant safely. The public also lost trust in the ability of government to order evacuations and manage the situation in a predictable way. Also lost was the trust that emergency management and hospitals would be responsible and remain fully staffed to aid the public (Wilson, 2004). Some of the most important outcomes of the Three Mile Island incident were training reforms. Other outcomes included increased safety in operations and event reporting. Both outcomes have made the nuclear power industry more reliable and safer. Henderson (1980) reported that new concerns and safety problems arose during the evacuation. This data has led to increased evacuation planning and public education (Henderson, 1980). His research prompted the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to seek solutions associated with nuclear power facilities using reasoned analysis. Hendrie (1976) discusses safety rules for nuclear facilities and considers design, safety margins in operation and systems provided to cover uncertainties. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has established rules, guides, and standards of operation. Adherences to these guides are monitored by review and inspection. The author describes the various types of nuclear plants as well as the safety-related features and operating experience of each type. The author’s study is helpful because it describes fuel reprocessing plants and waste storage facilities. He also describes the difficulties 16 involved in transportation and storage of the spent fuel. Safeguards are discussed to protect against hazards such as accidental exposure and sabotage. From these calamities and to provide balance, it is apparent that there is a clear need for qualified personnel in the nuclear and related fields. Latigue and Martinez (2007) believe that with the scarcity of water and as the future demand for electricity increases, nuclear power could provide a long term solution as well as being a bridge toward becoming a more hydrogen based economy. In order to fill the need for qualified personnel in the nuclear power field, it is necessary for industry and academia to obtain stronger economic assistance from the government (Latigue & Martinez, 2007). Nuclear education is becoming more important as a result of these catastrophic incidents. Ohnishi (2014) proposes a method to assess the effect of nuclear education. He reports that better understanding of nuclear information brings a change in public opinion. Nuclear education through the news media and public education brings a change in public attitude resulting in public acceptance. He found that the attitude toward nuclear energy formed at the age of school children plays a large role in public opinion. 2.3 Opposition to Nuclear Power Along with the economic issues facing nuclear power, there has also been a steady rise in nuclear opposition in the United States. Anti-nuclear opposition has been increasing ever 17 since the nuclear reactor calamities which occurred at Chernobyl, Fukushima, and Three Mile Island (Patel, 2011). Wilson (2004) points out that the Three Mile Island Nuclear Incident resulted in a loss of trust in the nuclear industry as a whole and further spurred the United States’ anti-nuclear movement. The public lost trust in the utility’s ability to operate the power plant safely. In addition, the World Nuclear Association (2001) released in their findings that there was much public confusion about the accident at Three Mile Island. Specifically, there were problems of communication between state and federal agencies. It was also determined that public confidence in nuclear energy in the United States declined from the handling of this accident. Some of the most important outcomes of the Three Mile Island accident were training reforms and increased safety measures and costs associated with these measures. However, these safety related costs and required safety measures have continued to rise over time along with the anti-nuclear pressure and movement. As reported, the aftermath and cleanup took over a decade and cost approximately 1 billion. Japan’s anti-nuclear movement received a stimulus from former Prime Minister Koizumi in a speech to business executives in Nagoya. In the past, Mr. Koizumi had been an advocate for nuclear power believing it to be cheap and clean. After the nuclear accident at Fukushima, he reversed his decision and said Japan should turn from Nuclear power to other energy sources. Mr. Koizumi believes that strong anti-nuclear sentiment in the 18 general public is a potential political force that will motivate the nation to turn to renewable energy sources (Fackler, 2013). Taylor (2013) presents observations about the opposition to nuclear power. He first discusses the opinion that nuclear power represents a cataclysmic threat and present danger. The second opinion presented is an argument based on democratic equality and justice. He further notes that the difference between the two opinions shows a more general disagreement in the environmental movement as a whole, and shows an erosion of anti-nuclear solidarity. Rossin (2003) believes there is more than science to be considered regarding opposition to nuclear power; there is also political payoff to be considered. He notes that fear can be marketed and may not be purely coincidental. Nuclear spent fuel storage has been a heated discussion for decades. Abelson (1988) discusses the controversy and opposition over nuclear spent fuel storage. He believes that the choice of Nevada for a spent fuel deposit site was a good decision. The Yucca Mountain site is an isolated desert region in Southern Nevada owned by the Federal Government. The dry environment is comparatively free from corrosive effects. Although there is some danger of unexpected tectonic events, hazards in Nevada would be much less than those in other states. The area has been studied in detail by the U.S. Geological Survey and National Laboratories. His work is important because it 19 acknowledges that legislation has provided funds for further studies and continuous monitoring of the aforementioned site. Fear of nuclear energy in the United States is a valid discussion item for many reasons. Weart (2012) demonstrates that the thinking regarding nuclear energy is driven by fears rather than facts. He examines nuclear anxieties in novels, movies and television. He notes that in the debate about nuclear power, the public will resist manipulation from both sides. Conversely, International Security (1977) stipulates that the most serious risk regarding nuclear power is the increase in the number of countries that have access to nuclear weapons capability. Decisions must be made on the export of nuclear technology and materials. The management of nuclear waste and the reprocessing of plutonium are issues that have far-reaching consequences. Regarding public health, the authors believe the health effects of nuclear power are less than those from coal, even considering the possibility of nuclear accidents. Vanaik (2001) proposes ways to advance overcoming differences among groups in the anti-nuclear movement. He believes that by advancing the common positions of various groups their differences can be overcome. With greater transparency, civilian programs and military programs will work together to control nuclear power. This research further validates the strength of the anti-nuclear movement. 20 Coulter (2005) believes that two aspects of the nuclear debate deserve fuller coverage. He believes that climate change is only one of the symptoms of demands by humans on the natural environment. He feels that these demands will result in more serious threats to the environment. The author believes that an oil shortage would result in increased tensions with the risk of misuse of nuclear knowledge. This in itself would cause serious nuclear opposition. He demonstrates that more research is needed in both climate change and in the potential misuse of nuclear knowledge. On balance, Wald (2009) proposes the question as to whether nuclear power is poised for a comeback in the United States. He answered this by noting that the nuclear incident at Three Mile Island caused public opinion in the United States to turn against nuclear power and is still present. Outside of the United States, nuclear proponents have encouraged the use of nuclear power. In 30 countries outside the United States, nuclear power is used intensively, with France getting approximately 80 percent of its electricity from nuclear power. Concerns about greenhouse gases and the use of fossil fuels have increased a revived interest in nuclear power. It is clear that anti-nuclear opposition has been growing ever since the nuclear reactor calamities which occurred at Chernobyl, Fukushima, and Three Mile Island (Patel, 2011). Many anti-nuclear organizations were very vocal and adamant that SONGS should not be allowed to re-start and thus, be forced into early retirement. The two most active anti- 21 nuclear groups that opposed the re-start of SONGs were Friends of the Earth (FoE) and San Clemente Green. 2.4 U.S. Nuclear Plant Retirement Risk Factors Research has now shown that many nuclear power plants in the United States are uneconomical to operate (Crooks, 2014). According to this study, four nuclear plants have recently been shut down in the United States for economic related reasons. To remain in operation, each of these plants would require multibillion-dollar repairs. In addition, four other nuclear plants are at risk of closure as they, too, are becoming uneconomical to operate. The risk of nuclear plant closure is being driven by lower electricity prices and competition from low gas prices. The Energy Information Administration (2010-2012) released data that clearly demonstrated that the worst 25 percent of United States nuclear plants are far more expensive to operate than new gas plants. Other factors resulting in upward pressure on nuclear costs are increased security and safety measures and stronger demands from regulators. It is clear to see that these uneconomical nuclear plants are at risk of being shut down and replaced by other more efficient generation sources. Lastly, Crooks (2014) adds that the 22 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster and stricter federal regulations have put upward pressure on both operating and capital costs of United States nuclear facilities. Research and data also suggests that it is not feasible to replace these uneconomical nuclear plants with new nuclear reactors. The capital costs of new nuclear generation are higher than wind, solar, and gas (EIA, 2013). This, in and of itself, adds validation to the argument that the construction of new nuclear facilities will continue to decline in the United States. In addition to capital costs, there are other critical generation factors to consider for various technologies such as variable costs, fixed costs and unit location (Enerdynamics Corp, 2014). Unit location will play a critical role in siting and constructing of new generation facilities given the current scrutiny and political pressure over environmental impacts and land use constraints. Research shows that gas is a viable generation replacement option. Additionally, gas facilities have a much lower capital cost than nuclear (EIA, 2013). When analyzing replacement power options for new generation, it is important to consider both capital and variable costs. According to Cooper (2013), nuclear plant retirement risk factors include both economic and operational factors. Cooper states that cost, size and age of plants are key economic factors to consider when determining plant retirement. He also adds that reliability and whether or not the plant is off-line for repairs are key considerations. 23 Finally, safety issues and regulatory compliance requirements are also factors to review when considering a plant for retirement (Cooper, 2013). Other factors resulting in upward pressure on costs are increased security and safety measures as well as stronger demands from regulators. Four nuclear plants have recently been shut down in the United States for economic reasons, two of which required multibillion-dollar repairs. Four other plants are at risk of closing because keeping them in operation is uneconomical (Crooks, 2014). Cicchetti and Long (1995) describe how much of the world has begun the restructuring of electric companies. They present proposals intending to expand regulation and restrict utility profits as competition expands. It is necessary to understand how the competitive market will function and what role regulation will play in the future. The authors, Cicchetti and Long (1995), believe that past experience has shown that markets need to be free from political interference. The authors’ work acknowledges the role of regulation expansion and restructuring in the utility industry. It is important to understand how competitive energy markets function from an economical perspective, as noted from the work of Cicchetti and Long (1995). Even after 24 an economic review, ratepayers, shareholders and the electric utility must be assessed in the form of a cost benefit analysis. Based on this perspective, for a plant to be retired, the following cost benefit criteria must be realized: (1) ratepayers must receive a benefit, (2) shareholders must be aware of loss on return on investment benefits due to early retirement and (3) the utility must ensure that the decommissioning trust fund account is adequately funded, take losses and / or financial responsibility for any near term capital expenditures. The economic, operational, and safety analysis from Cooper (2013) adds validation to the work of Crooks (2014) where he points out that the worst 25 percent of U.S. nuclear plants operating today are 30 percent more expensive to operate than a new gas plant. As seen below in Table 2.1 (Exhibit III-6), Cooper (2013) identifies U.S. nuclear plant retirement risk factors of current U.S. nuclear power plants. It is interesting to note, that 38 of the 62 U.S. nuclear plants are seen as plants that are at risk for early retirement. These plants, on the whole, are all currently licensed to operate well beyond 2030 (Appendix 3). The plants are listed by reactor name and then scored in the following three areas: (1) economic factors, (2) operational factors and (3) safety issues. In addition, the three 2013 retired nuclear power plants listed below (Kewaunee, Crystal River and SONGS) are very similar in the three scoring categories to the 38 nuclear plants listed by Cooper (2013) as plants at risk for early retirement. 25 Table 2.1 Retirement Risk Factors for Nuclear Plants 26 Table 2.1 Retirement Risk Factors for Nuclear Plants (Cont’d) 27 2.5 Obstacles to Nuclear Replacement Power As shown below in Figure 2.1, the Energy Information Administration (2013) analyzed and calculated the construction and operating costs related to new generation facilities by source. As stated in the data below, the Administration determined that new nuclear power plants have the highest capital and operating costs ($/kW) when compared to other sources. Figure 2.1 Capital Costs of New Generation Sources 28 Ramana (2009) states there are key barriers to the construction of new nuclear plants. From an economic viewpoint, nuclear plants have a high capital cost of construction (EIA, 2013). In fact, nuclear is higher than coal, hydro and solar. In addition, the annual costs of operation and maintenance are also high. Lidsky (1987) stipulates that nuclear power in the U.S. will eventually fade away and, thus, become almost non-existent in U.S. electric power generation primarily due to economical and operational contingencies. Another concern is the disposal of nuclear waste. Safety concerns are centered on the need to build levels of safety in the reactor to eliminate potential failures. This includes operating failures and structural faults. Human actions and choices must also be considered. Health and environmental factors can negatively affect the workers in nuclear plants and the public should a leak occur. This study demonstrates that there are key economic barriers to the operation and maintenance of nuclear plants. For a variety of economic and operational related reasons, uneconomic nuclear plants are at risk of being shut down in the United States (Cooper, 2013). This is because of lower electricity prices and competition from cheap gas that more nuclear power plants in the United States are at risk of being closed (Crooks, 2014). As shown below in Figure 2.2 and according the EIA (2010-2012), the worst performing U.S. nuclear plants averaged nearly $62/MWh during the three year period from 2010- 29 $0.00 $10.00 $20.00 $30.00 $40.00 $50.00 $60.00 $70.00 US Nuclear Plants (Worst 25%) New Gas Plants Energy Information Administration (2010 - 2012) US Nuclear Plants (Worst 25%) New Gas Plants $ MWh Levelized Costs Generation Source 2012. When comparing these plants to a new gas plant which average $47/MWh to operate, it is easy to understand why ratepayers would want these nuclear plants in the lowest quartile retired (Crooks, 2014). Building large scale mega projects in today’s world will create many obstacles. Kostof (1999) explored both how cities were formed and the urban patterns that individualize them. A detailed analysis encompassing how city grids take shape and remain unique was laid out demonstrating that large power replacement facilities were not part of the design (Kostof, 1999). Data Extracted: EIA 2010-2012 Figure 2.2 Levelized Cost Comparison (U.S. Nuclear Worst 25% vs. New Gas) 30 Altshuler and Luberoff (2003) explored and analyzed the theories and stages behind large public works projects and the challenges that surround them. They examined the leading theories of urban and American politics in conjunction with mega-projects politics and noted that scarcity of land and resources are potential project killers. Analyses include detailed case studies to validate their hypothesis surrounding the strong connection between urban political theory and successful mega-projects. The Public Service Commission (1999) explores useful standards and criteria for siting power plants. Their criterion demonstrates the land use and environmental challenges of siting and constructing new power plants. The Public Service Commission (1999) also points out obstacles for siting and constructing new power plants. These obstacles apply to developers, regulatory agencies and the local community pertaining to power plant siting and development. The siting criteria and data demonstrate the land use constraints and lengthy timeframes required in siting new power plants. In addition, the Public Service Commission (2011) took a serious look at the environmental factors and concerns pertaining to the building and operation of generation power plants. They reported on the challenges surrounding how to mitigate environmental impacts related to construction and use. 31 Finally, the commission identified the difficulties pertaining to land use requirements, environmental constraints and lengthy construct time frames in building new power plants. With high capital and operating costs of nuclear power, Delgado (2006) noted that renewable energy may be the wave of the future. Delgado (2006) also created a four-part approach that includes; goals to reduce dependence on foreign oil; use clean, renewable energy; improve energy efficiency; and invest in energy research by 2015. This renewable energy approach also appears to have an economic benefit attached to it. Fulton (2010) analyzed and reviewed case studies centered on why economic development is more successful in some areas and not in others. He noted that it is no accident that some cities prosper and some do not pertaining to economic development. In summary, the cities that have prospered the most rely on the overall ecosystem of the region and not only on one energy source (Fulton, 2010). 32 2.6 Literature Review Map Figure 2.3 Literature Review Map 33 The Literature Review Map (as cited and referenced above) clearly demonstrates that sound policy, planning and development are required when making a decision to retire a nuclear plant while the licensing period is still in effect (Wasko, 2014). Nuclear fuel costs, operating costs and end-use prices by sector are forecasted to continue to rise in the United States and, thus, allow electric utilities to explore both natural gas pricing and the market price of energy when considering nuclear replacement power (EIA, 2014). The recent closure of uneconomical nuclear plants in the United States has created a serious problem (Crooks, 2014). Specifically, electric utilities will have serious issues and challenges replacing the uneconomical nuclear plant power by attempting to build timely replacement generation for these “mega-projects” due to land use and environmental constraints (Altshuler and Luberoff, 2003). Finally, the Literature Review Map above (Figure 2.3) clearly identifies the order of events that has led to increased costs required to maintain and operate nuclear power plants in the United States. A high percentage of nuclear power plants have now become uneconomical to operate because of increased regulation and safety requirements. The linear sequencing depicted on the Literature Review Map takes us from the past history of nuclear catastrophes, to increased regulation and opposition to nuclear power, to 34 nuclear facilities now becoming uneconomical and, finally, to identifying the gap in research of nuclear replacement power needs. 35 CHAPTER 3—SONGS CASE STUDY: ECONOMIC AND RELATED IMPACTS LEADING TO PLANT RETIREMENT 3.1 Introduction The San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) Units 2 and 3 are located in San Diego County adjacent to Camp Pendleton near San Clemente, California. SONGS Units 2 and 3 are jointly owned by Southern California Edison (SCE), San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) and the City of Riverside. Respectively, SCE owns 78.21 percent; SDG&E owns 20 percent and the City of Riverside 1.79 percent (SCE SONGS Fact Sheets, 2012-2013). On January 31, 2012, after SCE detected a small radiation leak from a tube in one of the steam generators, the station operators (SCE) shut down Unit 3. At this time, SONGS Unit 2 was off-line for a planned refueling outage and was not re-started at the conclusion of the planned outage on March 5, 2012 (SCE SONGS Fact Sheets, 2012-2013). 3.2 SCE Organizational Characteristics The characteristics of SCE’s corporate structure and culture that would encourage carrying out this “potentially” difficult plant retirement decision are centered on honesty, 36 hard work, mutual respect and working together as one entity (SCE Ethics Website, 2014). There is nothing in the corporate structure and culture that would impede carrying out this decision. Upon review of SCE Ethics Website (2014), SCE’s corporate culture guides employees to handle issues directly, openly and with devout integrity. SCE’s culture appears to be consistent with both field and staff personnel. Employees are encouraged to deliver on their promises and maintain the highest level of ethics on a consistent basis. This message and level of encouragement is delivered from senior management on a consistent basis down to all employees including SCE approved contractors. All employees are also taught to acknowledge and learn from their mistakes, but never compromise integrity. More simply put, actions and words must be consistent. Finally, SCE’s culture also is primarily centered on ensuring that employees accept accountability for their actions. Thus, employees must make decisions for the greater good and not self-interest (SCE Ethics Website, 2014). 37 3.3 Case Background SONGS Unit 2 was taken out of service on January 9, 2012 for a planned refueling outage, planned inspections and maintenance. During these inspections, SCE engineers found some isolated areas of tube wear in the steam generators. This resulted in the plugging of approximately one percent of the tubes in Unit 2. However, that plugging amount is well within the tube allowance requirements for each steam generator as set forth by industry standards and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) (SCE SONGS Fact Sheets, 2012-2013). On January 31, 2012 a leak was detected in one of the Unit 3 steam generator tubes. At this point, Unit 3 was taken safely off-line (SCE SONGS Fact Sheets, 2012-2013). Initial inspections did not indicate any correlation between the leak in Unit 3 and the tube wear seen in Unit 2. However, SCE decided not to re-start Unit 2 until the company was satisfied that the issue with Unit 3 would not occur in Unit 2 (SCE SONGS Fact Sheets, 2012-2013). As reported below in Figure 3.1 by EIA (2013) and the sources listed in this Figure, 15 percent of U.S. nuclear reactors brought on-line have faced early retirement and only 46 percent of all nuclear reactors brought on-line fulfilled the original license period. 38 This data is interesting as SONGS had unforeseen reactor problems stemming from the steam generator units. In fact, after rigorous testing and analysis were completed, the results showed wear in the steam generator tubing in both units, including unexpected tube-to-tube wear, predominantly in Unit 3. The unexpected wear was associated with excessive vibration of the tubes in certain areas of the steam generators. This phenomenon is known as “fluid elastic instability”. It was Figure 3.1 Nuclear Reactor Disposition 39 later confirmed that the manufacturer, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI), used computer modeling that did not accurately predict the vibration-causing scenarios in the steam generators (SCE SONGS Fact Sheets, 2012-2013). 3.4 Role of SONGS The role of SONGS is critical in helping to meet California’s long-term goal for cleaner air and reliable, emission-free power. The plant provided approximately 17 percent 1 of SCE’s “base load” generation, meaning its power serves SCE customers’ needs day and night, regardless of whether the sun is shining or the wind is blowing (SCE, 2012). Along those lines, wind and solar power are not considered “base load” generation source providers. As a case-in-point, if the wind is not blowing and the sun is not shining, then “base load” generation will be absent. SONGS also provides critical “voltage support” for the region. As a basis, electric voltage is much like water pressure. To keep water flowing, constant pressure must be applied. Electricity is much the same. It needs constant pressure (or voltage) to keep the electrons flowing across the wires. Additionally, the power output and key location of SONGS allows it to support the import of renewable energy (SCE SONGS Fact Sheets, 2012-2013). 1 SONGS provided approximately 17% of SCE base load generation in 2012; Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station contributed approximately 2% of the total 19% as shown in the Electricity Generation graph on page 36. 40 SONGS has been a stable source of “base load” power for several decades. SONGS has always been viewed as a vital and critical component in meeting the region's electricity needs and “voltage support” levels, representing 2,200 MW of generation (SCE, 2012). This generation output level helps to meet the electrical needs of approximately 1.4 million homes (SCE, 2012). Because of this solid performance, the public wants to be assured that they will continue to receive reliable and affordable electricity from SCE with or without SONGS. All U.S. electric utilities are required to deliver safe and reliable electricity 24 hours a day / 7 days a week. To accomplish this, electric utilities must build, operate and maintain power plants, transmission lines, electric substations and distribution systems. To build and maintain this electric infrastructure, finances and capital must be raised. These projects (such as SONGS) require huge capital to be paid upfront by electric utilities. The financial capital to build these projects is paid by shareholders and the money is borrowed from credit markets as was the case with SONGS. Finally, these costs are recovered from customers via their monthly bills (Litzinger, 2013). As stated below in Figure 3.2, nuclear power contributes 19 percent to SCE’s electricity generation mix while natural gas contributes 37 percent. Renewable energy contributes approximately 18 percent to SCE’s generation mix. Additionally, hydro and coal make up the remaining 13 percent of SCE’s electricity generation mix. 41 3.5 NRC Authorization Needed for Re-Start For more than four decades, SONGS has safely provided reliable and clean, emissions- free electricity to Southern California residents and businesses. SONGS Unit 3 was safely taken off-line in January 2012 after SCE station operators detected a small leak in one of the almost 20,000 steam generator tubes. The radiation leak was hardly detectable, with about the amount of radiation emitted by a home smoke detector over the course of a year. However, SCE kept SONGS off-line and out of service until the NRC Source: SCE Generation Data, 2012 Figure 3.2 SCE Generation Mix 42 gave formal written permission which would have allowed SCE to safely re-start SONGS (SCE SONGS Fact Sheets, 2012-2013). 3.6 Analysis of NRC Outreach and Collaborative Process Upon analysis of the NRC outreach process, a forced convening consensus building process was utilized by the NRC during the 18 month SONGS case period. This process (as outlined in The Consensus Building Handbook) is very similar to what actually took place between SCE, the NRC, the anti-nuclear activists and the stakeholders at large. In relation to the NRC process, the consensus stages are outlined below as seen in The Consensus Building Handbook. 2 Dialogue and comments are added below each stage as reference points to the SONGS case: Convening (A) Forced convening from the NRC; SCE, stakeholders and opposition groups participated (B) Appropriate representatives and stakeholders were at the table; NRC Public meetings and CPUC public meetings held 2 Data Extracted: The Consensus Building Handbook (Susskind, McKearnan, Thomas-Larmer, 1999) 43 Clarifying Responsibilities (A) Roles established early on by the NRC (B) Agenda and rules set by the NRC and were followed Deliberating (A) Constructive deliberation outlined and followed by the NRC and their legal arm (B) Sought expert advice from nuclear experts around the world Deciding (A) NRC and SCE sought “safety” over all other factors; opposition to re- start (B) Commitments taken seriously by all stakeholders Implementing Agreements (A) Sought ratification of stakeholders with legal and expert opinions (B) Long-term focus on public safety; re-start agreements and decision never reached by the NRC; regulatory agreements were implemented to retire SONGS Organizational Learning and Development (Phase I and Phase II) (A) NRC established objectives, testing requirements and review time-line; all stakeholders heavily involved in learning via testing data, analysis results and SCE re-start plan proposal (Phase I) 44 (B) There is a second phase pertaining to Organizational Learning and Development; this stage (Phase II) will now take place for SCE, all SCE customer groups, ratepayers, shareholders, and CAISO; Phase II will focus on replacement generation power and “voltage support”; this may require new generation facilities to be built and remains a serious topic for the future In addition, each consensus building stage will be highlighted and boxed appropriately throughout the rest of the chapter to further validate the process and timing of the aforementioned consensus building process in relation to the SONGS case. 3.7 Major Stakeholders Stakeholders have had multiple opportunities to participate in the NRC hosted public meetings. These public meetings covered topics such as tube wear, SCE’s re-start proposal and plant safety. These meetings drew thousands of attendees and allowed for hundreds of comments to be heard from major stakeholders. These stakeholders included residents, businesses, nuclear professionals, public officials, academia, anti-nuclear activists including Friends of the Earth (FoE) and San Clemente Green (SCG), California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), California Independent System Operator (CAISO), NRC-Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB), Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI), SCE, NRC, SDG&E, City of Riverside, County of 45 Orange, County of San Diego and cities within the emergency planning zone: Dana Point, San Juan Capistrano, San Clemente and Camp Pendleton. 3.8 Major Event Time-Line Below in Table 3.1 are the key event dates / activities leading to SONGS’ retirement. Date Event January 9, 2012 SONGS Unit 2 taken off-line for pre-set planned refueling. January 31, 2012 SONGS Unit 3 taken off-line after SCE operators detect a leak. March 19, 2012 NRC activates inspection team to assess circumstances leading to the tube wear. March 27, 2012 NRC issues CAL documenting actions for SCE to address. April 6, 2012 NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko holds a press conference in Dana Point, California on SONGS and meets with local business groups and elected officials. Convening Stage: Forced convening from the NRC; SCE, stakeholders and opposition groups participated. Appropriate representatives and stakeholders were at the table; NRC Public meetings and CPUC public meetings held. Table 3.1 Key Event Time-Line Leading to SONGS Retirement 46 June 18, 2012 FoE submits a petition to the NRC asserting that the replacement steam generators and the CAL require a license amendment and requests a public hearing. June 18, 2012 The NRC’s inspection team presents findings at a public participation meeting. NRC confirms that SCE followed regulations in replacing steam generators with design modifications. More than 500 members of the public are in attendance, and dozens participate in the public comment and question and answer period. October 3, 2012 SCE submits Unit 2 CAL response and re-start plan to NRC. October 9, 2012 NRC holds a public town hall meeting on SONGS in Dana Point, California. More than 800 members of the public attend, and dozens participate in the public comment and question and answer period. November 1, 2012 The CPUC begins a formal investigation of SONGS’ costs (CPUC OII). February 12, 2013 NRC holds Public Meeting on SONGS in Capistrano Beach, California. February 21, 2013 CPUC holds Public Participation Meeting on SONGS in Costa Mesa, California. June 7, 2013 SCE publically announces to retire SONGS Units 2 and 3. Data Extracted: SCE SONGS Fact Sheets; NRC Website; SCE briefing sheets Table 3.1 Key Event Time-Line Leading to SONGS Retirement (Cont’d) 47 3.9 Mission of NRC The NRC has been an effective federal agency in protecting the nuclear safety of the public for decades. Experts from the NRC and around the world have helped SCE with testing and have challenged the conclusions. Safety is the number one priority and the sole mission of the NRC. The NRC is recognized as the leading nuclear regulator on an international level. Given this authority, SCE cannot re-start SONGS until the NRC is completely satisfied that it is absolutely safe to do so. The NRC’s regulatory process for SONGS included a series of public participation meetings. 3.10 Anti-Nuclear Opposition FoE appeared to be the strongest and most vocal anti-nuclear organization against the SONGS re-start proposal. FoE filed an intervention petition and hearing request, and application for stay with the NRC. The NRC denied portions of FoE’s petition and Clarifying Responsibilities Stage: The NRC established responsibilities and roles early on in the proceedings; the agenda and rules were set by the NRC and were followed by all stakeholders during the process. 48 referred some items to the NRC staff and to the ASLB for consideration. Table 3.2 below identifies the four requests in the FoE petition along with the NRC’s responses. FoE Petition Request NRC Response FoE requested that the NRC find SCE in violation of federal regulations (10 CFR § 50.59) when the steam generators for SONGS Units 2 and 3 were replaced without a license amendment from the NRC. The NRC denied this part of the petition and referred this issue to the NRC staff for consideration as a petition for enforcement relief (10 CFR § 2.206). FoE contended that the NRC’s Confirmatory Action Letter (CAL) issued to SCE constituted a de facto license amendment proceeding, requiring a hearing. The NRC referred this issue to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) Panel for consideration. FoE requested that the NRC initiate a discretionary hearing on licensing. - - Continued next page The NRC denied this request without prejudice until the ASLB Panel rules on the CAL issue. Table 3.2 FoE Petition & NRC Response Table 49 Data Extracted: SCE SONGS Fact Sheets, 2012-2013; NRC Website, 2012-2013; SCE briefing sheets, 2012-2013 3.11 SCE Re-Start Proposal SCE took a very “conservative” re-start approach that required deliberate testing and analysis. In total, SCE has conducted more than 150,000 inspections and tests. Rigorous testing and analysis showed wear in the steam generator tubing in both units, including unexpected tube-to-tube wear, predominantly in Unit 3. The unexpected wear was associated with excessive vibration of the tubes in certain areas of the steam generators. This phenomenon is known as “fluid elastic instability”. The manufacturer, MHI, used computer modeling that did not accurately predict the vibration-causing scenarios in the steam generators (SCE SONGS Fact Sheets, 2012- 2013). FoE requested that the NRC issue a “stay of any authorization for re-start” of SONGS Units 2 and 3 pending the conclusion of the requested license amendment proceeding. The NRC denied this request without prejudice. Table 3.2 FoE Petition & NRC Response Table (Cont’d) 50 However, Unit 2 is a very different story. Inspections of Unit 2 (which ran twice as long as Unit 3) identified only one pair of tubes that displayed early indications of tube-to-tube wear. Thus, SCE has submitted plans to the NRC to safely re-start Unit 2. Plans called for the operation of Unit 2 at 70 percent, which would eliminate “fluid elastic instability”. SCE also intended to run Unit 2 for just 5 months, before re-inspecting the steam generators to demonstrate the safe operating conditions (SCE SONGS Fact Sheets, 2012- 2013). This proposed re-start plan was viewed by many as a “conservative” and well- balanced approached that focused on safety first (SCE SONGS Fact Sheets, 2012-2013). 3.12 NRC Public Participation Hearings and Information Release Dates The NRC has a tremendous public participation policy and outreach program. According to Svara and Denhardt (2010), the United States government started requiring citizen participation involving matters of great importance decades ago. This participatory change took place after World War II and encouraged states and municipalities to do the same (Svara and Denhardt, 2010). This helps explain the NRC’s public participation outreach and stakeholder involvement engagement efforts. Deliberating Stage: Constructive deliberation outlined and followed by the NRC and their legal arm; sought expert advice from nuclear experts around the world. 51 The NRC successfully engaged citizens on both sides of the nuclear debate. According to Svara and Denhardt (2010), citizen engagement is necessary when community issues and community building is the topic. From this perspective, the NRC did an excellent job of engaging citizens at each of the public meetings. The moderator was well- balanced and very fair during all public meetings. He kept the meetings on topic and allowed both sides of the nuclear issue to be heard. From a participatory viewpoint, the NRC’s outreach and educational plan was aggressive and timely. The NRC was very open and transparent throughout the 18 month shut down period leading to SCE’s retirement announcement of SONGS on June 7, 2013. Early on in the process, it became apparent that the media, local communities, customers, and public officials were well-informed with timely and accurate information regarding the NRC’s process and decision time frame forecasts. The NRC maintained an open and transparent dialog with all targeted audience groups throughout this evaluation and review process. All meeting venues were easy to locate and included adequate seating. The NRC identified these meetings early on in the process and all stakeholders were welcome to attend (NRC Website, 2012-2013). The meetings lasted approximately three hours and were well-represented by both NRC staff and SCE executives from SONGS. 52 Several public meetings were held locally in Southern California (near SONGS) as part of the NRC’s effort to engage all local stakeholders in this critical decision relating to the possible re-start of SONGS. Adequate security and safety measures were taken at all times. Local law enforcement and undercover security were present to settle any disputes and ensure that all events were maintained in a peaceful and law abiding manner. The event moderator did an excellent job of keeping the meeting on track and balanced with input from both the anti-nuclear side and the pro-nuclear side of the argument. Finally, for the most part, both sides of this highly emotional and contested issue acted in a very professional manner during the course of these meetings. Media coverage and reporting was also well-balanced and accurate. Reporters attempted to interview all relevant stakeholders that included SCE, NRC staff, FoE, San Clemente Green (SCG), local residents, academia, nuclear experts, chamber executives, environmental and wildlife organization executives, and public policy / elected officials. State and Federal leaders did participate via comments and data inquiries. Specifically, Senator Boxer provided public policy related comments and showed a great deal of interest in SCE’s re-start proposal and safety considerations. Table 3.3 below highlights the public participation meeting dates and public participation agenda items. 53 Public Participation Agenda Items Date • Category 1 public meeting in Southern California at Laguna Hills with SCE on Confirmatory Action Letter (CAL) pre- inspection and technical evaluation. Nov. 30, 2012 • Category 1 public meeting at NRC headquarters to discuss ongoing technical review and NRC staff request for additional information. Dec. 18, 2012 • Category 1 public meeting in Southern California with SCE on status of CAL and technical evaluation, post-inspection. Mid-Feb. 2013 • Technical evaluation and Unit 2 CAL inspection report complete and now publicly available. Late Feb.- early Mar. 2013 • Notify Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) / parties of intent to issue decision regarding re-start for Unit 2. March 2013 • Issue decision regarding re-start for Unit 2. 5-30 days after notification to ASLB and parties Table 3.3 NRC Public Participation Table SCE SONGS Fact Sheet, 2013 54 3.13 CPUC Public Participation Hearings The CPUC began a formal investigation on November 1, 2012, to determine whether to remove all costs related to the nuclear plant from SCE rates going forward and whether to refund plant-related costs already collected in rates back to January 1, 2012. This process is outlined in CPUC regulation and applies to all generation sources that have been off- line for more than nine months (CPUC OII, 2012). The CPUC held two public participation hearings in Irvine and Costa Mesa (respectively) and continued to provide opportunities for the public to share their input throughout the process (SCE SONGS Fact Sheets, 2013). The CPUC had established three phases for the investigation: Phase I looked at whether SCE should refund any rates preliminarily authorized in the 2012 General Rate Case. It also looked at whether expenses from 2012 were reasonable and necessary. Phase II considered whether costs for SONGS should be removed from customer rates. In Phase III, the CPUC looked at the causes of steam generator tube-to-tube wear and the responsibility and cost recovery issues (CPUC OII, 2012). 3.14 Financial Implications The CPUC will review the financial implications for both SCE and the ratepayer. SCE shareholders are also potentially at risk if SCE did not act in a prudent and cost effective 55 manner while procuring the required purchase power energy needs during the investigation time period (CPUC OII, 2012). Maintaining SONGS in a state of readiness is expensive costing about $30 million per month (Litzinger, 2013). SCE also publicly announced that they anticipate recording a pre-tax charge of from $450 million to $650 million in the second quarter of 2013 (SCE SONGS Fact Sheets, 2013). These amounts will be updated in the future as actual regulatory approval and direction is determined. SCE continues to believe that they have acted prudently throughout this process. Now that the future of SONGS is known and the plant has been retired, SCE hopes that it can join with all relevant and interested parties towards a good faith ratemaking resolution. Lastly, SCE plans to cooperate to the fullest and assist the CPUC so they can make their decision that best serves all stakeholders (SCE Press Release and SONGS Fact Sheets, 2013). 3.15 Economic and Ratepayer Cost Effectiveness Considerations During the re-start decision period, SCE was required to keep SONGS in a state of readiness for nearly 18 months. During this period, the state of readiness costs increased over time and, thus, decreased the benefits of SONGS as shown below in Figure 3.3. As reported in the SCE Decision to Retire San Onofre Units 2 and 3: Economic 56 Considerations Report 3 (SCE Economic Consideration Report) , the SONGS economic impact analysis compares the total cost of retiring SONGS to the cost of various operating scenarios. From this report, those costs include the capital required to operate SONGS; the costs of purchasing replacement power, required cost allowances for capacity and greenhouse gas (with SONGS not operating); maintenance costs (personnel), state of readiness costs and fuel costs. 3 In presenting this economic analysis, SCE reserves all rights, including rights against Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and Nuclear Electric Insurance Limited. Data Extracted: SCE Economic Consideration Report, 2013 Figure 3.3 SONGS State of Readiness vs. Time Graph 57 According to the SCE Economic Consideration Report (2013), the three most likely operating scenarios were to: (1) retire both units, (2) operate Unit 2 at 70 percent power and retire Unit 3 and (3) operate Unit 2 at 70 percent power and operate Unit 3 at 60 percent power 4 . The costs of each scenario are considered through 2022, which is the year in which each of the SONGS Unit 2 and 3 operating licenses issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) expire. The SONGS operating scenarios can then be compared to one another by computing the present value of the costs projected for each scenario. An analysis of future costs is necessary based on projections, such as projected market prices for energy, capacity and greenhouse gas allowances and the projected costs of operating SONGS. From an economic and cost benefit analysis perspective, these costs and benefits must be carefully weighed when making a decision of this magnitude. Economic impacts must be reviewed and taken into account when it involves ratepayers, shareholders and the electric utility company. All three stakeholder groups have both costs and benefits associated with a decision of this magnitude. From an optimal point of view and for a plant to be considered as a retirement candidate, the following stipulations should be realized: (1) ratepayers must receive a benefit, (2) shareholders must be aware of loss on return on investment benefits due to early retirement and (3) the 4 The 60-percent power for Unit 3 is used for the purposes of economic analysis given the more extensive tube wear in that unit compared to Unit 2. However, there was significant uncertainty whether Unit 3 could have been operated even at that lower power level. 58 utility must ensure that the decommissioning trust fund is adequately funded; take losses and / or financial responsibility for any near term capital expenditures. Figure 3.4 below, shows the costs of the various SONGS operating scenarios compared to the cost of retirement (SCE Economic Consideration Report, 2013). It is important to note that the benefits of a re-start will decrease over time due to plant readiness costs required by the NRC. In addition, the projected dates that the units re-start are critical variables that significantly affect the analysis of all scenarios. Source: SCE Economic Consideration Report, 2013 Figure 3.4 SONGS Ratepayer Cost Effectiveness Graph 59 As noted in the SCE economic analysis above, the bar graph clearly portrays that the partial / retire scenario is projected to cost $292 million less than plant retirement, whereas the partial / partial scenario is projected to cost $595 million less than plant retirement. These cost savings are ratepayer net “benefits” based on the specified operating scenarios as shown above (SCE Economic Consideration Report, 2013). However, with projected delays in re-start and re-start uncertainty, the net benefits shown above will no longer have projected scenario benefits beyond late Q4 of 2014 (SCE, 2013). This is simply because SCE was also keeping SONGS in a state of operational readiness at all times pending a successful re-start decision from the NRC. 3.16 Ratepayer Benefit Analysis With SONGS off-line awaiting a potential re-start decision from the NRC, SCE was required to buy replacement power to meet the needs of consumers. However, SCE was also keeping SONGS in a state of readiness at all times awaiting a re- start decision from the NRC. Thus, SCE ratepayers were being exposed to potential adverse financial impacts. This in turn could lead to increases in future rates if allowed to go on in an unresolved manner. 60 On the economic front, the replacement steam generators (RSGs) were very expensive to purchase and expensive to inspect and test. SCE in accordance with SONGS (2012-2013) Fact Sheets performed over 170,000 inspections of the RSG units at SONGS. SCE submitted thousands of pages of technical evaluations and analysis to the NRC and was available for public review. SCE also participated in numerous NRC public meetings on the tube wear related to the RSGs. This open dialog with the public and the NRC helped maintain a more transparent process. From SCE’s communication and outreach efforts, it is evident that SCE was doing everything in its power to protect ratepayers from any financial burden relating to the faulty RSGs. From a risk analysis perspective, ratepayers and investors could be exposed to well over a half a billion of liability from the faulty RSGs (SONGS, 2013). According to the SCE Economic Consideration Report (2013) graph shown below (Figure 3.5), declining ratepayer benefit can be directly correlated to the length of time in acquiring a re-start decision from the NRC. 61 As noted above in the SCE Economic Consideration Report (2013) graph, the red arrowed line shows that the ratepayer benefits of re-starting Unit 2 decline to zero if re- start of Unit 2 is delayed from September 2013 to April 2014 while the option to re-start Unit 3 is kept open. The yellow arrowed line shows that this timeline could be extended by about six months if Unit 3 was retired immediately. The blue arrowed line shows that, if both units are kept in readiness and ultimately re-start, the ratepayer benefits of re- starting decline to zero if re-start of Unit 2 is delayed from September 2013 to December 2014. Source: SCE Economic Consideration Report, 2013 Figure 3.5 Declining Ratepayer Benefits Graph (SONGS) 62 From a ratepayer and economical perspective, a delayed re-start would have increased SCE expenditures and thus minimize potential ratepayer benefits. Thus, the ratepayer “benefit” would decrease because SONGS would have less time to produce energy before the end of its licensing period (SCE, 2013). 3.17 SCE Submitted a License Amendment Request SCE did everything foreseeable to provide the NRC with enough data and information to authorize and support a re-start of SONGS. As a case in point, SCE “voluntarily” submitted a license amendment request to the NRC to support safely re-starting Unit 2. This decision was made to provide more reassurance to the NRC on safety related matters. Lastly, it addressed customer electricity demand and grid reliability concerns during the upcoming 2013 summer months. The license amendment attempted to satisfy remaining regulatory interpretation issues that were raised in an information request from the NRC regarding SONGS technical specifications and running the plant at 70 percent for five months. SCE took this action on April 5, 2013, following public discussion of a draft amendment on April 3, 2013, with the staff of the NRC. On April 10, 2013, the NRC issued a preliminary No Significant Hazards Consideration (NSHC) determination and provided 63 the notice to the Federal Register (SCE Press Release and SCE SONGS Fact Sheets, 2013). 3.18 SONGS Retirement Decision As stated earlier, SCE submitted repair, corrective action, operational assessments and re- start plans for Unit 2 to the NRC on October 3, 2012. This required action for re-start was in response to the Confirmatory Action Letter (CAL) from the NRC (SCE SONGS Fact Sheets, 2013). On May 13, 2013, the ASLB ruled that SCE would be required to complete and file a license amendment. The approximate target date for SCE to complete the license amendment process was late 2014, thus, leaving no benefit for ratepayers. From this ruling, it would appear that SCE would be forced to make critical decisions pertaining to ratepayers, shareholders and the utility itself. In summary, the recent NRC and ASLB decisions indicated that the regulatory approval process might stretch out for another year or more. Figure 3.6 below demonstrates the declining ratepayer benefit as a result of the ASLB May 13, 2013 decision. 64 Data Extracted: SCE Economic Consideration Report, 2013 SONGS has served this region and SCE customers for more than four decades. Given this additional uncertainty, SCE concluded that this delay was not good for its customers, its investors or the region’s long-term electricity planning needs. SCE pursued re-start as long as it could conclude that it would be cost effective and economical. However, the benefits of re-start declined over time. Given the uncertainty, SCE believed retirement of the Units at this time made economic sense (SCE Press Release, 2013). Figure 3.6 NRC/ASLB Decision: Impact on Costs & Ratepayer Benefit 65 Lastly, SONGS amounts to about 5 percent of SCE’s assets, and the outage has not threatened the financial strength of SCE. SCE’s decision was based on its perception of the continued cost effectiveness of SONGS and whether re-starting at some uncertain time in the future would be less costly than other alternatives. Given the uncertainty of the timing of Unit 2 re-start, SCE believes the decisions they made are the best result for their customers, shareholders and other stakeholders. This decision to retire the Units will also facilitate orderly planning of the future of California’s energy needs without the uncertainty of whether or when SONGS can operate (SCE Press Release and SONGS Fact Sheets, 2013). As identified in the Negotiated Rulemaking Desk Book, all interested parties and stakeholders followed the established rules and acted appropriately during the regulatory approval process. However, the lengthy approval process time frame began to bring about new economic considerations and, thus, helped open discussions of plant retirement. Deciding Stage: NRC and SCE sought “safety” first over all other factors; still serious public opposition to re-start of SONGS. Further delays from the NRC forecasted (18 months or longer); commitments taken seriously by all stakeholders. Difficult decision was made by SCE to retire SONGS. 66 3.19 Notification to Agencies SCE informed the NRC and the CPUC about this decision. SCE will keep them updated of the specific plans for how the Units will be retired and decommissioned. The Order Instituting Investigation (OII) proceedings before the CPUC are ongoing and it would be inappropriate for SCE to speculate how SCE’s decision will impact them. Currently, no decisions have been rendered in the OII, and the current proceedings in the OII are in their early phases. Finally, SCE hopes that all relevant parties will join with SCE in a fair manner to assist the CPUC in making its upcoming ratemaking decisions (SCE Press Release, 2013). 3.20 Pending Litigation and Arbitration SCE announced in its 2013 press release that it intends to pursue recovery of damages from Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI). SCE’s disagreements with MHI may ultimately be subject to dispute resolution procedures set forth in the steam generator Implementing Agreements Stage: SCE sought ratification of stakeholders by obtaining legal and expert opinions; long-term focus on public safety. Re-start proposal decision never reached by the NRC; however, regulatory notification agreements were implemented by SCE to retire SONGS. 67 purchase agreement, including international arbitration, which is not a public proceeding. As is typical in such commercial agreements, a number of legal and formal steps are required before the commencement of actual arbitration (Goldberg, Sandler & Rogers, 2007). Interestingly, the steam generators for the SONGS Units 2 and 3 were basically brand new and were just replaced in 2009 and 2010 respectively (SCE Press Release, 2013). As reported, MHI has made questionable statements about its willingness to repair or replace its faulty steam generators at SONGS (SCE, 2013). MHI has not submitted a sound plan that would safely and reliably restore the faulty steam generators to 100 percent power for their 40-year operational life (SCE, 2013). SCE has stated that they have documentation to support these facts (SCE, 2013). 3.21 Summary / Post Case Discussion In summary and from a participatory interest level, I had the opportunity following the June 7, 2013 retirement decision to discuss SCE’s retirement decision with eight South Orange County City Managers and over 30 local elected officials. From these discussions, I concluded that over 80 percent of the public officials believed that SONGS could have been re-started and operated safely by SCE. 100 percent stated that they believed SONGS is extremely important for maintaining the reliable supply of 68 energy for Orange County, especially South Orange County. Finally, over 90 percent stated that they completely trusted and supported SCE’s SONGS re-start proposal. From a community leadership perspective, this information was reassuring to learn and understand. From a collaborative and stakeholder point of view, SCE aggressively pursued re-start as long as it was cost effective to do so from an economical perspective. However, the ratepayers re-start time-line benefits were clearly shown to decline over time. NRC decisions and ASLB actions indicated that the regulatory approval process might stretch out for many years and, thus, negate any ratepayer benefit (SCE Press Release, 2013). Given this re-start uncertainty and negative impact to ratepayers, SCE believed the retirement of the Units at this time made economic sense and will help facilitate orderly planning of the future of California’s energy needs without the uncertainty of whether or when SONGS will ever operate in the future (SCE Press Release, 2013). The Organizational Learning and Development (Phase I and Phase II) are explained below as part of the SONGS case analysis as outlined in The Consensus Building Handbook. 69 Organizational Learning and Development (Phase I and Phase II) (A) Phase I: NRC established objectives, testing requirements and review time-line; all stakeholders were heavily involved in learning via testing data, analysis / results and SCE re-start plan proposal. (B) Phase II: Directly involves SCE, all SCE customer groups, ratepayers, shareholders and CAISO. Phase II will focus on replacement generation power and “voltage support”. This may require new generation and facilities to be built. This planning and development challenge will remain a serious discussion topic well into the future. 70 CHAPTER 4—RELIABILITY CONSIDERATIONS / SONGS POWER REPLACEMENT PLAN 4.1 Introduction From a long-term planning perspective, the current operating license of SONGS was not set to expire until 2022. Thus, no one thought SONGS would be retired in 2013 especially after purchasing new steam generators in 2009 and 2010 (SCE Press Release, 2013). Henceforth, this critical power replacement situation came with no pre-planned road map. One clear benefit of SCE’s decision to retire both Units is that it will be able to help CAISO to facilitate orderly planning of the future of California’s energy needs without the uncertainty of whether or when SONGS can operate and contribute to the regional generation mix (SCE Fact Sheets, 2013). The long-term system planning process in California does entail replacement power plans and alternatives for various generating facilities being retired. This process reviews the electric system and grid needs when determining the need for replacement facilities. This extensive system planning effort will help keep California well-positioned to face future growth and energy related challenges. 71 However, when a nuclear power plant such as SONGS retires much earlier than expected, system capacity and voltage challenges must be solved very quickly. 4.2 Replacement Power Concerns From a regional public perspective, SONGS has always been viewed as the critical component in meeting the region's electricity needs and “voltage support” levels, representing over 2,200 MW of generation. SONGS supplies approximately 17 percent of SCE “base load” generation. SONGS generation output helps meet the electrical needs of approximately 1.4 million homes on a daily basis (SCE, 2012). Generally speaking, it would take 7 to 9 years to replace the “base load” power from SONGS needed to supply both adequate energy and voltage to Orange County. To accomplish this, multiple generating facilities would most likely have to be built in the Los Angeles basin. Transmission lines would then have to be built to bring the power into Orange County. Finally, the cost to accomplish this endeavor would be in the billions (Litzinger, 2013). 4.3 Replacement Power Contingency Planning To meet the consumer needs, SCE works closely with the California Independent System Operator (CAISO), the California Energy Commission (CEC) and the California Public 72 Utilities Commission (CPUC) in planning for Southern California’s energy needs. SCE wanted to do all it could to continue to provide reliable electric service during this critical and challenging time. SONGS provided solid reliability and support to the electric grid. This includes supporting voltage levels and importing capabilities outside of California. The most challenging time frame would be the typical peak load conditions during the summer months. This time frame is the greatest concern for all stakeholders with SONGS not in operation. It is important to understand how SCE customers did not have any summer “blackouts” with SONGS off-line since January of 2012. In order to provide reliable electric service during this time, SCE needed to work in a collaborative manner with all stakeholders. SCE’s comprehensive two year contingency plan included four transmission system upgrades and a one-time CAISO authorization to run the Huntington Beach Steam Plant (at reduced levels) during the summer of 2012. Additionally, another type of an emergency outage is now being discussed. As example, a catastrophic event (area blackouts) may occur if a large “base load” power plant such as San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) is off-line while abnormal conditions exist such as a heat storm or fire. Thus, without the “base load” power from SONGS, the regional transmission system will not be able to support high loads and hold voltage levels during such transmission system contingencies (SCE Summer Readiness Data, 73 2012-2013). As a result, load will be automatically shed at substations (without warning) and outages will occur until the system is stable again. This relatively new condition is referred to as Under Voltage Load Shedding (UVLS). These emergency outages will be system initiated at the transmission substation level in order to protect the electrical grid from serious damage including a “meltdown”. As case-in-point, area blackouts may occur if the regional transmission system is not able to support high loads and hold voltage levels during transmission system contingencies (SCE Summer Readiness Data, 2012-2013). Consequently, load will be automatically shed at substations (without warning / system initiated) and area outages will occur until the system is stable again. UVLS poses great risk to the electric grid if contingency planning is not performed in a timely manner. Thus, the relationships and communication between city officials, responders and utility representatives is the single most critical factor in regards to public safety, emergency preparedness and overall system restoration. 4.4 Replacement Power Contingency Plan for 2012 SCE and CAISO, along with San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E), were involved in 2012 contingency planning to minimize the risk of outages with SONGS not in service. 74 2012 Transmission Projects SDG&E completed their Sunrise Transmission Line and related outage planning which aided SGD&E’s import capability and overall grid stability (SDG&E Update, 2012). Huntington Beach Units 3 and 4 added 450 MW of generation to the grid in 2012, but 0 MW beyond 2012 as the plant was not allowed to run due to emission credit issues. Table 4.1 below lists the 2012 transmission projects and outcomes. As stated, the transmission project outcomes increased generation flow and “voltage support” in the South Orange County area. Project Outcome Del Amo-Ellis 230kV Transmission Import Project Increased ability to import power; improves “voltage support” Huntington Beach Units 3 and 4 (CAISO authorized units to operate ONLY during 2012 peak load summer months) Increased generation flow into South Orange County area Data Extracted: SCE SONGS Fact Sheets, 2012 Table 4.1 2012 Transmission Projects 75 4.5 Replacement Power Contingency Plan for 2013 For 2013, Huntington Beach Units 3 and 4 were no longer allowed to generate electricity due to air quality emission credit issues. This “base load” loss posed a major challenge for SCE and the region’s energy supply. With the loss of Huntington Beach Units 3 and 4, SCE would need to increase energy import capabilities into the region while maintaining both reliability and “voltage support” requirements. In short, SCE ensured additional import option capability by splitting the Barre-Ellis transmission lines into four separate lines. Huntington Beach Units 3 and 4 were converted into synchronous condensers to help protect the grid and improve import capabilities. Finally, SCE increased “voltage support” by installing additional capacitor banks at three Orange County transmission substations. This modification to the transmission substations enabled SCE customers in the region to maintain adequate voltage levels. Figure 4.1 below lists the 2013 transmission projects with a schematic diagram and outcomes. 76 4.6 Demand Response Program In order to reduce customer load, SCE in collaboration with the CPUC, established additional customer incentive and demand response programs. This helped to provide qualifying customers the opportunity to lower their bills by reducing consumption during the peak loaded summer months with SONGS off-line. Reducing consumption equates to lower import power (MW) needs and voltage enhancement requirements. 