The United States is a constitutional federal republic, consisting of fifty states, one federal district, three territories, and two commonwealths. The federal government is composed of three branches: executive, legislative, and judicial. The executive branch is led by the President. The legislative branch is composed of a bicameral Congress, which includes the Senate and House of Representatives. The judicial branch includes the Supreme Court as well as lower federal courts.

The United States extends over the midsection of North America, stretching from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean plus Alaska and Hawaii. The three inhabited territories are found in the Caribbean Sea (U.S. Virgin Islands) and in the Pacific Ocean (American Samoa and Guam). The two inhabited commonwealths are found in the Caribbean Sea (Puerto Rico) and in the Pacific Ocean (Northern Mariana Islands).

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the total area of the United States is over 3.5 million square miles (9.1 million square kilometers). Climate varies greatly across the nation. Average annual temperatures range from 9 degrees Fahrenheit (-13 degrees Celsius) in Barrow, Alaska to 78 degrees Fahrenheit (26 degrees Celsius) in Death Valley, California. Rainfall varies from less than 2 inches annually at Death Valley to about 460 inches at Mount Waialeale in Hawaii. Most of the United States has seasonal temperature changes and moderate precipitation. The Midwest, Middle Atlantic states, and New England states experience warm summers and cold, snowy winters. Summers are long, hot, and often humid in the South while winters are mild. Along the Pacific coast, and in some other areas near large bodies of water, the climate is relatively mild all year. Hawaii is tropical and Alaska is arctic.

The U.S. population in 2013 was estimated to be 316.4 million people. According to the latest estimates by the U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. population is expected to cross the 400 million mark in 2051 and reach 420.3 million in 2060. In addition, the proportion of the population younger than age 18 is expected to change little between 2012 and 2060, but the proportion of the population age 65 and older is expected to more than double during that same time. Table 1 shows historical population growth statistics.



TABLE 1. POPULATION INFORMATION

Year	1970	1980	1990	2000	2005	2013	Average Annual Growth Rate 2000 - 2013
Population (millions)(1)	205.1	227.2	249.5	282.2	295.5	316.4	0.89%
Population Density (inhabitants/km2)	21.9	24.2	25.4	28.7	30.0	32.1	0.86%
Urban Population as % of Total(2)	74%	74%	78%	79%	81%	81%	0.16%
Area (1000 km2)(3)	9,372.6	9,372.6	9,809.1	9,826.6	9,857.3	9,857.3	0.02%

(1) Population values reflect estimates on 1 July of each year; estimates include Resident Population Plus Armed Forces Overseas.(2) Urban population as % of total for 1979 and 1980 reflect an obsolete methodology that has since been revised by the U.S. Census Bureau; values for 2005 and 2013 are for 2010.(3) Area includes land and water; values for 2005 and 2013 are for 2010.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division.

Economic statistics for the United States are regularly published by the U.S. Department of Commerce's Bureau of Economic Analysis. Table 2 shows historical Gross Domestic Product (GDP) statistics. The estimated GDP for 2013 was USD16.8 trillion. Over the last 13 years, real GDP has grown at an annual rate of about 1.76%. This growth rate reflects the major recession that began in the last quarter of 2007 and ended in the second quarter of 2009.

TABLE 2. GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT (GDP)

Year	1970	1980	1990	2000	2005	2013	Average Annual Growth Rate 2000 – 2013
GDP (millions of current USD)	1,075,900	2,862,500	5,979,600	10,289,700	13,095,400	16,799,700	3.84%
GDP (millions of 2000 USD)	3,863,346	5,276,530	7,325,429	10,289,700	11,657,598	12,907,001	1.76%
GDP per capita (PPP USD/capita)(1)	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
GDP per capita (current USD/capita)	5,247	12,598	23,970	36,467	44,314	53,091	2.93%

(1) Purchasing Power Parity (PPP)

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis.

The United States has the largest estimated recoverable reserves of coal in the world and has enough estimated recoverable reserves of coal to last more than 200 years, based on current production levels. Coal is produced in 25 states spread across three major coal-producing regions. In 2012, approximately 70% of production originated in five states: Wyoming, West Virginia, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and Illinois.

U.S. crude oil and lease condensate proved reserves rose for the fourth consecutive year in 2012, increasing by 15% to 4,556 million metric tons, according to the U.S. Crude Oil and Natural Gas Proved Reserves (2012) report released in 2014 by EIA. U.S. crude oil and lease condensate proved reserves were the highest since 1976, and the 2012 increase of 614 million metric tons was the largest annual increase since 1970, when 1,405 million metric tons of Alaskan crude oil were added to U.S. proved reserves. Contributing factors to higher crude oil reserves include increased exploration for liquid hydrocarbons, improved technology for developing tight oil plays, and sustained high historical crude oil prices.

Proved reserves of U.S. wet natural gas decreased 7.5% in 2012. Proved reserves are estimated volumes of hydrocarbon resources that analysis of geologic and engineering data demonstrates with reasonable certainty5 are recoverable under existing economic and operating conditions. Total discoveries of oil and natural gas proved reserves both exceeded U.S. production in 2012, with the largest discoveries occurring onshore within the Lower 48 states. The 2012 decline interrupted a 14-year trend of consecutive increases in natural gas proved reserves. U.S. proved reserves of natural gas declined in 2012 because of low natural gas prices. Despite the drop in natural gas proved reserves in 2012, U.S. natural gas production increased about 6% from 2011 to 2012. Shale natural gas is a type of unconventional natural gas where a shale formation is both the source rock and the producing reservoir. Proved reserves of U.S. shale natural gas declined in 2012, a 2% drop from 2011. Estimated production of shale natural gas increased 30% in 2012.

Uranium reserves are estimated quantities of uranium in known mineral deposits of such size, grade, and configuration that the uranium could be recovered at or below a specified production cost (forward cost) with currently proven mining and processing technology and under current law and regulations. Forward costs include the costs for power and fuel, labor, materials, insurance, severance and ad valorem taxes, and applicable administrative costs. The forward costs used to estimate U.S. uranium ore reserves are independent of the price at which uranium produced from the estimated reserves might be sold in the commercial market. Through the end of 2013, U.S. uranium reserve estimates for 74 mines and properties by status, mining method, and state are provided in the Domestic Uranium Production Report (DUPR) by EIA. Estimated uranium reserves at up to USD100 per pound were 129,900 metric tons U3O8. Table 3 shows estimated U.S. energy reserves.

TABLE 3. ESTIMATED AVAILABLE ENERGY RESERVES

	Fossil Fuels			Nuclear	Renewables
	Solid(1)	Liquid(2)	Gas(3)	Uranium(4)	Hydro	Other Renewable
	Million metric tons	Million metric tons	Billion m3	Metric tons U3O8	TW	TW
Total amount in specific units	233,747	4,556	9,132	129,900	N/A	N/A
Total amount in Exajoule (EJ)	NA	NA	NA	N/A	N/A	N/A

(1) Reflects estimated recoverable reserves as of 31 December 2012.(2) Reflects crude oil and lease condensate proved reserves as of 31 December 2012.(3) Reflects proved reserves of wet natural gas as of 31 December 2012.(4) Reflects uranium reserves as 31 December 2013 and assumes a USD100 per pound forward cost for U3O8.

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration.

The growth in electricity demand has been significantly slower than GDP growth for decades. In the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s the use of electricity often increased more than 5% per year. It then slowed to 2% to 3% per year in the 1980s and 1990s, and over the past decade it has fallen to less than 1% per year. Over the next three decades, electricity use is expected to continue to grow, but the rate of growth slows over time. The factors driving this trend include slowing population growth, market saturation of major electricity-using appliances, improving efficiency of several equipment and appliance types in response to standards and technological change, and a shift in the economy toward less energy-intensive industry.

While the overall U.S. energy history is one of significant change as new forms of energy were developed, the three major fossil fuels - petroleum, natural gas, and coal, which together provided 87% of total U.S. primary energy over the past decade - have dominated the U.S. fuel mix for well over 100 years. Recent increases in the domestic production of petroleum liquids and natural gas have prompted shifts between the uses of fossil fuels (largely from coal-fired to natural gas-fired power generation), but the predominance of these three energy sources is likely to continue into the future. Table 4 shows historical U.S. energy statistics.



TABLE 4. ENERGY STATISTICS (EJ)

Year	1970	1980	1990	2000	2005	2013(1)	Average Annual Growth Rate 2000 - 2013
Energy Consumption
Total	716	823	891	1,041	1,057	1,025	-0.11%
Solids(2)	145	189	231	270	273	237	-0.99%
Liquids(3)	311	361	354	404	426	370	-0.66%
Gases	230	214	207	251	238	281	0.86%
Nuclear	3	29	64	83	86	87	0.39%
Hydro	28	31	32	30	29	27	-0.71%
Other Renewables(4)	0	1	3	3	4	23	16.70%
Energy production
Total	670	709	746	753	733	864	1.06%
Solids(2)	169	222	266	272	277	261	-0.30%
Liquids(3)	242	216	187	158	140	203	1.95%
Gases	229	210	193	207	196	263	1.83%
Nuclear	3	29	64	83	86	87	0.39%
Hydro	28	31	32	30	29	27	-0.71%
Other Renewables(4)	0	1	3	3	4	23	16.70%
Net Imports
Total	60	128	148	263	318	134	-5.04%

(1) Preliminary.

(2) Solid energy consumption and production consist of coal, coke, biomass wood, and biomass waste.

(3) Liquid energy consumption and production consist of petroleum and biofuels; however no biofuel data are available for 1970 or 1980.

(4) Renewable energy consumption and production consist of wind, solar, and geothermal and are assumed to equal one another; however no wind or solar data were available for 1970 or 1980.

Sources: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Monthly Energy Review, March 2014.

The U.S. energy sector is generally market-oriented. Federal policies and regulations govern specific aspects of energy production and transmission, including, but not limited to, air and water quality, interstate commerce, mine safety, leasing of federal lands, support for research and development activities, investment incentives, income taxes, tax incentives, as well as nuclear licensing and safety oversight. In addition to the Federal role in the energy sector, state governments issue policies and regulations affecting the energy sector within each state. State involvement is related to air and water quality, mine safety and permitting, severance or other taxes, tax incentives, and renewable portfolio standards. States may regulate the electric power sector through public utility commissions and associated integrated resource planning and rate setting procedures. The United States is not a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Most electric generators in the United States are privately-owned and subject to federal, state, and municipal laws and regulations through a decentralized process. Although there is substantial interstate trade, no single system or market structure exists to oversee or regulate this trade as a result of such factors as jurisdiction. Some states have regulated markets in which generation, transmission, and distribution of electric power are provided by rate-regulated utilities. Other states have unbundled generation and allow for competitive retail market participation.

Federal involvement in electric power regulation is based on a clause in the U.S. Constitution that maintains that only the Federal government may regulate interstate commerce. Consequently, state governments are prohibited from regulating interstate commerce. Federal regulation, therefore, is focused on the interstate activities of electricity producers, but the regulation of intrastate activities is the responsibility of states and other municipal jurisdictions.

Several laws, including the Federal Power Act (FPA) of 1935, the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA) of 1978, EPACT1992, and EPACT2005 form the basis for federal regulation of transmission and wholesale electric power transactions. See Section 3.2.1, Important Legislation Affecting the Electric Power Industry, for more information on these laws.

The U.S. electricity market has evolved considerably in recent years due to several regulatory actions. Specifically, the state of California originated the concept of separating operators from owners of transmission systems. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) required utilities under Federal jurisdiction to provide open access to the transmission system on a comparable basis to the service they provide themselves in 1996, when it issued Order No. 888. FERC Order No. 888 defines the rules under which utilities may operate their transmission systems (i.e. open access rules), while allowing for a competitive wholesale electricity market.⁽¹⁾ This encouraged the creation of several Independent System Operators (ISOs) under FERC jurisdiction. FERC Order No. 889 established electronic open-access, same-time information systems (OASIS) for available transmission capacity. OASIS provides all customers equal, timely access to transmission availability information. While FERC Order 888 encouraged the creation of ISOs, FERC Order No. 2000, issued in 1999, encouraged the voluntary formation of Regional Transmission Organizations (RTO) to administer the transmission grid on a regional basis. The characteristics and functions of an RTO are defined in FERC Order No. 2000.⁽²⁾

After competition in the wholesale market was permitted, interest rose in retail competition. This form of deregulation was state-based. Regions of the country where prices significantly exceeded the national average (California and New England states) were leaders in adopting electricity deregulation. However, the California electricity crisis of 2000-2001 resulted in several states taking a more deliberate approach toward deregulation and even reversing previously-taken steps.

In states where retail electricity prices are directly regulated, public utility commissions – consisting of either elected or appointed commissioners – determine what price utilities may charge their customers through periodic reviews, known as rate cases. In states with unregulated markets, competing retail electricity providers are essentially free to determine how much to charge for electricity.

The U.S. electric power industry is a combination of integrated electric utilities involved in generation, transmission and distribution, and marketing, as well as corporate entities that are focused on solely providing unbundled products, such as generation. Utilities include those owned by investors (i.e., investor-owned utilities or IOUs), the Federal government, municipalities, and the customers they serve (i.e., cooperatives). Historically, the larger IOUs were vertically integrated, though structures have changed in many regions from regulated service monopolies to more complex corporate structures organized to provide unbundled products. PURPA and subsequent legislation promoted competition in the generation sector, which fostered the emergence of several thousand non-utility electricity providers. In the nuclear sector, approximately 51% of nuclear power plants in the United States are regulated; the remaining nuclear power plants are merchant unregulated plants.

Integrated utilities are, for the most part, franchised monopolies that have an obligation to provide electricity to all customers within a service area. Their corporate shares are publicly traded, but they also raise funds through the issuance of bonds. In addition to generation, most provide traditional transmission and distribution services.

A number of utilities in the United States are publicly-owned, including the federally-owned Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). TVA is one of the nation's largest electricity providers and also one of the largest nuclear electricity generators. Several other federally-owned utilities exist largely to offer electricity generation and transmission services. In all cases, their operations extend across several states. Publicly-owned utilities also include municipalities, public power districts, irrigation districts, and various state-owned organizations. Many municipal electric utilities only distribute power, although a few larger municipalities produce and transmit electricity from nuclear power plants. Municipal utilities own shares in nuclear power plants, including the Catawba (North Carolina) and Edwin I. Hatch (Georgia) nuclear power plants.

