7/23/2019 npi20151112-dl

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/npi20151112-dl 1/32

MORE INSIDE

• Executives Discuss the Nuclear Industry 

• Clean Power Plan’s Affect on Nuclear 

• Nuclear’s Unique Emergency Plans

A Publication

8Ups & Downs forN. American Nuclear

7/23/2019 npi20151112-dl

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/npi20151112-dl 2/32

7/23/2019 npi20151112-dl

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/npi20151112-dl 3/32

A  Publication

SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, NORTH AMERICAN POWER 

GENERATION GROUP —Richard Baker(918) 831-9187 richardb@pennwell.com

NUCLEAR POWER INTERNATIONAL MAGAZINE 

EDITOR—Sharryn Dotson

(918) 832-9339 sharrynd@pennwell.com

POWER ENGINEERING MAGAZINE MANAGING EDITOR—Russell Ray

(918) 832-9368 russellr@pennwell.com

GRAPHIC DESIGNER—Deanna Taylor

PRODUCTION MANAGER—Daniel GreeneNATIONAL BRAND MANAGER—Jenna Hall

(918) 832-9249 jennah@pennwell.comSENIOR MARKETING MANAGER—Rachel Campbell

(918) 831-9576 rachelc@pennwell.com

SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, AUDIENCE DEVELOPMENT 

& MARKETING—June Griffin

AUDIENCE DEVELOPMENT MANAGER—Jesse Fyler

CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS—PENNWELL CORP.

1421 S. Sheridan Road, Tulsa, OK 74112TELEPHONE: (918) 835-3161 FAX: (918) 831-9834

E-MAIL: PE@PENNWELL.COM  WORLD WIDE WEB: HTTP:// WWW.POWER-ENG.COM

FOR ASSISTANCE WITH MARKETING STRATEGY OR AD CREATION,

PLEASE CONTACT PENNWELL MARKETING SOLUTIONS

VICE PRESIDENT: Paul Andrews

Phone: 240.595.2352

Email: pandrews@pennwell.com

CHAIRMAN – Robert F. Biolchini

VICE CHAIRMAN – Frank T. Lauinger

PRESIDENT /CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER – Mark C. Wilmoth EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, CORPORATE DEVELOPMENT 

AND STRATEGY – Jayne A. Gilsinger

SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, FINANCE AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER – Brian Conway

SUBSCRIBER SERVICE

P.O. Box 3264

Phone: (847) 763-9750Fax: (847) 763-9607

REPRINT SALES — Rhonda BrownTel: 866.879.9144 ext 194 • Fax: 219.561.2023

rhondab@fosterprinting.com

 NUCLEAR POWER INTERNATIONAL  is pub-

lished six times a year by PennWell Corp., 1421

S. Sheridan Rd., Tulsa, OK 74112; phone (918)

835-3161. © Copyright 2015 by PennWell Corp.

(Registered in U.S. Patent Trademark Office). Au-

thorization to photocopy items for internal or per-

sonal use, or the internal or personal use of specific

clients, is granted by POWER ENGINEERING 

,ISSN 0032-5961, provided that the appropriate

fee is paid directly to Copyright Clearance Cen-

ter, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923

USA 978-750-8400. Prior to photocopying items

for educational use, contact Copyright Clearance

Center. For reprints, contact Foster Printing for

a price quote. For more information, please call

866-879-9144 or email us at pennwellreprints@

fosterprinting.com.

3 NUCLEAR POWER INTERNATIONAL  >  NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2015

NOVEMBER/DECEMBER | 2015

8

12

19

21

24

4 • ENRICHMENT

6 • FUEL FOR THOUGHT

26 • NEWS

N. AMERICA MARKET OVERVIEWA license approval and impending plant closures are

 just some of the latest issues in the industry.

NUCLEAR EXECUTIVE ROUNDTABLEExecutives from different segments of the industrydiscuss the present and future state of affairs.

CLEAN POWER PLAN’S

EFFECT ON NUCLEARWhat must be done for nuclear power tobe considered an integral par t of the EPA’s latest rule?

PREPARING FOR AN EMERGENCY Nuclear’s unique properties mean companiesmust take special steps to plan for an emergency.

ENGINEERS & MANAGEMENT MUST

SPEAK THE SAME LANGUAGEEngineers and management can mitigate issues quicklyand at lower costs if they can get on the same page.

COVER

NUCLEUS

DEPARTMENTS

 TVA’s Watts Bar 2 received it’s operating license.

7/23/2019 npi20151112-dl

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/npi20151112-dl 4/32

4 NUCLEAR POWER INTERNATIONAL  >  NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2015

ENRICHMENT 

A Lesson Not LearnedBy Sharryn Dotson, Editor 

auction for 2018-2019. That totals more

than 7,000 MW of generating capacity

that could potentially shut down

because the plants are not being properly

compensated for benefits like zero

emissions, around-the-clock generation

and the ability to reliably supplement

the increasing number of renewables

coming online. Nuclear executives have

said they only want nuclear power to be

treated equal to renewables and naturalgas. Nuclear power plants are inherently

expensive to build and operate, but they

pay for themselves over the long run.

The U.S. says it wants to cut emissions

and generate clean power, yet we are

pricing out some of the cleanest energy

that we own.

The effects of nuclear plants shutting

down early is not just felt in the U.S.

Germany will permanently close all

nuclear plants by 2022 and replace them

 with new renewable energy sources a fter

the 2011 Fukushima accident. Emissions

have increased, coal-fired power plants

are closing the capacity gap until the

renewables are built and the price of

electricity has gone up. It is est imated to

cost up to 1 tri llion euros ($1.54 tri llion)

to rebuild Germany’s energy sector.During a time when the world is taking

notice of the emission reduction efforts

of everyone, it seems counterproductive

to shut down sources of power that do

not emit any pollutants.

Maybe this will be the necessary wake

up call so we can stop the tide of nuclear

plants closing, though it may be too late

to heed the warnings before even more

pain is inf licted.

I was born and raised in the suburbs of Detroit, Michigan,

where the accents are an interesting blend of Midwestern

and Canadian. We also have our own phrases that others may

deem strange, yet seem perfectly normal to us (“Waddup doe”

immediately comes to mind. It’s a common greeting.) I have

lived in Pennsylvania and Louisiana, and have called Oklahoma

home for the past eight years. During my time living in the

South, I have picked up even more interesting vernacular.

 Whenever my two small children, especially my stubborn

4-year-old son, ignore my warnings of caution and are subsequently -- though not

seriously -- injured, the fir st thing that comes out of my mouth is “That’ll learn ya!” Along those same lines, it doesn’t seem like the U.S. electr icity markets are

listening to the nuclear industry’s warnings when it comes to compensating merchant

power plants, and the electricity grids and residents are the ones getting bruised. On

Oct. 13, Entergy announced that it would close the Pilgrim nuclear power plant in

Massachusetts by June 2019 due to “poor market conditions, reduced revenues and

increased operational costs.” Entergy said the Pilgr im plant is losing money fast with

no foreseeable f ix to the issue.

The Nuclear Energy Institute sounded

alarms in 2013 and 2014 and say the

closing of Pilgrim is a sign that some are

not paying attention. “When Wisconsin’s

Kewaunee nuclear plant was retiredprematurely in 2013, we warned that market reforms are needed to ensure that the

nation maintains a diversif ied portfolio of electricity options. We continued to sound

those warn ings when Entergy prematurely retired the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant

a year ago,” said Marvin Fertel, president and CEO of the Nuclear Energy Institute.

“Today’s announcement is more proof that the reforms urgently needed in competitive

electric markets are too slow in coming. Design flaws in wholesale markets such as

New England continue to result in artif icially low electricity and capacity prices.”

Sadly, history continues to repeat itself. Another plant closing means more jobs

lost, a need to fire up more gas and coal plants which leads to increased emissions;

and a strained local economy because tax payments and spending decreases. In

Carlton, Wisconsin, where Kewaunee was sited, the tax payments from the plant

continue to decrease annually by 20 percent since it closed in 2013. The number of jobs dropped from 632 employees at the time it closed to 140 who remain on hand for

decommissioning activities. Once the plant is completely shut down, those jobs will

go away or be absorbed elsewhere or in other industries. Pilgrim currently has 633

employees and will also decrease workers as the plant undergoes decommissioning.

Unfortunately, we have not learned our lesson soon enough. Entergy recently

announced that it will close the FitzPatrick plant in New York by late 2016 or early

2017 because it is facing similar financial conditions as Pilgrim. Exelon is evaluating

 whether to continue operating six nuclear stations in Ill inois, New Jersey and

Pennsylvania because of unfavorable market conditions and low natural gas prices, plus

many of the plants were not priced into the PJM Interconnection’s capacity market

 The Nuclear Energy Institute sounded alarms in 2013 and 2014 andsay the closing of Pilgrim is a sign that some are not paying attention.

7/23/2019 npi20151112-dl

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/npi20151112-dl 5/32

That’s not marketing hype.That’s based on decades of dramatic,

real-life experience in various nuclear powergeneration applications around the world.Check out User Group feedback, and seeif our claims are valid.

We also offer references, case studies,

a 900-page Engineering Binder, world

class engineering and technical support.Please contact us today at P.O. Box 1049,Somers CT 06071; phone 860.749.0761; fax 860.763.3557; sales@Conval.com;

High-performance valves and accessoriesfor the world’s most demanding  applications

Clampseal® globe valves (above),Swivldisc® gate valves (below left) and

Camseal® zero-leakage, top-entry ball valves(below center and right) are global favorites.

If you ask around, talk to peers,and study the total life cycle of N-stamp valves,

Conval® truly is the smartest choice.

7/23/2019 npi20151112-dl

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/npi20151112-dl 6/32

6 NUCLEAR POWER INTERNATIONAL  >  NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2015

FUEL FOR THOUGHT 

Why Georgia Marcheson Towards More NuclearTim G. Echols

While the rest of the nation toggles between natural gas

and renewables, Georgia maintains a strong commitment

to building new nuclear. Some scratch their head in

disbelief, but those who live in this bright red state understand our

determination. Let me explain.

First, our state has no Columbia or Colorado Rivers to produce big

hydro power. We have no power plants on mine-mouths, natural gasfields, or Hoover Dams. A significant portion of Georgia’s fuel for

electricity production has to be transported over 1,000 miles. Yet, our

energy prices are still low. Chalk that up to good planning and management by Georgia

Power and constructive regulation from an all-Republican public utility commission—

elected statewide every six years.

 What we do have is nuclear power, and it enjoys widespread support. After all, our state

is situated in the Silicon Valley of Nuclear Power. Plant Vogtle is south of Augusta on the

Savannah River directly across from the Savannah River Site—210 square miles of all-things-

nuclear including reprocessing, storage, five decommissioned reactors, and an Areva-built

MOX facility under construction. Just up the road from that federal site is Plant V.C. Summer

 where SCANA is building two Westinghouse AP1000 reactors just like the ones being built

at Plant Vogtle in Georgia. To the northwest is the Oconee Nuclear Station—a reactoroperating since 1973. Finally, to the east is Barnwell, the low-level waste storage site that has

been in operation since 1971.

So you see, our citizens are familiar with nuclear power and in fact, attribute our low rates

to nuclear’s low life cycle cost. The two new 1,100 megawatt nuclear power units that are

under construction will increase Georgia’s capacity to generate nuclear electricity by more

than 50 percent. Once the new zero-emissions nuclear units are in operation they will supply

a substantial portion of our state’s baseload generation.

 And for those coal haters out there, I have good news. According to retired Georgia Tech

engineering professor James Rust, a factor not mentioned in support of nuclear power is its

inf luence on domestic reserves of coal and natural gas. Rust’s research demonstrates that

 just one of the new nuclear units at Plant Vogtle, if it had been a fossil-unit instead, would

consume 230 million tons of coal or 5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas over its 60-yearlifetime. In essence, nuclear power plants extend the life of our fossil fuel reserves far out into

the future and reduce future price increases. I guess that is good news for India, China and

Germany—who will have the opportunity to buy up cheap American coal.

Nuclear power is the poster child of reliability. It is no accident that Georgia doesn’t

experience the blackouts or rolling brownouts as experienced by northeastern states, Texas or

California. The Vogtle co-owners, Georgia Power, Oglethorpe Power (the EMCs), MEAG

(city-owned electric utilities), and the City of Dalton, enjoy the benefits of these reactors

operating 24/7 for 18 months at a time—rain, shine, snow, with wind, or without. Remember

the polar vortex when the price of natural gas spiked 800 percent in certain northeastern

states. Georgia didn’t experience any of that mess. Yet, the equally-reliable Vermont Yankee

nuclear plant located in the New England ISO (Independent System Operator) shut down

 with no objection from President Obama or

northern politicians. Go figure.

