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. According to the EIA’s Annual Coal Report 2013 (published in April 2015), the number of producing mines in the U.S. in 2013 dropped 13.7% to 1,061 mines compared to 2012. For the first time since 1993, U.S. coal production fell below 900 million metric tons to 893.4 million metric tons in 2013. This represents a 3.1% decrease from 922.2 million metric tons in 2012.

U.S. crude oil and lease condensate proved reserves rose for the fifth consecutive year in 2013, increasing by 9% to 4 981 million metric tons, according to EIA’s U.S. Crude Oil and Natural Gas Proved Reserves (2013) report released in 2014. U.S. crude oil and lease condensate proved reserves were the highest since 1975. For the past three years, the majority of additions to oil proved reserves have been through extensions to existing fields. Whilst U.S. oil proved reserves and production increased in 2013, imports of crude oil declined by nearly 10%.

U.S proved reserves of total natural gas (including natural gas plant liquids) increased 10% in 2013 and reached a record high. The reserves were added in the Lower 48 states from ongoing exploration and development in several of the nation’s shale formations. Natural gas proved reserves in Alaska and the federal waters of the Gulf of Mexico both declined in 2013. The increases in 2013 did not completely offset the large declines in 2012, which were the result of revisions primarily due to low natural gas prices. U.S. production of total natural gas in 2013 increased 1.4% from 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 increased in 2013 by 23% over 2012. The share of shale gas relative to total U.S. natural gas proved reserves increased from 40% in 2012 to 45% in 2013. Estimated production of shale natural gas increased nearly 10% in 2013.

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 2014, U.S. uranium reserve estimates for 7 mines and properties by status, mining method, and state are provided in EIA’s Domestic Uranium Production Report (DUPR). Estimated uranium reserves at up to USD100 per pound were 138,204 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	232 886	4 981	749	138 204	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 2013.(2) Reflects crude oil and lease condensate proved reserves as of 31 December 2013.(3) Reflects proved reserves of wet natural gas as of 31 December 2013.(4) Reflects uranium reserves as 31 December 2014 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 will slow 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	2014(1)	Average Annual Growth Rate 2000 - 2014 (%)
Energy Consumption
Total	71.6	82.3	89.1	104.1	105.7	103.7	-0.02
Solids(2)	14.5	18.9	23.1	27.0	27.3	24.0	-0.83
Liquids(3)	31.1	36.1	35.4	40.4	42.6	36.7	-0.68
Gases	23.0	21.4	20.7	25.1	23.8	29.1	1.05
Nuclear	0.3	2.9	6.4	8.3	8.6	8.8	0.41
Hydro	2.8	3.1	3.2	3.0	2.9	2.6	-0.92
Other Renewables(4)	0.0	0.1	0.3	0.3	0.4	2.5	16.32
Energy production
Total	67.0	70.9	74.6	75.3	73.3	92.0	1.44
Solids(2)	16.9	22.2	26.6	27.2	27.7	26.5	-0.18
Liquids(3)	24.2	21.6	18.7	15.8	14.0	23.6	2.91
Gases	22.9	21.0	19.3	20.7	19.6	28.0	2.16
Nuclear	0.3	2.9	6.4	8.3	8.6	8.8	0.41
Hydro	2.8	3.1	3.2	3.0	2.9	2.6	-0.92
Other Renewables(4)	0.0	0.1	0.3	0.3	0.4	2.6	16.32
Net Imports
Total	6.0	12.8	14.8	26.3	31.8	11.6	-5.69

(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, May 2015.

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 is therefore focused on the interstate activities of electricity producers, while 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 (ISO) 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 and 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, although 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 U.S. nuclear power plants are regulated; the remaining nuclear power plants are merchant unregulated plants.

Investor-owned 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.

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 (QF), 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 electricity generated by QFs at avoided cost.

Independent Power Producers (IPP) 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 (EWG) 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 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 large drop in commodity prices after 2008, including natural gas prices together with policies to promote the penetration of renewable generation, has 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	2014(1)	Average Annual Growth Rate 2000 - 2014 (%)
Capacity of electrical plants (GWe)(6)
Thermal(2)	265.5	444.2	535.8	608.9	766.9	790.4	1.88
Hydro(3)	63.8	81.7	93.4	98.9	98.9	101.6	0.20
Nuclear	7.0	51.8	99.6	97.9	100.0	98.6	0.06
Wind	NA	NA	1.8	2.4	8.7	64.9	26.64
Geothermal	0.1	0.9	2.7	2.8	2.3	2.6	-0.49
Other Renewables(4)	NA	NA	0.3	0.4	0.4	10.0	26.19
Total(5)	336.4	578.6	734.1	811.7	978.0	1 070.5	2.00
Electricity production (TWh)
Thermal(2)	1 261.8	1 754.2	2 149.4	2 753.2	2 963.8	2 814.0	0.16
Hydro(3)	251.0	279.2	289.4	270.0	263.8	252.5	-0.48
Nuclear	21.8	251.1	576.9	753.9	782.0	797.1	0.40
Wind	NA	NA	2.8	5.6	17.8	181.8	28.23
Geothermal	0.5	5.1	15.4	14.1	14.7	16.6	1.19
Other Renewables(4)	NA	NA	0.4	0.5	0.6	18.3	29.46
Total(5)	1 535.1	2 289.6	3 037.8	3 802.1	4 055.4	4 092.9	0.53
Total Electricity Consumption (TWh)	1 392.3	2 094.4	2 837.1	3 592.4	3 811.0	3 862.5	0.52

(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, May 2015 Monthly Energy Review, June 2015 Electric Power Monthly.