2013 Sources: SCE SONGS Fact Sheets, 2012-2013; Summer Readiness Briefing, 2013 Figure 4.1 2013 Transmission Projects 77 Sources: SCE SONGS Fact Sheets, 2012-2013; Summer Readiness Briefing, 2013 Various demand response programs were implemented in 2012 and 2013 as shown below in Table 4.2. Although the demand response programs are purely voluntary, many customers appreciate the opportunity to save money and at the same time conserve energy. This approach ultimately leads to promoting and creating a greener environment. Conversely, the more energy that is conserved through these demand response programs, the less energy that needs to be generated and / or imported into the electric grid operated by CAISO. Table 4.2 2012-2013 Demand Response Program Table Demand Response Programs 78 Sources: SCE SONGS Fact Sheets, 2012-2013; Summer Readiness Briefing, 2013 Demand Response Programs Table 4.2 2012-2013 Demand Response Program Table (Cont’d) 79 4.7 SCE Outreach Plan SCE maintained a solid and effective communication outreach plan to all stakeholders during the entire SONGS regulatory process leading to plant retirement. To ensure communication to all stakeholders, SCE’s outreach was targeted at the following audiences during 2012-2013 as shown in Table 4.3: 4.8 2021 CAISO and CPUC Increased Local Capacity Requirements Prompted by the unexpected retirement of SONGS, CAISO and the CPUC have been working collaboratively with SCE to ensure there are adequate resources moving forward to meet the region’s energy needs. As shown below in Figure 4.2, CPUC’s D.13-02-015 orders SCE to obtain an additional 1400 MW (minimum) of additional load resources by 2021 to meet regional and local grid requirements. This order also stems from the forecasted retirement of various generation units in the Los Angeles basin area. Target Audience Method Media Press releases; interviews; social media Community In-person and in-language communication Customers Direct mail; collateral mail; social media Public Officials Personal visits and discussion forums SCE Outreach Plan Data Extracted: SCE SONGS Fact Sheets, 2012- 2013; Summer Readiness Briefing, 2013 Table 4.3 SCE Outreach Plan with SONGS Off-Line 80 4.9 Summary From an engineering and end-use customer perspective, SCE managed to keep the lights on and avoid “blackouts” during 2012 and 2013. The same is true thus far into 2014. In analyzing the projects and outcomes over the past two years, three key factors stood out. First, there was no new regional generation built in Orange County to replace the generation output from SONGS. Along those lines, Huntington Beach Units 3 and 4 were not in operation after the summer months in 2012 and yet there were no “blackouts” in 2013 or 2014. From this fact alone, new generation does not seem to be part of the CPUC D.13-02-015 (Requires SCE to Procure a Minimum of 1400 MW of Additional Load Resources by 2021) 1000 MW Gas 200 MW Option Gas or Energy Storage 150 MW Preferred Resources 50 MW Energy Storage Data Extracted: SCE Local Capacity Requirements, 2014 Figure 4.2 CPUC D. 13-02-015 Procurement Order 81 replacement generation scenario for SCE. Second, there was a great deal of transmission work done in 2012 and 2013 to improve the generation import capabilities into Orange County (specifically South Orange County). This transmission import capability enhancement allowed SCE to meet the energy needs of its customer base. Third, SCE upgraded three Orange County substations with new capacitor banks in order to maintain proper voltage levels during critical load periods. From an engineering viewpoint, SCE was able to avoid building new generation to replace the generation output of SONGS by constructing new transmission lines to import power and by redesigning its existing transmission system to allow for more import options. These transmission import project upgrades were focused specifically on the South Orange County area that was primarily dependent on the generation output from SONGS. To ensure adequate voltage levels in the Orange County region during peak loading and when import levels were high, SCE upgraded three transmission substations with new capacitor banks. The new capacitor banks are designed to raise and maintain voltage levels at proper levels during high energy use periods. These transmission and substation projects and methodology allowed SCE to serve its customer base in a reliable and safe manner without experiencing “blackouts”. Neither SCE nor CAISO had planned for SONGS to be retired in 2013 given that its current licensing was in effect until 2022. Figure 4.3 below explains the system design and 82 Data Extracted: SCE SONGS Fact Sheets 2012-2013; Summer Readiness Briefing, 2013 construction methodology process that SCE used to maintain system reliability and avoid “blackouts”. SONGS Retired June 2013; Encompassed roughly 17% of SCE “base load” Result: No New Generation Built in Orange County Region to Replace SONGS Transmission System design, construction / upgrades; increase import power capability and options; new transmission lines built and redesign of existing lines Substation System design and construction / upgrades; improve “voltage support” during peak loading and critical import periods; new capacitor banks installed No “blackouts”; SCE customers experience reliable electric service 2012-2013 Power Replacement Plan for SONGS Demand Response Programs Implemented; CPUC support Figure 4.3 SCE 2012-2013 Reliability Considerations 83 The 2012-2013 demand response programs were also beneficial. The demand response programs helped reduced peak demand between 50-100 MW during 2012 and 2013 respectively (Litzinger, 2013). Although this seems to be a small amount of MW reduction, it is extremely important during peak load conditions when imports are scarce. More importantly, these demand response programs involved SCE customers in the replacement power contingency planning process and encouraged a collaborative effort moving forward. From a participatory viewpoint, SCE’s outreach plan was aggressive and timely. SCE was very open and transparent throughout the 18 month shut down period leading to the retirement announcement of SONGS on June 7, 2013. The media, community, customers and public officials were informed with timely and accurate information at all times regarding the SCE’s re-start efforts and challenges. SCE maintained an open and transparent dialog with all targeted audience groups throughout this process. From a collaborative viewpoint, it is encouraging to see that CAISO and the CPUC have been working closely with SCE to ensure there will be adequate power resources available to meet the region’s future energy needs. Henceforth, CPUC’s D.13-02-015 orders SCE to procure a minimum 1400 MW of additional load resources by 2021. This order was initiated to ensure SCE has available resources needed to meet the forecasted regional and local grid requirements in 2021 and beyond. 84 CHAPTER 5—NUCLEAR GENERATION COSTS / SONGS COMPARISONS 5.1 Introduction Chapter 5 will explore the components that make up the generation and capital costs of U.S. nuclear plants. Specifically, fuel costs, capital costs and operating costs have all seen significant increases during this 10-year trend (EUCG, 2013). With the increase in U.S. nuclear plants costs, import power and natural gas now become viable options. Import power system upgrades can be accomplished in a matter of months as seen in the SONGS case study. Nuclear fuel costs, operating costs and end-use prices are forecasted to continue to rise in the United States (Appendix 1). Uprates, equipment replacement and changes in nuclear regulation requirements have accounted for increases in capital spending (EUCG, 2013). Thus, electric utilities need to explore both natural gas pricing and the market price of energy when considering nuclear replacement power (EIA, 2014). This chapter will also break down the cost components that make up the market price of energy and SONGS generation cost components. SONGS energy delivery costs will be determined and compared to market prices of energy. This will allow end-users and 85 ratepayers to better understand if importing power is more cost effective versus assuming if SONGS was in full operation. Lastly, since there has been a heightened interest both regionally and nationally in renewable “green energy”, it is important to include cost comparisons of both wind and solar portfolio energy prices. 5.2 U.S. Nuclear Generation Costs According to Crooks (2014) and NEI (2014), 38 of the 62 United States nuclear power plants averaged approximately $44 per MWh in 2012. Along those lines, NEI (2014) showed that from 2010-2012, the total generation costs of all U.S. nuclear plants was $44 per MWh. Additionally, the NEI (2014) published data that showed that the worst 25 percent of U.S. nuclear plants averaged more than $62 per MWh from 2010-2012. Stricter regulations and increased safety requirements over time have put upward pressure on plant operating and maintenance costs (Crooks, 2014). These increased regulations and safety requirements have caused many United States nuclear plants to become uneconomical to operate. A common benchmark and cost comparison is to compare the price per MWh of nuclear plants to the MWh cost of a new gas plant (Crooks, 2014). 86 A new gas plant according to Crooks (2014) can be permitted, constructed and generate electricity for around $47 per MWh. As comparison and shown in Figure 5.1, the worst 25 percent of the U.S. nuclear fleet generates electricity around $62 per MWh. It is easy to see that these plants are uneconomical to operate and maintain. In short, they are keeping rates higher than they should be and, thus, placing a hardship on ratepayers. According to EUCG (2013), nuclear generation cost components are comprised of (1) fuel costs, (2) capital costs and (3) operating costs. Operating costs account for nearly 50 percent of total generation costs. Capital costs make up over 30 percent of the total Figure 5.1 Snapshot of U.S. Nuclear Plant Costs ($MWh) 87 generation costs of nuclear plants. Finally, fuel makes up almost 20 percent of the total generation cost portfolio. 5.3 Nuclear Capital Spending Areas As shown in Figure 5.2 and according to EUCG (2013), uprates, equipment replacement and changes in nuclear regulation requirements have accounted for the majority of increases in capital spending. As noted below, uprates have increased annually from 2.5 billion in 2008 to 4.3 billion in 2012. Nuclear capital spending in the area of equipment replacement is also shown at the highest level of (2.2 billion annually in 2012) compared to 1.3 billion in 2008 (EUCG, 2013). Figure 5.2 Nuclear Capital Spending Data 88 For 2012, the U.S. nuclear plant capital spending breakdown was as follows: (1) uprates at 51 percent, (2) equipment replacement at 26 percent, (3) compliance / regulatory requirements at 18 percent and (4) other related expenses at 5 percent (EUCG, 2013). In summary, uprates and equipment replacement accounted for nearly 80 percent of capital cost expenditures in 2012. This is not surprising as U.S. nuclear power plants need to continually replace equipment as required by the NRC and invest and spend money on uprates prior to license renewal. 5.4 Energy Market Pricing Components As shown below in Figure 5.3, energy market pricing components are comprised of both energy and capacity costs (Hess Energy Marketing, 2013). Source: Hess Energy Marketing, 2013 Figure 5.3 Energy Market Cost Components 89 From the available energy market pricing data, energy costs are the highest component of electricity pricing. These costs attribute to nearly 70 percent of the total component costs. Capacity costs comprise approximately 15 percent of the component costs. Market charges and ancillary service costs make up the remaining 15 percent energy market costs (Hess Energy Marketing, 2013). It is interesting to note that congestion charges amount to roughly 10-20 percent of electricity component pricing. The electric grid in California is becoming more congested; however, CAISO has plans in place to minimize the congestions in the future (CAISO, 2013). 5.5 SONGS / U.S. Nuclear Plant Cost Components To analyze SCE’s SONGS power replacement plan from an economical and financial perspective, it must be assumed that SONGS Units 2 and 3 were fully operational during 2013. SONGS total costs are derived from fuel costs and capital / operating costs (rate base) as approved under the CPUC. SONGS rate base also includes return on investment as authorized by the CPUC. 90 It should be noted that all U.S. nuclear power plants have basic reoccurring cost components. These costs as shown below in Figure 5.4 include capital costs, operating costs and fuel costs. Managing these costs with all the uncertainties in the energy market, including future regulations and safety measures, is a difficult task to say the least. 5.6 2013 Market Price of Energy vs. SONGS / New Gas According to NEI (2014), the most accurate benchmark of economic competitiveness is the cost of electricity produced by a nuclear plant ($/MWh) compared to alternative sources of electricity and to the market price of electricity ($/MWh). This comparison Data Extracted: EUCG, 2013 Figure 5.4 SONGS / U.S. Nuclear Plant Cost Components 91 not only takes into account both capital investment and financing costs, but also the operating and maintenance costs of the plant. New nuclear energy plants are capital-intensive (EIA, 2013). Capital costs are only the starting point for any analysis of new generating capacity. Analysis by electric utility companies, the academic community and government agencies indicate that electricity generated from nuclear energy can be competitive with other new sources of power (NEI, 2014). In order to benchmark the economic competiveness of SONGS, the market price of energy ($/MWh) must be known for 2013. Once this data is established, then a financial comparison can be made to $/MWh energy cost of SONGS. From a pure cost benefit analysis, this comparison will show whether or not it was more cost effective to import replacement energy as SCE did in 2013. In order to fully understand the economic impacts to all stakeholders, a detailed economic assessment must be performed that includes reviewing and analyzing: (1) $/MWh generation cost for SONGS in 2013, (2) $/MWh market price of energy in 2013, (3) $/MWh cost of a new gas plant in 2013, (4) review of additional transmission import capabilities available to meet the “base load” energy loss, (5) review of voltage regulation enhancement capabilities at the substation level required to maintain system reliability and (6) projected $/MWh savings from new demand response programs. 92 When SONGS was retired on June 7, 2013, there was a great deal of regional interest in replacing SONGS “base load” generation with either wind or solar energy. In order to complete this analysis completely, it is important to include the energy portfolio costs for both wind and solar versus market energy costs. From data collected and analyzed below in Figure 5.5, it is clear that SCE made the correct decision to retire SONGS in 2013 based on key economic considerations for its ratepayers. Specifically, the market energy price was less expensive than SONGS if both units were fully operational in 2013. The market price of energy was also less than the $/MWh cost of a new gas plant. SCE had available to them both transmission and substation upgrade capabilities that would allow them to import additional energy needed to meet the “base load” energy and reliability requirements if and when SONGS was off-line or retired. Lastly, both wind and solar $/MWh portfolio prices were far more expensive in 2013 than the energy market prices and SONGS generation costs as shown below. These portfolio costs are also much higher than new gas; however, consumers are still very interested in purchasing renewable energy. For 2013, the generation portfolio cost of wind was around $105/MWh and the generation cost of solar was approximately $135/MWh (SCE, 2014). 93 Given these facts and cost comparisons, it is hard to argue that SCE did not make the correct decision for its ratepayers by retiring SONGS before the expiration of its operating license in 2022. In addition, SCE also set the standard for other electric utilities in regards to protecting ratepayers from unnecessary rate increases due to operating and maintaining uneconomical nuclear power plants. The economics and mindset that SCE utilized is refreshing given that the electric industry as a whole is known to be very slow to change. It is hopeful that other electric utilities will take a more aggressive decision making approach similar to that of SCE when ratepayer’s financial interests are at risk. 5.7 10-Year Trend of U.S. Nuclear Plant Costs 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Market Price of Energy New Gas Plant SONGS Worst 25% of U.S. Nuclear Plants $/MWh Energy Sources Estimates 2013 Data unavailable. Next data release 2015. O&M costs are increasing; 2013 MWh costs will be at least $63/MWh Data Extracted: SCE, 2014 for Market Price of Energy/ SONGS MWh Costs; Crooks 2014 and EIA 2010-2012 data for New Gas Plant Costs; EUCG 2013 and EIX 2010-2012 data for Worst 25% of U.S. Nuclear Plants Figure 5.5 Cost Comparisons of Energy: New Gas, SONGS and U.S. Nuclear Plants (Worst 25%) 94 5.7 10-Year Trend of U.S. Nuclear Plant Costs Given the 10-year trend of rising nuclear plant costs shown below in Table 5.1, it is prudent to evaluate all nuclear plants that are potentially at risk for early retirement from an economic and operational perspective (EUCG, 2013). Specifically, fuel costs, capital costs and operating costs have all seen significant increases during this 10-year trend (EUCG, 2013). With the increase in U.S. nuclear plants costs, import power and natural gas have now become viable options. Import power system upgrades can be accomplished in a matter of months as seen in the SONGS case study. New gas plants can be permitted and constructed in 2 to 3 years (Enerdynamics, 2014). Table 5.1 10-Year Trend of U.S. Nuclear Plant Costs 95 5.8 Summary Within the last two years or so, four nuclear plants were closed because they became uneconomical to operate, while four others may face similar fate in the near future (Crooks, 2014). According to Crooks (2014), the four nuclear plants that were recently closed were (1) Crystal River in Florida, operated by Duke Energy, (2) Kewaunee in Wisconsin, operated by Dominion Resources, (3) SONGS, operated by SCE and (4) Vermont Yankee in Vermont, operated by Entergy. In addition, four other nuclear plants are also at high risk of closure according to Crooks (2014) as they are no longer economical to operate; they include (1) Clinton in Illinois, operated by Exelon, (2) Indian Point in New York, operated by Entergy, (3) Pilgrim in Massachusetts, operated by Entergy and (4) Quad Cities in Illinois, operated by Exelon. Increased nuclear safety requirements and regulations, equipment replacement costs, lower energy prices and overall energy policy reform has made it difficult for nuclear power plants to remain economically viable (Crooks, 2014). From an economical perspective, there are approximately 15 nuclear power plants in the United States that cost roughly 30 percent more to produce energy in MWh’s than a new gas plant (Crooks, 2014). By replacing the energy from these uneconomical nuclear plants with new gas plants or import purchase power from the electric grid, ratepayers may see considerable benefits as energy costs could stabilize in the near term. From an 96 environmental perspective, the closure of nuclear plants could lead to an increase in greenhouse gas emissions (Crooks, 2014). As noted by the EIA (2014), nuclear fuel costs, operating costs and end-use prices by sector are forecasted to continue to rise in the United States and, thus, allow electric utilities to explore both natural gas pricing and the market price of energy when considering nuclear replacement power. Importing generation to replace the energy produced from uneconomical nuclear plants was a viable and economic power replacement answer as seen in the SONGS case. From a broader perspective, this may allow the economically viable plants to produce more energy and help stabilize rates in the near term. 97 CHAPTER 6—A NUCLEAR PLANT RETIREMENT MODEL AND GUIDE BASED ON ECONOMICS 6.1 Introduction of Model and Guide The purpose of this chapter is to create a decision analysis model and guide that will provide electric utilities (who currently operate or will operate uneconomical nuclear plants) a tool to evaluate if a nuclear plant should be retired before the end of its operating license. This model and guide will help eliminate the need to build large replacement generation units. This model and guide will allow electric utilities the opportunity to explore near term transmission and substation upgrade options in lieu of building large replacement generation facilities. The Nuclear Plant Retirement Model is primarily based on meta-analysis / formulation. Through formulation that includes and begins with the work of Cooper (2013), I was able to develop this model and guide. As a starting point, this decision analysis model will evaluate economic, operational and safety related risk factors (Cooper, 2013). A detailed economic assessment will follow and will close with a stakeholder cost benefit analysis before determining whether or not to retire a nuclear power plant. A detailed economic assessment will include many test points including whether or not transmission / substation upgrades are an option for the utility in the near term. These 98 options may allow utilities to import power while maintaining adequate “voltage support” in the near term if the plant in question were to be retired. Decision analysis is the tool used to evaluate model outcomes. 6.2 The Nuclear Plant Retirement Model and Guide with SONGS Data The Nuclear Plant Retirement Model (Figure 6.1) was validated and vetted through an economic and cost benefit analysis of SONGS. Data and model flow were obtained primarily from case study analysis that utilized SCE information and SONGS data as the sample. The case analysis study looked at how SONGS “base load” electricity is being replaced and secondarily, how stakeholders would be impacted through a plant retirement decision. Figure 6.3 is included in this section to illustrate a completed model with data. In addition to the model, a nuclear plant work sheet guide was developed to further assist electric utilities in reviewing economic, operational, safety and capacity data as shown in Figure 6.2. The guide includes a capacity replacement assessment to ensure that the “base load” requirements will be met by the potential replacement plan and includes listing and identifying near term achievable projects at both the transmission and substation levels. Lastly, a stakeholder cost benefit analysis is also required before determining if a nuclear plant should be retired or not. The SONGS work sheet guide with SONGS data is 99 included as Figure 6.4 to illustrate the benefits of the guide as a decision making tool for electric utilities. 6.3 Nuclear Plant Retirement Model Figure 6.1 Nuclear Plant Retirement Model Phase I: Risk Factor Assessment Assessment Objective: According to Cooper (2013), plants need to be scored in three areas as shown below (1) Economic Factors, (2) Operational Factors and (3) Safety Issues. 100 For a plant to move to Phase II: (1) Plant must have at least one economic factor identified as a retirement risk (2) In addition, plant must have one operational or one safety issue identified as a retirement risk factor 101 Plant Generation Cost $/MWh Market Price of Energy $/MWh New Gas Plant Cost $/MWh Additional Import System Capabilities (Transmission) Additional Voltage Regulation Capabilities required for system reliability (Substation) Adequate Replacement Capacity (MW) to meet loss of “base load” Ratepayer Shareholder Utility For a plant to move to Phase III: (1) Plant $/MWh generation costs must be higher than the market price of energy (2) Utility must have system upgrade options for energy importation and voltage regulation (< 6 months to permit and construct). Upgrade projects must meet capacity (MW) replacement power requirements (3) New Gas must be lower than the plant generation cost $/MWh (for future planning) Phase III-Stakeholder Cost Benefit Analysis For a plant to move to Phase IV: (1) Ratepayers must receive a benefit (2) Shareholders must be aware of loss on return on investment benefits due to early retirement (3) Utility must ensure decommissioning trust fund is adequately funded; take losses and / or financial responsibility for any near term capital expenditures Phase IV: Plant Retirement Decision Based on the aforementioned analysis Phase II-Detailed Economic Assessment 102 6.4 Nuclear Plant Retirement Guide Nuclear Plant Retirement Work Sheet Guide Phase I: Risk Factor / Issues Evaluation 1. List / Explain the Economic Retirement Risk Factors as Scored by Cooper (2013) 2. List / Explain the Operating Retirement Risk Factors as Scored by Cooper (2013) 3. List / Explain the Safety Issues as Scored by Cooper (2013) Phase II: Economic and Capacity Assessment Evaluation 1. Generation Comparison Profiles ($/MWh) (A) Plant Generation ($/MWh) = (B) Market Price of Energy ($/MWh) = (C) New Gas Generation ($/MWh) = 2. Near Term Energy Import Capabilities: List Projects & Time-Line (< 6 months) Projects Time-Line Figure 6.2 Nuclear Plant Retirement Work Sheet Guide 103 3. Capacity Replacement Assessment (MW) (A) Replacement “Base Load” Generation = (B) Addition Generation Capacity from Neighboring Plants = (C) Additional Capacity from Demand Response Programs = (D) Additional Import Capacity from Near Term Projects = (E) Have “Voltage Support” Requirements been resolved through Near Term Projects Yes / No If No, explain….. Phase III: Stakeholder Cost Benefit Analysis Is the Decommissioning Trust Fund adequately funded? Yes / No 1. Ratepayers: Costs vs. Benefits 2. Shareholders: Costs vs. Benefits 3. Utility: Costs vs. Benefits Phase IV: Plant Retirement Decision = Yes; if all requirements at each phase are met 104 6.5 SONGS Retirement Model with Data Figure 6.3 Nuclear Plant Retirement Model for SONGS Phase I: Risk Factor Assessment Assessment Objective: According to Cooper (2013), plants need to be scored in three areas as shown below (1) Economic Factors, (2) Operational Factors and (3) Safety Issues. 105 Plant Generation Cost $/MWh Market Price of Energy $/MWh New Gas Plant Cost $/MWh Additional Import System Capabilities (Transmission) Additional Voltage Regulation Capabilities Required for System Reliability (Substation) Adequate Replacement Capacity (MW) to Meet Loss of “Base Load” $49/MWh $46/MWh $47/MWh Yes. See worksheet for details. Yes. See worksheet for details. Yes. See worksheet for details. Phase II-Detailed Economic Assessment For a plant to move to Phase II: (1) Plant must have at least one economic factor identified as a retirement risk factor (2) In addition, plant must have one operational or one safety issue identified as a retirement risk factor *Note: SONGS moves to Phase II as it has two Economical Risk factors, two Operational Risk factors and one Safety related risk factor. For a plant to move to Phase III: (1) Plant $/MWh generation costs must be higher than the market price of energy (2) Utility must have system upgrade options for energy importation and voltage regulation (< 6 months to permit and construct). System upgrade projects must meet capacity (MW) replacement power and voltage requirements (3) New Gas must be lower than the plant generation cost $/MWh (for future planning) *Note: SONGS moves to Phase III as all aforementioned criteria is met 106 Ratepayer Shareholder Utility To receive approximately $700 million in RSG refunds; plus $ from sale of fuel, parts, etc.; plus $ from third party recoveries Aware of future reduction / loss of return on investment Assume RSG financial obligations ($597 mil from RSG costs, $99 mil from O&M costs i.e. inspection and repairs); receive lower rate of return on investments; etc.; will recover through rates purchase power expenditures; decommissioning trust fund is adequately funded Phase IV: Retirement Decision based on the aforementioned analysis. SONGS = YES; PLANT SHOULD BE RETIRED AS ALL REQUIREMENTS AT EACH PHASE WERE SUCCESSFULLY MET Phase III-Stakeholder Cost Benefit Analysis For a plant to move to Phase IV: (1) Ratepayers must receive a benefit (2) Shareholders must be aware of loss on return on investment benefits due to early retirement (3) Utility must ensure decommissioning trust fund is adequately funded; take losses and/or financial responsibility for any near term capital expenditures *Note: SONGS moves to Phase IV as all aforementioned criteria is met 107 6.6 SONGS Retirement Work Sheet Guide with Data Nuclear Plant Retirement Guide: SONGS Work Sheet Guide Phase I: Analysis of Economic Retirement Risk Factors 1. Merchant Plant= SCE owns 78.21%, SDG&E owns 20% and the City of Riverside owns 1.79% 2. 20yr<w/o Extension=plant operating license set to expire in 2022 without extension Phase I: Analysis of Operating Retirement Risk Factors 1. Broken=Faulty replacement steam generator units; radiation leak detected 2. Long Term Outage=Plant outage began in January of 2012; NRC approval required prior to re-start Phase I: Analysis of Safety Issues 1. Multiple Safety Issues=past and present; most recent was the radiation leak caused from fluid elastic instability; all safety related issues were filed and addressed with the NRC Phase II: Economic and Capacity Assessment Evaluation Generation Comparison Profiles ($/MWh) 1. SONGS Generation ($/MWh) = $49/MWh includes O&M, fuel costs, etc. Phase I and Phase II work sheet data below was extracted from various parts of the doctoral dissertation. All sources were previously cited and referenced. Figure 6.4 SONGS Retirement Work Sheet Guide with Data 108 2. Market Price of Energy ($/MWh) = $46/MWh includes capacity charges, market charges, replacement power charges, etc. 3. New Gas Generation ($/MWh) = $47/MWh includes O&M, fuel costs, etc. Near Term Energy Import Capabilities: Projects & Time-Line Projects Time-Line Del Amo-Ellis 230kV Transmission Import Project <6 months Huntington Beach Steam Plant (Units 3&4); summer of 2012 only <6 months Huntington Beach Steam Conversion to Synchronous Condensers <6 months Transmission line split Barre-Ellis 230kV <6 months Installation of 4-230kV Capacitor Banks (“voltage support”) <6 months Capacity Replacement Assessment (MW) 2012 Analysis SONGS “Base Load” Generation = 1100MW (MW calculation based with one unit off- line for refueling) Additional Capacity from Huntington Beach Steam (Summer 2012 only) = 530 MW Additional Capacity from Demand Response Programs = 50-100 MW Additional Import Capacity from Near Term Projects = 500+MW “Voltage Support” requirements met; HB steam on-line 2013 Analysis Additional Import Capacity from 2012-2013 Projects = 1000+ MW Additional Demand Response Programs = 50-100 MW 109 “Voltage Support” requirements met; capacitor upgrades and synchronous condenser conversions. Phase III: Stakeholder Cost Benefit Analysis YES; SONGS Decommissioning Trust Fund is adequately funded THE COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS (BELOW) IS BASED ON SONGS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT SUMMARY PERTAINING TO SCE CUSTOMERS, SHAREHOLDERS AND EDISON 4 Replacement Steam Generators (RSGs) 1. SCE customers have no financial responsibility for RSGs cost as of 2/1/2012. This financial obligation equates to $597 million for SCE. 2. SCE would refund any amounts collected in rates for capital investment in the RSGs since 2/1/12. Other Investments 1. The remaining investments and / or projects at SONGS will be recovered over 10 years, at a reduced rate of return. 2. The rate of return would be 2.62% in 2014, compared to its ordinary return of 7.9% as approved by the CPUC for other investments. 3. Regarding nuclear fuel, the utilities would recover an even lower return, equal to the cost of commercial paper. 4. Customers will receive refunds since 2/1/12 that are higher than the amounts allowed under the settlement for the rate of return. 5. Customers will receive 95% of the net proceeds from sale of SONGS parts, SONGS fuel, etc. O&M Costs 1. SCE will not be allowed to recover costs to inspect and repair RSGs in 2012. SCE’s portion is roughly $99 million. 2. SCE would refund all money they have collected from customers for SONGS O&M that is greater than what they actually spent. 110 Replacement Power Costs 1. SCE would recover through rates all money spent to purchase power to replace the output from SONGS. Third-Party Recoveries 1. As set forth, any recoveries from MHI, SCE customers will see 15% of the first $125M, 33% of the next $1 billion, and 75% of all recoveries over $1.125 billion. In addition, any recoveries from the insurance company, SCE customers keep 87.5% of all recoveries. It is noted that litigation costs will be deducted first. Phase IV: Plant Retirement Decision = YES; all requirements at each phase were met 4 This summary is qualified in its entirety by reference to the complete text of the Settlement Agreement; data extracted from SCE Settlement Summary 6.7 Summary The Nuclear Plant Retirement Model and Guide will provide utilities, state and local government and communities the opportunity to better evaluate when a nuclear plant should be retired. This is turn will lead to exploration of system upgrade import opportunities and mitigation measures versus building new replacement generation facilities. This model, in addition, will enable electric utilities, local government and communities the opportunity to work together in the future to build and create their own unique 111 preferred resources portfolio. These preferred resource options can include distributed generation, energy efficiency, energy storage, and demand response while at the same time minimizing impacts to land-use and the environment. Lastly, this effort will provide the United States the opportunity to become a leader in preferred resource nuclear replacement power. The Nuclear Plant Retirement Model and Guide were tested with SONGS as the base case. As a launch point, SONGS was run through the Cooper’s (2013) Retirement Risk Factor Assessment and this data was utilized via formulation. Accordingly, SONGS was scored in three areas: (1) economic factors, (2) operational factors and (3) safety issues. This assessment confirmed that SONGS had at least one economic factor identified as a retirement risk and, in addition, one operational and one safety issue were identified as retirement risk factors. Given the potential retirement risks of SONGS, a detailed economic assessment was then performed that included reviewing and analyzing: (1) $/MWh generation cost for SONGS in 2013, (2) $/MWh market price of energy in 2013, (3) $/MWh cost of a new gas plant in 2013, (4) review of additional transmission import capabilities available to meet the “base load” energy loss, (5) review of voltage regulation enhancement capabilities at the substation level required to maintain system reliability and (6) projected $/MWh savings from new demand response programs. The assessment showed that the market price of energy ($/MWh) was less than if SONGS was generating 112 electricity in 2013. The market price of energy was also less than the $/MWh cost of a new gas plant. SCE had available to them both transmission and substation upgrade capabilities that would allow them to import additional energy needed to meet the “base load” energy and reliability requirements if SONGS were to be retired. The detailed economic assessment clearly indicated that plant retirement risks were even more prevalent following the assessment, thus, a stakeholder cost benefit analysis was performed as a result. Ratepayers, shareholders and SCE were assessed as stakeholders in this phase of the assessment. Based on the model for a plant to be considered as a retirement candidate, the following must be realized: (1) ratepayers must receive a benefit, (2) shareholders must be aware of loss on return on investment benefits due to early retirement and (3) SCE or the utility must ensure that the decommissioning trust fund is adequately funded; take losses and / or financial responsibility for any near term capital expenditures. Finally, based on the Nuclear Plant Retirement Model and Guide, SONGS was retired appropriately based on the model parameters and evaluating criteria. 113 CHAPTER 7—SUMMARY AND APPLICATION DISCUSSION Research has shown that as many as 25 percent of nuclear power plants in the United States are now uneconomical to operate and could be facing retirement in the near future (Energy Information Administration, 2012). As seen in Appendix 2 and 3, a high percentage of these nuclear plants have operating licenses that will not expire until 2030 and beyond (NRC/EIA, 2014). United States nuclear reactors are licensed for 40 years with a 20-year extension available prior to the expiration date (EIA, 2013). Thus, replacement power contingency planning has not been initiated for these plants or is still in preliminary stages. Many of these uneconomical nuclear plants are still being depreciated and decommissioning funds are still being collected. Upon review, there are 62 nuclear power plants operating in the United States (EIA, 2014). Since late 2012, electric power companies have announced the retirement of four nuclear power plants while additional plants are now seen as potentially at risk for early retirement (Crooks, 2014 and Cooper, 2013). Thus, for the most part, replacement power contingency planning has not been initiated for these plants or is still in preliminary stages. As stated, a hand-full of nuclear plants have recently retired, these recent nuclear plant retirements are the first since 1998 (EIA, 2013). Decisions to retire the plants involved concerns over maintenance and repair costs and declining profitability (EIA, 2013). In 114 addition, the Energy Information Administration (2010-2012) released data that clearly demonstrated that the worst 25 percent of United States nuclear plants are far more expensive to operate and generate electricity than new gas plants. The generation costs have both economic and power replacement implications to ratepayers, end-users and the electric utility. The public policy debate over the future of the nuclear power plants is important to ratepayers, shareholders and the serving utility companies. According to Litzinger (2013), customers must grasp how rates are calculated and how electric utility costs are recovered from long-term utility investments such as nuclear power plants. From a global viewpoint, electricity is an essential commodity in life. Consumers expect electric utilities to provide safe and reliable electric service around the clock. In addition, the electricity must come at a fair and reasonable cost given that it is an essential part of life. Cost recovery of nuclear power plants is important to understand. Most nuclear power plants provide clean, reliable and affordable power while operating in their licensing periods; however, the total capital and investment costs for the years of service have not yet been fully recovered (Litzinger, 2013). Electric utilities are required to deliver reliable and safe electricity 24 hours a day / 7 days a week. To accomplish this, electric utilities must build and operate power plants, transmission lines, electric substations and distribution systems. To build and maintain 115 this infrastructure, finances and capital must be raised. These projects require huge capital to be paid by electric utilities. The financial capital to build these projects is paid by shareholders and the money is borrowed from credit markets. Finally, these costs are recovered from customers via their monthly electric bills (Litzinger, 2013). Cooper (2013) identifies U.S. nuclear plant retirement risk factors for U.S. nuclear power plants. It is interesting to note, that 38 of the 62 U.S. nuclear plants that are generating electricity are seen as plants that are at risk for early retirement. These plants are from all parts of the United States. The plants are listed by reactor name and then scored in the following three areas: (1) economic factors, (2) operational factors and (3) safety issues. The analysis from Cooper (2013) brings validation to the work of Crooks (2014) where he points out that the worst 25 percent of U.S. nuclear plants operating today are roughly 30 percent more expensive to operate than a new gas plant. From 2002 through 2012, nuclear plant costs have continued to rise. Given this trend, it is prudent to evaluate all nuclear plants that are potentially at risk for early retirement from an economic and operational perspective (EUCG, 2013). Nuclear fuel costs, capital costs and operating costs have all seen significant increases during this 10-year trend (EUCG, 2013). With the increase in U.S. nuclear plants costs, import power and natural gas have now become viable replacement options. As noted in the SONGS case analysis, import power system upgrades can be accomplished in a 116 matter of months. Additionally, new gas plants can be permitted and constructed in approximately 2 to 3 years (Enerdynamics, 2014). As noted in Appendix 1, nuclear fuel costs, operating costs and end-use prices by sector are forecasted to continue to rise in the United States and, thus, allow electric utilities to explore both natural gas pricing and the market price of energy as viable options for nuclear replacement power (EIA, 2014). The recent closure of uneconomical nuclear plants in the United States has created a serious problem. Specifically, electric utilities will have serious issues and challenges replacing the uneconomical nuclear plant power by attempting to build timely replacement generation for these “mega-projects” due to land use and environmental constraints (Altshuler and Luberoff, 2003). There are several key factors to consider related to building replacement generation such as operational flexibility, time to permit and build, and environmental impacts (Enerdynamics Corp, 2014). As example, even if an electric utility wanted to replace nuclear generation with gas, it would take more than 2 years to construct. Additionally, if an electric utility wanted to replace nuclear generation with hydro, it would take 8 plus years to permit and build. Sound policy, planning and development are required when making a decision to retire a nuclear plant while the licensing period is still in effect. SCE considered these three 117 facets for its ratepayers, shareholders and “the electric utility” as demonstrated in the SONGS case study as well as in the data and retirement analysis. From a public policy perspective, SCE in accordance with SONGS Fact Sheets (2012- 2013): (1) performed over 170,000 inspections of SONGs units and validated the analysis completed by three external steam generator experts for the safe re-start of Unit 2, (2) submitted thousands of pages of technical evaluations and analysis available for public review, (3) participated in numerous NRC public meetings on the tube wear issues and SONGS operations that brought together thousands of attendees and comments from customers, business owners, nuclear experts, public officials and anti-nuclear activists including FoE and (4) is currently participating in all CPUC public participation hearings on SONGS costs associated with the outage; hearings include comments from consumers, business owners and anti-nuclear activists. Through rigorous planning and development, SCE was able to avoid building new generation to replace the generation output of SONGS by constructing new transmission lines to import power and by redesigning its existing transmission system to allow for additional import energy. SCE had available to them both transmission and substation upgrade capabilities that would allow them to import additional energy needed to meet the “base load” energy and reliability requirements if SONGS were to be retired. 118 These transmission import project upgrades were focused specifically on the South Orange County area that was primarily dependent on the generation output from SONGS. To ensure adequate voltage levels in the Orange County region during peak loading and when import levels were high, SCE upgraded three transmission substations with new capacitor banks. The new capacitor banks are designed to raise and maintain voltage levels at proper levels during high energy use periods. The transmission and substation system upgrade projects allowed SCE to import power needed to serve its customer base in a reliable and safe manner without experiencing “blackouts”. Neither SCE nor CAISO had planned for SONGS to be retired in 2013 given that its current licensing was in effect until 2022. From an economical viewpoint, the market price of energy / import power must be compared to the cost to generate power from the nuclear plant as a benchmark. If the cost market price of energy / import power is less than the cost for the nuclear plant to generate electricity, then the import power cost benefit needs to be highlighted. As shown in the case analysis, the market price of energy ($46/MWh) was less than if SONGS ($49/MWh) was generating electricity in 2013. Thus, importing energy to serve customers makes sound economic sense. The market price of energy was also less than the cost of a new gas plant ($47/MWh). Given the time constraints and summer loading concerns, SCE’s decision to import power was the most cost effective power replacement plan for ratepayers. 119 Even after an economic review, ratepayers, shareholders and the electric utility must be assessed in the form of a cost benefit analysis. Based on the model for a plant to be retired, the following cost benefit criteria must be realized: (1) ratepayers must receive a benefit, (2) shareholders must be aware of loss on return on investment benefits due to early retirement and (3) the electric utility must ensure that the decommissioning trust fund account is adequately funded; take losses and / or financial responsibility for any near term capital expenditures. In respect to decommissioning trust funds and according to SCE (2013), all U.S. nuclear plants are required by the NRC to set aside funds for decommissioning. In California, the CPUC regulates utilities that own nuclear plants. The CPUC authorized SCE to collect decommissioning funds during SONGS operating life. The funds are collected from customers and invested in trust accounts. The cost to decommission SONGS is estimated to be $4.1 billion (SCE, 2013). SCE further states that their portion is roughly $3 billion, of which $2.7 billion had been collected through March 31, 2013. The other co-owners have collected more than $927 million through December 2012 (SCE, 2013). Thus, it appears that the decommissioning trust fund is in good order and will not pose a financial burden to any stakeholder. The application of The Nuclear Power Retirement Model and Guide is broad based, yet specific. In short, there are 62 U.S. nuclear power plants operating today (EIA, 2014). From the aforementioned sample group, 38 are at risk of early retirement based on the 120 work of Cooper (2013). As outlined in model parameters, 35 of the 38 nuclear power plants qualify to move to Phase II of the model and continue on (if model qualifications are met) through the economic assessment review and then on to the stakeholder cost benefit analysis leading to a final plant retirement decision. Finally, as demonstrated and validated from the model and guide, SONGS was correctly retired based on the model parameters and evaluating criteria. The application of this model and guide will provide electric utilities with the parameters and an evaluation assessment progression needed to better evaluate when an uneconomical nuclear plant should be retired. It will provide electric utilities the opportunity to utilize sound policy, planning and development skill sets when making this difficult decision. Lastly, it will encourage electric utilities to explore system upgrade import opportunities and mitigation measures versus building new replacement generation facilities. Lastly, this model and guide will enable electric utilities, local government and communities the opportunity to work together in the future to build and create their own unique preferred resources portfolio. These preferred resource options will most likely include distributed generation, energy efficiency, energy storage, and demand response while at the same time minimizing impacts to land-use and the environment. Finally, it is my hope that this economically based model and guide will help the United States to become a leader in nuclear replacement power when warranted. 121 REFERENCES Abelson, P. (1988). Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuels in Nevada. American Association for the Advancement of Science (239): 239, 333. Altshuler, A., Luberoff, D. (2003). Mega-Projects: The Changing Politics of Urban Public Investment. Brookings Institution Press. CAISO Update (2013). Summer update presentation on system and grid status to South Orange County Economic Coalition. Mission Viejo, California. California Public Utilities Commission (2012). Order Instituting Investigation (OII) for SONGS cost recovery. Data retrieved from http://www.cpuc.ca.gov. Cicchetti, C., Long, C. (1995). Restructuring Electricity Markets. Visions Communications. Cooper, M. (2013). Renaissance in Reverse: Competition Pushes Aging U.S. Nuclear Reactors to the Brink of Economic Abandonment. Data retrieved from http://wii.illnois.edu. Coulter, J. (2005). Issues Surrounding Nuclear Power. Science, News Series (310): 619- 620. Credit Suisse (2013). Nuclear…The Middle Age Dilemma? Facing Declining Performance, Higher Costs, Inevitable Mortality. Data retrieved from http://www.credit- suisse.com. Crooks, E. (2014). Uneconomic U.S. Nuclear Plants at Risk of being Shut Down. The Financial Times LTD. Delgado, V. (2006). Coalition Talks About Renewable Energy At Forum, McClatchy- Tribune Business News (Washington), Wire Feed Comments. Electric Utility Cost Group (2013). Nuclear Plant Capital Expenses from 2008-2012. Data retrieved from http://www.eucg.org. Electric Utility Cost Group (2013). Snapshot of U.S. 2012 Nuclear Power Costs. Data retrieved from http://www.eucg.org. Electric Utility Cost Group (2013). 10-Year Trend of U.S. Nuclear Plants Costs. Data retrieved from http://www.eucg.org. 122 Enerdynamics Corporation (2014). Electric Utility Business Report. Data retrieved from http://www.enerdynamics.com. Fackler, M. (2013). Former Japanese Leader Declares Opposition to Nuclear power. The New York Times. Fulton, W. (2010). Romancing the Smokestack: How Cities and States Pursue Prosperity. Solimar Books. Ventura Publishing & Research. Goldberg, S., Sandler, F., & Rogers, N. (2007). Dispute Resolution: Negotiation, Mediation, and Other Processes. Little Brown & Co. (5 th Ed). Heddleson, F. (1978). Summary Data for Commercial Nuclear Power Plants in the United States. Data retrieved from http://www.researchgate.net. Hendrie, J. (1976). Safety of Nuclear Power. Department of Applied Science, Brookhaven National Laboratory (1): 663-682. Henderson, O. (1980). Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Preparedness and Response – The Three Mile Island Incident. Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency (27): 924-926. Hess Energy Marketing (2013). Understanding Electricity Pricing. Data retrieved from http://www.hessenergy.com. International Security. (1977). Documentation: Nuclear Power Issues and Choices. The MIT Press (2): 110-119. Koomey, J. (2011). Was the Three Mile Island Accident in 1979 the Main Cause of U.S. Nuclear Power Woes? Data retrieved from http://www.koomey.com. Kostof, S. (1999). The City Shaped: Urban Patterns and Meanings Through History. Thames & Hudson, Limited. Latigue, J., Martinez, T. (2007). Trends in Nuclear Education. Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry (276): 849-855. Lidsky, L. (1987). Safe Nuclear Power: And the coalition against It. The New Republic (197): 20-23. Litzinger, R. (2013). SCE Executive Customer Breakfast Meeting. Costa Mesa, California (April 2013). 123 Litzinger, R. (2013). Edison May Request San Onofre License Review. Orange County Register. Data retrieved from http://www.ocregister.com. Lochbaum, D. (2006). Walking a Nuclear Tightrope: Unlearned Lessons of Year-Plus Reactor Outages. Union of Concerned Scientists. Lochbaum, D. (2012). The NRC and Nuclear Power Plant Safety in 2011, 2012 and UCS Tracker; NRC Reactor Pages. Union of Concerned Scientists. Luntz, S. (2012). After Fukushima. Australian Science (33): 39. Ohnishi, T. (2014). Effect of Nuclear Education on Public Attitude. Journal of Nuclear Science and Technology (32): 1027-1038. Moody (2012). Low Gas Prices and Weak Demand Are Masking US Nuclear Plant Reliability Issues. Data retrieved from http://www.moodys.com. Nakoski, J., Lazo, T. (2011). Fukushima. NEA News (1): 6-10. University of Texas at Austin School of Law (1996). Negotiated Rulemaking Desk Book. Center for Public Policy Dispute Resolution. The Center. Nuclear Energy Institute (2014). Nuclear Energy 2014: Status and Outlook Material. Data retrieved from http://www.nei.org. Nuclear Energy Institute (2014). Operating and Capital Costs for U.S. Nuclear Power Plants. Data retrieved from http://www.nei.org. Patel, P. (2011). Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima. IEEE Spectrum (1): 92. Public Service Commission (1999). Common Power Plant Siting Criteria (1): 1-13. Data retrieved from http://www.psc.wi.gov. Public Service Commission (2011). Environmental Impacts of Power Plants (1): 1-19. Data retrieved from http://www.psc.wi.gov. Ramana, M. (2009). Nuclear Power: Economic, Safety, Health, and Environmental Issues of Near-Term Technologies. The Annual Review of Environment and Resources (34): 127-152. Rossin, A. (2003). Marketing Fear: Nuclear Issues in Public Policy. The American Behavioral Scientist (46): 812-821. San Diego Gas and Electric Company (2012). Summer Preparedness Update Presented to the Laguna Niguel Chamber of Commerce. Laguna Niguel, California. 124 Schwartz, F. (1979). Three Mile Island. American Heritage (55): 1-72. Southern California Edison (2012). SONGS Fact Sheets. Data retrieved from http://www.sce.com. Southern California Edison (2012). SCE Generation data. Data retrieved from http://www.sce.com. Southern California Edison (2012-2013). San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Fact Sheets. Data retrieved from http://www.sce.com. Southern California Edison (2013). SCE’s Decision to Retire San Onofre Units 2 & 3: Economics Considerations. SCE Economic Considerations Report. Data retrieved from http://www.sce.com. Southern California Edison (2013). SONGS Fact Sheets. Data retrieved from http://www.sce.com. Southern California Edison (2013). Summer Readiness Briefing. Presentation to city officials. (June/July 2013). Southern California Edison (2013). SONGS Press Release. Data retrieved from http://www.sce.com. Southern California Edison (2014). SCE Ethics. Data retrieved from http://www.sce.com. Southern California Edison (2014). Local Capacity Requirements. Data retrieved from http://www.sce.com. Southern California Edison Power Supply Department (2014). Energy Cost Data prepared for 2013 analysis request. Data delivered to city official. Southern California Edison Settlement Summary (2014). SONGS Settlement Summary. Data retrieved from http://www.sce.com. Susskind, McKearnan, Thomas-Larmer, (1999). The Consensus Building Handbook: A Comprehensive Guide to Reaching Agreement. Sage Publications. Svara, J., Denhardt, J. (2010). The Connected Community: Local Governments as Partners in Citizen Engagement and Community Building. Alliance for Innovation. Taylor, B. (2013). Thinking About Nuclear Power. Northeastern Political Science Organization (45): 297-311. 125 UBS Investment Research (2013). In Search of Washington’s Latest Realities (DC Field Trip Takeaways). Data retrieved from http://www.ubs.com. UBS Investment Research (2013). Some Merchant Nuclear Reactors Could Face Early Retirement. Data retrieved from http://www.ubs.com. U.S. Department of Energy (2013). Energy Forecast. Data retrieved from http://www.energy.gov. U.S. Energy Information Administration (1955-2009). Nuclear Generating Units. Data retrieved from http://www.eia.gov. U.S. Energy Information Administration (1957-2009). Nuclear Plant Operations. Data retrieved from http://www.eia.gov. U.S. Energy Information Administration (2010-2012). Operating and Capital Costs Data. United States Nuclear Plants versus New Gas Plants. Data retrieved from http://www.eia.gov. U.S. Energy Information Administration (2012). United States Generating Output Data. Data retrieved from http://www.eia.gov. U.S. Energy Information Administration (2013). Annual Electric Generator Report. Data retrieved from http://www.eia.gov. U.S. Energy Information Administration (2013). Annual Energy Outlook. Estimated Cost Data for New Generation. Data retrieved from http://www.eia.gov. U.S. Energy Information Administration (2013). Capital Costs for Electricity Plants: Updated Capital Cost Estimates for Utility Scale Electricity Generating. Data retrieved from http://www.eia.gov. U.S. Energy Information Administration (2014). Annual Energy Outlook. Data retrieved from http://www.eia.gov. Appendix 1. U.S. National Academy of Sciences (2014). Lessons Learned from the Fukushima Nuclear Accident for Improving Safety of U.S. Nuclear Plants. Data retrieved from http://www.nasonline.org. U.S. NRC Website (2012-2013). SONGS Public Information and Data. Data retrieved from http://www.nrc.gov. 126 U.S. NRC (2013). U.S. Nuclear Plant Profiles and Statistics. Data retrieved from http://www.nrc.gov. U.S. NRC Website (2014). U.S. Nuclear Fleet Data. Data retrieved from http://www.nrc.gov. Appendix 2. U.S. NRC / U.S. Energy Information Administration (2014). U.S. Nuclear Plant Licensing / Expiration Dates; including Net Summer Capacity (MW). Updated 4/14. Data retrieved from http://www.nrc.gov. Appendix 3. Vanaik, A. (2001). Developing the Anti-Nuclear Movement. Economic and Political Weekly (36): 1494-1497. Wald, M. (2009). Three Mile Island. New York Times Upfront. Scholastic Inc. (141): 16-19. Wasko, F. (2014). Literature Review Map. USC Sol Price School of Public Policy. Weart, S. (2012). The Rise of Nuclear Fear. Harvard University Press. Wilson, A. (2004). Three Mile Island Incident Erases Trust of Area Residents. McClatchy-Tribune Information Services (Wire Feed Comments). World Nuclear Association (2001). Three Mile Island Accident. Minor update in January, 2012. APPENDIX 1 127 Energy Information Administration / Annual Energy Outlook 2014 Table A1. Total energy supply, disposition, and price summary (quadrillion Btu per year, unless otherwise noted) Supply, disposition, and prices Reference case Annual growth 2012-2040 (percent) 2011 2012 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Production Crude oil and lease condensate ............................ 12.20 13.87 20.36 19.19 17.71 16.81 16.00 0.5% Natural gas plant liquids ........................................ 3.11 3.21 3.54 3.84 3.98 4.08 3.99 0.8% Dry natural gas ...................................................... 23.04 24.59 29.73 32.57 35.19 36.89 38.37 1.6% Coal 1 ...................................................................... 22.22 20.60 21.70 22.36 22.61 22.68 22.61 0.3% Nuclear / uranium 2 ................................................. 8.26 8.05 8.15 8.15 8.18 8.23 8.49 0.2% Hydropower ........................................................... 3.11 2.67 2.81 2.84 2.87 2.89 2.90 0.3% Biomass 3 ................................................................ 3.90 3.78 4.66 5.08 5.29 5.44 5.61 1.4% Other renewable energy 4 ....................................... 1.70 1.97 3.01 3.09 3.23 3.44 3.89 2.5% Other 5 .................................................................... 0.80 0.41 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 -2.0% Total ................................................................... 78.35 79.15 94.19 97.36 99.30 100.70 102.09 0.9% Imports Crude oil ................................................................ 19.52 18.57 13.15 13.70 15.00 16.12 17.43 -0.2% Liquid fuels and other petroleum 6 .......................... 5.21 4.26 4.21 4.20 4.08 4.00 3.93 -0.3% Natural gas 7 ........................................................... 3.56 3.21 2.39 2.04 2.01 2.06 2.28 -1.2% Other imports 8 ........................................................ 0.43 0.36 0.17 0.15 0.12 0.11 0.10 -4.5% Total ................................................................... 28.71 26.40 19.92 20.09 21.22 22.29 23.73 -0.4% Exports Liquid fuels and other petroleum 9 .......................... 5.95 6.29 6.30 6.48 6.91 7.40 7.70 0.7% Natural gas 10 .......................................................... 1.52 1.63 4.30 5.45 6.96 7.60 8.09 5.9% Coal ....................................................................... 2.75 3.22 3.13 3.31 3.55 3.81 3.79 0.6% Total ................................................................... 10.22 11.14 13.73 15.24 17.42 18.81 19.58 2.0% Discrepancy 11 .......................................................... -0.27 -0.61 -0.35 -0.24 -0.17 -0.11 -0.07 -- Consumption Liquid fuels and other petroleum 12 ......................... 36.56 35.87 36.86 36.28 35.65 35.37 35.35 -0.1% Natural gas ............................................................ 24.91 26.20 27.65 28.97 30.03 31.10 32.32 0.8% Coal 13 ..................................................................... 19.62 17.34 18.56 19.03 19.01 18.82 18.75 0.3% Nuclear / uranium 2 ................................................. 8.26 8.05 8.15 8.15 8.18 8.23 8.49 0.2% Hydropower ........................................................... 3.11 2.67 2.81 2.84 2.87 2.89 2.90 0.3% Biomass 14 .............................................................. 2.60 2.53 3.35 3.74 3.95 4.10 4.26 1.9% Other renewable energy 4 ....................................... 1.70 1.97 3.01 3.09 3.23 3.44 3.89 2.5% Other 15 ................................................................... 0.35 0.39 0.34 0.35 0.35 0.33 0.35 -0.4% Total ................................................................... 97.11 95.02 100.73 102.45 103.27 104.28 106.31 0.4% Prices (2012 dollars per unit) Crude oil spot prices (dollars per barrel) Brent ................................................................... 113.24 111.65 96.57 108.99 118.99 129.77 141.46 0.8% West Texas Intermediate .................................... 96.55 94.12 94.57 106.99 116.99 127.77 139.46 1.4% Natural gas at Henry Hub (dollars per million Btu) . 4.07 2.75 4.38 5.23 6.03 6.92 7.65 3.7% Coal (dollars per ton) at the minemouth 16 ............................................. 41.74 39.94 46.52 49.67 53.15 56.37 59.16 1.4% Coal (dollars per million Btu) at the minemouth 16 ............................................. 2.07 1.98 2.33 2.49 2.67 2.82 2.96 1.4% Average end-use 17 .............................................. 2.61 2.60 2.85 3.02 3.17 3.29 3.43 1.0% Average electricity (cents per kilowatthour) ........... 10.1 9.8 10.1 10.1 10.4 10.7 11.1 0.4% 128 Energy Information Administration / Annual Energy Outlook 2014 Table A1. Total energy supply and disposition summary (continued) (quadrillion Btu per year, unless otherwise noted) Supply, disposition, and prices Reference case Annual growth 2012-2040 (percent) 2011 2012 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Prices (nominal dollars per unit) Crude oil spot prices (dollars per barrel) Brent ................................................................... 111.26 111.65 109.37 134.25 160.19 193.27 234.53 2.7% West Texas Intermediate .................................... 94.86 94.12 107.11 131.78 157.49 190.30 231.22 3.3% Natural gas at Henry Hub (dollars per million Btu) . 4.00 2.75 4.96 6.45 8.12 10.31 12.69 5.6% Coal (dollars per ton) at the minemouth 16 ............................................. 41.01 39.94 52.69 61.18 71.55 83.96 98.08 3.3% Coal (dollars per million Btu) at the minemouth 16 ............................................. 2.04 1.98 2.63 3.07 3.59 4.21 4.91 3.3% Average end-use 17 .............................................. 2.56 2.60 3.23 3.72 4.27 4.90 5.68 2.8% Average electricity (cents per kilowatthour) ........... 9.9 9.8 11.5 12.5 14.0 16.0 18.5 2.3% 1 Includes waste coal. 2 These values represent the energy obtained from uranium when it is used in light water reactors. The total energy content of uranium is much larger, but alternative processes are required to take advantage of it. 3 Includes grid-connected electricity from wood and wood waste; biomass, such as corn, used for liquid fuels production; and non-electric energy demand from wood. Refer to Table A17 for details. 4 Includes grid-connected electricity from landfill gas; biogenic municipal waste; wind; photovoltaic and solar thermal sources; and non-electric energy from renewable sources, such as active and passive solar systems. Excludes electricity imports using renewable sources and nonmarketed renewable energy. See Table A17 for selected nonmarketed residential and commercial renewable energy data. 5 Includes non-biogenic municipal waste, liquid hydrogen, methanol, and some domestic inputs to refineries. 6 Includes imports of finished petroleum products, unfinished oils, alcohols, ethers, blending components, and renewable fuels such as ethanol. 7 Includes imports of liquefied natural gas that are later re-exported. 8 Includes coal, coal coke (net), and electricity (net). Excludes imports of fuel used in nuclear power plants. 9 Includes crude oil, petroleum products, ethanol, and biodiesel. 10 Includes re-exported liquefied natural gas. 11 Balancing item. Includes unaccounted for supply, losses, gains, and net storage withdrawals. 12 Includes petroleum-derived fuels and non-petroleum derived fuels, such as ethanol and biodiesel, and coal-based synthetic liquids. Petroleum coke, which is a solid, is included. Also included are natural gas plant liquids and crude oil consumed as a fuel. Refer to Table A17 for detailed renewable liquid fuels consumption. 13 Excludes coal converted to coal-based synthetic liquids and natural gas. 14 Includes grid-connected electricity from wood and wood waste, non-electric energy from wood, and biofuels heat and coproducts used in the production of liquid fuels, but excludes the energy content of the liquid fuels. 15 Includes non-biogenic municipal waste, liquid hydrogen, and net electricity imports. 16 Includes reported prices for both open market and captive mines. Prices weighted by production, which differs from average minemouth prices published in EIA data reports where it is weighted by reported sales. 17 Prices weighted by consumption; weighted average excludes export free-alongside-ship (f.a.s.) prices. Btu = British thermal unit. - - = Not applicable. Note: Totals may not equal sum of components due to independent rounding. Data for 2011 and 2012 are model results and may differ from official EIA data reports. Sources: 2011 natural gas supply values: U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), Natural Gas Annual 2011, DOE/EIA-0131(2011) (Washington, DC, December 2012). 2012 natural gas supply values: EIA, Natural Gas Monthly, DOE/EIA-0130(2013/06) (Washington, DC, June 2013). 2011 and 2012 coal minemouth and delivered coal prices: EIA, Annual Coal Report 2012, DOE/EIA-0584(2012) (Washington, DC, December 2013). 2012 petroleum supply values and 2011 crude oil and lease condensate production: EIA, Petroleum Supply Annual 2012, DOE/EIA-0340(2012)/1 (Washington, DC, September 2013). Other 2011 petroleum supply values: EIA, Petroleum Supply Annual 2011, DOE/EIA-0340(2011)/1 (Washington, DC, August 2012). 2011 and 2012 crude oil spot prices and natural gas spot price at Henry Hub: Thomson Reuters. Other 2011 and 2012 coal values: Quarterly Coal Report, October-December 2012, DOE/EIA-0121(2012/4Q) (Washington, DC, March 2013). Other 2011 and 2012 values: EIA, Monthly Energy Review, DOE/EIA-0035(2013/09) (Washington, DC, September 2013). Projections: EIA, AEO2014 National Energy Modeling System run REF2014.D102413A. 129 Energy Information Administration / Annual Energy Outlook 2014 Table A2. Energy consumption by sector and source (quadrillion Btu per year, unless otherwise noted) Sector and source Reference case Annual growth 2012-2040 (percent) 2011 2012 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Energy consumption Residential Propane .............................................................. 0.51 0.51 0.42 0.40 0.38 0.36 0.35 -1.3% Kerosene ............................................................ 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -2.5% Distillate fuel oil ................................................... 0.53 0.51 0.46 0.41 0.37 0.34 0.31 -1.7% Liquid fuels and other petroleum subtotal ......... 1.05 1.02 0.89 0.82 0.75 0.70 0.66 -1.5% Natural gas ......................................................... 4.82 4.26 4.56 4.50 4.43 4.32 4.21 0.0% Renewable energy 1 ............................................ 0.54 0.45 0.46 0.45 0.44 0.43 0.42 -0.3% Electricity ............................................................ 4.85 4.69 4.84 5.00 5.21 5.41 5.65 0.7% Delivered energy ............................................. 11.26 10.42 10.74 10.77 10.83 10.86 10.94 0.2% Electricity related losses ..................................... 10.13 9.68 9.64 9.81 10.00 10.22 10.55 0.3% Total ................................................................. 21.39 20.10 20.38 20.58 20.83 21.09 21.48 0.2% Commercial Propane .............................................................. 0.15 0.15 0.16 0.16 0.17 0.17 0.18 0.7% Motor gasoline 2 ................................................... 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.6% Kerosene ............................................................ 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.8% Distillate fuel oil ................................................... 0.42 0.40 0.40 0.39 0.38 0.37 0.37 -0.3% Residual fuel oil .................................................. 0.05 0.04 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 2.4% Liquid fuels and other petroleum subtotal ......... 0.67 0.63 0.68 0.68 0.67 0.67 0.68 0.2% Natural gas ......................................................... 3.22 2.96 3.23 3.29 3.35 3.48 3.65 0.7% Coal .................................................................... 0.06 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.0% Renewable energy 3 ............................................ 0.11 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.0% Electricity ............................................................ 4.53 4.52 4.69 4.94 5.18 5.42 5.72 0.8% Delivered energy ............................................. 8.60 8.29 8.78 9.08 9.38 9.75 10.22 0.7% Electricity related losses ..................................... 9.46 9.32 9.34 9.69 9.94 10.24 10.66 0.5% Total ................................................................. 18.05 17.61 18.12 18.77 19.32 19.99 20.88 0.6% Industrial 4 Liquefied petroleum gases and other 5 ................ 2.25 2.25 2.90 3.05 3.05 2.97 2.90 0.9% Motor gasoline 2 ................................................... 0.26 0.26 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.29 0.29 0.4% Distillate fuel oil ................................................... 1.24 1.20 1.40 1.41 1.41 1.41 1.42 0.6% Residual fuel oil .................................................. 0.13 0.10 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.15 0.15 1.4% Petrochemical feedstocks ................................... 0.88 0.75 1.27 1.52 1.62 1.62 1.59 2.7% Other petroleum 6 ................................................ 3.36 3.50 3.56 3.53 3.58 3.63 3.75 0.2% Liquid fuels and other petroleum subtotal ......... 8.13 8.06 9.56 9.95 10.10 10.08 10.10 0.8% Natural gas ......................................................... 7.06 7.29 8.26 8.59 8.71 8.78 8.87 0.7% Natural-gas-to-liquids heat and power ................ 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - Lease and plant fuel 7 .......................................... 1.35 1.45 1.77 1.99 2.16 2.29 2.41 1.8% Natural gas subtotal .......................................... 8.41 8.75 10.04 10.58 10.87 11.07 11.28 0.9% Metallurgical coal ................................................ 0.56 0.55 0.58 0.58 0.55 0.50 0.47 -0.5% Other industrial coal ............................................ 0.95 0.93 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.01 0.3% Coal-to-liquids heat and power ........................... 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - Net coal coke imports ......................................... 0.01 0.00 0.00 -0.01 -0.03 -0.05 -0.05 - - Coal subtotal ..................................................... 1.53 1.48 1.57 1.57 1.52 1.45 1.44 -0.1% Biofuels heat and coproducts.............................. 0.46 0.52 0.76 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 1.5% Renewable energy 8 ............................................ 