The Rural Electrification Administration of the U.S. Department of Agriculture was established in 1936 to extend electric service to rural communities and farms, as rural America, for the most part, lacked electric power at that time. Cooperatives are incorporated under state law and are usually overseen by an elected board of directors. According to the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, there are more than 900 cooperatives in the United States that serve approximately 12% of the nation’s meters or 42 million people. Cooperatives own shares of nine operating nuclear units and are planning to participate in several proposed units. In addition, the Oglethorpe Power Cooperative is a partial owner of Vogtle Units 3 and 4, currently being built in Georgia.

Non-utility power producers include co-generators, small power producers, and independent power producers. These producers lack a designated franchise service area, although they often provide power to specific clients under contract. Many are generally referred to as qualifying facilities (QFs), because they receive certain benefits under PURPA. To qualify as a QF, the co-generator must meet certain ownership, operating, and efficiency criteria established by FERC, such as producing electricity and other forms of useful thermal energy for industrial, commercial, heating, or cooling purposes. PURPA required public utilities to purchase from QFs at avoided cost.

Independent Power Producers (IPPs) in the United States include wholesale electricity producers that are often unaffiliated with franchised utilities in the area in which they sell power. EPACT1992 established a new class of IPPs - exempt wholesale generators (EWGs) or "merchant plants." EPACT1992 exempted EWGs from the corporate and geographic restrictions of earlier legislation. Public, investor-owned utilities are allowed to own IPP facilities through holding companies and have formed subsidiaries to develop and operate independent power projects throughout the world.

The 1980s saw the beginning of competition in the electric industry. FERC, which regulates wholesale sales of electricity by privately-owned companies in most of the United States, started approving market-based rates for independent power producers in the late 1980s. By the mid-1990s, FERC required transmission-owning utilities to provide open access service to allow competitors to deliver electricity across their system. This presented various power pools in the industry with the challenge of how to open up their cost-based systems to independent competitors. Power pools were formed by groups of utilities initially to share reserves and then to optimize real-time operations.

These power pools were transformed into Independent System Operators (ISO) by creating bid-based energy markets, which set market clearing prices based on marginal cost. As ISO/RTOs were forming, a number of states decided to restructure their vertically-integrated utilities by requiring them to divest all or most of their generating assets. In most cases, plants were acquired by non-state-rate-regulated companies affiliated with the former owning utility. In some cases, merchant generating companies bought the plants. Even without prompting from regulators, some utilities decided to sell their plants to merchant companies.

Currently, two-thirds of U.S. electricity consumers are located in ISO and RTO geographic regions. By 2012, seven non-profit ISOs and RTOs were in existence and they accounted for 65% of electricity provided to end users.⁽³⁾ They include the California ISO (CAISO), the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), the Midcontinent ISO (MISO), the PJM Interconnection (PJM), the New York ISO (NYISO), the Southwest Power Pool (SPP), and the ISO New England (ISO-NE). With the exception of ERCOT, which is limited to Texas, all of these entities are regulated by FERC.

When the ownership of a nuclear power plant changes, the prices paid for plants reflect the value of the going forward profits of the plant, which is highly correlated with the market price for electricity. The severe drop in commodity prices after 2008, including natural gas prices together with policies to promote the penetration of renewable generation, have eroded the value of nuclear power plants. These conditions are not expected to change in the near future due to both abundant shale gas and the likely continuation of policies to promote renewable energy. The uncertainty inherent in this situation complicates decisions by nuclear utilities to operate, uprate, retire, or build nuclear units.

EIA collects extensive primary data from the electricity industry and publishes the data, together with forecasts and analyses, on its web site. Specifically, long-term domestic U.S. forecasts and projections (currently through 2040) are published in the Annual Energy Outlook. Short-term projections are provided in the Short-Term Energy Outlook. Historical data are provided in the Monthly Energy Review. Detailed electric sector data are provided in the Electric Power Annual and the Electric Power Monthly. Tables 5 and 6 summarize some of the energy-related data available from EIA.

TABLE 5. ELECTRICITY PRODUCTION, CONSUMPTION AND CAPACITY

Year	1970	1980	1990	2000	2005	2013(1)	Average Annual Growth Rate 2000 - 2013
Capacity of electrical plants (GWe)(6)
Thermal(2)	265.5	444.2	512.6	580.9	738.9	793.8	2.43%
Hydro(3)	63.8	81.7	92.8	97.8	98.2	101.4	0.28%
Nuclear	7.0	51.8	99.6	97.9	100.0	99.1	0.10%
Wind	NA	NA	1.8	2.4	8.7	60.4	28.25%
Geothermal	0.1	0.9	2.7	2.8	2.3	2.7	-0.29%
Other Renewables(4)	NA	NA	0.3	0.4	0.4	6.2	23.83%
Total(5)	336.4	578.6	709.9	782.1	948.6	1,065.3	2.41%
Electricity production (TWh)
Thermal(2)	1,261.8	1,754.2	2,019.6	2,597.5	2,819.7	2,648.2	0.15%
Hydro(3)	247.7	276.0	286.2	265.8	260.5	261.3	-0.13%
Nuclear	21.8	251.1	576.9	753.9	782.0	789.0	0.35%
Wind	NA	NA	2.8	5.6	17.8	167.6	29.89%
Geothermal	0.5	5.1	15.4	14.1	14.7	16.5	1.23%
Other Renewables(4)	NA	NA	0.4	0.5	0.6	8.9	24.94%
Total(5)	1,531.9	2,286.4	2,901.3	3,637.5	3,902.2	3,898.8	0.53%
Total Electricity Consumption (TWh)	1,392.3	2,094.4	2,837.1	3,592.4	3,811.0	3,831.2	0.50%

(1) Preliminary.

(2) Thermal capacity and production include biomass wood and biomass waste.

(3) Hydro capacity and production include conventional hydroelectric energy and pumped storage.

(4) Other renewable capacity and production consist of solar photovoltaic and solar thermal energy; however no wind or solar data were available for 1970 or 1980.

(5) Total capacity and generation include small amount of capacity and generation associated with "other" energy sources such as batteries, hydrogen, and tire-derived fuel not captured by other categories.

(6) Gigawatt electrical (GWe).

Sources: U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2011 Annual Energy Review, March 2014 Monthly Energy Review, January 2014 Electric Power Monthly.



TABLE 6. ENERGY-RELATED RATIOS

Year	1970	1980	1990	2000	2005	2013
Energy Consumption per capita (GJ/capita)	349	362	357	369	358	324
Electricity Consumption per capita (TWh/capita)	6,790	9,218	11,373	12,732	12,896	12,115
Electricity production/Energy Production (%)	8.23%	11.61%	14.00%	17.40%	19.18%	16.25%
Nuclear/Total electricity (%)	1.42%	10.98%	19.88%	20.73%	20.04%	20.24%
Ratio of external dependency (%)	8.42%	15.50%	16.65%	25.27%	30.06%	13.09%

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division; U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2011 Annual Energy Review, March 2014 Monthly Energy Review, January 2014 Electric Power Monthly.

The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 assigned the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) the responsibility to explore the peaceful use of nuclear energy. The responsibilities of the AEC were both regulatory and developmental in nature. Numerous joint industry-government groups were established to explore reactor design concepts, and in 1957, the first large-scale civilian nuclear power plant in the United States began operating in Shippingport, Pennsylvania. In 1960, Dresden Nuclear Generating Station, in Grundy County, Illinois, became the first full-scale, privately-financed nuclear power plant in the country.

The U.S. Congress abolished the AEC in 1974 through the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, in order to assign regulatory and energy development responsibilities to separate agencies. Under the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA) were established. NRC was established to serve as the independent regulatory authority tasked with assuring the safety and licensing of nuclear reactors and other facilities associated with the processing, transport, and handling of nuclear materials. In 1977, the Department of Energy Organization Act was signed; ERDA was abolished, and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) was established to consolidate most Federal energy activities under the control of one department and thereby provide the framework for a comprehensive and balanced national energy plan. DOE undertook responsibility for long-term, high-risk research and development of energy technology, federal power marketing, energy conservation, the nuclear weapons program, energy regulatory programs, and a central energy data collection and analysis program.

The nuclear power industry grew dramatically during the 1960s and 1970s in response to demand growth. During this period, the United States added 50 GWe of nuclear capacity. The capacity of nuclear units grew significantly during the 1970s and 1980s as utilities hoped to capture economies of scale. The nuclear industry ramped up the size of planned nuclear power units rapidly after the first round of commercial reactors. The construction of large power plants, usually located away from load centers, helped spur investment in high-voltage transmission facilities. The need for increased electric generating capacity reserves to backup these larger units fostered reserve-sharing agreements among utilities and construction of regional tie lines.

Most of the utilities that built nuclear plants in the United States were vertically-integrated, investor-owned companies. Siting and rate regulation issues were addressed at the state level. Safety regulation was, and still is, handled at the federal level by NRC. Rate treatment for privately-owned utilities was based on cost of service principles; owners collected sufficient revenues from their customers to cover the cost of construction and an administratively set “market” rate of return on invested capital.

In the late 1970s and 1980s, many nuclear projects were cancelled or deferred as a result of slower than expected electricity demand growth, increased nuclear construction costs, and regulatory uncertainty. Electricity demand dropped even further with the recession in the early 1980s. Inflation doubled or more than tripled the cost of capital for utilities in the midst of the long-lead-time, capital-intensive construction projects. The accident at Three Mile Island in 1979 undermined public support for nuclear power and resulted in new regulatory requirements. These situations exacerbated the financial strain on utilities building nuclear reactors, resulting not only in cancellations, but utility bankruptcies and conversion of nuclear projects to fossil projects.

In April 1989, to address the issue of regulatory uncertainty, NRC streamlined its licensing process for future nuclear power reactors.

Design Certifications for New Reactors. Under current licensing regulations, an applicant who seeks to build a new reactor can use an off-the-shelf reactor design that has been previously approved and certified by NRC. The streamlined process encourages standard or pre-approved reactor designs. Issuance of a design certification is independent of applications for a construction permit or an operating license. Design certifications are valid for 15 years and can be renewed for an additional 10 to 15 years.

Early Site Permit (ESP) Applications. Independent of an application for a construction permit (10 CFR Part 50) or a combined license (10 CFR Part 52), NRC may approve one or more sites for a nuclear power plant. An ESP is remains in effect for 10 to 20 years and can be renewed for an additional 10 to 20 years.

Combined License Application. Under current licensing regulations, NRC may issue a combined license (COL) for construction and operation. In the past, separate construction permits and operating licenses were issued. When the applicant uses an NRC-certified design, safety issues related to the design have already been resolved, and the focus of the licensing review is the quality of reactor construction. A COL is valid for 40 years and may be extended for an additional 20 years.

Stabilization of the licensing process should shorten construction lead-times and improve the economics of new nuclear power plant licensing and construction.

A comprehensive organizational chart of the U.S. nuclear power industry will be provided in a future U.S. Country Nuclear Power Profile. In the meantime, Figure 1 depicts the structure of the U.S. Federal Government and its relationship to some of the agencies involved in the nuclear energy sector, including NRC. A brief description of the responsibilities of NRC is provided below, and a high-level organizational chart for NRC is provided in Figure 2.

FIGURE 1. POLITICAL SYSTEM OF THE UNITED STATES

Source: Based on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Political_System_of_the_United_States.svg

FIGURE 2. ORGANIZATIONAL CHART OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (SELECT OFFICES ONLY)

Source: Based on http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/organization/nrcorg.pdf

NRC formulates policies, develops regulations governing nuclear reactor and nuclear materials safety, issues orders to licensees, and adjudicates legal matters. NRC is headed by five Commissioners, who are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate for five-year terms. One Commissioner is designated by the President to be the Chairman of NRC. The Chairman is the principal executive officer of and the official spokesman for NRC. The Chairman is responsible for conducting the administrative, organizational, long-range planning, budgetary, and certain personnel functions of the agency. The Chairman has ultimate authority for all NRC functions pertaining to an emergency involving an NRC license. The Executive Director for Operations is the chief operating officer of NRC and is responsible for discharging the operational and administrative functions necessary for the day-to-day operations of NRC, including supervising and coordinating policy development, NRC operational activities, and implementation of NRC policy directives.

The Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS), under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, reviews and advises NRC on matters related to the licensing and operation of production and utilization facilities and related safety issues, the adequacy of proposed reactor safety standards, technical and policy issues related to the licensing of evolutionary and passive plant designs, and other matters referred to it by NRC. ACRS may elect to perform independent reviews of specific safety-related issues.

The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel (ASLBP) conducts all licensing and other hearings as directed by NRC, primarily through individual licensing boards or single presiding officers appointed by either NRC or the ASLBP Chief Administrative Judge. ASLBP has no fixed number of positions and is composed of administrative judges (full-time and part-time) who are lawyers, engineers, and scientists. Administrative judges serve as single presiding officers or on three-member boards, which generally are chaired by an attorney, for a broad range of proceedings. ASLBP judges are employees of NRC and their decisions are subject to NRC oversight; however, the Administrative Procedure Act, as well as longstanding agency policy, grants ASLBP independence from NRC.

The nuclear power industry in the United States is the largest in the world, with 100 operating commercial nuclear reactors. Many services and supplies to the U.S. nuclear power industry are imported. As of 31 December 2013, installed nuclear capacity in the United States totaled 99.1 GWe (net). Data are preliminary and include both electric power sector and commercial and industrial end-users of electricity. The nuclear share of total capacity in the United States was 9% in 2013 as shown in Figure 3.

Nuclear Power Generation

In 2013, total electricity generation in the United States was 4,058 net terawatt hours (TWh), with nuclear power plants generating 789 net TWh, according to preliminary EIA data. Data include both electric power sector and commercial and industrial end-users of electricity. Nuclear generation comprised approximately 20% of total generation in the United States as shown in Figure 4. The nuclear share of total generation has remained relatively constant over the years despite a decrease in the total number of reactors; this is largely the result of performance improvements.