TABLE 6. ENERGY-RELATED RATIOS

Year	1970	1980	1990	2000	2005	2014
Energy Consumption per capita (GJ/capita)	349	362	357	369	358	325
Electricity Consumption per capita (TWh/capita)	6 790	9 218	11 373	12 732	12 896	12 113
Electricity production/Energy Production (%)	8.23	11.61	14.00	17.40	19.18	15.41
Nuclear/Total electricity (%)	1.42	10.98	19.88	20.73	20.04	20.25
Ratio of external dependency (%)	8.42	15.50	16.65	25.27	30.06	11.16

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division; U.S. Energy Information Administration, May 2015 Monthly Energy Review, June 2015 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 centres, 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 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. 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 99 operating commercial nuclear reactors. Many services and supplies to the U.S. nuclear power industry are imported. As of 31 December 2014, installed nuclear capacity in the United States totaled 97.9 GWe (net). Data are preliminary and include only the electric power sector. The nuclear share of total capacity in the United States was 9% in 2014 as shown in Figure 3.

FIGURE 3. ELECTRIC GENERATING CAPACITY BY FUEL, 2014

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.”

Nuclear Power Generation

In 2014, total electricity generation in the United States was 3,936 net terawatt hours (TWh), with nuclear power plants generating 797 net TWh, according to preliminary EIA data. Data include only the electric power sector 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.

FIGURE 4. ELECTRICITY GENERATION BY FUEL, 2014

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.”

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 2014 in the U.S. nuclear power program.

FIGURE 5. LOCATION OF OPERATING NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS, 2014