Understand Georgia politics. The Georgia

legislature passed a bill that allows GeorgiaPower to collect the financing cost of the

 Vogtle project during construction. The

PSC, prior to my arrival, approved a similar

measure. Why? Because it reduced the

certified costs of the project by $300 million

and reduced the company’s borrowing

cost by tens of millions of dollars. But let’s

be clear, it also vested the leadership of the

legislature. So with all the utilities investing

in Vogtle, and many of the politicians vested

in the project’s success, the state was “all-in”

on new nuclear. The addition of productiontax credits, the federal loan guarantee, and

the current low-interest cost environment

further sweetened the deal.

Then along came the Clean Power Plan.

 You probably can understand now why we

focused so much of our official comments,

lobbying, and political capital towards

getting full credit for these reactors. The

draft plan’s formula shortchanged our

state, but when the final plan was issued

new nuclear received favorable treatment

making those reactors worth 10 percent ofour total compliance with the Clean Power

Plan. Both the PSC and Georgia Power

had envisioned a carbon-constrained future

 when they certified the reactors, and that

future is now reality.

There are concerns about using nuclear

power from both economic and societal

perspectives—including concerns regarding

the nuclear waste. One day I hope to see

a commercial reprocessing facility in the

aforementioned Silicon Valley of Nuclear

Power. These areas are legitimate concernsand some of the smartest minds in the world

are working on these issues. I am confident

that we will work out a sustainable solution.

But in the meantime, Georgia and South

Carolina will use our competitive advantage

of cheap nuclear energy to bring more jobs

to our states.

Tim Echols is a Commissioner in the state of

Georgia and strong advocate for nuclear power. He

owns two electric cars and promotes utility scale solar.

7/23/2019 npi20151112-dl

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/npi20151112-dl 7/32

nuscalepower.com

@NuScale_Pow

NuScale Power

NuScale Power has attained the Triple Crown for Nuclear Plant Safety™. With NO

operator action, NO AC or DC power, and NO added water, the NuScale Power

Module™ will achieve safe, self-cooled shutdown, and maintain it indefinitely. Using

natural forces—convection, conduction, and gravity—the NuScale Power Module

eliminates many of the complex mechanical systems found in conventional nuclear

power plants and other small modular reactor designs. Safety: The Element of Nu.™

er

3

© 2015 NuScale Power, LLC. All Rights Reserved.

7/23/2019 npi20151112-dl

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/npi20151112-dl 8/32

8 NUCLEAR POWER INTERNATIONAL  >  NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2015

NUCLEUS

By Wayne Barber, Chief Analyst, GenerationHub

ing with a consortium of Chicago Bridge& Iron (CBI) and Westinghouse Electric.

But the contractors announced Oct. 27

that Westinghouse, which is part of Toshi-

ba, will acquire the stock of CB&I nuclear

construction affiliate Stone & Webster.

 Westinghouse also announced that it

 will hire Fluor as a subcontracted con-

struction manager.

 As a result of the new contractor ar-

rangement, the owners of Vogtle and

 The recent issuance of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) operating license

for the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)’s Watts Bar 2 nuclear project in Tennes-

see provided the industry with an infusion of badly-needed good news.

TVA said Oct. 22 that it had received its long-sought license from the NRC for the

1,150-MW Watts Bar Unit 2 nuclear reactor near Spring City, Tennessee. When it comes

online early in 2016, Watts Bar 2 will be the first new nuclear plant deployed in the

United States since the 1990s.Like much of the U.S. nuclear industry, Watts Bar has a long and complex history.

TVA received a construction permit for Watts Bar units 1 and 2 in 1973. Construction

on Unit 2, however, was suspended in the 1980s though many major structures were

in place.

In 1999, TVA sought and would ultimately receive NRC approval to revive con-

struction at the deferred Watts Bar 2 reactor. In 2007, the TVA Board of Directors

decided to resume construction at Watts Bar 2, but the resurrection did not get off to

a good start.

“The project was not successful in meeting the milestones outlined in the project

approval. Previous efforts at project recovery were not successful,” TVA said in a 2012

report.

TVA put a new management team in place to get the project back on track. TVAalso acknowledged in 2012 that finishing Watts Bar 2 would be more expensive than

originally anticipated. TVA announced in the spring of 2012 that completing the unit

could cost up to $4.5 billion, rather than the $2.49 billion that was originally forecast

back in 2007.

Nevertheless, TVA said in its 2012 report on Watts Bar 2 that the nuclear plant would

remain a cost competitive baseload source of electricity even if natural gas stays around

$2.50/mmBtu long-term.

Together with the currently-operating Unit 1, Watts Bar will produce nearly 2,300

MW of carbon-free energy. That’s enough to power 1.3 million homes in the TVA ser-

 vice territory, said TVA President Bill Johnson.

SOUTHERN, SCANA OPTIMISTIC ABOUTREVISED CONTRACTOR ARRANGEMENT

Elsewhere in the Southeast, construction continues in earnest on four new units in Geor-

gia and South Carolina that will use the Westinghouse Electric AP1000 reactor design.

Southern unit Georgia Power and SCANA unit South Carolina Electric & Gas

(SCE&G) think that a recent agreement that places Westinghouse as the sole contractor

on the projects will increase the likelihood that the new reactors get deployed in 2019

and 2020.

The owners of Vogtle Units 3 and 4 in Georgia as well as V.C. Summer Units 2 and 3

in South Carolina agreed to an amendment to the existing Engineering, Procurement,

and Construction (EPC) contract. The owners of the respective projects had been work-

The NRC approved Watts Bar 2 for its operating license.

Highs and Lows in theN. American Nuclear Industry

7/23/2019 npi20151112-dl

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/npi20151112-dl 9/32

9NUCLEAR POWER INTERNATIONAL  >  NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2015

Summer have agreed to a settlement oflegal disputes with the contractors. The

settlement includes incentives for the

contractor to get the nuclear units com-

pleted on time, said Southern CEO Tom

Fanning.

In addition to these plants, the NRC

earlier this year issued a license to a DTE

Energy aff iliate to build and operate a new

nuclear reactor, Fermi 3, in Michigan.

Don’t look for DTE to break ground on a

new nuclear plant anytime soon, however.“We don’t have a date. We don’t have a

timetable,” a DTE nuclear spokesman said

this spring.

DTE said it plans to hold the license for

potential future power generation. The

new nuclear energy facility would be built

on the site of the existing Fermi 2 nuclear

plant in Newport, Mich.

Most of the new nuclear power plant

applications that NRC has received since

2007 have either been suspended or with-

drawn. As of mid-October, the NRC still

has plant applications “under review” forprojects in Pennsylvania, Florida, Virginia,

Texas and South Carolina.

In addition, the NRC expects to receive

a small modular reactor (SMR) applica-

tion in the next year or so from NuScale

Power. NuScale is looking to develop its

first commercial SMRs in connection with

Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems

(UAMPS).

The NRC has also said that it expects

to receive an early site permit application

from Blue Castle Holdings, which hopesto develop a nuclear plant in Utah.

SOME REACTORS RETIRE EARLY,

OTHERS ON ENDANGERED LIST

 When Watts Bar 2 starts commercial

operation, it will increase the U.S. reactor

fleet from 99 units to 100 – for a while at

least. Nuclear power accounts for about 20

percent of the nation’s electric generation.

Meanwhile the U.S. nuclear industry is

coping with premature plant closings and

rumors of closings.Nuclear is having a tough time com-

peting in markets that are dominated by

power generated by subsidized renewables

and “two-dollar gas” as one industry of-

ficial put it.

 While regional carbon trading, en-

couraged by the Environmental Protec-

tion Agency (EPA) Clean Power Plan,

could eventually enhance market value of

nuclear power that hasn’t happened yet,

officials say.

U.S. nuclear power could also benefitfrom capacity market changes in the PJM

Interconnection (PJM). Elsewhere, most in-

come from non-utility nuclear plants comes

from energy , not capacity, officials say.

Entergy announced plans in mid-Oc-

tober to close the 680-MW Pilgrim plant

in Massachusetts by June 2019. The shut-

down could come in 2017 depending on

 whether Entergy elects to go ahead with

its next refueling outage.

7/23/2019 npi20151112-dl

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/npi20151112-dl 10/32

10 NUCLEAR POWER INTERNATIONAL  >  NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2015

NUCLEUS

In addition, Entergy will close the 850-

MW FitzPatrick plant in Oswego County,

N.Y. by late 2016 or early 2017.

Exelon has long planned to shut the

636-MW Oyster Creek nuclear plant in

New Jersey by the end of 2019.

Exelon recently announced that it

 would defer any decision about the fu-ture operations of its 1,100-MW Clinton

nuclear plant for one year and plans to bid

the plant into the Midcontinent Indepen-

dent System Operator (MISO) capacity

auction for the 2016-2017 planning year.

Plants that have already closed in recent

times include Duke Energy’s 800-MW

Crystal River 3 nuclear unit in Florida.

Duke announced in early 2013 that it

 would permanently close the nuclear fa-

cility that it acquired as part of the Prog-

ress Energy merger. The plant had alreadybeen offline since late 2009 after it was

damaged during a planned outage.

Dominion’s 550-MW Kewaunee nucle-

ar plant in Wisconsin stopped operating in

May 2013. It was Dominion’s only nuclear

unit in the Midwest.

Entergy closed the roughly 600-MW

 Vermont Yankee nuclear plant at the end

of 2014. While Entergy was frequently in

fights with Vermont officials about the

plant, Entergy said market factors were the

primary cause.

Then there is Edison International

(NYSE:EIX)’s dual-unit San Onofre Nu-

clear Generating Station (SONGS) in Cal-

ifornia. Edison announced in June 2013

that it would permanently retire units 2

and 3, rather than seek to resume opera-

tions of SONGS. The move effectively re-moved 2,200 MW of baseload power from

the California market.

NUCLEAR POWER REMAINS

STEADY IN CANADA, MEXICO

There are 19 power reactors currently

operating at four nuclear power generat-

ing stations in Canada, according to the

Canadian Nuclear Association. Nuclear

power provided approximately 16 percent

of Canada’s electricity in 2014.

Ontario Power Generation (OPG) hassaid that it continues to make investments

to improve the performance of the Picker-

ing station through 2020.

OPG owns and operates the Pickering

and Darlington Nuclear Power Stations

in Ontario. The two stations have a com-

bined generating capacity of more than

6,000 MW.

Bruce Power says Ontario’s power from

its eight-unit facility along the Lake Huron

shoreline produces roughly 30 percent, or

6,300 MW, of Ontario’s electricity. The Ca-

nadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC)

decided in May to renew, as a single license,the power reactor operating licenses for the

Bruce A and B Nuclear Generating Stations

in the Municipality of Kincardine, Ontario.

The license will be valid from June 1, 2015

until May 31, 2020.

The 680-MW Point Lepreau nuclear

plant owned by NB Power in New Bruns-

 wick continues to operate. It returned to

service Oct. 20 after the operator com-

pleted repairs to a turbine auxiliary system

on the conventional (non-nuclear) side of

the plant.Mexico has a single nuclear power plant,

Laguna Verde, in Veracruz. The Laguna

 Verde power plant is operated by Comis-

ión Federal de Electricidad (CFE). The

plant includes two boiling water reactors

(BWRs) with a combined generating ca-

pacity of 1,400 MW.

The Laguna Verde station accounted for

4 percent of Mexico’s total electricity gen-

eration in 2014, according to a report from

the U.S. Energy Information Administra-

tion (EIA).Current operating licenses for the re-

actors expire in 2020 and 2025, but they

are expected to receive extensions, EIA

said. There are plans to expand Mexico’s

nuclear generation capacity by building

additional plants; however, low natural gas

prices have delayed these plans.

In other words, cheap natural gas con-

tinues to trump new nuclear construction

for the most part in both Mexico and the

United States.

Wayne Barber, Chief Analyst for the Generation-

Hub, has been covering power generation, energy

and natural resources issues at national publica-

tions for more than 22 years. Prior to joining Pen-

nWell he was editor of Generation Markets Week at

SNL Financial for nine years. He has also worked

as a business journalist at both McGraw-Hill and

Financial Times Energy. Wayne also worked as a

newspaper reporter for several years. During his

career he has visited nuclear reactors and coal

mines as well as coal and natural gas power plants.

Entergy’s FitzPat rick nuclear plant is set to shut down by 2016 or 2017.

7/23/2019 npi20151112-dl

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/npi20151112-dl 11/32

Nuclear power plant operation and maintenance practices and related decision making are highly scrutinized by

many stakeholders. Structural Integrity can provide our engineering strength and knowledge to help you meet yourdemands so you can focus on delivering power.

Our engineering strength comes in many forms -- from our 30+ years of experience, to our team of over200 technical experts, to our new Training Program.