Status of the Nuclear Power Program

Nearly 56 years of operational experience and steadily improving licensee performance have changed the way that the United States regulates nuclear power to a more risk-informed and performance-based approach. To encourage a sustained high level of safety performance at U.S. nuclear plants, important oversight processes have incorporated risk insights from quantitative risk analysis. Efforts continue to revise regulations to focus requirements on plant programs and activities that reflect the most significant risks. Figure 5 shows the location of nuclear power plants in the United States and the nuclear capacity in each State. Table 7 summarizes the status and performance of operating nuclear power plants in the United States. The following sections describe progress made during 2013 in the U.S. nuclear power program.

FIGURE 3. ELECTRIC GENERATING CAPACITY BY FUEL

Note 1: Data are preliminary and include both electric power sector and commercial and industrial end-users of electricity.

Note 2: Totals may not equal sum of components because of independent rounding.

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Form EIA-860, “Annual Electric Generator Report.”

FIGURE 4. ELECTRICITY GENERATION BY FUEL

Note 1: Data are preliminary and include both electric power sector and commercial and industrial end-users of electricity.

Note 2: Totals may not equal sum of components because of independent rounding.

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Form EIA-923, “Power Plant Operations Report.”

FIGURE 5. LOCATION OF OPERATING NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS

Note: Data are preliminary.Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Form EIA-860, “Annual Electric Generator Report.”