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 2015
ANO-1	PWR	836	Operational	ENTERGY	B&W	1968-10-01	1974-08-06	1974-08-17	1974-12-19		89.4
ANO-2	PWR	993	Operational	ENTERGY	CE	1968-12-06	1978-12-05	1978-12-26	1980-03-26		84.9
BEAVER VALLEY-1	PWR	921	Operational	FENOC	WH	1970-06-26	1976-05-10	1976-06-14	1976-10-01		91.0
BEAVER VALLEY-2	PWR	904	Operational	FENOC	WH	1974-05-03	1987-08-04	1987-08-17	1987-11-17		90.5
BRAIDWOOD-1	PWR	1194	Operational	EXELON	WH	1975-08-01	1987-05-29	1987-07-12	1988-07-29		94.7
BRAIDWOOD-2	PWR	1160	Operational	EXELON	WH	1975-08-01	1988-03-08	1988-05-25	1988-10-17		94.9
BROWNS FERRY-1	BWR	1101	Operational	TVA	GE	1967-05-01	1973-08-17	1973-10-15	1974-08-01		97.9
BROWNS FERRY-2	BWR	1104	Operational	TVA	GE	1967-05-01	1974-07-20	1974-08-28	1975-03-01		90.7
BROWNS FERRY-3	BWR	1105	Operational	TVA	GE	1968-07-01	1976-08-08	1976-09-12	1977-03-01		100.0
BRUNSWICK-1	BWR	938	Operational	PROGRESS	GE	1970-02-07	1976-10-08	1976-12-04	1977-03-18		98.8
BRUNSWICK-2	BWR	920	Operational	PROGRESS	GE	1970-02-07	1975-03-20	1975-04-29	1975-11-03		87.9
BYRON-1	PWR	1164	Operational	EXELON	WH	1975-04-01	1985-02-02	1985-03-01	1985-09-16		94.9
BYRON-2	PWR	1136	Operational	EXELON	WH	1975-04-01	1987-01-09	1987-02-06	1987-08-02		100.0
CALLAWAY-1	PWR	1215	Operational	AmerenUE	WH	1975-09-01	1984-10-02	1984-10-24	1984-12-19		98.7
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		91.5
CATAWBA-1	PWR	1146	Operational	DUKEENER	WH	1974-05-01	1985-01-07	1985-01-22	1985-06-29		92.5
CATAWBA-2	PWR	1146	Operational	DUKEENER	WH	1974-05-01	1986-05-08	1986-05-18	1986-08-19		90.0
CLINTON-1	BWR	1065	Operational	EXELON	GE	1975-10-01	1987-02-27	1987-04-24	1987-11-24		93.2
COLUMBIA	BWR	1107	Operational	ENERGYNW	GE	1972-08-01	1984-01-19	1984-05-27	1984-12-13		86.2
COMANCHE PEAK-1	PWR	1218	Operational	LUMINANT	WH	1974-12-19	1990-04-03	1990-04-24	1990-08-13		100.0
COMANCHE PEAK-2	PWR	1207	Operational	LUMINANT	WH	1974-12-19	1993-03-24	1993-04-09	1993-08-03		89.0
COOK-1	PWR	1045	Operational	AEP	WH	1969-03-25	1975-01-18	1975-02-10	1975-08-28		84.2
COOK-2	PWR	1107	Operational	AEP	WH	1969-03-25	1978-03-10	1978-03-22	1978-07-01		90.9
COOPER	BWR	768	Operational	ENTERGY	GE	1968-06-01	1974-02-21	1974-05-10	1974-07-01		99.2
DAVIS BESSE-1	PWR	894	Operational	FENOC	B&W	1970-09-01	1977-08-12	1977-08-28	1978-07-31		99.1
DIABLO CANYON-1	PWR	1138	Operational	PG&E	WH	1968-04-23	1984-04-29	1984-11-11	1985-05-07		89.5
DIABLO CANYON-2	PWR	1118	Operational	PG&E	WH	1970-12-09	1985-08-19	1985-10-20	1986-03-13		100.0
DRESDEN-2	BWR	894	Operational	EXELON	GE	1966-01-10	1970-01-07	1970-04-13	1970-06-09		92.5
DRESDEN-3	BWR	879	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		87.3
FARLEY-2	PWR	883	Operational	SOUTHERN	WH	1970-10-01	1981-05-05	1981-05-25	1981-07-30		98.3
FERMI-2	BWR	1122	Operational	DTEDISON	GE	1972-09-26	1985-06-21	1986-09-21	1988-01-23		74.8
FITZPATRICK	BWR	813	Operational	ENTERGY	GE	1968-09-01	1974-11-17	1975-02-01	1975-07-28		100.0
FORT CALHOUN-1	PWR	482	Operational	EXELON	CE	1968-06-07	1973-08-06	1973-08-25	1973-09-26		80.8
GINNA	PWR	580	Operational	EXELON	WH	1966-04-25	1969-11-08	1969-12-02	1970-07-01		94.9
GRAND GULF-1	BWR	1419	Operational	ENTERGY	GE	1974-05-04	1982-08-18	1984-10-20	1985-07-01		97.7
HARRIS-1	PWR	928	Operational	PROGRESS	WH	1978-01-28	1987-01-03	1987-01-19	1987-05-02		88.0
HATCH-1	BWR	876	Operational	SOUTHERN	GE	1968-09-30	1974-09-12	1974-11-11	1975-12-31		98.8
HATCH-2	BWR	883	Operational	SOUTHERN	GE	1972-02-01	1978-07-04	1978-09-22	1979-09-05		90.8
HOPE CREEK-1	BWR	1172	Operational	PSEG	GE	1976-03-01	1986-06-28	1986-08-01	1986-12-20		90.1
INDIAN POINT-2	PWR	1020	Operational	ENTERGY	WH	1966-10-14	1973-05-22	1973-06-26	1974-08-01		99.2
INDIAN POINT-3	PWR	1040	Operational	ENTERGY	WH	1968-11-01	1976-04-06	1976-04-27	1976-08-30		84.9
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		90.8
LIMERICK-1	BWR	1130	Operational	EXELON	GE	1974-06-19	1984-12-22	1985-04-13	1986-02-01		99.5
LIMERICK-2	BWR	1134	Operational	EXELON	GE	1974-06-19	1989-08-12	1989-09-01	1990-01-08		91.1
MCGUIRE-1	PWR	1160	Operational	DUKEENER	WH	1971-04-01	1981-08-08	1981-09-12	1981-12-01		98.2
MCGUIRE-2	PWR	1158	Operational	DUKEENER	WH	1971-04-01	1983-05-08	1983-05-23	1984-03-01		92.2
MILLSTONE-2	PWR	869	Operational	DOMINION	CE	1969-11-01	1975-10-17	1975-11-09	1975-12-26		89.7
MILLSTONE-3	PWR	1229	Operational	DOMINION	WH	1974-08-09	1986-01-23	1986-02-12	1986-04-23		100.0
MONTICELLO	BWR	647	Operational	NSP	GE	1967-06-19	1970-12-10	1971-03-05	1971-06-30		84.5
NINE MILE POINT-1	BWR	613	Operational	EXELON	GE	1965-04-12	1969-09-05	1969-11-09	1969-12-01		91.7
NINE MILE POINT-2	BWR	1277	Operational	EXELON	GE	1975-08-01	1987-05-23	1987-08-08	1988-03-11		98.7
NORTH ANNA-1	PWR	948	Operational	DOMINION	WH	1971-02-19	1978-04-05	1978-04-17	1978-06-06		93.0