1.49 1.48 1.74 1.88 2.01 2.13 2.28 1.6% Electricity ............................................................ 3.38 3.35 4.04 4.27 4.33 4.32 4.34 0.9% Delivered energy ............................................. 23.40 23.63 27.71 29.05 29.62 29.84 30.22 0.9% Electricity related losses ..................................... 7.06 6.91 8.05 8.38 8.33 8.16 8.10 0.6% Total ................................................................. 30.46 30.54 35.76 37.43 37.94 38.00 38.33 0.8% 130 Energy Information Administration / Annual Energy Outlook 2014 Table A2. Energy consumption by sector and source (continued) (quadrillion Btu per year, unless otherwise noted) Sector and source Reference case Annual growth 2012-2040 (percent) 2011 2012 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Transportation Propane .............................................................. 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.07 1.1% E85 9 .................................................................... 0.00 0.01 0.19 0.38 0.46 0.43 0.33 11.9% Motor gasoline 2 ................................................... 16.36 16.32 14.81 13.31 12.23 11.81 11.76 -1.2% Jet fuel 10 ............................................................. 3.01 3.00 3.08 3.14 3.20 3.24 3.28 0.3% Distillate fuel oil 11 ................................................ 6.04 5.82 6.70 7.04 7.25 7.44 7.54 0.9% Residual fuel oil .................................................. 0.78 0.58 0.58 0.59 0.59 0.60 0.60 0.2% Other petroleum 12 ............................................... 0.16 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.1% Liquid fuels and other petroleum subtotal ......... 26.40 25.93 25.55 24.66 23.94 23.73 23.73 -0.3% Pipeline fuel natural gas ..................................... 0.70 0.73 0.74 0.76 0.82 0.83 0.85 0.5% Compressed / liquefied natural gas .................... 0.04 0.04 0.08 0.14 0.28 0.48 0.86 11.3% Liquid hydrogen .................................................. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - Electricity ............................................................ 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.06 3.6% Delivered energy ............................................. 27.16 26.72 26.40 25.60 25.08 25.10 25.50 -0.2% Electricity related losses ..................................... 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.10 0.12 3.2% Total ................................................................. 27.21 26.77 26.47 25.67 25.17 25.20 25.62 -0.2% Delivered energy consumption for all sectors Liquefied petroleum gases and other 5 ................ 2.95 2.96 3.53 3.67 3.65 3.56 3.49 0.6% E85 9 .................................................................... 0.00 0.01 0.19 0.38 0.46 0.43 0.33 11.9% Motor gasoline 2 ................................................... 16.67 16.62 15.15 13.66 12.57 12.16 12.11 -1.1% Jet fuel 10 ............................................................. 3.01 3.00 3.08 3.14 3.20 3.24 3.28 0.3% Kerosene ............................................................ 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.9% Distillate fuel oil ................................................... 8.23 7.93 8.95 9.24 9.41 9.56 9.63 0.7% Residual fuel oil .................................................. 0.97 0.72 0.80 0.81 0.82 0.82 0.83 0.5% Petrochemical feedstocks ................................... 0.88 0.75 1.27 1.52 1.62 1.62 1.59 2.7% Other petroleum 13 ............................................... 3.52 3.64 3.70 3.68 3.73 3.78 3.89 0.2% Liquid fuels and other petroleum subtotal ......... 36.25 35.64 36.68 36.10 35.47 35.18 35.17 0.0% Natural gas ......................................................... 15.14 14.56 16.14 16.52 16.77 17.07 17.59 0.7% Natural-gas-to-liquids heat and power ................ 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - Lease and plant fuel 7 .......................................... 1.35 1.45 1.77 1.99 2.16 2.29 2.41 1.8% Pipeline fuel natural gas ..................................... 0.70 0.73 0.74 0.76 0.82 0.83 0.85 0.5% Natural gas subtotal .......................................... 17.19 16.74 18.65 19.28 19.75 20.19 20.84 0.8% Metallurgical coal ................................................ 0.56 0.55 0.58 0.58 0.55 0.50 0.47 -0.5% Other coal ........................................................... 1.01 0.98 1.03 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.05 0.3% Coal-to-liquids heat and power ........................... 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - Net coal coke imports ......................................... 0.01 0.00 0.00 -0.01 -0.03 -0.05 -0.05 - - Coal subtotal ..................................................... 1.59 1.53 1.61 1.62 1.56 1.50 1.48 -0.1% Biofuels heat and coproducts.............................. 0.46 0.52 0.76 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 1.5% Renewable energy 14 ........................................... 2.14 2.06 2.33 2.47 2.58 2.70 2.83 1.1% Liquid hydrogen .................................................. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - Electricity ............................................................ 12.79 12.58 13.60 14.26 14.76 15.20 15.77 0.8% Delivered energy ............................................. 70.42 69.07 73.63 74.50 74.91 75.56 76.88 0.4% Electricity related losses ..................................... 26.69 25.95 27.10 27.95 28.35 28.73 29.43 0.5% Total ................................................................. 97.11 95.02 100.73 102.45 103.27 104.28 106.31 0.4% Electric power 15 Distillate fuel oil ................................................... 0.06 0.05 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 1.8% Residual fuel oil .................................................. 0.25 0.18 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.10 -2.1% Liquid fuels and other petroleum subtotal ......... 0.32 0.23 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.19 -0.8% Natural gas ......................................................... 7.72 9.46 9.00 9.69 10.28 10.91 11.48 0.7% Steam coal .......................................................... 18.03 15.82 16.95 17.41 17.44 17.32 17.27 0.3% Nuclear / uranium 16 ............................................. 8.26 8.05 8.15 8.15 8.18 8.23 8.49 0.2% Renewable energy 17 ........................................... 4.80 4.59 6.08 6.42 6.68 6.95 7.44 1.7% Non-biogenic municipal waste ............................ 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.0% Electricity imports ................................................ 0.13 0.16 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.10 0.12 -1.1% Total ................................................................. 39.49 38.53 40.70 42.21 43.12 43.92 45.20 0.6% 131 Energy Information Administration / Annual Energy Outlook 2014 Table A2. Energy consumption by sector and source (continued) (quadrillion Btu per year, unless otherwise noted) Sector and source Reference case Annual growth 2012-2040 (percent) 2011 2012 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Total energy consumption Liquefied petroleum gases and other 5 ................ 2.95 2.96 3.53 3.67 3.65 3.56 3.49 0.6% E85 9 .................................................................... 0.00 0.01 0.19 0.38 0.46 0.43 0.33 11.9% Motor gasoline 2 ................................................... 16.67 16.62 15.15 13.66 12.57 12.16 12.11 -1.1% Jet fuel 10 ............................................................. 3.01 3.00 3.08 3.14 3.20 3.24 3.28 0.3% Kerosene ............................................................ 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.9% Distillate fuel oil ................................................... 8.29 7.98 9.03 9.33 9.50 9.64 9.72 0.7% Residual fuel oil .................................................. 1.22 0.90 0.89 0.90 0.91 0.92 0.93 0.1% Petrochemical feedstocks ................................... 0.88 0.75 1.27 1.52 1.62 1.62 1.59 2.7% Other petroleum 13 ............................................... 3.52 3.64 3.70 3.68 3.73 3.78 3.89 0.2% Liquid fuels and other petroleum subtotal ......... 36.56 35.87 36.86 36.28 35.65 35.37 35.35 -0.1% Natural gas ......................................................... 22.86 24.02 25.14 26.22 27.05 27.97 29.07 0.7% Natural-gas-to-liquids heat and power ................ 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - Lease and plant fuel 7 .......................................... 1.35 1.45 1.77 1.99 2.16 2.29 2.41 1.8% Pipeline fuel natural gas ..................................... 0.70 0.73 0.74 0.76 0.82 0.83 0.85 0.5% Natural gas subtotal .......................................... 24.91 26.20 27.65 28.97 30.03 31.10 32.32 0.8% Metallurgical coal ................................................ 0.56 0.55 0.58 0.58 0.55 0.50 0.47 -0.5% Other coal ........................................................... 19.05 16.79 17.98 18.45 18.49 18.36 18.32 0.3% Coal-to-liquids heat and power ........................... 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - Net coal coke imports ......................................... 0.01 0.00 0.00 -0.01 -0.03 -0.05 -0.05 - - Coal subtotal ..................................................... 19.62 17.34 18.56 19.03 19.01 18.82 18.75 0.3% Nuclear / uranium 16 ............................................. 8.26 8.05 8.15 8.15 8.18 8.23 8.49 0.2% Biofuels heat and coproducts.............................. 0.46 0.52 0.76 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 1.5% Renewable energy 18 ........................................... 6.95 6.65 8.40 8.88 9.26 9.65 10.27 1.6% Liquid hydrogen .................................................. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - Non-biogenic municipal waste ............................ 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.0% Electricity imports ................................................ 0.13 0.16 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.10 0.12 -1.1% Total ................................................................. 97.11 95.02 100.73 102.45 103.27 104.28 106.31 0.4% Energy use and related statistics Delivered energy use ............................................ 70.42 69.07 73.63 74.50 74.91 75.56 76.88 0.4% Total energy use ................................................... 97.11 95.02 100.73 102.45 103.27 104.28 106.31 0.4% Ethanol consumed in motor gasoline and E85 ..... 1.09 1.09 1.22 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.29 0.6% Population (millions) ............................................. 312.32 314.58 334.47 346.98 359.03 370.19 380.53 0.7% Gross domestic product (billion 2005 dollars) ....... 13,299 13,593 16,753 18,769 21,139 23,751 26,670 2.4% Carbon dioxide emissions (million metric tons) ..... 5,498.1 5,289.9 5,475.9 5,526.2 5,526.9 5,545.7 5,599.1 0.2% 1 Includes wood used for residential heating. See Table A4 and/or Table A17 for estimates of nonmarketed renewable energy consumption for geothermal heat pumps, solar thermal water heating, and electricity generation from wind and solar photovoltaic sources. 2 Includes ethanol (blends of 15 percent or less) and ethers blended into gasoline. 3 Excludes ethanol. Includes commercial sector consumption of wood and wood waste, landfill gas, municipal waste, and other biomass for combined heat and power. See Table A5 and/or Table A17 for estimates of nonmarketed renewable energy consumption for solar thermal water heating and electricity generation from wind and solar photovoltaic sources. 4 Includes energy for combined heat and power plants that have a non-regulatory status, and small on-site generating systems. 5 Includes ethane, natural gasoline, and olefins. 6 Includes petroleum coke, asphalt, road oil, lubricants, still gas, and miscellaneous petroleum products. 7 Represents natural gas used in well, field, and lease operations, in natural gas processing plant machinery, and for liquefaction in export facilities. 8 Includes consumption of energy produced from hydroelectric, wood and wood waste, municipal waste, and other biomass sources. Excludes ethanol blends (15 percent or less) in motor gasoline. 9 E85 refers to a blend of 85 percent ethanol (renewable) and 15 percent motor gasoline (nonrenewable). To address cold starting issues, the percentage of ethanol varies seasonally. The annual average ethanol content of 74 percent is used for this forecast. 10 Includes only kerosene type. 11 Diesel fuel for on- and off- road use. 12 Includes aviation gasoline and lubricants. 13 Includes aviation gasoline, petroleum coke, asphalt, road oil, lubricants, still gas, and miscellaneous petroleum products. 14 Includes electricity generated for sale to the grid and for own use from renewable sources, and non-electric energy from renewable sources. Excludes ethanol and nonmarketed renewable energy consumption for geothermal heat pumps, buildings photovoltaic systems, and solar thermal water heaters. 15 Includes consumption of energy by electricity-only and combined heat and power plants that have a regulatory status. 16 These values represent the energy obtained from uranium when it is used in light water reactors. The total energy content of uranium is much larger, but alternative processes are required to take advantage of it. 17 Includes conventional hydroelectric, geothermal, wood and wood waste, biogenic municipal waste, other biomass, wind, photovoltaic, and solar thermal sources. Excludes net electricity imports. 18 Includes conventional hydroelectric, geothermal, wood and wood waste, biogenic municipal waste, other biomass, wind, photovoltaic, and solar thermal sources. Excludes ethanol, net electricity imports, and nonmarketed renewable energy consumption for geothermal heat pumps, buildings photovoltaic systems, and solar thermal water heaters. Btu = British thermal unit. - - = Not applicable. Note: Totals may not equal sum of components due to independent rounding. Data for 2011 and 2012 are model results and may differ from official EIA data reports. Sources: 2011 and 2012 consumption based on: U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), Monthly Energy Review, DOE/EIA-0035(2013/09) (Washington, DC, September 2013). 2011 and 2012 population and gross domestic product: IHS Global Insight Industry and Employment models, May 2013. 2011 and 2012 carbon dioxide emissions and emission factors: EIA, Monthly Energy Review, DOE/EIA-0035(2013/09) (Washington, DC, September 2013). Projections: EIA, AEO2014 National Energy Modeling System run REF2014.D102413A. 132 Energy Information Administration / Annual Energy Outlook 2014 Table A3. Energy prices by sector and source (2012 dollars per million Btu, unless otherwise noted) Sector and source Reference case Annual growth 2012-2040 (percent) 2011 2012 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Residential Propane ................................................................ 25.28 24.12 23.79 24.86 25.75 26.84 27.64 0.5% Distillate fuel oil ..................................................... 26.93 27.30 24.67 26.95 28.60 30.57 32.64 0.6% Natural gas ........................................................... 10.98 10.46 11.59 12.48 13.50 14.61 15.98 1.5% Electricity .............................................................. 34.95 34.83 36.15 36.14 36.98 37.82 38.83 0.4% Commercial Propane ................................................................ 22.20 20.75 20.33 21.66 22.79 24.14 25.17 0.7% Distillate fuel oil ..................................................... 26.43 26.81 21.77 24.01 25.66 27.69 29.72 0.4% Residual fuel oil .................................................... 19.41 22.84 14.40 16.13 17.92 19.36 20.99 -0.3% Natural gas ........................................................... 8.96 8.11 9.49 10.29 11.19 11.95 13.08 1.7% Electricity .............................................................. 30.53 29.55 30.80 30.55 31.26 31.98 33.01 0.4% Industrial 1 Propane ................................................................ 22.63 21.09 20.64 22.06 23.27 24.73 25.84 0.7% Distillate fuel oil ..................................................... 27.04 27.41 22.22 24.45 26.11 27.97 29.92 0.3% Residual fuel oil .................................................... 19.17 20.90 14.88 16.65 18.29 19.79 21.48 0.1% Natural gas 2 .......................................................... 5.09 3.77 5.79 6.32 6.99 7.76 8.59 3.0% Metallurgical coal .................................................. 7.13 7.25 8.43 8.95 9.51 9.93 10.20 1.2% Other industrial coal .............................................. 3.31 3.24 3.59 3.73 3.88 4.03 4.19 0.9% Coal to liquids ....................................................... - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Electricity .............................................................. 20.35 19.50 20.77 21.08 21.99 22.91 24.05 0.8% Transportation Propane ................................................................ 26.29 25.14 24.85 25.92 26.81 28.01 28.82 0.5% E85 3 ...................................................................... 44.13 35.06 25.61 27.53 27.91 30.68 35.49 0.0% Motor gasoline 4 ..................................................... 30.32 30.68 25.59 27.37 28.54 30.40 32.67 0.2% Jet fuel 5 ................................................................. 23.02 22.99 19.47 21.96 23.71 25.83 28.07 0.7% Diesel fuel (distillate fuel oil) 6 ................................ 28.37 28.80 26.80 29.02 30.68 32.60 34.53 0.7% Residual fuel oil .................................................... 18.05 20.07 12.46 14.16 15.50 16.94 18.55 -0.3% Natural gas 7 .......................................................... 15.90 14.64 15.62 15.57 16.63 18.09 19.67 1.1% Electricity .............................................................. 34.00 31.43 29.86 30.09 31.68 32.65 34.19 0.3% Electric power 8 Distillate fuel oil ..................................................... 23.79 24.12 20.66 22.94 24.65 26.68 28.81 0.6% Residual fuel oil .................................................... 15.94 20.68 13.86 15.59 17.14 18.74 20.42 0.0% Natural gas ........................................................... 4.88 3.44 5.07 5.76 6.49 7.29 8.16 3.1% Steam coal ............................................................ 2.42 2.39 2.61 2.77 2.93 3.05 3.19 1.0% Average price to all users 9 Propane ................................................................ 24.39 23.24 22.54 23.68 24.66 25.89 26.79 0.5% E85 3 ...................................................................... 44.13 35.06 25.61 27.53 27.91 30.68 35.49 0.0% Motor gasoline 4 ..................................................... 30.18 30.44 25.58 27.37 28.53 30.40 32.67 0.3% Jet fuel 5 ................................................................. 23.02 22.99 19.47 21.96 23.71 25.83 28.07 0.7% Distillate fuel oil ..................................................... 27.95 28.36 25.70 27.98 29.67 31.58 33.54 0.6% Residual fuel oil .................................................... 17.80 20.41 13.15 14.88 16.32 17.79 19.42 -0.2% Natural gas ........................................................... 6.83 5.38 7.09 7.72 8.49 9.33 10.38 2.4% Metallurgical coal .................................................. 7.13 7.25 8.43 8.95 9.51 9.93 10.20 1.2% Other coal ............................................................. 2.48 2.44 2.67 2.83 2.98 3.11 3.25 1.0% Coal to liquids ....................................................... - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Electricity .............................................................. 29.52 28.85 29.72 29.67 30.56 31.49 32.63 0.4% Non-renewable energy expenditures by sector (billion 2012 dollars) Residential ............................................................ 249.85 234.06 249.25 258.12 272.82 287.79 306.56 1.0% Commercial........................................................... 183.94 173.25 189.44 200.39 215.91 232.66 255.39 1.4% Industrial 1 .............................................................. 232.59 213.75 279.45 315.89 343.02 365.43 390.91 2.2% Transportation ....................................................... 757.76 755.09 632.05 653.92 667.67 711.27 772.91 0.1% Total non-renewable expenditures ...................... 1,424.14 1,376.15 1,350.18 1,428.32 1,499.43 1,597.14 1,725.77 0.8% Transportation renewable expenditures .............. 0.12 0.50 4.89 10.53 12.96 13.30 11.80 11.9% Total expenditures ............................................ 1,424.26 1,376.66 1,355.07 1,438.85 1,512.39 1,610.44 1,737.56 0.8% 133 Energy Information Administration / Annual Energy Outlook 2014 Table A3. Energy prices by sector and source (continued) (nominal dollars per million Btu, unless otherwise noted) Sector and source Reference case Annual growth 2012-2040 (percent) 2011 2012 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Residential Propane ................................................................ 24.83 24.12 26.94 30.63 34.67 39.98 45.83 2.3% Distillate fuel oil ..................................................... 26.46 27.30 27.94 33.19 38.50 45.53 54.12 2.5% Natural gas ........................................................... 10.79 10.46 13.13 15.37 18.18 21.75 26.49 3.4% Electricity .............................................................. 34.34 34.83 40.94 44.52 49.78 56.33 64.39 2.2% Commercial Propane ................................................................ 21.81 20.75 23.02 26.69 30.68 35.95 41.74 2.5% Distillate fuel oil ..................................................... 25.97 26.81 24.66 29.57 34.54 41.24 49.27 2.2% Residual fuel oil .................................................... 19.07 22.84 16.31 19.87 24.12 28.84 34.80 1.5% Natural gas ........................................................... 8.80 8.11 10.75 12.67 15.07 17.80 21.68 3.6% Electricity .............................................................. 30.00 29.55 34.88 37.63 42.08 47.64 54.73 2.2% Industrial 1 Propane ................................................................ 22.24 21.09 23.38 27.18 31.32 36.84 42.83 2.6% Distillate fuel oil ..................................................... 26.56 27.41 25.17 30.12 35.15 41.66 49.61 2.1% Residual fuel oil .................................................... 18.84 20.90 16.85 20.51 24.62 29.47 35.61 1.9% Natural gas 2 .......................................................... 5.00 3.77 6.56 7.79 9.41 11.55 14.25 4.9% Metallurgical coal .................................................. 7.01 7.25 9.55 11.03 12.81 14.80 16.91 3.1% Other industrial coal .............................................. 3.25 3.24 4.07 4.59 5.23 6.00 6.95 2.8% Coal to liquids ....................................................... - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Electricity .............................................................. 19.99 19.50 23.52 25.96 29.60 34.13 39.88 2.6% Transportation Propane ................................................................ 25.83 25.14 28.14 31.93 36.09 41.71 47.79 2.3% E85 3 ...................................................................... 43.36 35.06 29.00 33.92 37.57 45.69 58.85 1.9% Motor gasoline 4 ..................................................... 29.79 30.68 28.98 33.72 38.42 45.28 54.17 2.1% Jet fuel 5 ................................................................. 22.61 22.99 22.06 27.05 31.91 38.47 46.53 2.5% Diesel fuel (distillate fuel oil) 6 ................................ 27.87 28.80 30.35 35.75 41.30 48.56 57.25 2.5% Residual fuel oil .................................................... 17.73 20.07 14.11 17.44 20.86 25.23 30.76 1.5% Natural gas 7 .......................................................... 15.62 14.64 17.69 19.18 22.38 26.95 32.61 2.9% Electricity .............................................................. 33.40 31.43 33.82 37.07 42.65 48.63 56.68 2.1% Electric power 8 Distillate fuel oil ..................................................... 23.37 24.12 23.40 28.26 33.18 39.74 47.77 2.5% Residual fuel oil .................................................... 15.67 20.68 15.70 19.21 23.08 27.92 33.86 1.8% Natural gas ........................................................... 4.80 3.44 5.75 7.09 8.74 10.85 13.53 5.0% Steam coal ............................................................ 2.38 2.39 2.96 3.42 3.94 4.54 5.29 2.9% 134 Energy Information Administration / Annual Energy Outlook 2014 Table A3. Energy prices by sector and source (continued) (nominal dollars per million Btu, unless otherwise noted) Sector and source Reference case Annual growth 2012-2040 (percent) 2011 2012 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Average price to all users 9 Propane ................................................................ 23.96 23.24 25.53 29.17 33.20 38.55 44.42 2.3% E85 3 ...................................................................... 43.36 35.06 29.00 33.92 37.57 45.69 58.85 1.9% Motor gasoline 4 ..................................................... 29.66 30.44 28.98 33.71 38.41 45.28 54.17 2.1% Jet fuel 5 ................................................................. 22.61 22.99 22.06 27.05 31.91 38.47 46.53 2.5% Distillate fuel oil ..................................................... 27.46 28.36 29.11 34.46 39.94 47.04 55.61 2.4% Residual fuel oil .................................................... 17.49 20.41 14.90 18.32 21.97 26.49 32.20 1.6% Natural gas ........................................................... 6.71 5.38 8.04 9.51 11.43 13.90 17.22 4.2% Metallurgical coal .................................................. 7.01 7.25 9.55 11.03 12.81 14.80 16.91 3.1% Other coal ............................................................. 2.43 2.44 3.03 3.49 4.02 4.63 5.39 2.9% Coal to liquids ....................................................... - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Electricity .............................................................. 29.01 28.85 33.66 36.55 41.13 46.90 54.11 2.3% Non-renewable energy expenditures by sector (billion nominal dollars) Residential ............................................................ 245.47 234.06 282.30 317.94 367.27 428.63 508.27 2.8% Commercial........................................................... 180.72 173.25 214.56 246.83 290.65 346.52 423.44 3.2% Industrial 1 .............................................................. 228.52 213.75 316.50 389.11 461.77 544.27 648.12 4.0% Transportation ....................................................... 744.51 755.09 715.87 805.47 898.80 1,059.37 1,281.47 1.9% Total non-renewable expenditures ...................... 1,399.23 1,376.15 1,529.23 1,759.34 2,018.49 2,378.79 2,861.30 2.6% Transportation renewable expenditures .............. 0.12 0.50 5.54 12.97 17.45 19.81 19.56 14.0% Total expenditures ............................................ 1,399.35 1,376.66 1,534.77 1,772.32 2,035.94 2,398.59 2,880.86 2.7% 1 Includes energy for combined heat and power plants that have a non-regulatory status, and small on-site generating systems. 2 Excludes use for lease and plant fuel. 3 E85 refers to a blend of 85 percent ethanol (renewable) and 15 percent motor gasoline (nonrenewable). To address cold starting issues, the percentage of ethanol varies seasonally. The annual average ethanol content of 74 percent is used for this forecast. 4 Sales weighted-average price for all grades. Includes Federal, State and local taxes. 5 Kerosene-type jet fuel. Includes Federal and State taxes while excluding county and local taxes. 6 Diesel fuel for on-road use. Includes Federal and State taxes while excluding county and local taxes. 7 Natural gas used as fuel in motor vehicles, trains, and ships. Price includes estimated motor vehicle fuel taxes and estimated dispensing costs or charges. 8 Includes electricity-only and combined heat and power plants that have a regulatory status. 9 Weighted averages of end-use fuel prices are derived from the prices shown in each sector and the corresponding sectoral consumption. Btu = British thermal unit. - - = Not applicable. Note: Data for 2011 and 2012 are model results and may differ from official EIA data reports. Sources: 2011 and 2012 prices for motor gasoline, distillate fuel oil, and jet fuel are based on prices in the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), Petroleum Marketing Monthly, DOE/EIA-0380(2013/08) (Washington, DC, August 2013). 2011 residential, commercial, and industrial natural gas delivered prices: EIA, Natural Gas Annual 2011, DOE/EIA-0131(2011) (Washington, DC, December 2012). 2012 residential, commercial, and industrial natural gas delivered prices: EIA, Natural Gas Monthly, DOE/EIA-0130(2013/06) (Washington, DC, June 2013). 2011 transportation sector natural gas delivered prices are based on: EIA, Natural Gas Annual 2011, DOE/EIA-0131(2011) (Washington, DC, December 2012) and estimated State taxes, Federal taxes, and dispensing costs or charges. 2012 transportation sector natural gas delivered prices are model results. 2011 and 2012 electric power sector distillate and residual fuel oil prices: EIA, Monthly Energy Review, DOE/EIA-0035(2013/09) (Washington, DC, September 2013). 2011 and 2012 electric power sector natural gas prices: EIA, Electric Power Monthly, DOE/EIA-0226, April 2012 and April 2013, Table 4.2, and EIA, State Energy Data Report 2011, DOE/EIA-0214(2011) (Washington, DC, June 2013). 2011 and 2012 coal prices based on: EIA, Quarterly Coal Report, October-December 2012, DOE/EIA-0121(2012/4Q) (Washington, DC, March 2013) and EIA, AEO2014 National Energy Modeling System run REF2014.D102413A. 2011 and 2012 electricity prices: EIA, Monthly Energy Review, DOE/EIA- 0035(2013/09) (Washington, DC, September 2013). 2011 and 2012 E85 prices derived from monthly prices in the Clean Cities Alternative Fuel Price Report. Projections: EIA, AEO2014 National Energy Modeling System run REF2014.D102413A. 135 Energy Information Administration / Annual Energy Outlook 2014 Table A4. Residential sector key indicators and consumption (quadrillion Btu per year, unless otherwise noted) Key indicators and consumption Reference case Annual growth 2012-2040 (percent) 2011 2012 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Key indicators Households (millions) Single-family ....................................................... 78.99 79.28 85.71 89.73 93.56 96.99 100.37 0.8% Multifamily ........................................................... 28.13 28.24 30.55 32.18 33.98 35.82 37.61 1.0% Mobile homes ..................................................... 6.58 6.41 5.70 5.46 5.29 5.14 5.03 -0.9% Total ................................................................. 113.70 113.93 121.96 127.38 132.83 137.95 143.01 0.8% Average house square footage ......................... 1,662 1,670 1,736 1,771 1,802 1,831 1,858 0.4% Energy intensity (million Btu per household) Delivered energy consumption ........................... 99.0 91.5 88.1 84.6 81.5 78.7 76.5 -0.6% Total energy consumption .................................. 188.2 176.4 167.1 161.6 156.8 152.8 150.2 -0.6% (thousand Btu per square foot) Delivered energy consumption ........................... 59.6 54.8 50.7 47.8 45.2 43.0 41.2 -1.0% Total energy consumption .................................. 113.2 105.6 96.3 91.2 87.0 83.5 80.9 -1.0% Delivered energy consumption by fuel Purchased electricity Space heating ..................................................... 0.37 0.29 0.35 0.35 0.34 0.33 0.32 0.4% Space cooling ..................................................... 0.83 0.85 0.89 0.98 1.07 1.16 1.25 1.4% Water heating ..................................................... 0.44 0.45 0.47 0.49 0.50 0.50 0.51 0.5% Refrigeration ....................................................... 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.40 0.41 0.3% Cooking .............................................................. 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.14 0.15 1.1% Clothes dryers ..................................................... 0.20 0.20 0.21 0.22 0.23 0.24 0.25 0.8% Freezers ............................................................. 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 -0.1% Lighting ............................................................... 0.64 0.64 0.44 0.39 0.35 0.30 0.28 -2.9% Clothes washers 1 ................................................ 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 -1.2% Dishwashers 1 ...................................................... 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.12 0.6% Televisions and related equipment 2 .................... 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.35 0.37 0.39 0.5% Computers and related equipment 3 .................... 0.13 0.12 0.10 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.05 -3.0% Furnace fans and boiler circulation pumps ......... 0.12 0.09 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.8% Other uses 4 ......................................................... 1.11 1.02 1.24 1.34 1.46 1.58 1.70 1.9% Delivered energy ............................................. 4.85 4.69 4.84 5.00 5.21 5.41 5.65 0.7% Natural gas Space heating ..................................................... 3.09 2.51 2.82 2.76 2.69 2.62 2.54 0.0% Space cooling ..................................................... 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 -0.6% Water heating ..................................................... 1.20 1.22 1.21 1.22 1.22 1.19 1.16 -0.2% Cooking .............................................................. 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.22 0.22 0.2% Clothes dryers ..................................................... 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.7% Other uses 5 ......................................................... 0.25 0.25 0.24 0.23 0.22 0.22 0.21 -0.6% Delivered energy ............................................. 4.82 4.26 4.56 4.50 4.43 4.32 4.21 0.0% Distillate fuel oil Space heating ..................................................... 0.46 0.44 0.42 0.38 0.34 0.31 0.29 -1.5% Water heating ..................................................... 0.06 0.06 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 -4.4% Other uses 6 ......................................................... 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 -0.6% Delivered energy ............................................. 0.53 0.51 0.46 0.41 0.37 0.34 0.31 -1.7% Propane Space heating ..................................................... 0.37 0.37 0.30 0.28 0.26 0.25 0.24 -1.6% Water heating ..................................................... 0.07 0.07 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.03 -3.3% Cooking .............................................................. 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 -0.9% Other uses 6 ......................................................... 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.06 1.5% Delivered energy ............................................. 0.51 0.51 0.42 0.40 0.38 0.36 0.35 -1.3% Marketed renewables (wood) 7 .............................. 0.54 0.45 0.46 0.45 0.44 0.43 0.42 -0.3% Kerosene .............................................................. 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -2.5% 136 Energy Information Administration / Annual Energy Outlook 2014 Table A4. Residential sector key indicators and consumption (continued) (quadrillion Btu per year, unless otherwise noted) Key indicators and consumption Reference case Annual growth 2012-2040 (percent) 2011 2012 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Delivered energy consumption by end use Space heating ..................................................... 4.84 4.07 4.36 4.22 4.09 3.95 3.81 -0.2% Space cooling ..................................................... 0.85 0.88 0.91 1.00 1.09 1.18 1.27 1.3% Water heating ..................................................... 1.77 1.79 1.77 1.78 1.78 1.74 1.71 -0.2% Refrigeration ....................................................... 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.40 0.41 0.3% Cooking .............................................................. 0.34 0.34 0.35 0.36 0.37 0.38 0.39 0.4% Clothes dryers ..................................................... 0.25 0.25 0.27 0.28 0.29 0.30 0.31 0.8% Freezers ............................................................. 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 -0.1% Lighting ............................................................... 0.64 0.64 0.44 0.39 0.35 0.30 0.28 -2.9% Clothes washers 1 ................................................ 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 -1.2% Dishwashers 1 ...................................................... 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.12 0.6% Televisions and related equipment 2 .................... 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.35 0.37 0.39 0.5% Computers and related equipment 3 .................... 0.13 0.12 0.10 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.05 -3.0% Furnace fans and boiler circulation pumps ......... 0.12 0.09 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.8% Other uses 8 ......................................................... 1.40 1.31 1.53 1.63 1.74 1.86 1.98 1.5% Delivered energy ............................................. 11.26 10.42 10.74 10.77 10.83 10.86 10.94 0.2% Electricity related losses ...................................... 10.13 9.68 9.64 9.81 10.00 10.22 10.55 0.3% Total energy consumption by end use Space heating ..................................................... 5.63 4.66 5.05 4.90 4.74 4.57 4.41 -0.2% Space cooling ..................................................... 2.58 2.64 2.68 2.91 3.14 3.37 3.61 1.1% Water heating ..................................................... 2.68 2.71 2.71 2.74 2.74 2.69 2.65 -0.1% Refrigeration ....................................................... 1.17 1.16 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.15 1.19 0.1% Cooking .............................................................. 0.56 0.56 0.59 0.60 0.62 0.64 0.66 0.6% Clothes dryers ..................................................... 0.66 0.66 0.69 0.71 0.73 0.76 0.78 0.6% Freezers ............................................................. 0.25 0.25 0.24 0.23 0.23 0.22 0.23 -0.3% Lighting ............................................................... 1.97 1.95 1.31 1.16 1.02 0.86 0.79 -3.2% Clothes washers 1 ................................................ 0.10 0.10 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.06 -1.4% Dishwashers 1 ...................................................... 0.31 0.31 0.29 0.29 0.30 0.32 0.34 0.4% Televisions and related equipment 2 .................... 1.03 1.02 0.98 0.99 1.02 1.07 1.11 0.3% Computers and related equipment 3 .................... 0.39 0.38 0.29 0.25 0.21 0.18 0.15 -3.3% Furnace fans and boiler circulation pumps ......... 0.36 0.29 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.6% Other uses 8 ......................................................... 3.71 3.42 4.01 4.27 4.55 4.84 5.16 1.5% Total ................................................................. 21.39 20.10 20.38 20.58 20.83 21.09 21.48 0.2% Nonmarketed renewables 9 Geothermal heat pumps ..................................... 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 3.2% Solar hot water heating ....................................... 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 2.4% Solar photovoltaic ............................................... 0.02 0.02 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.18 0.22 8.3% Wind ................................................................... 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 9.1% Total ................................................................. 0.03 0.04 0.14 0.16 0.19 0.23 0.27 6.9% Heating degree days 10 ........................................... 4,258 3,712 4,015 3,945 3,877 3,810 3,745 0.0% Cooling degree days 10 ........................................... 1,481 1,514 1,488 1,530 1,572 1,614 1,656 0.3% 1 Does not include water heating portion of load. 2 Includes televisions, set-top boxes, home theater systems, DVD players, and video game consoles. 3 Includes desktop and laptop computers, monitors, and networking equipment. 4 Includes small electric devices, heating elements, and motors not listed above. Electric vehicles are included in the transportation sector. 5 Includes such appliances as outdoor grills, exterior lights, pool heaters, spa heaters, and backup electricity generators. 6 Includes such appliances as pool heaters, spa heaters, and backup electricity generators. 7 Includes wood used for primary and secondary heating in wood stoves or fireplaces as reported in the Residential Energy Consumption Survey 2009. 8 Includes small electric devices, heating elements, outdoor grills, exterior lights, pool heaters, spa heaters, backup electricity generators, and motors not listed above. Electric vehicles are included in the transportation sector. 9 Consumption determined by using the fossil fuel equivalent of 9,716 Btu per kilowatthour. 10 See Table A5 for regional detail. Btu = British thermal unit. - - = Not applicable. Note: Totals may not equal sum of components due to independent rounding. Data for 2011 and 2012 are model results and may differ from official EIA data reports. Sources: 2011 and 2012 consumption based on: U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), Monthly Energy Review, DOE/EIA-0035(2013/09) (Washington, DC, September 2013). 2011 and 2012 degree days based on state-level data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Climatic Data Center and Climate Prediction Center. Projections: EIA, AEO2014 National Energy Modeling System run REF2014.D102413A. 137 Energy Information Administration / Annual Energy Outlook 2014 Table A5. Commercial sector key indicators and consumption (quadrillion Btu per year, unless otherwise noted) Key indicators and consumption Reference case Annual growth 2012-2040 (percent) 2011 2012 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Key indicators Total floorspace (billion square feet) Surviving ............................................................. 80.2 80.8 87.1 91.9 96.2 100.8 106.5 1.0% New additions ..................................................... 1.5 1.6 2.1 2.0 2.0 2.3 2.4 1.6% Total ................................................................. 81.7 82.4 89.1 93.9 98.2 103.1 108.9 1.0% Energy consumption intensity (thousand Btu per square foot) Delivered energy consumption ........................... 105.2 100.7 98.5 96.7 95.6 94.6 93.9 -0.3% Electricity related losses ..................................... 115.7 113.2 104.8 103.1 101.3 99.4 98.0 -0.5% Total energy consumption .................................. 220.9 213.8 203.3 199.9 196.9 194.0 191.8 -0.4% Delivered energy consumption by fuel Purchased electricity Space heating 1 ................................................... 0.17 0.15 0.16 0.16 0.15 0.15 0.14 -0.1% Space cooling 1 .................................................... 0.55 0.55 0.51 0.53 0.53 0.55 0.57 0.1% Water heating 1 .................................................... 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.08 -0.4% Ventilation ........................................................... 0.51 0.52 0.55 0.57 0.59 0.60 0.62 0.6% Cooking .............................................................. 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 -0.3% Lighting ............................................................... 0.96 0.94 0.88 0.88 0.87 0.85 0.84 -0.4% Refrigeration ....................................................... 0.39 0.38 0.37 0.37 0.38 0.39 0.41 0.2% Office equipment (PC) ........................................ 0.13 0.12 0.07 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 -5.6% Office equipment (non-PC) ................................. 0.22 0.22 0.24 0.27 0.31 0.35 0.38 2.0% Other uses 2 ......................................................... 1.50 1.53 1.80 2.00 2.20 2.41 2.63 2.0% Delivered energy ............................................. 4.53 4.52 4.69 4.94 5.18 5.42 5.72 0.8% Natural gas Space heating 1 ................................................... 1.72 1.54 1.71 1.68 1.64 1.59 1.54 0.0% Space cooling 1 .................................................... 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 -0.7% Water heating 1 .................................................... 0.47 0.48 0.50 0.51 0.52 0.52 0.53 0.3% Cooking .............................................................. 0.19 0.20 0.21 0.22 0.23 0.23 0.24 0.7% Other uses 3 ......................................................... 0.81 0.70 0.78 0.84 0.94 1.09 1.30 2.2% Delivered energy ............................................. 3.22 2.96 3.23 3.29 3.35 3.48 3.65 0.7% Distillate fuel oil Space heating 1 ................................................... 0.15 0.13 0.14 0.13 0.12 0.11 0.11 -0.8% Water heating 1 .................................................... 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.06 2.5% Other uses 4 ......................................................... 0.23 0.24 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.20 0.20 -0.7% Delivered energy ............................................. 0.42 0.40 0.40 0.39 0.38 0.37 0.37 -0.3% Marketed renewables (biomass) ........................... 0.11 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.0% Other fuels 5 ........................................................... 0.31 0.28 0.33 0.33 0.34 0.35 0.36 0.9% Delivered energy consumption by end use Space heating 1 ................................................... 2.04 1.82 2.01 1.97 1.91 1.85 1.79 -0.1% Space cooling 1 .................................................... 0.59 0.60 0.55 0.56 0.57 0.58 0.60 0.0% Water heating 1 .................................................... 0.59 0.60 0.63 0.65 0.66 0.66 0.67 0.4% Ventilation ........................................................... 0.51 0.52 0.55 0.57 0.59 0.60 0.62 0.6% Cooking .............................................................. 0.21 0.22 0.23 0.24 0.25 0.26 0.26 0.6% Lighting ............................................................... 0.96 0.94 0.88 0.88 0.87 0.85 0.84 -0.4% Refrigeration ....................................................... 0.39 0.38 0.37 0.37 0.38 0.39 0.41 0.2% Office equipment (PC) ........................................ 0.13 0.12 0.07 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 -5.6% Office equipment (non-PC) ................................. 0.22 0.22 0.24 0.27 0.31 0.35 0.38 2.0% Other uses 6 ......................................................... 2.96 2.88 3.26 3.52 3.81 4.18 4.62 1.7% Delivered energy ............................................. 8.60 8.29 8.78 9.08 9.38 9.75 10.22 0.7% 138 Energy Information Administration / Annual Energy Outlook 2014 Table A5. Commercial sector key indicators and consumption (continued) (quadrillion Btu per year, unless otherwise noted) Key indicators and consumption Reference case Annual growth 2012-2040 (percent) 2011 2012 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Electricity related losses ....................................... 9.46 9.32 9.34 9.69 9.94 10.24 10.66 0.5% Total energy consumption by end use Space heating 1 ................................................... 2.40 2.13 2.33 2.28 2.20 2.13 2.06 -0.1% Space cooling 1 .................................................... 1.73 1.74 1.57 1.59 1.60 1.62 1.66 -0.2% Water heating 1 .................................................... 0.78 0.80 0.81 0.82 0.83 0.82 0.82 0.1% Ventilation ........................................................... 1.58 1.58 1.64 1.69 1.71 1.73 1.77 0.4% Cooking .............................................................. 0.26 0.27 0.28 0.28 0.29 0.30 0.30 0.4% Lighting ............................................................... 2.95 2.87 2.63 2.60 2.54 2.45 2.41 -0.6% Refrigeration ....................................................... 1.20 1.17 1.10 1.10 1.11 1.13 1.16 0.0% Office equipment (PC) ........................................ 0.39 0.35 0.20 0.15 0.11 0.08 0.07 -5.8% Office equipment (non-PC) ................................. 0.69 0.67 0.72 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.8% Other uses 6 ......................................................... 6.08 6.04 6.85 7.45 8.04 8.73 9.54 1.6% Total ................................................................. 18.05 17.61 18.12 18.77 19.32 19.99 20.88 0.6% Nonmarketed renewable fuels 7 Solar thermal ........................................................ 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.11 1.0% Solar photovoltaic ................................................. 0.03 0.05 0.10 0.12 0.15 0.19 0.24 5.9% Wind ..................................................................... 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 8.3% Total .................................................................. 0.11 0.13 0.18 0.21 0.24 0.29 0.35 3.7% Heating degree days New England ........................................................ 6,082 5,541 6,045 5,975 5,905 5,835 5,763 0.1% Middle Atlantic ...................................................... 5,405 4,886 5,307 5,229 5,152 5,076 5,000 0.1% East North Central ................................................ 6,163 5,350 5,933 5,867 5,801 5,735 5,669 0.2% West North Central ............................................... 6,635 5,537 6,226 6,170 6,112 6,053 5,992 0.3% South Atlantic ........................................................ 2,568 2,297 2,588 2,551 2,516 2,481 2,448 0.2% East South Central ................................................ 3,358 2,896 3,258 3,218 3,177 3,135 3,093 0.2% West South Central ............................................... 2,145 1,683 1,924 1,870 1,815 1,761 1,707 0.1% Mountain ............................................................... 5,223 4,445 4,660 4,586 4,508 4,428 4,347 -0.1% Pacific ................................................................... 3,532 3,150 3,244 3,267 3,290 3,314 3,339 0.2% United States .................................................... 4,258 3,712 4,015 3,945 3,877 3,810 3,745 0.0% Cooling degree days New England ........................................................ 568 592 565 583 601 620 638 0.3% Middle Atlantic ...................................................... 885 863 848 875 903 929 956 0.4% East North Central ................................................ 855 982 825 835 846 856 867 -0.4% West North Central ............................................... 1,064 1,231 1,024 1,032 1,041 1,051 1,061 -0.5% South Atlantic ........................................................ 2,267 2,184 2,208 2,244 2,280 2,316 2,350 0.3% East South Central ................................................ 1,740 1,780 1,795 1,829 1,863 1,897 1,931 0.3% West South Central ............................................... 3,067 2,903 2,880 2,948 3,017 3,086 3,155 0.3% Mountain ............................................................... 1,506 1,664 1,661 1,719 1,779 1,841 1,905 0.5% Pacific ................................................................... 767 917 860 861 861 861 861 -0.2% United States .................................................... 1,481 1,514 1,488 1,530 1,572 1,614 1,656 0.3% 1 Includes fuel consumption for district services. 2 Includes (but is not limited to) miscellaneous uses such as transformers, medical imaging and other medical equipment, elevators, escalators, off-road electric vehicles, laboratory fume hoods, laundry equipment, coffee brewers, and water services. 3 Includes miscellaneous uses, such as pumps, emergency generators, combined heat and power in commercial buildings, and manufacturing performed in commercial buildings. 4 Includes miscellaneous uses, such as cooking, emergency generators, and combined heat and power in commercial buildings. 5 Includes residual fuel oil, propane, coal, motor gasoline, and kerosene. 6 Includes (but is not limited to) miscellaneous uses such as transformers, medical imaging and other medical equipment, elevators, escalators, off-road electric vehicles, laboratory fume hoods, laundry equipment, coffee brewers, water services, pumps, emergency generators, combined heat and power in commercial buildings, manufacturing performed in commercial buildings, and cooking (distillate), plus residual fuel oil, propane, coal, motor gasoline, kerosene, and marketed renewable fuels (biomass). 7 Consumption determined by using the fossil fuel equivalent of 9,716 Btu per kilowatthour. Btu = British thermal unit. PC = Personal computer. Note: Totals may not equal sum of components due to independent rounding. Data for 2011 and 2012 are model results and may differ from official EIA data reports. Sources: 2011 and 2012 consumption based on: U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), Monthly Energy Review, DOE/EIA-0035(2013/09) (Washington, DC, September 2013). 2011 and 2012 degree days based on state-level data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Climatic Data Center and Climate Prediction Center. Projections: EIA, AEO2014 National Energy Modeling System run REF2014.D102413A. 139 Energy Information Administration / Annual Energy Outlook 2014 Table A6. Industrial sector key indicators and consumption Shipments, prices, and consumption Reference case Annual growth 2012-2040 (percent) 2011 2012 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Key indicators Value of shipments (billion 2005 dollars) Manufacturing ..................................................... 4,370 4,525 5,735 6,467 7,148 7,784 8,443 2.3% Agriculture, mining, and construction .................. 1,556 1,623 2,226 2,311 2,389 2,457 2,551 1.6% Total ................................................................. 5,926 6,147 7,960 8,778 9,537 10,241 10,994 2.1% Energy prices (2012 dollars per million Btu) Propane .............................................................. 22.63 21.09 20.64 22.06 23.27 24.73 25.84 0.7% Motor gasoline .................................................... 23.19 17.52 25.56 27.34 28.51 30.36 32.62 2.2% Distillate fuel oil ................................................... 27.04 27.41 22.22 24.45 26.11 27.97 29.92 0.3% Residual fuel oil .................................................. 19.17 20.90 14.88 16.65 18.29 19.79 21.48 0.1% Asphalt and road oil ............................................ 10.13 10.11 10.85 12.26 13.38 14.60 15.80 1.6% Natural gas heat and power ................................ 4.80 3.43 5.59 6.11 6.79 7.58 8.43 3.3% Natural gas feedstocks ....................................... 5.41 4.16 6.01 6.55 7.21 7.96 8.78 2.7% Metallurgical coal ................................................ 7.13 7.25 8.43 8.95 9.51 9.93 10.20 1.2% Other industrial coal ............................................ 3.31 3.24 3.59 3.73 3.88 4.03 4.19 0.9% Coal to liquids ..................................................... - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Electricity ............................................................ 20.35 19.50 20.77 21.08 21.99 22.91 24.05 0.8% (nominal dollars per million Btu) Propane .............................................................. 22.24 21.09 23.38 27.18 31.32 36.84 42.83 2.6% Motor gasoline .................................................... 22.79 17.52 28.95 33.68 38.37 45.22 54.08 4.1% Distillate fuel oil ................................................... 26.56 27.41 25.17 30.12 35.15 41.66 49.61 2.1% Residual fuel oil .................................................. 18.84 20.90 16.85 20.51 24.62 29.47 35.61 1.9% Asphalt and road oil ............................................ 9.95 10.11 12.29 15.10 18.02 21.75 26.20 3.5% Natural gas heat and power ................................ 4.72 3.43 6.33 7.53 9.14 11.29 13.98 5.1% Natural gas feedstocks ....................................... 5.32 4.16 6.81 8.07 9.70 11.86 14.56 4.6% Metallurgical coal ................................................ 7.01 7.25 9.55 11.03 12.81 14.80 16.91 3.1% Other industrial coal ............................................ 3.25 3.24 4.07 4.59 5.23 6.00 6.95 2.8% Coal to liquids ..................................................... - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Electricity ............................................................ 19.99 19.50 23.52 25.96 29.60 34.13 39.88 2.6% Energy consumption (quadrillion Btu) 1 Industrial consumption excluding refining Propane heat and power .................................... 0.13 0.08 0.15 0.16 0.16 0.15 0.15 2.2% Liquefied petroleum gas and other feedstocks 2 .. 2.12 2.16 2.75 2.89 2.89 2.81 2.75 0.9% Motor gasoline .................................................... 0.26 0.26 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.29 0.29 0.4% Distillate fuel oil ................................................... 1.24 1.19 1.40 1.41 1.41 1.41 1.42 0.6% Residual fuel oil .................................................. 0.13 0.10 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.15 0.15 1.5% Petrochemical feedstocks ................................... 0.88 0.75 1.27 1.52 1.62 1.62 1.59 2.7% Petroleum coke ................................................... 0.12 0.15 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.15 0.16 0.1% Asphalt and road oil ............................................ 0.86 0.83 1.13 1.16 1.21 1.26 1.32 1.7% Miscellaneous petroleum 3 ................................... 0.45 0.56 0.47 0.51 0.54 0.55 0.57 0.0% Petroleum subtotal ........................................... 6.18 6.09 7.76 8.25 8.43 8.41 8.41 1.2% Natural gas heat and power ................................ 5.14 5.22 5.79 6.05 6.18 6.26 6.35 0.7% Natural gas feedstocks ....................................... 0.53 0.58 0.68 0.71 0.70 0.69 0.68 0.5% Lease and plant fuel 4 .......................................... 1.35 1.45 1.77 1.99 2.16 2.29 2.41 1.8% Natural gas subtotal ......................................... 7.03 7.25 8.25 8.74 9.04 9.24 9.43 0.9% Metallurgical coal and coke 5 ............................... 0.58 0.55 0.58 0.57 0.52 0.46 0.42 -0.9% Other industrial coal ............................................ 0.95 0.93 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.01 0.3% Coal subtotal .................................................... 1.52 1.48 1.57 1.57 1.52 1.45 1.44 -0.1% Renewables 6 ....................................................... 1.49 1.48 1.74 1.88 2.01 2.13 2.28 1.6% Purchased electricity ........................................... 3.18 3.15 3.87 4.11 4.17 4.16 4.18 1.0% Delivered energy ............................................ 19.40 19.45 23.18 24.56 25.17 25.39 25.73 1.0% Electricity related losses ..................................... 6.64 6.50 7.71 8.06 8.02 7.86 7.80 0.7% Total ................................................................ 26.04 25.95 30.90 32.61 33.19 33.25 33.53 0.9% 140 Energy Information Administration / Annual Energy Outlook 2014 Table A6. Industrial sector key indicators and consumption (continued) Shipments, prices, and consumption Reference case Annual growth 2012-2040 (percent) 2011 2012 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Refining consumption Liquefied petroleum gas heat and power ............ 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - Distillate fuel oil ................................................... 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - Residual fuel oil .................................................. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - Petroleum coke ................................................... 0.53 0.54 0.45 0.41 0.40 0.39 0.40 -1.1% Still gas ............................................................... 1.40 1.41 1.35 1.29 1.28 1.28 1.30 -0.3% Miscellaneous petroleum 3 ................................... 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - Petroleum subtotal ........................................... 1.95 1.97 1.80 1.70 1.67 1.67 1.69 -0.5% Natural gas heat and power ................................ 1.09 1.19 1.43 1.48 1.47 1.47 1.48 0.8% Natural gas feedstocks ....................................... 0.29 0.30 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.6% Natural-gas-to-liquids heat and power ................ 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - Natural gas subtotal ......................................... 1.38 1.50 1.79 1.84 1.83 1.83 1.85 0.8% Other industrial coal ............................................ 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - Coal-to-liquids heat and power ........................... 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - Coal subtotal .................................................... 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - Biofuels heat and coproducts.............................. 0.46 0.52 0.76 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 1.5% Purchased electricity ........................................... 0.20 0.20 0.17 0.17 0.16 0.16 0.16 -0.7% Delivered energy ............................................ 4.00 4.18 4.52 4.49 4.45 4.45 4.49 0.3% Electricity related losses ..................................... 0.42 0.40 0.34 0.32 0.31 0.30 0.30 -1.0% Total ................................................................ 4.42 4.59 4.86 4.82 4.76 4.76 4.79 0.2% Total industrial sector consumption Liquefied petroleum gas heat and power ............ 0.13 0.09 0.15 0.16 0.16 0.15 0.15 1.9% Liquefied petroleum gas and other feedstocks 2 .. 2.12 2.16 2.75 2.89 2.89 2.81 2.75 0.9% Motor gasoline .................................................... 0.26 0.26 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.29 0.29 0.4% Distillate fuel oil ................................................... 1.24 1.20 1.40 1.41 1.41 1.41 1.42 0.6% Residual fuel oil .................................................. 0.13 0.10 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.15 0.15 1.4% Petrochemical feedstocks ................................... 0.88 0.75 1.27 1.52 1.62 1.62 1.59 2.7% Petroleum coke ................................................... 0.65 0.69 0.61 0.57 0.56 0.55 0.56 -0.8% Asphalt and road oil ............................................ 0.86 0.83 1.13 1.16 1.21 1.26 1.32 1.7% Still gas ............................................................... 1.40 1.41 1.35 1.29 1.28 1.28 1.30 -0.3% Miscellaneous petroleum 3 ................................... 0.46 0.57 0.47 0.51 0.54 0.55 0.57 0.0% Petroleum subtotal ........................................... 8.13 8.06 9.56 9.95 10.10 10.08 10.10 0.8% Natural gas heat and power ................................ 6.24 6.41 7.23 7.52 7.65 7.74 7.83 0.7% Natural gas feedstocks ....................................... 0.82 0.88 1.04 1.07 1.06 1.05 1.04 0.6% Natural-gas-to-liquids heat and power ................ 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - Lease and plant fuel 4 .......................................... 1.35 1.45 1.77 1.99 2.16 2.29 2.41 1.8% Natural gas subtotal ......................................... 8.41 8.75 10.04 10.58 10.87 11.07 11.28 0.9% Metallurgical coal and coke 5 ............................... 0.58 0.55 0.58 0.57 0.52 0.46 0.42 -0.9% Other industrial coal ............................................ 0.95 0.93 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.01 0.3% Coal-to-liquids heat and power ........................... 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - Coal subtotal .................................................... 1.53 1.48 1.57 1.57 1.52 1.45 1.44 -0.1% Biofuels heat and coproducts.............................. 0.46 0.52 0.76 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 1.5% Renewables 6 ....................................................... 1.49 1.48 1.74 1.88 2.01 2.13 2.28 1.6% Purchased electricity ........................................... 3.38 3.35 4.04 4.27 4.33 4.32 4.34 0.9% Delivered energy ............................................ 23.40 23.63 27.71 29.05 29.62 29.84 30.22 0.9% Electricity related losses ..................................... 7.06 6.91 8.05 8.38 8.33 8.16 8.10 0.6% Total ................................................................ 30.46 30.54 35.76 37.43 37.94 38.00 38.33 0.8% 141 Energy Information Administration / Annual Energy Outlook 2014 Table A6. Industrial sector key indicators and consumption (continued) Key indicators and consumption Reference case Annual growth 2012-2040 (percent) 2011 2012 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Energy consumption per dollar of shipments (thousand Btu per 2005 dollar) Liquid fuels and other petroleum ......................... 1.37 1.31 1.20 1.13 1.06 0.98 0.92 -1.3% Natural gas ......................................................... 1.42 1.42 1.26 1.21 1.14 1.08 1.03 -1.2% Coal .................................................................... 0.26 0.24 0.20 0.18 0.16 0.14 0.13 -2.2% Renewable fuels 5 ................................................ 0.33 0.33 0.31 0.30 0.29 0.29 0.28 -0.5% Purchased electricity ........................................... 0.57 0.54 0.51 0.49 0.45 0.42 0.40 -1.1% Delivered energy ............................................ 3.95 3.84 3.48 3.31 3.11 2.91 2.75 -1.2% Industrial combined heat and power 1 Capacity (gigawatts) ............................................. 25.51 26.95 31.11 34.21 38.48 43.27 46.16 1.9% Generation (billion kilowatthours) .......................... 140.20 143.79 169.54 185.50 207.81 233.21 249.22 2.0% 1 Includes combined heat and power plants that have a regulatory status, and small on-site generating systems. 2 Includes ethane, natural gasoline, and olefins. 3 Includes lubricants and miscellaneous petroleum products. 4 Represents natural gas used in well, field, and lease operations, in natural gas processing plant machinery, and for liquefaction in export facilities. 5 Includes net coal coke imports. 6 Includes consumption of energy produced from hydroelectric, wood and wood waste, municipal waste, and other biomass sources. Btu = British thermal unit. - - = Not applicable. Note: Totals may not equal sum of components due to independent rounding. Data for 2011 and 2012 are model results and may differ from official EIA data reports. Sources: 2011 and 2012 prices for motor gasoline and distillate fuel oil are based on: U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), Petroleum Marketing Monthly, DOE/EIA-0380(2013/08) (Washington, DC, August 2013). 2011 and 2012 petrochemical feedstock and asphalt and road oil prices are based on: EIA, State Energy Data Report 2011, DOE/EIA-0214(2011) (Washington, DC, June 2013). 2011 and 2012 coal prices are based on: EIA, Quarterly Coal Report, October-December 2012, DOE/EIA-0121(2012/4Q) (Washington, DC, March 2013) and EIA, AEO2014 National Energy Modeling System run REF2014.D102413A. 2011 and 2012 electricity prices: EIA, Monthly Energy Review, DOE/EIA-0035(2013/09) (Washington, DC, September 2013). 2011 natural gas prices: EIA, Natural Gas Annual 2011, DOE/EIA-0131(2011) (Washington, DC, December 2012) and EIA, Office of Energy Analysis. 2012 natural gas prices: Natural Gas Monthly, DOE/EIA-0130(2013/06) (Washington, DC, June 2013) and EIA, Office of Energy Analysis. 2011 refining consumption values are based on: Petroleum Supply Annual 2011, DOE/EIA-0340(2011)/1 (Washington, DC, August 2012). 2012 refining consumption based on: Petroleum Supply Annual 2012, DOE/EIA-0340(2012)/1 (Washington, DC, September 2013). Other 2011 and 2012 consumption values are based on: EIA, Monthly Energy Review, DOE/EIA- 0035(2013/09) (Washington, DC, September 2013). 2011 and 2012 shipments: IHS Global Insight, Global Insight Industry model, May 2013. Projections: EIA, AEO2014 National Energy Modeling System run REF2014.D102413A. 142 Energy Information Administration / Annual Energy Outlook 2014 Table A7. Transportation sector key indicators and delivered energy consumption Key indicators and consumption Reference case Annual growth 2012-2040 (percent) 2011 2012 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Key indicators Travel indicators (billion vehicle miles traveled) Light-duty vehicles less than 8,501 pounds .... 2,623 2,662 2,851 2,977 3,138 3,303 3,434 0.9% Commercial light trucks 1 ................................. 62 63 76 83 90 96 103 1.8% Freight trucks greater than 10,000 pounds ..... 252 245 310 339 362 385 411 1.9% (billion seat miles available) Air ................................................................... 982 990 1,064 1,101 1,135 1,165 1,199 0.7% (billion ton miles traveled) Rail ................................................................. 1,746 1,729 1,624 1,721 1,738 1,737 1,736 0.0% Domestic shipping .......................................... 447 378 390 378 369 367 371 -0.1% Energy efficiency indicators (miles per gallon) New light-duty vehicle CAFE standard 2 .......... 27.6 29.4 36.6 46.4 46.6 46.7 46.8 1.7% New car 2 ...................................................... 30.7 33.4 43.7 54.3 54.3 54.3 54.3 1.8% New light truck 2 ............................................ 24.6 25.7 30.9 39.5 39.5 39.5 39.5 1.5% Compliance new light-duty vehicle 3 ................ 32.4 32.7 38.6 47.2 47.8 48.1 48.2 1.4% New car 3 ...................................................... 36.7 37.1 44.2 54.9 55.4 55.6 55.6 1.5% New light truck 3 ............................................ 28.5 28.7 33.7 40.3 40.8 40.9 40.9 1.3% Tested new light-duty vehicle 4 ........................ 31.2 31.7 38.6 47.2 47.8 48.0 48.2 1.5% New car 4 ...................................................... 35.7 36.3 44.2 54.9 55.4 55.5 55.6 1.5% New light truck 4 ............................................ 27.3 27.5 33.7 40.3 40.7 40.9 40.8 1.4% On-road new light-duty vehicle 5 ...................... 25.2 25.6 31.2 38.1 38.6 38.8 38.9 1.5% New car 5 ...................................................... 29.2 29.7 36.1 44.8 45.2 45.4 45.4 1.5% New light truck 5 ............................................ 21.8 22.0 27.0 32.2 32.6 32.7 32.7 1.4% Light-duty stock 6 ............................................. 21.2 21.5 25.1 28.7 32.6 35.4 37.2 2.0% New commercial light truck 1 ............................ 18.1 18.1 20.9 24.2 24.5 24.6 24.6 1.1% Stock commercial light truck 1 .......................... 14.9 15.2 18.0 20.4 22.5 23.9 24.5 1.7% Freight truck .................................................... 6.7 6.7 7.3 7.5 7.7 7.8 7.8 0.5% (seat miles per gallon) Aircraft ............................................................ 62.3 62.4 63.9 65.2 67.0 69.2 71.5 0.5% (ton miles per thousand Btu) Rail ................................................................. 