TABLE 7. STATUS AND PERFORMANCE OF OPERATING NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS

Reactor Unit	Type	Net Capacity [MW(e)]	Status	Operator	Reactor Supplier	Construction Date	First Criticality Date	First Grid Date	Commercial Date	Shutdown Date	UCF for 2013
ANO-1	PWR	836	Operational	ENTERGY	B&W	1968-10-01	1974-08-06	1974-08-17	1974-12-19		61.8
ANO-2	PWR	993	Operational	ENTERGY	CE	1968-12-06	1978-12-05	1978-12-26	1980-03-26		86.0
BEAVER VALLEY-1	PWR	921	Operational	FENOC	WH	1970-06-26	1976-05-10	1976-06-14	1976-10-01		89.4
BEAVER VALLEY-2	PWR	885	Operational	FENOC	WH	1974-05-03	1987-08-04	1987-08-17	1987-11-17		96.6
BRAIDWOOD-1	PWR	1178	Operational	EXELON	WH	1975-08-01	1987-05-29	1987-07-12	1988-07-29		94.0
BRAIDWOOD-2	PWR	1152	Operational	EXELON	WH	1975-08-01	1988-03-08	1988-05-25	1988-10-17		97.9
BROWNS FERRY-1	BWR	1101	Operational	TVA	GE	1967-05-01	1973-08-17	1973-10-15	1974-08-01		97.2
BROWNS FERRY-2	BWR	1104	Operational	TVA	GE	1967-05-01	1974-07-20	1974-08-28	1975-03-01		85.9
BROWNS FERRY-3	BWR	1105	Operational	TVA	GE	1968-07-01	1976-08-08	1976-09-12	1977-03-01		96.4
BRUNSWICK-1	BWR	938	Operational	PROGRESS	GE	1970-02-07	1976-10-08	1976-12-04	1977-03-18		96.8
BRUNSWICK-2	BWR	920	Operational	PROGRESS	GE	1970-02-07	1975-03-20	1975-04-29	1975-11-03		80.6
BYRON-1	PWR	1164	Operational	EXELON	WH	1975-04-01	1985-02-02	1985-03-01	1985-09-16		100.0
BYRON-2	PWR	1136	Operational	EXELON	WH	1975-04-01	1987-01-09	1987-02-06	1987-08-02		93.1
CALLAWAY-1	PWR	1215	Operational	AmerenUE	WH	1975-09-01	1984-10-02	1984-10-24	1984-12-19		80.0
CALVERT CLIFFS-1	PWR	866	Operational	EXELON	CE	1968-06-01	1974-10-07	1975-01-03	1975-05-08		100.0
CALVERT CLIFFS-2	PWR	850	Operational	EXELON	CE	1968-06-01	1976-11-30	1976-12-07	1977-04-01		87.4
CATAWBA-1	PWR	1146	Operational	DUKEENER	WH	1974-05-01	1985-01-07	1985-01-22	1985-06-29		100.0
CATAWBA-2	PWR	1146	Operational	DUKEENER	WH	1974-05-01	1986-05-08	1986-05-18	1986-08-19		90.7
CLINTON-1	BWR	1065	Operational	EXELON	GE	1975-10-01	1987-02-27	1987-04-24	1987-11-24		89.7
COLUMBIA	BWR	1107	Operational	ENERGYNW	GE	1972-08-01	1984-01-19	1984-05-27	1984-12-13		87.7
COMANCHE PEAK-1	PWR	1209	Operational	LUMINANT	WH	1974-12-19	1990-04-03	1990-04-24	1990-08-13		93.7
COMANCHE PEAK-2	PWR	1197	Operational	LUMINANT	WH	1974-12-19	1993-03-24	1993-04-09	1993-08-03		99.6
COOK-1	PWR	1030	Operational	AEP	WH	1969-03-25	1975-01-18	1975-02-10	1975-08-28		85.3
COOK-2	PWR	1077	Operational	AEP	WH	1969-03-25	1978-03-10	1978-03-22	1978-07-01		88.0
COOPER	BWR	768	Operational	ENTERGY	GE	1968-06-01	1974-02-21	1974-05-10	1974-07-01		100.0
DAVIS BESSE-1	PWR	894	Operational	FENOC	B&W	1970-09-01	1977-08-12	1977-08-28	1978-07-31		96.5
DIABLO CANYON-1	PWR	1122	Operational	PG&E	WH	1968-04-23	1984-04-29	1984-11-11	1985-05-07		98.2
DIABLO CANYON-2	PWR	1118	Operational	PG&E	WH	1970-12-09	1985-08-19	1985-10-20	1986-03-13		85.6
DRESDEN-2	BWR	883	Operational	EXELON	GE	1966-01-10	1970-01-07	1970-04-13	1970-06-09		94.4
DRESDEN-3	BWR	867	Operational	EXELON	GE	1966-10-14	1971-01-12	1971-07-22	1971-11-16		98.1
DUANE ARNOLD-1	BWR	601	Operational	NEXTERA	GE	1970-06-22	1974-03-23	1974-05-19	1975-02-01		100.0
FARLEY-1	PWR	874	Operational	SOUTHERN	WH	1970-10-01	1977-08-09	1977-08-18	1977-12-01		91.7
FARLEY-2	PWR	883	Operational	SOUTHERN	WH	1970-10-01	1981-05-05	1981-05-25	1981-07-30		92.9
FERMI-2	BWR	1037	Operational	DTEDISON	GE	1972-09-26	1985-06-21	1986-09-21	1988-01-23		92.0
FITZPATRICK	BWR	813	Operational	ENTERGY	GE	1968-09-01	1974-11-17	1975-02-01	1975-07-28		97.7
FORT CALHOUN-1	PWR	482	Operational	OPPD	CE	1968-06-07	1973-08-06	1973-08-25	1973-09-26		2.8
GINNA	PWR	580	Operational	EXELON	WH	1966-04-25	1969-11-08	1969-12-02	1970-07-01		98.9
GRAND GULF-1	BWR	1419	Operational	ENTERGY	GE	1974-05-04	1982-08-18	1984-10-20	1985-07-01		91.2
HARRIS-1	PWR	928	Operational	PROGRESS	WH	1978-01-28	1987-01-03	1987-01-19	1987-05-02		84.4
HATCH-1	BWR	876	Operational	SOUTHERN	GE	1968-09-30	1974-09-12	1974-11-11	1975-12-31		94.2
HATCH-2	BWR	883	Operational	SOUTHERN	GE	1972-02-01	1978-07-04	1978-09-22	1979-09-05		88.2
HOPE CREEK-1	BWR	1172	Operational	PSEG	GE	1976-03-01	1986-06-28	1986-08-01	1986-12-20		88.5
INDIAN POINT-2	PWR	1020	Operational	ENTERGY	WH	1966-10-14	1973-05-22	1973-06-26	1974-08-01		99.0
INDIAN POINT-3	PWR	1040	Operational	ENTERGY	WH	1968-11-01	1976-04-06	1976-04-27	1976-08-30		91.6
LASALLE-1	BWR	1137	Operational	EXELON	GE	1973-09-10	1982-06-21	1982-09-04	1984-01-01		100.0
LASALLE-2	BWR	1140	Operational	EXELON	GE	1973-09-10	1984-03-10	1984-04-20	1984-10-19		92.9
LIMERICK-1	BWR	1130	Operational	EXELON	GE	1974-06-19	1984-12-22	1985-04-13	1986-02-01		100.0
LIMERICK-2	BWR	1134	Operational	EXELON	GE	1974-06-19	1989-08-12	1989-09-01	1990-01-08		93.0
MCGUIRE-1	PWR	1158	Operational	DUKEENER	WH	1971-04-01	1981-08-08	1981-09-12	1981-12-01		88.7
MCGUIRE-2	PWR	1158	Operational	DUKEENER	WH	1971-04-01	1983-05-08	1983-05-23	1984-03-01		100.0
MILLSTONE-2	PWR	869	Operational	DOMINION	CE	1969-11-01	1975-10-17	1975-11-09	1975-12-26		99.4
MILLSTONE-3	PWR	1218	Operational	DOMINION	WH	1974-08-09	1986-01-23	1986-02-12	1986-04-23		89.0
MONTICELLO	BWR	578	Operational	NSP	GE	1967-06-19	1970-12-10	1971-03-05	1971-06-30		61.9
NINE MILE POINT-1	BWR	621	Operational	EXELON	GE	1965-04-12	1969-09-05	1969-11-09	1969-12-01		90.6
NINE MILE POINT-2	BWR	1276	Operational	EXELON	GE	1975-08-01	1987-05-23	1987-08-08	1988-03-11		98.4
NORTH ANNA-1	PWR	943	Operational	DOMINION	WH	1971-02-19	1978-04-05	1978-04-17	1978-06-06		90.4
NORTH ANNA-2	PWR	943	Operational	DOMINION	WH	1971-02-19	1980-06-12	1980-08-25	1980-12-14		87.2
OCONEE-1	PWR	846	Operational	DUKEENER	B&W	1967-11-06	1973-04-19	1973-05-06	1973-07-15		94.3
OCONEE-2	PWR	846	Operational	DUKEENER	B&W	1967-11-06	1973-11-11	1973-12-05	1974-09-09		85.1
OCONEE-3	PWR	846	Operational	DUKEENER	B&W	1967-11-06	1974-09-05	1974-09-18	1974-12-16		99.3
OYSTER CREEK	BWR	619	Operational	EXELON	GE	1964-12-15	1969-05-03	1969-09-23	1969-12-01		95.0
PALISADES	PWR	793	Operational	ENTERGY	CE	1967-03-14	1971-05-24	1971-12-31	1971-12-31		86.4
PALO VERDE-1	PWR	1311	Operational	APS	CE	1976-05-25	1985-05-25	1985-06-10	1986-01-28		91.8
PALO VERDE-2	PWR	1314	Operational	APS	CE	1976-06-01	1986-04-18	1986-05-20	1986-09-19		96.9
PALO VERDE-3	PWR	1312	Operational	APS	CE	1976-06-01	1987-10-25	1987-11-28	1988-01-08		85.7
PEACH BOTTOM-2	BWR	1125	Operational	EXELON	GE	1968-01-31	1973-09-16	1974-02-18	1974-07-05		100.0
PEACH BOTTOM-3	BWR	1138	Operational	EXELON	GE	1968-01-31	1974-08-07	1974-09-01	1974-12-23		87.4
PERRY-1	BWR	1256	Operational	FENOC	GE	1974-10-01	1986-06-06	1986-12-19	1987-11-18		79.9
PILGRIM-1	BWR	677	Operational	ENTERGY	GE	1968-08-26	1972-06-16	1972-07-19	1972-12-01		81.2
POINT BEACH-1	PWR	591	Operational	NEXTERA	WH	1967-07-19	1970-11-02	1970-11-06	1970-12-21		91.1
POINT BEACH-2	PWR	591	Operational	NEXTERA	WH	1968-07-25	1972-05-30	1972-08-02	1972-10-01		100.0
PRAIRIE ISLAND-1	PWR	522	Operational	NSP	WH	1968-06-25	1973-12-01	1973-12-04	1973-12-16		99.7
PRAIRIE ISLAND-2	PWR	518	Operational	NSP	WH	1969-06-25	1974-12-17	1974-12-21	1974-12-21		72.1
QUAD CITIES-1	BWR	908	Operational	EXELON	GE	1967-02-15	1971-10-18	1972-04-12	1973-02-18		92.2
QUAD CITIES-2	BWR	911	Operational	EXELON	GE	1967-02-15	1972-04-26	1972-05-23	1973-03-10		99.6
RIVER BEND-1	BWR	967	Operational	ENTERGY	GE	1977-03-25	1985-10-31	1985-12-03	1986-06-16		90.2
ROBINSON-2	PWR	741	Operational	PROGRESS	WH	1967-04-13	1970-09-20	1970-09-26	1971-03-07		85.0
SALEM-1	PWR	1168	Operational	PSEG	WH	1968-09-25	1976-12-11	1976-12-25	1977-06-30		87.8
SALEM-2	PWR	1158	Operational	PSEG	WH	1968-09-25	1980-08-08	1981-06-03	1981-10-13		100.0
SEABROOK-1	PWR	1246	Operational	NEXTERA	WH	1976-07-07	1989-06-13	1990-05-29	1990-08-19		100.0
SEQUOYAH-1	PWR	1152	Operational	TVA	WH	1970-05-27	1980-07-05	1980-07-22	1981-07-01		89.4
SEQUOYAH-2	PWR	1125	Operational	TVA	WH	1970-05-27	1981-11-05	1981-12-23	1982-06-01		97.2
SOUTH TEXAS-1	PWR	1280	Operational	STP	WH	1975-12-22	1988-03-08	1988-03-30	1988-08-25		94.1
SOUTH TEXAS-2	PWR	1280	Operational	STP	WH	1975-12-22	1989-03-12	1989-04-11	1989-06-19		60.9
ST. LUCIE-1	PWR	982	Operational	FPL	CE	1970-07-01	1976-04-22	1976-05-07	1976-12-21		81.1
ST. LUCIE-2	PWR	987	Operational	FPL	CE	1977-06-02	1983-06-02	1983-06-13	1983-08-08		99.1
SUMMER-1	PWR	971	Operational	SCE&G	WH	1973-03-21	1982-10-22	1982-11-16	1984-01-01		97.0
SURRY-1	PWR	838	Operational	DOMINION	WH	1968-06-25	1972-07-01	1972-07-04	1972-12-22		91.1
SURRY-2	PWR	838	Operational	DOMINION	WH	1968-06-25	1973-03-07	1973-03-10	1973-05-01		100.0
SUSQUEHANNA-1	BWR	1257	Operational	PPL_SUSQ	GE	1973-11-02	1982-09-10	1982-11-16	1983-06-08		89.7
SUSQUEHANNA-2	BWR	1257	Operational	PPL_SUSQ	GE	1973-11-02	1984-05-08	1984-07-03	1985-02-12		82.8
THREE MILE ISLAND-1	PWR	819	Operational	EXELON	B&W	1968-05-18	1974-06-05	1974-06-19	1974-09-02		92.1
TURKEY POINT-3	PWR	802	Operational	FPL	WH	1967-04-27	1972-10-20	1972-11-02	1972-12-14		90.7
TURKEY POINT-4	PWR	802	Operational	FPL	WH	1967-04-27	1973-06-11	1973-06-21	1973-09-07		73.4
VERMONT YANKEE	BWR	605	Operational	ENTERGY	GE	1967-12-11	1972-03-24	1972-09-20	1972-11-30		92.7
VOGTLE-1	PWR	1150	Operational	SOUTHERN	WH	1976-08-01	1987-03-09	1987-03-27	1987-06-01		100.0
VOGTLE-2	PWR	1152	Operational	SOUTHERN	WH	1976-08-01	1989-03-28	1989-04-10	1989-05-20		88.5
WATERFORD-3	PWR	1168	Operational	ENTERGY	CE	1974-11-14	1985-03-04	1985-03-18	1985-09-24		93.3
WATTS BAR-1	PWR	1123	Operational	TVA	WH	1973-01-23	1996-01-01	1996-02-06	1996-05-27		100.0
WOLF CREEK	PWR	1195	Operational	WCNOC	WH	1977-05-31	1985-05-22	1985-06-12	1985-09-03		70.9
SUMMER-2	PWR	1117	Under Construction	SCE&G	WH	2013-03-09
SUMMER-3	PWR	1117	Under Construction	SCE&G	WH	2013-11-02
VOGTLE-3	PWR	1117	Under Construction	SOUTHERN	WH	2013-03-12
VOGTLE-4	PWR	1117	Under Construction	SOUTHERN	WH	2013-11-19
WATTS BAR-2	PWR	1165	Under Construction	TVA	WH	1972-12-01		2015-08-01
BIG ROCK POINT	BWR	67	Permanent Shutdown	CPC	GE	1960-05-01	1962-09-27	1962-12-08	1963-03-29	1997-08-29
BONUS	BWR	17	Permanent Shutdown	DOE/PRWR	GNEPRWRA	1960-01-01	1964-04-13	1964-08-14	1965-09-01	1968-06-01
CRYSTAL RIVER-3	PWR	860	Permanent Shutdown	PROGRESS	B&W	1968-09-25	1977-01-14	1977-01-30	1977-03-13	2013-02-05	0.0
CVTR	PHWR	17	Permanent Shutdown	CVPA	WH	1960-01-01	1963-03-01	1963-12-18		1967-01-10
DRESDEN-1	BWR	197	Permanent Shutdown	EXELON	GE	1956-05-01	1959-10-15	1960-04-15	1960-07-04	1978-10-31
ELK RIVER	BWR	22	Permanent Shutdown	RCPA	AC	1959-01-01	1962-11-01	1963-08-24	1964-07-01	1968-02-01
FERMI-1	FBR	61	Permanent Shutdown	DTEDISON	UEC	1956-12-01	1963-08-23	1966-08-05		1972-11-29
FORT ST. VRAIN	HTGR	330	Permanent Shutdown	PSCC	GA	1968-09-01	1974-01-31	1976-12-11	1979-07-01	1989-08-29
GE VALLECITOS	BWR	24	Permanent Shutdown	GE	GE	1956-01-01	1957-08-03	1957-10-19	1957-10-19	1963-12-09
HADDAM NECK	PWR	560	Permanent Shutdown	CYAPC	WH	1964-05-01	1967-07-24	1967-08-07	1968-01-01	1996-12-05
HALLAM	X	75	Permanent Shutdown	AEC/NPPD	GE	1959-01-01	1963-01-01	1963-09-01	1963-11-01	1964-09-01
HUMBOLDT BAY	BWR	63	Permanent Shutdown	PG&E	GE	1960-11-01	1963-02-16	1963-04-18	1963-08-01	1976-07-02
INDIAN POINT-1	PWR	257	Permanent Shutdown	ENTERGY	B&W	1956-05-01	1962-08-02	1962-09-16	1962-10-01	1974-10-31
KEWAUNEE	PWR	566	Permanent Shutdown	DOMINION	WH	1968-08-06	1974-03-07	1974-04-08	1974-06-16	2013-05-07	100.0
LACROSSE	BWR	48	Permanent Shutdown	DPC	AC	1963-03-01	1967-07-11	1968-04-26	1969-11-07	1987-04-30
MAINE YANKEE	PWR	860	Permanent Shutdown	MYAPC	CE	1968-10-01	1972-10-23	1972-11-08	1972-12-28	1997-08-01
MILLSTONE-1	BWR	641	Permanent Shutdown	DOMINION	GE	1966-05-01	1970-10-26	1970-11-29	1971-03-01	1998-07-01
PATHFINDER	BWR	59	Permanent Shutdown	NMC	AC	1959-01-01	1964-01-01	1966-07-25		1967-10-01
PEACH BOTTOM-1	HTGR	40	Permanent Shutdown	EXELON	GA	1962-02-01	1966-03-03	1967-01-27	1967-06-01	1974-11-01
PIQUA	X	12	Permanent Shutdown	CofPiqua	GE	1960-01-01	1961-01-01	1963-07-01	1963-11-01	1966-01-01
RANCHO SECO-1	PWR	873	Permanent Shutdown	SMUD	B&W	1969-04-01	1974-09-16	1974-10-13	1975-04-17	1989-06-07
SAN ONOFRE-1	PWR	436	Permanent Shutdown	SCE	WH	1964-05-01	1967-06-14	1967-07-16	1968-01-01	1992-11-30
SAN ONOFRE-2	PWR	1070	Permanent Shutdown	SCE	CE	1974-03-01	1982-07-26	1982-09-20	1983-08-08	2013-06-07	0.0
SAN ONOFRE-3	PWR	1080	Permanent Shutdown	SCE	CE	1974-03-01	1983-08-29	1983-09-25	1984-04-01	2013-06-07	0.0
SAXTON	PWR	3	Permanent Shutdown	SNEC	GE	1960-01-01	1967-01-01	1967-03-01	1967-03-01	1972-05-01
SHIPPINGPORT	PWR	60	Permanent Shutdown	DOE DUQU	WH	1954-01-01	1957-01-01	1957-12-02	1958-05-26	1982-10-01
SHOREHAM	BWR	820	Permanent Shutdown	LIPA	GE	1972-11-01	1985-02-01	1986-08-01		1989-05-01
THREE MILE ISLAND-2	PWR	880	Permanent Shutdown	GPU	B&W	1969-11-01	1978-03-27	1978-04-21	1978-12-30	1979-03-28
TROJAN	PWR	1095	Permanent Shutdown	PORTGE	WH	1970-02-01	1975-12-15	1975-12-23	1976-05-20	1992-11-09
YANKEE NPS	PWR	167	Permanent Shutdown	YAEC	WH	1957-11-01	1960-08-19	1960-11-10	1961-07-01	1991-10-01
ZION-1	PWR	1040	Permanent Shutdown	EXELON	WH	1968-12-01	1973-06-19	1973-06-28	1973-12-31	1998-02-13
ZION-2	PWR	1040	Permanent Shutdown	EXELON	WH	1968-12-01	1973-12-24	1973-12-26	1974-09-17	1998-02-13
BELLEFONTE-1	PWR	1235	Suspended Constr.	TVA	B&W	1974-09-01
BELLEFONTE-2	PWR	1235	Suspended Constr.	TVA	B&W	1974-09-01
BAILLY	BWR	660	Cancelled Constr.	NIPS	GE	1974-01-01				1981-08-01
BLACK FOX-1	BWR	1150	Cancelled Constr.	PSCO	GE	1978-07-01				1982-02-01
BLACK FOX-2	BWR	1150	Cancelled Constr.	PSCO	GE	1978-07-01				1982-02-01
CALLAWAY-2C	PWR	1120	Cancelled Constr.	UNION	WH	1975-10-01				1981-10-01
CHEROKEE-1	PWR	1280	Cancelled Constr.	DUKE	CE	1976-07-01				1983-04-01
CHEROKEE-2	PWR	1280	Cancelled Constr.	DUKE	CE	1976-07-01				1982-11-01
CHEROKEE-3	PWR	1280	Cancelled Constr.	DUKE	CE	1976-07-01				1982-11-01
CLINTON-2	BWR	933	Cancelled Constr.	IPC	GE	1975-10-01				1983-10-01
FORKED RIVER	PWR	1070	Cancelled Constr.	JCPL	CE	1973-08-01				1980-11-01
GRAND GULF-2	BWR	1250	Cancelled Constr.	MP&L	GE	1974-05-01				1990-12-01
HARRIS-2C	PWR	900	Cancelled Constr.	CPL	WH	1978-01-01				1983-12-01
HARRIS-3C	PWR	900	Cancelled Constr.	CPL	WH	1978-01-01				1981-12-01
HARRIS-4C	PWR	900	Cancelled Constr.	CPL	WH	1978-01-01				1981-12-01
HARTSVILLE A-1	BWR	1233	Cancelled Constr.	TVA	GE	1976-04-01				1984-08-01
HARTSVILLE A-2	BWR	1233	Cancelled Constr.	TVA	GE	1976-04-01				1984-08-01
HARTSVILLE B-1	BWR	1233	Cancelled Constr.	TVA	GE	1976-04-01				1982-08-01
HARTSVILLE B-2	BWR	1233	Cancelled Constr.	TVA	GE	1976-04-01				1982-08-01
HOPE CREEK-2	BWR	1067	Cancelled Constr.	PSEG	GE	1976-03-01				1981-12-01
MARBLE HILL-1	PWR	1030	Cancelled Constr.	PSI	WH	1977-07-01				1984-01-01
MARBLE HILL-2	PWR	1130	Cancelled Constr.	PSI	WH	1977-07-01				1984-01-01
MIDLAND-1	PWR	491	Cancelled Constr.	CPC	B&W	1973-03-01				1986-07-01
MIDLAND-2	PWR	816	Cancelled Constr.	CPC	B&W	1973-03-01				1986-07-01
NORTH ANNA-3C	PWR	907	Cancelled Constr.	VEPCO	B&W	1971-06-01				1982-11-01
NORTH ANNA-4C	PWR	907	Cancelled Constr.	VEPCO	B&W	1971-12-01				1980-11-01
PERRY-2	BWR	1205	Cancelled Constr.	CEI	GE	1974-10-01				1984-04-01
PHIPPS BEND-1	BWR	1233	Cancelled Constr.	TVA	GE	1977-10-01				1982-08-01
PHIPPS BEND-2	BWR	1233	Cancelled Constr.	TVA	GE	1977-10-01				1982-08-01
RIVER BEND-2	BWR	934	Cancelled Constr.	GSU	GE	1975-08-01				1984-01-01
SEABROOK-2	PWR	1149	Cancelled Constr.	FPL	WH	1976-07-01				1988-01-01
SURRY-3	PWR	859	Cancelled Constr.	VEPCO	WH	1974-01-01				1977-03-01
SURRY-4	PWR	859	Cancelled Constr.	VEPCO	WH	1974-01-01				1977-03-01
WNP-1	PWR	1259	Cancelled Constr.	WPPSS	B&W	1975-08-01				1983-01-01
WNP-3	PWR	1240	Cancelled Constr.	WPPSS	CE	1977-04-01				1983-01-01
WNP-4	PWR	1250	Cancelled Constr.	WPPSS	B&W	1975-08-01				1982-01-01
WNP-5	PWR	1240	Cancelled Constr.	WPPSS	CE	1977-04-01				1982-01-01
YELLOW CREEK-1	PWR	1285	Cancelled Constr.	TVA	CE	1978-02-01				1984-08-01
YELLOW CREEK-2	PWR	1285	Cancelled Constr.	TVA	CE	1978-02-01				1984-08-01
ZIMMER-1	BWR	810	Cancelled Constr.	CG&E	GE	1972-10-01				1984-01-01

Data source: IAEA - Power Reactor Information System



Early Site Permit (ESP): As of 31 December 2013, NRC had issued ESPs for four sites. NRC did not issue any new ESPs in 2013 or receive any new applications. During 2013, one ESP application was under review.

New Reactor Design Certification: As of 31 December 2013, NRC has issued design certifications for four designs, including the Westinghouse AP1000 and the General Electric Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR). In addition to several amendments to previously-certified designs, NRC is currently reviewing the applications for three additional design certifications, including the U.S. Advanced Pressurized Water Reactor (US-APWR), the U.S. Evolutionary Power Reactor (U.S. EPR,) and the Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor (ESBWR).