NORTH ANNA-2	PWR	943	Operational	DOMINION	WH	1971-02-19	1980-06-12	1980-08-25	1980-12-14		100.0
OCONEE-1	PWR	846	Operational	DUKEENER	B&W	1967-11-06	1973-04-19	1973-05-06	1973-07-15		100.0
OCONEE-2	PWR	848	Operational	DUKEENER	B&W	1967-11-06	1973-11-11	1973-12-05	1974-09-09		92.3
OCONEE-3	PWR	859	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		96.8
PALISADES	PWR	805	Operational	ENTERGY	CE	1967-03-14	1971-05-24	1971-12-31	1971-12-31		90.9
PALO VERDE-1	PWR	1311	Operational	APS	CE	1976-05-25	1985-05-25	1985-06-10	1986-01-28		100.0
PALO VERDE-2	PWR	1314	Operational	APS	CE	1976-06-01	1986-04-18	1986-05-20	1986-09-19		90.0
PALO VERDE-3	PWR	1312	Operational	APS	CE	1976-06-01	1987-10-25	1987-11-28	1988-01-08		91.7
PEACH BOTTOM-2	BWR	1308	Operational	EXELON	GE	1968-01-31	1973-09-16	1974-02-18	1974-07-05		99.3
PEACH BOTTOM-3	BWR	1308	Operational	EXELON	GE	1968-01-31	1974-08-07	1974-09-01	1974-12-23		91.5
PERRY-1	BWR	1256	Operational	FENOC	GE	1974-10-01	1986-06-06	1986-12-19	1987-11-18		87.2
PILGRIM-1	BWR	677	Operational	ENTERGY	GE	1968-08-26	1972-06-16	1972-07-19	1972-12-01		89.8
POINT BEACH-1	PWR	591	Operational	NEXTERA	WH	1967-07-19	1970-11-02	1970-11-06	1970-12-21		99.0
POINT BEACH-2	PWR	591	Operational	NEXTERA	WH	1968-07-25	1972-05-30	1972-08-02	1972-10-01		92.4
PRAIRIE ISLAND-1	PWR	522	Operational	NSP	WH	1968-06-25	1973-12-01	1973-12-04	1973-12-16		86.1
PRAIRIE ISLAND-2	PWR	518	Operational	NSP	WH	1969-06-25	1974-12-17	1974-12-21	1974-12-21		74.6
QUAD CITIES-1	BWR	908	Operational	EXELON	GE	1967-02-15	1971-10-18	1972-04-12	1973-02-18		93.3
QUAD CITIES-2	BWR	911	Operational	EXELON	GE	1967-02-15	1972-04-26	1972-05-23	1973-03-10		100.0
RIVER BEND-1	BWR	967	Operational	ENTERGY	GE	1977-03-25	1985-10-31	1985-12-03	1986-06-16		86.2
ROBINSON-2	PWR	741	Operational	PROGRESS	WH	1967-04-13	1970-09-20	1970-09-26	1971-03-07		84.6
SALEM-1	PWR	1169	Operational	PSEG	WH	1968-09-25	1976-12-11	1976-12-25	1977-06-30		98.1
SALEM-2	PWR	1158	Operational	PSEG	WH	1968-09-25	1980-08-08	1981-06-03	1981-10-13		88.0
SEABROOK-1	PWR	1246	Operational	NEXTERA	WH	1976-07-07	1989-06-13	1990-05-29	1990-08-19		88.0
SEQUOYAH-1	PWR	1152	Operational	TVA	WH	1970-05-27	1980-07-05	1980-07-22	1981-07-01		82.1
SEQUOYAH-2	PWR	1125	Operational	TVA	WH	1970-05-27	1981-11-05	1981-12-23	1982-06-01		89.6
SOUTH TEXAS-1	PWR	1280	Operational	STP	WH	1975-12-22	1988-03-08	1988-03-30	1988-08-25		81.5
SOUTH TEXAS-2	PWR	1280	Operational	STP	WH	1975-12-22	1989-03-12	1989-04-11	1989-06-19		88.7
ST. LUCIE-1	PWR	982	Operational	FPL	CE	1970-07-01	1976-04-22	1976-05-07	1976-12-21		90.5
ST. LUCIE-2	PWR	987	Operational	FPL	CE	1977-06-02	1983-06-02	1983-06-13	1983-08-08		83.0
SUMMER-1	PWR	971	Operational	SCE&G	WH	1973-03-21	1982-10-22	1982-11-16	1984-01-01		83.3
SURRY-1	PWR	838	Operational	DOMINION	WH	1968-06-25	1972-07-01	1972-07-04	1972-12-22		76.5
SURRY-2	PWR	838	Operational	DOMINION	WH	1968-06-25	1973-03-07	1973-03-10	1973-05-01		82.8
SUSQUEHANNA-1	BWR	1257	Operational	PPL_SUSQ	GE	1973-11-02	1982-09-10	1982-11-16	1983-06-08		98.0
SUSQUEHANNA-2	BWR	1257	Operational	PPL_SUSQ	GE	1973-11-02	1984-05-08	1984-07-03	1985-02-12		87.7
THREE MILE ISLAND-1	PWR	819	Operational	EXELON	B&W	1968-05-18	1974-06-05	1974-06-19	1974-09-02		91.7
TURKEY POINT-3	PWR	802	Operational	FPL	WH	1967-04-27	1972-10-20	1972-11-02	1972-12-14		86.2
TURKEY POINT-4	PWR	802	Operational	FPL	WH	1967-04-27	1973-06-11	1973-06-21	1973-09-07		98.4
VOGTLE-1	PWR	1150	Operational	SOUTHERN	WH	1976-08-01	1987-03-09	1987-03-27	1987-06-01		90.7
VOGTLE-2	PWR	1152	Operational	SOUTHERN	WH	1976-08-01	1989-03-28	1989-04-10	1989-05-20		99.2
WATERFORD-3	PWR	1168	Operational	ENTERGY	CE	1974-11-14	1985-03-04	1985-03-18	1985-09-24		83.3
WATTS BAR-1	PWR	1123	Operational	TVA	WH	1973-07-20	1996-01-01	1996-02-06	1996-05-27		86.9
WATTS BAR-2	PWR	1165	Operational	TVA	WH	1973-09-01	2016-05-23	2016-06-03	2016-10-19		0.0
WOLF CREEK	PWR	1200	Operational	WCNOC	WH	1977-05-31	1985-05-22	1985-06-12	1985-09-03		82.2
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
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
CVTR	PHWR	17	Permanent Shutdown	CVPA	WH	1960-01-01	1963-03-01	1963-12-18	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	1956-08-08	1963-08-23	1966-08-05	1966-08-07	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
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	1966-08-01	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
SAN ONOFRE-3	PWR	1080	Permanent Shutdown	SCE	CE	1974-03-01	1983-08-29	1983-09-25	1984-04-01	2013-06-07
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	1985-07-07	1986-08-01	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
VERMONT YANKEE	BWR	605	Permanent Shutdown	ENTERGY	GE	1967-12-11	1972-03-24	1972-09-20	1972-11-30	2014-12-29
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 (PRIS).