3.4 3.4 3.6 3.8 3.9 4.1 4.2 0.7% Domestic shipping .......................................... 4.6 4.7 5.0 5.2 5.4 5.6 5.8 0.8% Energy use by mode (quadrillion Btu) Light-duty vehicles ................................................ 15.52 15.49 14.24 13.01 12.09 11.70 11.58 -1.0% Commercial light trucks 1 ....................................... 0.52 0.52 0.53 0.51 0.50 0.50 0.53 0.0% Bus transportation ................................................. 0.24 0.24 0.25 0.26 0.27 0.28 0.29 0.7% Freight trucks ........................................................ 5.19 5.02 5.87 6.19 6.47 6.80 7.23 1.3% Rail, passenger ..................................................... 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.9% Rail, freight............................................................ 0.51 0.48 0.45 0.46 0.45 0.43 0.42 -0.5% Shipping, domestic ............................................... 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.08 -0.8% Shipping, international .......................................... 0.77 0.58 0.59 0.59 0.60 0.61 0.61 0.2% Recreational boats ................................................ 0.24 0.24 0.25 0.26 0.27 0.28 0.28 0.6% Air ......................................................................... 2.46 2.47 2.60 2.65 2.69 2.69 2.70 0.3% Military use............................................................ 0.74 0.70 0.64 0.65 0.68 0.72 0.77 0.3% Lubricants ............................................................. 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.1% Pipeline fuel .......................................................... 0.70 0.73 0.74 0.76 0.82 0.83 0.85 0.5% Total .................................................................. 27.17 26.74 26.41 25.61 25.09 25.11 25.51 -0.2% 143 Energy Information Administration / Annual Energy Outlook 2014 Table A7. Transportation sector key indicators and delivered energy consumption (continued) Key indicators and consumption Reference case Annual growth 2012-2040 (percent) 2011 2012 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Energy use by mode (million barrels per day oil equivalent) Light-duty vehicles ................................................ 8.42 8.41 7.76 7.13 6.65 6.44 6.38 -1.0% Commercial light trucks 1 ....................................... 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.27 0.0% Bus transportation ................................................. 0.12 0.11 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.7% Freight trucks ........................................................ 2.50 2.42 2.83 2.98 3.12 3.28 3.48 1.3% Rail, passenger ..................................................... 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.9% Rail, freight............................................................ 0.24 0.23 0.21 0.22 0.21 0.21 0.20 -0.5% Shipping, domestic ............................................... 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 -0.8% Shipping, international .......................................... 0.34 0.25 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.27 0.27 0.2% Recreational boats ................................................ 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.6% Air ......................................................................... 1.19 1.20 1.26 1.28 1.30 1.30 1.31 0.3% Military use............................................................ 0.35 0.34 0.31 0.31 0.33 0.35 0.37 0.3% Lubricants ............................................................. 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.1% Pipeline fuel .......................................................... 0.33 0.35 0.35 0.36 0.39 0.39 0.40 0.5% Total .................................................................. 14.03 13.84 13.63 13.20 12.92 12.90 13.09 -0.2% 1 Commercial trucks 8,501 to 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight rating. 2 CAFE standard based on projected new vehicle sales. 3 Includes CAFE credits for alternative fueled vehicle sales and credit banking. 4 Environmental Protection Agency rated miles per gallon. 5 Tested new vehicle efficiency revised for on-road performance. 6 Combined”on-the-road” estimate for all cars and light trucks. CAFE = Corporate average fuel economy. Btu = British thermal unit. Note: Totals may not equal sum of components due to independent rounding. Data for 2011 and 2012 are model results and may differ from official EIA data reports. Sources: 2011 and 2012: U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), Monthly Energy Review, DOE/EIA-0035(2013/09) (Washington, DC, September 2013); EIA, Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels 2009 (Part II - User and Fuel Data), April 2011; Federal Highway Administration, Highway Statistics 2010 (Washington, DC, February 2012); Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Transportation Energy Data Book: Edition 32 (Oak Ridge, TN, July 2013); National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration, Summary of Fuel Economy Performance (Washington, DC, October 2012); U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, “Vehicle Inventory and Use Survey,” EC02TV (Washington, DC, December 2004); EIA, U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Special Programs Administration, Air Carrier Statistics Monthly, December 2010/2009 (Washington, DC, December 2010); and United States Department of Defense, Defense Fuel Supply Center, Factbook (January, 2010). Projections: EIA, AEO2014 National Energy Modeling System run REF2014.D102413A. 144 Energy Information Administration / Annual Energy Outlook 2014 Table A8. Electricity supply, disposition, prices, and emissions (billion kilowatthours, unless otherwise noted) Supply, disposition, prices, and emissions Reference case Annual growth 2012-2040 (percent) 2011 2012 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Generation by fuel type Electric power sector 1 Power only 2 Coal .................................................................. 1,692 1,478 1,606 1,650 1,652 1,640 1,635 0.4% Petroleum ......................................................... 26 18 15 16 15 15 16 -0.5% Natural gas 3 ...................................................... 804 1,000 1,020 1,135 1,256 1,374 1,471 1.4% Nuclear power ................................................... 790 769 779 779 782 786 811 0.2% Pumped storage/other 4 ..................................... 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 0.2% Renewable sources 5 ......................................... 476 459 600 634 660 686 735 1.7% Distributed generation (natural gas) .................. 0 0 1 2 2 3 4 - - Total .............................................................. 3,790 3,727 4,025 4,217 4,370 4,508 4,675 0.8% Combined heat and power 6 Coal .................................................................. 26 20 26 26 26 26 26 0.9% Petroleum ......................................................... 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 -3.6% Natural gas ....................................................... 121 133 134 135 135 134 134 0.0% Renewable sources .......................................... 5 5 8 8 8 8 8 1.9% Total .............................................................. 157 163 168 169 170 169 169 0.1% Total electric power sector generation ............ 3,946 3,890 4,193 4,387 4,540 4,677 4,844 0.8% Less direct use ..................................................... 12 13 14 14 14 14 14 0.3% Net available to the grid ...................................... 3,935 3,877 4,179 4,373 4,526 4,663 4,830 0.8% End-use sector 7 Coal .................................................................... 15 13 13 13 13 13 13 0.0% Petroleum ........................................................... 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 -0.4% Natural gas ......................................................... 88 95 112 130 159 197 231 3.2% Other gaseous fuels 8 .......................................... 11 11 18 18 18 18 18 1.8% Renewable sources 9 ........................................... 36 39 60 69 80 93 108 3.7% Other 10 ................................................................ 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 0.0% Total end-use sector generation .................. 156 165 209 236 276 327 375 3.0% Less direct use .................................................... 115 127 169 193 228 274 317 3.3% Total sales to the grid .................................... 41 38 41 43 47 53 58 1.5% Total electricity generation by fuel Coal .................................................................... 1,733 1,512 1,646 1,689 1,692 1,679 1,675 0.4% Petroleum ........................................................... 30 23 18 19 19 19 19 -0.7% Natural gas ......................................................... 1,014 1,228 1,268 1,401 1,552 1,708 1,839 1.5% Nuclear power ..................................................... 790 769 779 779 782 786 811 0.2% Renewable sources 5,9 ......................................... 517 502 667 711 748 787 851 1.9% Other 11 ................................................................ 19 19 24 24 24 24 24 0.7% Total electricity generation ........................... 4,103 4,054 4,402 4,622 4,815 5,004 5,219 0.9% Net generation to the grid ................................... 3,976 3,915 4,220 4,416 4,573 4,716 4,888 0.8% Net imports .............................................................. 37 47 33 35 35 31 35 -1.1% Electricity sales by sector Residential ............................................................. 1,423 1,375 1,418 1,467 1,526 1,585 1,657 0.7% Commercial............................................................ 1,328 1,324 1,374 1,448 1,517 1,588 1,675 0.8% Industrial ................................................................ 991 981 1,184 1,253 1,270 1,265 1,273 0.9% Transportation ........................................................ 7 7 9 10 13 15 18 3.6% Total .................................................................... 3,749 3,686 3,986 4,178 4,327 4,454 4,623 0.8% Direct use .............................................................. 127 139 182 206 242 288 331 3.1% Total electricity use ........................................... 3,875 3,826 4,168 4,385 4,569 4,742 4,954 0.9% 145 Energy Information Administration / Annual Energy Outlook 2014 Table A8. Electricity supply, disposition, prices, and emissions (continued) (billion kilowatthours, unless otherwise noted) Supply, disposition, prices, and emissions Reference case Annual growth 2012-2040 (percent) 2011 2012 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 End-use prices (2012 cents per kilowatthour) Residential ............................................................. 11.9 11.9 12.3 12.3 12.6 12.9 13.3 0.4% Commercial............................................................ 10.4 10.1 10.5 10.4 10.7 10.9 11.3 0.4% Industrial ................................................................ 6.9 6.7 7.1 7.2 7.5 7.8 8.2 0.8% Transportation ........................................................ 11.6 10.7 10.2 10.3 10.8 11.1 11.7 0.3% All sectors average ............................................ 10.1 9.8 10.1 10.1 10.4 10.7 11.1 0.4% (nominal cents per kilowatthour) Residential ............................................................. 11.7 11.9 14.0 15.2 17.0 19.2 22.0 2.2% Commercial............................................................ 10.2 10.1 11.9 12.8 14.4 16.3 18.7 2.2% Industrial ................................................................ 6.8 6.7 8.0 8.9 10.1 11.6 13.6 2.6% Transportation ........................................................ 11.4 10.7 11.5 12.6 14.6 16.6 19.3 2.1% All sectors average ............................................ 9.9 9.8 11.5 12.5 14.0 16.0 18.5 2.3% Prices by service category (2012 cents per kilowatthour) Generation ............................................................. 5.9 5.7 6.4 6.5 6.8 7.1 7.5 1.0% Transmission ......................................................... 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 0.2% Distribution ............................................................. 3.1 3.1 2.7 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 -0.6% (nominal cents per kilowatthour) Generation ............................................................. 5.8 5.7 7.2 8.0 9.2 10.6 12.4 2.8% Transmission ......................................................... 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.5 1.6 1.8 2.0% Distribution ............................................................. 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.2 3.5 3.8 4.3 1.2% Electric power sector emissions 1 Sulfur dioxide (million short tons) ........................... 4.57 3.34 1.38 1.54 1.58 1.59 1.61 -2.6% Nitrogen oxide (million short tons) ......................... 1.94 1.68 1.48 1.56 1.59 1.60 1.60 -0.2% Mercury (short tons) ............................................... 30.75 26.35 6.51 6.60 6.69 6.72 6.81 -4.7% 1 Includes electricity-only and combined heat and power plants that have a regulatory status. 2 Includes plants that only produce electricity and that have a regulatory status. 3 Includes electricity generation from fuel cells. 4 Includes non-biogenic municipal waste. The U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates that in 2012 approximately 6 billion kilowatthours of electricity were generated from a municipal waste stream containing petroleum-derived plastics and other non-renewable sources. See U.S. Energy Information Administration, Methodology for Allocating Municipal Solid Waste to Biogenic and Non-Biogenic Energy, (Washington, DC, May 2007). 5 Includes conventional hydroelectric, geothermal, wood, wood waste, biogenic municipal waste, landfill gas, other biomass, solar, and wind power. 6 Includes combined heat and power plants whose primary business is to sell electricity and heat to the public (i.e., those that report North American Industry Classification System code 22 or that have a regulatory status). 7 Includes combined heat and power plants and electricity-only plants in the commercial and industrial sectors that have a non-regulatory status; and small on- site generating systems in the residential, commercial, and industrial sectors used primarily for own-use generation, but which may also sell some power to the grid. 8 Includes refinery gas and still gas. 9 Includes conventional hydroelectric, geothermal, wood, wood waste, all municipal waste, landfill gas, other biomass, solar, and wind power. 10 Includes batteries, chemicals, hydrogen, pitch, purchased steam, sulfur, and miscellaneous technologies. 11 Includes pumped storage, non-biogenic municipal waste, refinery gas, still gas, batteries, chemicals, hydrogen, pitch, purchased steam, sulfur, and miscellaneous technologies. - - = Not applicable. Note: Totals may not equal sum of components due to independent rounding. Data for 2011 and 2012 are model results and may differ from official EIA data reports. Sources: 2011 and 2012 electric power sector generation; sales to the grid; net imports; electricity sales; and electricity end-use prices: U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), Monthly Energy Review, DOE/EIA-0035(2013/09) (Washington, DC, September 2013), and supporting databases. 2011 and 2012 emissions: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Clean Air Markets Database. 2011 and 2012 electricity prices by service category: EIA, AEO2014 National Energy Modeling System run REF2014.D102413A. Projections: EIA, AEO2014 National Energy Modeling System run REF2014.D102413A. 146 Energy Information Administration / Annual Energy Outlook 2014 Table A9. Electricity generating capacity (gigawatts) Net summer capacity 1 Reference case Annual growth 2012-2040 (percent) 2011 2012 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Electric power sector 2 Power only 3 Coal ..................................................................... 307.9 301.9 254.9 254.0 254.0 254.0 254.1 -0.6% Oil and natural gas steam 4 .................................. 103.4 99.2 84.9 77.2 70.9 68.7 68.5 -1.3% Combined cycle ................................................... 178.8 186.2 205.1 224.1 259.6 291.0 316.2 1.9% Combustion turbine/diesel ................................... 135.4 136.4 146.3 166.1 180.6 199.5 220.4 1.7% Nuclear power 5 .................................................... 101.5 102.1 97.8 97.8 98.2 98.8 102.0 0.0% Pumped storage .................................................. 22.3 22.4 22.4 22.4 22.4 22.4 22.4 0.0% Fuel cells ............................................................. 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.9% Renewable sources 6 ............................................ 133.0 147.6 173.1 175.0 178.2 184.2 199.2 1.1% Distributed generation (natural gas) 7 ................... 0.0 0.0 1.6 3.3 4.6 6.2 8.9 - - Total ................................................................ 982.4 996.0 986.1 1,020.0 1,068.6 1,124.7 1,191.7 0.6% Combined heat and power 8 Coal ..................................................................... 4.8 4.7 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.3 -0.3% Oil and natural gas steam 4 .................................. 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 0.0% Combined cycle ................................................... 25.6 25.7 26.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 0.0% Combustion turbine/diesel ................................... 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 0.0% Renewable sources 6 ............................................ 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 0.1% Total ................................................................ 36.1 36.1 36.2 36.2 36.2 36.2 36.1 0.0% Cumulative planned additions 9 Coal ..................................................................... - - - - 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 - - Oil and natural gas steam 4 .................................. - - - - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - - Combined cycle ................................................... - - - - 9.7 9.7 9.7 9.7 9.7 - - Combustion turbine/diesel ................................... - - - - 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 - - Nuclear power ..................................................... - - - - 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 - - Pumped storage .................................................. - - - - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - - Fuel cells ............................................................. - - - - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - - Renewable sources 6 ............................................ - - - - 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 - - Distributed generation 7 ........................................ - - - - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - - Total ................................................................ - - - - 30.1 30.1 30.1 30.1 30.1 - - Cumulative unplanned additions 9 Coal ..................................................................... - - - - 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.5 - - Oil and natural gas steam 4 .................................. - - - - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - - Combined cycle ................................................... - - - - 9.8 28.8 64.3 95.7 120.9 - - Combustion turbine/diesel ................................... - - - - 14.1 34.5 49.2 68.5 89.4 - - Nuclear power ..................................................... - - - - 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.9 4.2 - - Pumped storage .................................................. - - - - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - - Fuel cells ............................................................. - - - - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - - Renewable sources 6 ............................................ - - - - 17.4 19.3 22.5 28.5 43.5 - - Distributed generation 7 ........................................ - - - - 1.6 3.3 4.6 6.2 8.9 - - Total ................................................................ - - - - 43.2 86.3 141.4 200.2 267.4 - - Cumulative electric power sector additions 9 .... - - - - 73.3 116.4 171.5 230.3 297.5 - - Cumulative retirements 10 Coal ..................................................................... - - - - 49.9 50.7 50.7 50.7 50.8 - - Oil and natural gas steam 4 .................................. - - - - 14.4 22.1 28.3 30.6 30.8 - - Combined cycle ................................................... - - - - 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 - - Combustion turbine/diesel ................................... - - - - 7.8 8.5 8.7 9.1 9.2 - - Nuclear power ..................................................... - - - - 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 - - Pumped storage .................................................. - - - - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - - Fuel cells ............................................................. - - - - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - - Renewable sources 6 ............................................ - - - - 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 - - Total ................................................................ - - - - 78.0 87.3 93.8 96.4 96.7 - - Total electric power sector capacity ..................... 1,018.5 1,032.0 1,022.2 1,056.2 1,104.8 1,160.9 1,227.8 0.6% 147 Energy Information Administration / Annual Energy Outlook 2014 Table A9. Electricity generating capacity (continued) (gigawatts) Net summer capacity 1 Reference case Annual growth 2012-2040 (percent) 2011 2012 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 End-use generators 11 Coal ....................................................................... 3.6 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 0.0% Petroleum .............................................................. 0.7 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 -0.3% Natural gas ............................................................ 14.9 16.3 19.2 22.3 27.3 33.7 38.9 3.2% Other gaseous fuels 12 ............................................ 2.0 2.1 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 1.0% Renewable sources 6 .............................................. 8.6 10.5 20.5 23.8 28.5 34.3 41.3 5.0% Other 13 ................................................................... 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.1% Total ................................................................... 30.2 33.8 47.2 53.7 63.4 75.6 87.7 3.5% Cumulative capacity additions 9 .......................... - - - - 13.5 20.0 29.7 41.8 53.9 - - 1 Net summer capacity is the steady hourly output that generating equipment is expected to supply to system load (exclusive of auxiliary power), as demonstrated by tests during summer peak demand. 2 Includes electricity-only and combined heat and power plants that have a regulatory status. 3 Includes plants that only produce electricity and that have a regulatory status. Includes capacity increases (uprates) at existing units. 4 Includes oil-, gas-, and dual-fired capacity. 5 Nuclear capacity includes 0.7 gigawatts of uprates and 5.7 gigawatts of derates through 2020. 6 Includes conventional hydroelectric, geothermal, wood, wood waste, all municipal waste, landfill gas, other biomass, solar, and wind power. Facilities co-firing biomass and coal are classified as coal. 7 Primarily peak load capacity fueled by natural gas. 8 Includes combined heat and power plants whose primary business is to sell electricity and heat to the public (i.e., those that report North American Industry Classification System code 22 or that have a regulatory status). 9 Cumulative additions after December 31, 2012. 10 Cumulative retirements after December 31, 2012. 11 Includes combined heat and power plants and electricity-only plants in the commercial and industrial sectors that have a non-regulatory status; and small on- site generating systems in the residential, commercial, and industrial sectors used primarily for own-use generation, but which may also sell some power to the grid. 12 Includes refinery gas and still gas. 13 Includes batteries, chemicals, hydrogen, pitch, purchased steam, sulfur, and miscellaneous technologies. - - = Not applicable. Note: Totals may not equal sum of components due to independent rounding. Data for 2011 and 2012 are model results and may differ from official EIA data reports. Sources: 2011 and 2012 capacity and projected planned additions: U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), Form EIA-860, "Annual Electric Generator Report” (preliminary). Projections: EIA, AEO2014 National Energy Modeling System run REF2014.D102413A. 148 Energy Information Administration / Annual Energy Outlook 2014 Table A10. Electricity trade (billion kilowatthours, unless otherwise noted) Electricity trade Reference case Annual growth 2012-2040 (percent) 2011 2012 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Interregional electricity trade Gross domestic sales Firm power .......................................................... 161.5 155.8 129.7 65.9 27.6 27.6 27.6 -6.0% Economy ............................................................. 157.3 174.0 134.7 141.4 194.5 164.9 182.6 0.2% Total ................................................................ 318.8 329.9 264.4 207.3 222.1 192.5 210.2 -1.6% Gross domestic sales (million 2012 dollars) Firm power .......................................................... 10,069.9 9,716.3 8,088.6 4,109.8 1,722.5 1,722.5 1,722.5 -6.0% Economy ............................................................. 7,446.1 6,053.8 6,421.1 7,674.7 11,497.7 10,617.5 12,851.8 2.7% Total ................................................................ 17,516.0 15,770.1 14,509.7 11,784.5 13,220.2 12,340.0 14,574.2 -0.3% International electricity trade Imports from Canada and Mexico Firm power .......................................................... 15.0 15.9 20.4 16.4 14.0 14.0 14.0 -0.5% Economy ............................................................. 37.4 43.1 27.9 34.2 35.4 31.0 35.0 -0.7% Total ................................................................ 52.4 59.0 48.3 50.6 49.3 44.9 49.0 -0.7% Exports to Canada and Mexico Firm power .......................................................... 2.6 2.7 1.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 - - Economy ............................................................. 12.8 8.8 13.9 14.6 14.6 14.3 14.3 1.8% Total ................................................................ 15.4 11.5 15.3 15.1 14.6 14.3 14.3 0.8% - - = Not applicable. Note: Totals may not equal sum of components due to independent rounding. Data for 2011 and 2012 are model results and may differ from official EIA data reports. Firm power sales are capacity sales, meaning the delivery of the power is scheduled as part of the normal operating conditions of the affected electric systems. Economy sales are subject to curtailment or cessation of delivery by the supplier in accordance with prior agreements or under specified conditions. Sources: 2011 and 2012 interregional firm electricity trade data: 2012 seasonal reliability assessments from North American Electric Reliability Council regional entities and Independent System Operators. 2011 and 2012 interregional economy electricity trade are model results. 2011 and 2012 Mexican electricity trade data: U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), Electric Power Annual 2011, DOE/EIA-0348(2011) (Washington, DC, January 2013). 2011 Canadian international electricity trade data: National Energy Board, Electricity Exports and Imports Statistics, 2011. 2012 Canadian international electricity trade data: National Energy Board, Electricity Exports and Imports Statistics, 2012. Projections: EIA, AEO2014 National Energy Modeling System run REF2014.D102413A. 149 APPENDIX 2 150 Home > Facility Locator > Operating Nuclear Power Reactors by Location or Name > Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1 Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1 Location: London, AR (6 miles WNW of Russellville, AR) in Region IV Operator: Entergy Operations, Inc. Operating License: Issued - 05/21/1974 Renewed License: Issued - 06/20/2001 License Expires: 05/20/2034 Docket Number: 05000313 Reactor Type: Pressurized Water Reactor Licensed MWt: 2,568 Reactor Vendor/Type: Babcock & Wilcox Lowered Loop Containment Type: Dry, Ambient Pressure Plant Diagram Plant Information NRC Employee Contacts Reactor Status Report (Daily) • Reactor Event Notification • Safety Performance Summary • Inspection Reports | Dataset (Prev. 12 Mos.) | Data Dictionary • US Plant Inspections following Japan Event • Severe Accident Inspections • FEMA After Action Reports (Emergency Exercises) • Enforcement Actions • Press Releases • Upcoming Meetings • Past Meetings • Sr. Public Affairs Officer: Victor Dricks - 817-200-1128 • Public Affairs Officer: Lara Uselding - 817-200-1519 • Sr. Resident Inspector: Brian Tindell - 479-968-3290 • Resident Inspector: Abin Fairbanks - 479-968-3290 Matthew Young - 479-968-3290 • Project Manager • Key Documents Related Information License Renewal • Plant Operating License • Plant Environmental Report • Plant-Specific Actions in Response to the Japan Nuclear Accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi • Reactor Quick Links • Reactor Oversight Process • NRC Emergency Preparedness and Response • FEMA's State Offices and Agencies of Emergency Management • Other Reactors in Arkansas • ADAMS - for additional documents • Subscribe to E-mail Notices for Reactor Correspondence • Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, April 23, 2014 151 Home > Facility Locator > Operating Nuclear Power Reactors by Location or Name > Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2 Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2 Location: London, AR (6 miles WNW of Russellville, AR) in Region IV Operator: Entergy Operations, Inc. Operating License: Issued - 09/01/1978 Renewed License: Issued - 06/30/2005 License Expires: 07/17/2038 Docket Number: 05000368 Reactor Type: Pressurized Water Reactor Licensed MWt: 3,026 Reactor Vendor/Type: Combustion Engineering Containment Type: Dry, Ambient Pressure Plant Diagram Plant Information NRC Employee Contacts Reactor Status Report (Daily) • Reactor Event Notification • Safety Performance Summary • Inspection Reports | Dataset (Prev. 12 Mos.) | Data Dictionary • US Plant Inspections following Japan Event • Severe Accident Inspections • FEMA After Action Reports (Emergency Exercises) • Enforcement Actions • Press Releases • Upcoming Meetings • Past Meetings • Sr. Public Affairs Officer: Victor Dricks - 817-200-1128 • Public Affairs Officer: Lara Uselding - 817-200-1519 • Sr. Resident Inspector: Brian Tindell - 479-968-3290 • Resident Inspector: Abin Fairbanks - 479-968-3290 Matthew Young - 479-968-3290 • Project Manager • Key Documents Related Information License Renewal • Plant Operating License • Plant Environmental Report • Plant-Specific Actions in Response to the Japan Nuclear Accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi • Reactor Quick Links • Reactor Oversight Process • NRC Emergency Preparedness and Response • FEMA's State Offices and Agencies of Emergency Management • ADAMS - for additional documents • Subscribe to E-mail Notices for Reactor Correspondence • Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, April 23, 2014 152 Home > Facility Locator > Operating Nuclear Power Reactors by Location or Name > Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Unit 1 Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Unit 1 Location: Athens, AL (32 miles W of Huntsville, AL) in Region II Operator: Tennessee Valley Authority Operating License: Issued - 12/20/1973 Renewed License: Issued - 05/04/2006 License Expires: 12/20/2033 Docket Number: 05000259 Reactor Type: Boiling Water Reactor Licensed MWt: 3,458 Reactor Vendor/Type: General Electric Type 4 Containment Type: Wet, Mark I Plant Diagram Plant Information NRC Employee Contacts Reactor Status Report (Daily) • Reactor Event Notification • Safety Performance Summary • Inspection Reports | Dataset (Prev. 12 Mos.) | Data Dictionary • US Plant Inspections following Japan Event • Severe Accident Inspections • FEMA After Action Reports (Emergency Exercises) • Enforcement Actions • Press Releases • Upcoming Meetings • Past Meetings • Sr. Public Affairs Officer: Roger Hannah - 404-997-4417 • Public Affairs Officer: Joey Ledford - 404-997-4416 • Sr. Resident Inspector: D. Dumbacher - 256-729-6196 • Resident Inspector: L. Pressley - 256-729-6197 T. Stephen - 256-729-6197 • Project Manager • Key Documents Related Information License Renewal • Plant Operating License • Plant Environmental Report • NRC Presentation Slides for the Jan. 26, 2012 Public Meeting • Plant-Specific Actions in Response to the Japan Nuclear Accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi • Reactor Quick Links • Reactor Oversight Process • NRC Emergency Preparedness and Response • FEMA's State Offices and Agencies of Emergency Management • Other Reactors in Alabama • ADAMS - for additional documents • Subscribe to E-mail Notices for Reactor Correspondence • Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, April 23, 2014 153 Home > Facility Locator > Operating Nuclear Power Reactors by Location or Name > Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Unit 2 Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Unit 2 Location: Athens, AL (32 miles W of Huntsville, AL) in Region II Operator: Tennessee Valley Authority Operating License: Issued - 08/02/1974 Renewed License: Issued - 05/04/2006 License Expires: 06/28/2034 Docket Number: 05000260 Reactor Type: Boiling Water Reactor Licensed MWt: 3,458 Reactor Vendor/Type: General Electric Type 4 Containment Type: Wet, Mark I Plant Diagram Plant Information NRC Employee Contacts Reactor Status Report (Daily) • Reactor Event Notification • Safety Performance Summary • Inspection Reports | Dataset (Prev. 12 Mos.) | Data Dictionary • US Plant Inspections following Japan Event • Severe Accident Inspections • FEMA After Action Reports (Emergency Exercises) • Enforcement Actions • Press Releases • Upcoming Meetings • Past Meetings • Sr. Public Affairs Officer: Roger Hannah - 404-997-4417 • Public Affairs Officer: Joey Ledford - 404-997-4416 • Sr. Resident Inspector: D. Dumbacher - 256-729-6196 • Resident Inspector: L. Pressley - 256-729-6197 T. Stephen - 256-729-6197 • Project Manager • Key Documents Related Information License Renewal • Plant Operating License • Plant Environmental Report • NRC Presentation Slides for the Jan. 26, 2012 Public Meeting • Plant-Specific Actions in Response to the Japan Nuclear Accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi • Reactor Quick Links • Reactor Oversight Process • NRC Emergency Preparedness and Response • FEMA's State Offices and Agencies of Emergency Management • Other Reactors in Alabama • ADAMS - for additional documents • Subscribe to E-mail Notices for Reactor Correspondence • Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, April 23, 2014 154 Home > Facility Locator > Operating Nuclear Power Reactors by Location or Name > Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Unit 3 Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Unit 3 Location: Athens, AL (32 miles W of Huntsville, AL) in Region II Operator: Tennessee Valley Authority Operating License: Issued - 08/18/1976 Renewed License: Issued - 05/04/2006 License Expires: 07/02/2036 Docket Number: 05000296 Reactor Type: Boiling Water Reactor Licensed MWt: 3,458 Reactor Vendor/Type: General Electric Type 4 Containment Type: Wet, Mark I Plant Diagram Plant Information NRC Employee Contacts Reactor Status Report (Daily) • Reactor Event Notification • Safety Performance Summary • Inspection Reports | Dataset (Prev. 12 Mos.) | Data Dictionary • US Plant Inspections following Japan Event • Severe Accident Inspections • FEMA After Action Reports (Emergency Exercises) • Enforcement Actions • Press Releases • Upcoming Meetings • Past Meetings • Sr. Public Affairs Officer: Roger Hannah - 404-997-4417 • Public Affairs Officer: Joey Ledford - 404-997-4416 • Sr. Resident Inspector: D. Dumbacher - 256-729-6196 • Resident Inspector: L. Pressley - 256-729-6197 T. Stephen - 256-729-6197 • Project Manager • Key Documents Related Information License Renewal • Plant Operating License • Plant Environmental Report • NRC Presentation Slides for the Jan. 26, 2012 Public Meeting • Plant-Specific Actions in Response to the Japan Nuclear Accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi • Reactor Quick Links • Reactor Oversight Process • NRC Emergency Preparedness and Response • FEMA's State Offices and Agencies of Emergency Management • Other Reactors in Alabama • ADAMS - for additional documents • Subscribe to E-mail Notices for Reactor Correspondence • Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, April 23, 2014 155 Home > Facility Locator > Operating Nuclear Power Reactors by Location or Name > Braidwood Station, Unit 1 Braidwood Station, Unit 1 Location: Braceville, IL (20 miles SSW of Joliet, IL) in Region III Operator: Exelon Generation Co., LLC Operating License: Issued - 07/02/1987, Expires - 10/17/2026 Docket Number: 05000456 Reactor Type: Pressurized Water Reactor Licensed MWt: 3645 Reactor Vendor/Type: Westinghouse Four-Loop Containment Type: Dry, Ambient Pressure Plant Diagram Plant Information NRC Employee Contacts Reactor Status Report (Daily) • Reactor Event Notification • Safety Performance Summary • Inspection Reports | Dataset (Prev. 12 Mos.) | Data Dictionary • US Plant Inspections following Japan Event • Severe Accident Inspections • FEMA After Action Reports (Emergency Exercises) • Enforcement Actions • Press Releases • Upcoming Meetings • Past Meetings • Plant Operating License • Plant Environmental Report • Sr. Public Affairs Officer: Viktoria Mitlyng - 630-829-9662 • Public Affairs Officer: Prema Chandrathil - 630-829-9663 • Sr. Resident Inspector: J. Benjamin - 815-458-2852 • Resident Inspector: F. Ramirez - 815-458-2853 • Project Manager • Key Documents Related Information Plant-Specific Actions in Response to the Japan Nuclear Accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi • Reactor Quick Links • Reactor Oversight Process • NRC Emergency Preparedness and Response • FEMA's State Offices and Agencies of Emergency Management • Other Reactors in Illinois • ADAMS - for additional documents • Subscribe to E-mail Notices for Reactor Correspondence • Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, May 08, 2014 156 Home > Facility Locator > Operating Nuclear Power Reactors by Location or Name > Braidwood Station, Unit 2 Braidwood Station, Unit 2 Location: Braceville, IL (20 miles SSW of Joliet, IL) in Region III Operator: Exelon Generation Co., LLC Operating License: Issued - 05/20/1988, Expires - 12/18/2027 Docket Number: 05000457 Reactor Type: Pressurized Water Reactor Licensed MWt: 3645 Reactor Vendor/Type: Westinghouse Four-Loop Containment Type: Dry, Ambient Pressure Plant Diagram Plant Information NRC Employee Contacts Reactor Status Report (Daily) • Reactor Event Notification • Safety Performance Summary • Inspection Reports | Dataset (Prev. 12 Mos.) | Data Dictionary • US Plant Inspections following Japan Event • Severe Accident Inspections • FEMA After Action Reports (Emergency Exercises) • Enforcement Actions • Press Releases • Upcoming Meetings • Past Meetings • Plant Operating License • Plant Environmental Report • Sr. Public Affairs Officer: Viktoria Mitlyng - 630-829-9662 • Public Affairs Officer: Prema Chandrathil - 630-829-9663 • Sr. Resident Inspector: J. Benjamin - 815-458-2852 • Resident Inspector: F. Ramirez - 815-458-2853 • Project Manager • Key Documents Related Information Plant-Specific Actions in Response to the Japan Nuclear Accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi • Reactor Quick Links • Reactor Oversight Process • NRC Emergency Preparedness and Response • FEMA's State Offices and Agencies of Emergency Management • Other Reactors in Illinois • ADAMS - for additional documents • Subscribe to E-mail Notices for Reactor Correspondence • Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, May 08, 2014 157 Home > Facility Locator > Operating Nuclear Power Reactors by Location or Name > Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Unit 1 Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Unit 1 Location: Southport, NC (40 miles S of Wilmington, NC) in Region II Operator: Carolina Power & Light Co. Operating License: Issued - 09/08/1976 Renewed License: Issued - 06/26/2006 License Expires: 09/08/2036 Docket Number: 05000325 Reactor Type: Boiling Water Reactor Licensed MWt: 2,923 Reactor Vendor/Type: General Electric Type 4 Containment Type: Wet, Mark I Plant Diagram Plant Information NRC Employee Contacts Reactor Status Report (Daily) • Reactor Event Notification • Safety Performance Summary • Inspection Reports | Dataset (Prev. 12 Mos.) | Data Dictionary • US Plant Inspections following Japan Event • Severe Accident Inspections • FEMA After Action Reports (Emergency Exercises) • Enforcement Actions • Press Releases • Upcoming Meetings • Past Meetings • Sr. Public Affairs Officer: Roger Hannah - 404-997-4417 • Public Affairs Officer: Joey Ledford - 404-997-4416 • Sr. Resident Inspector: M. Catts - 910-457-9531 • Resident Inspector: M. Schwieg - 910-457-9531 • Project Manager • Key Documents Related Information License Renewal • Plant Operating License • Plant Environmental Report • Plant-Specific Actions in Response to the Japan Nuclear Accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi • Reactor Quick Links • Reactor Oversight Process • NRC Emergency Preparedness and Response • FEMA's State Offices and Agencies of Emergency Management • Other Reactors in North Carolina • ADAMS - for additional documents • Subscribe to E-mail Notices for Reactor Correspondence • Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, April 23, 2014 158 Home > Facility Locator > Operating Nuclear Power Reactors by Location or Name > Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Unit 2 Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Unit 2 Location: Southport, NC (40 miles S of Wilmington, NC) in Region II Operator: Carolina Power & Light Co. Operating License: Issued - 12/27/1974 Renewed License: Issued - 06/26/2006 License Expires: 12/27/2034 Docket Number: 05000324 Reactor Type: Boiling Water Reactor Licensed MWt: 2,923 Reactor Vendor/Type: General Electric Type 4 Containment Type: Wet, Mark I Plant Diagram Plant Information NRC Employee Contacts Reactor Status Report (Daily) • Reactor Event Notification • Safety Performance Summary • Inspection Reports | Dataset (Prev. 12 Mos.) | Data Dictionary • US Plant Inspections following Japan Event • Severe Accident Inspections • FEMA After Action Reports (Emergency Exercises) • Enforcement Actions • Press Releases • Upcoming Meetings • Past Meetings • Sr. Public Affairs Officer: Roger Hannah - 404-997-4417 • Public Affairs Officer: Joey Ledford - 404-997-4416 • Sr. Resident Inspector: M. Catts - 910-457-9531 • Resident Inspector: M. Schwieg - 910-457-9531 • Project Manager • Key Documents Related Information License Renewal • Plant Operating License • Plant Environmental Report • Plant-Specific Actions in Response to the Japan Nuclear Accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi • Reactor Quick Links • Reactor Oversight Process • NRC Emergency Preparedness and Response • FEMA's State Offices and Agencies of Emergency Management • Other Reactors in North Carolina • ADAMS - for additional documents • Subscribe to E-mail Notices for Reactor Correspondence • Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, April 23, 2014 159 Home > Facility Locator > Operating Nuclear Power Reactors by Location or Name > Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 1 Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 1 Location: Shippingport, PA (17 miles W of McCandless, PA) in Region I Operator: FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Co. Operating License: Issued - 07/02/1976 Renewed Operating License: Issued - 11/05/2009 License Expires: 01/29/2036 Docket Number: 05000334 Reactor Type: Pressurized Water Reactor Licensed MWt: 2,900 Reactor Vendor/Type: Westinghouse Three-Loop Containment Type: Dry, Subatmospheric Plant Diagram Plant Information NRC Employee Contacts Reactor Status Report (Daily) • Reactor Event Notification • Safety Performance Summary • Inspection Reports | Dataset (Prev. 12 Mos.) | Data Dictionary • US Plant Inspections following Japan Event • Severe Accident Inspections • FEMA After Action Reports (Emergency Exercises) • Enforcement Actions • Press Releases • Upcoming Meetings • Past Meetings • Plant Operating License • Plant Environmental Report • Sr. Public Affairs Officer: Diane Screnci - 610-337-5330 • Public Affairs Officer: Neil Sheehan - 610-337-5331 • Sr. Resident Inspector: David Spindler - 724-643-2000 • Resident Inspector: Erin Carfang - 724-643-2000 • Project Manager • Key Documents Related Information Plant-Specific Actions in Response to the Japan Nuclear Accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi • Reactor Quick Links • Reactor Oversight Process • NRC Emergency Preparedness and Response • FEMA's State Offices and Agencies of Emergency Management • Other Reactors in Pennsylvania • ADAMS - for additional documents • Subscribe to E-mail Notices for Reactor Correspondence • Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, April 23, 2014 160 Home > Facility Locator > Operating Nuclear Power Reactors by Location or Name > Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 2 Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 2 Location: Shippingport, PA (17 miles W of McCandless, PA) in Region I Operator: FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Co. Operating License: Issued - 08/14/1987 Renewed Operating License: Issued - 11/05/2009 License Expires: 05/27/2047 Docket Number: 05000412 Reactor Type: Pressurized Water Reactor Licensed MWt: 2,900 Reactor Vendor/Type: Westinghouse Three-Loop Containment Type: Dry, Subatmospheric Plant Diagram Plant Information NRC Employee Contacts Reactor Status Report (Daily) • Reactor Event Notification • Safety Performance Summary • Inspection Reports | Dataset (Prev. 12 Mos.) | Data Dictionary • US Plant Inspections following Japan Event • Severe Accident Inspections • FEMA After Action Reports (Emergency Exercises) • Enforcement Actions • Press Releases • Upcoming Meetings • Past Meetings • Plant Operating License • Plant Environmental Report • Sr. Public Affairs Officer: Diane Screnci - 610-337-5330 • Public Affairs Officer: Neil Sheehan - 610-337-5331 • Sr. Resident Inspector: David Spindler - 724-643-2000 • Resident Inspector: Erin Carfang - 724-643-2000 • Project Manager • Plant Information Related Information Plant-Specific Actions in Response to the Japan Nuclear Accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi • Reactor Quick Links • Reactor Oversight Process • NRC Emergency Preparedness and Response • FEMA's State Offices and Agencies of Emergency Management • Other Reactors in Pennsylvania • ADAMS - for additional documents • Subscribe to E-mail Notices for Reactor Correspondence • Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, April 23, 2014 161 Home > Facility Locator > Operating Nuclear Power Reactors by Location or Name > Byron Station, Unit 1 Byron Station, Unit 1 Location: Byron, IL (17 miles SW of Rockford, IL) in Region III Operator: Exelon Generation Co., LLC Operating License: Issued - 02/14/1985, Expires - 10/31/2024 Docket Number: 05000454 Reactor Type: Pressurized Water Reactor Licensed MWt: 3645 Reactor Vendor/Type: Westinghouse Four-Loop Containment Type: Dry, Ambient Pressure Plant Diagram Plant Information NRC Employee Contacts Reactor Status Report (Daily) • Reactor Event Notification • Safety Performance Summary • Inspection Reports | Dataset (Prev. 12 Mos.) | Data Dictionary • US Plant Inspections following Japan Event • Severe Accident Inspections • FEMA After Action Reports (Emergency Exercises) • Enforcement Actions • Press Releases • Upcoming Meetings • Past Meetings • Plant Operating License • Plant Environmental Report • Sr. Public Affairs Officer: Viktoria Mitlyng - 630-829-9662 • Public Affairs Officer: Prema Chandrathil - 630-829-9663 • Sr. Resident Inspector: J. McGhee - 815-234-5451 • Resident Inspector: J. Draper - 815-234-5452 • Project Manager • Plant Information Related Information Plant-Specific Actions in Response to the Japan Nuclear Accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi • Reactor Quick Links • Reactor Oversight Process • NRC Emergency Preparedness and Response • FEMA's State Offices and Agencies of Emergency Management • Other Reactors in Illinois • ADAMS - for additional documents • Subscribe to E-mail Notices for Reactor Correspondence • Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, May 08, 2014 162 Home > Facility Locator > Operating Nuclear Power Reactors by Location or Name > Byron Station, Unit 2 Byron Station, Unit 2 Location: Byron, IL (17 miles SW of Rockford, IL) in Region III Operator: Exelon Generation Co., LLC Operating License: Issued - 01/30/1987, Expires - 11/06/2026 Docket Number: 05000455 Reactor Type: Pressurized Water Reactor Licensed MWt: 3645 Reactor Vendor/Type: Westinghouse Four-Loop Containment Type: Dry, Ambient Pressure Plant Diagram Plant Information NRC Employee Contacts Reactor Status Report (Daily) • Reactor Event Notification • Safety Performance Summary • Inspection Reports | Dataset (Prev. 12 Mos.) | Data Dictionary • US Plant Inspections following Japan Event • Severe Accident Inspections • FEMA After Action Reports (Emergency Exercises) • Enforcement Actions • Press Releases • Upcoming Meetings • Past Meetings • Plant Operating License • Plant Environmental Report • Sr. Public Affairs Officer: Viktoria Mitlyng - 630-829-9662 • Public Affairs Officer: Prema Chandrathil - 630-829-9663 • Sr. Resident Inspector: J. McGhee - 815-234-5451 • Resident Inspector: J. Draper - 815-234-5452 • Project Manager • Plant Information Related Information Plant-Specific Actions in Response to the Japan Nuclear Accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi • Reactor Quick Links • Reactor Oversight Process • NRC Emergency Preparedness and Response • FEMA's State Offices and Agencies of Emergency Management • Other Reactors in Illinois • ADAMS - for additional documents • Subscribe to E-mail Notices for Reactor Correspondence • Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, May 08, 2014 163 Home > Facility Locator > Operating Nuclear Power Reactors by Location or Name > Callaway Plant, Unit 1 Callaway Plant, Unit 1 Location: Fulton, MO (25 miles ENE of Jefferson City, MO) in Region IV Operator: Union Electric Co. Operating License: Issued - 10/18/1984, Expires - 10/18/2024 Docket Number: 05000483 Reactor Type: Pressurized Water Reactor Licensed MWt: 3,565 Reactor Vendor/Type: Westinghouse Four-Loop Containment Type: Dry, Ambient Pressure Plant Diagram Plant Information NRC Employee Contacts Reactor Status Report (Daily) • Reactor Event Notification • Safety Performance Summary • Inspection Reports | Dataset (Prev. 12 Mos.) | Data Dictionary • US Plant Inspections following Japan Event • Severe Accident Inspections • FEMA After Action Reports (Emergency Exercises) • Enforcement Actions • Press Releases • Upcoming Meetings • Past Meetings • Plant Operating License • Plant Environmental Report • Sr. Public Affairs Officer: Victor Dricks - 817-200-1128 • Public Affairs Officer: Lara Uselding - 817-200-1519 • Sr. Resident Inspector: Tom Hartman - 573-676-3181 • Resident Inspector: Z. Hollcraft - 573-676-6181 • Project Manager • Plant Information Related Information Plant-Specific Actions in Response to the Japan Nuclear Accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi • Reactor Quick Links • Reactor Oversight Process • NRC Emergency Preparedness and Response • FEMA's State Offices and Agencies of Emergency Management • Other Reactors in Missouri • ADAMS - for additional documents • Subscribe to E-mail Notices for Reactor Correspondence • Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, April 23, 2014 164 Home > Facility Locator > Operating Nuclear Power Reactors by Location or Name > Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1 Location: Lusby, MD (40 miles S of Annapolis, MD) Region I Operator: Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Inc. Operating License: Issued - 07/31/1974 Renewed License: Issued - 03/23/2000 License Expires: 07/31/2034 Docket Number: 05000317 Reactor Type: Pressurized Water Reactor Licensed MWt: 2,737 Reactor Vendor/Type: Combustion Engineering Containment Type: Dry, Ambient Pressure Plant Diagram Plant Information NRC Employee Contacts Reactor Status Report (Daily) • Reactor Event Notification • Safety Performance Summary • Inspection Reports | Dataset (Prev. 12 Mos.) | Data Dictionary • US Plant Inspections following Japan Event • Severe Accident Inspections • FEMA After Action Reports (Emergency Exercises) • Enforcement Actions • Press Releases • Upcoming Meetings • Past Meetings • Sr. Public Affairs Officer: Diane Screnci - 610-337-5330 • Public Affairs Officer: Neil Sheehan - 610-337-5331 • Sr. Resident Inspector: Silas R. Kennedy - 410-586-2626 • Resident Inspector: Edgardo Torres - 410-586-2626 • Project Manager • Key Documents Related Information License Renewal • Plant Operating License • Plant Environmental Report • Plant-Specific Actions in Response to the Japan Nuclear Accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi • Reactor Quick Links • Reactor Oversight Process • NRC Emergency Preparedness and Response • FEMA's State Offices and Agencies of Emergency Management • Other Reactors in Maryland • ADAMS - for additional documents • Subscribe to E-mail Notices for Reactor Correspondence • Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, April 23, 2014 165 Home > Facility Locator > Operating Nuclear Power Reactors by Location or Name > Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 2 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 2 Location: Lusby, MD (40 miles S of Annapolis, MD) in Region I Operator: Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Inc. Operating License: Issued - 08/13/1976 Renewed License: Issued – 03/23/2000 License Expires: 08/13/2036 Docket Number: 05000318 Reactor Type: Pressurized Water Reactor Licensed MWt: 2,737 Reactor Vendor/Type: Combustion Engineering Containment Type: Dry, Ambient Pressure Plant Diagram Plant Information NRC Employee Contacts Reactor Status Report (Daily) • Reactor Event Notification • Safety Performance Summary • Inspection Reports | Dataset (Prev. 12 Mos.) | Data Dictionary • US Plant Inspections following Japan Event • Severe Accident Inspections • FEMA After Action Reports (Emergency Exercises) • Enforcement Actions • Press Releases • Upcoming Meetings • Past Meetings • Sr. Public Affairs Officer: Diane Screnci - 610-337-5330 • Public Affairs Officer: Neil Sheehan - 610-337-5331 • Sr. Resident Inspector: Silas R. Kennedy - 410-586-2626 • Resident Inspector: Edgardo Torres - 410-586-2626 • Project Manager • Key Documents Related Information License Renewal • Plant Operating License • Plant Environmental Report • Plant-Specific Actions in Response to the Japan Nuclear Accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi • Reactor Quick Links • Reactor Oversight Process • NRC Emergency Preparedness and Response • FEMA's State Offices and Agencies of Emergency Management • Other Reactors in Maryland • ADAMS - for additional documents • Subscribe to E-mail Notices for Reactor Correspondence • Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, April 23, 2014 166 Home > Facility Locator > Operating Nuclear Power Reactors by Location or Name > Catawba Nuclear Station, Unit 1 Catawba Nuclear Station, Unit 1 Location: York, SC (18 miles S of Charlotte, NC) in Region II Operator: Duke Energy Corp. Operating License: Issued - 01/17/1985 Renewed License: Issued - 12/05/2003 License Expires: 12/05/2043 Docket Number: 05000413 Reactor Type: Pressurized Water Reactor Licensed MWt: 3,411 Reactor Vendor/Type: Westinghouse Four-Loop Containment Type: Wet, Ice condenser Plant Diagram Plant Information NRC Employee Contacts Reactor Status Report (Daily) • Reactor Event Notification • Safety Performance Summary • Inspection Reports | Dataset (Prev. 12 Mos.) | Data Dictionary • US Plant Inspections following Japan Event • Severe Accident Inspections • FEMA After Action Reports (Emergency Exercises) • Enforcement Actions • Press Releases • Upcoming Meetings • Past Meetings • Sr. Public Affairs Officer: Roger Hannah - 404-997-4417 • Public Affairs Officer: Joey Ledford - 404-997-4416 • Sr. Resident Inspector: A. Hutto - 803-831-2963 • Resident Inspector: R. Cureton - 803-831-2964 • Project Manager • Key Documents Related Information License Renewal • Plant Operating License • Plant Environmental Report • Plant-Specific Actions in Response to the Japan Nuclear Accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi • Reactor Quick Links • Reactor Oversight Process • NRC Emergency Preparedness and Response • FEMA's State Offices and Agencies of Emergency Management • Other Reactors in South Carolina • ADAMS - for additional documents • Subscribe to E-mail Notices for Reactor Correspondence • Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, April 23, 2014 167 Home > Facility Locator > Operating Nuclear Power Reactors by Location or Name >Catawba Nuclear Station, Unit 2 Catawba Nuclear Station, Unit 2 Location: York, SC (18 miles S of Charlotte, NC) in Region II Operator: Duke Energy Corp. Operating License: Issued - 05/15/1986 Renewed License: Issued - 12/05/2003 License Expires: 12/05/2043 Docket Number: 05000414 Reactor Type: Pressurized Water Reactor Licensed MWt: 3,411 Reactor Vendor/Type: Westinghouse Four-Loop Containment Type: Wet, Ice condenser Plant Diagram Plant Information NRC Employee Contacts Reactor Status Report (Daily) • Reactor Event Notification • Safety Performance Summary • Inspection Reports | Dataset (Prev. 12 Mos.) | Data Dictionary • US Plant Inspections following Japan Event • Severe Accident Inspections • FEMA After Action Reports (Emergency Exercises) • Enforcement Actions • Press Releases • Upcoming Meetings • Past Meetings • Sr. Public Affairs Officer: Roger Hannah - 404-997-4417 • Public Affairs Officer: Joey Ledford - 404-997-4416 • Sr. Resident Inspector: A. Hutto - 803-831-2963 • Resident Inspector: R. Cureton - 803-831-2964 • Project Manager • Key Documents Related Information License Renewal • Plant Operating License • Plant Environmental Report • Plant-Specific Actions in Response to the Japan Nuclear Accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi • Reactor Quick Links • Reactor Oversight Process • NRC Emergency Preparedness and Response • FEMA's State Offices and Agencies of Emergency Management • Other Reactors in South Carolina • ADAMS - for additional documents • Subscribe to E-mail Notices for Reactor Correspondence • Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, April 23, 2014 168 Home > Facility Locator > Operating Nuclear Power Reactors by Location or Name > Clinton Power Station, Unit 1 Clinton Power Station, Unit 1 Location: Clinton, IL (23 miles SSE of Bloomington, IL) in Region III Operator: Exelon Generation Co., LLC Operating License: Issued - 04/17/1987, Expires - 09/29/2026 Docket Number: 05000461 Reactor Type: Boiling Water Reactor Licensed MWt: 3,473 Reactor Vendor/Type: General Electric Type 6 Containment Type: Wet, Mark III Plant Diagram Plant Information NRC Employee Contacts Reactor Status Report (Daily) • Reactor Event Notification • Safety Performance Summary • Inspection Reports | Dataset (Prev. 12 Mos.) | Data Dictionary • US Plant Inspections following Japan Event • Severe Accident Inspections • FEMA After Action Reports (Emergency Exercises) • Enforcement Actions • Press Releases • Upcoming Meetings • Past Meetings • Plant Operating License • Plant Environmental Report • Sr. Public Affairs Officer: Viktoria Mitlyng - 630-829-9662 • Public Affairs Officer: Prema Chandrathil - 630-829-9663 • Sr. Resident Inspector: W. Schaup - 217-935-9521 • Resident Inspector: K. Carrington (Acting) - 217-935- 9522 • Project Manager • Key Documents Related Information Plant-Specific Actions in Response to the Japan Nuclear Accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi • Reactor Quick Links • Reactor Oversight Process • NRC Emergency Preparedness and Response • FEMA's State Offices and Agencies of Emergency Management • Other Reactors in Illinois • ADAMS - for additional documents • Subscribe to E-mail Notices for Reactor Correspondence • Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, May 08, 2014 169 Home > Facility Locator > Operating Nuclear Power Reactors by Location or Name > Cooper Nuclear Station Cooper Nuclear Station Location: Brownville, NE (23 miles S of Nebraska City, NE) in Region IV Operator: Nebraska Public Power District Operating License: Issued - 01/18/1974 Renewed License: Issued - 11/29/2010 License Expires: 01/18/2034 Docket Number: 05000298 Reactor Type: Boiling Water Reactor Licensed MWt: 2,419 Reactor Vendor/Type: General Electric Type 4 Containment Type: Wet, Mark I Plant Diagram Plant Information NRC Employee Contacts Reactor Status Report (Daily) • Current Performance Summary • Inspection Reports | Dataset (Prev. 12 Mos.) | Data Dictionary • US Plant Inspections following Japan Event • Severe Accident Inspections • FEMA After Action Reports (Emergency Exercises) • Enforcement Actions • Reactor Event Notification • Press Releases • Upcoming Meetings • Past Meetings • Sr. Public Affairs Officer: Victor Dricks - 817-200-1128 • Public Affairs Officer: Lara Uselding - 817-200-1519 • Sr. Resident Inspector: Jeff Josey - 402-825-3371 • Resident Inspector: Chris Henderson - 402-825-3371 • Project Manager • Key Documents Related Information License Renewal • Plant Operating License • Plant Environmental Report • Plant-Specific Actions in Response to the Japan Nuclear Accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi • Reactor Quick Links • Reactor Oversight Process • NRC Emergency Preparedness and Response • FEMA's State Offices and Agencies of Emergency Management • Other Reactors in Nebraska • ADAMS - for additional documents • Subscribe to E-mail Notices for Reactor Correspondence • Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, April 23, 2014 170 Home > Facility Locator > Operating Nuclear Power Reactors by Location or Name > Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Unit 1 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Unit 1 Location: Bridgman, MI (13 miles S of Benton Harbor, MI) in Region III Operator: Indiana Michigan Power Co. Operating License: Issued - 10/25/1974 Renewed License: Issued - 08/30/2005 License Expires: 10/25/2034 Docket Number: 05000315 Reactor Type: Pressurized Water Reactor Licensed MWt: 3,304 Reactor Vendor/Type: Westinghouse Four-Loop Containment Type: Wet, Ice condenser Plant Diagram Plant Information NRC Employee Contacts Reactor Status Report (Daily) • Reactor Event Notification • Safety Performance Summary • Inspection Reports | Dataset (Prev. 12 Mos.) | Data Dictionary • US Plant Inspections following Japan Event • Severe Accident Inspections • FEMA After Action Reports (Emergency Exercises) • Enforcement Actions • Press Releases • Upcoming Meetings • Past Meetings • Sr. Public Affairs Officer: Viktoria Mitlyng - 630-829-9662 • Public Affairs Officer: Prema Chandrathil - 630-829-9663 • Sr. Resident Inspector: J. Ellegood - 269-465-5353 • Resident Inspector: T. Taylor - 269-465-5353 • Project Manager • Key Documents Related Information License Renewal • Plant Operating License • Plant Environmental Report • Plant-Specific Actions in Response to the Japan Nuclear Accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi • Reactor Quick Links • Reactor Oversight Process • NRC Emergency Preparedness and Response • FEMA's State Offices and Agencies of Emergency Management • Other Reactors in Michigan • ADAMS - for additional documents • Subscribe to E-mail Notices for Reactor Correspondence • Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, May 08, 2014 171 Home > Facility Locator > Operating Nuclear Power Reactors by Location or Name > Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Unit 2 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Unit 2 Location: Bridgman, MI (13 miles S of Benton Harbor, MI) in Region III Operator: Indiana Michigan Power Co. Operating License: Issued - 12/23/1977 Renewed License: Issued - 08/30/2005 License Expires: 12/23/2037 Docket Number: 05000316 Reactor Type: Pressurized Water Reactor Licensed MWt: 3,468 Reactor Vendor/Type: Westinghouse Four-Loop Containment Type: Wet, Ice condenser Plant Diagram Plant Information NRC Employee Contacts Reactor Status Report (Daily) • Reactor Event Notification • Safety Performance Summary • Inspection Reports | Dataset (Prev. 12 Mos.) | Data Dictionary • US Plant Inspections following Japan Event • Severe Accident Inspections • FEMA After Action Reports (Emergency Exercises) • Enforcement Actions • Press Releases • Upcoming Meetings • Past Meetings • Sr. Public Affairs Officer: Viktoria Mitlyng - 630-829-9662 • Public Affairs Officer: Prema Chandrathil - 630-829-9663 • Sr. Resident Inspector: J. Ellegood - 269-465-5353 • Resident Inspector: T. Taylor - 269-465-5353 • Project Manager • Key Documents Related Information License Renewal • Plant Operating License • Plant Environmental Report • Plant-Specific Actions in Response to the Japan Nuclear Accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi • Reactor Quick Links • Reactor Oversight Process • NRC Emergency Preparedness and Response • FEMA's State Offices and Agencies of Emergency Management • ADAMS - for additional documents • Subscribe to E-mail Notices for Reactor Correspondence • Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, May 08, 2014 172 Home > Facility Locator > Operating Nuclear Power Reactors by Location or Name > Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1 Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1 Location: Glen Rose, TX (40 miles SW of Fort Worth, TX) in Region IV Operator: Luminant Generation Co., LLC Operating License: Issued - 04/17/1990, Expires - 02/08/2030 Docket Number: 05000445 Reactor Type: Pressurized Water Reactor Licensed MWt: 3,612 Reactor Vendor/Type: Westinghouse Four-Loop Containment Type: Dry, Ambient Pressure Plant Diagram Plant Information NRC Employee Contacts Reactor Status Report (Daily) • Reactor Event Notification • Safety Performance Summary • Inspection Reports | Dataset (Prev. 12 Mos.) | Data Dictionary • US Plant Inspections following Japan Event • Severe Accident Inspections • FEMA After Action Reports (Emergency Exercises) • Enforcement Actions • Press Releases • Upcoming Meetings • Past Meetings • Plant Operating License • Plant Environmental Report • Sr. Public Affairs Officer: Victor Dricks - 817-200-1128 • Public Affairs Officer: Lara Uselding - 817-200-1519 • Sr. Resident Inspector: John Kramer - 254-897-1500 • Resident Inspector: Rayomand Kumana - 254-897-1500 • Project Manager • Key Documents Related Information Plant-Specific Actions in Response to the Japan Nuclear Accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi • Reactor Quick Links • Reactor Oversight Process • NRC Emergency Preparedness and Response • FEMA's State Offices and Agencies of Emergency Management • Other Reactors in Texas • ADAMS - for additional documents • Subscribe to E-mail Notices for Reactor Correspondence • Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, April 29, 2014 173 Home > Facility Locator > Operating Nuclear Power Reactors by Location or Name > Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 2 Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 2 Location: Glen Rose, TX (40 miles SW of Fort Worth, TX) in Region IV Operator: Luminant Generation Co., LLC Operating License: Issued - 04/06/1993, Expires - 02/02/2033 Docket Number: 05000446 Reactor Type: Pressurized Water Reactor Licensed MWt: 3,612 Reactor Vendor/Type: Westinghouse Four-Loop Containment Type: Dry, Ambient Pressure Plant Diagram Plant Information NRC Employee Contacts Reactor Status Report (Daily) • Reactor Event Notification • Safety Performance Summary • Inspection Reports | Dataset (Prev. 12 Mos.) | Data Dictionary • US Plant Inspections following Japan Event • Severe Accident Inspections • FEMA After Action Reports (Emergency Exercises) • Enforcement Actions • Press Releases • Upcoming Meetings • Past Meetings • Plant Operating License • Plant Environmental Report • Sr. Public Affairs Officer: Victor Dricks - 817-200-1128 • Public Affairs Officer: Lara Uselding - 817-200-1519 • Sr. Resident Inspector: John Kramer - 254-897-1500 • Resident Inspector: Rayomand Kumana - 254-897-1500 • Project Manager • Key Documents Related Information Plant-Specific Actions in Response to the Japan Nuclear Accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi • Reactor Quick Links • Reactor Oversight Process • NRC Emergency Preparedness and Response • FEMA's State Offices and Agencies of Emergency Management • ADAMS - for additional documents • Subscribe to E-mail Notices for Reactor Correspondence • Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, April 29, 2014 174 Home > Facility Locator > Operating Nuclear Power Reactors by Location or Name > Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1 Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1 Location: Oak Harbor, OH (21 miles ESE of Toledo, OH) in Region III Operator: FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company Operating License: Issued - 04/22/1977 License Expires: 04/22/2017 Docket Number: 05000346 Reactor Type: Pressurized Water Reactor Licensed MWt: 2,817 Reactor Vendor/Type: Babcock & Wilcox Raised Loop Containment Type: Dry, Ambient Pressure Plant Diagram Plant Information NRC Employee Contacts Reactor Status Report (Daily) • Reactor Event Notification • Safety Performance Summary • Inspection Reports | Dataset (Prev. 12 Mos.) | Data Dictionary • US Plant Inspections following Japan Event • Severe Accident Inspections • FEMA After Action Reports (Emergency Exercises) • Enforcement Actions • Press Releases • Upcoming Meetings • Past Meetings • Sr. Public Affairs Officer: Viktoria Mitlyng - 630- 829-9662 • Public Affairs Officer: Prema Chandrathil - 630- 829-9663 • Sr. Resident Inspector: D. Kimble - 419-244- 4494 • Resident Inspector: T. Briley - 419-244-4496 • Project Manager • Key Documents Related Information Correspondence • 11/09 Letter regarding recent events at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station • License Renewal • Plant Operating License • Plant Environmental Report • FAQs on Reactor Shield Building • Davis-Besse Blogs • Plant-Specific Actions in Response to the Japan Nuclear Accident at Fukushima Dai- ichi • Inspection to Evaluate the Root Cause Evaluation and Corrective Actions for Cracking in the Reinforced Concrete Shield Building of the Containment System • Reactor Quick Links • Reactor Oversight Process • NRC Emergency Preparedness and Response • FEMA's State Offices and Agencies of Emergency Management • Other Reactors in Ohio • ADAMS - for additional documents • Subscribe to E-mail Notices for Reactor Correspondence • Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, April 23, 2014 175 Home > Facility Locator > Operating Nuclear Power Reactors by Location or Name > Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Unit 1 Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Unit 1 Location: Avila Beach, CA (12 miles WSW of San Luis Obispo, CA) in Region IV Operator: Pacific Gas & Electric Co. Operating License: Issued - 11/02/1984 License Expires: 11/02/2024 Docket Number: 05000275 Reactor Type: Pressurized Water Reactor Licensed MWt: 3,411 Reactor Vendor/Type: Westinghouse Four-Loop Containment Type: Dry, Ambient Pressure Plant Diagram Plant Information NRC Employee Contacts Reactor Status Report (Daily) • Reactor Event Notification • Safety Performance Summary • Inspection Reports | Dataset (Prev. 12 Mos.) | Data Dictionary • US Plant Inspections following Japan Event • Severe Accident Inspections • FEMA After Action Reports (Emergency Exercises) • Enforcement Actions • Press Releases • Upcoming Meetings • Past Meetings • Sr. Public Affairs Officer: Victor Dricks - 817-200-1128 • Public Affairs Officer: Lara Uselding - 817-200-1519 • Sr. Resident Inspector: Thomas Hipschman – 805-595-2354 • Resident Inspector: John Reynoso – 805-595-2354 • Project Manager • Key Documents Related Information License Renewal • Plant Operating License • Plant Environmental Report • Correspondence • Plant-Specific Actions in Response to the Japan Nuclear Accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi • Reactor Quick Links • Reactor Oversight Process • NRC Emergency Preparedness and Response • FEMA's State Offices and Agencies of Emergency Management • Other Reactors in California • ADAMS - for additional documents • Subscribe to E-mail Notices for Reactor Correspondence • Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, May 07, 2014 176 Home > Facility Locator > Operating Nuclear Power Reactors by Location or Name > Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Unit 2 Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Unit 2 Location: Avila Beach, CA (12 miles WSW of San Luis Obispo, CA) in Region IV Operator: Pacific Gas & Electric Co. Operating License: Issued - 08/26/1985 License Expires: 08/26/2025 Docket Number: 05000323 Reactor Type: Pressurized Water Reactor Licensed MWt: 3,411 Reactor Vendor/Type: Westinghouse Four-Loop Containment Type: Dry, Ambient Pressure Plant Diagram Plant Information NRC Employee Contacts Reactor Status Report (Daily) • Reactor Event Notification • Safety Performance Summary • Inspection Reports | Dataset (Prev. 12 Mos.) | Data Dictionary • US Plant Inspections following Japan Event • Severe Accident Inspections • FEMA After Action Reports (Emergency Exercises) • Enforcement Actions • Press Releases • Upcoming Meetings • Past Meetings • Sr. Public Affairs Officer: Victor Dricks - 817-200-1128 • Public Affairs Officer: Lara Uselding - 817-200-1519 • Sr. Resident Inspector: Thomas Hipschman – 805-595-2354 • Resident Inspector: John Reynoso – 805-595-2354 • Project Manager • Key Documents Related Information License Renewal • Plant Operating License • Plant Environmental Report • Plant-Specific Actions in Response to the Japan Nuclear Accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi • Reactor Quick Links • Reactor Oversight Process • NRC Emergency Preparedness and Response • FEMA's State Offices and Agencies of Emergency Management • Other Reactors in California • ADAMS - for additional documents • Subscribe to E-mail Notices for Reactor Correspondence • Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, May 07, 2014 177 Home > Facility Locator > Operating Nuclear Power Reactors by Location or Name > Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Unit 2 Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Unit 2 Location: Morris, IL (23 miles SW of Joliet, IL) in Region III Operator: Exelon Generation Co., LLC Operating License: Issued - 02/20/1991 Renewed License: Issued - 10/28/04 License Expires: 12/22/2029 Docket Number: 05000237 Reactor Type: Boiling Water Reactor Licensed MWt: 2,957 Reactor Vendor/Type: General Electric Type 3 Containment Type: Wet, Mark I Plant Diagram Plant Information NRC Employee Contacts Reactor Status Report (Daily) • Reactor Event Notification • Safety Performance Summary • Inspection Reports | Dataset (Prev. 12 Mos.) | Data Dictionary • US Plant Inspections following Japan Event • Severe Accident Inspections • FEMA After Action Reports (Emergency Exercises) • Enforcement Actions • Press Releases • Upcoming Meetings • Past Meetings • Sr. Public Affairs Officer: Viktoria Mitlyng - 630-829-9662 • Public Affairs Officer: Prema Chandrathil - 630-829-9663 • Sr. Resident Inspector: G. Roach - 815-942-9267 • Resident Inspector: D. Melendez - 815-942-9267 • Project Manager • Key Documents Related Information License Renewal • Plant Operating License • Plant Environmental Report • Plant-Specific Actions in Response to the Japan Nuclear Accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi • Reactor Quick Links • Reactor Oversight Process • NRC Emergency Preparedness and Response • FEMA's State Offices and Agencies of Emergency Management • Other Reactors in Illinios • ADAMS - for additional documents • Subscribe to E-mail Notices for Reactor Correspondence • Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, April 23, 2014 178 Home > Facility Locator > Operating Nuclear Power Reactors by Location or Name > Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Unit 3 Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Unit 3 Location: Morris, IL (23 miles SW of Joliet, IL) in Region III Operator: Exelon Generation Co., LLC Operating License: Issued - 01/12/1971 Renewed License: Issued - 10/28/04 License Expires: 01/12/2031 Docket Number: 05000249 Reactor Type: Boiling Water Reactor Licensed MWt: 2,957 Reactor Vendor/Type: General Electric Type 3 Containment Type: Wet, Mark I Plant Diagram Plant Information NRC Employee Contacts Reactor Status Report (Daily) • Reactor Event Notification • Safety Performance Summary • Inspection Reports | Dataset (Prev. 12 Mos.) | Data Dictionary • US Plant Inspections following Japan Event • Severe Accident Inspections • FEMA After Action Reports (Emergency Exercises) • Enforcement Actions • Press Releases • Upcoming Meetings • Past Meetings • Sr. Public Affairs Officer: Viktoria Mitlyng - 630-829-9662 • Public Affairs Officer: Prema Chandrathil - 630-829-9663 • Sr. Resident Inspector: G. Roach - 815-942-9267 • Resident Inspector: D. Melendez - 815-942-9267 • Project Manager • Key Documents Related Information License Renewal • Plant Operating License • Plant Environmental Report • Plant-Specific Actions in Response to the Japan Nuclear Accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi • Reactor Quick Links • Reactor Oversight Process • NRC Emergency Preparedness and Response • FEMA's State Offices and Agencies of Emergency Management • Other Reactors in Illinios • ADAMS - for additional documents • Subscribe to E-mail Notices for Reactor Correspondence • Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, April 23, 2014 179 Home > Facility Locator > Operating Nuclear Power Reactors by Location or Name > Duane Arnold Energy Center Duane Arnold Energy Center Location: Palo, IA (8 miles NW of Cedar Rapids, IA) in Region III Operator: NextEra Energy Duane Arnold, LLC Operating License: Issued - 02/22/1974 Renewed License: Issued - 12/16/2010 License Expires: 02/21/2034 Docket Number: 05000331 Reactor Type: Boiling Water Reactor Licensed MWt: 1,912 Reactor Vendor/Type: General Electric Type 4 Containment Type: Wet, Mark I Plant Diagram Plant Information NRC Employee Contacts Reactor Status Report (Daily) • Reactor Event Notification • Safety Performance Summary • Inspection Reports | Dataset (Prev. 12 Mos.) | Data Dictionary • US Plant Inspections following Japan Event • Severe Accident Inspections • FEMA After Action Reports (Emergency Exercises) • Enforcement Actions • Press Releases • Upcoming Meetings • Past Meetings • Sr. Public Affairs Officer: Viktoria Mitlyng - 630-829-9662 • Public Affairs Officer: Prema Chandrathil - 630-829-9663 • Sr. Resident Inspector: Lucas Haeg - 319-851-5111 • Resident Inspector: Jakob Steffes - 319-851-5111 • Project Manager • Key Documents Related Information License Renewal • Plant Operating License • Plant Environmental Report • Plant-Specific Actions in Response to the Japan Nuclear Accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi • Reactor Quick Links • Reactor Oversight Process • NRC Emergency Preparedness and Response • FEMA's State Offices and Agencies of Emergency Management • Other Reactors in Iowa • ADAMS - for additional documents • Subscribe to E-mail Notices for Reactor Correspondence • Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, April 23, 2014 180 Home > Facility Locator > Operating Nuclear Power Reactors by Location or Name > Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Unit 1 Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Unit 1 Location: Columbia, AL (18 miles S of Dothan, AL) in Region II Operator: Southern Nuclear Operating Co., Inc. Operating License: 06/25/1977 Renewed License: Issued - 05/12/2005 License Expires: 06/25/2037 Docket Number: 05000348 Reactor Type: Pressurized Water Reactor Licensed MWt: 2,775 Reactor Vendor/Type: Westinghouse Three-Loop Containment Type: Dry, Ambient Pressure Plant Diagram Plant Information NRC Employee Contacts Reactor Status Report (Daily) • Reactor Event Notification • Safety Performance Summary • Inspection Reports | Dataset (Prev. 12 Mos.) | Data Dictionary • US Plant Inspections following Japan Event • Severe Accident Inspections • FEMA After Action Reports (Emergency Exercises) • Enforcement Actions • Press Releases • Upcoming Meetings • Past Meetings • Sr. Public Affairs Officer: Roger Hannah - 404-997-4417 • Public Affairs Officer: Joey Ledford - 404-997-4416 • Sr. Resident Inspector: P. Niebaum – 334-899-3386 • Resident Inspector: J. Sowa – 334-899-3387 • Project Manager • Key Documents Related Information License Renewal • Plant Operating License • Plant Environmental Report • Plant-Specific Actions in Response to the Japan Nuclear Accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi • Reactor Quick Links • Reactor Oversight Process • NRC Emergency Preparedness and Response • FEMA's State Offices and Agencies of Emergency Management • Other Reactors in Alabama • ADAMS - for additional documents • Subscribe to E-mail Notices for Reactor Correspondence • Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, April 23, 2014 181 Home > Facility Locator > Operating Nuclear Power Reactors by Location or Name > Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Unit 2 Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Unit 2 Location: Columbia, AL (18 miles S of Dothan, AL) in Region II Operator: Southern Nuclear Operating Co., Inc. Operating License: Issued - 03/31/1981 Renewed License: Issued - 05/12/2005 License Expires: 03/31/2041 Docket Number: 05000364 Reactor Type: Pressurized Water Reactor Licensed MWt: 2,775 Reactor Vendor/Type: Westinghouse Three-Loop Containment Type: Dry, Ambient Pressure Plant Diagram Plant Information NRC Employee Contacts Reactor Status Report (Daily) • Reactor Event Notification • Safety Performance Summary • Inspection Reports | Dataset (Prev. 12 Mos.) | Data Dictionary • US Plant Inspections following Japan Event • Severe Accident Inspections • FEMA After Action Reports (Emergency Exercises) • Enforcement Actions • Press Releases • Upcoming Meetings • Past Meetings • Sr. Public Affairs Officer: Roger Hannah - 404-997-4417 • Public Affairs Officer: Joey Ledford - 404-997-4416 • Sr. Resident Inspector: P. Niebaum – 334-899-3386 • Resident Inspector: J. Sowa – 334-899-3387 • Project Manager • Key Documents Related Information License Renewal • Plant Operating License • Plant Environmental Report • Plant-Specific Actions in Response to the Japan Nuclear Accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi • Reactor Quick Links • Reactor Oversight Process • NRC Emergency Preparedness and Response • FEMA's State Offices and Agencies of Emergency Management • Other Reactors in Alabama • ADAMS - for additional documents • Subscribe to E-mail Notices for Reactor Correspondence • Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, April 23, 2014 182 Home > Facility Locator > Operating Nuclear Power Reactors by Location or Name > Fort Calhoun Station Fort Calhoun Station Location: Ft. Calhoun, NE (19 miles N of Omaha, NE) in Region IV Operator: Omaha Public Power District Operating License: Issued - 08/09/1973 Renewed License: Issued - 11/04/2003 License Expires: 08/09/2033 Docket Number: 05000285 Reactor Type: Pressurized Water Reactor Licensed MWt: 1,500 Reactor Vendor/Type: Combustion Engineering Containment Type: Dry, Ambient Pressure Plant Diagram Plant Information NRC Employee Contacts Reactor Status Report (Daily) • Reactor Event Notification • Safety Performance Summary • Inspection Reports | Dataset (Prev. 12 Mos.) | Data Dictionary • US Plant Inspections following Japan Event • Severe Accident Inspections • FEMA After Action Reports (Emergency Exercises) • Enforcement Actions • Press Releases • Upcoming Meetings • Past Meetings • Sr. Public Affairs Officer: Victor Dricks - 817-200-1128 • Public Affairs Officer: Lara Uselding - 817-200-1519 • Sr. Resident Inspector: John Kirkland - 402-426-9611 • Resident Inspector: Jacob Wingebach - 402-426-9611 • Project Manager • Key Documents Related Information License Renewal • Plant Operating License • Plant Environmental Report • Special Oversight • Plant-Specific Actions in Response to the Japan Nuclear Accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi • Reactor Quick Links • Reactor Oversight Process • NRC Emergency Preparedness and Response • FEMA's State Offices and Agencies of Emergency Management • Other Reactors in Nebraska • ADAMS - for additional documents • Subscribe to E-mail Notices for Reactor Correspondence • Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, April 23, 2014 183 Home > Facility Locator > Operating Nuclear Power Reactors by Location or Name > Fermi, Unit 2 Fermi, Unit 2 Location: 25 MI NE of Toledo, OH, in Region III Operator: DTE Electric Company Operating License: Issued - 07/15/1985, Expires - 03/20/2025 Docket Number: 05000341 Reactor Type: Boiling Water Reactor Licensed MWt: 3,486 Reactor Vendor/Type: General Electric Type 4 Containment Type: Wet, Mark I Plant Diagram Plant Information NRC Employee Contacts Reactor Status Report (Daily) • Reactor Event Notification • Safety Performance Summary • Inspection Reports | Dataset (Prev. 12 Mos.) | Data Dictionary • US Plant Inspections following Japan Event • Severe Accident Inspections • FEMA After Action Reports (Emergency Exercises) • Enforcement Actions • Press Releases • Upcoming Meetings • Past Meetings • Plant Operating License • Plant Environmental Report • Sr. Public Affairs Officer: Viktoria Mitlyng - 630-829-9662 • Public Affairs Officer: Prema Chandrathil - 630-829-9663 • Sr. Resident Inspector: B. Kemker - 734-586-2798 • Resident Inspector: P. Smagacz - 734-586-2798 • Project Manager • Key Documents Related Information Plant-Specific Actions in Response to the Japan Nuclear Accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi • Reactor Quick Links • Reactor Oversight Process • NRC Emergency Preparedness and Response • FEMA's State Offices and Agencies of Emergency Management • Other Reactors in Michigan • ADAMS - for additional documents • Subscribe to E-mail Notices for Reactor Correspondence • Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, May 08, 2014 184 Home > Facility Locator > Operating Nuclear Power Reactors by Location or Name > James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant Location: Scriba, NY (6 miles NE of Oswego, NY) in Region I Operator: Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. Operating License: Issued - 10/17/1974 Renewed License: Issued - 09/08/2008 License Expires - 10/17/2034 Docket Number: 05000333 Reactor Type: Boiling Water Reactor Licensed MWt: 2,536 Reactor Vendor/Type: General Electric Type 4 Containment Type: Wet, Mark I Plant Diagram Plant Information NRC Employee Contacts Reactor Status Report (Daily) • Reactor Event Notification • Safety Performance Summary • Inspection Reports | Dataset (Prev. 12 Mos.) | Data Dictionary • US Plant Inspections following Japan Event • Severe Accident Inspections • FEMA After Action Reports (Emergency Exercises) • Enforcement Actions • Press Releases • Upcoming Meetings • Past Meetings • Sr. Public Affairs Officer: Diane Screnci - 610-337-5330 • Public Affairs Officer: Neil Sheehan - 610-337-5331 • Sr. Resident Inspector: Edward C. Knutson - 315-342-4907 • Resident Inspector: Beth E. Sienel - 315-342-4907 • Project Manager • Key Documents Related Information License Renewal • Plant Operating License • Plant Environmental Report • Plant-Specific Actions in Response to the Japan Nuclear Accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi • Reactor Quick Links • Reactor Oversight Process • NRC Emergency Preparedness and Response • FEMA's State Offices and Agencies of Emergency Management • Other Reactors in Florida • ADAMS - for additional documents • Subscribe to E-mail Notices for Reactor Correspondence • Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, April 23, 2014 185 Home > Facility Locator > Operating Nuclear Power Reactors by Location or Name > Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1 Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1 Location: Port Gibson, MS (20 miles SW of Vicksburg, MS) in Region IV Operator: Entergy Operations, Inc. Operating License:Issued - 11/01/1984, Expires - 11/01/2024 Docket Number: 05000416 Reactor Type: Boiling Water Reactor Licensed MWt: 4,408 Reactor Vendor/Type: General Electric Type 6 Containment Type: Wet, Mark III Plant Diagram Plant Information NRC Employee Contacts Reactor Status Report (Daily) • Reactor Event Notification • Safety Performance Summary • Inspection Reports | Dataset (Prev. 12 Mos.) | Data Dictionary • US Plant Inspections following Japan Event • Severe Accident Inspections • FEMA After Action Reports (Emergency Exercises) • Enforcement Actions • Sr. Public Affairs Officer: Victor Dricks - 817-200-1128 • Public Affairs Officer: Lara Uselding - 817-200-1519 • Sr. Resident Inspector: Richard Smith - 601-437-4620 • Resident Inspector: Andy Barrett - 601-437-4620 • Project Manager • Key Documents Related Information License Renewal • Press Releases • Upcoming Meetings • Past Meetings • Plant Operating License • Plant Environmental Report • Plant-Specific Actions in Response to the Japan Nuclear Accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi • Reactor Quick Links • Reactor Oversight Process • NRC Emergency Preparedness and Response • FEMA's State Offices and Agencies of Emergency Management • Other Reactors in Mississippi • ADAMS - for additional documents • Subscribe to E-mail Notices for Reactor Correspondence • Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, April 23, 2014 186 Home > Facility Locator > Operating Nuclear Power Reactors by Location or Name > R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Location: Ontario, NY (20 miles NE of Rochester, NY) in Region I Operator: R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, LLC Operating License: Issued - 09/19/1969 Renewed License: Issued - 05/19/2004 License Expires: 09/18/2029 Docket Number: 05000244 Reactor Type: Pressurized Water Reactor Licensed MWt: 1,775 Reactor Vendor/Type: Westinghouse Two-Loop Containment Type: Dry, Ambient Pressure Plant Diagram Plant Information NRC Employee Contacts Reactor Status Report (Daily) • Reactor Event Notification • Safety Performance Summary • Inspection Reports | Dataset (Prev. 12 Mos.) | Data Dictionary • US Plant Inspections following Japan Event • Severe Accident Inspections • FEMA After Action Reports (Emergency Exercises) • Enforcement Actions • Press Releases • Upcoming Meetings • Past Meetings • Sr. Public Affairs Officer: Diane Screnci - 610-337-5330 • Public Affairs Officer: Neil Sheehan - 610-337-5331 • Sr. Resident Inspector : Neil Perry- 315-524-6935 • Resident Inspector: D. Dodson- 315-524-6935 • Project Manager • Key Documents Related Information License Renewal • Plant Operating License • Plant Environmental Report • Plant-Specific Actions in Response to the Japan Nuclear Accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi • Reactor Quick Links • Reactor Oversight Process • NRC Emergency Preparedness and Response • FEMA's State Offices and Agencies of Emergency Management • Other Reactors in New York • ADAMS - for additional documents • Subscribe to E-mail Notices for Reactor Correspondence • Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, April 23, 2014 187 Home > Facility Locator > Operating Nuclear Power Reactors by Location or Name > Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1 Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1 Location: New Hill, NC (20 miles SW of Raleigh, NC) in Region II Operator: Carolina Power & Light Co. Operating License: Issued - 10/24/1986 Renewed License: Issued - 12/17/2008 License Expires - 10/24/2046 Docket Number: 05000400 Reactor Type: Pressurized Water Reactor Licensed MWt: 2,948 Reactor Vendor/Type: Westinghouse Three-Loop Containment Type: Dry, Ambient Pressure Plant Diagram Plant Information NRC Employee Contacts Reactor Status Report (Daily) • Reactor Event Notification • Safety Performance Summary • Inspection Reports | Dataset (Prev. 12 Mos.) | Data Dictionary • US Plant Inspections following Japan Event • Severe Accident Inspections • FEMA After Action Reports (Emergency Exercises) • Enforcement Actions • Press Releases • Upcoming Meetings • Past Meetings • Sr. Public Affairs Officer: Roger Hannah - 404-997-4417 • Public Affairs Officer: Joey Ledford - 404-997-4416 • Sr. Resident Inspector: J. Austin - 919-362-0601 • Resident Inspector: P. Lessard - 919-362-0602 • Project Manager • Key Documents Related Information License Renewal • Plant Operating License • Plant Environmental Report • Plant-Specific Actions in Response to the Japan Nuclear Accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi • Reactor Quick Links • Reactor Oversight Process • NRC Emergency Preparedness and Response • FEMA's State Offices and Agencies of Emergency Management • Other Reactors in North Carolina • ADAMS - for additional documents • Subscribe to E-mail Notices for Reactor Correspondence • Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, April 23, 2014 188 Home > Facility Locator > Operating Nuclear Power Reactors by Location or Name > Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit 1 Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit 1 Location: Baxley, GA (20 miles S of Vidalia, GA) in Region II Operator: Southern Nuclear Operating Co., Inc. Operating License: Issued - 10/13/1974 Renewed License: Issued - 01/15/2002 License Expires - 08/06/2034 Docket Number: 05000321 Reactor Type: Boiling Water Reactor Licensed MWt: 2,804 Reactor Vendor/Type: General Electric Type 4 Containment Type: Wet, Mark I Plant Diagram Plant Information NRC Employee Contacts Reactor Status Report (Daily) • Reactor Event Notification • Safety Performance Summary • Inspection Reports | Dataset (Prev. 12 Mos.) | Data Dictionary • US Plant Inspections following Japan Event • Severe Accident Inspections • FEMA After Action Reports (Emergency Exercises) • Enforcement Actions • Press Releases • Upcoming Meetings • Past Meetings • Sr. Public Affairs Officer: Roger Hannah - 404-997-4417 • Public Affairs Officer: Joey Ledford - 404-997-4416 • Sr. Resident Inspector: E. Morris - 912-367-9881 • Resident Inspector: D. Hardage – 912-367-9882 • Project Manager • Key Documents Related Information License Renewal • Plant Operating License • Plant Environmental Report • Plant-Specific Actions in Response to the Japan Nuclear Accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi • Reactor Quick Links • Reactor Oversight Process • NRC Emergency Preparedness and Response • FEMA's State Offices and Agencies of Emergency Management • Other Reactors in Georgia • ADAMS - for additional documents • Subscribe to E-mail Notices for Reactor Correspondence • Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, April 23, 2014 189 Home > Facility Locator > Operating Nuclear Power Reactors by Location or Name > Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit 2 Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit 2 Location: Baxley, GA (20 miles S of Vidalia, GA) in Region II Operator: Southern Nuclear Operating Co., Inc. Operating License: Issued - 06/13/1978 Renewed License: Issued - 01/15/2002 License Expires - 06/13/2038 Docket Number: 05000366 Reactor Type: Boiling Water Reactor Licensed MWt: 2,804 Reactor Vendor/Type: General Electric Type 4 Containment Type: Wet, Mark I Plant Diagram Plant Information NRC Employee Contacts Reactor Status Report (Daily) • Safety Performance Summary • Inspection Reports | Dataset (Prev. 12 Mos.) | Data Dictionary • US Plant Inspections following Japan Event • Severe Accident Inspections • FEMA After Action Reports (Emergency Exercises) • Enforcement Actions • Reactor Event Notification • Press Releases • Upcoming Meetings • Past Meetings • Sr. Public Affairs Officer: Roger Hannah - 404-997-4417 • Public Affairs Officer: Joey Ledford - 404-997-4416 • Sr. Resident Inspector: E. Morris - 912-367-9881 • Resident Inspector: D. Hardage – 912-367-9882 • Project Manager • Key Documents Related Information License Renewal • Plant Operating License • Plant Environmental Report • Plant-Specific Actions in Response to the Japan Nuclear Accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi • Reactor Quick Links • Reactor Oversight Process • NRC Emergency Preparedness and Response • FEMA's State Offices and Agencies of Emergency Management • Other Reactors in Georgia • ADAMS - for additional documents • Subscribe to E-mail Notices for Reactor Correspondence • Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, April 23, 2014 190 Home > Facility Locator > Operating Nuclear Power Reactors by Location or Name > Hope Creek Generating Station, Unit 1 Hope Creek Generating Station, Unit 1 Location: Hancocks Bridge, NJ (18 miles SE of Wilmington, DE) in Region I Operator: PSEG Nuclear, LLC Operating License: Issued - 07/25/1986 Renewed Operating License: Issued - 7/20/2011 License Expires: 04/11/2046 Docket Number: 05000354 Reactor Type: Boiling Water Reactor Licensed MWt: 3,840 Reactor Vendor/Type: General Electric Type 4 Containment Type: Wet, Mark I Plant Diagram Plant Information NRC Employee Contacts Reactor Status Report (Daily) • Reactor Event Notification • Safety Performance Summary • Inspection Reports | Dataset (Prev. 12 Mos.) | Data Dictionary • US Plant Inspections following Japan Event • Severe Accident Inspections • FEMA After Action Reports (Emergency Exercises) • Enforcement Actions • Press Releases • Upcoming Meetings • Past Meetings • Sr. Public Affairs Officer: Diane Screnci - 610-337-5330 • Public Affairs Officer: Neil Sheehan - 610-337-5331 • Sr. Resident Inspector: Frances Ramirez - 856-935-5373 • Resident Inspector: Sherlyn Ibarrola - 856-935-5373 • Project Manager • Key Documents Related Information License Renewal • Plant Operating License • Plant Environmental Report • Congressional Correspondence • Plant-Specific Actions in Response to the Japan Nuclear Accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi • Reactor Quick Links • Reactor Oversight Process • NRC Emergency Preparedness and Response • FEMA's State Offices and Agencies of Emergency Management • Other Reactors in New Jersey • ADAMS - for additional documents • Subscribe to E-mail Notices for Reactor Correspondence • Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, April 23, 2014 191 Home > Facility Locator > Operating Nuclear Power Reactors by Location or Name > Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit 2 Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit 2 Location: Buchanan, NY (24 miles N of New York City, NY) in Region I Operator: Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. Operating License: Issued - 09/28/1973 License Expires: 09/28/2013 Docket Number: 05000247 Reactor Type: Pressurized Water Reactor Licensed MWt: 3,216 Reactor Vendor/Type: Westinghouse Four-Loop Containment Type: Dry, Ambient Pressure Plant Diagram Plant Information NRC Employee Contacts Reactor Status Report (Daily) • Reactor Event Notification • Safety Performance Summary • Inspection Reports | Dataset (Prev. 12 Mos.) | Data Dictionary • US Plant Inspections following Japan Event • Severe Accident Inspections • FEMA After Action Reports (Emergency Exercises) • Enforcement Actions • Press Releases • Upcoming Meetings • Past Meetings • Sr. Public Affairs Officer: Diane Screnci - 610-337-5330 • Public Affairs Officer: Neil Sheehan - 610-337-5331 • Sr. Resident Inspector: Scott Stewart – 914-739-9360 • Resident Inspector: Ami Patel 914-739-9360 • Project Manager • Key Documents Related Information Groundwater Leakage • License Renewal • Plant Operating License • Plant Environmental Report • May 27, 2011 NRC Letter to NY Assemblywoman Galef on Fukushima Impact on Indian Point • Oct. 3, 2011 NRC Letter to Cong. Lowey • Plant-Specific Actions in Response to the Japan Nuclear Accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi • List of Indian Point Exemptions, Units 2 and 3 • August 19, 2013, NRC Letter on Timely Renewal • Timely Renewal • Reactor Quick Links • Reactor Oversight Process • NRC Emergency Preparedness and Response • FEMA's State Offices and Agencies of Emergency Management • Other Reactors in New York • ADAMS - for additional documents • Subscribe to E-mail Notices for Reactor Correspondence • Page Last Reviewed/Updated Monday, May 12, 2014 192 Home > Facility Locator > Operating Nuclear Power Reactors by Location or Name > Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit 3 Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit 3 Location: Buchanan, NY (24 miles N of New York City, NY) in Region I Operator: Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. Operating License: Issued - 12/12/1975 License Expires: 12/12/2015 Docket Number: 05000286 Reactor Type: Pressurized Water Reactor Licensed MWt: 3,216 Reactor Vendor/Type: Westinghouse Four-Loop Containment Type: Dry, Ambient Pressure Plant Diagram Plant Information NRC Employee Contacts Reactor Status Report (Daily) • Reactor Event Notification • Safety Performance Summary • Inspection Reports | Dataset (Prev. 12 Mos.) | Data Dictionary • US Plant Inspections following Japan Event • Severe Accident Inspections • FEMA After Action Reports (Emergency Exercises) • Enforcement Actions • Press Releases • Upcoming Meetings • Past Meetings • Sr. Public Affairs Officer: Diane Screnci - 610-337-5330 • Public Affairs Officer: Neil Sheehan - 610-337-5331 • Sr. Resident Inspector: Scott Stewart – 914-739-9360 • Resident Inspector: Garrett Newman – 914-739-8565 • Project Manager • Key Documents Related Information Groundwater Leakage • License Renewal • Plant Operating License • Plant Environmental Report • May 27, 2011 NRC Letter to NY Assemblywoman Galef on Fukushima Impact on Indian Point • Oct. 3, 2011 NRC Letter to Cong. Lowey • Plant-Specific Actions in Response to the Japan Nuclear Accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi • List of Indian Point Exemptions, Units 2 and 3 • Reactor Quick Links • Reactor Oversight Process • NRC Emergency Preparedness and Response • FEMA's State Offices and Agencies of Emergency Management • Other Reactors in New York • ADAMS - for additional documents • Subscribe to E-mail Notices for Reactor Correspondence • Page Last Reviewed/Updated Monday, May 12, 2014 193 Home > Facility Locator > Operating Nuclear Power Reactors by Location or Name > LaSalle County Station, Unit 1 LaSalle County Station, Unit 1 Location: Marseilles, IL (11 miles SE of Ottawa, IL) in Region III Operator: Exelon Generation Co., LLC Operating License: Issued - 04/17/1982, Expires - 04/17/2022 Docket Number: 05000373 Reactor Type: Boiling Water Reactor Licensed MWt: 3,546 Reactor Vendor/Type: General Electric Type 5 Containment Type: Wet, Mark II Plant Diagram Plant Information NRC Employee Contacts Reactor Status Report (Daily) • Reactor Event Notification • Safety Performance Summary • Inspection Reports | Dataset (Prev. 12 Mos.) | Data Dictionary • US Plant Inspections following Japan Event • Severe Accident Inspections • FEMA After Action Reports (Emergency Exercises) • Enforcement Actions • Press Releases • Upcoming Meetings • Past Meetings • Plant Operating License • Plant Environmental Report • Sr. Public Affairs Officer: Viktoria Mitlyng - 630-829-9662 • Public Affairs Officer: Prema Chandrathil - 630-829-9663 • Sr. Resident Inspector: R. Ruiz - 815-357-8611 • Resident Inspector: J. Robbins - 815-357-8612 • Project Manager • Key Documents Related Information Plant-Specific Actions in Response to the Japan Nuclear Accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi • Reactor Quick Links • Reactor Oversight Process • NRC Emergency Preparedness and Response • FEMA's State Offices and Agencies of Emergency Management • Other Reactors in Illinios • ADAMS - for additional documents • Subscribe to E-mail Notices for Reactor Correspondence • Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, May 08, 2014 194 Home > Facility Locator > Operating Nuclear Power Reactors by Location or Name > LaSalle County Station, Unit 2 LaSalle County Station, Unit 2 Location: Marseilles, IL (11 miles SE of Ottawa, IL) in Region III Operator: Exelon Generation Co., LLC Operating License: Issued - 12/16/1983, Expires - 12/16/2023 Docket Number: 05000374 Reactor Type: Boiling Water Reactor Licensed MWt: 3,546 Reactor Vendor/Type: General Electric Type 5 Containment Type: Wet, Mark II Plant Diagram Plant Information NRC Employee Contacts Reactor Status Report (Daily) • Reactor Event Notification • Safety Performance Summary • Inspection Reports | Dataset (Prev. 12 Mos.) | Data Dictionary • US Plant Inspections following Japan Event • Severe Accident Inspections • FEMA After Action Reports (Emergency Exercises) • Enforcement Actions • Press Releases • Upcoming Meetings • Past Meetings • Plant Operating License • Plant Environmental Report • Sr. Public Affairs Officer: Viktoria Mitlyng - 630-829-9662 • Public Affairs Officer: Prema Chandrathil - 630-829-9663 • Sr. Resident Inspector: G. Roach - 815-357-8611 • Resident Inspector: J. Robbins - 815-357-8612 • Project Manager • Key Documents Related Information Plant-Specific Actions in Response to the Japan Nuclear Accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi • Reactor Quick Links • Reactor Oversight Process • NRC Emergency Preparedness and Response • FEMA's State Offices and Agencies of Emergency Management • Other Reactors in Illinios • ADAMS - for additional documents • Subscribe to E-mail Notices for Reactor Correspondence • Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, May 08, 2014 195 Home > Facility Locator > Operating Nuclear Power Reactors by Location or Name > Limerick Generating Station, Unit 1 Limerick Generating Station, Unit 1 Location: Limerick, PA (21 miles NW of Philadelphia, PA) in Region I Operator: Exelon Generation Co., LLC Operating License: Issued - 08/08/1985, Expires - 10/26/2024 Docket Number: 05000352 Reactor Type: Boiling Water Reactor Licensed MWt: 3,515 Reactor Vendor/Type: General Electric Type 4 Containment Type: Wet, Mark II Plant Diagram Plant Information NRC Employee Contacts Reactor Status Report (Daily) • Reactor Event Notification • Safety Performance Summary • Inspection Reports | Dataset (Prev. 12 Mos.) | Data Dictionary • US Plant Inspections following Japan Event • Severe Accident Inspections • FEMA After Action Reports (Emergency Exercises) • Enforcement Actions • Press Releases • Upcoming Meetings • Past Meetings • Plant Operating License • Plant Environmental Report • Sr. Public Affairs Officer: Diane Screnci - 610-337-5330 • Public Affairs Officer: Neil Sheehan - 610-337-5331 • Sr. Resident Inspector: Eugene M. Dipaolo - 610-327-1345 • Resident Inspector: Justin Hawkins - 610-327-1344 • Project Manager • Key Documents Related Information Plant-Specific Actions in Response to the Japan Nuclear Accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi • Reactor Quick Links • Reactor Oversight Process • NRC Emergency Preparedness and Response • FEMA's State Offices and Agencies of Emergency Management • Other Reactors in Pennsylvania • ADAMS - for additional documents • Subscribe to E-mail Notices for Reactor Correspondence • Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, April 23, 2014 196 Home > Facility Locator > Operating Nuclear Power Reactors by Location or Name > Limerick Generating Station, Unit 2 Limerick Generating Station, Unit 2 Location: Limerick, PA (21 miles NW of Philadelphia, PA) in Region I Operator: Exelon Generation Co., LLC Operating License: Issued - 08/25/1989, Expires - 06/22/2029 Docket Number: 05000353 Reactor Type: Boiling Water Reactor Licensed MWt: 3,515 Reactor Vendor/Type: General Electric Type 4 Containment Type: Wet, Mark II Plant Diagram Plant Information NRC Employee Contacts Reactor Status Report (Daily) • Reactor Event Notification • Safety Performance Summary • Inspection Reports | Dataset (Prev. 12 Mos.) | Data Dictionary • US Plant Inspections following Japan Event • Severe Accident Inspections • FEMA After Action Reports (Emergency Exercises) • Enforcement Actions • Press Releases • Upcoming Meetings • Past Meetings • Plant Operating License • Plant Environmental Report • Sr. Public Affairs Officer: Diane Screnci - 610-337-5330 • Public Affairs Officer: Neil Sheehan - 610-337-5331 • Sr. Resident Inspector: Eugene M. DiPaolo - 610-327-1344 • Resident Inspector: Justin Hawkins - 610-327-1344 • Project Manager • Key Documents Related Information Plant-Specific Actions in Response to the Japan Nuclear Accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi • Reactor Quick Links • Reactor Oversight Process • NRC Emergency Preparedness and Response • FEMA's State Offices and Agencies of Emergency Management • Other Reactors in Pennsylvania • ADAMS - for additional documents • Subscribe to E-mail Notices for Reactor Correspondence • Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, April 23, 2014 197 Home > Facility Locator > Operating Nuclear Power Reactors by Location or Name >McGuire Nuclear Station, Unit 1 McGuire Nuclear Station, Unit 1 Location: Huntersville, NC (17 miles N of Charlotte, NC) in Region II Operator: Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Operating License: Issued - 05/27/1981 Renewed License: Issued - 12/05/2003 License Expires: 03/03/2041 Docket Number: 05000369 Reactor Type: Pressurized Water Reactor Licensed MWt: 3,411 Reactor Vendor/Type: Westinghouse Four-Loop Containment Type: Wet, Ice condenser Plant Diagram Plant Information NRC Employee Contacts Reactor Status Report (Daily) • Reactor Event Notification • Safety Performance Summary • Inspection Reports | Dataset (Prev. 12 Mos.) | Data Dictionary • US Plant Inspections following Japan Event • Severe Accident Inspections • FEMA After Action Reports (Emergency Exercises) • Enforcement Actions • Press Releases • Upcoming Meetings • Past Meetings • Sr. Public Affairs Officer: Roger Hannah - 404-997-4417 • Public Affairs Officer: Joey Ledford - 404-997-4416 • Sr. Resident Inspector: J. Zeiler - 704-875-1681 • Resident Inspector: J. Heath - 704-875-1682 • Project Manager • Key Documents Related Information License Renewal • Plant Operating License • Plant Environmental Report • Plant-Specific Actions in Response to the Japan Nuclear Accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi • Reactor Quick Links • Reactor Oversight Process • NRC Emergency Preparedness and Response • FEMA's State Offices and Agencies of Emergency Management • Other Reactors in North Carolina • ADAMS - for additional documents • Subscribe to E-mail Notices for Reactor Correspondence • Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, April 23, 2014 198 Home > Facility Locator > Operating Nuclear Power Reactors by Location or Name > McGuire Nuclear Station, Unit 2 McGuire Nuclear Station, Unit 2 Location: Huntersville, NC (17 miles N of Charlotte, NC) in Region II Operator: Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Operating License: Issued - 05/27/1983 Renewed License: Issued - 12/05/2003 License Expires: 03/03/2043 Docket Number: 05000370 Reactor Type: Pressurized Water Reactor Licensed MWt: 3,411 Reactor Vendor/Type: Westinghouse Four-Loop Containment Type: Wet, Ice condenser Plant Diagram Plant Information NRC Employee Contacts Reactor Status Report (Daily) • Reactor Event Notification • Safety Performance Summary • Inspection Reports | Dataset (Prev. 12 Mos.) | Data Dictionary • US Plant Inspections following Japan Event • Severe Accident Inspections • FEMA After Action Reports (Emergency Exercises) • FEMA After Action Reports (Emergency Exercises) • Enforcement Actions • Press Releases • Upcoming Meetings • Past Meetings • Sr. Public Affairs Officer: Roger Hannah - 404-997-4417 • Public Affairs Officer: Joey Ledford - 404-997-4416 • Sr. Resident Inspector: J. Zeiler - 704-875-1681 • Resident Inspector: J. Heath - 704-875-1682 • Project Manager • Key Documents Related Information License Renewal • Plant Operating License • Plant Environmental Report • Plant-Specific Actions in Response to the Japan Nuclear Accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi • Reactor Quick Links • Reactor Oversight Process • NRC Emergency Preparedness and Response • FEMA's State Offices and Agencies of Emergency Management • Other Reactors in North Carolina • ADAMS - for additional documents • Subscribe to E-mail Notices for Reactor Correspondence • Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, April 23, 2014 199 Home > Facility Locator > Operating Nuclear Power Reactors by Location or Name > Millstone Power Station, Unit 2 Millstone Power Station, Unit 2 Location: Waterford, CT (3.2 miles WSW of New London, CT) in Region I Operator: Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. Operating License: Issued - 09/26/1975 Renewed License: Issued - 11/28/2005 License Expires: 07/31/2035 Docket Number: 05000336 Reactor Type: Pressurized Water Reactor Licensed MWt: 2,700 Reactor Vendor/Type: Combustion Engineering Containment Type: Dry, Ambient Pressure Plant Diagram Plant Information NRC Employee Contacts Reactor Status Report (Daily) • Reactor Event Notification • Safety Performance Summary • Inspection Reports | Dataset (Prev. 12 Mos.) | Data Dictionary • US Plant Inspections following Japan Event • Severe Accident Inspections • FEMA After Action Reports (Emergency Exercises) • Enforcement Actions • Press Releases • Upcoming Meetings • Past Meetings • Sr. Public Affairs Officer: Diane Screnci - 610-337-5330 • Public Affairs Officer: Neil Sheehan - 610-337-5331 • Sr. Resident Inspector: Josephine Ambrosini - 860-447-3170 • Resident Inspector: Brian C. Haagensen - 860-447-3170 James A. Krafty - 860-447-3170 • Project Manager • Key Documents Related Information License Renewal • Plant Operating License • Plant Environmental Report • Plant-Specific Actions in Response to the Japan Nuclear Accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi • Reactor Quick Links • Reactor Oversight Process • NRC Emergency Preparedness and Response • FEMA's State Offices and Agencies of Emergency Management • Other Reactors in Connecticut • ADAMS - for additional documents • Subscribe to E-mail Notices for Reactor Correspondence • Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, April 23, 2014 200 Home > Facility Locator > Operating Nuclear Power Reactors by Location or Name > Millstone Power Station, Unit 3 Millstone Power Station, Unit 3 Location: Waterford, CT (3.2 miles WSW of New London, CT) in Region I Operator: Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. Operating License: Issued - 01/31/1986 Renewed License: Issued - 11/28/2005 License Expires: 11/25/2045 Docket Number: 05000423 Reactor Type: Pressurized Water Reactor Licensed MWt: 3,650 Reactor Vendor/Type: Westinghouse Four-Loop Containment Type: Dry, Subatmospheric Plant Diagram Plant Information NRC Employee Contacts Reactor Status Report (Daily) • Reactor Event Notification • Safety Performance Summary • Inspection Reports | Dataset (Prev. 12 Mos.) | Data Dictionary • US Plant Inspections following Japan Event • Severe Accident Inspections • FEMA After Action Reports (Emergency Exercises) • Enforcement Actions • Press Releases • Upcoming Meetings • Past Meetings • Sr. Public Affairs Officer: Diane Screnci - 610-337-5330 • Public Affairs Officer: Neil Sheehan - 610-337-5331 • Sr. Resident Inspector: Josephine Ambrosini- 860-447-3170 • Resident Inspector: Brian C. Haagensen - 860-447-3170 James A. Krafty - 860-447-3170 • Project Manager • Key Documents Related Information License Renewal • Plant Operating License • Plant Environmental Report • Plant-Specific Actions in Response to the Japan Nuclear Accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi • Reactor Quick Links • Reactor Oversight Process • NRC Emergency Preparedness and Response • FEMA's State Offices and Agencies of Emergency Management • Other Reactors in Connecticut • ADAMS - for additional documents • Subscribe to E-mail Notices for Reactor Correspondence • Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, April 23, 2014 201 Home > Facility Locator > Operating Nuclear Power Reactors by Location or Name > Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, Unit 1 Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, Unit 1 Location: Monticello, MN (35 miles NW of Minneapolis, MN) in Region III Operator: Northern States Power Company - Minnesota Operating License: AEC Prov. Lic Issued - 09/08/1970, NRC Facil Op Lic (OL) Issued 01/09/1981 Renewed License: Issued - 11/08/2006 License Expires: 09/08/2030 Docket Number: 05000263 Reactor Type: Boiling Water Reactor Licensed MWt: 2,004 Reactor Vendor/Type: General Electric Type 3 Containment Type: Wet, Mark I Plant Diagram Plant Information NRC Employee Contacts Reactor Status Report (Daily) • Reactor Event Notification • Safety Performance Summary • Inspection Reports | Dataset (Prev. 12 Mos.) | Data Dictionary • US Plant Inspections following Japan Event • Severe Accident Inspections • FEMA After Action Reports (Emergency Exercises) • Enforcement Actions • Press Releases • Upcoming Meetings • Past Meetings • Sr. Public Affairs Officer: Viktoria Mitlyng - 630-829-9662 • Public Affairs Officer: Prema Chandrathil - 630-829-9663 • Sr. Resident Inspector: Paul Zurawski - 763-295-2066 • Resident Inspector: Patricia Voss - 763-295-2066 • Project Manager • Key Documents Related Information License Renewal • Plant Operating License • Plant Environmental Report • Plant-Specific Actions in Response to the Japan Nuclear Accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi • Reactor Quick Links • Reactor Oversight Process • NRC Emergency Preparedness and Response • FEMA's State Offices and Agencies of Emergency Management • Other Reactors in Minnesota • ADAMS - for additional documents • Subscribe to E-mail Notices for Reactor Correspondence • Page Last Reviewed/Updated Friday, May 09, 2014 202 Home > Facility Locator > Operating Nuclear Power Reactors by Location or Name > North Anna Power Station, Unit 1 North Anna Power Station, Unit 1 Location: Louisa, VA (40 miles NW of Richmond, VA) in Region II Operator: Virginia Electric & Power Co. Operating License: Issued - 04/01/1978 Renewed License: Issued - 03/20/2003 License Expires: 04/01/2038 Docket Number: 05000338 Reactor Type: Pressurized Water Reactor Licensed MWt: 2,940 Reactor Vendor/Type: Westinghouse Three-Loop Containment Type: Dry, Subatmospheric Plant Diagram Plant Information NRC Employee Contacts Reactor Status Report (Daily) • Reactor Event Notification • Safety Performance Summary • Inspection Reports | Dataset (Prev. 12 Mos.) | Data Dictionary • Severe Accident Inspections • FEMA After Action Reports (Emergency Exercises) • Enforcement Actions • Press Releases • Upcoming Meetings • Past Meetings • Dominion 11/01/2011 Meeting Slides - Power Station Restart Readiness • NRC 11/01/2011 Meeting Slides - Power Station Seismic Event • 10/21/2011 Commission Briefing Webcast • NRC Blog • Sr. Public Affairs Officer: Roger Hannah - 404-997-4417 • Public Affairs Officer: Joey Ledford - 404-997-4416 • Sr. Resident Inspector: G. Kolcum - 540-894-5421 • Resident Inspector: R. Clagg - 540-894-5422 • Project Manager • Key Documents Related Information License Renewal • Plant Operating License • Plant Environmental Report • US Plant Inspections following Japan Event • Correspondence • Plant-Specific Actions in Response to the Japan Nuclear Accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi • Reactor Quick Links • Reactor Oversight Process • NRC Emergency Preparedness and Response • FEMA's State Offices and Agencies of Emergency Management • Other Reactors in Virginia • ADAMS - for additional documents • Subscribe to E-mail Notices for Reactor Correspondence • Hot Topics Virginia Quake • Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, April 23, 2014 203 Home > Facility Locator > Operating Nuclear Power Reactors by Location or Name > North Anna Power Station, Unit 2 North Anna Power Station, Unit 2 Location: Louisa, VA (40 miles NW of Richmond, VA) in Region II Operator: Virginia Electric & Power Co. Operating License: Issued - 08/21/1980 Renewed License: Issued - 03/20/2003 License Expires: 08/21/2040 Docket Number: 05000339 Reactor Type: Pressurized Water Reactor Licensed MWt: 2,940 Reactor Vendor/Type: Westinghouse Three-Loop Containment Type: Dry, Subatmospheric Plant Diagram Plant Information NRC Employee Contacts Reactor Status Report (Daily) • Reactor Event Notification • Safety Performance Summary • Inspection Reports | Dataset (Prev. 12 Mos.) | Data Dictionary • Severe Accident Inspections • FEMA After Action Reports (Emergency Exercises) • Enforcement Actions • Press Releases • Upcoming Meetings • Past Meetings • Dominion 11/01/2011 Meeting Slides - Power Station Restart Readiness • NRC 11/01/2011 Meeting Slides - Power Station Seismic Event • 10/21/2011 Commission Briefing Webcast • NRC Blog • Sr. Public Affairs Officer: Roger Hannah - 404-997-4417 • Public Affairs Officer: Joey Ledford - 404-997-4416 • Sr. Resident Inspector: G. Kolcum - 540-894-5421 • Resident Inspector: R. Clagg - 540-894-5422 • Project Manager • Key Documents Related Information License Renewal • Plant Operating License • Plant Environmental Report • US Plant Inspections following Japan Event • Correspondence • Plant-Specific Actions in Response to the Japan Nuclear Accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi • Reactor Quick Links • Reactor Oversight Process • NRC Emergency Preparedness and Response • FEMA's State Offices and Agencies of Emergency Management • Other Reactors in Virginia • ADAMS - for additional documents • Subscribe to E-mail Notices for Reactor Correspondence • Hot Topics Virginia Quake • Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, April 23, 2014 204 Home > Facility Locator > Operating Nuclear Power Reactors by Location or Name > Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 1 Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 1 Location: Scriba, NY (6 miles NE of Oswego, NY) in Region I Operator: Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC Operating License: Issued - 12/26/1974 Renewed License: Issued - 10/31/2006 License Expires: 08/22/2029 Docket Number: 05000220 Reactor Type: Boiling Water Reactor Licensed MWt: 1,850 Reactor Vendor/Type: General Electric Type 2 Containment Type: Wet, Mark I Plant Diagram Plant Information NRC Employee Contacts Reactor Status Report (Daily) • Reactor Event Notification • Safety Performance Summary • Inspection Reports | Dataset (Prev. 12 Mos.) | Data Dictionary • US Plant Inspections following Japan Event • Severe Accident Inspections • FEMA After Action Reports (Emergency Exercises) • Enforcement Actions • Press Releases • Upcoming Meetings • Past Meetings • Sr. Public Affairs Officer: Diane Screnci - 610-337-5330 • Public Affairs Officer: Neil Sheehan - 610-337-5331 • Sr. Resident Inspector: Kenneth S. Kolaczyk - 315-342-4041 • Resident Inspector: Eric Miller - 315-342-4041 • Project Manager • Key Documents Related Information License Renewal • Plant Operating License • Plant Environmental Report • Plant-Specific Actions in Response to the Japan Nuclear Accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi • Reactor Quick Links • Reactor Oversight Process • NRC Emergency Preparedness and Response • FEMA's State Offices and Agencies of Emergency Management • Other Reactors in New York • ADAMS - for additional documents • Subscribe to E-mail Notices for Reactor Correspondence • Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, April 23, 2014 205 Home > Facility Locator > Operating Nuclear Power Reactors by Location or Name > Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 2 Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 2 Location: Scriba, NY (6 miles NE of Oswego, NY) in Region I Operator: Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC Operating License: Issued - 07/02/1987 Renewed License: Issued - 10/31/2006 License Expires: 10/31/2046 Docket Number: 05000410 Reactor Type: Boiling Water Reactor Licensed MWt: 3,988 Reactor Vendor/Type: General Electric Type 5 Containment Type: Wet, Mark II Plant Diagram Plant Information NRC Employee Contacts Reactor Status Report (Daily) • Reactor Event Notification • Safety Performance Summary • Inspection Reports | Dataset (Prev. 12 Mos.) | Data Dictionary • US Plant Inspections following Japan Event • Severe Accident Inspections • FEMA After Action Reports (Emergency Exercises) • Enforcement Actions • Press Releases • Upcoming Meetings • Past Meetings • Sr. Public Affairs Officer: Diane Screnci - 610-337-5330 • Public Affairs Officer: Neil Sheehan - 610-337-5331 • Sr. Resident Inspector: Kenneth S. Kolaczyk - 315-342-4041 • Resident Inspector: Eric Miller - 315-342-4041 • Project Manager • Key Documents Related Information License Renewal • Plant Operating License • Plant Environmental Report • Plant-Specific Actions in Response to the Japan Nuclear Accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi • Reactor Quick Links • Reactor Oversight Process • NRC Emergency Preparedness and Response • FEMA's State Offices and Agencies of Emergency Management • Other Reactors in New York • ADAMS - for additional documents • Subscribe to E-mail Notices for Reactor Correspondence • Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, April 23, 2014 206 Home > Facility Locator > Operating Nuclear Power Reactors by Location or Name > Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station Location: Forked River, NJ (9 miles S of Toms River, NJ) in Region I Operator: Exelon Generation Co., LLC Operating License: Issued - 07/02/1991 Renewed License Issued - 06/03/09 License Expires - 04/09/2029 Docket Number: 05000219 Reactor Type: Boiling Water Reactor Licensed MWt: 1,930 Reactor Vendor/Type: General Electric Type 2 Containment Type: Wet, Mark I Plant Diagram Plant Information NRC Employee Contacts Reactor Status Report (Daily) • Reactor Event Notification • Safety Performance Summary • Inspection Reports | Dataset (Prev. 12 Mos.) | Data Dictionary • US Plant Inspections following Japan Event • Severe Accident Inspections • FEMA After Action Reports (Emergency Exercises) • Enforcement Actions • Press Releases • Upcoming Meetings • Past Meetings • Sr. Public Affairs Officer: Diane Screnci - 610-337-5330 • Public Affairs Officer: Neil Sheehan - 610-337-5331 • Sr. Resident Inspector: Jeffery A. Kulp - 609-693-0702 • Resident Inspector: Amar Patel - 609-693-0702 • Project Manager • Key Documents Related Information License Renewal • Plant Operating License • Plant Environmental Report • Congressional Correspondence • Plant-Specific Actions in Response to the Japan Nuclear Accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi • Reactor Quick Links • Reactor Oversight Process • NRC Emergency Preparedness and Response • FEMA's State Offices and Agencies of Emergency Management • Other Reactors in New Jersey • ADAMS - for additional documents • Subscribe to E-mail Notices for Reactor Correspondence • Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, April 23, 2014 207 Home > Facility Locator > Operating Nuclear Power Reactors by Location or Name > Oconee Nuclear Station, Unit 1 Oconee Nuclear Station, Unit 1 Location: Seneca, SC (30 miles W of Greenville, SC) in Region II Operator: Duke Energy Corp. Operating License: Issued - 02/06/1973 Renewed License: Issued - 05/23/2000 License Expires: 02/06/2033 Docket Number: 05000269 Reactor Type: Pressurized Water Reactor Licensed MWt: 2,568 Reactor Vendor/Type: Babcock & Wilcox Lowered Loop Containment Type: Dry, Ambient Pressure Plant Diagram Plant Information NRC Employee Contacts Reactor Status Report (Daily) • Reactor Event Notification • Safety Performance Summary • Inspection Reports | Dataset (Prev. 12 Mos.) | Data Dictionary • US Plant Inspections following Japan Event • Severe Accident Inspections • FEMA After Action Reports (Emergency Exercises) • Enforcement Actions • Press Releases • Upcoming Meetings • Past Meetings • Sr. Public Affairs Officer: Roger Hannah - 404-997-4417 • Public Affairs Officer: Joey Ledford - 404-997-4416 • Sr. Resident Inspector: E. Crowe – 864-882-6927 • Resident Inspector: G. Coons - 864-882-6928 N. Childs – 864-882-6928 • Project Manager • Key Documents Related Information License Renewal • Plant Operating License • Plant Environmental Report • Plant-Specific Actions in Response to the Japan Nuclear Accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi • Reactor Quick Links • Reactor Oversight Process • NRC Emergency Preparedness and Response • FEMA's State Offices and Agencies of Emergency Management • Other Reactors in South Carolina • ADAMS - for additional documents • Subscribe to E-mail Notices for Reactor Correspondence • Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, April 23, 2014 208 Home > Facility Locator > Operating Nuclear Power Reactors by Location or Name > Oconee Nuclear Station, Unit 2 Oconee Nuclear Station, Unit 2 Location: Seneca, SC (30 miles W of Greenville, SC) in Region II Operator: Duke Energy Corp. Operating License: Issued - 10/06/1973 Renewed License: Issued - 05/23/2000 License Expires: 10/06/2033 Docket Number: 05000270 Reactor Type: Pressurized Water Reactor Licensed MWt: 2,568 Reactor Vendor/Type: Babcock & Wilcox Lowered Loop Containment Type: Dry, Ambient Pressure Plant Diagram Plant Information NRC Employee Contacts Reactor Status Report (Daily) • Reactor Event Notification • Safety Performance Summary • Inspection Reports | Dataset (Prev. 12 Mos.) | Data Dictionary • US Plant Inspections following Japan Event • Severe Accident Inspections • FEMA After Action Reports (Emergency Exercises) • Enforcement Actions • Press Releases • Upcoming Meetings • Past Meetings • Sr. Public Affairs Officer: Roger Hannah - 404-997-4417 • Public Affairs Officer: Joey Ledford - 404-997-4416 • Sr. Resident Inspector: E. Crowe – 864-882-6927 • Resident Inspector: G. Coons - 864-882-6928 N. Childs – 864-882-6928 • Project Manager • Key Documents Related Information License Renewal • Plant Operating License • Plant Environmental Report • Plant-Specific Actions in Response to the Japan Nuclear Accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi • Reactor Quick Links • Reactor Oversight Process • NRC Emergency Preparedness and Response • FEMA's State Offices and Agencies of Emergency Management • Other Reactors in South Carolina • ADAMS - for additional documents • Subscribe to E-mail Notices for Reactor Correspondence • Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, April 23, 2014 209 Home > Facility Locator > Operating Nuclear Power Reactors by Location or Name > Oconee Nuclear Station, Unit 3 Oconee Nuclear Station, Unit 3 Location: Seneca, SC (30 miles W of Greenville, SC) in Region II Operator: Duke Energy Corp. Operating License: Issued - 07/19/1974 Renewed License: Issued - 05/23/2000 License Expires: 07/19/2034 Docket Number: 05000287 Reactor Type: Pressurized Water Reactor Licensed MWt: 2,568 Reactor Vendor/Type: Babcock & Wilcox Lowered Loop Containment Type: Dry, Ambient Pressure Plant Diagram Plant Information NRC Employee Contacts Reactor Status Report (Daily) • Reactor Event Notification • Safety Performance Summary • Inspection Reports | Dataset (Prev. 12 Mos.) | Data Dictionary • US Plant Inspections following Japan Event • Severe Accident Inspections • FEMA After Action Reports (Emergency Exercises) • Enforcement Actions • Press Releases • Upcoming Meetings • Past Meetings • Sr. Public Affairs Officer: Roger Hannah - 404-997-4417 • Public Affairs Officer: Joey Ledford - 404-997-4416 • Sr. Resident Inspector: E. Crowe – 864-882-6927 • Resident Inspector: G. Coons - 864-882-6928 N. Childs – 864-882-6928 • Project Manager • Key Documents Related Information License Renewal • Plant Operating License • Plant Environmental Report • Plant-Specific Actions in Response to the Japan Nuclear Accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi • Reactor Quick Links • Reactor Oversight Process • NRC Emergency Preparedness and Response • FEMA's State Offices and Agencies of Emergency Management • Other Reactors in South Carolina • ADAMS - for additional documents • Subscribe to E-mail Notices for Reactor Correspondence • Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, April 23, 2014 210 Home > Facility Locator > Operating Nuclear Power Reactors by Location or Name > Palisades Nuclear Plant Palisades Nuclear Plant Location: Covert, MI (5 miles S of South Haven, MI) in Region III Operator: Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. Operating License: Issued - 02/21/1971 Renewed License: Issued - 01/17/2007 License Expires: 03/24/2031 Docket Number: 05000255 Reactor Type: Pressurized Water Reactor Licensed MWt: 2,565.4 Reactor Vendor/Type: Combustion Engineering Containment Type: Dry, Ambient Pressure Plant Diagram Plant Information NRC Employee Contacts Reactor Status Report (Daily) • Reactor Event Notification • Safety Performance Summary • Inspection Reports | Dataset (Prev. 12 Mos.) | Data Dictionary • US Plant Inspections following Japan Event • Severe Accident Inspections • FEMA After Action Reports (Emergency Exercises) • Enforcement Actions • Press Releases • Upcoming Meetings • Past Meetings • Sr. Public Affairs Officer: Viktoria Mitlyng - 630-829-9662 • Public Affairs Officer: Prema Chandrathil - 630-829-9663 • Sr. Resident Inspector: Alex Garmoe - 269-764-8971 • Resident Inspector: April Scarbeary - 269-764-8972 • Project Manager • Key Documents Related Information License Renewal • Plant Operating License • Plant Environmental Report • Plant-Specific Actions in Response to the Japan Nuclear Accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi • Reactor Quick Links • Reactor Oversight Process • NRC Emergency Preparedness and Response • FEMA's State Offices and Agencies of Emergency Management • Other Reactors in Michigan • ADAMS - for additional documents • Subscribe to E-mail Notices for Reactor Correspondence • Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, April 23, 2014 211 Home > Facility Locator > Operating Nuclear Power Reactors by Location or Name > Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1 Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1 Location: Wintersburg, AZ (50 miles W of Phoenix, AZ) in Region IV Operator: Arizona Public Service Co. Operating License: Issued - 06/01/1985 Renewed Operating License: Issued - 04/21/2011 License Expires: 06/01/2045 Docket Number: 05000528 Reactor Type: Pressurized Water Reactor Licensed MWt: 3,990 Reactor Vendor/Type: Combustion-Engineering System 80 Containment Type: Large Dry, Ambient Pressure Plant Diagram Plant Information NRC Employee Contacts Reactor Status Report (Daily) • Reactor Event Notification • Safety Performance Summary • Inspection Reports | Dataset (Prev. 12 Mos.) | Data Dictionary • US Plant Inspections following Japan Event • Severe Accident Inspections • FEMA After Action Reports (Emergency Exercises) • Enforcement Actions • Press Releases • Upcoming Meetings • Past Meetings • Sr. Public Affairs Officer: Victor Dricks - 817-200-1128 • Public Affairs Officer: Lara Uselding - 817-200-1519 • Sr. Resident Inspectors: Tony Brown - 623-386-3638 • Resident Inspector: Dustin Reinert - 623-393-3737 Mica Baquera - 623-386-3638 • Project Manager Jennie Rankin - 301-415-1530 • Key Documents Related Information License Renewal • Plant Operating License • Plant Environmental Report • Plant-Specific Actions in Response to the Japan Nuclear Accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi • Reactor Quick Links • Reactor Oversight Process • NRC Emergency Preparedness and Response • FEMA's State Offices and Agencies of Emergency Management • Other Reactors in Arizona • ADAMS - for additional documents • Subscribe to E-mail Notices for Reactor Correspondence • Page Last Reviewed/Updated Friday, May 16, 2014 212 Home > Facility Locator > Operating Nuclear Power Reactors by Location or Name > Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 2 Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 2 Location: Wintersburg, AZ (50 miles W of Phoenix, AZ) in Region IV Operator: Arizona Public Service Co. Operating License: Issued - 04/24/1986 Renewed Operating License: Issued - 04/21/2011 License Expires: 04/24/2046 Docket Number: 05000529 Reactor Type: Pressurized Water Reactor Licensed MWt: 3,990 Reactor Vendor/Type: Combustion-Engineering System 80 Containment Type: Large Dry, Ambient Pressure Plant Diagram Plant Information NRC Employee Contacts Reactor Status Report (Daily) • Reactor Event Notification • Safety Performance Summary • Inspection Reports | Dataset (Prev. 12 Mos.) | Data Dictionary • US Plant Inspections following Japan Event • Severe Accident Inspections • FEMA After Action Reports (Emergency Exercises) • Enforcement Actions • Press Releases • Upcoming Meetings • Past Meetings • Sr. Public Affairs Officer: Victor Dricks - 817-200-1128 • Public Affairs Officer: Lara Uselding - 817-200-1519 • Sr. Resident Inspector: Tony Brown - 623-386-3638 • Resident Inspector: Dustin Reinert - 623-393-3737 Mica Baquera - 623-386-3638 • Project Manager Jennie Rankin - 301-415-1530 • Key Documents Related Information License Renewal • Plant Operating License • Plant Environmental Report • Plant-Specific Actions in Response to the Japan Nuclear Accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi • Reactor Quick Links • Reactor Oversight Process • NRC Emergency Preparedness and Response • FEMA's State Offices and Agencies of Emergency Management • Other Reactors in Arizona • ADAMS - for additional documents • Subscribe to E-mail Notices for Reactor Correspondence • Page Last Reviewed/Updated Friday, May 16, 2014 213 Home > Facility Locator > Operating Nuclear Power Reactors by Location or Name > Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 3 Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 3 Location: Wintersburg, AZ (50 miles W of Phoenix, AZ) in Region IV Operator: Arizona Public Service Co. Operating License: Issued - 11/25/1987 Renewed Operating License: Issued - 04/21/2011 License Expires: 11/25/2047 Docket Number: 05000530 Reactor Type: Pressurized Water Reactor Licensed MWt: 3,990 Reactor Vendor/Type: Combustion-Engineering System 80 Containment Type: Large Dry, Ambient Pressure Plant Diagram Plant Information NRC Employee Contacts Reactor Status Report (Daily) • Reactor Event Notification • Safety Performance Summary • Inspection Reports | Dataset (Prev. 12 Mos.) | Data Dictionary • US Plant Inspections following Japan Event • Severe Accident Inspections • FEMA After Action Reports (Emergency Exercises) • Enforcement Actions • Press Releases • Upcoming Meetings • Past Meetings • Sr. Public Affairs Officer: Victor Dricks - 817-200-1128 • Public Affairs Officer: Lara Uselding - 817-200-1519 • Sr. Resident Inspector: Tony Brown - 623-386-3638 • Resident Inspector: Dustin Reinert - 623-393-3737 Mica Baquera - 623-386-3638 • Project Manager Jennie Rankin - 301-415-1530 • Key Documents Related Information License Renewal • Plant Operating License • Plant Environmental Report • Plant-Specific Actions in Response to the Japan Nuclear Accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi • Reactor Quick Links • Reactor Oversight Process • NRC Emergency Preparedness and Response • FEMA's State Offices and Agencies of Emergency Management • Other Reactors in Arizona • ADAMS - for additional documents • Subscribe to E-mail Notices for Reactor Correspondence • Page Last Reviewed/Updated Friday, May 16, 2014 214 Home > Facility Locator > Operating Nuclear Power Reactors by Location or Name > Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Unit 2 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Unit 2 Location: Delta, PA (17.9 miles S of Lancaster, PA) in Region I Operator: Exelon Generation Co., LLC Operating License: Issued - 10/25/1973 Renewed License: Issued - 05/07/2003 License Expires: 08/08/2033 Docket Number: 05000277 Reactor Type: Boiling Water Reactor Licensed MWt: 3,514 Reactor Vendor/Type: General Electric Type 4 Containment Type: BWR, Mark I Plant Diagram Plant Information NRC Employee Contacts Reactor Status Report (Daily) • Reactor Event Notification • Safety Performance Summary • Inspection Reports | Dataset (Prev. 12 Mos.) | Data Dictionary • US Plant Inspections following Japan Event • Severe Accident Inspections • FEMA After Action Reports (Emergency Exercises) • Enforcement Actions • Press Releases • Upcoming Meetings • Past Meetings • Sr. Public Affairs Officer: Diane Screnci - 610-337-5330 • Public Affairs Officer: Neil Sheehan - 610-337-5331 • Sr. Resident Inspector: Sam Hansell - 717-456-7614 • Resident Inspector: Ron Rolph – 717-456-7614 • Project Manager • Key Documents Related Information License Renewal • Plant Operating License • Plant Environmental Report • Plant-Specific Actions in Response to the Japan Nuclear Accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi • Reactor Quick Links • Reactor Oversight Process • NRC Emergency Preparedness and Response • FEMA's State Offices and Agencies of Emergency Management • Other Reactors in Pennsylvania • ADAMS - for additional documents • Subscribe to E-mail Notices for Reactor Correspondence • Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, April 23, 2014 215 Home > Facility Locator > Operating Nuclear Power Reactors by Location or Name > Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Unit 3 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Unit 3 Location: Delta, PA (17.9 miles S of Lancaster, PA) in Region I Operator: Exelon Generation Co., LLC Operating License: Issued - 07/02/1974 Renewed License: Issued - 05/07/2003 License Expires: 07/02/2034 Docket Number: 05000278 Reactor Type: Boiling Water Reactor Licensed MWt: 3,514 Reactor Vendor/Type: General Electric Type 4 Containment Type: BWR, Mark I Plant Diagram Plant Information NRC Employee Contacts Reactor Status Report (Daily) • Reactor Event Notification • Safety Performance Summary • Inspection Reports | Dataset (Prev. 12 Mos.) | Data Dictionary • US Plant Inspections following Japan Event • Severe Accident Inspections • FEMA After Action Reports (Emergency Exercises) • Enforcement Actions • Press Releases • Upcoming Meetings • Past Meetings • Sr. Public Affairs Officer: Diane Screnci - 610-337-5330 • Public Affairs Officer: Neil Sheehan - 610-337-5331 • Sr. Resident Inspector: Sam Hansell - 717-456-7614 • Resident Inspector: Ron Rolph – 717-456-7614 • Project Manager • Key Documents Related Information License Renewal • Plant Operating License • Plant Environmental Report • Plant-Specific Actions in Response to the Japan Nuclear Accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi • Reactor Quick Links • Reactor Oversight Process • NRC Emergency Preparedness and Response • FEMA's State Offices and Agencies of Emergency Management • Other Reactors in Pennsylvania • ADAMS - for additional documents • Subscribe to E-mail Notices for Reactor Correspondence • Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, April 23, 2014 216 Home > Facility Locator > Operating Nuclear Power Reactors by Location or Name > Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1 Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1 Location: Perry, OH (35 miles NE of Cleveland, OH) in Region III Operator: FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Co. Operating License: Issued - 11/13/1986, Expires - 03/18/2026 Docket Number: 05000440 Reactor Type: Boiling Water Reactor Licensed MWt: 3,758 Reactor Vendor/Type: General Electric Type 6 Containment Type: Wet, Mark III Plant Diagram Plant Information NRC Employee Contacts Reactor Status Report (Daily) • Safety Performance Summary • Inspection Reports | Dataset (Prev. 12 Mos.) | Data Dictionary • US Plant Inspections following Japan Event • Severe Accident Inspections • FEMA After Action Reports (Emergency Exercises) • Enforcement Actions • Reactor Event Notification • Press Releases • Upcoming Meetings • Past Meetings • Plant Operating License • Plant Environmental Report • Special Inspection Blog • Sr. Public Affairs Officer: Viktoria Mitlyng - 630-829-9662 • Public Affairs Officer: Prema Chandrathil - 630-829-9663 • Sr. Resident Inspector: Mark Marshfield - 440-259-3610 • Resident Inspector: James Nance - 440-259-3610 • Project Manager Eva Brown • Key Documents Related Information Plant-Specific Actions in Response to the Japan Nuclear Accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi • Reactor Quick Links • Reactor Oversight Process • NRC Emergency Preparedness and Response • FEMA's State Offices and Agencies of Emergency Management • Other Reactors in Ohio • ADAMS - for additional documents • Subscribe to E-mail Notices for Reactor Correspondence • Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, April 23, 2014 217 Home > Facility Locator > Operating Nuclear Power Reactors by Location or Name > Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station Location: Plymouth, MA (38 miles SE of Boston, MA) in Region I Operator: Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. Operating License: Issued - 06/08/1972 Renewed Operating License: Issued - 05/29/2012 License Expires: 06/08/2032 Docket Number: 05000293 Reactor Type: Boiling Water Reactor Licensed MWt: 2,028 Reactor Vendor/Type: General Electric Type 3 Containment Type: Wet, Mark I Plant Diagram Plant Information NRC Employee Contacts Reactor Status Report (Daily) • Reactor Event Notification • Safety Performance Summary • Inspection Reports | Dataset (Prev. 12 Mos.) | Data Dictionary • US Plant Inspections following Japan Event • Severe Accident Inspections • FEMA After Action Reports (Emergency Exercises) • Enforcement Actions • Press Releases • Upcoming Meetings • Past Meetings • Sr. Public Affairs Officer: Diane Screnci - 610-337-5330 • Public Affairs Officer: Neil Sheehan - 610-337-5331 • Sr. Resident Inspector: Max M. Schneider - 508-747-0565 • Resident Inspector: Brian P. Smith - 508-747-0565 • Project Manager • Key Documents Related Information License Renewal • Plant Operating License • Plant Environmental Report • Correspondence • Plant-Specific Actions in Response to the Japan Nuclear Accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi • Reactor Quick Links • Reactor Oversight Process • NRC Emergency Preparedness and Response • FEMA's State Offices and Agencies of Emergency Management • Other Reactors in Massachusetts • ADAMS - for additional documents • Subscribe to E-mail Notices for Reactor Correspondence • Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, April 23, 2014 218 Home > Facility Locator > Operating Nuclear Power Reactors by Location or Name > Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Unit 1 Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Unit 1 Location: Two Rivers, WI (13 miles NNW of Manitowoc, WI) in Region III Operator: NextEra Energy Point Beach, LLC Operating License: Issued - 10/05/1970 Renewed License: Issued - 12/22/2005 License Expires: 10/05/2030 Docket Number: 05000266 Reactor Type: Pressurized Water Reactor Licensed MWt: 1,800 Reactor Vendor/Type: Westinghouse Two-Loop Containment Type: Dry, Ambient Pressure Plant Diagram Plant Information NRC Employee Contacts Reactor Status Report (Daily) • Reactor Event Notification • Safety Performance Summary • Inspection Reports | Dataset (Prev. 12 Mos.) | Data Dictionary • US Plant Inspections following Japan Event • Severe Accident Inspections • FEMA After Action Reports (Emergency Exercises) • Enforcement Actions • Press Releases • Upcoming Meetings • Past Meetings • Sr. Public Affairs Officer: Viktoria Mitlyng - 630-829-9662 • Public Affairs Officer: Prema Chandrathil - 630-829-9663 • Sr. Resident Inspector: D. Betancourt-Roldan - 920-755- 2300 • Resident Inspector: M. Thorpe-Kavanaugh - 920-755- 2309 • Project Manager • Key Documents Related Information License Renewal • Plant Operating License • Plant Environmental Report • Plant-Specific Actions in Response to the Japan Nuclear Accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi • Reactor Quick Links • Reactor Oversight Process • NRC Emergency Preparedness and Response • FEMA's State Offices and Agencies of Emergency Management • Other Reactors in Wisconsin • ADAMS - for additional documents • Subscribe to E-mail Notices for Reactor Correspondence • Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, April 23, 2014 219 Home > Facility Locator > Operating Nuclear Power Reactors by Location or Name > Point Beach Nuclear Plant 2 Point Beach Nuclear Plant 2 Location: Two Rivers, WI (13 miles NNW of Manitowoc, WI) in Region III Operator: NextEra Energy Point Beach, LLC Operating License: Issued - 03/08/1973 Renewed License: Issued - 12/22/2005 License Expires: 03/08/2033 Docket Number: 05000301 Reactor Type: Pressurized Water Reactor Licensed MWt: 1,800 Reactor Vendor/Type: Westinghouse Two-Loop Containment Type: Dry, Ambient Pressure Plant Diagram Plant Information NRC Employee Contacts Reactor Status Report (Daily) • Reactor Event Notification • Safety Performance Summary • Inspection Reports | Dataset (Prev. 12 Mos.) | Data Dictionary • US Plant Inspections following Japan Event • Severe Accident Inspections • FEMA After Action Reports (Emergency Exercises) • Enforcement Actions • Press Releases • Upcoming Meetings • Past Meetings • Sr. Public Affairs Officer: Viktoria Mitlyng - 630-829-9662 • Public Affairs Officer: Prema Chandrathil - 630-829-9663 • Sr. Resident Inspector: D. Betancourt-Roldan - 920-755- 2300 • Resident Inspector: M. Thorpe-Kavanaugh - 920-755- 2309 • Project Manager • Key Documents Related Information License Renewal • Plant Operating License • Plant Environmental Report • Plant-Specific Actions in Response to the Japan Nuclear Accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi • Reactor Quick Links • Reactor Oversight Process • NRC Emergency Preparedness and Response • FEMA's State Offices and Agencies of Emergency Management • Other Reactors in Wisconsin • ADAMS - for additional documents • Subscribe to E-mail Notices for Reactor Correspondence • Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, April 23, 2014 220 Home > Facility Locator > Operating Nuclear Power Reactors by Location or Name > Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Unit 1 Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Unit 1 Location: Welch, MN (28 miles SE of Minneapolis, MN) in Region III Operator: Northern States Power Co. – Minnesota Operating License: Issued - 04/05/1974 Renewed Operating License: Issued - 06/27/2011 License Expires: 08/09/2033 Docket Number: 05000282 Reactor Type: Pressurized Water Reactor Licensed MWt: 1,677 Reactor Vendor/Type: Westinghouse Two-Loop Containment Type: Dry, Ambient Pressure Plant Diagram Plant Information NRC Employee Contacts Reactor Status Report (Daily) • Reactor Event Notification • Safety Performance Summary • Inspection Reports | Dataset (Prev. 12 Mos.) | Data Dictionary • US Plant Inspections following Japan Event • Severe Accident Inspections • FEMA After Action Reports (Emergency Exercises) • Enforcement Actions • Press Releases • Upcoming Meetings • Past Meetings • Sr. Public Affairs Officer: Viktoria Mitlyng - 630-829-9662 • Public Affairs Officer: Prema Chandrathil - 630-829-9663 • Sr. Resident Inspector: K. Stoedter - 651-388-8209 • Resident Inspector: P. Zurawski - 651-388-8209 • Project Manager • Key Documents Related Information License Renewal • Plant Operating License • Plant Environmental Report • Plant-Specific Actions in Response to the Japan Nuclear Accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi • Reactor Quick Links • Reactor Oversight Process • NRC Emergency Preparedness and Response • FEMA's State Offices and Agencies of Emergency Management • Other Reactors in Minnesota • ADAMS - for additional documents • Subscribe to E-mail Notices for Reactor Correspondence • Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, April 23, 2014 221 Home > Facility Locator > Operating Nuclear Power Reactors by Location or Name > Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Unit 2 Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Unit 2 Location: Welch, MN (28 miles SE of Minneapolis, MN) in Region III Operator: Northern States Power Co. – Minnesota Operating License: Issued - 10/29/1974 Renewed Operating License: Issued - 06/27/2011 License Expires: 10/29/2034 Docket Number: 05000306 Reactor Type: Pressurized Water Reactor Licensed MWt: 1,677 Reactor Vendor/Type: Westinghouse Two-Loop Containment Type: Dry, Ambient Pressure Plant Diagram Plant Information NRC Employee Contacts Reactor Status Report (Daily) • Reactor Event Notification • Safety Performance Summary • Inspection Reports | Dataset (Prev. 12 Mos.) | Data Dictionary • US Plant Inspections following Japan Event • Severe Accident Inspections • FEMA After Action Reports (Emergency Exercises) • Enforcement Actions • Press Releases • Upcoming Meetings • Past Meetings • Sr. Public Affairs Officer: Viktoria Mitlyng - 630-829-9662 • Public Affairs Officer: Prema Chandrathil - 630-829-9663 • Sr. Resident Inspector: K. Stoedter - 651-388-8209 • Resident Inspector: P. Zurawski - 651-388-8209 • Project Manager • Key Documents Related Information License Renewal • Plant Operating License • Plant Environmental Report • Plant-Specific Actions in Response to the Japan Nuclear Accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi • Reactor Quick Links • Reactor Oversight Process • NRC Emergency Preparedness and Response • FEMA's State Offices and Agencies of Emergency Management • Other Reactors in Minnesota • ADAMS - for additional documents • Subscribe to E-mail Notices for Reactor Correspondence • Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, April 23, 2014 222 Home > Facility Locator > Operating Nuclear Power Reactors by Location or Name > Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1 Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1 Location: Cordova, IL (20 miles NE of Moline, IL) in Region III Operator: Exelon Generation Co., LLC Operating License: Issued - 12/14/1972 Renewed License: Issued - 10/28/04 License Expires: 12/14/2032 Docket Number: 05000254 Reactor Type: Boiling Water Reactor Licensed MWt: 2,957 Reactor Vendor/Type: General Electric Type 3 Containment Type: Wet, Mark I Plant Diagram Plant Information NRC Employee Contacts Reactor Status Report (Daily) • Reactor Event Notification • Safety Performance Summary • Inspection Reports | Dataset (Prev. 12 Mos.) | Data Dictionary • US Plant Inspections following Japan Event • Severe Accident Inspections • FEMA After Action Reports (Emergency Exercises) • Enforcement Actions • Press Releases • Upcoming Meetings • Past Meetings • Sr. Public Affairs Officer: Viktoria Mitlyng - 630-829-9662 • Public Affairs Officer: Prema Chandrathil - 630-829-9663 • Sr. Resident Inspector: J. McGhee - 309-654-2227 • Resident Inspector: B. Cushman - 309-654-2227 • Project Manager • Key Documents Related Information License Renewal • Plant Operating License • Plant Environmental Report • Plant-Specific Actions in Response to the Japan Nuclear Accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi • Reactor Quick Links • Reactor Oversight Process • NRC Emergency Preparedness and Response • FEMA's State Offices and Agencies of Emergency Management • Other Reactors in Illinois • ADAMS - for additional documents • Subscribe to E-mail Notices for Reactor Correspondence • Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, April 23, 2014 223 Home > Facility Locator > Operating Nuclear Power Reactors by Location or Name > Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Unit 2 Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Unit 2 Location: Cordova, IL (20 miles NE of Moline, IL) in Region III Operator: Exelon Generation Co., LLC Operating License: Issued - 12/14/1972 Renewed License: Issued - 10/28/04 License Expires: 12/14/2032 Docket Number: 05000265 Reactor Type: Boiling Water Reactor Licensed MWt: 2,957 Reactor Vendor/Type: General Electric Type 3 Containment Type: Wet, Mark I Plant Diagram Plant Information NRC Employee Contacts Reactor Status Report (Daily) • Reactor Event Notification • Safety Performance Summary • Inspection Reports | Dataset (Prev. 12 Mos.) | Data Dictionary • US Plant Inspections following Japan Event • Severe Accident Inspections • FEMA After Action Reports (Emergency Exercises) • Enforcement Actions • Press Releases • Upcoming Meetings • Past Meetings • Sr. Public Affairs Officer: Viktoria Mitlyng - 630-829-9662 • Public Affairs Officer: Prema Chandrathil - 630-829-9663 • Sr. Resident Inspector: J. McGhee - 309-654-2227 • Resident Inspector: B. Cushman - 309-654-2227 • Project Manager • Key Documents Related Information License Renewal • Plant Operating License • Plant Environmental Report • Plant-Specific Actions in Response to the Japan Nuclear Accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi • Reactor Quick Links • Reactor Oversight Process • NRC Emergency Preparedness and Response • FEMA's State Offices and Agencies of Emergency Management • Other Reactors in Illinois • ADAMS - for additional documents • Subscribe to E-mail Notices for Reactor Correspondence • Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, April 23, 2014 224 Home > Facility Locator > Operating Nuclear Power Reactors by Location or Name > River Bend Station, Unit 1 River Bend Station, Unit 1 Location: St. Francisville, LA (24 miles NNW of Baton Rouge, LA) in Region IV Operator: Entergy Operations, Inc. Operating License: Issued - 11/20/1985, Expires - 08/29/2025 Docket Number: 05000458 Reactor Type: Boiling Water Reactor Licensed MWt: 3,091 Reactor Vendor/Type: General Electric Type 6 Containment Type: Wet, Mark III Plant Diagram Plant Information NRC Employee Contacts Reactor Status Report (Daily) • Reactor Event Notification • Safety Performance Summary • Inspection Reports | Dataset (Prev. 12 Mos.) | Data Dictionary • US Plant Inspections following Japan Event • Severe Accident Inspections • FEMA After Action Reports (Emergency Exercises) • Enforcement Actions • Press Releases • Upcoming Meetings • Past Meetings • Plant Operating License • Plant Environmental Report • Sr. Public Affairs Officer: Victor Dricks - 817-200-1128 • Public Affairs Officer: Lara Uselding - 817-200-1519 • Sr. Resident Inspector: Grant Larkin - 225-635-3191 • Resident Inspector: Andy Barrett - 225-635-3193 • Project Manager • Key Documents Related Information Plant-Specific Actions in Response to the Japan Nuclear Accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi • Reactor Quick Links • Reactor Oversight Process • NRC Emergency Preparedness and Response • FEMA's State Offices and Agencies of Emergency Management • Other Reactors in Louisiana • ADAMS - for additional documents • Subscribe to E-mail Notices for Reactor Correspondence • Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, February 26, 2014 225 Home > Facility Locator > Operating Nuclear Power Reactors by Location or Name > H.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit 2 H.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit 2 Location: Hartsville, SC (26 miles NW of Florence, SC) in Region II Operator: Carolina Power & Light Co. Operating License: Issued - 07/31/1970 Renewed License: Issued - 04/19/2004 License Expires: 07/31/2030 Docket Number: 05000261 Reactor Type: Pressurized Water Reactor Licensed MWt: 2,339 Reactor Vendor/Type: Westinghouse Three-Loop Containment Type: Dry, Ambient Pressure Plant Diagram Plant Information NRC Employee Contacts Reactor Status Report (Daily) • Reactor Event Notification • Safety Performance Summary • Inspection Reports | Dataset (Prev. 12 Mos.) | Data Dictionary • US Plant Inspections following Japan Event • Severe Accident Inspections • FEMA After Action Reports (Emergency Exercises) • Enforcement Actions • Press Releases • Upcoming Meetings • Past Meetings • Sr. Public Affairs Officer: Roger Hannah - 404-997-4417 • Public Affairs Officer: Joey Ledford - 404-997-4416 • Sr. Resident Inspector: James Hickey - 843-383-4571 • Resident Inspector: C. Scott - 843-383-4571 • Project Manager • Key Documents Related Information License Renewal • Plant Operating License • Plant Environmental Report • Plant-Specific Actions in Response to the Japan Nuclear Accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi • Reactor Quick Links • Reactor Oversight Process • NRC Emergency Preparedness and Response • FEMA's State Offices and Agencies of Emergency Management • Other Reactors in South Carolina • ADAMS - for additional documents • Subscribe to E-mail Notices for Reactor Correspondence • Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, February 26, 2014 226 Home > Facility Locator > Operating Nuclear Power Reactors by Location or Name > Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1 Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1 Location: Hancocks Bridge, NJ (18 miles S of Wilmington, DE) in Region I Operator: PSEG Nuclear, LLC Operating License: Issued - 12/01/1976 Renewed Operating License: Issued – 06/30/2011 License Expires: 08/13/2036 Docket Number: 05000272 Reactor Type: Pressurized Water Reactor Licensed MWt: 3,459 Reactor Vendor/Type: Westinghouse Four-Loop Containment Type: Dry, Ambient Pressure Plant Diagram Plant Information NRC Employee Contacts Reactor Status Report (Daily) • Reactor Event Notification • Safety Performance Summary • Inspection Reports | Dataset (Prev. 12 Mos.) | Data Dictionary • US Plant Inspections following Japan Event • Severe Accident Inspections • FEMA After Action Reports (Emergency Exercises) • Enforcement Actions • Press Releases • Upcoming Meetings • Past Meetings • Sr. Public Affairs Officer: Diane Screnci - 610-337-5330 • Public Affairs Officer: Neil Sheehan - 610-337-5331 • Sr. Resident Inspector: Patrick Finney - 856-935-5151 • Resident Inspector: Adam Ziedonis - 856-935-5151 • Project Manager • Key Documents Related Information License Renewal • Plant Operating License • Plant Environmental Report • Congressional Correspondence • Plant-Specific Actions in Response to the Japan Nuclear Accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi • Reactor Quick Links • Reactor Oversight Process • NRC Emergency Preparedness and Response • FEMA's State Offices and Agencies of Emergency Management • Other Reactors in New Jersey • ADAMS - for additional documents • Subscribe to E-mail Notices for Reactor Correspondence • Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, February 26, 2014 227 Home > Facility Locator > Operating Nuclear Power Reactors by Location or Name > Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 2 Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 2 Location: Hancocks Bridge, NJ (18 miles S of Wilmington, DE) in Region I Operator: PSEG Nuclear, LLC Operating License: Issued - 05/20/1981 Renewed Operating License: Issued – 06/30/2011 License Expires: 04/18/2040 Docket Number: 05000311 Reactor Type: Pressurized Water Reactor Licensed MWt: 3,459 Reactor Vendor/Type: Westinghouse Four-Loop Containment Type: Dry, Ambient Pressure Plant Diagram Plant Information NRC Employee Contacts Reactor Status Report (Daily) • Reactor Event Notification • Safety Performance Summary • Inspection Reports | Dataset (Prev. 12 Mos.) | Data Dictionary • US Plant Inspections following Japan Event • Severe Accident Inspections • FEMA After Action Reports (Emergency Exercises) • Enforcement Actions • Press Releases • Upcoming Meetings • Past Meetings • Sr. Public Affairs Officer: Diane Screnci - 610-337-5330 • Public Affairs Officer: Neil Sheehan - 610-337-5331 • Sr. Resident Inspector: Patrick Finney - 856-935-5151 • Resident Inspector: Adam Ziedonis - 856-935-5151 • Project Manager • Key Documents Related Information License Renewal • Plant Operating License • Plant Environmental Report • Congressional Correspondence • Plant-Specific Actions in Response to the Japan Nuclear Accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi • Reactor Quick Links • Reactor Oversight Process • NRC Emergency Preparedness and Response • FEMA's State Offices and Agencies of Emergency Management • Other Reactors in New Jersey • ADAMS - for additional documents • Subscribe to E-mail Notices for Reactor Correspondence • Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, February 26, 2014 228 Home > Facility Locator > Operating Nuclear Power Reactors by Location or Name > San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 2 San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 2 Location: San Clemente, CA (46 miles SE of Long Beach, CA) in Region IV Operator: Southern California Edison Co. Operating License: Issued - 02/16/1982, Expires - 02/16/2022 Docket Number: 05000361 Reactor Type: Pressurized Water Reactor Licensed MWt: 3,438 Reactor Vendor/Type: Combustion Engineering Containment Type: Dry, Ambient Pressure Plant Diagram Plant Information NRC Employee Contacts Reactor Status Report (Daily) • Reactor Event Notification • Safety Performance Summary • Inspection Reports | Dataset (Prev. 12 Mos.) | Data Dictionary • US Plant Inspections following Japan Event • Severe Accident Inspections • FEMA After Action Reports (Emergency Exercises) • Enforcement Actions • Press Releases • Upcoming Meetings • Past Meetings • Plant Operating License • Plant Environmental Report • Sr. Public Affairs Officer: Victor Dricks - 817-200-1128 • Public Affairs Officer: Lara Uselding - 817-200-1519 • Sr. Resident Inspector: Greg Warnick – 949-492-2641 • Resident Inspector: John Reynoso – 949-492-2642 • Project Manager • Key Documents Related Information Special Oversight: Steam Generator Tube Degradation • Plant-Specific Actions in Response to the Japan Nuclear Accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi • Reactor Quick Links • Reactor Oversight Process • NRC Emergency Preparedness and Response • FEMA's State Offices and Agencies of Emergency Management • Other Reactors in California • ADAMS - for additional documents • Subscribe to E-mail Notices for Reactor Correspondence • Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, February 26, 2014 229 Home > Facility Locator > Operating Nuclear Power Reactors by Location or Name > San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 3 San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 3 Location: San Clemente, CA (46 miles SE of Long Beach, CA) in Region IV Operator: Southern California Edison Co. Operating License: Issued - 11/15/1982, Expires - 11/15/2022 Docket Number: 05000362 Reactor Type: Pressurized Water Reactor Licensed MWt: 3,438 Reactor Vendor/Type: Combustion Engineering Containment Type: Dry, Ambient Pressure Plant Diagram Plant Information NRC Employee Contacts Reactor Status Report (Daily) Reactor Event Notification • Safety Performance Summary • Inspection Reports | Dataset (Prev. 12 Mos.) | Data Dictionary • US Plant Inspections following Japan Event • Severe Accident Inspections • FEMA After Action Reports (Emergency Exercises) • Enforcement Actions • Press Releases • Upcoming Meetings • Past Meetings • Plant Operating License • Plant Environmental Report • Sr. Public Affairs Officer: Victor Dricks - 817-200-1128 • Public Affairs Officer: Lara Uselding - 817-200-1519 • Sr. Resident Inspector: Greg Warnick – 949-492-2641 • Resident Inspector: John Reynoso – 949-492-2642 • Project Manager • Key Documents Related Information Special Oversight: Steam Generator Tube Degradation • Plant-Specific Actions in Response to the Japan Nuclear Accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi • Reactor Quick Links • Reactor Oversight Process • NRC Emergency Preparedness and Response • FEMA's State Offices and Agencies of Emergency Management • Other Reactors in California • ADAMS - for additional documents • Subscribe to E-mail Notices for Reactor Correspondence • Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, February 26, 2014 230 Home > Facility Locator > Operating Nuclear Power Reactors by Location or Name > Seabrook Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1 Seabrook Station, Unit 1 Location: Seabrook, NH (13 miles S of Portsmouth, NH) in Region I Operator: NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC Operating License: Issued - 03/15/1990 License Expires: 03/15/2030 Docket Number: 05000443 Reactor Type: Pressurized Water Reactor Licensed MWt: 3,648 Reactor Vendor/Type: Westinghouse Four-Loop Containment Type: Dry, Ambient Pressure Plant Diagram Plant Information NRC Employee Contacts Sr. Resident Inspector Reactor Status Report (Daily) • Reactor Event Notification • Safety Performance Summary • Inspection Reports | Dataset (Prev. 12 Mos.) | Data Dictionary • US Plant Inspections following Japan Event • Severe Accident Inspections • FEMA After Action Reports (Emergency Exercises) • Enforcement Actions • Press Releases • Upcoming Meetings • Past Meetings • Sr. Public Affairs Officer: Diane Screnci - 610-337-5330 • Public Affairs Officer: Neil Sheehan - 610-337-5331 • : Paul Cataldo - 603-474-3580 • Resident Inspector: Matt Jennerich - 603-474-3580 • Project Manager • Key Document Related Information Special Oversight: Concrete Degradation • License Renewal • Plant Operating License • Plant Environmental Report • Plant-Specific Actions in Response to the Japan Nuclear Accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi • Reactor Quick Links • Reactor Oversight Process • NRC Emergency Preparedness and Response • FEMA's State Offices and Agencies of Emergency Management • Other Reactors in New Hampshire • ADAMS - for additional documents • Subscribe to E-mail Notices for Reactor Correspondence • Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, June 03, 2014 231 Home > Facility Locator > Operating Nuclear Power Reactors by Location or Name > Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Unit 1 Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Unit 1 Location: Soddy-Daisy, TN (9.5 miles NE of Chattanooga, TN) in Region II Operator: Tennessee Valley Authority Operating License: Issued - 09/17/1980, Expires - 09/17/2020 Docket Number: 05000327 Reactor Type: Pressurized Water Reactor Licensed MWt: 3,455 Reactor Vendor/Type: Westinghouse Four-Loop Containment Type: Wet, Ice condenser Plant Diagram Plant Information NRC Employee Contacts Reactor Status Report (Daily) • Reactor Event Notification • Safety Performance Summary • Inspection Reports | Dataset (Prev. 12 Mos.) | Data Dictionary • US Plant Inspections following Japan Event • Severe Accident Inspections • FEMA After Action Reports (Emergency Exercises) • Enforcement Actions • Press Releases • Upcoming Meetings • Past Meetings • Plant Operating License • Plant Environmental Report • Sr. Public Affairs Officer: Roger Hannah - 404-997-4417 • Public Affairs Officer: Joey Ledford - 404-997-4416 • Sr. Resident Inspector: G. Smith - 423-842-8001 • Resident Inspector: Wesley Deschaine - 423-842-8001 • Project Manager • Key Document Related Information Plant-Specific Actions in Response to the Japan Nuclear Accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi • Reactor Quick Links • Reactor Oversight Process • NRC Emergency Preparedness and Response • FEMA's State Offices and Agencies of Emergency Management • Other Reactors in Tennessee • ADAMS - for additional documents • Subscribe to E-mail Notices for Reactor Correspondence • Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, February 26, 2014 232 Home > Facility Locator > Operating Nuclear Power Reactors by Location or Name > Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Unit 2 Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Unit 2 Location: Soddy-Daisy, TN (9.5 miles NE of Chattanooga, TN) in Region II Operator: Tennessee Valley Authority Operating License: Issued - 09/15/1981, Expires - 09/15/2021 Docket Number: 05000328 Reactor Type: Pressurized Water Reactor Licensed MWt: 3,455 Reactor Vendor/Type: Westinghouse Four-Loop Containment Type: Wet, Ice condenser Plant Diagram Plant Information NRC Employee Contacts Reactor Status Report (Daily) Reactor Event Notification • Safety Performance Summary • Inspection Reports | Dataset (Prev. 12 Mos.) | Data Dictionary • US Plant Inspections following Japan Event • Severe Accident Inspections • FEMA After Action Reports (Emergency Exercises) • Enforcement Actions • Press Releases • Upcoming Meetings • Past Meetings • Plant Operating License • Plant Environmental Report • Sr. Public Affairs Officer: Roger Hannah - 404-997-4417 • Public Affairs Officer: Joey Ledford - 404-997-4416 • Sr. Resident Inspector: G. Smith - 423-842-8001 • Resident Inspector: Wesley Deschaine - 423-842-8001 • Project Manager • Key Document Related Information Plant-Specific Actions in Response to the Japan Nuclear Accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi • Reactor Quick Links Reactor Oversight Process • NRC Emergency Preparedness and Response • FEMA's State Offices and Agencies of Emergency Management • Other Reactors in Tennessee • ADAMS - for additional documents • Subscribe to E-mail Notices for Reactor Correspondence • Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, February 26, 2014 233 Home > Facility Locator > Operating Nuclear Power Reactors by Location or Name > St. Lucie Plant, Unit 1 St. Lucie Plant, Unit 1 Location: Jensen Beach, FL (10 miles SE of Ft. Pierce, FL) in Region II Operator: Florida Power & Light Co. Operating License: Issued - 03/01/1976 Renewed License: Issued - 10/02/03 License Expires: 03/01/2036 Docket Number: 05000335 Reactor Type: Pressurized Water Reactor Licensed MWt: 2,700 Reactor Vendor/Type: Combustion Engineering Containment Type: Dry, Ambient Pressure Plant Diagram Plant Information NRC Employee Contacts Reactor Status Report (Daily) • Reactor Event Notification • Safety Performance Summary • Inspection Reports | Dataset (Prev. 12 Mos.) | Data Dictionary • US Plant Inspections following Japan Event • Severe Accident Inspections • FEMA After Action Reports (Emergency Exercises) • Enforcement Actions • Press Releases • Upcoming Meetings • Past Meetings • Sr. Public Affairs Officer: Roger Hannah - 404-997-4417 • Public Affairs Officer: Joey Ledford - 404-997-4416 • Sr. Resident Inspector: T. Morrissey - 772-464-7822 • Resident Inspector: J. Reyes- 772-464-7822 • Project Manager: • Key Documents Related Information License Renewal • Plant Operating License • Plant Environmental Report • Plant-Specific Actions in Response to the Japan Nuclear Accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi • Reactor Quick Links • Reactor Oversight Process • NRC Emergency Preparedness and Response • FEMA's State Offices and Agencies of Emergency Management • Other Reactors in Florida • ADAMS - for additional documents • Subscribe to E-mail Notices for Reactor Correspondence • Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, February 26, 2014 234 Home > Facility Locator > Operating Nuclear Power Reactors by Location or Name > St. Lucie Plant, Unit 2 St. Lucie Plant, Unit 2 Location: Jensen Beach, FL (10 miles SE of Ft. Pierce, FL) in Region II Operator: Florida Power & Light Co. Operating License: Issued - 06/10/1983 Renewed License: Issued - 10/02/03 License Expires: 04/06/2043 Docket Number: 05000389 Reactor Type: Pressurized Water Reactor Licensed MWt: 2,700 Reactor Vendor/Type: Combustion Engineering Containment Type: Dry, Ambient Pressure Plant Diagram Plant Information NRC Employee Contacts Reactor Status Report (Daily) • Reactor Event Notification • Safety Performance Summary • Inspection Reports | Dataset (Prev. 12 Mos.) | Data Dictionary • US Plant Inspections following Japan Event • Severe Accident Inspections • FEMA After Action Reports (Emergency Exercises) • Enforcement Actions • Press Releases • Upcoming Meetings • Past Meetings • Sr. Public Affairs Officer: Roger Hannah - 404-997-4417 • Public Affairs Officer: Joey Ledford - 404-997-4416 • Sr. Resident Inspector: T. Morrissey - 772-464-7822 • Resident Inspector: J. Reyes- 772-464-7822 • Project Manager: • Key Documents Related Information License Renewal • Plant Operating License • Plant Environmental Report • Plant-Specific Actions in Response to the Japan Nuclear Accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi • Reactor Quick Links • Reactor Oversight Process • NRC Emergency Preparedness and Response • FEMA's State Offices and Agencies of Emergency Management • Other Reactors in Florida • ADAMS - for additional documents • Subscribe to E-mail Notices for Reactor Correspondence • Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, February 26, 2014 235 Home > Facility Locator > Operating Nuclear Power Reactors by Location or Name > South Texas Project, Unit 1 South Texas Project, Unit 1 Location: Bay City, TX (90 miles SW of Houston, TX) in Region IV Operator: STP Nuclear Operating Co. Operating License: Issued - 03/22/1988 License Expires: 08/20/2027 Docket Number: 05000498 Reactor Type: Pressurized Water Reactor Licensed MWt: 3,853 Reactor Vendor/Type: Westinghouse Four-Loop Containment Type: Dry, Ambient Pressure Plant Diagram Plant Information NRC Employee Contacts Reactor Status Report (Daily) Reactor Event Notification • Safety Performance Summary • Inspection Reports | Dataset (Prev. 12 Mos.) | Data Dictionary • US Plant Inspections following Japan Event • Severe Accident Inspections • FEMA After Action Reports (Emergency Exercises) • Enforcement Actions • Press Releases • Upcoming Meetings • Past Meetings • Sr. Public Affairs Officer: Victor Dricks - 817-200-1128 • Public Affairs Officer: Lara Uselding - 817-200-1519 • Sr. Resident Inspector: Alfred Sanchez - 361-972-2507 • Resident Inspector: Nicholas Hernadez - 361-972-2507 • Project Manager • Key Documents Related Information License Renewal • Plant Operating License • Plant Environmental Report • Plant-Specific Actions in Response to the Japan Nuclear Accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi • Reactor Quick Links • Reactor Oversight Process NRC Emergency Preparedness and Response • FEMA's State Offices and Agencies of Emergency Management • Other Reactors in Texas • ADAMS - for additional documents • Subscribe to E-mail Notices for Reactor Correspondence • Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, April 30, 2014 236 Home > Facility Locator > Operating Nuclear Power Reactors by Location or Name > South Texas Project, Unit 2 South Texas Project, Unit 2 Location: Bay City, TX (90 miles SW of Houston, TX) in Region IV Operator: STP Nuclear Operating Co. Operating License: Issued - 03/28/1989 License Expires: 12/15/2028 Docket Number: 05000499 Reactor Type: Pressurized Water Reactor Licensed MWt: 3,853 Reactor Vendor/Type: Westinghouse Four-Loop Containment Type: Dry, Ambient Pressure Plant Diagram Plant Information NRC Employee Contacts Reactor Status Report (Daily) • Reactor Event Notification • Safety Performance Summary • Inspection Reports | Dataset (Prev. 12 Mos.) | Data Dictionary • US Plant Inspections following Japan Event • Severe Accident Inspections • FEMA After Action Reports (Emergency Exercises) • Enforcement Actions • Press Releases • Upcoming Meetings • Past Meetings • Sr. Public Affairs Officer: Victor Dricks - 817-200-1128 • Public Affairs Officer: Lara Uselding - 817-200-1519 • Sr. Resident Inspector: Alfred Sanchez - 361-972-2507 • Resident Inspector: Nicholas Hernadez - 361-972-2507 • Project Manager • Key Documents Related Information License Renewal • Plant Operating License • Plant Environmental Report • Plant-Specific Actions in Response to the Japan Nuclear Accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi • Reactor Quick Links • Reactor Oversight Process • NRC Emergency Preparedness and Response • FEMA's State Offices and Agencies of Emergency Management • Other Reactors in Texas • ADAMS - for additional documents • Subscribe to E-mail Notices for Reactor Correspondence • Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, April 30, 2014 237 Home > Facility Locator > Operating Nuclear Power Reactors by Location or Name > Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 1 Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 1 Location: Jenkensville, SC (26 miles NW of Columbia, SC) in Region II Operator: South Carolina Electric & Gas Co. Operating License: Issued - 11/12/1982 Renewed License: Issued - 04/23/2004 License Expires: 08/06/2042 Docket Number: 05000395 Reactor Type: Pressurized Water Reactor Licensed MWt: 2,900 Reactor Vendor/Type: Westinghouse Three-Loop Containment Type: Dry, Ambient Pressure Plant Diagram Plant Information NRC Employee Contacts Reactor Status Report (Daily) • Reactor Event Notification • Safety Performance Summary • Inspection Reports | Dataset (Prev. 12 Mos.) | Data Dictionary • US Plant Inspections following Japan Event • Severe Accident Inspections • FEMA After Action Reports (Emergency Exercises) • Enforcement Actions • Press Releases • Upcoming Meetings • Past Meetings • Sr. Public Affairs Officer: Roger Hannah - 404-997-4417 • Public Affairs Officer: Joey Ledford - 404-997-4416 • Sr. Resident Inspector: J. Reece - 803-345-5683 • Resident Inspector: E. Coffman – 803-345-5684 • Project Manager • Key Documents Related Information License Renewal • Plant Operating License • Plant Environmental Report • Plant-Specific Actions in Response to the Japan Nuclear Accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi • Reactor Quick Links • Reactor Oversight Process • NRC Emergency Preparedness and Response • FEMA's State Offices and Agencies of Emergency Management • Other Reactors in South Carolina • ADAMS - for additional documents • Subscribe to E-mail Notices for Reactor Correspondence • Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, February 26, 2014 238 Home > Facility Locator > Operating Nuclear Power Reactors by Location or Name > Surry Power Station, Unit 1 Surry Power Station, Unit 1 Location: Surry, VA (17 miles NW of Newport News, VA) in Region II Operator: Virginia Electric & Power Co. Operating License: Issued - 05/25/1972 Renewed License: Issued - 03/20/2003 License Expires: 05/25/2032 Docket Number: 05000280 Reactor Type: Pressurized Water Reactor Licensed MWt: 2,587 Reactor Vendor/Type: Westinghouse Three-Loop Containment Type: Dry, Subatmospheric Plant Diagram Plant Information NRC Employee Contacts Reactor Status Report (Daily) • Reactor Event Notification • Safety Performance Summary • Inspection Reports | Dataset (Prev. 12 Mos.) | Data Dictionary • US Plant Inspections following Japan Event • Severe Accident Inspections • FEMA After Action Reports (Emergency Exercises) • Enforcement Actions • Press Releases • Upcoming Meetings • Past Meetings • Sr. Public Affairs Officer: Roger Hannah - 404-997-4417 • Public Affairs Officer: Joey Ledford - 404-997-4416 • Sr. Resident Inspector: P. McKenna – 757-357-2101 • Resident Inspector: J. Nadel - 757-357-2102 • Project Manager • Key Documents Related Information License Renewal • Plant Operating License • Plant Environmental Report • Plant-Specific Actions in Response to the Japan Nuclear Accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi • Reactor Quick Links • Reactor Oversight Process • NRC Emergency Preparedness and Response • FEMA's State Offices and Agencies of Emergency Management • Other Reactors in Virginia • ADAMS - for additional documents • Subscribe to E-mail Notices for Reactor Correspondence • Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, February 26, 2014 239 Home > Facility Locator > Operating Nuclear Power Reactors by Location or Name > Surry Power Station, Unit 2 Surry Power Station, Unit 2 Location: Surry, VA (17 miles NW of Newport News, VA) in Region II Operator: Virginia Electric & Power Co. Operating License: Issued - 01/29/1973 Renewed License: Issued - 03/20/2003 License Expires: 01/29/2033 Docket Number: 05000281 Reactor Type: Pressurized Water Reactor Licensed MWt: 2,587 Reactor Vendor/Type: Westinghouse Three-Loop Containment Type: Dry, Subatmospheric Plant Diagram Plant Information NRC Employee Contacts Reactor Status Report (Daily) • Reactor Event Notification • Safety Performance Summary • Inspection Reports | Dataset (Prev. 12 Mos.) | Data Dictionary • US Plant Inspections following Japan Event • Severe Accident Inspections • FEMA After Action Reports (Emergency Exercises) • Enforcement Actions • Press Releases • Upcoming Meetings • Past Meetings • Sr. Public Affairs Officer: Roger Hannah - 404-997-4417 • Public Affairs Officer: Joey Ledford - 404-997-4416 • Sr. Resident Inspector: P. McKenna – 757-357-2101 • Resident Inspector: J. Nadel - 757-357-2102 • Project Manager • Key Documents Related Information License Renewal • Plant Operating License • Plant Environmental Report • Plant-Specific Actions in Response to the Japan Nuclear Accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi • Reactor Quick Links • Reactor Oversight Process • NRC Emergency Preparedness and Response • FEMA's State Offices and Agencies of Emergency Management • Other Reactors in Virginia • ADAMS - for additional documents • Subscribe to E-mail Notices for Reactor Correspondence • Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, February 26, 2014 240 Home > Facility Locator > Operating Nuclear Power Reactors by Location or Name > Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Unit 1 Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Unit 1 Location: Salem Township, Luzerne County, PA (70 miles NE of Harrisburg, PA) in Region I Operator: PPL Susquehanna, LLC Operating License: Issued - 07/17/1982 Renewed License: Issued - 11/24/2009 License Expires: 07/17/2042 Docket Number: 05000387 Reactor Type: Boiling Water Reactor Licensed MWt: 3,952 Reactor Vendor/Type: General Electric Type 4 Containment Type: Wet, Mark II Plant Diagram Plant Information NRC Employee Contacts Reactor Status Report (Daily) • Reactor Event Notification • Safety Performance Summary • Inspection Reports | Dataset (Prev. 12 Mos.) | Data Dictionary • US Plant Inspections following Japan Event • Severe Accident Inspections • FEMA After Action Reports (Emergency Exercises) • Enforcement Actions • Press Releases • Upcoming Meetings • Past Meetings • Sr. Public Affairs Officer: Diane Screnci - 610-337-5330 • Public Affairs Officer: Neil Sheehan - 610-337-5331 • Sr. Resident Inspector: Jonathon Greives – 570-542-2134 • Resident Inspector: Travis Daun – 570-542-2134 • Project Manager • Key Documents Related Information License Renewal • Plant Operating License • Plant Environmental Report • Plant-Specific Actions in Response to the Japan Nuclear Accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi • Reactor Quick Links • Reactor Oversight Process • NRC Emergency Preparedness and Response • FEMA's State Offices and Agencies of Emergency Management • Other Reactors in Pennsylvania • ADAMS - for additional documents • Subscribe to E-mail Notices for Reactor Correspondence • Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, February 26, 2014 241 Home > Facility Locator > Operating Nuclear Power Reactors by Location or Name > Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Unit 2 Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Unit 2 Location: Salem Township, Luzerne County, PA (70 miles NE of Harrisburg, PA) in Region I Operator: PPL Susquehanna, LLC Operating License: Issued - 03/23/1984 Renewed License: Issued - 11/24/2009 License Expires: 03/23/2044 Docket Number: 05000388 Reactor Type: Boiling Water Reactor Licensed MWt: 3,952 Reactor Vendor/Type: General Electric Type 4 Containment Type: Wet, Mark II Plant Diagram Plant Information NRC Employee Contacts Reactor Status Report (Daily) • Reactor Event Notification • Safety Performance Summary • Inspection Reports | Dataset (Prev. 12 Mos.) | Data Dictionary • US Plant Inspections following Japan Event • Severe Accident Inspections • FEMA After Action Reports (Emergency Exercises) • Enforcement Actions • Press Releases • Upcoming Meetings • Past Meetings • Sr. Public Affairs Officer: Diane Screnci - 610-337-5330 • Public Affairs Officer: Neil Sheehan - 610-337-5331 • Sr. Resident Inspector: Jonathon Greives – 570-542-2134 • Resident Inspector: Travis Daun – 570-542-2134 • Project Manager • Key Documents Related Information License Renewal • Plant Operating License • Plant Environmental Report • Plant-Specific Actions in Response to the Japan Nuclear Accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi • Reactor Quick Links • Reactor Oversight Process • NRC Emergency Preparedness and Response • FEMA's State Offices and Agencies of Emergency Management • Other Reactors in Pennsylvania • ADAMS - for additional documents • Subscribe to E-mail Notices for Reactor Correspondence • Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, February 26, 2014 242 Home > Facility Locator > Operating Nuclear Power Reactors by Location or Name > Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1 Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1 Location: Middletown, PA (10 miles SE of Harrisburg, PA) in Region I Operator: Exelon Generation Co., LLC Operating License: Issued - 04/19/1974 Renewed License Issued - 10/22/2009 License Expires - 04/19/2034 Docket Number: 05000289 Reactor Type: Pressurized Water Reactor Licensed MWt: 2,568 Reactor Vendor/Type: Babcock & Wilcox Lowered Loop Containment Type: Dry, Ambient Pressure Plant Diagram Plant Information NRC Employee Contacts Reactor Status Report (Daily) • Reactor Event Notification • Safety Performance Summary • Inspection Reports | Dataset (Prev. 12 Mos.) | Data Dictionary • US Plant Inspections following Japan Event • Severe Accident Inspections • FEMA After Action Reports (Emergency Exercises) • Enforcement Actions • Press Releases • Upcoming Meetings • Past Meetings • Sr. Public Affairs Officer: Diane Screnci - 610-337-5330 • Public Affairs Officer: Neil Sheehan - 610-337-5331 • Sr. Resident Inspector: David Werkheiser - 717-948-1165 • Resident Inspector: Justin Heinley - 717-948-1165 • Project Manager • Key Documents Related Information License Renewal • Plant Operating License • Plant Environmental Report • Plant-Specific Actions in Response to the Japan Nuclear Accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi • Reactor Quick Links • Reactor Oversight Process • NRC Emergency Preparedness and Response • FEMA's State Offices and Agencies of Emergency Management • Other Reactors in Pennsylvania • ADAMS - for additional documents • Subscribe to E-mail Notices for Reactor Correspondence • Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, February 26, 2014 243 Home > Facility Locator > Operating Nuclear Power Reactors by Location or Name > Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Unit 3 Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Unit 3 Location: Homestead, FL (25 miles S of Miami, FL) in Region II Operator: Florida Power & Light Co. Operating License: Issued - 07/19/1972 Renewed License: Issued - 06/06/2002 License Expires: 07/19/2032 Docket Number: 05000250 Reactor Type: Pressurized Water Reactor Licensed MWt: 2,644 Reactor Vendor/Type: Westinghouse Three-Loop Containment Type: Dry, Ambient Pressure Plant Diagram Plant Information NRC Employee Contacts Reactor Status Report (Daily) • Reactor Event Notification • Safety Performance Summary • Inspection Reports | Dataset (Prev. 12 Mos.) | Data Dictionary • US Plant Inspections following Japan Event • Severe Accident Inspections • FEMA After Action Reports (Emergency Exercises) • Enforcement Actions • Press Releases • Upcoming Meetings • Past Meetings • Sr. Public Affairs Officer: Roger Hannah - 404-997-4417 • Public Affairs Officer: Joey Ledford - 404-997-4416 • Sr. Resident Inspector: Tim Hoeg - 305-245-7699 • Resident Inspector: Matt Endress - 305-246-6196 • Project Manager Audrey Klett - 301-415-0489 • Key Documents Related Information License Renewal • Plant Operating License • Plant Environmental Report • Plant-Specific Actions in Response to the Japan Nuclear Accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi • Reactor Quick Links • Reactor Oversight Process • NRC Emergency Preparedness and Response • FEMA's State Offices and Agencies of Emergency Management • Other Reactors in Florida • ADAMS - for additional documents • Subscribe to E-mail Notices for Reactor Correspondence • Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, February 26, 2014 244 Home > Facility Locator > Operating Nuclear Power Reactors by Location or Name > Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Unit 4 Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Unit 4 Location: Homestead, FL (25 miles S of Miami, FL) in Region II Operator: Florida Power & Light Co. Operating License: Issued - 04/10/1973 Renewed License: Issued - 06/06/2002 License Expires: 04/10/2033 Docket Number: 05000251 Reactor Type: Pressurized Water Reactor Licensed MWt: 2,644 Reactor Vendor/Type: Westinghouse Three-Loop Containment Type: Dry, Ambient Pressure Plant Diagram Plant Information NRC Employee Contacts Reactor Status Report (Daily) • Reactor Event Notification • Safety Performance Summary • Inspection Reports | Dataset (Prev. 12 Mos.) | Data Dictionary • US Plant Inspections following Japan Event • Severe Accident Inspections • FEMA After Action Reports (Emergency Exercises) • Enforcement Actions • Press Releases • Upcoming Meetings • Past Meetings • Sr. Public Affairs Officer: Roger Hannah - 404-997-4417 • Public Affairs Officer: Joey Ledford - 404-997-4416 • Sr. Resident Inspector: Tim Hoeg - 305-245-7699 • Resident Inspector: Matt Endress - 305-246-6196 • Project Manager Audrey Klett - 301-415-0489 • Key Documents Related Information License Renewal • Plant Operating License • Plant Environmental Report • Plant-Specific Actions in Response to the Japan Nuclear Accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi • Reactor Quick Links • Reactor Oversight Process • NRC Emergency Preparedness and Response • FEMA's State Offices and Agencies of Emergency Management • Other Reactors in Florida • ADAMS - for additional documents • Subscribe to E-mail Notices for Reactor Correspondence • Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, February 26, 2014 245 Home > Facility Locator > Operating Nuclear Power Reactors by Location or Name > Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Unit 1 Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Unit 1 Location: Waynesboro, GA (26 miles SE of Augusta, GA) in Region II Operator: Southern Nuclear Operating Co., Inc. Operating License: Issued - 03/16/1987 Renewed License: Issued - 06/03/2009 License Expires - 01/16/2047 Docket Number: 05000424 Reactor Type: Pressurized Water Reactor Licensed MWt: 3,625.6 Reactor Vendor/Type: Westinghouse Four-Loop Containment Type: Dry, Ambient Pressure Plant Diagram Plant Information NRC Employee Contacts Reactor Status Report (Daily) • Reactor Event Notification • Safety Performance Summary • Inspection Reports | Dataset (Prev. 12 Mos.) | Data Dictionary • US Plant Inspections following Japan Event • Severe Accident Inspections • FEMA After Action Reports (Emergency Exercises) • Enforcement Actions • Press Releases • Upcoming Meetings • Past Meetings • Sr. Public Affairs Officer: Roger Hannah - 404-997-4417 • Public Affairs Officer: Joey Ledford - 404-997-4416 • Sr. Resident Inspector: M. Cain - 706-554-9901 • Resident Inspector: T. Chandler - 706-554-9902 • Project Manager • Key Documents Related Information License Renewal • Plant Operating License • Plant Environmental Report • Plant-Specific Actions in Response to the Japan Nuclear Accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi • Reactor Quick Links • Reactor Oversight Process • NRC Emergency Preparedness and Response • FEMA's State Offices and Agencies of Emergency Management • Other Reactors in Georgia • ADAMS - for additional documents • Subscribe to E-mail Notices for Reactor Correspondence • Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, February 26, 2014 246 Home > Facility Locator > Operating Nuclear Power Reactors by Location or Name > Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Unit 2 Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Unit 2 Location: Waynesboro, GA (26 miles SE of Augusta, GA) in Region II Operator: Southern Nuclear Operating Co., Inc. Operating License: Issued - 03/31/1989 Renewed License: Issued - 06/03/2009 License Expires - 02/09/2049 Docket Number: 05000425 Reactor Type: Pressurized Water Reactor Licensed MWt: 3,625.6 Reactor Vendor/Type: Westinghouse Four-Loop Containment Type: Dry, Ambient Pressure Plant Diagram Plant Information NRC Employee Contacts Reactor Status Report (Daily) • Reactor Event Notification • Safety Performance Summary • Inspection Reports | Dataset (Prev. 12 Mos.) | Data Dictionary • US Plant Inspections following Japan Event • Severe Accident Inspections • FEMA After Action Reports (Emergency Exercises) • Enforcement Actions • Press Releases • Upcoming Meetings • Past Meetings • Sr. Public Affairs Officer: Roger Hannah - 404-997-4417 • Public Affairs Officer: Joey Ledford - 404-997-4416 • Sr. Resident Inspector: M. Cain - 706-554-9901 • Resident Inspector: T. Chandler - 706-554-9902 • Project Manager • Key Documents Related Information License Renewal • Plant Operating License • Plant Environmental Report • Plant-Specific Actions in Response to the Japan Nuclear Accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi • Reactor Quick Links • Reactor Oversight Process • NRC Emergency Preparedness and Response • FEMA's State Offices and Agencies of Emergency Management • Other Reactors in Georgia • ADAMS - for additional documents • Subscribe to E-mail Notices for Reactor Correspondence • Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, February 26, 2014 247 Home > Facility Locator > Operating Nuclear Power Reactors by Location or Name > Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station Location: Vernon, VT (5 miles S of Brattleboro, VT) in Region I Operator: Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. Operating License: Issued - 03/21/1972 Renewed Operating License: Issued - 03/21/2011 License Expires: 03/21/2032 Docket Number: 05000271 Reactor Type: Boiling Water Reactor Licensed MWt: 1,912 Reactor Vendor/Type: General Electric Type 4 Containment Type: Wet, Mark I Plant Diagram Plant Information NRC Employee Contacts Reactor Status Report (Daily) • Reactor Event Notification • Safety Performance Summary • Inspection Reports | Dataset (Prev. 12 Mos.) | Data Dictionary • US Plant Inspections following Japan Event • Severe Accident Inspections • FEMA After Action Reports (Emergency Exercises) • Enforcement Actions • Press Releases • Upcoming Meetings • Past Meetings • Sr. Public Affairs Officer: Diane Screnci - 610-337-5330 • Public Affairs Officer: Neil Sheehan - 610-337-5331 • Sr. Resident Inspector: Scott Rutenkroger - 802-257-4310 • Resident Inspector: Sarah Rich - 802-257-4310 • Project Manager • Key Documents Related Information Correspondence • Chairman Statements • Demand for Information • Plant Operating License • Plant Environmental Report • Plant-Specific Actions in Response to the Japan Nuclear Accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi • Reactor Quick Links • Reactor Oversight Process • NRC Emergency Preparedness and Response • FEMA's State Offices and Agencies of Emergency Management • ADAMS - for additional documents • Subscribe to E-mail Notices for Reactor Correspondence • Hot Topics Tritium Groundwater Contamination • License Renewal • Other Resources Fact Sheet on Buried Pipes at Nuclear Reactors • Buried Piping Activities • Groundwater Contamination (Tritium) at Nuclear Plants • Backgrounder on Tritium, Radiation Protection Limits, and Drinking Water Standards • Briefing on Tritium and Groundwater Contamination • Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, February 26, 2014 248 Home > Facility Locator > Operating Nuclear Power Reactors by Location or Name > Columbia Generating Station Columbia Generating Station Location: Richland, WA (20 miles NNE of Pasco, WA) in Region IV Operator: Energy Northwest Operating License: Issued - 04/13/1984 Renewed Operating License: Issued - 05/22/2012 License Expires: 12/20/2043 Docket Number: 05000397 Reactor Type: Boiling Water Reactor Licensed MWt: 3,486 Reactor Vendor/Type: General Electric Type 5 Containment Type: Wet, Mark II Plant Diagram Plant Information NRC Employee Contacts Reactor Status Report (Daily) • Reactor Event Notification • Safety Performance Summary • Inspection Reports | Dataset (Prev. 12 Mos.) | Data Dictionary • US Plant Inspections following Japan Event • Severe Accident Inspections • FEMA After Action Reports (Emergency Exercises) • Enforcement Actions • Press Releases • Upcoming Meetings • Past Meetings • Sr. Public Affairs Officer: Victor Dricks - 817-200-1128 • Public Affairs Officer: Lara Uselding - 817-200-1519 • Sr. Resident Inspector: Jeremy Groom - 509-377-2627 • Resident Inspector: Dan Bradley - 509-377-2627 • Project Manager • Key Documents Related Information License Renewal • Plant Operating License • Plant Environmental Report • Plant-Specific Actions in Response to the Japan Nuclear Accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi • Reactor Quick Links • Reactor Oversight Process • NRC Emergency Preparedness and Response • FEMA's State Offices and Agencies of Emergency Management • Other Reactors in Washington • ADAMS - for additional documents • Subscribe to E-mail Notices for Reactor Correspondence • Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, April 23, 2014 249 Home > Facility Locator > Operating Nuclear Power Reactors by Location or Name > Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3 Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3 Location: Killona, LA (25 miles W of New Orleans, LA) in Region IV Operator: Entergy Operations, Inc. Operating License: Issued - 03/16/1985, Expires - 12/18/2024 Docket Number: 05000382 Reactor Type: Pressurized Water Reactor Licensed MWt: 3,716 Reactor Vendor/Type: Combustion Engineering Containment Type: Dry, Ambient Pressure Plant Diagram Plant Information NRC Employee Contacts Reactor Status Report (Daily) • Reactor Event Notification • Safety Performance Summary • Inspection Reports | Dataset (Prev. 12 Mos.) | Data Dictionary • US Plant Inspections following Japan Event • Severe Accident Inspections • FEMA After Action Reports (Emergency Exercises) • Enforcement Actions • Press Releases • Upcoming Meetings • Past Meetings • Plant Operating License • Plant Environmental Report • Sr. Public Affairs Officer: Victor Dricks - 817-200-1128 • Public Affairs Officer: Lara Uselding - 817-200-1519 • Sr. Resident Inspector: Marlone Davis - 985-783-6253 • Resident Inspector: Christopher Speer - 985-783-6253 • Project Manager • Key Documents Related Information Plant-Specific Actions in Response to the Japan Nuclear Accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi • Reactor Quick Links • Reactor Oversight Process • NRC Emergency Preparedness and Response • FEMA's State Offices and Agencies of Emergency Management • Other Reactors in Louisiana • ADAMS - for additional documents • Subscribe to E-mail Notices for Reactor Correspondence • Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, February 26, 2014 250 Home > Facility Locator > Operating Nuclear Power Reactors by Location or Name > Watts Bar 1 Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 1 Location: Spring City, TN (60 miles SW of Knoxville, TN) in Region II Operator: Tennessee Valley Authority Operating License: Issued - 02/07/1996, Expires - 11/09/2035 Docket Number: 05000390 Reactor Type: Pressurized Water Reactor Licensed MWt: 3,459 Reactor Vendor/Type: Westinghouse Four-Loop Containment Type: Wet, Ice condenser Plant Diagram Plant Information NRC Employee Contacts Reactor Status Report (Daily) • Reactor Event Notification • Safety Performance Summary • Inspection Reports | Dataset (Prev. 12 Mos.) | Data Dictionary • US Plant Inspections following Japan Event • Severe Accident Inspections • FEMA After Action Reports (Emergency Exercises) • Enforcement Actions • Press Releases • Upcoming Meetings • Past Meetings • Plant Operating License • Plant Environmental Report • Sr. Public Affairs Officer: Roger Hannah - 404-997-4417 • Public Affairs Officer: Joey Ledford - 404-997-4416 • Sr. Resident Inspector: R. Monk - 423-365-5488 • Resident Inspector: K. Miller - 423-365-5488 • Project Manager S. Lingam - 301-415-1564 • Key Documents Related Information Plant-Specific Actions in Response to the Japan Nuclear Accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi • Reactor Quick Links • Reactor Oversight Process • NRC Emergency Preparedness and Response • FEMA's State Offices and Agencies of Emergency Management • Other Reactors in Tennessee • Watts Bar Unit 2 Reactivation • ADAMS - for additional documents • Subscribe to E-mail Notices for Reactor Correspondence • Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, May 14, 2014 251 Home > Facility Locator > Operating Nuclear Power Reactors by Location or Name > Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit 1 Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit 1 Location: Burlington, KS (3.5 miles NE of Burlington, KS) in Region IV Operator: Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corp. Operating License: Issued - 06/04/1985 Renewed License: Issued - 11/20/2008 License Expires - 03/11/2045 Docket Number: 05000482 Reactor Type: Pressurized Water Reactor Licensed MWt: 3,565 Reactor Vendor/Type: Westinghouse Four-Loop Containment Type: Dry, Ambient Pressure Plant Diagram Plant Information NRC Employee Contacts Reactor Status Report (Daily) • Reactor Event Notification • Safety Performance Summary • Inspection Reports | Dataset (Prev. 12 Mos.) | Data Dictionary • US Plant Inspections following Japan Event • Severe Accident Inspections • FEMA After Action Reports (Emergency Exercises) • Enforcement Actions • Press Releases • Upcoming Meetings • Past Meetings • Sr. Public Affairs Officer: Victor Dricks - 817-200-1128 • Public Affairs Officer: Lara Uselding - 817-200-1519 • Sr. Resident Inspector: Charles Peabody - 620-364-8653 • Resident Inspector: Iradj Stroble - 620-364-8653 • Project Manager • Key Documents Related Information License Renewal • Plant Operating License • Plant Environmental Report • Plant-Specific Actions in Response to the Japan Nuclear Accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi • Reactor Quick Links • Reactor Oversight Process • NRC Emergency Preparedness and Response • FEMA's State Offices and Agencies of Emergency Management • Other Reactors in Kansas • ADAMS - for additional documents • Subscribe to E-mail Notices for Reactor Correspondence • Page Last Reviewed/Updated Friday, May 09, 2014 252 APPENDIX 3 253 License Dates Net Summer Reactor Name Operating Commercial Operation Expiration Capacity (MW) Arkansas Nuclear One 1 5/21/1974 12/19/1974 5/20/2034 836 Arkansas Nuclear One 2 7/18/1978 3/26/1980 7/17/2038 992 Beaver Valley 1 1/30/1976 10/1/1976 1/29/2036 921 Beaver Valley 2 5/28/1987 11/17/1987 5/27/2047 914 Braidwood 1 10/17/1986 7/29/1988 10/17/2026 1,178 Braidwood 2 12/18/1987 10/17/1988 12/18/2027 1,152 Browns Ferry 1 6/26/1973 8/1/1974 12/20/2033 1,101 Browns Ferry 2 6/28/1974 3/1/1975 6/28/2034 1,104 Browns Ferry 3 7/2/1976 3/1/1977 7/2/2036 1,105 Brunswick 1 9/8/1976 3/18/1977 9/8/2036 938 Brunswick 2 12/27/1974 11/3/1975 12/27/2034 932 Byron 1 10/31/1984 9/16/1985 10/31/2024 1,164 Byron 2 11/6/1986 8/21/1987 11/6/2026 1,136 Callaway 6/11/1984 12/19/1984 10/18/2024 1,190 Calvert Cliffs 1 7/31/1974 5/8/1975 7/31/2034 866 Calvert Cliffs 2 8/13/1976 4/1/1977 8/13/2036 850 Catawba 1 7/18/1984 6/29/1985 12/5/2043 1,129 Catawba 2 2/24/1986 8/19/1986 12/5/2043 1,129 Clinton 9/29/1986 11/24/1987 9/29/2026 1,065 Columbia Generating Station 2 12/20/1983 12/13/1984 12/20/2043 1,132 Comanche Peak 1 2/8/1990 8/13/1990 2/8/2030 1,205 Comanche Peak 2 2/2/1993 8/3/1993 2/2/2033 1,195 Cooper 1/18/1974 7/1/1974 1/18/2034 766 Davis Besse 4/22/1977 7/31/1978 4/22/2017 894 Diablo Canyon 1 9/22/1981 5/7/1985 9/22/2021 1,122 Diablo Canyon 2 4/26/1985 3/13/1986 4/26/2025 1,118 Donald C. Cook 1 10/25/1974 8/23/1975 10/25/2034 1,009 Donald C. Cook 2 12/23/1977 7/1/1978 12/23/2037 1,060 Dresden 2 12/22/1969 6/9/1970 12/22/2029 883 Dresden 3 1/12/1971 11/16/1971 1/12/2031 867 Duane Arnold 2/22/1974 2/1/1975 2/21/2034 601 Edwin I. Hatch 1 8/6/1974 12/31/1974 8/6/2034 876 Edwin I. Hatch 2 6/13/1978 9/5/1979 6/13/2038 883 Fermi 2 3/20/1985 1/23/1988 3/20/2025 1,085 Fort Calhoun 5/24/1973 6/20/1974 8/9/2033 479 Ginna 9/19/1969 7/1/1970 9/18/2029 581 Grand Gulf 1 6/18/1982 7/1/1985 6/12/2022 1,419 H.B. Robinson 2 7/31/1970 3/7/1971 7/31/2030 741 Hope Creek 1 4/11/1986 12/20/1986 4/11/2046 1,174 254 Indian Point 2 10/19/1971 8/1/1974 9/28/2013 1,020 Indian Point 3 12/12/1975 8/30/1976 12/12/2015 1,041 James A. FitzPatrick 10/17/1974 7/28/1975 10/17/2034 848 Joseph M. Farley 1 6/25/1977 12/1/1977 6/25/2037 874 Joseph M. Farley 2 10/23/1980 7/30/1981 3/31/2041 860 La Salle 1 4/17/1982 1/1/1984 5/17/2022 1,137 La Salle 2 12/16/1983 10/19/1984 12/16/2023 1,140 Limerick 1 10/26/1984 2/1/1986 10/26/2024 1,146 Limerick 2 6/22/1989 1/8/1990 6/22/2029 1,150 McGuire 1 1/23/1981 12/1/1981 6/12/2041 1,129 McGuire 2 3/3/1983 3/1/1984 3/3/2043 1,129 Millstone 2 8/1/1975 12/26/1975 7/31/2035 869 Millstone 3 11/25/1985 4/23/1986 11/25/2045 1,233 Monticello 9/8/1970 6/30/1971 9/8/2030 633 Nine Mile Point 1 8/22/1969 12/1/1969 8/22/2029 630 Nine Mile Point 2 10/31/1986 3/11/1988 10/31/2046 1,144 North Anna 1 11/26/1977 6/6/1978 4/1/2038 943 North Anna 2 4/11/1980 12/14/1980 8/21/2040 943 Oconee 1 2/6/1973 7/15/1973 2/6/2033 846 Oconee 2 10/6/1973 9/9/1974 10/6/2033 846 Oconee 3 7/19/1974 12/16/1974 7/19/2034 846 Oyster Creek 1 4/9/1969 12/1/1969 4/9/2029 615 Palisades 3/24/1971 12/31/1971 3/24/2031 782 Palo Verde 1 12/31/1984 1/28/1986 6/1/2045 1,311 Palo Verde 2 12/9/1985 9/19/1986 4/24/2046 1,314 Palo Verde 3 3/25/1987 1/8/1988 11/25/2047 1,312 Peach Bottom 2 8/8/1973 7/5/1974 8/8/2033 1,125 Peach Bottom 3 7/2/1974 12/23/1974 7/2/2034 1,125 Perry 1 3/18/1986 11/18/1987 3/18/2026 1,256 Pilgrim 1 6/8/1972 12/1/1972 6/8/2032 677 Point Beach 1 10/5/1970 12/21/1970 10/5/2030 591 Point Beach 2 11/16/1971 10/1/1972 3/8/2033 591 Prairie Island 1 8/9/1973 12/16/1973 8/9/2033 521 Prairie Island 2 10/29/1974 12/21/1974 10/29/2034 519 Quad Cities 1 10/1/1971 2/18/1973 12/14/2032 908 Quad Cities 2 3/31/1972 3/10/1973 12/14/2032 911 River Bend 1 8/29/1985 6/16/1986 8/29/2025 975 Salem 1 8/13/1976 6/30/1977 8/13/2036 1,168 Salem 2 4/18/1980 10/13/1981 4/18/2040 1,158 Seabrook 1 10/17/1986 8/17/1990 3/15/2030 1,246 Sequoyah 1 2/29/1980 7/1/1981 9/17/2020 1,152 Sequoyah 2 6/25/1981 6/1/1982 9/15/2021 1,126 Shearon Harris 1 10/24/1986 5/2/1987 10/24/2046 928 South Texas Project 1 8/21/1987 8/25/1988 8/20/2027 1,280 South Texas Project 2 12/16/1988 6/19/1989 12/15/2028 1,280 St. Lucie 1 3/1/1976 12/21/1976 3/1/2036 981 St. Lucie 2 4/6/1983 8/8/1983 4/6/2043 1,135 Surry 1 5/25/1972 12/22/1972 5/25/2032 838 255 Surry 2 1/29/1973 5/1/1973 1/29/2033 838 Susquehanna 1 7/17/1982 6/8/1983 7/17/2042 1,260 Susquehanna 2 3/23/1984 2/12/1985 3/23/2044 1,260 Three Mile Island 1 4/19/1974 9/2/1974 4/19/2034 805 Turkey Point 3 7/19/1972 12/14/1972 7/19/2032 802 Turkey Point 4 4/10/1973 9/7/1973 4/10/2033 802 V.C. Summer 8/6/1982 1/1/1984 8/6/2042 971 Vermont Yankee 1 3/21/1972 11/30/1972 3/21/2032 604 Vogtle 1 1/16/1987 6/1/1987 1/16/2047 1,150 Vogtle 2 2/9/1989 5/20/1989 2/9/2049 1,152 Waterford 3 12/18/1984 9/24/1985 12/18/2024 1,159 Watts Bar 1 11/9/1995 2/7/1996 11/9/2035 1,123 Wolf Creek 1 3/11/1985 9/3/1985 3/11/2045 1,175 Source: Nuclear Regulatory Commission / Energy Information Administration Updated: 4/14 256