Combined Operating License (COL): A total of eighteen COL applications were filed between 2007 and 2009; no applications for COLs have been filed since 2009. As of 31 December 2013: one COL was withdrawn (Victoria County Station, Units 1 and 2), six COLs were suspended, nine COLs were under active review, and two COLs were issued. Table 8 provides the status of COL applications for planned reactors as well as a list of reactors that have received a COL. On 9 February 2012, NRC voted to approve Southern Nuclear Operating Company’s COL to build two new Westinghouse AP1000 reactors, Vogtle Units 3 and 4, near Augusta, Georgia. On 30 March 2012, NRC voted to approve South Carolina Electric & Gas Company’s COL to build two new Westinghouse AP1000 reactors, Virgil C. Summer Units 2 and 3, near Columbia, South Carolina. The Vogtle and Virgil C. Summer units are the first to be constructed in the United States in over 30 years. As of 31 December 2013, all four units are under construction. Figure 6 shows the location and data for reactors currently under construction in the United States. Although under review, NRC may not approve further COLs pending the resolution of the Waste Confidence issue in October 2014; the Waste Confidence issue is described in more detail later in this section.

Resumed Construction: In 1988, TVA halted construction on Watts Bar Unit 2 in Tennessee and Bellefonte Units 1and 2 in Alabama; the Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR) units were approximately 80% and 55% complete, respectively. Construction resumed on Watts Bar Unit 2 in 2007, and the 1,218 MWe reactor is expected to be operational in late 2015. In August 2011, TVA decided to complete construction of Bellefonte Units 1 and 2; however, construction at Bellefonte Units 1 and 2 has been deferred until the conclusion of work at Watts Bar Unit 2.

License Renewal: NRC has the authority to issue initial operating licenses for commercial nuclear power plants for a period of 40 years. The decision to apply for an operating license renewal is made by nuclear power plant owners, and it is typically based on economics and the ability to meet NRC requirements. Operating licenses are renewed by NRC for a period of 20 years. NRC regulations do not limit the number of license renewals a nuclear power plant may be granted. The nuclear power industry is preparing applications for license renewals that would allow continued operation beyond 60 years, i.e., second or subsequent license renewals; however, applications for second or subsequent license renewals are not expected in the near future. As of 31 December 2013, NRC has granted license renewals to 72 of the 100 operating reactors in the United States. NRC is currently reviewing license renewal applications for 18 reactors to operate for 60 years and expects to receive applications from 9 more reactors between 2014 and 2018. Although under review, NRC may not approve further license renewals prior to the expected resolution of the Waste Confidence issue in October 2014. As a result, no new license renewals were issued by NRC in 2013. The Waste Confidence issue is described in more detail below.

TABLE 8. PLANNED & UNDER CONSTRUCTION NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS

Station/Project Name	Type1	Units	Capacity MWe	Application Submitted	Application Status	COL Issued	Expected Commercial Year
Bell Bend	US-EPR	1	1,600	10/10/2008	Under Review
Bellefonte, Units 1 & 2 (2)	AP 1000	2	2,520	5/14/1973	Deferred
Bellefonte, Units 3 & 4	AP 1000	2	2,234	10/30/2007	Review Suspended
Callaway, Unit 2	US-EPR	1	1,600	7/24/2008	Review Suspended
Calvert Cliffs, Unit 3	US-EPR	1	1,600	7/13/2007	Under Review
Comanche Peak, Units 3 & 4	US-APWR	2	3,400	9/19/2008	Under Review
Fermi, Unit 3	ESBWR	1	1,520	9/13/2008	Under Review
Grand Gulf, Unit 3	ESBWR	1	1,520	2/27/2008	Review Suspended
Levy County, Units 1 & 2	AP 1000	2	2,234	7/30/2008	Under Review
Nine Mile Point, Unit 3	US-EPR	1	1,600	9/30/2008	Review Suspended
North Anna, Unit 3	US-APWR	1	1,500	11/27/2007	Under Review
River Bend Station, Unit 3	ESBWR	1	1,520	9/25/2008	Review Suspended
Shearon Harris, Units 2 & 3	AP 1000	2	2,234	2/18/2008	Review Suspended
South Texas Project, Units 3 & 4	ABWR	2	2,700	9/20/2007	Under Review
Turkey Point, Units 6 & 7	AP 1000	2	2,234	6/30/2009	Under Review
Virgil C. Summer, Units 2 & 3	AP 1000	2	2,200	3/27/2008	Under Construction	2012	2017, 2018
Vogtle, Units 3 & 4	AP 1000	2	2,200	3/28/2008	Under Construction	2012	2016, 2017
Watts Bar, Unit 2 (2)	PWR	1	1,218	N/A	Under Construction		2015
William States Lee III, Units 1 & 2	AP 1000	2	2,234	12/12/2007	Under Review

(1) ABWR, Advanced Boiling Water Reactor; AP 1000, Advanced Passive 1000 reactor; EPR, Evolutionary Power Reactor; ESBWR, is interpreted as Economic Simplified Boiling Reactor for the United States version, and the US-APWR, U.S. Advanced Pressurized Water Reactor.

(2) License was issued under 10 CFR Part 50, which is a two-step process involving the issuance of a construction permit and then an operating license.

Source: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.



FIGURE 6. NEW AND RESUMED NUCLEAR POWER PLANT CONSTRUCTION

Waste Confidence Rule: In order for NRC to continue to issue new COLs and renew existing operating licenses, the Waste Confidence issue must be resolved. In October 1979, NRC initiated a rulemaking process known as the Waste Confidence Rule. Prior to its original rulemaking, NRC, as a matter of policy, stated that it “would not continue to license reactors if it did not have reasonable confidence that the wastes can and will in due course be disposed of safely.” On 31 August 1984, NRC issued the Waste Confidence Rule. Waste confidence is defined by NRC as a finding that used nuclear fuel can be safely stored at reactor sites for decades beyond the licensed operating life of a reactor without significant environmental effects. It enables NRC to license reactors or renew their licenses without examining the effects of extended waste storage for each individual site pending ultimate disposal.

In December 2010, with the termination of the repository program at Yucca Mountain, the Waste Confidence Rule was amended to state that used nuclear fuel could be stored safely at reactor sites for 60 years following reactor shutdown. In June 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit struck down NRC’s 2010 amendment of the Waste Confidence Rule and stated that NRC should have analyzed the environmental consequences of never building a permanent waste repository and that the discussion of potential spent fuel pool leaks or fires was inadequate.

NRC issued an order in August 2012 that suspended actions related to issuing operating licenses and license renewals. NRC is currently analyzing the potential impacts on licensing reviews and developing a proposed path forward to meet the Court’s requirements. Until NRC revises the Waste Confidence Rule, reactor operating licenses and operating license renewals will not be issued by NRC. Licensing reviews and proceedings will continue; however, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) hearings are suspended pending further NRC guidance. ASLB is the independent, trial-level adjudicatory body of NRC, and it conducts public hearings on contested issues related to, among other things, nuclear reactor licensing, thereby affording the public an opportunity to challenge proposed licensing. NRC expects to issue a revised Waste Confidence Rule in October 2014.

Power Uprates: Power uprates are implemented to increase reactor capacity by increasing the maximum power level at which a nuclear reactor may operate. During 2013, NRC approved power uprates for McGuire 1 and 2 (North Carolina) and Monticello (Minnesota). During the first two months of 2014, NRC approved power uprates for Braidwood 1 and 2 (Illinois), Byron 1 and 2 (Illinois) and Fermi 2 (Ohio). As of March 2014, NRC had approved 154 power uprates, which could add about 7,035 MWe to the U.S. nuclear generating capacity, once implemented. Not all approved uprates have been implemented at U.S. reactors. Uprates are under review and pending approval for 8 reactors, totaling nearly 827 MWe. In addition to those already under review, NRC expects to receive an additional 3 requests for power uprates between 2014 and 2017, totaling nearly 58 MWe. Approval of uprates by NRC is not affected by the pending resolution of the Waste Confidence issue. Figure 7 shows both annual and cumulative uprate capacity approved by NRC from 1977 through 2013.

FIGURE 7. APPROVED NUCLEAR UPRATES 1977 TO 2013

Note: Data for 2013 are preliminary.Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, based on data from U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Retirements: In 2013, Crystal River 3 (Florida), San Onofre 2 and 3 (California) and Kewaunee (Wisconsin) were retired; the total retired capacity was nearly 3.7 GWe. Announced early retirements include the 620 MWe Vermont Yankee plant (Vermont) at the end of 2014 and the 614 MWe Oyster Creek plant (New Jersey) in 2019. Both Oyster Creek and Vermont Yankee were issued license renewals that would have permitted continued operation until 2029 and 2032, respectively. Table 9 provides a list of reactors that are permanently shut down.



TABLE 9. STATUS OF SHUTDOWN NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS

Reactor Name	Type	Net Summer Capacity (MWe)	Operator	License Terminated	License Status1, 2, 3	Reactor Supplier	Construction Date	Grid Date	Shutdown Date
Big Rock Point	BWR	67	Consumers Power Co.	Yes	ISFSI Only	General Electric	5/1/1960	12/8/1962	8/29/1997
Crystal River-3	PWR	860	Progress Energy		SAFSTOR	Babcock&Wilcox	6/1/1967	1/30/1977	2/20/2013
Dresden-1	BWR	197	Exelon		SAFSTOR	General Electric	5/1/1956	4/15/1960	10/31/1978
Enrico Fermi-1	FBR	65	Detroit Edison Co.		SAFSTOR	UEC	8/1/1956	8/5/1966	11/29/1972
Fort St. Vrain	HTGR	330	Public Service Co. of Colorado	Yes	ISFSI Only	General Atomics	9/1/1968	12/11/1976	8/29/1989
Haddam Neck	PWR	560	Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co.	Yes	ISFSI Only	Westinghouse	5/1/1964	8/7/1967	12/5/1996
Humboldt Bay	BWR	63	Pacific Gas & Electric Co.		DECON	General Electric	11/1/1960	4/18/1963	7/2/1976
Indian Point-1	PWR	257	Entergy Nuclear South		SAFSTOR	Babcock&Wilcox	5/1/1956	9/16/1962	10/31/1974
Kewaunee	PWR	556	Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc.		SAFSTOR	Westinghouse	8/1/1968	4/8/1974	5/7/2013
Lacrosse	BWR	48	Dairyland Power Cooperative		DECON	Allis-Chalmers	3/1/1963	4/26/1968	4/30/1987
Maine Yankee	PWR	860	Maine Yankee Atomic Power Co.	Yes	ISFSI Only	Combustion Eng.	10/1/1968	11/8/1972	8/1/1997
Millstone-1	BWR	641	Dominion Generation		SAFSTOR	General Electric	5/1/1966	11/29/1970	7/1/1998
Peach Bottom-1	HTGR	40	Exelon		SAFSTOR	General Atomics	2/1/1962	1/27/1967	11/1/1974
Rancho Seco-1	PWR	873	Sacramento Municipal Utility District	Yes	ISFSI Only	Babcock&Wilcox	4/1/1969	10/13/1974	6/7/1989
San Onofre-1	PWR	436	Southern California Edison Co.		SAFSTOR	Westinghouse	5/1/1964	7/16/1967	11/30/1992
San Onofre-2	PWR	1,160	Southern California Edison Co.		SAFSTOR	Combustion Eng.	3/1/1974	9/20/1982	6/7/2013
San Onofre-3	PWR	1,080	Southern California Edison Co.		SAFSTOR	Combustion Eng.	3/1/1974	9/25/1983	6/7/2013
Shoreham	BWR	820	Long Island Power Authority	Yes	License Terminated	General Electric	11/1/1972	8/1/1986	5/1/1989
Three Mile Island-2 (4)	PWR	880	General Public Utilities		SAFSTOR 1	Babcock&Wilcox	11/1/1969	4/21/1978	3/28/1979
Trojan	PWR	1,095	Portland General Electric Co.	Yes	ISFSI Only	Westinghouse	2/1/1970	12/23/1975	11/9/1992
Yankee NPS	PWR	167	Yankee Atomic Electric Co.	Yes	ISFSI Only	Westinghouse	11/1/1957	11/10/1960	10/1/1991
Zion-1	PWR	1,040	Exelon		DECON	Westinghouse	12/1/1968	6/28/1973	1/1/1998
Zion-2	PWR	1,040	Exelon		DECON	Westinghouse	12/1/1968	12/26/1973	1/1/1998

(1) ISFSI stands for Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation. An ISFSI is a stand-alone used nuclear fuel storage facility. Once the reactor is permanently shut down, the operating license includes only the ISFSI.

(2) DECON stands for Decontamination, which occurs soon after the nuclear facility closes. Equipment, structures, and portions of the facility containing radioactive contaminants are removed or decontaminated to a level that permits release of the property and termination of the NRC license.

(3) SAFSTOR (often considered “delayed DECON"): A nuclear facility is maintained and monitored in a condition that allows the radioactivity to decay; afterwards, it is dismantled and the property decontaminated.

(4) According to NRC, Unit 2 has been placed in post-defueling monitored storage until Unit 1 ceases operation, at which time both units will be decommissioned. Unit 2 holds a possession only license.

(5) The nuclear power plants in Table 9 are commercial generators only; experimental and research reactors are not included.Source: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.



United States Response to the Accident at Fukushima Daiichi: Since the March 2011 accident at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the U.S. nuclear industry have been working to address issues related to the accident. NRC and the U.S. nuclear industry initiated an immediate coordinated response to the accident, as well as long-term actions intended to assure the safety of operating and planned reactors in the United States

NRC conducted a systematic and methodical review of its own processes and regulations in light of the accident at Fukushima. In July 2011, NRC’s Near-Term Task Force released its report, Recommendations for Enhancing Reactor Safety in the 21st Century. The report contains 12 recommendations, including both short- and long-term actions for consideration, and prioritizes the implementation of the recommendations. In order to address the short-term recommendations, NRC issued three orders in March 2012 that require nuclear power plants to implement measures related to lessons learned from the Fukushima accident, as follows:

All boiling-water reactors (BWRs) with Mark I and II containment systems must have reliable hardened containment venting capability to reduce pressure and hydrogen buildup. This may require improving or replacing existing containment ventilation systems.

• Reactors must have enhanced instrumentation installed to monitor water levels in their spent fuel pools in the event of an emergency.

• Nuclear power plants must be capable of responding to multiple simultaneous events and ensuring that reactors and spent fuel pools remain cooled. The order specifies a three-phase approach involving use of installed on-site resources, use of portable on-site equipment, and indefinite use of off-site resources.

NRC stated that, in all cases, the existing fleet of reactors can continue operating safely while implementing the orders. The orders were effective immediately and included timetables for responses and actions.

In the three orders listed above, NRC required an integrated plan to be submitted by February 2013, with initial status reports due in 60 days. NRC specified that operating reactors must complete modifications within two refueling cycles after submitting an integrated plan, or by the end of 2016, whichever comes first. Any reactor with a construction permit issued under 10 CFR Part 50 (e.g., Watts Bar Unit 2) was required to comply with the above orders prior to receiving an operating license. Any reactor issued a Combined Operating License (COL) under 10 CFR Part 52 (i.e., Vogtle Units 3 and 4 and Summer Units 2 and 3) was required to implement all requirements in the orders before the initial fuel loading. Compliance assessments are underway at nuclear power plants. The requirements of the orders remain in place until superseded by other orders or rulemaking. As discussed below, NRC is considering or has initiated rulemaking on several topics, and some of the dates established in the original orders have been modified.

In November 2012, as an addition to the original order issued to address more robust containment venting systems, NRC began considering whether to propose a rule that would require containment venting systems to filter all releases during an accident for boiling water reactors with Mark I and Mark II containments. If NRC decides to pursue such a rulemaking, a final rule could be issued in 2017.

Utilities continue to provide documentation to NRC on equipment procured to respond to a prolonged loss of power at a reactor (station blackout) as well as spent fuel pool water level monitoring instrumentation. In March 2013, NRC decided to proceed with a rulemaking to address station blackout mitigation. In its July 2013 regulatory basis document, NRC noted: “One dual-unit site estimated that the order may cost approximately USD25 million, while a second dual-unit site estimated the cost at USD43 million.” The final rule is scheduled for issuance by December 2016.

By June 2013, two detailed inspections (or “walkdowns”) had been completed at each reactor to evaluate potential seismic and flooding hazards. NRC is in the process of auditing the results of the walkdowns. All flooding re-evaluations are due to NRC by March 2015. NRC will review the analyses and issue a safety assessment for each site. For nuclear power plants requiring a seismic risk analysis, NRC performed a prioritization of plants in the Central and Eastern United States (CEUS) and the Western United States (WUS). Plants in more seismically active WUS and CEUS locations will complete risk evaluations by June 2017, and those in less active CEUS locations will complete risk evaluations by December 2019.

In November 2013, NRC announced proposed rulemaking language to “. . . strengthen and integrate onsite emergency response capabilities.” The final rule, which is likely to be issued in March 2016, is expected to address accident mitigation strategies; integration of accident mitigation procedures; identification of command and control roles during an accident; conduct of drills and exercises; training; and include severe accident situations in examinations for reactor operators. In its comments on NRC’s draft regulatory basis, the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) estimated a cost of USD17 million for the nuclear fleet, or USD275, 000 per unit, to develop and implement new training plans. NEI also estimated increased training costs of USD250, 000 per site per year and annual severe accident drill costs of USD250, 000 per site.

In addition to NRC actions described above, the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO), and NEI formed a Fukushima Response Steering Committee to integrate and coordinate the industry’s response to the accident. In February 2012, the Steering Committee jointly released a report, The Way Forward: U.S. Industry Leadership in Response to Events at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, which discusses activities to oversee and coordinate responses to emergencies. INPO prepared a detailed report on post-accident events at Fukushima Daiichi, and on 11 November 2011, the detailed report was provided to the U.S. Congress, NRC, and the U.S. nuclear industry.

The nuclear industry, through NEI, developed its FLEX strategy as a comprehensive, flexible, and integrated plan to mitigate the effects of severe natural phenomena and to take steps to achieve safety benefits quickly. The FLEX approach, implemented in 2012, was informed by the industry’s response to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in the United States. Two regional response centers will be located near Memphis, Tennessee, and Phoenix, Arizona. From those regional response centers, critical emergency equipment can be delivered to nuclear power plants within 24 hours. The regional response centers are planned to be fully operational by August 2014.

In addition to activities that focus on reactors and the utilities that operate them, NRC has spent more than two years evaluating how best to respond to the first of the 12 recommendations made in the July 2011 Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-Ichi Accident, which recommended establishment of a “logical, systematic, and coherent regulatory framework for adequate protection that appropriately balances defense-in-depth and risk considerations.” Defense-in-depth is a layered approach to safety that involves the use of multiple redundant and independent safety systems. NRC’s December 2013 evaluation of this recommendation was discussed publicly in January 2014 and included proposed actions on a policy statement that would detail, among other things, the decision criteria for ensuring adequate defense-in-depth. The proposed actions also identify the need to clarify the role of voluntary industry initiatives in the NRC regulatory process.

In a meeting with NRC in April 2013, Dominion Energy estimated that the cost of post- Fukushima actions could be USD30 to USD40 million per unit and USD180 to USD240 million for its fleet of six units. However, the ultimate cost to the nuclear industry of addressing Fukushima-related issues remains uncertain, as do the potential impacts on nuclear power plant operations.

Licensees in the United States have implemented power uprates as a means to increase the output of reactors. Power uprates are classified by NRC in three groups:

(1) Measurement uncertainty recapture uprates of less than 2% implement enhanced techniques for calculating reactor power;

(2) Stretch power uprates are typically less than 7% and do not usually involve major plant modification; and

(3) Extended power uprates require significant modification to major balance-of-plant equipment, might take place over several refueling outages, and can be as much as 20%.

More information about the uprate process in the United States may be found at NRC’s website.

In the United States, initial operating licenses are issued for a period of 40 years. Subsequent license renewals are generally issued in 20-year increments. Historically, demand for additional power in the United States, along with improved economic and safety performance, led most licensees to seek to extend their operating licenses for an additional 20 years beyond their initial 40-year limits. Crucial to the receipt of a license renewal is a demonstration that the nuclear power plant continues to meet safety standards set by NRC. In order to renew an operating license, technical information must be provided to NRC that addresses plant aging and discusses the management of aging effects for the proposed extended period of operation.

As part of the license renewal process:

• An Integrated Plant Assessment must be prepared and submitted to NRC; this Assessment identifies the structures, systems, and components that will need to be included in an aging management review.

• Time Limited Aging Analyses (TLAAs) are performed for a reactor. TLAAs are calculations or analyses that address the effects of aging, based on the original 40-year operating license.

• A supplement to the Final Safety Analysis Report for a reactor must be submitted to NRC; the programs and activities necessary to manage the effects of aging must be summarized, and the TLAAs must be evaluated for the extended period of operation.

• Technical specification changes or additions must be justified to NRC and included in the license renewal application to NRC.

• In addition to the public health and safety reviews conducted by NRC, the environmental impacts of extended operation must be considered.

NRC publishes the updated status of license renewal applications on its website. More information about the license renewal process in the United States may be found at NRC’s website.

The future of nuclear power will depend on several factors, including research and development to improve economics and safety, greater regulatory certainty, reduction of nuclear construction costs, development of favorable government policies, resolution of nuclear waste disposal issues, and the relative costs of other energy options.

The mission of the U.S. Department Energy’s (DOE) Office of Nuclear Energy is to advance nuclear power as a resource capable of meeting the nation's energy, environmental, and national security needs by resolving technical, cost, safety, proliferation resistance, and security barriers through research, development, and demonstration as appropriate. To achieve its mission, the Office of Nuclear Energy is pursuing four research objectives as detailed in its Nuclear Energy Research and Development Roadmap:

1. Develop technologies and other solutions that can improve the reliability, sustain the safety, and extend the life of current reactors.

   The Light Water Reactor Sustainability Program is developing the scientific basis to extend existing nuclear power plant operating life beyond the current 60-year licensing period (i.e., the initial 40-year license and a first license renewal for 20 years) and ensure the long-term reliability, productivity, safety, and security of operating plants.

2. Develop improvements in the affordability of new reactors to enable nuclear energy to help meet the Administration's energy security and climate change goals.

   The Office of Advanced Reactor Technologies sponsors research, development, and deployment activities through its Next Generation Nuclear Plant, Advanced Reactor Concepts, and Advanced Small Modular Reactor (SMR) programs to promote safety, technical, economical, and environmental advancements, and next generation nuclear energy technologies. In addition, the SMR Licensing Technical Support Program supports certification and licensing requirements for U.S.-based SMR projects through cooperative agreements with industry partners, and by supporting the resolution of generic SMR issues. SMRs are small enough to be fabricated in factories and can be shipped to sites via barge, rail, or truck. SMRs have a projected construction period of 3 years. These factors may reduce both capital costs and construction times, potentially reducing the financial risk associated with larger nuclear investments. In March 2012, DOE announced its intention to provide USD452 million in funding to assist in the initial development of SMR technology that has the potential to be licensed by NRC and to achieve commercial operation by 2025. In November 2012, DOE announced the selection of Babcock & Wilcox, in partnership with the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) and Bechtel International, to cost share the work to prepare a license application for up to four SMRs at TVA’s Clinch River site in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. In December 2013, DOE announced the selection of NuScale Power, LLC as the recipient of the second award; the project will be based in Oregon.

3. Develop sustainable nuclear fuel cycles.

   The Office of Fuel Cycle Technologies develops sustainable fuel cycle technologies and options to improve resource utilization and energy generation and to enhance safety and limit proliferation risk. It also develops used nuclear fuel (UNF) management strategies and technologies to support meeting the federal government’s responsibility to manage and dispose of the nation’s commercial UNF and high-level waste.

4. Understand and minimize the risks of nuclear proliferation and terrorism.

   All of Office of Nuclear Energy’s R&D programs are designed to develop more proliferation-resistant technologies, while the Nuclear Energy Enabling Technologies Program specifically aims to develop new tools and approaches for understanding, limiting, and managing the risks of proliferation and physical security for fuel cycle options through its Proliferation and Terrorism Risk Assessment program.

From a legislative perspective, the EPACT2005 included the renewal of the Price Anderson Act and incentives for building the first advanced nuclear power plants. Incentives included loan guarantees, production tax credits, and standby support insurance related to regulatory delays. The incentives are at various stages of development.

Nuclear Power Loan Guarantees – Congress granted DOE authority to issue USD20.5 billion in guaranteed loans. DOE issued solicitations for USD18.5 billion in loan guarantees for new nuclear power facilities and USD2 billion for the "front end" of the nuclear fuel cycle on June 30, 2008. DOE offered a USD2 billion loan to AREVA for an enrichment plant. In February 2014, DOE and Southern Nuclear Operating Company finalized the first federal loan guarantee for USD6.5 billion for the construction and operation of two AP1000 reactors at Vogtle.

Production Tax Credits – With regard to production tax credits (PTC), the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued Bulletin 2006-18 in May 2006. The first 6,000 MWe of deployed nuclear power capacity is eligible for a USD18/MWh production tax credit. To be eligible for the PTC, construction of a nuclear power plant must commence by 2014, and commercial operations must commence by 2021. The PTC is available during the first 8 years of reactor operation. The PTC will be applied on a pro rata basis to those reactors qualifying for the credit.

Standby Support (Risk Insurance) – The standby support incentive was formalized via a final rule in August 2006. No contract has been issued. DOE is authorized to issue insurance to six reactors to cover delays in operations attributed to NRC licensing reviews or litigation.

Research and development, current legislative incentives, and streamlining the licensing process (see Section 2.1.1) contribute to the current U.S. nuclear power plant development strategy.

Project management of the construction and operations of nuclear power plants is the responsibility of the owners and operators of nuclear power plants. The Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO) is an industry organization that, among other mission objectives, conducts plant evaluations, supports training and accreditation for nuclear power professionals, assists in the analysis of significant events at nuclear power plants, communicates lessons learned, and provides assistance with technical and management issues, at the request of individual nuclear power plant owners or operators.

Nuclear utilities, and in some cases, public utility commissions, are responsible for project financing decisions. Funding is secured from banks and through shareholder equity. As discussed in Section 2.3.1, the Federal government, through EPACT2005, does provide incentives for the construction of new nuclear power plants, including production tax credits, loan guarantees, and standby support insurance related to regulatory delays.

Once electricity is generated – whether by burning fossil fuels; through nuclear fission; or by harnessing wind, solar, geothermal, or hydro energy – it is generally sent through high-voltage, high-capacity transmission lines to local electricity distributors. Transmission is a prominent federal issue, because of a perceived need to improve reliability and reduce costs, transmission’s role in meeting national energy goals (such as increased use of renewable electricity), and the potential efficiency advantages of “Smart Grid” modernization. Transmission development and regulation are complex policy issues that include:

• Planning

• Permitting

• Financing

• System modernization and the smart grid

• Reliability

The current U.S. electric grid was built in the 1890s and improved upon as technology advanced through each decade. Today, it consists of more than 9,200 electric generating units with more than 1 million megawatts of generating capacity connected to more than 300,000 miles of transmission lines. To move forward, the United States is pursuing a grid that will handle rapidly developing digital and computerized equipment and technology. One aspect of the Smart Grid is the automation necessary to allow two-way communication between the utility and its customers. Numerous agencies and organizations are involved in efforts to modernize the transmission grid. DOE sponsors research and development efforts related to numerous technologies, including the Smart Grid.

The selection of a site for a new nuclear power plant is informed by public health and safety, engineering and design, environmental, economic, and public interest factors. Once a candidate site for a new nuclear power plant is proposed, NRC determines whether the site is suitable. The decision that a nuclear power plant may be built on a specific candidate site is based on a detailed evaluation by NRC of the proposed site-plant combination and a cost-benefit analysis comparing it with alternative site-plant combinations. The applicant provides NRC with a report of its plant selection process that includes an analysis of alternatives whose environmental costs and benefits were evaluated, compared and then weighed against those of the proposed facility. The safety issues discussed include geologic, seismic, hydrologic, and meteorological characteristics of proposed sites; exclusion area and low population zone; population considerations as they relate to protecting the general public from the potential hazards of serious accidents; potential effects on a station from accidents associated with nearby industrial, transportation, and military facilities; emergency planning; and security plans. The environmental issues discussed concern potential impacts from the construction and operation of nuclear power stations on ecological systems, water use, land use, the atmosphere, aesthetics, and socioeconomics. As part of the site selection process, coordination between applicants for nuclear power stations and various federal, state, local, and Native American tribal agencies also occurs.

According to EIA’s 2013 Domestic Uranium Production Report, U.S. uranium mines produced 1,761 metric tons U₃O₈ in 2013, 6% more than in 2012. Three underground mines produced uranium ore during 2013, three less than during 2012. Additionally, seven in-situ-leach (ISL) mining operations produced solutions containing uranium in 2013, two more than in 2012. Overall, there were 10 mines that operated during part or all of 2013.

Total production of U.S. uranium concentrate in 2013 was 1,792 metric tons U₃O₈, 12% more than in 2012, from seven facilities: one mill in Utah (White Mesa Mill) and six ISL plants. The Lost Creek Project started producing in 2013. Nebraska, Texas and Wyoming produced uranium concentrate at the six ISL plants in 2013. Total shipments of uranium concentrate from U.S. mill and ISL plants were 1,791 metric tons U₃O₈ in 2013, 19% more than in 2012. NRC is currently reviewing nine applications for new facilities, expansions, or renewals, and anticipates receiving eighteen additional applications between 2013 and 2014. Figure 8 shows the country of origin of uranium purchased by owners and operators of U.S. commercial nuclear power reactors.

FIGURE 8. ORIGIN COUNTRY OF URANIUM PURCHASED BY OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF U.S. COMMERCIAL NUCLEAR POWER REACTORS

Total = 22 thousand tU

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Form EIA-858, “Uranium Marketing Annual Report” (http://www.eia.gov/uranium/marketing/).

The United States has one uranium conversion plant operated by ConverDyn, Inc., located at Metropolis, Illinois. During a mid-2012 annual maintenance outage, NRC conducted a post-Fukushima safety inspection of this facility. Necessary upgrades were made to address such issues as seismic hardening and emergency planning. The facility restarted in July 2013 and is expected to reach full production in 2014. The ConverDyn facility has a nameplate production capacity of approximately 15,000 metric tons per year of uranium hexafluoride (UF₆). In addition to domestic capability, Canada is the major source of concentrate imports, though supplies have also come from Australia, Russia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Namibia, and a few other countries.



Diffusion

In 1993, the uranium enrichment business in the United States was transferred from DOE to a government-owned company, the U.S. Enrichment Corporation Inc. (USEC). USEC was created in 1992 under EPACT1992 to make the United States more competitive in the global enrichment industry. USEC was privatized in 1998 via an initial public offering of common stock. USEC operated the gaseous diffusion enrichment facility (leased from DOE) in Paducah, Kentucky until it closed in May 2013, following the re-enrichment of nearly 9,000 metric tons of high-assay tails. The re-enriched uranium was used to fabricate fuel for Energy Northwest and TVA reactors. The Paducah plant was the last gaseous diffusion enrichment facility in the world.

Operations at a second facility at Portsmouth, Ohio were previously terminated in 2001. However, nearly 115,000 metric tons of depleted uranium hexafluoride remain at the Portsmouth facility. In November 2013, DOE announced that it will open negotiations with Global Laser Enrichment (GLE) and AREVA for the sale of the depleted uranium hexafluoride inventory and processing of off-specification uranium hexafluoride as blend stock for domestic nuclear fuel.

Megatons-to-Megawatts

In February 1993, the Russian Federation and the United States signed a 20-year, government-to-government agreement for the conversion of 500 metric tons of Russian highly enriched uranium from nuclear warheads to low-enriched uranium to fuel U.S. nuclear reactors. The agreement became known as the Megatons to Megawatts™ program. Over the life of the Megatons to Megawatts program, the low-enriched uranium produced under the agreement provided about one-third of the enrichment services needed to fabricate fuel for U.S. nuclear reactors. The program ended in December 2013.

Under the agreement, USEC and the Russian Federation designated Techsnabexport (TENEX) to implement the program. The terms of the agreement required that Russian highly enriched uranium be diluted or downblended to become low-enriched uranium in Russia and then shipped to the United States.

Low-enriched uranium is used to fabricate fuel for U.S. reactors. Once the United States received the low-enriched uranium, Russia was paid for the work that was required to dilute or downblend the highly enriched uranium to low-enriched uranium, which is measured in separative work units (SWU). Russia also received an equal amount of natural (unenriched) uranium.

In addition to the low-enriched uranium originating from the Megatons to Megawatts program, enrichment services were also provided by USEC's Gaseous Diffusion Plant, LES/URENCO's Gas Centrifuge Plant, and various foreign countries.

Although the Megatons to Megawatts program expired in December 2013, USEC Inc. signed a 10-year contract with TENEX in March 2011 to supply commercial-origin Russian low-enriched uranium to replace some of the material provided by the Megatons to Megawatts program. Deliveries under this contract began in 2013 and are slated to continue through 2022. The contract also includes an option to double the amount of material purchased.

As under the Megatons to Megawatts program, USEC will pay TENEX the value of the work (measured in SWU) needed to create the low-enriched uranium and deliver an equal amount of natural (unenriched) uranium to TENEX. The new supply of low-enriched uranium from TENEX will gradually increase until 2015, when it reaches about half of the annual amount supplied under the Megatons to Megawatts program. The new contract will provide low-enriched uranium that can be used to fabricate fuel for U.S. reactors while new U.S. enrichment facilities are licensed, constructed, and operated to produce U.S.-origin low-enriched uranium.

Centrifuge

Centrifuge enrichment projects are in varying stages of completion.

• Urenco USA (New Mexico): In November 2012, URENCO USA submitted a license amendment request to NRC to increase its enrichment capacity at its centrifuge facility in New Mexico to 10 million SWU by 2020. The plant commenced operations in June 2010 and is operating at a capacity of 3.2 million SWU as of December 2013. The facility is expected to achieve a capacity of 5.7 million SWU sometime in 2017.

• AREVA Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility (Idaho): In October 2011, AREVA’s Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility received an operating license from NRC. Construction was to begin in 2012, followed by steady state operations in 2018. However, in December 2011, AREVA announced a two-year delay in the project. In May 2013, AREVA announced another delay, which could slip initial operations from 2015 to 2018. Annual production capacity is expected to be 3.3 million SWU; however, AREVA is pursuing the option to double that capacity.

• USEC American Centrifuge Plant (Ohio): USEC commenced construction of the American Centrifuge Plant (ACP) in May 2007, after receiving its NRC license to construct and operate the facility in April 2007 at DOE’s Portsmouth site. Originally, the ACP was expected to achieve a capacity of 3.8 million SWU by 2017; however, funding issues have created delays and schedule uncertainty, and the project is only in the pilot stage as a research, development, and demonstration program. In December 2013, DOE agreed to extend funding for the research, development, and demonstration program until April 2014; USEC is seeking an extension until December 2014.

Laser

The operating license application for GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy’s Global Laser Enrichment facility in Wilmington, North Carolina was issued by NRC in September 2012; the licensed capacity of the facility is 6 million SWU per year. A commercialization decision must still be made by GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy.

In August 2013, GLE proposed to DOE that it license, construct, and operate a second laser enrichment facility at DOE’s Paducah site to process the depleted uranium hexafluoride inventory at the site. The GLE proposal included the potential lease or use of existing Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant facilities, infrastructure, and utilities. In November 2013, DOE announced that it will open negotiations with GLE, and GLE informed NRC in January 2014, that it would likely apply for an operating license for the laser enrichment facility at Paducah in late 2014.

Summary

Most enrichment facilities in the United States are planning to be fully operational in the 2015-to-2022 timeframe, though schedules remain uncertain. In the interim, in addition to enrichment services provided in the United States, enrichment services will continue to be imported from facilities in the United Kingdom, Germany, the Netherlands, Russia, and elsewhere. Figure 9 provides a graphic representation of sources of enrichment services for 2013.

FIGURE 9. ORIGIN COUNTRY OF ENRICHMENT SERVICESS PURCHASED BY OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF U.S. COMMERCIAL NUCLEAR POWER REACTORS (SWU ORIGIN)

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Form EIA-858, “Uranium Marketing Annual Report” (http://www.eia.gov/uranium/marketing/).

Three companies fabricate nuclear fuel in the United States for light-water reactors: Westinghouse Electric Co. in Columbia, South Carolina; Global Nuclear Fuels - Americas, Ltd. in Wilmington, North Carolina; and AREVA NP Inc. in Richland, Washington. In March 2011, AREVA NP Inc. concluded all fuel fabrication activities at its Lynchburg, Virginia facility, following consolidation of its operations in Richland, Washington. Mixed oxide (MOX) fuel is planned to be fabricated at DOE’s Savannah River site in South Carolina, beginning in 2019, using surplus military plutonium to fabricate fuel for commercial reactors. In February 2011, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) and AREVA signed a Letter of Intent to begin evaluating the use of MOX at TVA’s Sequoyah and Browns Ferry plants; as of December 2013, no decision had been made.

Commercial nuclear power reactors currently store most of their used nuclear fuel (UNF) on-site at the nuclear plant, although a small amount has been shipped to off-site facilities. The UNF inventory in the United States as of January 2013 was over 68,000 metric tons of uranium. Approximately 2,000 metric tons of UNF are produced every year in the United States.

The Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) of 1982, as amended in 1987, provides for the siting, construction, and operation of a deep geologic repository for disposal of UNF and high-level waste (HLW). The amendments in 1987 directed DOE to focus solely on Yucca Mountain as the future site of a geologic repository. The NWPA limits the emplacement of waste at the geologic repository to 70,000 metric tons heavy metal (MTHM). UNF and HLW disposed of at the repository were expected to include about 63,000 MTHM of commercial UNF, about 2,333 MTHM of DOE UNF, and the equivalent of about 4,667 MTHM (or MTHM-equivalent) of DOE HLW from defense-related activities.

In 2002, DOE determined that the Yucca Mountain site would be suitable for a repository, and in July 2002, the President and Congress accepted that recommendation and directed that DOE submit a license application to NRC. In June 2008, DOE submitted a license application to NRC to receive authorization to begin construction of a repository at Yucca Mountain, and in September 2008, NRC formally docketed the application.

President Obama announced in March 2009 that the proposed permanent repository at Yucca Mountain “was no longer an option,” and that a “blue-ribbon commission,” made up of 15 members who have a range of expertise and experience in nuclear issues, including scientists, industry representatives, and respected former elected officials, would be created to evaluate alternatives to Yucca Mountain. In January 2012, the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future (BRC) issued its final report.

In January 2013, the Obama Administration released its Strategy for the Management and Disposal of Used Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste, which presents a response to the final report and recommendations made by the BRC. Essentially, it provides a framework for moving toward a sustainable program to deploy an integrated system capable of transporting, storing, and disposing of used nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste from civilian nuclear power generation, defense, national security, and other activities.

The Strategy also serves as a statement of Administration policy regarding the importance of addressing the disposition of used nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste, lays out the overall design of a system to address that issue, and outlines the reforms needed to implement such a system. Finally, the Strategy represents an initial basis for discussions among the Administration, Congress and other stakeholders on a sustainable path forward for disposal of nuclear waste.

The Administration’s Strategy endorses the key principles that underpin the BRC’s recommendations. The Administration fully agrees with the BRC that a consent-based siting process is critical to future success. As presented in the Strategy, with the appropriate authorizations from Congress, the Administration currently plans to implement a program over the next 10 years that:

• Sites, designs, licenses, constructs, and begins operations of a pilot interim storage facility by 2021 with an initial focus on accepting used nuclear fuel from shut-down reactor sites;

• Advances toward the siting and licensing of a larger interim storage facility to be available by 2025 that will have sufficient capacity to provide flexibility in the waste management system and allows for acceptance of enough used nuclear fuel to reduce expected government liabilities; and

• Makes demonstrable progress on the siting and characterization of repository sites to facilitate the availability of a geologic repository by 2048.

In August 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that NRC must continue its review of the Yucca Mountain license application. In November 2013, the NRC Commissioners ordered NRC staff to complete and publish a safety evaluation report for the proposed Yucca Mountain repository. NRC also requested that DOE prepare a supplement environmental impact statement to support NRC’s environmental review of the license application.

Nuclear energy research and development (R&D) is conducted by private industry, the Federal Government, and U.S. universities. Private companies are actively investigating reactor technology, enrichment technology, and nuclear fuel design. One of the main institutions for private research funding is the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). EPRI, through membership fees, conducts R&D in many nuclear-related areas as well as other areas of the electric power industry.

The Federal Government supports R&D through specific budget allocations for NRC and for the DOE Office of Nuclear Energy (NE). Private companies, under contract with DOE, operate a series of national laboratories. DOE includes 26 laboratories and institutes, many of which are involved with nuclear technologies.

In addition, NE provides 20% of its annual R&D budget to the Nuclear Energy University Programs (NEUP), created in 2009 to consolidate university support under one initiative and better integrate university research within NE’s technical programs. NEUP engages U.S. colleges and universities to conduct R&D, enhance infrastructure, and support student education, thereby helping to build and sustain an advanced nuclear energy workforce capability.

NE’s program and priority activities are guided by the Nuclear Energy Research and Development Roadmap, which was issued in April 2010. Since the accident at Fukushima, however, NE has engaged in a number of new research activities to address specific safety-related issues, such as the development of accident-tolerant fuel forms and accident-tolerant instruments. Likewise, to support these activities, NE is also using advanced high-performance computing for modelling and simulation.

NE supports R&D to improve safety and reliability to help extend the life of current reactors as well as develop improvements in the safety, affordability, and proliferation resistance of new reactors.

In the area of nuclear reactor technologies, NE’s Light Water Reactor Sustainability Program focuses on developing the scientific basis to extend nuclear power plant operating life beyond the current 60-year licensing period while ensuring long-term reliability, productivity, safety, and security. In addition, NE is supporting the commercialization of U.S.-based small modular reactor (SMR) technologies through its SMR Licensing Technical Support Program. The program aims to promote the accelerated deployment of SMRs by supporting certification and licensing requirements through cooperative agreements with industry partners, and by supporting the resolution of generic SMR issues. Finally, DOE is supporting the development of advanced reactor technologies, focusing on high temperature gas-cooled reactors through its Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) program, advanced SMRs, and advanced reactor concepts. This focus is expected to address long-term technical barriers for the development of advanced nuclear fission energy systems utilizing coolants such as liquid metal, fluoride salt, or gas.

NE’s Office of Fuel Cycle Technologies (FCT) develops sustainable fuel cycle technologies and options and develops UNF management strategies and technologies to support meeting Federal government responsibility to manage and dispose of U.S. commercial UNF and high-level waste. Within the FCT program, the Fuel Cycle Research and Development program conducts R&D to help develop sustainable fuel cycles to improve uranium resource utilization, maximize energy generation, minimize waste generation, improve safety, and limit proliferation risk. The Office of Uranium Management and Policy works to assure domestic supplies of fuel for nuclear power plants. In addition, the Office of Used Nuclear Fuel Disposition R&D conducts activities on the storage, transportation, and disposal of used nuclear fuel and high-level waste. Finally, the Systems Engineering and Integration Program develops and implements analysis processes and tools and performs integrated fuel cycle technical assessments to provide information that can be used to objectively and transparently inform and integrate FCT activities.

The U.S. government collaborates with international partners to support the safe, secure, and peaceful use of nuclear energy. The Office of Nuclear Energy works both bilaterally and multilaterally to accomplish this work.

Bilaterally, DOE collaborates in civil nuclear research and development (R&D) and related issues through several vehicles, including the International Nuclear Energy Research Initiative (I-NERI), negotiated R&D agreements, memoranda of understanding, action plans, working groups, and the International Nuclear Cooperation (INC) framework.

Multilaterally, the United States cooperates with international partners through the Generation IV International Forum, the Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the International Framework for Nuclear Energy Cooperation (IFNEC, formerly the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership).

The United States is currently serving a three-year term as chair of the Generation IV International Forum (GIF). Through the GIF, the United States works with international partners to address the key technical issues associated with designing, building, and operating next generation nuclear energy systems that will support the long-term advancement of nuclear power. Currently, the Department is actively involved in collaborative R&D involving two of the GIF’s six Generation-IV reactor systems: the sodium-cooled fast reactor and the very high temperature reactor.

The United States works closely with the IAEA, including the International Project on Innovative Nuclear Reactors and Fuel Cycles (INPRO), an open international forum for studying nuclear energy options, associated requirements, and potential deployment in IAEA Member States.

The United States engages with the NEA on matters relating to the NEA’s Steering Committee and its topical meetings and cooperative technical programs on an ad-hoc basis. The NEA provides a valuable multinational forum that helps the United States achieve its international cooperation goals and leverage its research and development expenditures.

IFNEC supports President Obama’s call, made in his 5 April 2009 speech in Prague, for a new framework for civil nuclear cooperation, including an international fuel bank, so that countries can access peaceful nuclear power without increasing the risks of proliferation. The IFNEC Statement of Mission reads as follows: “The International Framework for Nuclear Energy Cooperation provides a forum for cooperation among participating states to explore mutually beneficial approaches to ensure the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes proceeds in a manner that is efficient and meets the highest standards of safety, security and non-proliferation. Participating states would not give up any rights and voluntarily engage to share the effort and gain the benefits of economical, peaceful nuclear energy.” The DOE Office of Nuclear Energy serves as the chair of IFNEC’s Steering Group while the U.S. State Department serves as co-chair of IFNEC’s Infrastructure Development Working Group.

The United States has also actively participated in the policy and implementation aspects of nuclear initiatives under the Group of Eight (G8) industrialized nations, the Group of 24 Nuclear Safety Coordination (G-24NUSAC) mechanism, and the Nuclear Safety Account administered by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD/NSA). These institutions have focused on coordinating multi-layered international efforts to enhance nuclear safety in countries with Soviet-designed nuclear power reactors.

NRC's international program activities are wide-ranging. They encompass nuclear policy formulation, international safety cooperation and assistance, international technical information exchange, and cooperative safety research. These activities support NRC's domestic mission, as well as broader U.S. domestic and international interests. Maintaining a program of international cooperation enhances the safe, secure, and environmentally acceptable civilian uses of nuclear materials both in the United States and throughout the world. As a regulator of the world's largest civilian nuclear program, NRC's extensive experience contributes to international programs in areas such as nuclear reactor safety, nuclear safety research, radiation protection, nuclear materials safety and safeguards, waste management, and decommissioning of nuclear facilities.

NRC helped found the International Nuclear Regulators Association (INRA) in 1997. There are nine INRA member countries, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, Republic of Korea, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States, which gather twice yearly to discuss issues of mutual regulatory interest.

NRC works with other nations with major nuclear power programs to further nuclear safety research. These nations include, but are not limited to, France, Germany, Japan, and the United Kingdom.

NRC has concluded technical information exchange and general safety cooperation arrangements with the regulatory authorities of 42 countries plus Taiwan and the European Atomic Energy Community. These arrangements serve as communications channels for the prompt and reciprocal notification of safety problems that could affect both United States and foreign plants. They also provide the framework for bilateral cooperation in nuclear safety, security, safeguards, waste management, and environmental protection as well as for NRC's assistance activities to help other countries improve both their regulatory safety and security practices.

NRC currently participates in cooperative research with other countries, directly through bilateral agreements as well as multilateral agreements with OECD - NEA Member States and the European Union (EU). These programs examine key technical safety issues in regulating the safety of existing and proposed U.S. commercial nuclear facilities and in the use of nuclear materials. At present, NRC manages and coordinates approximately 100 bilateral and multilateral energy agreements with 25 countries which include, but are not limited to, research activities in the areas of: Thermal-Hydraulic Code Application and Maintenance, Severe Accident Research Program, Probabilistic Risk Assessment Program, Steam Generator Tube Integrity Program, Instrumentation and Controls, Human Factors, Nuclear Fuels Research, Advanced Reactor Design, Fire Modeling Research, and Aging Research of Safety Components and Wire Systems.

The United States continues nuclear safety cooperation with and assistance to countries of the former Soviet Union and countries of central and Eastern Europe. These activities strengthen their regulatory organizations to assist national safety and security controls over civilian uses of radioactive materials and nuclear power plants.

The United States played a leading role in resolving implementation issues for the Convention on Nuclear Safety, which entered into force in October 1996. The United States also participates in the implementation of the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management, as well as the Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage.

NRC is the principal regulator of the nuclear power industry. NRC's mission is to regulate the Nation's civilian use of by-product, source, and special nuclear materials to ensure adequate protection of public health and safety, to promote the common defense and security, and to protect the environment. NRC has regulatory responsibility for:

• Commercial reactors for generating electric power and non-power reactors used for research, testing, and training

• Uranium enrichment facilities and nuclear fuel fabrication facilities

• Uses of nuclear materials in medical, industrial, and academic settings and facilities that produce nuclear fuel

• Transportation, storage, and disposal of nuclear materials and waste, and decommissioning of nuclear facilities from service

The Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPACT1992) specified a new nuclear power plant licensing process. Under the new licensing procedure, an applicant who seeks to build a new reactor can use off-the shelf reactor designs that have been previously approved and certified by NRC. After reviewing the application and holding public hearings, NRC may issue a combined construction and operating license (the previous process separated these licenses, which were issued at different times). When the applicant uses an NRC-certified design, safety issues related to the design will have been already resolved, and the main concern will be the quality of reactor construction.

Before authorizing power operation at a reactor, certain standards identified in the COL must be satisfied. These standards are called Inspections, Tests, Analyses, and Acceptance Criteria (ITAAC). The ITAAC are usually derived from two sources:

1. The majority of the ITAAC are from the reactor design certification.

2. The remaining ITAAC are site-specific and are included in the COL or ESP application.

In 2008, NRC finalized its rule for the licensing of a geologic repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada in 10 CFR Part 63, following the revision of the Environmental Protection Agency’s 40 CFR Part 197 in that same year.

The revised 10 CFR 70, which applies to fuel cycle facilities, became effective on 18 October 2000. The revised safety regulations for special nuclear material provide a risk-informed, performance-based regulatory approach that includes: (1) the identification of performance requirements for prevention of accidents or mitigation of their consequences; (2) the performance of an Integrated Safety Analysis (ISA) to identify potential accidents at the facility and the items relied on for safety; (3) the implementation of measures to ensure that the items relied on for safety are available and reliable to perform their functions when needed; (4) the maintenance of the safety bases, including the reporting of changes to NRC; and (5) the allowance for licensees to make certain changes to their safety program, if they comply with 10 CFR 70.

The Federal Power Act of 1935 (Title II of PUHCA)

The Federal Power Act of 1935 was passed at the same time as PUHCA. It provides for a Federal mechanism, as required by the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, for interstate electricity regulation. Prior to this, electricity generation, transmission, and distribution were usually a series of intrastate transactions.

The Clean Water Act of 1977 (Public Law 95-217)

The Clean Water Act of 1977 is the primary law governing the discharge of pollutants into all U.S. surface waters. Under this law, 639EPA requires that a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit be obtained before any pollutant is released.

The Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA) (Public Law 95-617)

PURPA sought to promote conservation of electric energy in response to the unstable energy climate of the late 1970s. PURPA created a new class of non-utility generators, small power producers from which, along with qualified co-generators, utilities were required to buy power.

The Energy Tax Act of 1978 (ETA) (Public Law 95-618)

ETA, like PURPA, was passed in response to the unstable energy climate of the 1970s. ETA encouraged the conversion of boilers to coal and investment in cogeneration equipment and solar and wind technologies by allowing a tax credit on top of the investment tax credit. ETA was later expanded to include other renewable technologies. These incentives were curtailed in the mid-1980s as a result of tax reform legislation.

The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (Public Law 101-549)

These amendments established a new emissions-reduction program that sought to reduce annual sulfur dioxide emissions by 10 million tons and annual nitrogen oxide emissions by 2 million tons from 1980 levels for all man-made sources. Generators of electricity were to be responsible for large portions of the sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide reductions. The program employed a unique, market-based approach to sulfur dioxide emission reductions, while relying on more traditional methods for nitrogen oxide reductions. This legislation continues to evolve and specific targets change with national policies.

The Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPACT) (Public Law 102-486)

EPACT1992 created a new category of electricity producer, the exempt wholesale generator, which circumvented PUHCA's impediments to non-utility electricity generation. EPACT1992 also allowed FERC to open the national electricity transmission system to wholesale suppliers. Seven of EPACT1992's 30 Titles contain provisions related specifically to nuclear power and/or uranium.

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT2005)

EPACT2005 contained provisions affecting nuclear power, including the renewal of the Price-Anderson Act and incentives for building the first advanced nuclear power plants. Incentives include production tax credits, loan guarantees, and standby support insurance related to regulatory delays.

The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007

The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 created incentives for increased vehicle fuel efficiency; support for biofuels development; end-use efficiency improvements; and greenhouse gas reductions through implementation of new technologies.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA 2009)

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 directed funding for energy efficiency and renewable energy as well as loan guarantees for renewable energy, including nuclear power.

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (Public Law 83-703)

The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 encouraged private enterprise to develop and utilize nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. This act amended the Atomic Energy Act of 1946 to allow non-federal ownership of nuclear production and utilization facilities if an operating license was obtained from the AEC. This act enabled the development of the commercial nuclear power industry in the United States.

Price-Anderson Nuclear Indemnity Act of 1957 (Public Law 83-703, as amended)

The Price-Anderson Act requires each operator of a nuclear power plant to obtain the maximum amount of primary coverage of liability insurance. Currently, the annual premium paid by owners of nuclear power plants is USD375 million per reactor. Damages exceeding that amount are funded with a retroactive assessment on all other owners of commercial reactors, based upon the number of reactors they own and not to exceed about USD112 million. However, Price-Anderson places a limit on the total liability to all owners of commercial reactors of about USD12 billion. Congress is committed to determine whether additional disaster relief is required if all funds are depleted or whether to retroactively increase nuclear utility liability,

Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-438)

This Act separated the licensing and related functions of the AEC from energy development and related functions. NRC succeeded AEC as an independent regulatory authority to assure the safety and licensing of nuclear reactors and other facilities associated with processing, transport and handling of nuclear materials.

Low-level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980, as amended (Public Law 96-573)

This Act was an important step toward the development of new disposal capacity for low-level radioactive waste (LLW). Each state was made responsible for providing, by itself or in co-operation with other states, for the disposal of LLW generated within the state. The Act authorizes the states to form compacts to establish and operate regional LLW disposal facilities, subject to NRC licensing approval.

Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended (Public Law 97-425)

This Act established Federal responsibility for the development of repositories for the disposal of high-level radioactive waste and used nuclear fuel. This Act was amended in 1987 to require DOE to begin evaluating the suitability of Yucca Mountain in Nevada as the nation's permanent high-level waste repository. That process was complete and approved by Congress during 2002. Also during 2002 Congress overrode objections to the Yucca Mountain facility by the state of Nevada. Judicial and political hurdles to the Yucca Mountain facility remain.

Two important issues of national concern are the disposal of spent fuel and decommissioning of retired nuclear plants. The Federal Government collects a fee of one mill (one-tenth of a cent) per kilowatt-hour from companies for nuclear-generated electricity under a general contract with nuclear-generating firms. This money goes into the Nuclear Waste Fund, which pays for all aspects of nuclear waste disposal, including the geologic repository, transportation of the waste, and support of State and local government involvement in the project. DOE annually evaluates the adequacy of the fees collected for nuclear waste disposal. Expenditures of all waste fund monies are subject to Congressional oversight and authorization. While these charges are passed on to consumers in a regulated environment, they are costs incurred by nuclear power plants operating in competitive markets.

NRC has established procedures for site release and minimum funding levels for decommissioning. Under NRC rules, the minimum financial assurance that licensees must provide to decommission each reactor is determined by a sliding scale that considers primarily the type and size (as measured in megawatts-thermal) of a reactor. Required decommissioning funds for individual reactors amount to several hundred million dollars for each unit. Controversies have arisen at specific sites regarding whether funding is sufficient or in excess and whether decommissioning funds are the property of the ratepayers or of the reactor owners. The resolution of these issues has varied from reactor to reactor.