Call us today to put our engineering strength to the test.

ENGINEERING STRENGTH

www.structint.com/NPI Scan the QR Code for more information

( 8 7 7 - 4 S I - P O W E R )8 7 7 - 4 7 4 - 7 6 9 3

7/23/2019 npi20151112-dl

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/npi20151112-dl 12/32

12 NUCLEAR POWER INTERNATIONAL  >  NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2015

NUCLEUS

2015 Nuclear Executive

ROUNDTABLEBy Sharryn Dotson, Editor 

total nuclear energy capacity.

Walt Sanders, Day & Zimmermann: I

think it’s possible but as the other panelists

have said it’s not going to happen anytime

soon. There is obviously a lengthy process

for permitting and licensing new nuclear

P

resident Obama’s Clean Power Plan, electricity prices, and a lack of financial incentives

are just some of the issues that many feel are working against the U.S. nuclear industry.There have been recent reports painting a negative picture of future operations of

nuclear power plants like Entergy’s Indian Point in New York, and Exelon’s Clinton and

Quad Cities in Illinois. Some lawmakers are calling for the closure of these plants. Despite

all the presumed doom and gloom, many others in the industry say that nuclear power will

continue to be an important and necessary part of the U.S. electricity mix , especially if

that includes an increased need for clean and reliable energy.

This year’s roundtable participants are: Terry Pickens, Director, Nuclear Regulatory

Policy, Xcel Energy; Andy Klein, ANS Vice President and professor of nuclear engineering

and radiation health physics at Oregon State University; Walt Sanders, President of Day &

Zimmermann NPS; and Simon Irish, CEO of Terrestrial Energy.

NPI: Do you think there is a chance for more new builds in the U.S. after the five underconstruction are completed? If not, what would have to change? If so, why

do you feel that way?

Terry Pickens, Xcel Energy: I do think there is a chance for more new builds

in the U.S. after the five under construction. I think what’s going to drive that is

the carbon reduction goals when folks start looking at the age of the existing fleet.

 As they look to retire them, I think they will start to recognize that the role of

nuclear in keeping carbon emissions low is very important. While renewables are

 very valuable, I’m not sure that we’re going to find that they have the flexibility

 with the fact that they’re not 24-7. They are interrupted when the sun doesn’t

shine and the wind doesn’t blow. With that, I think they’re going to find that

 we need a good source of strong baseload generation with the growing concerns

over coal. If you start to replace too much of the clean nuclear with natural gas, you’re going to find that your emissions will start going back up again. For that

reason alone, as things settle out, we will see construction to replace the existing

units as they get older.

Andy Klein, ANS: I agree 100 percent with Terry. There’s always a chance for

new builds, but it may be a few years until the ones currently under construction come online

and have a chance to prove themselves as efficient and reliable and effective in meeting global

climate change and lead to greenhouse gas reductions. In my opinion, we can’t reach the

targets for greenhouse gas emission reductions that have been set without nuclear. There’s

absolutely no possibility of doing it in the long run or the short run. We will need to keep the

nuclear plants currently running for the next 25 yearsand at least replace them or expand the

Upgrade projects, like the one at the

Callaway Energy Center, will become more

prevalent as reactors are pushed beyond

the 40-year timeframe.

 Andy Klein, ANSTerry Pickens, Xcel Energy

7/23/2019 npi20151112-dl

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/npi20151112-dl 13/32

13NUCLEAR POWER INTERNATIONAL  >  NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2015

so. Traditional nuclear plants have become

enormously expensive to build and we do

not expect the costs of building a traditional

nuclear plant will decline. Whether

more new builds are approved, therefore,

 will depend on whether there are otheralternatives that are less costly.

 We believe the next generation of nuclear,

such as the Integral Molten Salt Reactor

(IMSR) that we at Terrestrial Energy are

proposing, will prove to be a much less costly

alternative, and we are confident that it will

be available next decade, i.e., within the

planning horizon of utilities that might be

considering whether it makes sense to build

a new, traditional LWR.

generation facilities, and the regulatory

climate can make building a new plant quite

costly. As with most new construction,

financing becomes a central issue to

getting new plants built. I do think new

construction could be spurred if we had a

national energy policy that really

supports a balanced portfolio

including nuclear generation in

a more direct way. So much of

the current plans for the future

seem focused on renewables,but nuclear generation is also a

zero-emission energy source. I

think its going to be important

to shift some of the public policy

and general conversation around nuclear

before we see new construction take shape.

Simon Irish, Terrestrial Energy:

 Whether more light water reactors are

commissioned in the future depends entirely

on the economic considerations of doing

alt Sanders, Day & Zimmermann Simon Irish, Terrestria l Energy

7/23/2019 npi20151112-dl

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/npi20151112-dl 14/32

14   NUCLEAR POWER INTERNATIONAL  >  NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2015

NUCLEUS

 We did go for a Certificate of Need in the

state of Minnesota and they agreed that they

 wanted us to move ahead with the poweruprate. So we did have support for moving

ahead with it. The state agreed that having

additional nuclear generation was a good

thing in Minnesota. Then as we started to

progress, but with things like Fukushima

happening, there were issues that I think

 were more difficult to navigate with the

NRC, like crediting containment pressure

in accidents. They took a much harder look

at that, so I don’t think it was backlash or

somebody that didn’t want us to do it. They

 wanted to make sure that if we were goingto operate this unit at the higher power

level, that we considered everything that

 went into the original licensing basis and

made sure that everything is okay. That’s a

little different, as you pointed out, than the

regulatory backlash that you see at an Indian

Point. We’ve always had great support in

Minnesota for operating our nuclear power

plant. I just think there were more technical

issues and the NRC wanted to make sure

they dotted their I’s and crossed their T’s

and had everything in order before they gaveus the approval to move ahead.

Andy: Fukushima did set us back as an

industry, but developments such as uprates

and license extensions have been continuing

even after Fukushima. We also continue to

see some new plants under construction. It

is important to note that there is still support

for nuclear energy technology.

NPI: At ANS’ annual meeting earlier this

year, many experts talked about educating

the public on how radiation is monitoredand also how it is located everywhere. Do

you feel the industry has done a good job

in educating the public on nuclear and

radiation, or does more need to be done?

Simon: We believe much more needs to be

done. As a society we must make our energy

choices based on a transparent and objective

assessment of risks; no energy choice is

 without risk. At the moment, nuclear power

is a paradox. On the one hand nuclear has

NPI:  Many U.S. nuclear plants are

undergoing uprates to increase capacity

and operations. Will that be the new focuswhether new nuclear plants are built or not

in the future?

Andy:  I do think uprates will happen.

There have been quite a few over the last 20

 years that have already been accomplished.

Pushing those plants a little harder might

 work. Terry may have a better view on the

feasibility of doing that. This would be a

reasonable activity as we continue to develop

the understanding of the operations of these

plants and the safety margins under which

they operate. Walt: Utilities have a responsibility to

optimize their operating assets, which is

 why our focus has always been on plant

lifecycle solutions that lower the total cost

of ownership for customers. Obviously,

there are many factors that are considered

prior to undertaking an uprate project. If

the financial model supports an improved

return for investing the capital to increase

output, then we’ll probably continue to see

asset uprate related activity. We’re working

on some optimization projects now, andexpect this type of activity to continue.

Simon: We see that this will play a role

and has a place in the provision of clean

power in the U.S. However, the much

bigger opportunity is for the next generation

of nuclear reactors to deliver a new-build

nuclear solution driven by the very different

capital profile of some advanced nuclear

designs, a smaller reactor format and one

that is far more competitive on a dollar-per-

 Watt basis.

Terry: We just completed a power uprateat our Monticello Nuclear Generating

Plant in July of this year. We hit sustained

operations of 71 MW electric additional

capacity. It was an interesting experience

doing the power uprate. I think we found

that it was more challenging in the current

regulatory environment than we would

have thought of when we started. From the

time we first decided to actually putting the

additional 71 MW from the uprate online, it

 was probably 10 years getting through all the

regulatory processes and ensuring the NRC

that it was safe to operate. I think because ofthe value of investing in an existing power

plant and getting megawatts out without

having to build a new one, we will see more

in the future. I was just looking on the NRC

 website, they’re listing so far that uprates

have resulted in some 7,000 additional

megawatts electric put on the system in the

U.S. There are many plants out there that

still have the capability to do additional

uprates. The other piece on the uprates is

that, in order to operate these plants longer

,we need to make lifecycle managementinvestments in order to keep them reliable

and those cost money too. But when you

look at the investments needed to do that,

it’s still small in comparison to bringing new

capacity online. So, I think we will see those

things moving forward.

NPI: Terry, the uprate that you did at

Monticello, how much did that cost and

what was the capacity before and what is

it now?

Terry:  Nominally, it was 600 MW(electric) before, now we’re up to about

671 MW, and the investment that we made

 were in both power uprate and lifecycle

management, because we were entering

the 20 years of extended operation and the

license renewal about the same time we

 were doing the power uprate. So, it was a

combined investment of over $600 million

that we invested in the plant in order to

operate it for 20 years and get the additional

71 MW.

NPI:  And you mentioned there were

some regulatory issues with the uprate

project. We sort of see the same kind of

battle in New York with Indian Point against

lawmakers and government, though its

not quite the same situation. Why do you

think there are some lawmakers that are

against nuclear? Is it fear from Fukushima,

or is it the price tag?

Terry: Let me clarify in terms of regulatory.

7/23/2019 npi20151112-dl

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/npi20151112-dl 15/32

15NUCLEAR POWER INTERNATIONAL  >  NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2015

Sample conditioning. Corrosion control. Water chemistry.

Aging assets. Regulatory compliance. Shrinking workforce.

The stuff that costs you time, money and resources.

Learn more at sentry-equip.com/power-gen.

We sweat the [small] stuff.

It turns out it’s not small stuff after all. When your plant must

deliver reliable electricity at low cost, your most experienced

staff are retiring, and your plant resources are limited, what can

you do?

Trust the experts. We offer power generation steam & water

lifecycle products and services from sample conditioning to

corrosion control to water chemistry services – a complete

range of solutions that no other company offers.

Issues solved. With proven sampling expertise since 1924,

Sentry® products and services provide power plants the criticalinsights to optimize processes for increased production output,

effi ciency and safety.

There are conflicting messages in schools

and the general media. It is a really tough

thing for the public to deal with when theysee these conflicting messages. The industry

been the safest energy technology in the US

for generations by a considerable margin.

On the other it attracts the most fear. Why?The heart of this paradox is the “linear no

threshold” assumption that has been the

central tenet of radiation safety policy for 60-

plus years. Its continued use reinforces fear

by promoting the view that any radiation is

dangerous when after 50 years there is no

epidemiological evidence to support a “no

threshold” response theory for low doses

– e.g., the population of Denver does not

have health issues arising from its higher

levels of background radiation. There

are arguments put forward today - by farmore credible voices - that say the use of

the unsubstantiated “no threshold” model

is in fact a far greater health risk – e.g., the

forced evacuation of large populations based

on this unsupported theory can lead to a

 very poor balance of risks. This issue of a

“no threshold” response must be debated

publicly and arguments communicated

clearly and openly. Its resolution must

be based on sound science and free from

connivance by other constituencies who

gain from promoting fear and from itscontinued central place in policy. Without

this process, confidence will probably not be

restored. We will not reach a consensus and

 we will make bad energy choices for future

generations. Is this not the real risk we face?

The nuclear industry, historically cowed into

submission from past errors, must now grasp

the “no threshold” nettle.

The industry can point to an encouraging

note in this matter. This year the NRC

published a policy paper suggesting that

the “no threshold” theory is no longer theappropriate standard upon which to base

public safety policy.

Andy:  As a nuclear educator, this is a

topic that has been difficult for us for quite

a while. I think the industry has done a

fairly good job of communicating about

radiation, especially in the communities

 where they operate. That is a much easier

task than getting the word out to all of the

people in the U.S. Achieving broad popular

understanding is very difficult through a

national education campaign. We haven’t

seen much public education on radiationrecently from the Department of Energy.

7/23/2019 npi20151112-dl

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/npi20151112-dl 16/32

16   NUCLEAR POWER INTERNATIONAL  >  NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2015

NUCLEUS

intellectual perspective, but the real question

is whether the R&D money is available

and if there is enough financial backing

for a “first of its kind” deployment of thetechnology. The investment community is

going to evaluate the risks associated with

investing in unproven technology. You

know, the industry has implemented many

smaller innovations over the years that

already have a tangible impact. Although

many of the nuclear plants are 40-years-

old, there has been significant investment

in new operating equipment and system

modif ications. I would like to see more of

this innovation over time, but it really does

come down to funding.Simon: In a word, no. As it turns out, this

situation may confer a special competitive

advantage upon our company. In the main,

however, this area of technological endeavor

is not yet given its proper place either in the

pantheon of base-load power solutions or

as an engine for de-carbonization. Nuclear

power is responsible for 60 percent to 65

percent of America’s total carbon-free

energy every single year, yet the innovation

in commercial nuclear technology has

moved at a glacial pace since the 1970s. Thisis purely a function of lack of investment and

a lack of vision. Government and industry

in the West have tacitly overseen the decline

of nuclear power, while in the non-OECD,

nations like China, India and Russia

have been aggressively investing in new

technology and widespread deployment.