Note: Table 7 is completely generated from PRIS data to reflect the latest available information and may be more up to date than the text of the report.

(1) Preliminary data reflecting units that were either operating or capable of being operated on December 31, 2014. (2) Capacity factor represents the ratio of power actually generated to the maximum potential generation. The factor is calculated by multiplying the summer capacity by the number of hours (24) in a day by the number of days in a year (365 or 366) and then dividing that amount into the amount of actual generation. The result is then multiplied by 100 to express the value in percentage terms. Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Form EIA-860, “Annual Electric Generator Report” and Form EIA-923, “Power Plant Operations Report.”



Early Site Permit (ESP): As of 31 December 2014, NRC had issued ESPs for four sites. NRC did not issue any new ESPs in 2014 or receive any new applications. During 2014, one ESP application was under review.

New Reactor Design Certification: As of 31 December 2014, NRC had issued design certifications for four designs, including the Westinghouse AP1000, the General Electric Nuclear Energy Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR) and the GE-Hitachi Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor (ESBWR). In addition to several amendments to previously-certified designs, NRC is currently reviewing the applications for three additional design certifications, including the Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. U.S. Advanced Pressurized Water Reactor (US-APWR), the AREVA NP, Inc. U.S. Evolutionary Power Reactor (U.S. EPR), and the Korea Electric Power Corporation and Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power Co., Ltd. Advanced Power Reactor 1400 (APR1400).

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 2014: two COLs were withdrawn (Victoria County Station, Units 1 and 2, and Nine Mile Point, Unit 3), six COLs were suspended, eight COLs were under active review, and no COLs were issued. 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 2014, all four units were under construction. Construction resumed on Watts Bar Unit 2 in 2007, and the 1 218 MWe reactor is expected to be operational in late 2015. Table 8 provides a list of planned nuclear power plants and identifies those plants that are under construction. The locations of nuclear power plants that are under construction or that have recently received a COL are shown in Figure 6.

TABLE 8. PLANNED AND UNDER CONSTRUCTION NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS

Station/Project Name	Type1	Units	Capacity	Application Submitted	Application Status	COL/OL Issued	Expected Commercial Year
			MWe
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	Suspended
Callaway, Unit 2	US-EPR	1	1,600	7/24/2008	Suspended
Calvert Cliffs, Unit 3	US-EPR	1	1,600	7/13/2007	Withdrawn
Comanche Peak, Units 3 & 4	US-APWR	2	3,400	9/19/2008	Suspended
Fermi, Unit 3	ESBWR	1	1,520	9/13/2008	Issued	2015
Grand Gulf, Unit 3	ESBWR	1	1,520	2/27/2008	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	Withdrawn
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	Suspended
Shearon Harris, Units 2 & 3	AP 1000	2	2,234	2/18/2008	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	2019, 2020
Vogtle, Units 3 & 4	AP 1000	2	2,200	3/28/2008	Under Construction	2012	2020, 2020
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

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 2014, NRC has granted license renewals to 73 of the 99 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 five more reactors between 2015 and 2021.

Waste Confidence Rule: 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 (UNF) 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 UNF 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. In September 2014, the NRC issued the revised Rule and renamed it Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel, thereby allowing the NRC to resume issuing reactor operating licenses and operating license renewals.