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Traditionally, electric utilities have been slow to change and very bureaucratic in nature. This culture, in and of itself, has now contributed to a high percentage of United States electric utilities operating uneconomical nuclear plants (Crooks, 2014). The economic picture behind owning and operating United States nuclear plants is less than favorable for many reasons including rising fuel, capital and operating costs (EUCG, 2012). ❧ This doctoral dissertation is specifically focused on life without nuclear power. The purpose of this dissertation is to create a model and guide that will provide electric utilities who currently operate or will operate uneconomical nuclear plants the opportunity to economically assess whether or not their nuclear plant should be retired. This economic assessment and stakeholder analysis will provide local government, academia and communities the opportunity to understand how Southern California Edison (SCE) embraced system upgrade import and “voltage support” opportunities to replace “base load” generation from San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) versus building new replacement generation facilities. This model and guide will help eliminate the need to build large replacement generation units as demonstrated in the SONGS case analysis. ❧ The application of The Nuclear Power Retirement Model and Guide will provide electric utilities with economic assessment parameters and an evaluation assessment progression needed to better evaluate when an uneconomical nuclear plant should be retired. It will provide electric utilities the opportunity to utilize sound policy, planning and development skill sets when making this difficult decision. ❧ There are currently 62 nuclear power plants (with 100 nuclear reactors) operating in the United States (EIA, 2014). From this group, 38 are at risk of early retirement based on the work of Cooper (2013). As demonstrated in my model, 35 of the 38 nuclear power plants qualify to move to the economic assessment review and then on to the stakeholder cost benefit analysis (if model qualifications are met) leading to a final plant retirement decision. This application via the model and guide, in turn, will lead electric utilities to explore system upgrade import opportunities and mitigation measures versus building new replacement generation facilities. ❧ United States nuclear reactors are licensed for 40 years with a 20 year extension available prior to the expiration date (EIA, 2013). Since late 2012, electric power companies have announced the early retirement of four uneconomical nuclear power plants while other studies have indicated that as many as 70 percent of United States nuclear power plants are potentially at risk for early retirement (Crooks, 2014 and Cooper, 2013). A high percentage of these aforementioned nuclear plants have operating licenses that will not expire until 2030 and beyond. Thus, for the most part, replacement power contingency planning has not been initiated for these plants or is still in preliminary stages. ❧ The recent nuclear plant retirements are the first since 1998 (EIA, 2013). Decisions to retire the plants involved concerns over maintenance and repair costs as well as declining profitability (EIA, 2013). In addition, the Energy Information Administration (2010-2012) released data that demonstrated that the worst 25 percent of United States nuclear plants are far more expensive to operate and generate electricity than new gas plants. ❧ It is equally important to understand and explain the economic and power replacement implications to both ratepayers and end-users. A SONGS case study analysis will review the economic, operational and political challenges that SCE faced leading to the retirement decision of SONGS. As preface to the case study, replacement steam generators (RSGs) were installed in Unit 2 in 2009 and in Unit 3 in 2010. In January 2012, while Unit 2 was down for routine maintenance, a small leak was discovered inside a steam generator in Unit 3. Because of the situation, both units remained shut down to evaluate the cause of the leakage and to make repairs. ❧ SCE submitted plans to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to re-start Unit 2 at reduced power. However, concerns over the length of the review process and the high costs associated with steam generator repairs led SCE to retire both reactors (SCE SONGS Fact Sheets, 2012-2013). ❧ Finally, collaborative resource power replacement planning is needed more than ever as nuclear facilities in the United States are now being retired for economic related reasons (Crooks, 2014). This collaborative power replacement process and implementation must encompass all relevant stakeholders including state grid operators, ratepayers, shareholders and the electric utility company.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