One conceivable issue is that people

may not be thinking broadly enough

about advanced nuclear. It is a far richer

tapestry than is reflected in the current

industry narrative. By way of example,even your question suggests lumping the

 whole universe of liquid-fueled reactor

technologies into one collective noun:

“molten salt reactor”. Within this group,

however, there are many different systems;

fast and thermal spectrum, different fuel

cycles, different salt chemistries whether

fluoride or chloride, different design

configurations, different market objectives.

Each is a unique technology and has its

needs to be consistent in the messaging

around radiation. Due to the distributed

nature of our educational systems, it is

challenging to reach into schools witha technical discussion on radiation. It is

even more difficult to reach the general

adult population, but we still need to try

on both fronts.

Terry: Andy, let me ask you a question at

the same time I’m answering. I’m reading

all the work, and I’m a mechanical engineer.

I’m not a radiation protection specialist. I

think part of it is it’s so easy for the folks who

oppose us to use the inflammatory rhetoric

and things like that, and people always hear

that there’s no safe level of radiation. I’vebeen watching the recent discussion going

on about the “linear no-threshold” model

and it seems like that’s extremely important

 work that needs to progress because if we

can get to the point where we have a well-

discussed public debate, and we get away

from there is “no safe level of radiation”,

 we correct linear no-threshold model that

 we’ve been working on for 40 years. I think

that will go a long ways toward helping us

in the education process, because those who

oppose us will then have a more difficulttime, if you will, of just tossing out there’s

no safe level and some of the inflammatory

rhetoric. Do you think that will be a help?

 Andy I’m not sure. The conversation

and the research to understand that very

low doses and long-term exposure to

slightly above or around background levels

of radiation are going to be very difficult

and very expensive. And, I am not entirely

convinced that it will be conclusive. It’s

going to be very difficult to conduct that

research and is going to require researchersto look at large populations of people over

quite a long period of time. The conversation

is important to have, but I am just not sure

that it will settle the argument once and

for all. I think that it is a very tough issue

because of the difficulty in dealing with a

large population, very low doses over long

periods of time.

Terry:  And I think the answer to the

question is, and I agree with you, I think

 we’ve done a fair job, but I think there’s

always room for us to improve. Some of

 what we try to do is get more independent

folks involved because somehow, theDOE, government, NRC or utilities aren’t

 viewed as the most credible source. So we’re

 working with science teachers to try and

educate them in the most basic settings of

the classroom.

Andy:  That’s absolutely critical to

continuing the public’s understanding of

radiation and nuclear activities. It is easiest

to do locally, and that’s why I have observed

that power plants have done a fairly good job

of doing it locally. Power plants have been

getting that broad public message out, butgetting this information into textbooks

and teachers nationwide makes it a very

challenging educational problem.

Terry: Yeah, I agree.

Walt:  I think the industry has done a

decent job in this area, but there is always

room for improvement. I would echo what

Terry and Andy have said as it relates to

local education. Individual plants do a

really good job of getting information

out in the community. I think nationally

that’s a bigger challenge. Andy mentionedschools, and I believe engagement at that

level is really important in changing the

national conversation. Effort is required at

both the federal and local level. Individual

plants can reach out to their local school

districts to open lines of communication.

Maybe they encourage field trips to on-site

learning centers or offer to speak to classes.

 We need students to have an outside-the-

classroom perspective on nuclear energy.

Service providers have a responsibility, too,

since we need to keep the nuclear talentpipeline filled.

NPI:  We have seen an emergence

of companies developing advanced

reactor technologies such as SMRs,

Westinghouse’s AP1000, molten salt

reactors and GE Power & Water’s PRISM.

Is there enough support to encourage

more innovation like this?

Walt:  I think there is support from an

7/23/2019 npi20151112-dl

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/npi20151112-dl 17/32

17NUCLEAR POWER INTERNATIONAL  >  NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2015

ESI-Energy Consultants’ (ENERCON’s) in-house staff numbers more

than 1,600 including experienced professionals with advanced

degrees, professional licenses and certifications. Our key personnel

and associates average over 20 years of experience in project

engineering and regulatory compliance. When operating experience

in the commercial nuclear industry counts, we have the resources you

need — professionals with new plant licensing, regulatory, startup and

engineering experience that matters. With 31 offices, we can take on

the most challenging nuclear projects.

Enercon Services, Inc. (USA), doing business internationally as ESI-Energy Consultants

500 TownPark Lane Kennesaw, GA 30144

 t  +1 770.919.1930 f  +1 770.919.1932

enercon.com

ESI-Energy Consultants

the marketplace tends to be very slow. Thus,

federally-sponsored R&D is incredibly

important.

Terry: I agree completely with what An-dy’s saying. I have watched over the 39 years

of my career. Just look at Xcel Energy, and

one of its subsidiaries, NSP-Minnesota. We

used to have programs where utilities would

 work with the Atomic Energy Commission

(now the Department of Energy) to develop

new technologies. Then, when we got to the

point of actually wanting to demonstrate

these new technologies on a smaller com-

mercial basis, we would form partnerships

like the Pathfinder Plant that we did out in

South Dakota, where we had an opportunityto build it, learn, see what works and doesn’t

 work. That piece, I think, is kind of missing

today. Most utilities, because of the pres-

sures of Wall Street

and everything else,

 were very hesitant to

get into things that are

still not commercially

demonstrated. There’s

that interim step that,

somehow, we have to

fill the gap where wedon’t put the financial

responsibility on utili-

ties. We have the utili-

ties work with the De-

partment of Energy

and partner and come

up with something.

I don’t know that we

have a program like

that today.

Andy: Not current-

ly. The small modularreactor program in the

Department of Ener-

gy is a step toward that

direction to develop

design certifications.

Terry:  It’s hard for

utilities to take that

financial risk. It’s not

possible in the present

climate.

own commercial merits. Some designs

are viable and some may not be, and some

 will come to market perhaps faster than

people realize today. A broader and deeperunderstanding of the market opportunities

 within this rich tapestry of advanced nuclear

has only just begun, but it is progressing

 very quickly and a number of the largest

industrial concerns in the U.S. are now

paying serious attention. This is not an area

that anyone in the nuclear industry today

should dismiss. Times are changing. Each

 week brings a new development and another

data-point showing the fast broadening

interest in advanced nuclear and molten salt

technologies (plural) in particular.Andy:   As a researcher, there’s never

enough support. The important part is that

I think that there has been good support

federally and from industry. The industry

is very focused on operating plants safely

and making sure that they can do those

things that they need to do effectively to

operate and even construct new plants.

The advanced reactor technologies such as

small modular reactors, AP1000s, molten

salt reactors, liquid metal reactors all came

from large, federally-sponsored researchand development programs. These are

important to continue over the long run.

NuScale’s small modular reactor grew

out of a research program at Oregon State

University that was federally funded. Those

are important ideas to keep generating in

the universities and the national labs. All of

these concepts were federally funded, some

of them were very long ago. The molten

salt and liquid metal reactors grew out of

federally sponsored research program from

30 or 40 years ago. These advanced reactorproducts grew out of important R&D

programs that were aimed at successfully

demonstrating these technologies. Taking

those ideas to the marketplace has proven to

be very challenging. The product life cycles

of nuclear reactors are 60 to 80, up to 100

 years long. It’s not like the product life cycles

of electronic chips that have an 18-month

lifecycle. Our innovation happens quickly,

but the development and implementation to

NPI: As the utility perspective on this

call, would you say when you’re looking

at these advanced technologies, you may

have some interest in using them in the fu-ture? Would you say right now, it’s a wait

and see if it gets developed, at what cost,

and then decide if you want to use it? Or

do you plan ahead, get things in place,

then when it is licensed, go ahead and get

this going?

Terry: It’s difficult to predict the future.

One of the things we’re kind of hamstrung

by is the fact that, for instance, in Minne-

sota, there’s a state law that prohibits the

Public Utility Commission from issuing a

certificate of need for a new nuclear powerplant. So right now, we are not doing any-

thing. We have no plans, other than con-

tinuing to operate our existing fleet for as

7/23/2019 npi20151112-dl

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/npi20151112-dl 18/32

18 NUCLEAR POWER INTERNATIONAL  >  NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2015

NUCLEUS

long as it makes sense. So, if something came

along, I’m not sure we would have the flex-

ibility to jump into something like that right

now, simply because of some of the impedi-ments that have been put in place. Last time

I looked, we’re one of 13 states that have a

prohibition against new nuclear power. Our

current view is, we would wait for things to

be developed to the point of being commer-

cially viable. It used to be when I first started

at Commonwealth Edison at the time, we

 were much more willing to look at things,

kind of straddle the line between research

and commercial in terms of viability, and

push them over to the commercial side.

I think folks were much more open tothat back then. Today, I think utilities,

not just Xcel Energy, we are waiting for

things to be shown as commercially vi-

able before we even consider it. There is

 just too much risk in jumping in while it

is still in the research stage.

NPI: Critics of the President’s Clean Pow-

er Plan have said it does not sufficiently ad-

dress the benefits of nuclear, or that it does

not include nuclear at all. What do you think

the plan is missing in terms of nuclear pow-

er? Or do you believe the plan is good savefor some necessary tweaks?

Terry: I know our company views that it’s

a good thing that’s been put forward. That

being said, does it do everything we want-

ed it to do in terms of recognizing nuclear

power as a valuable resource? Probably not.

It’s going to take some tweaking to see that

it gets the proper incentives going forward.

Walt: I believe the intent of the CPP is to

stimulate carbon-free forms of energy; but

the way the plan is currently outlined, nucle-

ar does not receive the same type of creditsas renewable technologies. That needs to

be addressed. Renewables alone cannot dis-

place the need for base load generating ca-

pacity, without dramatic advances in energy

storage. I’m sure that the plan will continue

to evolve over time and I would hope there’s

more of a place for nuclear as it is tweaked.

Simon:  We have been encouraged by

 what we hear from the government – which

has acknowledged that nuclear must play

an important role in a carbon-free energy

future; however, though it includes new

nuclear power plants as part of the strategy,

the CPP falls short of acknowledging the ex-isting fleet. The CPP is not perfect in this

regard, but it is a start in the right direction.

Andy: In the end what we really need is

a plan that treats all clean power equally so

that the playing field is level for all electricity

production technologies. At some point, we

 will need to appropriately value the external-

ities of power generation and distribution.

Terry: When I looked at Minnesota where

 we operate, one of the reasons I think we’re

okay with the Clean Power Plan is that we

have done so much in terms of developingour renewable power resources in the state.

Xcel is the number one wind energy provid-

er in the U.S., and we also have our nuclear

power plants. So when you look at a utility

like us in the upper Midwest, 53 percent of

the energy that we’re generating today is

clean already. It puts us in a good position to

meet the requirements of the Clean Power

Rule. Of the half that comes from clean en-

ergy, over half of that is from nuclear genera-

tion. I think we’re in a good position today.

 When I look at things like life after 60, myunderstanding -- and I’m not an expert on

the Clean Power Rule -- my understanding

is, I’m not sure we will necessarily get any

benefit or credit, if you will, from extending

the lives of our existing nuclear fleet from

the Clean Power Rule. There’s going to be

a lot of nuclear power plants that will have

to make the decision as to whether or not

they operate beyond 60 out to 80 years, and

somehow, if we’re not going to get the credit

for that, that’s going to make that decision

that much more diff icult.Andy:  That’s one of those tweaks that

needs to be taken a close look at.

Terry:  Right, and I’m not sure anyone

fully understands the Clean Power Rule.

NPI:  Will U.S. vendors have to in-

creasingly look overseas to keep busi-

ness going?

Simon: We believe that the global mar-

ket represents the bigger economic oppor-

tunity for the U.S. nuclear industry because

demand outside the U.S. is growing so

rapidly and it is such a large market. We

are confident, however, that there will bea very good market in the U.S. as well as

market needs and policy, of which the CPP

is an example, continue to align to drive the

development of cleaner alternatives to coal

and natural gas power plants.

Andy: Globalization of the marketplace

for nuclear energy technologies is real. The

companies and vendors of nuclear tech-

nologies need to operate where the mar-

kets are. With a level playing field they can

compete very well. There are some excellent

companies and technologies available in theglobal marketplace.

Walt: I think specialty service providers

 who rely solely on the nuclear industry for

revenue would have to consider extending

their geographic reach. Without any new

nuclear units on the horizon in the im-

mediate future it only makes sense. For a

company like ours that is diversified, there

is still a lot of opportunity in the U.S. mar-

ket. For us in the U.S. power market, the

existing plants are likely to remain opera-

tional for quite some time and we’re goingto continue to provide maintenance, modi-

fications, and project-related services. As

older plants are decommissioned, we see

opportunities there as well. Once the new

plants under construction come online,

 we are well-positioned to provide services

to those plants. We are committed to the

U.S. nuclear industry and will continue to

participate in the training and development

of the new nuclear workforce.

Terry: We talked earlier about how long

it’s going to take before we maybe see thenext round of plants after the ones current-

ly being constructed. I think our U.S. ven-

dors, in order to sustain their expertise, and

ensure that they can continue to fund their

research and everything else, they have to

go overseas. They have to get folks who are

ready to go right now on nuclear, and take

advantage of those things in order to main-

tain their participation in the worldwide

market.

7/23/2019 npi20151112-dl

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/npi20151112-dl 19/32

19NUCLEAR POWER INTERNATIONAL  >  NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2015

NUCLEUS

 The Role of Nuclear Energy in the Clean Power Plan: 

Important Contributionsand Missed OpportunitiesBy Scott Segal, Founding Partner, PolicyResolution Group at Bracewell & Giuliani LLP

plants are the largest source of zero-carbon

electric generation in more than half of the

states. The existence of a mass-based ap-

proach to state compliance with the rule

places some importance of maintaining the

existing fleet. As EPA axiomatically ob-

serves in the final rule, “Existing nuclear

generation helps make existing CO2 emis-

sions lower than they would otherwise be.”

Given the age of the nuclear fleet, an

increasing number of nuclear operators

are coming up for license renewal beforethe U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC) in coming years. The sustained low

commodity price of natural gas coupled

 with needed capital expenditures and poor

market conditions in several states makes a

certain number of retirements likely. The

baseline CPP assumptions include the pre-

diction that nuclear power will retain its

current market share through 2030. How-

ever, CPP includes no affirmative steps to

ensure against nuclear retirements in order

to ensure this necessary result. The Third Way organization, with the assistance

of MIT-trained researchers, found that,

“Emissions increases due to nuclear retire-

ments would sabotage the carbon reduc-

tions targeted by the EPA’s Clean Power

Plan and, in the worst case, could wipe out

a decade’s worth of progress by effectively

returning U.S. electricity sector emissions

to 2005 levels.”

 As President Obama himself noted in

2010, “To meet our growing energy needs

and prevent the worst consequences of cli-mate change, we’ll need to increase our

supply of nuclear power. It’s that simple.”

But what is then missing from CPP that

could encourage re-licensing? License re-

newals are themselves major investments

costing anywhere from $500 million to

$1.5 billion. Expenditures of this magni-

tude are in the range of new natural gas

and renewables projects. One missed op-

portunity in the final CPP is the failure to

When the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

finalized its Clean Power Plan, or CPP, in August 2015,

several substantial changes from the proposed rule were

immediately evident. Because CPP is the centerpiece of the Ad-ministration strategy’s to reduce global greenhouse gas (GHG)

emissions, the question of the preferred combination of electric

generation is a critical one for determining the effectiveness of

the rule, its cost, and the impact on reliability.

The final rule expressed a marked preference for renewable en-

ergy sources and seemed to hold natural gas-fired generation to a “business as usual”

level given current market conditions. While natural gas has half the GHG footprint

of the coal capacity it replaces, it shares the base-load convenience of coal to the extent

that it can be dispatched as needed to meet consumer demand. Traditional renewables

like wind and solar power are critical elements but, by contrast, are variable energy

sources that cannot be dispatched like coal, natural gas or nuclear.

The only other dispatchable energy source with a zero-carbon profile is nuclearpower. While nuclear plants that are currently under construction can be credited

toward the GHG emission reductions of 32 percent from 2005 levels, CPP stopped

short of the ringing endorsement for which many in the nuclear sector had hoped.

Six percent of existing nuclear generation is no longer considered as part of the “best

system of emissions reduction,” the calculation that determines the carbon rate or

mass reduction necessary to be achieved in each state. But the carbon-abatement value

of plants under construction may be counted once those plants begin operation. So-

called “power uprate” projects that enhance production at existing plants can also

count. These are marked improvements in the final rule.

For the five new nuclear reactors currently being developed, the acknowledgement of

under-construction credit is no doubt welcome and appropriate. For example, state offi-

cials and the regulated community in Georgia had argued that the proposed CPP workedan essential unfairness on the state for failing to give credit for the new construction at

the Alvin W. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant near Waynesboro, Georgia. The Georgia

Power-led project at Vogtle 3 and 4 will add over 2,200 MW of carbon-free power when

the project is complete. The Vogtle project is arguably the largest job-producing project in

the state, with over 5,000 construction jobs and 800 permanent operations jobs.

Despite the gains for new construction like Vogtle and power uprates, there is little

doubt that nuclear advocates were hoping for a bit more from the rule, part icularly for the

existing nuclear f leet. Currently, just under a hundred nuclear power plants in the United

States generate about 19 percent of our nation’s electricity. The trouble is that much of the

existing fleet is over three decades old. According to the Nuclear Energy Institute, these

7/23/2019 npi20151112-dl

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/npi20151112-dl 20/32

20 NUCLEAR POWER INTERNATIONAL  >  NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2015

heed the suggestion that facilities subject to

license renewal explicitly count, in whole or

in part, towards CPP compliance.

The CPP does not exist in a vacuum.

For example, renewable energy projects

require construction of power lines or off-

shore cables. Enhanced reliance on natu-

ral gas requires construction of pipelines.In the same way, enhanced reliance on

nuclear power and prolonging the lifespan

of the existing fleet would benefit signifi-

cantly from a smarter nuclear waste policy.

Despite the fact that CPP attempts to tran-

sition to a low-carbon energy future, nei-

ther the rule itself nor any related policy

pronouncements seeks to deal with stor-

ing or reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel.

 As the U.S. Energy Information Admin-

istration notes, electric generation adds

about 2,000 metric tons of nuclear wasteeach year to the 75,000 tons currently

being stored on site around the country.

The Administration, while formulating

the CPP, perhaps should have considered

changes to waste policy, including respon-

sible options for a secure national reposi-

tory and fuel reprocessing.

The failure to fully embrace nuclear pow-

er, as well as efficient natural gas facilities

and even advanced clean coal technologies,

has resulted in a rule that is far less likely

to achieve the kind of deep decarbonization

 which many climate change activists called

upon western governments to produce. A

report soon to be released by the Energy

Innovation Reform Project indicates that

 variable or intermittent sources of energy

like renewables at penetration rates of 30percent or greater of electric generation

substantially exceed the cost of dispatch-

able zero-carbon sources like nuclear pow-

er. Even if intermittency is controlled for by

the use of advanced storage technology, the

fact that solar and wind power varies by sea-

son (and not just over the course of a day or

two) still dictates superior cost-effectiveness

for deep decarbonization up to 60 percent

or more reductions for dispatchable sourc-

es like nuclear power. An optimal policy

 would lead the electric generation mix withdispatchable sources, followed by solar and

then wind. Ironically, the centerpiece of

the Administration’s GHG reduction pol-

icy – the Clean Power Plan – has it back-

 wards, leading with variable sources and

holding dispatchable low-carbon sources to

business as usual or worse.

In conclusion, the CPP gets some things

right for a nuclear future, such as favorable

treatment for new construction, uprates,

and clearer discussions of mass-based com-

pliance strategies. But the Administra-

tion does not go out of its way to enhance

the prospects for license renewals or safe

and appropriate waste policy. Further, by

expressing favoritism for variable energy

sources like solar and wind over dispatch-

able sources like nuclear, EPA has not putthe power system on the road to substan-

tial carbon reductions at anywhere near

acceptable affordability or reliability. This

situation is all the more troubling as the

U.S. prepares for the international climate

negotiations scheduled for December in

Paris. State Department Special Envoy

for Climate Change Todd Stern recently

stated that, “We have proposed and pushed

the idea of successive rounds of targets,

so you keep ratcheting ambition up. The

first round of targets is hugely significant.They’re very good, but they’re not enough.

 What we need is a multi-part package for

ambition, successive rounds of ratchet-

ing up targets over time [and] long-term

targets as well.” If the CPP is the initial

round, then successive rounds must include

a more robust role for nuclear power, ef-

ficient natural gas, and cleaner coal tech-

nologies. Ideally, we should reverse the

order to maximize effectiveness.

Georgia officials said the Clean Power Plan did not fairly give credit to the Plant Vogtle expansion project. Photo courtesy: Georgia Power Co.

7/23/2019 npi20151112-dl

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/npi20151112-dl 21/32

21NUCLEAR POWER INTERNATIONAL  >  NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2015

NUCLEUS

Emergency Preparednessfor Nuclear Power PlantsBy Eileen K. Unger, President, Emergency Preparedness Partnerships

emergency training to first responders like

law enforcement and fire departments, as

 well as local community leaders and other

important stakeholders.

A WORD ON COMMUNICATIONS

Before we address the key differences

between emergency planning for nuclear

plants versus that for fossil-fueled plants, let’s

touch briefly on the role of communications

during a crisis.

Following the 2011 Fukushima incident,

nuclear utilities have upped the ante in

terms of their propensity to communicate,

especially through digital channels like

social media and even smart phone apps.For example, soon after the 2011 incident,

Duke Energy created an information portal

called the Nuclear Information Center,

 which is essentially a blog with full social

media integration. The goal of the Nuclear

Information Center is to increase Duke’s

level of proactive communications to the

general public.

In terms of what  to communicate during

a nuclear emergency, this comes down

to identifying all the potential questions

that local residents and other communitystakeholders are likely to have. These

frequently-asked questions should be

derived as part of the planning process. In

general, emergency communications must

revolve around providing an early warning

so communities can prepare and take

action, explaining the situation, protecting

the public, and providing updates on the

progress of the emergency response and

recovery. The overall communication

strategy should facilitate the delivery of

cohesive, consistent messages designed tobuild trust and confidence in the utility’s

ability to resolve the emergency as quickly as

possible.

NUANCES OF EMERGENCY

PLANNING FOR NUCLEAR PLANTS

Electric utilities that operate nuclear

reactors strive to operate their plants safely,

utilizing robust protocols executed by highly

trained personnel capable of maintaining

So far, so good – despite the fact that there are 99 nuclear power

plants in operation across 31 states in the U.S., there have been

no injuries or fatalities from radiation exposure in the country.

Even the Three Mile Island accident in 1979 resulted in no fatalities

or identifiable health impacts. That said, other countries have not

been so lucky.

The 1986 Chernobyl nuclear accident in Ukraine, which involved

an explosion and fire that caused the release of massive amounts ofradioactive particles, is considered the worst nuclear accident in history.

It resulted in at least 31 deaths during the accident itself, as well as substantial long term

negative health effects (the average life expectancy of Chernobyl evacuees dropped from 65

to 58 years). The earthquake and tsunami-induced Fukushima accident in March 2011 was

another devastating incident. While no immediate deaths occurred, the resulting nuclear

meltdown and release of radioactive materials is likely negatively impacting peoples’ health

throughout the region.

 As you can see, nuclear power plants present unique challenges when it comes to emergency

preparedness. Not only do they produce radioactive materials, but they are also thought

to be viewed as prime targets by terrorists. These unique characteristics make emergency

planning for nuclear plants far different from that of fossil-fueled plants. Nuclear plant

emergency plans must include provisions for onsite as well as offsite measures, includingevacuations, sheltering, and other actions to protect nearby residents in the event of a serious

incident. This makes it critical for nuclear utilities to continuously build strong relationships

 with municipal leaders and their state and local emergency management communities.

ROLE OF THE NRC AND FEMA

Ultimately, here in the U.S. the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has federal

statutory responsibility for overseeing nuclear power plant emergency preparedness and

accident response, and this oversight is also tied to the Federal Emergency Management

 Agency (FEMA). Conversely, fossil-fueled plants are mainly regulated by the Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA), which is primarily focused on reducing carbon emissions.

FEMA is responsible for offsite planning for nuclear plants, including coordinating

 with state and local governments to carry out response functions, whereas the NRC isresponsible for onsite planning such as conducting onsite inspections, regularly reviewing

plans, and monitoring ongoing training in the form of drills and exercises. Based on inputs

from FEMA as well as its own onsite analysis, the NRC makes the final determination on

each plant’s overall state of emergency preparedness and, if warranted, issues the required

operating license.

Each nuclear power plant in the U.S. is required to exercise its emergency plan with

the NRC, FEMA, and numerous other offsite authorities at least once every two years.

However this should be considered the bare minimum – some utilities conduct drills and

exercises much more frequently. For example, Exelon conducted more than 100 emergency

preparedness drills at its six Illinois nuclear plants in 2014, and the company regularly provides

7/23/2019 npi20151112-dl

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/npi20151112-dl 22/32

22 NUCLEAR POWER INTERNATIONAL  >  NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2015

NUCLEUS

each reactor in a safe condition. This

involves constantly monitoring radiation

levels, and utilizing analytical softwareplatforms to deliver accurate information

both internally and externally. During an

emergency, trained employees immediately

implement procedures to respond to the

incident, classify the emergency, activate

the emergency operations center, and notify

state, local and federal authorities. The

state and local authorities then make the

determination of what actions, if any, will be

communicated to the public.

In a nutshell, emergency preparedness

for nuclear power plants involves threeprimary objectives – the shutting down of

a compromised reactor, maintaining the

shutdown condition as long as necessary,

and mitigating the spread of radioactive

materials. It’s that last factor that truly

differentiates nuclear plant emergency

plans from those of traditional fossil-fueled

plants – the presence of radioactive materials

that literally blow with the wind. The

implications of this to emergency planning

are far-reaching in terms of minimizing

the amount of contaminants released intothe air, and maintaining open lines of

communication with local residents and

stakeholders to keep them informed and

protect them from exposure.

One such protection measure is the need

to differentiate between two emergency

planning zones (EPZs) based on the distance

from ground zero. The first zone, called the

“Plume Exposure Pathway,” covers the 10-

mile radius around the plant, and the main

concern here is the exposure of local residents

to, and the inhalation of, airborne radioactiveparticles. In this zone, evacuation plans are

paramount. The other zone, the “Ingestion

Pathway,” covers the 50-mile radius around

the plant, and the main concern here is the

ingestion of contaminated food and water

(radioactive materials expand and become

less concentrated the farther they travel from

the source).

 Within each EPZ, evacuation plans

should be developed in conjunction with

the local jurisdictions, which in turn should

make this information available to their

residents (in fact, the NRC requires making

this information available to residentslocated within the 10-mile EPZ). While the

NRC does not require evacuation planning

for jurisdictions beyond the first 10-mile

EPZ, it’s a good idea to create these plans

for both EPZs where possible to account

for worst-case scenarios. Additionally, the

biannual emergency exercises mandated by

the NRC should occasionally incorporate

areas beyond the 10-mile EPZ.

Evacuation planning should generally

account for transportation options, the

composition of the population to beevacuated, shelter factors, and scenarios

around wind direction and speed, how

quickly an incident develops, the duration

of the radiological release, and other

conditions. This planning should also

include the development of mitigating

actions for “shadow evacuations,” which

occur when panicked residents unnecessarily

evacuate and clog roadways.

Thresholds for evacuation and sheltering

should also be defined. Importantly, only in

extreme cases would an entire area requireevacuation – usually, only certain portions of

the area would be targeted. For example,

if a General Emergency is declared, total

evacuation would be the preferred option for

people within a two-mile radius around the

plant as well as people living within the five-

mile zone directly downwind. Residents

in the remainder of the 10-mile EPZ may

be instructed to take shelter in their homes

and monitor Emergency Alert System (EAS)

broadcasts.

 Another element of nuclear plantemergency plans that is unique compared

to those of fossil-fueled plants is the

incorporation of the four emergency

classifications, designated by NRC

regulations, which indicate the level of risk

to local residents. These are listed below, in

order of increasing severity.

1. Notif ication of Unusual Event – a

potential issue has been detected. This

 was declared 19 times in 2014.

2. Alert – an issue has occurred but the

level of radiological release is limited.

This was declared four times in 2014.

3. Site Area Emergency – an event hasoccurred that results in a major failure

of plant functions. This has only been

declared twice in the past 30 years.

4. General Emergency – indicates

substantial damage to the core that will

likely result in a release of radioactive

material. This classification was created

after the Three Mile Island accident and

has never been declared. The federal

response to a General Emergency (or a

terrorist attack) would be coordinated

by the Department of HomelandSecurity (DHS), while the NRC would

continue to retain a technical leadership

role.

 Another unique characteristic of nuclear

emergency plans is that processes and

procedures regarding usage of KI (potassium

iodide) tablets must be documented. KI

is said to help prevent the thyroid from

absorbing radioactive iodine to reduce the

risk of thyroid cancers and similar diseases. It

is generally seen as something of a last resort,

but must be accounted for nonetheless. Additionally, contingencies for power

outages must be developed. Specif ically, the

plant must have backup generators that are

located away from flood zones, to ensure

the cooling system remains operable. The

location of the backup generators should

be behind water-tight, blast-resistant doors.

 And if necessary, near coastlines, a sea wall of

appropriate height and strength could also

be present.

Finally, nuclear plant emergency plans

typically include technical details on systemsand technologies that have been deployed

to harden systems. As you might imagine,

hardening tactics are more important

for nuclear facilities than for fossil-fueled

facilities, because a nuclear system failure has

the potential to cast a wider net of negative

consequences. Although a comprehensive

list of nuclear plan hardening tactics is

beyond the scope of this article, a few

examples include:

• A “Reactor Protection System,” which

7/23/2019 npi20151112-dl

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/npi20151112-dl 23/32

23NUCLEAR POWER INTERNATIONAL  >  NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2015

is designed to immediately terminatethe nuclear reaction and eliminate

the heat source when necessary,

 while util izing additional systems

like control rods and neutron-

absorbing liquid injections to then

remove the decay heat from the core.

• Controls for the plant’s essential

service water system (ESWS),

 which cools heat exchangers and

similar components and removes

decay heat, as well as the plant’s

emergency core cooling systems(ECCS) – encompassing high

pressure coolant injection, automatic

depressurization, low pressure

coolant injection, core-spray,

containment spray, and isolation

cooling systems – which are designed

to shutdown the reactor during an

emergency.

• Controls to make sure containment

functions – such as fuel cladding,

reactor vessels, core catching and

physical containment structures – areadequate to prevent the radiological

release.

• Passive Auto-catalytic Hydrogen

Recombiners (“PARs”), which do not

require electricity to operate. These

devices turn potentially explosive

gases such as hydrogen into water.

CONCLUSION

 As you can see, emergency preparedness

for nuclear power plants is its own animal.

Thanks to the presence of radioactivematerials, nuclear plant emergency plans

must account for the release of these

contaminants into the atmosphere. This

factor is what primarily differentiates nuclear

plant emergency planning from that of

other types of power plants, as it requires

coordinated planning with neighboring

stakeholder groups, as well as procedures

around evacuations, sheltering, radiation

monitoring, wind forecasting, and KI

distribution, among other things.

Eileen K. Unger is a licensed professional engineerin the State of New Jersey with over 35 years of

experience, and is the founder and President of

Emergency Preparedness Partnerships (EPP), a

15-year-consulting company based in Hammonton,

NJ. Eileen founded EPP with an overarching mission

to help utilities engage in proactive planning and risk

management to optimize their disaster readiness and

emergency response. Prior to forming EPP in 2001,

she spent 16 years with Atlantic Electric / Conectiv

(now Pepco Holdings, Inc.), a Fortune 500 electric

and gas utility based in Wilmington, Delaware, where

she assumed managerial responsibility in a variety ofcapacities including Business Development, Market

Support, Major Accounts, and Customer Service

and Sales. She developed and maintained the

regional emergency operations plan for over 500,000

customers. Prior to Conectiv, she worked for Bechtel

Construction Company at the Hope Creek Nuclear

Generating Station. Prior to that, she worked for United

Engineers and Constructors, based in Philadelphia, PA.

Eileen graduated from Rutgers College of Engineering,

and received her Master’s degree in engineering from

the New Jersey Institute of Technology.

TVA built a FLEX storage building that houses backup emergency equipment at Watts Bar 2. Courtesy: TVA

7/23/2019 npi20151112-dl

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/npi20151112-dl 24/32

24 NUCLEAR POWER INTERNATIONAL  >  NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2015

NUCLEAR WORLD

Engineers Can I

 Their Relations with Finance

Ways

By Tony McGrail, Solutions Director of Asset Managementand Monitoring Technology, Doble Engineering Co.

1. Think like a CFO: CFOs are

responsible for the complete financial

health of a company. Just as engineers

manage the risk of their assets,CFOs must manage the risk of every

investment that they make. Examine

every physical asset owned by the

company and assign a risk value to

it. Consider each asset’s probability

of failure, as well as its cost to repair,

the cost of the business interruption

and the overall risk associated with

each asset. It may be that smaller

assets, such as post insulators, are less

impactful and thus likely to be less

‘expensive’ than larger capital intensiveassets such as power transformers. By

analyzing each asset from a physical

and financial standpoint, engineers are

better prepared to talk with finance and

make their case for why infrastructure

investments need to be made. In the

end it shifts the mentality from “it’s

broke, we must fix it” to “it’s likely a

big impact on the business – we should

do something.”

“I  f engineers do not talk the language of business, they do

not deserve to be heard. If top management doesn’t talkthe language of risk and criticality – and understand why

maintenance can be an investment – they do not deserve to be lead- 

ers.” – David McKeown, CEO of the Institute of Asset Management 

 Whether we realize it or not, all professionals speak multiple

languages. Not necessarily languages that we learn in school or

from our families, but languages that we adopt in the workplace.

 Whether it’s industry acronyms, corporate buzzwords, or technical

 words that those in others industries wouldn’t understand, we all have learned new lan-

guages. However, in order to be successful in our careers, it’s important to acknowledge

the language that we speak, as well as the languages that our co-workers speak every

day. Although the quote above from Mr. McKeown may seem to be a bit extreme, his

message about the need for a common language between engineers and management iscompletely relevant for all power engineering organizations.

There’s no question that it takes a team of experts in all fields to effectively run a

business, but the reality is that the finance department often holds the purse strings,

and it can appear that they wield more power than others. The challenge is that this

power difference often results in engineers feeling like they’re fighting for approvals and

against f inance to get what they know is right, rather than working together to achieve

the shared goal of bettering their company. In order to change this, there needs to be

concerted efforts on both ends to understand each other’s goals and motivations and to

find a common language. Here are five tips to help you improve your communication

 with finance and management:

7/23/2019 npi20151112-dl

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/npi20151112-dl 25/32

25NUCLEAR POWER INTERNATIONAL  >  NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2015

(McKeown’s) message about the need for a common languagebetween engineers and management is completely relevant for allpower engineering organizations.

prove

ps2. Act like a translator:  Once engi-

neers can put themselves in the fi-

nance department’s shoes, they need

to share information in a way that

 wil l resonate with them. Engineers

should frame their messages about

infrastructure replacement with fi-

nancial terms. Compare the finan-

cial impact associated with failure,

replacement and maintenance so that

they can see the long-term effects ofeach option. It’s often difficult to

accept the upfront costs associated

 with maintenance programs – es-

pecially if nothing has gone wrong

 yet – but it’s up to you to prove the

 value to the finance department.

 Annualized inspection and mainte-

nance can cost a few thousand dol-

lars for a large transformer, but it

pales in comparison to the cost of a

new generator transformer at several

mill ion dollars -- which itself may besignificantly less than the business

interruption cost of mill ions per day.

3. Teach the basics: The onus is

on engineers to learn the basic

financial terms needed to make

business decisions. However,

finance should be open to learning

the basics of power engineering

and the physical infrastructure on

 which their business relies. Take

members of the management and/

or finance team on a walk through

the power station. Although people working in finance may see the words

circuit breakers, bushings and fans

as line items every month, walking

them through the power station and

allowing them to get up close to the

assets can make a huge difference in

their understanding of each machine’s

importance. Additionally, having this

shared experience can help create a

foundation for future conversations.

If new purchases or repairs need to

be made, it’s easier to point back andtalk about a specific thing that you

showed them in the field, rather than

discussing a machine that holds no

context for them.

4. Show that you’re the expert: In

today’s on-demand world, anyone

can go to Google with a questionand f ind an answer, but that doesn’t

make everyone an expert. Consider

this metaphor: in the United States,

it’s up to the patient to decide if they

 want treatment, but it’s the doctor’s

responsibility to provide all of the

information in simple terms, so

that the patient can make the right

decision. Even if a patient has spent

a bit too much time on WebMD,

a doctor is still crucial. Don’t let

management and finance get away with just using Google to research

the assets, tests and processes that

 you are an expert on. Prove your

 value by showing the importance

of having an expert who not only

understands the infrastructure,

but how it’s configured and works

together for your organization and

 why it’s important for the overall

business.

5. Be a storyteller:  When you’re an

expert in something, it’s often hard

to remember that not everyone has

the same depth of knowledge as you. When asking for finance’s approval

on a situation, make sure that you’re

speaking on the same level. A good

 way to get on the same level with

non-engineers is to use metaphors,

examples and anecdotes. One com-

mon metaphor we use when discuss-

ing testing and diagnostics is that

transformer oil is like our blood in

that we can test it to see how healthy

our transformer is, and while they’re

a great diagnostic aid, the tests won’ttell you everything.

Engineers often need to provide more

contextual information than if they were

talking with other engineers – but it’s im-

portant to include the right details, not

every detail. Engineers should provide the

backstory of how they got to their cur-rent situation and explain the options for

resolving the problem as well as how each

option differs from another.

 When working with nuclear power, the

need for strong collaboration between

management and engineers is only height-

ened. It’s important to agree on protocols

and procedures to deal with new or varying

information. If a new oil lab test indicates a

problem, or if condition monitoring shows

an issue, that is the time organizations

need to act on a pre-agreed upon plan –that is not the time to start developing a

plan. There are so many procedures that

must be followed to a tee that making real-

time decisions based purely on judgment

is incredibly risky. Engineers and finance

need to work together to ensure the com-

pany’s technical procedures and courses of

action are pre-approved so that everyone is

on the same page the moment that some-

thing goes wrong.

7/23/2019 npi20151112-dl

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/npi20151112-dl 26/32

26 NUCLEAR POWER INTERNATIONAL  >  NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2015

NEWS

Barsebäck Kraft AB picked Westinghouse Electric Co. to disman-tle a commercial nuclear power plant in Sweden.

 Westinghouse will dismantle, segment and package the reactorpressure vessel internals at the dual-unit Barsebäck Nuclear PowerStation. The plant is an ABB-designed boiling water reactor. West-inghouse will use its controlled underwater mechanical-cuttingtechniques and will use specifically designed equipment the com-pany will fabricate and test at its facilities in Sweden to remove them.

The project will begin immediately and is expected to take four years to complete. Mechanical segmentation will begin in 2016.

The first plant ended operations Nov. 30, 1999. The second

ceased operations May 31, 2005. Westinghouse has been contracted for dismantling work at the

Chooz nuclear power plant in France, the Zorita plant in Spain andthe Neckarwestheim 1 plant in Germany. Westinghouse is also partof a consortium to dismantle the Philippsburg 1 plant in Germany.

Westinghouse to Dismantle 2 Swedish Nuclear ReactorsNOVEMBER 2

MW FitzPatrick nuclear power plant in New

 York by 2017. The numbers did include the

closure of the 685-MW Pilgrim Nuclear

Power Station in Massachusetts, which is set

to shut down by 2019 at the latest.

Exelon has said it would close down the678-MW Oyster Creek Nuclear Generat-

ing Station in New Jersey in 2019.

The largest nuclear plant in the U.S.

is the three-unit, 3,937-MW Palo Verde

Nuclear Generating Station in Arizona.

The smallest is the single-unit, 479-MW

Fort Calhoun plant in Nebraska.

Thirty states have nuclear power plants,

 with most located east of the Mississippi Riv-

er. Illinois is home to the most nuclear plants

followed by Pennsylvania. In the past four

 years, four nuclear plants have shut down,accounting for 6,000 MW of capacity.

S. Korea Nuclear Reactor toBegin Operational TestingOCTOBER 29

South Korea’s Nuclear Safety and Se-

curity Commission gave operational ap-

proval for the country’s 25th reactor.

Hitachi-GE Nuclear ReactorDesign Completes LatestAssessment ProcessNOVEMBER 2

The U.K. Office for Nuclear Regula-

tion (ONR) completed step 3 of the Ge-

neric Design Assessment of Hitachi-GE’s

U.K. Advanced Boiling Water Reactor

(ABWR) design.

The third phase of the assessment looks

at the safety and security arguments pre-

sented by Hitachi-GE to underpin the

safety and security claims. Hitachi-GE

expects to complete the final assessment

stage in December 2017.

The assessment process moves intothe final stage, which calls for the start

of the Environment Agency’s and Natu-

ral Resources Wales (NRW) consultation

on the environmental section of the as-

sessment, which is scheduled to start in

October 2016. Once the overall assess-

ment is complete, ONR, the Environ-

ment Agency and NRW will use the work

to inform any subsequent assessments for

site specific proposals that use the reactor

design, such as Horizon Nuclear Power’s

proposed developments at Wylfa Newydd

and Oldbury in the UK.

Uptick in U.S. NuclearCapacity Expected DespiteRecent & UpcomingClosuresNOVEMBER 2

 A net increase in total U.S. nuclear ca-

pacity is expected despite more than 2,000

MW of capacity slated to close by 2019.

Scheduled additions of 5,618 MW of

capacity between 2016 and 2020 could

boost U.S. nuclear capacity, accordingto numbers from the U.S. Energy In-

formation Association (EIA). The addi-

tions are the 1,150-MW Watts Bar 2 in

Tennessee, expected to begin operations

in 2016, and four reactors being built at

Plant Vogtle in Georgia and V.C. Sum-

mer in South Carolina, both scheduled

for completion by 2020.

EIA’s analysis was released before Entergy

announced it would shut down the 843-

7/23/2019 npi20151112-dl

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/npi20151112-dl 27/32

27NUCLEAR POWER INTERNATIONAL  >  NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2015

NEWS

prompted Exelon to defer the decision for

an additional year.

MISO posted an issues statement say-

ing reforms to its capacity market process

may be required to drive future invest-ments and ensure reliable electricity sup-

ply for customers.

Positive results from the Il linois Power

 Agency’s capacity procurement for 2016

and the long-term impact of the Clean

Power Plan were other reasons behind

Exelon’s decision.

“We are encouraged by MISO’s

statement and the potential for market

reforms that are necessary to ensure long

Operator Korea Hydro and Nuclear

Power Co. Ltd. will star t a test run of the

1,400-MW Shin Kori 3 that is expected

to take six months, according to Reuters.

KHNP submitted an application in June2011 to operate the reactor beginning in

2014, but approval was delayed as KHNP

replaced cables supplied with forged safe-

ty documents. The country currently has

24 reactors operating and plans to add 13

more for a total of 36 units by 2029.

The 1,400-MW Shin Kori 4 reactor

is also offline because of the cables, but

no start date has been set. Both units are

 APR1400 nuclear reactors.

Exelon Will DeferDecision on Clinton Nuclear

Power PlantOCTOBER 29

Exelon Corp. (NYSE: EXC) said it

 would defer any decision on operations

of the Clinton nuclear power plant until

next year.

Exelon said it plans to bid the power

plant into the Midcontinent Independent

System Operator (MISO) capacity auc-

tion for the 2016-2017 planning year. It

 was an announcement from MISO that

Entergy (NYSE: ETR) said it wouldclose the 838-MW James A. FitzPat-rick Nuclear Power Plant in New Yorkat the end of the fuel cycle in late 2016or early 2017 due to “continued dete-riorating economics of the plant.”

The utility said it reported its deci-sion to the New York Independent

System Operator and to the New YorkState Public Service Commission. En-tergy and state officials worked over thepast two months to reach an agreementto avoid a shutdown but were unsuc-cessful.

State Senator Patty Ritchie saidshe was one of many lawmakers whoshowed support for FitzPatrick.

“I joined with the region’s other rep-resentatives to show our support for theplant, the workers and the impacted

communities,” Ritchie said. “Notwith-standing today’s announcement, I amurging the company and the state tocontinue discussions aimed at findinga way to reverse the decision.”

The decision to close the plant wasbased on several factors, including lowcurrent and long-term wholesale en-ergy prices driven by low natural gasprices, flawed market design that doesnot adequately compensate nuclear

Entergy to Close FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant by 2017NOVEMBER 2

power plants for their benefits, and thehigh operating costs of the single-unitpower plant. The plant employs morethan 600 workers and had been gener-ating electricity since 1975.

“We recognize the consequencesof the shutdown for our employeesand the surrounding community and

pledge to do our best to support bothduring this transition,” said Leo De-nault, Entergy’s chairman and chief ex-ecutive officer. “As a company, we arecommitted to ensuring the well-beingof our employees, and appreciate theircontinued dedication to making safe,clean, secure and reliable operations atop priority.”

Entergy announced in October thatit would be closing the 680-MW Pil-grim nuclear power plant in Massa-

chusetts due to the same conditions asFitzPatrick. When FitzPatrick closes,Entergy will only have one operatingnuclear plant in New York, the Indi-an Point plant, which has been facingmuch opposition from lawmakers andenvironmental groups.

Dominion (NYSE: D) shut down theKewaunee nuclear power plant in Wis-consin in 2013 and Entergy closed the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant the fol-

lowing year due to the same conditions.““The fact that the FitzPatrick nu-

clear energy facility in New York is theindustry’s fourth nuclear power plant

to prematurely close due to uncorrect-ed flaws in competitive electricity mar-kets is alarming,” said Marvin Fertel,president and CEO of the Nuclear En-ergy Institute. “It is clear that, despiteproviding reliable electricity and enor-mous environmental and economicbenefits in upstate New York for morethan 40 years, FitzPatrick’s benefitsare grossly undervalued and are notfully compensated.”

7/23/2019 npi20151112-dl

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/npi20151112-dl 28/32

28 NUCLEAR POWER INTERNATIONAL  >  NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2015

NEWS

Exelon operates 11 nuclear units at six

sites across Illinois, providing nearly half the

state’s total electricity and 90 percent of Il-

linois’ carbon-free electricity.Situated about 60 miles southwest of Chi-

cago, Braidwood Station provides enough

electricity to power more than 2 million av-

erage homes.

Development of FloatingNuclear SMR in China inthe WorksOCTOBER 26

Lloyd’s Register Energy signed a coopera-tion framework agreement with the Nuclear

Power Institute of China (NPIC) to design

and develop a floating vessel containing a

small modular reactor (SMR) in China.

The first contract under the agreement is

to develop new nuclear safety regulations,

guidelines, and nuclear code and standards

for the floating vessel that are consistent

 with the Offshore and International Marine

Regulations and the IAEA Nuclear Safety

Standards. The vessel will be used in Chi-

nese waters to supply electricity to offshoreinstallations.

“This marks the beginning of a ground-

breaking initiative for the Chinese nuclear

industry, taking nuclear power generation

offshore,” said Melvin Zhang, Lloyd’s Reg-

ister Energy’s Vice President of Strategic

Development for Greater China. “It is also

excellent news for the people of China and

those working offshore in Chinese waters

 with the need for consistent and safe power

supply. This project is expected to set the

pace for how nuclear power can be used andapplied to support sustainable power genera-

tion in both energy and marine sectors.”

NRC Awards OperatingLicense to Watts Bar Unit 2OCTOBER 26

Construction on Spring City, Tennes-

see’s 1,150-MW Watts Bar Unit 2 officially

 wrapped Thursday as the Tennessee Valley

term reliability in southern Illinois,”

said Chris Crane, president and CEO

of Exelon. “However, the Clinton plant

remains unprofitable and more needs tobe done.”

 A report by the Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency determined that the

loss of two nuclear power plants in the

state would increase emissions by about

24 million short tons, more than doubling

the emissions reductions required under

federal carbon reduction rules.

 Testing of AP1000 Nuclear

Reactor Coolant PumpSuccessfulOCTOBER 29

Curtiss-Wright Corp. (NYSE: CW),

 Westinghouse Electric Co. and State

Nuclear Power Technology Corporation

of China (SNPTC) completed testing of a

nuclear reactor coolant pump (RCP).

The companies said they completed

final performance testing and post-test

inspections of the lead AP1000 RCP.

The RCP met the design requirementsnecessary to support operation of an

 AP1000 nuclear plant. The first and

second RCPs will be shipped to the

Sanmen Unit 1 under construction in

China for arrival on site by year-end

2015. The completed test wil l also lead to

fabrication and delivery of the remaining

two RCPs for Sanmen 1, and RCPs for

the seven additional AP1000s under

construction in China and the U.S.,

including the second unit at Sanmen,

and two each at Haiyang, Plant Vogtlein Georgia and V.C. Summer in South

Carolina.

The final performance testing verified

RCP operation during a full range

of AP1000 operating conditions for

more than 1,600 total hours, including

more than 600 start-and-stop cycles.

Curtiss-Wright conducted the testing

and inspection at its Electro-Mechanical

Division facility in Pennsylvania.

Vietnam to Learn MoreAbout Nuclear Reactors FromGE Hitachi Nuclear EnergyOCTOBER 28

GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy (GEH)

signed a memorandum of understanding

 with the Vietnam Atomic Energy Agency

(VAEA) to enhance the agency’s under-

standing of light water reactor technology

and nuclear project management.

GEH and VAEA will cooperate to pro-

mote training and development of qualified

human resources associated with Vietnam’s

civilian nuclear power program. GEH willprovide practical work experience for VAEA

staff in such areas as nuclear safety culture,

project management and quality assurance.

GEH signed MOUs with Hanoi Univer-

sity of Science and Technology and Electric

Power University to cooperate in the field of

nuclear engineering and technology. Twelve

students from the two universities complet-

ed internships at GEH’s world headquarters

in North Carolina.

 Vietnam is planning to build more

than 10-GW of nuclear generating capac-ity by 2030.

Braidwood Station Unit 2Back to Full Power AfterRefueling OutageOCTOBER 27

Exelon’s Braidwood Station Unit 2 re-

turned to full power Monday after a three-

 week refueling outage beginning Oct. 5.

Unit 1 continued operating at fullpower while workers completed more

than 9,000 inspections, tests and im-

provements on Unit 2, replacing about

one-third of the reactor’s fuel.

“Our refueling outages are critical to

maintaining long-term reliability,” said

Mark Kanavos, site vice president. “The

 work completed during this outage ensures

that we will continue to provide safe, reliable

and clean electricity whenever it is needed.”

7/23/2019 npi20151112-dl

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/npi20151112-dl 29/32

29NUCLEAR POWER INTERNATIONAL  >  NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2015

Johnson said bringing a nuclear plant online

is a substantial responsibility.

“It is one of the most profound respon-

sibilities you can have in this life, and oper-ating a nuclear plant has the same responsi-

 Authority received the nuclear reactor’s op-

erating license.

“This achievement signifies more than

a stage in construction for TVA,” said BillJohnson, TVA president and chief executive

officer. “It demonstrates to the people of

the Valley that we have taken every step pos-

sible to deliver low cost, carbon-free electric-

ity safely and with the highest quality.”Speaking at a news conference Thursday,

 Westinghouse Electric Co. will takeover the nuclear construction business ofCB&I (NYSE: CBI) for $229 million,and Fluor (NYSE: FLR) was picked to

continue building the four AP1000 re-actors in Georgia and South Carolina.CB&I entered a definitive agreement

 with Westinghouse for the company toacquire all of the outstanding equity in-terest in the nuclear construction busi-ness, Stone & Webster Inc.. The deal isexpected to close in late 2015 subject tocustomary closing conditions. WEC willpurchase the business of engineering,construction, procurement, manage-ment, design, installation, start-up and

testing of nuclear power facilities, includ-ing the V.C. Summer project in SouthCarolina owned by SCANA Corp., andthe Vogtle project in Georgia owned bySouthern Co. (NYSE: SO) and nuclearprojects in China. CB&I will continueto supply discrete scopes of modules,fabricated pipes and specialty services to

 Westinghouse on a subcontract basis forthe U.S. nuclear projects. Excluded fromthe deal are CB&I’s fossil power genera-tion capability, its nuclear and industrial

maintenance business, the MOX fuelconversion project at Savannah River,the federal decommissioning business,and the NetPower program for the de-

 velopment of projects that emit zero car-bon dioxide.

 When the deal closes, Westinghouse will assume, and indemnify CB&I for,previous, current and future liabilitiesassociated with the AP1000 nuclearprojects. CB&I expects cash payments

CB&I Sells Nuclear Construction Unit toWestinghouse, Fluor Takes Over U.S. ProjectsOCTOBER 28

of $229 million, of which $161 mil-lion is expected to be received uponcompletion of the nuclear projects and$68 million upon attainment of certain

milestones related to CB&I’s continuedsupply of discrete scopes of modules,fabricated pipe and specialty services to

 WEC on a subcontract basis.South Carolina Electric & Gas

(SCE&G), a unit of SCANA Corp.and co-owner of the Summer plant,said the move is a positive one for thenew build projects.

“We have strengthened the languagein the EPC contract defining regula-tory changes which has been the basis

for many of our disputes with the con-sortium in the past,” said SCE&G saidin a statement. “We also have negotiateda fixed price option which, if exercised,

 would limit the construction cost of thenew nuclear plants.”

The amendment revises completiondates for Summer 2 & 3 to August 31,2019 and 2020, respectively. It alsosays total project costs will increase byapproximately $286 million over the$6.827 billion approved by the South

Carolina Public Service Commission,bringing the total gross constructioncost to approximately $7.113 billion.

For Vogtle 3 & 4, the units are setfor completion in 2019 and 2020 as

 well. Georgia Power said its share of thesettlement is $350 million, significantlyless than current litigation claims.

“This settlement is extremely posi-tive for the Vogtle project and now thecontractors can focus 100 percent on

project execution,” said Buzz Miller,executive vice president if nuclear de-

 velopment for Georgia Power. “Theagreement resolves current and pend-ing disputes, reaffirms the currentschedule and increases efficienciesby streamlining resource deployment

 with Westinghouse and its aff iliatesas the prime contractor over the Vog-tle expansion.”

The same day, Westinghouse an-

nounced that Fluor Corp. wouldmanage construction of the expan-sion projects in Georgia and SouthCarolina. Fluor will be subcontractedin the development of transition plansand definitive agreements. Westing-house said Fluor will manage a sig-nificant portion of the constructionof the four units and will be provid-ing project execution and direction,accountability for and managementof professional staff and craft work-

ers, and a focus on safety, qualityand project delivery certainty. Fluor’smanagement plans for construction

 would become effective at the closeof the deal.

Fluor said it will begin work imme-diately under a professional servicesagreement to assess the two projects,engage the workforce and plan a tran-sition of duties and responsibilities tomanage construction.

7/23/2019 npi20151112-dl

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/npi20151112-dl 30/32

30 NUCLEAR POWER INTERNATIONAL  >  NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2015

NEWS

 Authority’s service territory who can count

on Watts Bar 2 as another source of reliable,

carbon-free electricity for decades to come.”

Bechtel, Watts Bar 2 construction con-

tractor, released a statement, noting that the workforce amassed 33 million work hours,

or nearly five years, without a day lost to in-

 jury and a 98-percent quality control accep-

tance rate during the first inspection.

 Watts Bar Unit 2 is on schedule for opera-

tion in early 2016. Unit 1, in operation since

1996, and Unit 2 will produce 2,300 MW

of carbon-free energy, enough to power 1.3

million homes in the TVA service area.

S. Africa to Invest$15B to Prep NuclearEnergy ProgramOCTOBER 21

South Africa says it has put aside 200 mil-

lion Rand ($15 million) in preparation for its

nuclear energy program.

The Treasury said to Reuters that it has al-

ready funded 23 billion Rand ($1.7 billion)

into state power utility Eskom through the

sale of its stake in mobile phone company

 Vodacom.South Africa is facing electricity shortages

and wants to diversify its generating sources.

bilities,” said Johnson. “We understand that

responsibility and we take it seriously.”

Issued Thursday by the Nuclear Regu-

latory Commission, the operating license

allows TVA to move forward with prepara-tions for Unit 2’s initial fuel load, which re-

quires several weeks of work while the NRC

continues inspections and the reactor’s sys-

tems are readied for operation.

 Watts Bar 2 is the first unit to comply

 with Fukushima-related safety requirements

on mitigation strategies and spent fuel pool

instrumentation.

“Completing Watts Bar Unit 2 and suc-

cessfully licensing one of the nation’s larg-

est new nuclear generation projects is (an)

historic milestone for TVA and the nuclearindustry,” said Joe Grimes, TVA chief nu-

clear officer. “With the delivery of this unit,

 we are further positioning nuclear power as

a key player in TVA’s – and the nation’s –

energy portfolio and instilling confidence in

TVA and the nuclear industry.”

TVA maintained Unit 2 in an incomplete

state since 1985, extending the unit’s con-

struction permit since then. In 2007, TVA

began efforts to complete Unit 2 and updat-

ed its operating license application in March

2009. NRC staff completed the environ-mental review in May 2013 and continuous-

ly supplemented the safety evaluation report.

During Thursday’s news conference,

Mike Skaggs, senior vice president of Watts

Bar construction and operation, called the

project one of the hardest things he’s ever

done in his career.“But it’s also been the most rewarding

 when you take a step back and look at it,”

said Skaggs. “In 2011, we were approxi-

mately 45 percent complete. Today we are

99 percent complete.”

“This is 20 years in the making and we

 welcome today’s announcement for Watts

Bar Unit 2,” said members of the Energy

and Commerce Committee, Energy and

Power Subcommittee and Environment and

the Economy Subcommittee. “This nuclear

plant will help fulfill the region’s need for af-fordable, reliable and abundant electricity for

decades to come.”

Skaggs said the project included the re-

placement and refubishment of equipment

so Unit 2 mirrors Unit 1.

“We essentially have a new plant in an old

footprint,” said Skaggs.

The Nuclear Energy Institute congratu-

lated TVA on the achievement.

“This is a hallmark day for the U.S. nu-

clear energy industry,” said Marvin Fertel,

NEI President and CEO. “Even more im-portantly, this is cause for celebration for the

millions of people in the Tennessee Valley

Southern California Edison (SCE) reached a $400 million settlementfor the outages resulting from a shut down nuclear power plant.

SCE said the settlement with Nuclear Electric Insurance Limited(NEIL) resolves their claims under the insurance for the San Onofre

Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS). Pedro Pizarro, president of SCE,said that 95 percent of the net insurance proceeds will benefit customersand be allocated to all of the plant’s owners. SCE will receive $312.8million; San Diego Gas & Electric, $80 million, and the city of River-side, $7.16 million.

SCE announced in June 2013 that it would retire both units atSONGS after replacement steam generators were found to be defective.Under the auspices of the International Chamber of Commerce, SCE isstill seeking arbitration from Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, the company

 who built and supplied the generators, and Mitsubishi Nuclear EnergySystems. The failure of the generators led to the shutdown of the units.

SONGS Co-Owners Reach $400M Insurance SettlementOCTOBER 23

7/23/2019 npi20151112-dl

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/npi20151112-dl 31/32

OWNED& PRODUCED BY:

PRESENTED BY: SUPPORTED BY:

Nuclear energy remains a viable, clean and safe option for

meeting the global demands around the world. Advancing

clean energy continues to be the main emphasis because

of the benefits it provides for our health, economy and

environment.

Nuclear Power International provides the nuclear power

industry the perfect venue to gather, network and exchange

information about advancing clean energy in today’s

changing world.

REGISTER TODAY! WWW.NUCLEARPOWERINTERNATIONAL.COM

DECEMBER 8–10, 2015LAS VEGAS CONVENTION CENTER 

CENTRAL AND NORTH HALLS

LAS VEGAS, NEVADA

ADVANCING CLEAN ENERGY

7/23/2019 npi20151112-dl

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/npi20151112-dl 32/32

PRESENTED BY: OWNED & PRODUCED BY:

august 23-25, 2016greater columbus convention center

Columbus, Ohio, USA

Call for Abstracts

Don’t miss this opportunity to present

your ideas with industry colleagues!

Large Frame Gas Turbines Flexibility and Integration

 Efficiency Improvements

 Gas Turbine Performance

 Combustion Optimization

 Combined Cycle and Simple

Cycle Configurations

 Exhaust Flow

 Aerodynamics

 Cooling Efficiency

 Advanced Turbine Materials

 Low NOx Combustion

 Water Management

 HRSGs

Operations ANDMaintenance

 Data Monitoring

 Repair Processes

 Preventive Maintenance

 Gas Turbine Coatings

 Outage Management

 Layup Practices

 Fouling, Erosion and

Corrosion Mitigation

 Inlet Filter Selection

 O&M Regimens

 Metallurgy

 Quality Controls

Siting and ConstructionSite Preparation

Requirements

 Environmental Impacts and

Compliance

 Land Use Impacts

 Development Costs and

Schedules

 Site-Related Studies

 Licensing & Permitting

 Geography

 Access

 Air Qual ity Requirements

 Land Requirements

 Risk Management and

Safety Protocol

Small Gas Turbines andGas Engines

 Aerodynamic

Turbine Design

 CHP Applications

 RICE NESHAP Compliance

 Gen-Set Ratings

 Gen-Set Maintenance

 Monitoring and Controls

 Rice Designs

 Remote Monitoring ISO Standards Maintenance Practices

TOPICS OF INTEREST  POWER

FOR DETAILS ON SUBMITTALS, PLEASE VISIT WWW.POWER-GENNATURALGAS.COM.

submit your abstracts by JANuary 8, 2016

POWER-GEN Natural Gas is currently accepting abstracts that provide a unique opportunity to hear first-hand from

leading energy professionals with environmental, technical, social and regulatory perspectives.SUBMIT YOUR

ABSTRACT FOR A PRESENTATION BY JANUARY 8, 2016 and take advantage of the opportunity to share your

insights and experiences with industry colleagues. Listed below are a few suggested topics, or propose your own

industry-related topic.