Power Uprates: Power uprates are implemented to increase reactor capacity by increasing the maximum power level at which a nuclear reactor may operate. During 2014, NRC approved power uprates for the following nuclear power plants: Braidwood 1 and 2 (Illinois), Byron 1 and 2 (Illinois), Fermi 2 (Michigan), and Peach Bottom 2 and 3 (Pennsylvania). As of August 2014, NRC had approved 156 power uprates, which could add about 7,326 MWe to the U.S. nuclear generating capacity, once implemented (Figure 7). Not all approved uprates have been implemented at U.S. reactors. Uprates are under review and pending approval for 4 reactors, totaling nearly 61 MWe. In addition to those already under review, NRC expects to receive an additional seven requests for power uprates between 2015 and 2019, totaling nearly 580 MWe.

FIGURE 7. APPROVED NUCLEAR UPRATES 1977 TO 2014

Note: Data for 2014 are preliminary.Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, based on data from U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Retirements: In 2014, Vermont Yankee (Vermont) retired; the total retired capacity was nearly 620 MWe. Announced early retirements include the 615 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 SHUT DOWN 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.		ISFSI	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		ISFSI	General Atomics	9/1/1968	12/11/1976	8/29/1989
Haddam Neck	PWR	560	Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co.		ISFSI	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.		ISFSI	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		ISFSI	Babcock&Wilcox	4/1/1969	10/13/1974	6/7/1989
San Onofre-1	PWR	436	Southern California Edison Co.		DECON	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		General Electric	11/1/1972	8/1/1986	5/1/1989
Three Mile Island-2 (4)	PWR	880	General Public Utilities		SAFSTOR	Babcock&Wilcox	11/1/1969	4/21/1978	3/28/1979
Trojan	PWR	1 095	Portland General Electric Co.		ISFSI	Westinghouse	2/1/1970	12/23/1975	11/9/1992
Vermont Yankee	PWR	617	Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC		SAFSTOR	General Electric	12/1/1967	9/20/1972	12/29/2014
Yankee Rowe	PWR	167	Yankee Atomic Electric Co.		ISFSI	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.

Note: 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 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 stated that, in all cases, the existing fleet of reactors can continue operating safely while implementing lessons learned from the accident at Fukushima. Historical perspective is provided in the 2014 edition of Nuclear Energy Data.

Post-Fukushima safety enhancements in the United States include:

• Establishment of National Response Centres in Phoenix, Arizona and Memphis, Tennessee,

• Additional onsite safety equipment,

• Emergency preparedness,

• Containment venting systems,

• Spent fuel pool monitoring,

• Flooding protection,

• Seismic protection, and

• Mitigation strategies for beyond-design-basis external events

The nuclear industry, through the Nuclear Energy Institute (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 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States. It includes National Response Centres that were established near Memphis, Tennessee and Phoenix, Arizona; the response centres were fully operational in 2014. From those response centres, critical emergency equipment can be delivered to nuclear power plants within 24 hours. According to NEI, the start-up cost for each regional response centre is about USD40 million; annual operating costs are expected to be about USD4 million. Costs are shared by companies with operating reactors. All plants are expected to have implemented the FLEX strategy by the end of 2016.

All boiling-water reactors (BWR) 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. The industry expects to complete modifications to install this capability in 2019. 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 are installing spent fuel pool water level monitoring instrumentation that will function during extreme events. Instrumentation must be installed by 2016 or after two refueling outages, whichever occurs first.

Nuclear power plant re-evaluations of flooding hazards were completed in 2015. If the re-evaluated flooding hazard is more severe than the design basis of the plant, an integrated assessment of total plant response to the revised flooding hazard estimates is required. Many plants are expected to be required by NRC to perform integrated assessments of flooding scenarios. NRC is considering the level of detail required for such assessments.

All nuclear power plants were required to prepare revised seismic hazard estimates. NRC performed a prioritization of plants in the Central and Eastern United States (CEUS) and the Western United States (WUS). NRC is reviewing CEUS seismic hazards reports, which were submitted in March 2014; WUS plants should submit their reports by March 2015.

In July 2014, NRC approved combining certain rulemaking activities. The “Mitigation of Beyond-Design-Basis-Events” rule, which is likely to be issued in December 2016, is expected to address onsite emergency response capabilities; emergency preparedness; station blackout mitigation strategies and spent fuel pool instrumentation and makeup capabilities; and prolonged station blackout and multi-unit events (beyond design basis events).

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 Recommendations for Enhancing Reactor Safety in the 21st Century: 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.

Progress on post-Fukushima safety enhancements may be found at the NRC's website.

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 (TLAA) 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 finalized the first federal loan guarantee for USD6.5 billion with Georgia Power Company and Oglethorpe Power Corporation 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 1 January 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 U.S. electric grid was first 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.

Civic activism is encouraged in the United States, and nuclear power stakeholders have numerous mechanisms for expressing their support for or opposition to nuclear power. Stakeholders express their opinions to federal, state and local governments; they are encouraged to participate in regulatory proceedings through formal meetings and provision of comments on proposed rulemakings. In addition, stakeholders may express their views through numerous private organizations, which represent a variety of viewpoints on nuclear power.

According to EIA’s 2014 Domestic Uranium Production Report, U.S. uranium mines produced 1 889 tU in 2014, 7% more than in 2013. Two underground mines produced uranium ore during 2014, one less than during 2013. Additionally, eight in-situ-leach (ISL) mining operations produced solutions containing uranium in 2014, one more than in 2013. Overall, there were 10 mines that operated during all or part of 2014.

Total U.S. production of uranium concentrate in 2014 was 1,881 tU, a 5% increase over in 2013, from eight facilities: one mill in Utah (White Mesa Mill) and eight ISL plants (Alta Mesa Project, Crow Butte Operation, Hobson ISR Plant, La Palangana, Lost Creek Project, Nichols Ranch ISR Project, Smith Ranch – Highland Operation, and Willow Creek Project). The Nichols Ranch ISR Project started producing in 2014. The eight ISL plants are located in Nebraska, Texas, and Wyoming. Total shipments of uranium concentrate from U.S. mill and ISL plants were 1,769 tU in 2014, 1% less than in 2013. NRC is currently reviewing applications for six new facilities and fourteen expansions or restarts. 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

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, located in Metropolis, Illinois and operated by ConverDyn, Inc. The ConverDyn facility has a nameplate production capacity of approximately 15,000 tons per year of uranium hexafluoride (UF₆). In addition to domestic production, Canada, Australia, Russian Federation, Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan are major sources of U.S. concentrate imports.

2.7.2. Uranium Enrichment

Centrifuge

Centrifuge enrichment projects are in varying stages of completion.

• URENCO USA (New Mexico): The URENCO USA centrifuge facility in New Mexico commenced operations in June 2010 and was operating at a capacity of 3.7 million separative work units (SWU) as of 31 December 2014. The facility is expected to achieve a capacity of 4.7 million SWU in 2015 and 5.7 million SWU sometime in 2022. In November 2012, URENCO USA submitted a license amendment request to NRC to increase its enrichment capacity to 10 million SWU; in March 2015, the NRC approved the request.

• AREVA Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility (Idaho): In October 2011, AREVA’s Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility received an operating license from NRC; annual production capacity was expected to be 3.3 million SWU. Construction was to begin in 2012, followed by steady state operations in 2018. In 2013, however, AREVA announced the indefinite suspension of the project until market conditions improve.

• USEC American Centrifuge Plant (Ohio): Centrus commenced construction of the American Centrifuge Plant (ACP) in May 2007, after receiving an NRC license in April 2007 to construct and operate the facility at DOE’s Portsmouth site. Originally, the ACP was expected to achieve a capacity of 3.8 million SWU by 2017. Centrus continues to pursue research, development, and demonstration of the ACP technology; however, in April 2014, DOE transferred the responsibility for managing the program to Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL). Operation of ACP technology is dependent on securing financing, including a DOE Loan Guarantee.

Laser

The operating license application for GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy’s Global Laser Enrichment (GLE) facility in Wilmington, North Carolina was issued by NRC in September 2012; the licensed capacity of the facility is 6 million SWU per year. In July 2014, GLE announced that it was placing the facility in safe storage mode and slowing development of the project based on enrichment market conditions. No commercialization date is available.

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 was opening negotiations with GLE. GLE informed NRC in January 2014 that it would likely apply for an operating license for the laser enrichment facility at Paducah in September 2014. As of 31 December 2014, negotiations were continuing. Development of the facility is expected to continue at a pace consistent with current and future market conditions.

Secondary Enrichment Sources

Although the Megatons to Megawatts program expired in December 2013, Centrus Energy Corporation (Centrus) 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 more than double the amount of material purchased.

As under the Megatons to Megawatts program, Centrus 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.

Re-enriched Tails

DOE and the Bonneville Power Administration initiated a pilot project to re-enrich a portion of DOE’s tails inventory. This project produced approximately 1,940 tons of low-enriched uranium between 2005 and 2006 for use by Energy Northwest’s 1,190 MWe Columbia Generating Station between 2007 and 2015. In mid-2012, Energy Northwest and USEC, in conjunction with DOE, developed a new plan to re-enrich a portion of DOE’s high-assay tails. The 2013 project produced approximately 3,738 tons of natural uranium, which will be used over the next 10 years to fuel Energy Northwest and TVA reactors.

Summary

Most enrichment facilities in the United States are planning to be fully operational in the 2015-to-2022 timeframe, although 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, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Russian Federation, and elsewhere. Figure 9 provides a graphic representation of sources of enrichment services for 2014.

FIGURE 9. ORIGIN COUNTRY OF ENRICHMENT SERVICES 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. All three fabricators supply fuel for U.S. BWRs; AREVA NP Inc. and Westinghouse Electric Co. also supply fuel for U.S. PWRs.

DOE plans to fabricate mixed oxide (MOX) fuel at its Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility at the Savannah River site in South Carolina, beginning in 2019, using nearly 35 tons of surplus military plutonium to fabricate fuel for commercial reactors. As of 31 December 2014, no commercial contracts had been signed.

Commercial nuclear power reactors currently store most of their UNF on-site at the nuclear plant, although a small amount has been shipped to off-site facilities. In 2014, U.S. reactors discharged approximately 2,036 tHM (tons heavy metal), and the UNF inventory in the United States was approximately 72,780 tHM as of 31 December 2014.

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 tHM. UNF and HLW disposed of at the repository were expected to include about 63,000 tHM of commercial UNF, about 2,333 tHM of DOE UNF, and the equivalent of about 4,667 tHM (or tHM-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 with 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 Administration released its Strategy for the Management and Disposal of Used Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste (Strategy), 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 HLW 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 UNF and HLW, 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 UNF 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 UNF 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 (SER) for the proposed Yucca Mountain repository.

On 29 January 2015, the NRC published the SER in five separate volumes, which address: general information (Volume 1), repository safety before permanent closure (Volume 2), repository safety after permanent closure (Volume 3), administrative and programmatic requirements (Volume 4), and proposed conditions on the construction authorization and probable subjects of license specifications (Volume 5). In publishing the Yucca Mountain repository SER series, the NRC concluded that, “…DOE has met the applicable regulatory requirements, subject to the proposed conditions of construction authorization…” The NRC is not recommending issuance of a construction authorization at this time, because it has determined that DOE has not met regulatory requirements regarding ownership and control of certain land and water rights. The NRC requested that DOE provide a supplement environmental impact statement (SEIS) to support NRC’s issuance of its own SEIS in 2015. The NRC staff expects to issue a draft SEIS for public comment in late summer 2015 and a final SEIS in spring 2016.

In February 2015, Waste Control Specialists, LLC announced its intention to submit a license application to the NRC in 2016 for a privately owned and operated interim spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) in Texas; the facility would have an initial storage capacity of 10,000 tons. Holtec International, in partnership with the Eddy-Lea Energy Alliance (ELEA), announced in April 2015 that it intends to build an underground ISFSI near the existing DOE Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico; the facility would have a service life of 100 years. Both ISFSIs could be in operation by 2020.

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 supports 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. Since 2009, the NEUP has awarded approximately USD 290 million to 89 colleges and universities in 25 states and the District of Columbia.

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 and 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 (FCRD) 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 Nuclear Fuels Storage and Transportation (NFST) Planning Project is responsible for developing and beginning the implementation of an integrated management plan to (1) implement interim storage; (2) improve the overall integration of storage as a planned part of the waste management system; and (3) prepare for the large-scale transportation of used nuclear fuel and high-level waste, with an initial focus on removing used nuclear fuel from the shutdown reactor sites. 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 research and development related to the storage, transportation, and disposal of UNF and HWL. 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.

U.S. Department of Energy

The Office of Nuclear Energy works both bilaterally and multilaterally to accomplish this work.

Bilaterally, DOE collaborates in civil nuclear R&D and related issues through several vehicles, including the International Nuclear Energy Research Initiative (INERI), negotiated R&D agreements, memoranda of understanding, technical 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 Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the International Framework for Nuclear Energy Cooperation (IFNEC).

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, DOE 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 is a forum of states and organizations that share the common vision of the safe and secure development of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes worldwide. IFNEC’s two working groups, the Infrastructure Development Working Group and the Reliable Nuclear Fuel Services Working Group, support the mission of ensuring that the use of nuclear energy proceeds in a safe and secure manner by addressing specific objectives agreed upon by the members.

The Office of International Energy Policy and Cooperation (INEPC) oversees and manages DOE’s international commercial nuclear fuel management initiatives and supports DOE and U.S. government initiatives that foster increased U.S. exports of nuclear fuel and services, as appropriate. INEPC encourages international cooperation between governments and industry to provide commercially attractive fuel service options, including a comprehensive nuclear fuel services approach.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

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 eight INRA member countries, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States, which gather twice yearly to discuss issues of mutual regulatory interest.

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. NRC has close working relationships with 35 countries, and conducts confirmatory regulatory research in partnership with nuclear safety agencies and institutes in more than 20 countries. Research includes, but is not limited to, the following projects and programs: the Cooperative Severe Accident Research Program, the Code Applications and Maintenance Program, the Steam Generator Tube Integrity Program, and the Radiological Computer Code Analysis and Maintenance Program.

The NRC is the principal regulator of the nuclear power industry. The 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. The NRC has regulatory responsibility for:

1. Commercial reactors for generating electric power and non-power reactors used for research, testing, and training;

2. Uranium enrichment facilities and nuclear fuel fabrication facilities;

3. Uses of nuclear materials in medical, industrial, and academic settings and facilities that produce nuclear fuel; and

4. 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 the NRC. After reviewing the application and holding public hearings, the 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; and

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 October 18, 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 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 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. It 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 completed and approved by Congress during 2002.