A multiattribute decision model for the selection of radioisotope and nuclear detection devices

PDF

Threat assessment of physical attacks of electrical infrastructure: how do terrorist groups select their targets?

PDF

Critical factors in evaluating compliance to United Nations Security Council Resolution 1540: developing a methodology for compliance evaluation

PDF

A strategic talent management retention model: an effective way to shape the United States Space Force

PDF

A public sector organizational change model: prioritizing a community-focused, inclusive, and collaborative approach to strategic planning

PDF

County governance reform in California: introduction of the council‐executive model and the elected county‐executive

PDF

The future of work: defining a healthy ecosystem that closes skills-gaps

PDF

Tailoring philanthropic strategies to new generational cohorts

PDF

The economic and political impacts of U.S. federal carbon emissions trading policy across households, sectors and states

PDF

Essays on economic modeling: spatial-temporal extensions and verification

PDF

Education based incarceration: educate to change the organizational culture of corrections in the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department

PDF

The role of leadership and collaboration as a catalyst for regional economic development: a grounded theory study

PDF

Silicon-based wideband & mm-wave power amplifier architectures and implementations

PDF

Emissions markets, power markets and market power: a study of the interactions between contemporary emissions markets and deregulated electricity markets

PDF

The institutionalization of nonprofit management: emergence, development, and legitimization

PDF

Quango reforms and challenges in South Korea: social relations, informal networks, and hidden actions

PDF

The institutional context of Korean philanthropy and the role of government and (quasi-) community foundations

PDF

Health impact assessment, the concept, science, and application in China

PDF

A risk analysis methodology to address human and organizational factors in offshore drilling safety: with an emphasis on negative pressure test

PDF

Jobs, not jail: Homeboy Industries, a radical approach to redirecting adolescents away from the criminal justice system

Asset Metadata

Creator Wasko, Frank A. (author)

Core Title Life without nuclear power: a nuclear plant retirement formulation model and guide based on economics: San Onofre nuclear generating station case: economic impacts and reliability considerations ...

School School of Policy, Planning and Development

Degree Doctor of Policy, Planning & Development

Degree Program Policy, Planning, and Development

Publication Date 01/27/2015

Defense Date 11/14/2014

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag nuclear power,OAI-PMH Harvest

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Denhardt, Robert (committee chair), Hayward, David (committee member), Merrifield, Kerrie (committee member), Natoli, Deborah (committee member), Von Winterfeldt, Detlof (committee member)

Creator Email frank.wasko@sce.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-527614

Unique identifier UC11297925

Identifier etd-WaskoFrank-3141.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-527614 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-WaskoFrank-3141.pdf

Dmrecord 527614

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Wasko, Frank A.

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA