nucleonicsweek

Volume 54 / Number 28 / July 11, 2013
Inside this issue
DOE uranium sales, transfers
expected to rise 52% in 2013: report 2
Public comment period for
Taiwan stress tests extended 3
California commission hears testimony
on power prices, seismic issues 4
Atmea1 passes first of three-phase
Canadian design approval 5
Notes to Nucleonics Week’s
generating table for May 2013 11
www.platts.com
NUCLEONICS WEEK
[NUCLEAR ]
Russia is well positioned to be
among the first nations to deploy a
small modular reactor and is poised to
be a top contender for market share
in the emerging industry as an array
of small modular reactor designs are
expected to enter commercial operation
in the 2020s, analysts said.
Small modular reactors, or SMRs,
are defined by DOE as reactors with less
than 300 MW that are manufactured in
factories and shipped by rail, barge or
truck to utilities as demand arises.
Russia likely to be among top contenders in SMR race: analysts
“Russia is currently the most suc-
cessful in terms of worldwide nuclear
reactor sales, with projects in China,
India, Slovakia, Vietnam, Turkey, and
Bangladesh,” Jonathan Hinze, senior
vice president, international at Ux
Consulting, said in an email July 8.
He also noted prospects for additional
Russian reactor sales in Finland and the
Czech Republic.
“It should be no surprise that Russia
is also aggressively pursuing the emerg-
ing SMR marketplace, and US vendors (continued on page 5)
Low natural gas prices and slack
demand for electricity in the US have
made it unclear whether new nuclear
power plants will be ordered this
decade, but some projects are continu-
ing licensing efforts, with utilities con-
sidering “banking” permits until busi-
ness conditions improve.
Analysts and industry officials said
prospects for new orders are uncertain,
and might depend on the progress
being made on four reactors in vari-
New US nuclear plant orders uncertain, but licensing continues
ous stages of construction at two sites.
Further delays at Southern Nuclear
Operating Co.’s Vogtle project and
South Carolina Electric & Gas’ Summer
might curb future development, where-
as completion of those project could
boost prospects for orders later this
decade, they said.
“If there aren’t too many more
delays and cost overruns on those
plants, that might provide an impe-
tus for others to move forward,” said (continued on page 6)
The pace of nuclear uprate work
in the US is clearly slowing as reactor
owners, facing new and long-term com-
petition from natural gas-fired power,
question the economic rationale of
investing hundreds of millions of dol-
lars in incremental nuclear capacity,
industry representatives and analysts
said in interviews in late June.
Further, some said, the likelihood
of a rebound in uprate work will shrink
over the next few years as the nation’s
nuclear units move closer toward the
Outlook for uprates downbeat, analysts say
end of 60-year operating lifetimes.
As the nation’s oldest reactors
enter their fifth decade of operation,
and with life extension beyond 60
years uncertain, the business case for
spending money on uprates dimin-
ishes, they said.
NRC spokesman David McIntyre
said in a June 25 email, “We have been
notified by licensees that 10 uprate
applications that were intended to be
submitted over the next three years are
(continued on page 9)
Michael Haggarty, senior vice president
of Moody’s Investors Service, in an
interview June 24.
First nuclear concrete was poured
at Vogtle in Georgia and Summer in
South Carolina in March. At the same
time, work advanced on the comple-
tion of a reactor in Tennessee, Watts
Bar-2, on which construction had
stopped in the 1980s.
If any US orders are received this
along with others around the world
should take Russia’s ability to deliver on
SMRs very seriously,” Hinze said.
Russia has three SMR designs with
the potential for near-term deploy-
ment — Akme-Engineering’s SVBR-100
and OKBM Afrikantov’s KLT-40S and
VBER-300. Akme Engineering is a joint
venture Russian state nuclear corpora-
tion Rosatom formed in 2009 with En+
Group, a diversified mining, metals and
energy group. Afrikantov is a nuclear

Nucleonics Week
2 Copyright © 2013 McGraw Hill Financial
July 11, 2013
To reach Platts
E-mail:support@platts.com
North America
Tel:800-PLATTS-8 (toll-free)
+1-212-904-3070 (direct)
Latin America
Tel:+54-11-4121-4810
Europe & Middle East
Tel:+44-20-7176-6111
Asia Pacific
Tel:+65-6530-6430
Nucleonics Week is published 51 times yearly by
Platts, a division of McGraw Hill Financial, registered
office: Two Penn Plaza, 25th Floor, New York, N.Y.
10121-2298.
Officers of the Corporation: Harold McGraw III,
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer;
Kenneth Vittor, Executive Vice President and General
Counsel; Jack F. Callahan Jr., Executive Vice President
and Chief Financial Officer; Elizabeth O’Melia, Senior
Vice President, Treasury Operations.
Platts makes no warranties, express or implied, as
to the accuracy, adequacy or completeness of the
data and other information set forth in this publication
(‘data’) or as to the merchantability or fitness for a
particular use of the data. Platts assumes no liability in
connection with any party’s use of the data. Corporate
policy prohibits editorial personnel from holding any
Chief Editor
Tom Harrison (tom.harrison@platts.com)
Managing Editors
Steven Dolley (steven.dolley@platts.com)
William Freebairn (william.freebairn@platts.com)
Elaine Hiruo (elaine.hiruo@platts.com)
Senior Editor
Jim Ostroff (james.ostroff@platts.com)
Editor
Jasmin Melvin (jasmin.melvin@platts.com)
Contact the editors;
+1-202-383-2170, nuclear@platts.com
European Editor
Senior Editor
Claire-Louise Isted +44 207 176 6296 (claire-louise.isted@platts.com)
Global Editorial Director, Power
Sarah Cottle
Manager, Advertisement Sales
Kacey Comstock
Volume 54 / Number 28 / July 11, 2013
Advertising
Tel : +1-720-548-5508
Vice President, Editorial
Dan Tanz
Platts President
Larry Neal
0048-105X
financial interest in companies they cover and from disclosing information prior to the publica-
tion date of an issue.
Copyright © 2013 by Platts, McGraw Hill Financial
All rights reserved. No portion of this publication may be photocopied, reproduced, retransmit-
ted, put into a computer system or otherwise redistributed without prior authorization from
Platts. Platts is a trademark of McGraw Hill Financial.
Permission is granted for those registered with the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) to pho-
tocopy material herein for internal reference or personal use only, provided that appropriate
payment is made to the CCC, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, phone (978) 750-
8400. Reproduction in any other form, or for any other purpose, is forbidden without express
permission of McGraw Hill Financial. For article reprints contact: The YGS Group, phone
+1-717-505-9701 x105. Text-only archives available on Dialog File 624, Data Star, Factiva,
LexisNexis, and Westlaw.
(ISSN: )
NUCLEONICS WEEK
DOE uranium sales, transfers
expected to rise 52% in 2013: report
The DOE expects to sell or transfer 2,705 metric tons per
year of DOE-owned natural uranium equivalent from this
year through 2017, a 52% increase from the 1,777 metric
tons of material it removed from federal inventories in 2012,
the department said in a report to Congress.
In a departure from a uranium disposition plan DOE
adopted in 2008, the agency dropped a guideline that it
limit the annual disposition of uranium to no more than
10% of US power reactor fuel needs.
The 2,705 metric tons of natural uranium equivalent equals
slightly more than 7 million pounds, or approximately 14% of
the 50 million lb annual US power reactor fuel requirements,
Scott Melbye, executive vice president of Uranium One, said in
a July 9 email in response to questions. “The previous 10% cap
equated to 5 million lb.,” Melbye said.
DOE originally adopted the guideline to assure that sales
or transfers of agency-owned uranium would not “have an
adverse material impact on the domestic uranium mining,
conversion or enrichment industry,” DOE said in a report to
Congress dated July 3. The department also said it expects
to sell or transfer 1,691 metric tons uranium equivalent in
2018, the final year of a six-year schedule.
The material is held by DOE mainly as uranium hexafluo-
ride of various enrichment levels, with some uranium metal. It
includes low-enriched uranium that the agency categorizes as
being “derived from U.S. HEU,” or high-enriched uranium.
The report did not say how much revenue DOE would
garner from the sales in any year or in total.
DOE may sell material from this inventory on the open
market. The department also may transfer uranium mate-
rial from its stockpile to companies conducting radiological
cleanup of the Paducah and Portsmouth sites in lieu of pay-
ment, Melbye said in a July 9 interview. Those companies
may then sell the material on the open market.
The agency said in its report that with five years of
“experience gained since issuance of the 2008 Plan,” it can
meet the objective of not causing a market disruption with-
out the guideline.
The report drew limited industry response given that it
was issued just prior to the Fourth of July holiday in the US.
The Nuclear Energy Institute distributed the DOE report to
its “front end members” and could not comment by press
time, spokesman John Keeley said in a July 9 email.
Mixed reaction
Executives with uranium producing and sales companies
had a mixed reaction to the DOE report. Melbye, who also is
president of the Uranium Producers of America trade group,
said that dropping the 10% guideline could make it more
difficult for uranium producers to arrange financing, because
DOE now has no limit on the amount of material it could
make available to the market in a given year.
Dustin Garrow, Paladin Energy’s executive general man-
ager-marketing, said in a July 9 interview the DOE’s plan for

Nucleonics Week
July 11, 2013
uranium disposition is “neutral to a bit positive [for compa-
nies that sell and buy uranium], since it does provide some
theoretical clarity” to the amount of material DOE expects
to sell or trade over the next six years.
Then-DOE Secretary Stephen Chu in May 2012 issued
a “secretarial determination” required by the Consolidated
Appropriations Act of 2012, that concluded DOE sales and
transfers of uranium were not causing supply or price dis-
ruptions in the uranium market.
Price publisher Ux Consulting said July 8 in its weekly
uranium market report that “It is important to note that
DOE is now legislatively required to review the potential
market impact of its uranium disposition every two years”
and will do so again in 2014.
Melbye said the DOE sale and transfer of uranium “are
based more on what DOE’s needs are than what the ura-
nium market can handle.” He questioned “the rationale” for
increasing the disposition of DOE-owned uranium. “When
the domestic industry is cutting back on production, the
government increases sales and claims this has no impact on
the uranium market” prices, he said.
The “question is what is next and how much more” ura-
nium will DOE sell or transfer, Melbye said. The uranium
spot “market has already cratered at current amounts,” he
said. Spot U3O8 prices in late June through this week have
averaged around $39.50/lb, the first time since March 2006
that prices have fallen below $40/lb, according to price
reporting services TradeTech and Ux Consulting.
Garrow said that the 2012 secretarial determination that
DOE uranium disposition has no adverse effect on the mar-
ket is “somewhat of a farce.” He said that previous determi-
nations “always have shown no adverse impact and I expect
this will be the case” in the 2014 determination.
“I would expect that as long as the DOE stays within rea-
sonable bound they’ll be able to do what they want to do,”
Garrow said.
‘Simple equation’
Tom Pool, chairman of Nuclear International, a uranium
production consulting firm, said in a July 10 email: “It’s a
very simple equation: more supply equals lower prices, even
the perception of more supply equals lower prices.”
Some producers have said that lower prices could stifle
new production, reducing supplies in coming years.
“However, not to worry, contrary to the whining of the
producers, there will always be sufficient uranium to keep all
the reactors running. Market forces will react to any poten-
tial shortage with higher prices as happened in 1950s, 1970s
and 2000s, Pool said.”
“It is unfortunate, however, that DOE continues to
maneuver, scheme and manipulate, at the expense of US
producers, to try to maintain its bloated organization,”
he said.
The DOE report is posted on the agency’s website
at: energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2013/07/f2/Excess%20
Uranium%20Inventory%20Management%20Plan.pdf.
— Jim Ostroff and Jasmin Melvin, Washington
Public comment period for
Taiwan stress tests extended
Taiwan’s Atomic Energy Council announced July 4 that
the public comment period for the national nuclear power
stress tests being peer reviewed this fall by the European
Nuclear Safety Regulators Group, or Ensreg, has been
extended through August 5.
At the invitation of the AEC, a nine-person Ensreg team
is to arrive in Taiwan September 22 to review the national
stress test and stress tests for Taiwan’s three operating nucle-
ar plants and the Lungmen plant under construction. The
team is scheduled to leave Taiwan October 3 and to submit
its report to the AEC within a month.
Environmental groups had called for an extension of the
public comment deadline as Chinese-language versions of
the lengthy reports submitted by state-owned Taiwan Power
Co. for the operating units and Lungmen were made public
June 12 and the national report was released July 1.
After consultations with Ensreg, the AEC announced on
its website July 4 that the deadline for submission of ques-
tions or comments by the public had been extended from
July 5 to August 5 “in order to expand the scope of public
participation and accept the suggestions of the public.”
On July 5, Ensreg’s web page on the stress tests, found
Advertisement

Nucleonics Week
July 11, 2013
at ensreg.eu/taiwan-stress-test/peer_review, was revised to
reflect the extension.
On July 9, the AEC announced plans to accept comments
and questions in Chinese from its website.
In related news, five leading legislators from the oppo-
sition Democratic Progressive Party issued an open letter
July 4 to Ensreg that backs calls by local non-governmental
groups for a delay in the peer review visit.
The groups have cited insufficient transparency and indepen-
dence between the AEC and Taipower and the need to wait for
completion of a comprehensive geophysical survey of the land
and undersea areas around the Lungmen project, with special
attention to possible active faults and undersea volcanos, that
was ordered by the legislature’s Economic Affairs Committee
April 16. The preliminary results are to be ready by year-end.
Legislator Ting Shou-chung of the ruling Kuomintang
party said in an interview July 9 that “we should welcome
international nuclear energy safety experts to carry out such
reviews as often and as soon as possible. I do not believe
there is any good reason to delay the Ensreg visit.”
Regarding concerns that the Ensreg report could be used by
the government to “endorse” the Lungmen project, which may
be the subject of a national referendum later this year, Ting
said that ‘”the Legislative Yuan should hire its own nuclear
power safety expertise to carry out independent reviews.”
— Dennis Engbarth, Taipei
California commission hears testimony
on power prices, seismic issues
Had San Onofre-2 and -3 been operating in 2012, they
would have produced power at noncompetitive, above-
market rates, according to John Geesman, a former commis-
sioner at the California Energy Commission, the state’s main
energy policy and planning agency, and now an attorney for
the anti-nuclear Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility.
Geesman was speaking at a CEC workshop on nuclear
plant issues on June 19.
Geesman said units 2 and 3 would have produced power
at $57/MWh while operating at a 90% capacity factor, cal-
culated based on a revenue requirement of $992 million
for 2012 that the California Public Utilities Commission
required of plant owners Southern California Edison and
San Diego Gas & Electric.
Under the same scenario, operating at 90% capacity fac-
tor, unit 2 operating alone would have produced power at
$114/MWh. At 70% power, unit 2 would have produced
power at $163/MWh. SCE had, before it decided to per-
manenetly shut both units last month, proposed operating
unit 2 at 70% power to address unexpected steam generator
tube wear discovered last year.
Geesman quoted Platts market prices showing there
were just six dates in 2012 in California markets when
prices ranged from $58/MWh to $66/MWh, higher than San
Onofre prices had both units been running at 90% capac-
ity. At all other times during 2012, California market prices
ranged lower than Geesman’s projected prices.
Geesman also said the Energy Information
Administration’s weighted average price in 2012 in Southern
California was $35.25/MWh.
An SCE representative did not respond by press time to
requests for comment.
Diablo Canyon
Jeanne Hardebeck, with the US Geological Survey, said
at the workshop there is still much to learn about the three
faults that are in the vicinity of Pacific Gas & Electric’s
Diablo Canyon plant and they are “sources of uncertainty.”
In addition to the Hosgri and Shoreline faults, the Los Osos
fault lies inland above the power plant in the Irish Hills and
much about it is unknown, she said.
Hardebeck said the predicted maximum magnitude earth-
quake on the Shoreline fault is estimated at 6.7, the predicted
maximum magnitude earthquake on the Hosgri fault north
of Diablo Canyon is estimated at 7.5. The slip rate for Hosgri
is estimated at 1 millimeter to 2 millimeters/year, and the slip
rate for Shoreline is estimated at 3 millimeters/year.
Hardebeck said a 6.7 earthquake is expected to occur
every 1,000 years to 67,000 years.
The fairly well known Hosgri fault lies about 1 kilometer
out in the continental shelf. The Shoreline fault, discovered
in 2008, lies about 700 meters from the ocean shoreline at
Diablo Canyon. Both of the faults are nearly vertical. The
Shoreline fault juts into the Hosgri north of Diablo Canyon,
and there are questions about the impact of movement in
either fault affecting the other, she said.
Hardebeck said the major sources of uncertainty and the
focus of future work are the fault geometry beneath the Irish
Hills above Diablo Canyon, the slip rate of the Shoreline fault,
and identifying the southern end of the Shoreline fault.
PG&E is continuing to perform low seismic surveys of
the ocean floor and inland in the Irish Hills to learn more
about the faults and is expected to release a series of reports
starting this fall and into continuing into 2015.
The state requires that PG&E complete 3-D seismic stud-
ies and include them in Diablo Canyon’s license renewal
application. These studies required lengthy environmental
review before they could begin and PG&E asked NRC to
extend the licensing review to consider the results. NRC said
in March it plans to complete the license review in mid-
2015. PG&E applied for the license renewal in 2009.
Jearl Strickland, a director at Diablo Canyon, said during
the workshop that PG&E estimates its seismic studies will
cost a total of $87.3 million. Its study for NRC on lessons
learned from the Fukushima disaster is projected to cost an
additional $17.1 million.
Thomas Cuddy, a spokesman for PG&E, said questions
raised by plant critics about the NRC’s review of earlier
seismic issues at the site have been resolved. “The matter
involved how to evaluate new seismic information. It was
resolved when the NRC provided such guidance and direct-
ed all U.S. nuclear power plants to conduct new seismic haz-

Nucleonics Week
July 11, 2013
ard evaluations,” he said in an email June 28.
The guidance came in an October NRC Research Information
Letter and statement, in which the agency reported an analysis
of the Shoreline fault shows potential earthquakes from the fault
are within the site’s existing design limits.
NRC said the review confirms PG&E’s analysis of the
Shoreline fault. The ground motion from earthquakes gener-
ated by that fault fell within the plant’s design limits which
are based on likely effects from the larger Hosgri fault lying
parallel to and outside the Shoreline fault. The Shoreline
fault’s “overall contribution to the hazard is relatively lim-
ited,” the letter said.
— Lyn Corum, Santa Monica, California
Atmea1 passes first of three-phase
Canadian design approval
The 1,100-MW Atmea1 power reactor, developed jointly
by Areva and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, has passed the
first stage of a three-phase design approval by the Canadian
Nuclear Safety Commission, Areva said in a July 8 statement.
The CNSC said in a June 26 statement that the Phase 1
review indicates its staff has “determined that the design intent is
compliant with the CNSC regulatory requirements and meets the
expectations for new nuclear power plant designs in Canada.”
The Areva statement said Atmea1 “has advanced safety
and security systems similar to those of the [Areva-designed]
EPR: resistance to aircraft crashes and earthquakes, the
latest-generation instrumentation & control, a core catcher
and three independent safety trains.” These features “meet
the most recent international rules and recommendations,
including post-Fukushima requirements,” it said.
The statement did not say whether the joint develop-
ers have applied to the CNSC for Phase 2 design approval,
which focuses “on identifying whether there are any poten-
tial fundamental barriers to licensing the reactor design in
Canada,” the agency said.
“[T]he CNSC has not received an application for Phase 2
of ATMEA1,” Aurele Gervais, a CNSC spokesman, said in a
July 9 emailed response to questions. Areva did not respond
by press time to questions of whether the next-phase design
approval will be sought.
France’s nuclear safety regulator, ASN, in 2012 confirmed
that Atmea1 “met the defined safety criteria for this genera-
tion of reactors,” Areva said. The design has been “selected
for the Sinop site in Turkey and pre-selected in Jordan, Brazil
and Argentina,” the company said.
— Jim Ostroff, Washington
engineering company subsidiary of Rosatom.
Construction of the 100-MW SVBR-100 pilot unit is
scheduled to start between 2015 and 2016, with physical
start-up slated for 2017 and mass production starting in
Russia ... from page 1
2019, Akme Engineering said February 5 in a statement.
Several delegates at the Atomexpo conference and exhib-
it held in St. Petersburg June 26-28 said the SVBR-100 would
likely be the first SMR in the world to achieve commercial
operation, although Hinze said other Russian and non-Rus-
sian designs could beat it to that milestone.
Akme Engineering will build the pilot plant but is still
considering how it will develop or procure the engineering,
procurement, construction and management skills necessary to
complete and operate the plant, company spokesman Stepan
Rudakov said in an emailed response to questions March 26.
The Russian SVBR-100 “project and product is well posi-
tioned to capture significant market share,” as the closest among
SMR competitors to commercial operation, Hans Kopp, a partner
at Roland Berger Strategy Consultants, said at the conference.
Kopp estimates there will be 40 GW of installed SMR capac-
ity by 2030, with 75% of that demand coming from the fast-
growing BRIC countries, Brazil, Russia, India and China.
Hinze, on the other hand, said the SVBR-100 would “cer-
tainly not be the first to market.”
“Russia’s KLT-40S, South Korea’s SMART, China’s HTR-
PM, and Argentina’s Carem reactor will all likely be done and
online before the SVBR-100,” he said. This is namely due to
potential proliferation risks posed by the higher enrichment
levels required for the SVBR-100’s fuel and “unique challenges”
related to the use of lead-bismuth as its coolant, he said.
The South Korean, Chinese and Argentine reactors Hinze
noted have projected commercial starts between 2017 and
2018, the IAEA has said.
Construction began in 2007 on the 35-MW Russian KLT-
40S, a nuclear power plant aboard a floating vessel, and the
first two-unit vessel is expected to be operational by 2016,
according to Russian media reports July 7.
A two-unit VBER-300 plant, with a total capacity of
295-325 MW, is expected to be built in Kazakhstan with
construction completed in 2016 for the first unit and 2017
for the second as part of a 2006 joint venture between
Kazatomprom and Atomstroyexport, according to a July
report by the World Nuclear Association.
Dzhomart Aliev, director general of Rusatom Overseas,
said at the Atomexpo conference last month that Russia has
“received three requests, including two from outside Russia”
for its SMRs.
In the US, DOE, through a 50-50 cost share program, will
provide at least $150 million to a team led by Babcock and
Wilcox to support commercialization of the mPower SMR by
2022 and will award up to $226 million to an additional SMR
vendor that targets deployment by 2025. General Atomics,
Holtec International, NuScale Power and Westinghouse have
said they submitted proposals for the second award.
Bruce Lacy, president of Lacy Consulting Group, said in
an interview July 9 that he did not place “a huge amount of
significance on being first” to market.
Lacy Consulting provides advisory services to US and interna-
tional clients on the technical, regulatory, and policy issues associ-
ated with the business of nuclear energy, according to its website.
“There are clearly advantages to being first, but it by no

Nucleonics Week
July 11, 2013
decade, they are likely to be in the US Southeast, said Marvin
Fertel, president and CEO of the Nuclear Energy Institute.
One of the states that might need nuclear energy most is
Florida, which relies heavily on natural gas-fired generation
and has expressed an interest in diversifying the fuel mix,
Fertel said in an interview June 26. Florida is one of several
southeastern states with laws to permit utilities to recover
early costs for nuclear projects as they are incurred instead
of after the unit is brought online.
The low price of natural gas is an obstacle to new power
reactors, since gas-fired plants are more competitive and easier
to build, but a crucial factor is slow growth in demand, Fertel
said. “Hopefully, we’re going to see electricity demand go up,”
Fertel said. The recession and trends toward energy efficiency
have depressed demand for several years, but low power prices
will encourage additional consumption, he said.
“I know everybody thinks it’s just natural gas prices, but
I think the actual first key is demand. That’s what’s going
to force companies and public utility commissions in their
integrated resources plans to look at what to do,” he said.
Eventually, natural gas prices will rise, making nuclear
energy more competitive, he said. With more coal plants
shutting, utilities will look to replace baseload power, per-
haps with nuclear generation, Fertel said.
Moody’s Haggarty said demand may not grow for years
because of not just the lingering impact of the recession, but
demand-side management, energy efficiency and distributed
generation. “Our general view is that it’s not going to come
back any time soon,” he said. That reduces the need for
large baseload projects, Haggarty said.
Even for those utilities that are undecided about building
reactors, licensing continues for a number of projects. While
federal policy incentives in 2005 and expectations of contin-
ued strong economic growth at that time spurred a flurry of
applications to build dozens of reactors, many of those proj-
ects have been halted.
NRC is reviewing nine applications for combined con-
struction permit-operating licenses, or COLs, for a total of
14 units. Reviews of seven other COL applications were sus-
pended at the applicants’ request. One of the seven was later
withdrawn and an early site permit application was filed
to replace it; that application was subsequently withdrawn.
Award of an ESP represents NRC staff’s finding that a site is
suitable for a nuclear power reactor.
US nuclear ... from page 1
The licensing efforts that are continuing are doing so for
several reasons, Fertel said. The companies could be hedging
against growth in electricity demand, a rise in natural gas
prices or restrictions on carbon emissions, he said.
“That’s why people are funding COLs — it not only gives
them optionality if things change, it gives them a much shorter
time to market” if they decide to build a nuclear unit, he said.
NRC issued COLs to four units in 2012, two each at Vogtle
and Summer. All four units are Westinghouse AP1000s.
Further licensing depends partly on the agency’s certifi-
cation of reactor designs referenced in those COL applica-
tions. NRC certified the AP1000 in December 2011.
Slowdown
Six of the 14 units with COLs under review by NRC are
also AP1000s, and those licenses can be issued as soon as
safety and environmental reviews are complete, a mandatory
hearing is held and commissioners make required findings
from the hearing.
No applicant has said it will definitely build a new unit.
For the remaining eight reactors — two US-EPRs, two
ESBWRs, two US-APWRs and two ABWRs — NRC must cer-
tify the designs before issuing COLs. The design certification
process has been extended by requirements established by
the agency in response to the 2011 Fukushima I accident
and several outstanding technical issues.
Various issues have slowed COL reviews, including for-
eign ownership at UniStar’s Calvert Cliffs-3 and Nuclear
Innovation North America’s South Texas Project expansion.
NRC said in August it would put all new reactor licensing
on hold after a federal court set aside its waste confidence
rule, which is key to such licensing actions. NRC has said it
expects to issue a new final rule by summer 2014 and could
then resume issuing reactor licenses.
NRC spokesman Scott Burnell said in an email June 27
that the across-the-board budget cut, also known as sequestra-
tion, that went into effect January 1 for all federal agencies has
also had an impact on new reactor licensing, holding up COL
reviews for STP-3 and -4 and DTE Energy’s Fermi-3.
Agency officials have said new post-Fukushima require-
ments are adding to seismic and flooding reviews for COLs.
Current construction
Construction officially began on Vogtle-3 and Summer-2
in March with the pouring of the concrete basemat, or foun-
dation, for the nuclear island. The pouring of first nuclear
concrete at Vogtle-4 and Summer-3 is expected by mid-2014,
the companies have said.
Commercial operation for the first new unit at Vogtle
is expected in late 2017, with the first new Summer unit
expected to reach that milestone in late 2017 or early 2018
as a result of delays with the delivery of sub-modules for the
reactor building to the site.
Tennessee Valley Authority is completing Watts Bar-2
under a construction permit issued in 1973. Construction
was stopped on the unit in 1985 and resumed several years
ago. TVA has said the unit’s completion will cost more than
means guarantees any kind of a lock on the market,” Lacy said.
He added that the market for SMRs was “wide open”
with room for several players to move in and also learn from
earlier deployments of their competitors.
Hinze said the market and customers will “begin to make
serious decisions” in the 2020s that will determine which
SMRs are successful.
— Jasmin Melvin, Washington;
Claire-Louise Isted, St. Petersburg

Nucleonics Week
July 11, 2013
expected and commercial operation is expected around
December 2015.
Bruce Lacy, a consultant specializing in plant financ-
ing issues, said future orders for large reactors in the US will
depend partly on the success of the Vogtle and Summer proj-
ects. The key issues will be “is it up and running and how hard
was it to get there,” he said in an interview June 28.
Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz, in an interview on the
“Platts Energy Week” television show that aired June 30,
expressed a similar view.
“We need to know, in the United States, what does it cost,
can it meet schedule ... We will know when we build these
new plants,” he said. “That will inform the marketplace, utili-
ties, the investors, the equipment manufacturers, what’s the
reality. I think that will probably be the most important factor
in terms of the trajectory of nuclear power.”
The program is on the web at www.plattsenergyweektv.com.
SMR potential
In addition to projects for large reactors of 1,000 MW or
more, there is the potential for companies to seek per-
mission to build and operate smaller units, under 300
MW each, known as small modular reactors. These SMRs,
which would be built in a factory and shipped to plant
sites largely assembled, are in the early design stages, but
could play a part in commercial nuclear power in the US
and internationally, analysts said.
The US government, through DOE, is making avail-
able up to $452 million over five years to help in the
design and licensing of one or more SMR designs. It des-
ignated a team led by Babcock & Wilcox to be the first
recipient, for its mPower design, which will receive at
least $151 million in the cost-share program. Additional
applicants submitted requests by the July 1 deadline for
a second round of awards to DOE.
Lacy said there is no reason why a contract to build
an SMR could not be signed before the end of the
decade. SMRs could appeal to a much larger group of
potential buyers than 1,000-MW-class reactors, he said.
“There’s a whole new crop of people who are trying to
figure out what to do in a world where coal is disadvan-
taged” by additional regulation, Lacy said.
But Mark Cooper, a senior fellow at the Vermont
Law School’s Institute for Energy and Environment,
said SMRs are unlikely to be economic “for decades.” In
that time, alternative renewable technologies will also
become more efficient and innovative, possibly trumping
SMRs, said Cooper, who has frequently critized the busi-
ness case for nuclear energy.
Duke Energy’s experience with its planned Harris
expansion reflects some of the issues facing new nuclear
projects. Duke announced in May that it had asked
NRC to suspend the review of its application to add
two AP1000s at its Harris plant, also known as Shearon
Harris. The company said in a statement May 2 the
additional capacity at Harris would not be needed for at
least 15 years, but that it would consider developing new
units there in the long term.
Duke acquired Harris when it purchased Progress Energy
in 2012. Duke is continuing to seek COLs for two AP100
units each at greenfield sites in Florida and South Carolina.
Duke had said in October that the Harris units, if they
were to be built, would not come online before 2026.
NRC said last year it and the US Army Corps of
Engineers identified several issues at Harris that remain
unresolved and would affect the environmental review
of the new Harris units. Duke told NRC in November it
would submit needed Fukushima-related seismic infor-
mation and an analysis of the need for power from the
units in 2013, NRC said in a June semiannual report on
licensing activities.
Lee
Duke is advancing with its William States Lee III sta-
tion COL application to build and operate two AP1000s
at a site in South Carolina. But changes to the location
of the nuclear island and delays in submitting post-Fuku-
shima seismic studies are expected to slow the licensing
review, NRC has said.
The company is seeking changes to laws on construc-
tion financing cost recovery in North Carolina, where
the plant would sell energy, executives said last year. The
company is considering regional partnerships to build
the unit, the executives said.
NRC had said the Lee safety review was to be com-
plete at the end of 2012, with the environmental review
and mandatory hearing to follow in 2013, but that
schedule is being revised.
Duke told NRC in October it would not submit
seismic information in its safety analysis report until
January 2014, the agency said in its licensing report.
“The applicant’s delayed response will result in a sig-
nificant shift to the currently published schedule for
completion of the staff’s safety evaluation,” NRC said in
the June licensing report.
In addition, Duke told NRC in December that the
planned location of the nuclear island for unit 1 is
being moved 50 feet (about 15.3 meters) east and 66 feet
south, while unit 2 is being moved 66 feet south. Duke
spokesman Jason Walls said in January that the changes
were made to facilitate excavation and backfill.
Duke has not made a final decision to build the Lee
plant, but is continuing with licensing efforts and could
bring it online in the 2020s, company officials have said.
Levy
NRC said June 25 it extended the review of Duke’s COL
application for two new units at a site in Levy County,
Florida for an additional year as a result of April revisions to
the application.
The final safety evaluation report will be completed by
September 2014, staff said in a letter to Duke. It was the
second delay this year; NRC extended the review in January,
saying it would complete the safety evaluation report in

Nucleonics Week
July 11, 2013
September 2013 instead of October of 2012.
NRC said in the January letter that the schedule was
changed in part because of revisions to emergency prepared-
ness portions of the application, including changes spurred
by a new emergency preparedness rule that became effective
in December.
The Levy environmental review was completed in
April 2012.
Duke’s Florida subsidiary has said the first new unit at
Levy, if built, could come online in 2024.
Turkey Point
Florida Power & Light continues to advance licensing
of its Turkey Point-6 and -7 project, which would add two
AP1000s at the site of two existing reactors, although NRC
has suspended part of the review because of what it has
said are inadequate responses to technical questions.
NRC is considering whether to resume the review of
geology, seismology and geotechnical engineering parts
of the application, after FP&L provided additional infor-
mation required by the agency, the licensing report said.
An additional challenge lies in FP&L’s review of
alternative sites, which the agency said in February was
“inconsistent with NRC guidance and with related case
law.” The review of that portion of the application will
be suspended until it is revised, NRC said in the licens-
ing report.
The safety review for the new units at Turkey Point had
been scheduled to be completed in late 2013, and the envi-
ronmental review targeted for completion in early 2014,
with a mandatory hearing possible in June 2014.
The overall NRC review is complicated by the first-
time review of geology and seismology in the Caribbean
region under agency regulations developed since the
original units were built, NRC said in its licensing report.
The first new unit could begin commercial operation
around 2022, FP&L has said, although the Florida Public
Service Commission said in a June 17 report that the
date was “questionable” given possible NRC delays in
issuing COLs.
North Anna
Dominion’s decision earlier this year to change back to
GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy’s ESBWR reactor design for its
proposed North Anna-3 in Virginia has set back the review
of the COL for that new unit, NRC has said. Dominion
will submit a revised application in two parts in July and
November, the company has said.
Dominion initially selected the ESBWR for the site when
it submitted the COL application in 2007, but it changed
to Mitsubishi Heavy Industries’ US-APWR in 2010, as the
NRC review was well underway. Company officials said in
April they had switched back to the ESBWR for competitive
reasons and because the ESBWR was closer to getting design
certification from NRC.
NRC is also revising its COL review schedule for North
Anna-3 because of changes to the MHI seismic analysis and
in light of the 2011 earthquake near the site. That quake
caused the two existing units at North Anna to shut, and
NRC did not allow them to restart until an extensive review
found no significant damage had occurred.
The Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League in May
requested that an NRC licensing board reopen its hearing
on the COL based on the company’s decision to change the
design again. Dominion, in a June response, said Bredl had
an opportunity to challenge the ESBWR design when the
COL application was initially filed, and the licensing board
is not legally able to consider the matter.
Dominion might decide in 2016 whether to build the
unit, executives have said.
Fermi
DTE Energy is proposing to build an ESBWR on the
Fermi site in Michigan, the site of an operating unit. NRC
notified the licensing panel carrying out the Fermi-3 pro-
ceeding in a letter June 17 that “budget constraints” would
delay completion of the agency’s safety review. The revised
schedule has the advanced safety evaluation report being
issued in December 2014 with a final SER coming out in
July 2015, both delayed by six months.
The environmental review for Fermi-3 was completed in
January, with a hearing on an environmental issue sched-
uled for the fall.
DTE has not decided whether to build Fermi-3, and exec-
utives have said in the past a price on carbon, strong legisla-
tive support in Michigan and loan guarantees would likely
be needed to go forward.
South Texas Project
Work on the two-unit South Texas Project expansion has
been significantly curtailed after the main investor pulled
back from funding the new units.
NRG announced in 2011 it would no longer invest in
the new ABWRs, which are majority owned by Nuclear
Innovative North America, a joint venture with Toshiba,
citing the challenging environment for merchant nuclear
projects. NRG owns 88% of NINA, while Toshiba holds 22%.
NINA owns 92% of the South Texas Project-3 and -4 project.
It remains unclear whether the NINA ownership will pre-
vent NRC from issuing COLs for the new units. The agency
has said it considers the project to be potentially controlled
by Toshiba, which is alone paying licensing costs and could
increase ownership to 85% of the partnership.
NRC said in late 2011 that NINA’s plan to negate the
foreign ownership was inadequate and failed to meet regula-
tory requirements. NRC has suspended its review of that sec-
tion of the application, although it is continuing to consider
other parts, it said.
But NRC said in a June 3 Federal Register notice that it
is seeking comment on “potential modifications” to how
it interprets the Atomic Energy Act’s prohibition against
issuing a power reactor license to foreign-owned, con-
trolled or dominated entities. Modifications to the inter-
pretation might be warranted, NRC said, noting there is

Nucleonics Week
July 11, 2013
“increased globalization of economic activity and associ-
ated added complexity of the corporate arrangements” in
reactor projects.
In addition, in May 2012 NINA notified NRC that
because it was a merchant project, it would be difficult for
the company to secure financing for the project before being
issued COLs. NRC rules require that applicants show they
are financially qualified to carry out the project before COLs
can be issued.
NRC is considering issues raised by NINA and the indus-
try about the financial qualification matter.
Also, there are technical issues in the application under
review, including the seismic analysis, flow-induced vibra-
tion and spent fuel pool structural stability, NRC said in its
June licensing report.
The environmental review for the new units was com-
pleted in 2011. NRC says on its website it plans to complete
the safety review by September 2015.
Calvert Cliffs
UniStar, a subsidiary of EDF Group, said it is continuing
to plan an Areva-designed US-EPR at the site of two existing
reactors in Maryland, despite the withdrawal of one princi-
pal partner and questions about whether foreign ownership
of the project could prevent licensing of the new unit.
Constellation Energy pulled out of the development of
the project in 2010, leaving UniStar the sole owner. NRC
has said the project cannot receive a COL if UniStar remains
controlled by EDF, a French corporation majority-owned by
that country’s government.
NRC completed the environmental review for Calvert
Cliffs-3 in 2011. Although NRC said until last year it
planned to complete the safety review by January 2013, all
licensing milestones are now under review, according to the
agency’s website.
Bell Bend
PPL has filed an application to build a US-EPR near
the existing two-unit Susquehanna nuclear plant in
Pennsylvania. The company will not undertake the project
unless it gets a federal loan guarantee and finds partners for
the plant, PPL has said.
NRC is revising the schedule to complete the safety and
environmental reviews. In a letter to PPL in September, it
said a decision by the Susquehanna River Basin Commission
raises questions about water consumption that will delay
completion of the environmental impact study.
Comanche Peak
Luminant Generation submitted an application to NRC
in September 2008 for COLs for two Mitsubishi Heavy
Industries US-APWR reactors at the site of the existing
Comanche Peak nuclear power plant in Texas.
NRC completed the environmental review for the project
in 2011, but the safety review has been delayed as a result of
several issues. Luminant did not provide enough informa-
tion on limiting foreign ownership and control of the proj-
ect, NRC said, according to the licensing report. Additional
information will be provided by mid-2013, the report said.
Additional technical issues, including flooding and
watershed analyses, remain unresolved, NRC said.
Other potential projects
Besides those COLs that have been filed, some compa-
nies have said they intend to file COLs, ESPs or construc-
tion permit applications.
PSEG submitted an ESP application in May 2010 for a
site adjacent to its Salem/Hope Creek site in New Jersey.
NRC plans to complete its safety and environmental
reviews by 2014, the agency said in its review schedule.
TVA plans to file for a construction permit for
the first mPower SMR at its Clinch River site in in
Tennessee in 2015. TVA has said it intends to use the
construction permit for the first SMRs instead of a
COL to simplify licensing.
Exelon in 2009 delayed its plan to build two nuclear
units in Victoria County, Texas, submitting an ESP
instead in 2010. It withdrew that application in August,
citing economic and market conditions. In a statement
announcing the decision, Exelon said those conditions
“have made construction of new merchant nuclear
power plants in competitive markets uneconomical now
and for the foreseeable future.”
— William Freebairn, Washington
being canceled.”
Some of the canceled uprate plans have been publicly
announced, but others have not, he said. The specific infor-
mation NRC has received from power reactor licensees “is
considered proprietary, so we are not able to divulge [the
names of the] other licensees or discuss the reasons for the
cancellations,” he said.
NRC’s annual report on uprates “is nearing completion”
and is expected to be released July 11, McIntyre said.
NRC’s 2012 report, issued June 15, 2012, said the staff
was reviewing 17 uprate applications and that “[o]ver the
next five years, the staff expects that licensees will submit an
additional 15 power uprate applications.”
On June 11, Exelon — which four years ago
announced plans for up to 1,500 MW of uprates across
its 17-unit fleet — said in a filing with the US Securities
and Exchange Commission that it has canceled plans for
uprates at four of its reactors: two at LaSalle in Illinois
and two at Limerick in Pennsylvania.
Exelon spokesman Paul Elsburg said in a June 25 email
that the LaSalle and Limerick uprates, which would have
added a total of up to 423 MW, were scrapped “because of
a lack of significant improvement in long-term [electric-
ity] pricing and [the] large size and long payback period
of the investments.”
He noted that the company is proceeding with its
Uprates ... from page 1

Nucleonics Week
July 11, 2013
remaining uprate plans: 12.4% increases for Peach
Bottom-2 and -3 and 1.6% uprates at Braidwood-1 and -2
and Byron-1 and -2.
On ‘razor’s edge’
Mark Cooper, senior fellow for economic analysis at the
Institute for Energy and the Environment of the Vermont
Law School, said in a June 27 interview that the “50-50
split” in Exelon’s recent decision-making regarding uprates,
with some going forward and others canceled, “tells you
that the economics of uprates are on a razor’s edge.”
“Five years ago, the economics were slam-dunk” in favor
of uprating units, “but they’re not any more,” said Cooper,
a leading critic of nuclear power economics. “The economics
in general have become very, very dicey. The cost of operat-
ing and maintaining reactors has been rising and revenues
have been falling,” particularly for merchant units in states
with competitive wholesale power markets, he said.
Cooper said reactor operators that had been planning
uprates have been taking fresh looks at such things as
how long their units are likely to remain in operation, and
whether they will require expensive, Fukushima-related
safety upgrades.
Terry Pickens, director of nuclear regulatory policy at Xcel
Energy, said in a June 25 interview that the utility and the
Minnesota Public Utilities Commission agreed in 2008-09 that
it made economic sense to undertake an uprate at Xcel’s two-
unit Prairie Island station. Xcel initially planned to uprate the
plant by 146 MW, later scaling that back to 116 MW.
But in March 2012, the utility notified regulators it had put
that plan on hold, citing slower load growth, lower natural gas
prices, and uncertainties in the federal licensing process.
Pickens said Xcel still could have made an economics-
based case for the uprate project, “but if some things [the
utility had forecasted] didn’t come to fruition, it could take
[the economics] in a negative direction,” so Xcel decided to
suspend the project.
It is possible the Prairie Island uprate project could be
revived in the future, Pickens said, “but the likelihood is
very low” because of the decreasing number of years the
two units have left to run, he said. Prairie Island-1’s renewed
operating license expires in 2033 and unit 2’s in 2034.
Investing for reliability
Pickens noted, however, that while Xcel backed off its
uprate plan for Prairie Island, it followed through with its
plan to invest a total of about $1.8 billion in that station
and in its single-unit Monticello plant to help ensure they
continue to operate well for the next several years.
The roughly $600 million in planned work at Monticello
— which included steam generator replacements and other
work that increased the unit’s capacity by 71 MW, to 656
MW — is nearly complete, while work on the Prairie Island
units will continue through 2016, he said.
One of the larger elements of the plan, said Pickens, is
the $280 million project to install two new steam generators
at Prairie Island-2; that work will take place this fall.
Doug Walters, vice president of regulatory affairs at the
Nuclear Energy Institute, said in a June 25 interview that
despite the current slowdown in uprate work, reactor owners
will continue to invest — as Xcel has been doing — in unit
refurbishments to help ensure their units operate at high
capacity factors over the next few decades.
Walters added, “You shouldn’t look at uprates in isola-
tion” from more general projects to rehabilitate nuclear
units. He cited Florida Power & Light’s recently completed
uprates at its four nuclear units — two at St. Lucie and two
at Turkey Point — which he said accomplished far more
than adding more than 500 MW of capacity.
The FP&L units now are fitted with “the latest technol-
ogy, upgraded materials” and new parts that not only have
boosted their output but put the reactors in a good position
to continue operating reliably for decades to come, Walters
said.
He noted that owners of merchant nuclear units face
somewhat different challenges when considering whether
to undertake uprate or rehabilitation projects than do their
counterparts in traditionally regulated markets. “In mer-
chant markets, you bid [electricity] into the marketplace,”
he said, and market prices will vary not only from year to
year but region to region. For example, in the May capacity
auction in PJM, prices came in “much lower than most had
been expecting,” thereby putting the economic rationale for
investing in nuclear units — and for even continuing the
operate them — in question.
Electricity price decline
The PJM clearing price in the capacity auction in May
plunged to $59.37/MW-day, down roughly 56% from its
clearing price in last year’s auction, as a result of increased
power imports and new planned capacity. The capacity auc-
tion, also known as the reliability pricing model’s base resid-
ual auction, is designed to encourage resource adequacy,
long-term price signals and fixed-cost recovery.
“It’s a little easier in regulated markets,” said Walters.
In those markets, utilities that own nuclear units know
that, with state regulatory support, they will be able to fully
recover the costs of operating, maintaining, and upgrading
their reactors.
But energy analyst Paul Patterson at Glenrock Associates
said in a June 27 interview that natural gas prices and power
prices affect uprate decisions in both merchant and regu-
lated markets.
“The bottom line is that shale gas and low gas prices
have been a game-changer” in the electric industry in gen-
eral and in the uprate business specifically, Patterson said.
“Considering where gas and power prices are, and consid-
ering the substantial capital required for uprates, its not
surprising that we’re seeing [nuclear owners] pull back from
uprate projects they had been planning.”
He added that, as nuclear units age, “the value of uprates
will continue to decline” because there would be less and
less time to recover the investment.
— Housley Carr, Carversville, Pennsylvania

Nucleonics Week
July 11, 2013
In Belgium, the nuclear regulator on May 17 gave
Electrabel permission to restart Doel-3 and Tihange-2
after it completed safety reviews of flaws found in the
units’ reactor pressure vessels. Doel-3 returned June 3,
a year and a day after having been shut for periodic
inspections during which the flaws were found and
following which regulators ordered it to remain shut
pending additional inspections and analyses. Tihange-2,
whose reactor vessel was also supplied by the now-
defunct Rotterdam Dry Dock, was shut August 16 for
planned maintenance and similar inspections. The unit
returned to the grid June 7.
In the Czech Republic, Dukovany-2 returned to the
grid May 1 after a 32-day refueling and maintenance out-
age and Temelin-2 returned to the grid June 25 after a
50-day refueling.
In France, Blayais-1 remained shut in May, return-
ing June 4 from a refueling that began April 20; Bugey-
2 remained shut in May after beginning a refueling in
March; Cruas-4 returned May 26 from a refueling that
began April 13; Dampierre-2 returned May 5 from a
refueling that began March 30; Flamanville-2 shut for
refueling in early February, remaining down through
May and returning the weekend of June 1-2; Gravelines-4
returned May 6 from a refueling that began February 23;
Gravelines-5 shut May 4 for refueling, returning June
24; St. Laurent-B2 remained down in May after shutting
February 23 for a decennial refueling and maintenance
outage; and Tricastin-2 returned May 31 from a refueling
that began March 17.
In Hungary, Paks-1 returned May 7 from a refueling
that began April 6.
In Japan, Ohi-3 and -4, the country’s only operating
nuclear units, are scheduled to shut for maintenance out-
ages September 2 and 15, respectively. Japan’s remaining
48 operational units are shut following the March 11,
2011 earthquake and tsunami that resulted in the per-
manent shutdowns of units 1 through 4 at Fukushima
I. Three of those reactors — Kashiwazaki-Kariwa units 2,
3, and 4 — have been shut since a major earthquake in
Niigata prefecture July 16, 2007. On July 8, the date the
Nuclear Regulation Authority’s safety requirements came
into force as a new law, NRA accepted restart applica-
tions from four utilities for a total of 10 reactors.
In Spain, Asco-2 returned May 23 from a refueling
that began April 6.
In the US, Browns Ferry-2 returned May 5 from a
refueling that began March 4; Brunswick-2 returned May
9 from a refueling that began March 2; Byron-2 returned
May 1 from a refueling that began April 8; Callaway
returned May 28 from a refueling that began April 8;
Columbia shut May 11 for refueling, returning June 25;
Cook-1 returned May 19 from a refueling that began
March 27; Farley-2 returned May 9 from a refueling that
began April 14; Millstone-3 returned May 18 from a refu-
eling that began April 13; Monticello remained down
through June after shutting March 2 for a refueling that
includes uprate work; Nine Mile Point-1 returned May
15 from a refueling that began April 15; North Anna-
2 returned May 9 from a refueling that began April 6
then shut again May 10 for about 12 days for additional
maintenance; Perry returned May 30 from a refueling
that began March 18; Pilgrim-1 returned May 30 from a
refueling that began April 14; Salem-1 returned May 27
from a refueling that began April 14; and Susquehanna-2
remained down in May after shutting for refueling April
13, returning June 5.
Entergy’s Arkansas Nuclear One-1, which was shut
March 24 for refueling, remains down following a March
31 accident in which one worker was killed. Entergy told
the US Securities and Exchange Commission May 20 that
it expects to restart ANO-1 before year-end.
Omaha Public Power District’s Fort Calhoun has been
shut since a refueling outage began April 9, 2011. Restart
initially was put on hold after flood conditions devel-
oped along the Missouri River. Fort Calhoun remained
shut while OPPD inspected the plant and equipment
for flood damage and undertook corrective actions to
address performance problems found at the site. NRC
must authorize the unit’s restart.
Dominion’s Kewaunee in Wisconsin was perma-
nently shut May 7. Dominion announced in October
that it would close the single-unit 581-MW PWR in
second-quarter 2013 because of low natural gas prices
and depressed power prices in its market. The company
said it was unable to find a buyer for the plant, which it
offered for sale in early 2011.
Duke Energy said February 5 it will permanently
shut Crystal River-3 in Florida and intends to place the
nuclear unit in storage for 40 to 60 years before dis-
mantling it, after deciding that repairing it carries too
many risks. The unit has been closed since September
2009, when it was shut for a refueling outage that
included steam generator replacement. Workers discov-
ered a crack in the containment wall and a second crack
was found when the first one was being repaired in
March 2011. Duke acquired the reactor in July, when it
purchased Progress Energy.
Southern California Edison announced June 7 it would
permanently shut San Onofre-2 and -3, which have been
down since January 2012, after the discovery of wear in the
units’ steam generator tubes.
Notes to Nucleonics Week’s generating table for May 2013

Nucleonics Week
July 11, 2013
NuclearElectricityGenerationforMay2013
Grosscapacityofeachunitlistedhereunderistothebestofourknowledgetheturbinenameplateratingunlesswehaveevidencethatsomeotherfiguremorejustlyreflectsourpurposeofshowingtheunitsperformance
inrelationtowhatthesellerandbuyerfelttheunitwasbought,designed,built,andintendedtodo.
Capacity MWH Capacity Total Capacity Lifetime
NATION: MW Gross Factor MWHGross Factor Total
Plant Gross inMay May in2013 2013 MWHGross
ARGENTINA:
Atucha 357 32,337 12.17 845,366 65.34 85,644,523
Embalse 648 391,481 81.20 1,682,878 71.66 130,415,431
Total.Argentina: 1,005 423,818 2,528,244
ARMENIA:
Metsamor-2(#) 408 (b) 725,934 82.37 61,639,190
BELGIUM:
Doel-1 454 342,333 101.35 1,653,922 100.55 121,034,453
Doel-2 454 332,033 98.30 1,662,232 101.06 116,497,519
Doel-3 1,056 0 0.00 0 0.00 229,137,564
Doel-4 1,090 815,415 100.55 3,984,045 100.89 219,117,154
Tihange-1 1,009 0 0.00 2,170,082 59.36 266,193,162
Tihange-2 1,055 0 0.00 0 0.00 225,581,131
Tihange-3 1,094 812,634 99.88 3,924,800 99.06 230,720,399
Total.Belgium: 6,212 2,302,415 13,395,081
BRAZIL:
Angra-1 640 470,722 98.86 1,162,087 50.10 80,544,823
Angra-2 1,350 75,438 7.51 3,791,176 77.49 122,839,423
Total.Brazil: 1,990 546,160 4,953,263
BRITAIN:
DungenessB-1(#) 625 NA 42,890,447
DungenessB-2(#) 625 NA 43,898,394
Hartlepool-1(#) 650 NA 70,334,636
Hartlepool-2(#) 650 NA 71,864,291
HeyshamA-1(#) 670 NA 72,157,250
HeyshamA-2(#) 670 NA 69,837,433
HeyshamB-1(#) 677 NA 70,921,020
HeyshamB-2(#) 677 NA 68,308,101
HinkleyPt.B-1(#) 460 NA 111,421,107
HinkleyPt.B-2(#) 480 NA 108,398,614
HunterstonB-1(#) 495 NA 114,137,710
HunterstonB-2(#) 495 NA 106,964,580
SizewellB-1(#) 1,250 NA 83,984,432
Torness-1(#) 657 NA 70,826,321
Torness-2(#) 662 NA 66,214,304
Wylfa-1(#) 550 (a) 1,528,000 95.67 145,988,535
Total.Britain: 10,293 1,528,000
BULGARIA:(LifetimeonlyfromMay1993)
Kozloduy-5 1,000 24,458 3.29 2,696,730 74.41 49,371,745
Kozloduy-6 1,000 695,920 93.54 3,374,130 93.11 49,302,684
Total.Bulgaria: 2,000 720,378 6,070,860
CANADA:
Bruce-1(#) 904 NA 100,745,474
Bruce-2(#) 904 NA 80,852,078
Bruce-3(#) 805 NA 152,933,281
Bruce-4(#) 805 NA 147,809,379
Bruce-5(#) 872 NA 174,080,993
Bruce-6(#) 891 NA 170,022,252
Bruce-7(#) 872 NA 167,181,306
Bruce-8(#) 845 NA 156,441,261
Darlington-1 934 658,304 94.73 3,319,528 98.07 153,735,924
Darlington-2 934 641,792 92.36 3,320,320 98.09 147,764,517
Darlington-3 934 694,656 99.97 3,385,216 100.01 145,437,531
Darlington-4 934 404,096 58.15 1,161,472 34.31 141,588,494
Pickering-1 542 383,560 95.12 452,954 23.06 103,404,902
Pickering-4 542 59,907 14.86 1,587,438 80.82 107,270,785
Pickering-5 540 0 0.00 965,270 49.32 105,449,132
Pickering-6 540 403,410 100.41 1,969,020 100.62 110,034,450
Pickering-7 540 403,910 100.54 1,880,230 96.08 105,088,588
Pickering-8 540 394,400 98.17 1,921,900 98.21 99,256,235
PointLepreau 680 0 0.00 0 0.00 123,941,586
Total.Canada: 14,558 4,044,035 19,963,348
CHINA:
DayaBay-1(#) 984 (a) 2,850,900 100.63 132,279,284
DayaBay-2(#) 984 (a) 2,407,913 85.00 131,115,786
LingAoI-1(#) 990 (a) 1,376,764 48.30 48,105,354
LingAoI-2(#) 990 (a) 2,766,283 97.06 49,445,107
LingAoI-3(#) 1,080 (a) 3,043,642 97.89 19,792,893
LingAoI-4(#) 1,080 (a) 2,099,347 67.52 13,359,435
QinshanI(#) 310 NA NA
QinshanII(3units)(#) 1,950 NA NA
QinshanIII(2units)(#) 1,456 NA NA
Tianwan-1(#) 1,000 NA NA
Tianwan-2(#) 1,000 NA NA
Total.China: 11,824 14,544,849
CZECHREPUBLIC:
Dukovany-1 498 368,771 99.53 1,814,945 100.59 91,115,217
Dukovany-2 456 342,342 100.91 1,397,717 84.60 88,189,317
Dukovany-3 498 367,993 99.32 1,257,614 69.70 86,676,962
Dukovany-4 498 368,198 99.38 1,809,398 100.29 85,520,798
Temelin-1 1,013 754,967 100.17 3,622,250 98.70 71,458,634
Temelin-2 1,013 83,026 11.02 2,984,513 81.32 67,705,432
Total.CzechRepublic: 3,976 2,285,297 12,886,437
FINLAND:
Loviisa-1 520 384,271 99.33 1,881,156 99.85 134,241,992
Loviisa-2 520 386,349 99.86 1,890,552 100.35 124,191,530
Olkiluoto-1 910 500,269 73.89 3,133,579 95.05 220,117,161
Olkiluoto-2 890 560,903 84.71 3,200,700 99.26 211,152,049
Total.Finland: 2,840 1,831,792 10,105,987
FRANCE:(Note:EDFsayscapacityfactormaynotbethebestmeasureofperformanceduetoextensiveload-followingdictated
bythenationalgrid.)
Belleville-1 1,363 0 0.00 3,577,298 72.44 214,926,334
Belleville-2 1,363 918,381 90.56 4,462,709 90.37 214,434,687
Blayais-1 951 0 0.00 2,503,128 72.65 190,914,353
Blayais-2 951 686,591 97.04 3,342,793 97.02 198,215,021
Blayais-3 951 717,160 101.36 3,517,352 102.09 194,137,757
Blayais-4 951 0 0.00 1,803,990 52.36 188,449,660
Bugey-2 945 0 0.00 1,644,648 48.04 196,338,020
Bugey-3 945 699,828 99.54 3,372,314 98.50 189,079,019
Bugey-4 917 622,213 91.20 3,145,067 94.67 192,534,631
Bugey-5 917 680,715 99.78 1,887,611 56.82 193,782,889

Nucleonics Week
July 11, 2013
Cattenom-1 1,362 933,503 92.12 4,817,039 97.62 222,617,862
Cattenom-2 1,362 973,910 96.11 3,591,081 72.77 222,329,067
Cattenom-3 1,362 938,030 92.57 4,652,973 94.29 201,508,659
Cattenom-4 1,362 0 0.00 1,267,617 25.69 199,685,102
Chinon-B1 954 692,396 97.55 3,366,481 97.40 184,420,136
Chinon-B2 954 512,678 72.23 512,678 14.83 178,407,753
Chinon-B3 954 664,765 93.66 3,317,461 95.98 163,814,218
Chinon-B4 954 47,315 6.67 2,356,073 68.17 157,579,995
Chooz-B1 1,560 1,123,941 96.84 2,756,003 48.76 137,883,659
Chooz-B2 1,560 1,066,785 91.91 5,542,401 98.06 131,476,533
Civaux-1 1,561 0 0.00 2,944,925 52.07 119,492,108
Civaux-2 1,561 1,081,201 93.10 5,428,769 95.99 116,813,180
Cruas-1 956 612,777 86.15 3,355,111 96.87 176,038,839
Cruas-2 956 632,481 88.92 3,295,290 95.14 174,066,030
Cruas-3 956 675,146 94.92 3,357,355 96.93 175,395,622
Cruas-4 956 62,675 8.81 2,381,601 68.76 169,864,091
Dampierre-1 937 579,531 83.13 3,169,040 93.35 195,912,993
Dampierre-2 937 571,115 81.92 2,501,767 73.70 187,633,784
Dampierre-3 937 686,115 98.42 3,340,312 98.40 196,372,304
Dampierre-4 937 542,391 77.80 3,231,875 95.20 187,532,904
Fessenheim-1 920 0 0.00 2,075,242 62.26 194,157,812
Fessenheim-2 920 671,743 98.14 3,016,205 90.49 195,556,921
Flamanville-1 1,382 905,257 88.04 4,679,829 93.47 226,822,564
Flamanville-2 1,382 0 0.00 1,321,803 26.40 227,711,956
Golfech-1 1,363 992,768 97.90 4,804,131 97.29 207,139,992
Golfech-2 1,363 832,809 82.13 4,405,412 89.21 179,481,347
Gravelines-B1 951 647,652 91.54 1,492,813 43.33 190,970,663
Gravelines-B2 951 0 0.00 2,130,741 61.84 201,619,142
Gravelines-B3 951 691,391 97.72 3,380,711 98.12 198,218,811
Gravelines-B4 951 489,188 69.14 1,689,000 49.02 200,030,850
Gravelines-C5 951 69,134 9.77 2,704,905 78.51 180,466,583
Gravelines-C6 951 703,209 99.39 3,111,989 90.32 179,797,864
Nogent-1 1,363 816,745 80.54 4,380,962 88.72 219,227,491
Nogent-2 1,363 800,807 78.97 3,287,045 66.56 216,990,632
Paluel-1 1,382 1,002,900 97.54 4,848,100 96.83 245,871,811
Paluel-2 1,382 853,901 83.05 4,558,970 91.05 239,258,198
Paluel-3 1,382 964,900 93.84 4,829,508 96.46 228,014,590
Paluel-4 1,382 0 0.00 2,739,103 54.71 235,111,934
Penly-1 1,382 456,144 44.36 4,257,708 85.04 209,794,956
Penly-2 1,382 589,089 57.29 3,924,663 78.38 194,446,803
St.Alban/St.Maurice-1 1,381 867,791 84.46 4,594,307 91.82 226,362,585
St.Alban/St.Maurice-2 1,381 968,352 94.25 4,381,729 87.58 219,611,418
St.Laurent-des-EauxB1 956 644,328 90.59 3,308,067 95.51 187,085,442
St.Laurent-des-EauxB2 956 0 0.00 1,156,988 33.40 183,872,031
Tricastin-1 955 682,395 96.04 3,254,749 94.07 201,687,505
Tricastin-2 955 2,895 0.41 1,619,418 46.80 197,778,036
Tricastin-3 955 703,696 99.04 3,334,069 96.36 203,288,921
Tricastin-4 955 674,354 94.91 3,305,291 95.53 199,048,112
Total.France: 65,880 32,753,091 187,036,220
GERMANY:
Brokdorf 1,480 1,084,435 98.48 5,323,800 99.29 293,765,425
Emsland 1,400 566,281 54.37 4,593,198 90.56 283,431,489
Grafenrheinfeld 1,345 316,421 31.62 4,117,547 84.50 312,335,748
Grohnde 1,430 601,162 56.50 3,795,513 73.26 320,281,003
Gundremmingen-B 1,344 938,087 93.81 4,049,030 83.15 284,647,530
Gundremmingen-C 1,344 984,525 98.46 4,901,594 100.66 274,553,799
Isar-2 1,485 1,071,114 96.95 5,323,078 98.94 288,849,157
Neckar-2 1,400 1,031,500 99.03 5,038,600 99.34 269,772,981
Philippsburg-2 1,468 89,583 8.20 4,186,913 78.72 310,325,988
Total.Germany: 12,696 6,683,108 41,329,273
HUNGARY:
Paks-1 500 296,683 79.75 1,475,258 81.44 107,656,910
Paks-2 500 375,729 101.00 1,849,204 102.08 97,092,114
Paks-3 500 371,055 99.75 1,830,384 101.04 94,705,462
Paks-4 500 121,450 32.65 1,581,133 87.28 93,856,892
Total.Hungary: 2,000 1,164,917 6,735,979
INDIA:
Kaiga-1 220 147,000 89.81 656,000 82.28 16,763,566
Kaiga-2 220 146,000 89.20 628,000 78.77 17,611,748
Kaiga-3 220 153,000 93.48 673,000 84.41 6,284,000
Kaiga-4 220 147,000 89.81 479,000 60.08 3,131,000
Kakrapar-1 220 168,000 102.64 822,000 103.10 23,688,941
Kakrapar-2 220 154,000 94.09 758,000 95.07 25,887,594
Madras-1 220 123,000 75.15 619,000 77.64 28,281,243
Madras-2 220 0 0.00 245,000 30.73 28,263,103
Narora-1 220 134,000 81.87 485,000 60.83 23,607,290
Narora-2 220 116,000 70.87 556,000 69.74 23,261,164
Rajasthan-1 100 0 0.00 0 0.00 11,960,915
Rajasthan-2 200 143,000 96.10 697,000 96.16 33,425,785
Rajasthan-3 220 165,000 100.81 805,000 100.97 19,283,928
Rajasthan-4 220 163,000 99.58 817,000 102.47 18,690,972
Rajasthan-5 220 173,000 105.69 855,000 107.24 6,133,000
Rajasthan-6 220 157,000 95.92 767,000 96.20 4,976,000
Tarapur-1 160 121,000 101.65 401,000 69.16 42,999,775
Tarapur-2 160 0 0.00 0 0.00 43,901,928
Tarapur-3 540 10,000 2.49 1,152,000 58.87 21,497,000
Tarapur-4 540 379,000 94.33 1,629,000 83.24 21,155,265
Total.India: 4,780 2,599,000 13,044,000
JAPAN:
FukushimaI-5 784 0 0.00 0 0.00 164,058,854
FukushimaI-6 1,100 0 0.00 0 0.00 214,124,589
FukushimaII-1 1,100 0 0.00 0 0.00 215,651,081
FukushimaII-2 1,100 0 0.00 0 0.00 198,062,358
FukushimaII-3 1,100 0 0.00 0 0.00 170,409,505
FukushimaII-4 1,100 0 0.00 0 0.00 168,088,110
Genkai-1 559 0 0.00 0 0.00 133,273,389
Genkai-2 559 0 0.00 0 0.00 121,626,347
Genkai-3 1,180 0 0.00 0 0.00 151,154,026
Genkai-4 1,180 0 0.00 0 0.00 127,512,182
Hamaoka-3 1,100 0 0.00 0 0.00 179,146,924
Hamaoka-4 1,137 0 0.00 0 0.00 143,839,198
Hamaoka-5 1,380 0 0.00 0 0.00 35,989,175
Higashidori-1 1,100 0 0.00 0 0.00 41,030,051
Ikata-1 566 0 0.00 0 0.00 133,878,051
Ikata-2 566 0 0.00 0 0.00 123,152,439
Ikata-3 890 0 0.00 0 0.00 112,457,800
Kashiwazaki-Kariwa-1 1,100 0 0.00 0 0.00 167,491,230

Nucleonics Week
July 11, 2013
Mihama-1 340 0 0.00 0 0.00 64,089,475
Mihama-2 500 0 0.00 0 0.00 107,960,734
Mihama-3 826 0 0.00 0 0.00 180,298,068
Ohi-1 1,175 0 0.00 0 0.00 224,416,241
Ohi-2 1,175 0 0.00 0 0.00 244,534,111
Ohi-3 1,180 866,393 98.69 4,405,710 103.03 174,473,434
Ohi-4 1,180 909,208 103.56 4,435,491 103.72 176,081,398
Onagawa-1 524 0 0.00 0 0.00 84,274,171
Onagawa-2 825 0 0.00 0 0.00 82,855,326
Onagawa-3 825 0 0.00 0 0.00 45,459,784
Sendai-1 890 0 0.00 0 0.00 176,789,169
Sendai-2 890 0 0.00 0 0.00 170,747,539
Shika-1 540 0 0.00 0 0.00 61,466,824
Shika-2 1,206 0 0.00 0 0.00 27,362,972
Shimane-1 460 0 0.00 0 0.00 106,688,147
Shimane-2 820 0 0.00 0 0.00 134,337,331
Takahama-1 826 0 0.00 0 0.00 185,812,942
Takahama-2 826 0 0.00 0 0.00 183,722,641
Takahama-3 870 0 0.00 0 0.00 174,525,194
Takahama-4 870 0 0.00 0 0.00 170,704,933
Tokai-2 1,100 0 0.00 0 0.00 229,838,671
Tomari-1 579 0 0.00 0 0.00 96,110,274
Tomari-2 579 0 0.00 0 0.00 88,148,481
Tomari-3 912 0 0.00 0 0.00 18,136,654
Tsuruga-1 357 0 0.00 0 0.00 84,624,444
Tsuruga-2 1,160 0 0.00 0 0.00 194,628,260
Total.Japan: 46,148 1,775,601 8,841,201
MEXICO:
LagunaVerde-1 810 522,973 86.78 2,423,100 82.57 105,572,533
LagunaVerde-2 810 520,198 86.32 2,550,441 86.91 88,932,112
Total.Mexico: 1,620 1,043,171 4,973,541
NETHERLANDS:
Borssele-1 515 83,505 21.79 1,282,210 68.72 141,727,220
PAKISTAN:
Chasnupp-1 325 237,060 98.04 785,481 66.69 26,682,969
Chasnupp-2(#) 325 (a) 103,703 11.08 3,069,379
Kanupp(#) 137 (a) 177,940 45.10 14,180,964
Total.Pakistan: 787 237,060 1,067,124
ROMANIA:
Cernavoda-1 706 525,284 100.00 2,572,482 100.57 91,573,181
Cernavoda-2 706 166,923 31.78 2,161,951 84.52 32,412,697
Total.Romania: 1,412 692,207 4,734,433
RUSSIA:(LifetimeonlyfromMarch1993)
Balakovo-1 1,000 777,010 104.44 3,810,230 105.17 125,605,940
Balakovo-2 1,000 735,050 98.80 3,693,720 101.95 120,557,530
Balakovo-3 1,000 418,220 56.21 3,449,820 95.22 127,197,530
Balakovo-4 1,000 751,190 100.97 2,884,360 79.61 132,024,600
Beloyarsk-3 600 0 0.00 1,360,320 62.58 76,432,310
Bilibino-1 12 3,960 44.35 9,520 21.90 818,415
Bilibino-2 12 0 0.00 19,520 44.90 880,240
Bilibino-3 12 4,220 47.27 23,280 53.55 858,140
Bilibino-4 12 4,030 45.14 26,950 61.99 802,300
Kalinin-1 1,000 767,910 103.21 1,854,410 51.18 128,573,703
Kalinin-2 1,000 788,820 106.02 3,787,820 104.55 131,835,020
Kalinin-3 1,000 323,610 43.50 3,293,010 90.89 59,880,399
Kalinin-4 1,000 505,070 67.89 2,035,654 56.19 7,790,132
Kola-1 440 307,140 93.82 867,430 54.41 44,150,080
Kola-2 440 167,150 51.06 1,146,260 71.91 43,768,500
Kola-3 440 0 0.00 1,015,470 63.70 47,829,030
Kola-4 440 239,660 73.21 1,455,950 91.33 51,008,086
Kursk-1 1,000 141,710 19.05 2,466,840 68.09 91,406,540
Kursk-2 1,000 0 0.00 1,701,250 46.96 105,752,560
Kursk-3 1,000 746,680 100.36 3,339,020 92.16 123,338,210
Kursk-4 1,000 739,830 99.44 3,738,940 103.20 128,604,180
Leningrad-1 1,000 0 0.00 0 0.00 113,632,650
Leningrad-2 1,000 36,860 4.95 1,929,110 53.25 125,463,730
Leningrad-3 1,000 748,380 100.59 3,703,570 102.22 108,295,520
Leningrad-4 1,000 21,440 2.88 2,621,400 72.35 111,052,760
Novovoronezh-3 417 29,700 9.57 1,251,210 82.82 47,790,992
Novovoronezh-4 417 305,180 98.37 1,521,300 100.70 53,782,270
Novovoronezh-5 1,000 668,640 89.87 3,653,450 100.84 108,144,030
Smolensk-1 1,000 757,670 101.84 3,334,340 92.03 118,658,870
Smolensk-2 1,000 0 0.00 1,862,420 51.41 122,928,478
Smolensk-3 1,000 718,830 96.62 3,731,180 102.99 133,764,940
Volgodonsk-1 1,000 786,840 105.76 3,914,250 108.04 93,363,040
Volgodonsk-2 1,000 676,500 90.93 2,997,900 82.75 21,502,793
Total.Russia: 25,242 12,171,300 72,499,904
SLOVAKIA:(SlovenskeElectrarnesnewowner-ENELCompany-hastemporarilydeclinedtoprovidemonthlygenerationdata.)
Bohunice-3(#) 505 NA 73,571,995
Bohunice-4(#) 505 NA 72,119,430
Mochovce-1(#) 470 NA 33,763,932
Mochovce-2(#) 470 NA 32,654,261
Total.Slovakia: 1,950
SLOVENIA:
Krsko 727 542,685 100.33 2,538,551 96.38 152,038,213
SOUTHAFRICA:
Koeberg-1 970 713,431 98.86 2,054,477 58.44 170,287,068
Koeberg-2 940 713,315 102.00 3,503,419 102.84 163,546,167
Total.SouthAfrica: 1,910 1,426,746 5,557,896
SOUTHKOREA:(Note:Kepcohasappliedanewreferenceunitpowerratingwhichreflectsthethreeyearaverageoutputasof
Jan.2011.)
Kori-1 608 0 0.00 1,472,107 66.81 138,545,953
Kori-2 676 160,867 31.99 2,082,667 85.01 150,352,839
Kori-3 1,042 775,642 100.05 3,783,424 100.19 207,821,255
Kori-4 1,041 734,760 94.87 1,526,269 40.46 206,444,316
ShinKori-1 1,048 0 0.00 2,442,558 64.31 17,547,481
ShinKori-2 1,045 706,608 90.88 3,734,318 98.61 7,810,603
ShinWolsong-1 1,043 660,172 85.07 3,481,197 92.10 7,175,902
Ulchin-1 1,003 748,019 100.24 3,371,301 92.75 184,295,008
Ulchin-2 1,008 197,041 26.27 2,596,891 71.09 178,852,241
Ulchin-3 1,050 782,914 100.22 3,813,639 100.22 122,716,889
Ulchin-4 1,053 0 0.00 0 0.00 98,329,301
Ulchin-5 1,051 48,679 6.23 3,080,244 80.87 75,346,933
Ulchin-6 1,051 783,329 100.18 3,812,626 100.10 69,104,887
Wolsong-1 687 0 0.00 0 0.00 141,062,319
Wolsong-2 678 0 0.00 1,900,240 77.34 92,874,098
Wolsong-3 698 533,531 102.74 2,601,777 102.86 89,141,678

Nucleonics Week
July 11, 2013
Wolsong-4 703 536,916 102.65 1,886,940 74.07 81,707,316
Yonggwang-1 996 745,748 100.64 3,644,463 100.97 203,665,736
Yonggwang-2 993 764,464 103.47 1,804,329 50.14 191,263,096
Yonggwang-3 1,050 0 0.00 0 0.00 144,475,855
Yonggwang-4 1,049 780,751 100.04 3,813,079 100.30 143,220,804
Yonggwang-5 1,053 783,964 100.07 3,809,288 99.82 88,698,272
Yonggwang-6 1,052 784,174 100.19 3,728,364 97.79 85,840,216
Total.SouthKorea: 21,678 10,527,579 58,385,721
SPAIN:
Almaraz-1 1,049 773,535 99.07 2,697,583 70.95 220,626,174
Almaraz-2 1,044 572,909 73.73 3,571,418 94.38 216,856,082
Asco-1 1,032 775,310 100.93 3,775,890 100.94 212,052,141
Asco-2 1,027 49,790 6.51 2,371,060 63.71 204,946,333
Cofrentes 1,092 786,083 96.75 3,909,619 98.82 223,937,694
Garona 466 0 0.00 0 0.00 133,198,907
Trillo 1,066 404,309 50.98 3,427,288 88.74 200,747,758
Vandellos-2 1,087 805,440 99.58 3,908,183 99.23 190,207,445
Total.Spain: 7,865 4,167,376 23,661,041
SWEDEN:
Forsmark-1 1,022 756,244 99.46 3,715,858 100.36 231,323,979
Forsmark-2 1,034 710,314 92.33 3,738,776 99.80 221,341,871
Forsmark-3 1,208 497,834 55.39 4,007,263 91.56 246,367,545
Oskarshamn-1 492 10,487 2.86 10,487 0.59 103,577,189
Oskarshamn-2 661 321,000 65.27 1,818,428 75.93 161,289,309
Oskarshamn-3 1,450 182,478 16.91 4,325,356 82.34 231,088,693
Ringhals-1 916 0 0.00 2,284,653 68.84 182,911,964
Ringhals-2 910 623,245 92.05 3,075,682 93.29 199,458,208
Ringhals-3 1,128 762,922 90.91 3,935,824 96.31 212,237,240
Ringhals-4 999 398,010 53.55 3,228,259 89.19 201,835,939
Total.Sweden: 9,820 4,262,534 30,140,586
SWITZERLAND:
Beznau-1 380 250,231 88.51 1,350,560 98.10 119,175,070
Beznau-2 380 282,685 99.99 1,380,369 100.26 118,133,404
Goesgen 1,035 77,165 10.02 3,086,252 82.30 266,657,064
Leibstadt 1,245 934,064 100.84 4,594,865 101.87 243,114,405
Muehleberg 390 259,850 89.55 1,353,070 95.76 110,131,077
Total.Switzerland: 3,430 1,803,995 11,765,116
TAIWAN:
Chinshan-1 636 0 0.00 1,324,458 57.46 154,675,563
Chinshan-2 636 482,518 101.97 2,347,611 101.85 154,353,086
Kuosheng-1 985 749,970 102.34 3,625,109 101.55 217,968,072
Kuosheng-2 985 755,129 103.04 2,925,018 81.94 211,951,451
Maanshan-1 952 715,759 101.08 3,501,785 101.52 191,220,000
Maanshan-2 952 723,709 102.20 3,534,719 102.48 194,028,482
Total.Taiwan: 5,146 3,427,085 17,258,700
UKRAINE:(Onlyplantleveldataprovideddividedevenlyacrosseachunit;LifetimeonlyfromMarch1993.)
Khmelnitski-1(#) 1,000 NA 118,877,006
Khmelnitski-2(#) 1,000 NA 45,852,430
Rovno-1(#) 420 NA 50,588,628
Rovno-2(#) 415 NA 50,573,544
Rovno-3(#) 1,000 NA 106,706,950
Rovno-4(#) 1,000 NA 38,746,346
SouthUkraine-1(#) 1,000 NA 113,630,925
SouthUkraine-2(#) 1,000 NA 106,703,625
SouthUkraine-3(#) 1,000 NA 117,592,263
Zaporozhe-1(#) 1,000 NA 109,265,174
Zaporozhe-2(#) 1,000 NA 116,630,991
Zaporozhe-3(#) 1,000 NA 115,126,945
Zaporozhe-4(#) 1,000 NA 118,808,702
Zaporozhe-5(#) 1,000 NA 122,277,328
Zaporozhe-6(#) 1,000 NA 107,493,762
Total.Ukraine: 13,835
US:
ArkansasNuclearI-1 903 0 0.00 1,702,044 52.03 214,448,288
ArkansasNuclearI-2 1,065 775,872 97.92 3,059,786 79.30 217,477,883
BeaverValley-1 959 711,452 99.74 3,408,951 98.15 204,872,286
BeaverValley-2 981 630,074 86.33 3,457,216 97.27 167,738,831
Braidwood-1 1,242 918,387 99.38 4,519,179 100.43 228,960,813
Braidwood-2 1,210 899,087 99.84 4,420,284 100.80 229,730,692
BrownsFerry-1 1,155 840,383 97.80 3,847,083 91.94 109,425,303
BrownsFerry-2 1,155 694,315 80.80 2,541,816 60.74 242,747,255
BrownsFerry-3 1,155 836,304 97.32 3,681,232 87.97 202,802,435
Brunswick-1 1,007 443,045 59.16 3,268,451 89.63 200,145,392
Brunswick-2 1,007 456,788 61.00 1,811,194 49.67 198,847,089
Byron-1 1,242 918,919 99.44 4,509,728 100.22 240,592,033
Byron-2 1,210 861,535 95.70 3,605,005 82.23 232,296,301
Callaway(#) 1,279 (a) 2,946,519 80.03 263,068,891
CalvertCliffs-1 890 693,988 104.81 3,413,024 105.85 180,683,158
CalvertCliffs-2 880 450,888 68.87 2,258,124 70.83 174,791,427
Catawba-1 1,305 904,615 93.17 4,433,717 93.78 247,955,600
Catawba-2 1,305 870,351 89.64 4,411,932 93.31 241,181,261
Clinton* 1,098 (n)
Columbia 1,173 270,720 31.02 3,620,970 85.20 211,247,703
ComanchePeak-1 1,250 950,432 102.20 3,915,386 86.46 209,405,618
ComanchePeak-2 1,241 940,245 101.83 4,596,159 102.22 187,788,441
Cook-1* 1,131 (n)
Cook-2* 1,151 (n)
Cooper 836 601,300 96.73 2,938,319 97.07 196,733,045
CrystalRiver-3*** 912 0 0.00 169,377,062
Davis-Besse 971 711,888 98.54 3,483,197 99.01 194,608,474
DiabloCanyon-1 1,197 886,226 99.51 4,329,062 99.82 242,622,374
DiabloCanyon-2 1,197 885,742 99.46 2,855,886 65.85 238,186,671
Dresden-2 926 702,307 101.99 3,510,749 104.70 223,265,390
Dresden-3 917 703,326 103.06 3,494,739 105.16 214,158,607
DuaneArnold 647 478,112 99.31 2,345,182 100.03 147,362,157
Farley-1(#) 918 (a) 2,679,183 101.37 224,942,690
Farley-2(#) 928 (a) 2,199,246 82.32 211,656,646
Fermi-2 1,155 380,413 44.26 1,916,732 57.61 187,991,763
FitzPatrick 849 612,026 96.89 2,958,085 96.17 205,690,349
FortCalhoun* 526 (n)
Ginna(#) 597 (a) 1,749,015 101.76 161,564,928
GrandGulf-1 1,498 1,106,407 99.27 4,602,728 84.81 266,499,043
Hatch-1(#) 911 (a) 2,208,386 84.20 218,613,896
Hatch-2(#) 921 (a) 1,812,828 68.37 203,072,408
HopeCreek* 1,240 (n)
IndianPoint-2 1,067 787,125 99.15 3,773,238 97.61 240,605,568
IndianPoint-3 1,080 802,761 99.91 3,122,829 79.81 223,895,866
Kewaunee 581 91,106 21.08 1,813,028 86.13 157,559,936
LaSalle-1 1,207 881,166 98.12 3,991,912 91.29 221,261,706
LaSalle-2 1,207 874,279 97.36 3,217,952 73.59 215,797,376
Limerick-1 1,246 869,450 93.79 4,365,560 96.71 241,506,265

Nucleonics Week
July 11, 2013
Capacity MWH Capacity Total Capacity
NATION: MW Net Factor MWHNet Factor
Plant Net inMay May in2013 2013
Clinton(#) 1,062 (b) 2,214,529 96.58
Cook-1(#) 1,084 (b) 2,194,972 93.79
Cook-2(#) 1,107 (b) 2,440,112 102.10
FortCalhoun(#) 502 (b) 0 0.00
HopeCreek(#) 1,228 (b) 2,656,503 100.19
NineMilePoint-1(#) 613 (b) 1,343,065 101.48
NineMilePoint-2(#) 1,300 (b) 2,801,414 99.82
PointBeach-1(#) 615 (b) 1,087,129 81.88
PointBeach-2(#) 615 (b) 1,293,313 97.40
PrairieIsland-1(#) 557 (b) 1,131,451 94.09
PrairieIsland-2(#) 557 (b) 1,163,894 96.78
QuadCities-1(#) 866 (b) 1,547,960 82.79
QuadCities-2(#) 957 (b) 1,969,352 95.28
Salem-1(#) 1,169 (b) 2,577,417 102.12
Salem-2(#) 1,181 (b) 2,559,663 100.39
Seabrook(#) 1,248 (b) 2,694,620 100.01
St.Lucie-1(#) 1,062 (b) 1,694,128 73.89
St.Lucie-2(#) 856 (b) 2,199,653 119.02
Susquehanna-1(#) 1,287 (b) 2,798,783 100.73
Susquehanna-2(#) 1,287 (b) 2,767,030 99.58
TurkeyPoint-3(#) 845 (b) 1,159,024 63.53
TurkeyPoint-4(#) 845 (b) 0 0.00
TotalU.S: 20,843 40,294,011
Footnotes:
*CapacityfactorcalculatedusingDERNetMWRating
**Unitcameonlineduringtheyear
***Unitwasshutdownduringtheyear
(a)one-monthdatamissing
(b)two-monthsdatamissing
(c)Three-monthsdatamissing
(d)Four-monthsdatamissing
(e)Five-monthsdatamissing
(#)Yearlygenerationtotalscalculatedbasedonexistinggenerationdata
(n)onlynetandtimebeingprovidedquarterly,seeNetGenerationChart
NADatanotcurrentlyavailable
Capacity MWH Capacity Total Capacity
NATION: MW Net Factor MWHNet Factor
Plant Net inMay May in2013 2013
Limerick-2 1,246 892,280 96.25 3,585,710 79.43 218,864,574
McGuire-1 1,305 897,687 92.46 3,054,357 64.60 255,586,556
McGuire-2 1,305 892,704 91.94 4,364,248 92.31 256,035,002
Millstone-2 918 674,641 98.83 3,288,342 98.92 197,696,474
Millstone-3 1,276 363,818 38.32 3,530,707 76.37 218,606,891
Monticello 613 0 0.00 857,533 38.60 169,533,659
NineMilePoint-1* 640 (n)
NineMilePoint-2* 1,362 (n)
NorthAnna-1 1,023 762,032 100.12 3,733,764 100.74 234,373,257
NorthAnna-2 1,023 139,719 18.36 2,499,049 67.43 226,881,823
Oconee-1 934 669,859 96.40 3,263,222 96.43 242,706,100
Oconee-2 934 672,086 96.72 3,278,892 96.90 245,032,597
Oconee-3 934 679,184 97.74 3,309,962 97.82 241,257,470
OysterCreek(#) 670 (b) 1,402,825 96.98 174,016,616
Palisades 845 81,026 12.89 2,381,189 77.78 184,714,977
PaloVerde-1 1,428 1,025,587 96.53 4,001,405 77.34 247,584,548
PaloVerde-2 1,428 1,042,567 98.13 5,093,155 98.44 256,140,474
PaloVerde-3 1,428 1,037,220 97.63 4,954,835 95.77 247,997,514
PeachBottom-2 1,182 872,160 99.18 4,353,300 101.66 282,123,167
PeachBottom-3 1,182 883,700 100.49 4,347,500 101.52 280,299,755
Perry 1,319 430,349 43.85 2,533,538 53.02 223,208,697
Pilgrim 728 8,307 1.53 1,384,805 52.50 170,396,487
PointBeach-1* 640 (n)
PointBeach-2* 640 (n)
PrairieIsland-1* 590 (n)
PrairieIsland-2* 585 (n)
QuadCities-1* 912 (n)
NuclearElectricityGenerationforMONTH2012
Plant Gross inMo. Mo. in2012 2012 MWHGross
Plant Gross inOct Oct in2012 2012 MWHGross
QuadCities-2* 994 (n)
RiverBend 992 765,021 103.65 2,908,411 80.92 194,620,214
Robinson-2 820 599,810 98.32 2,908,143 97.89 206,677,601
Salem-1* 1,254 (n)
Salem-2* 1,232 (n)
SanOnofre-2 1,127 0 0.00 0 0.00 231,028,965
SanOnofre-3 1,127 0 0.00 0 0.00 227,083,282
Seabrook* 1,296 (n)
Sequoyah-1 1,186 893,606 101.27 4,377,646 101.88 241,317,656
Sequoyah-2 1,181 890,661 101.37 3,978,568 92.98 238,384,703
Shearon-Harris 990 354,088 48.07 3,250,109 90.61 188,315,861
SouthTexas-1(#) 1,413 (a) 4,097,038 100.71 236,297,873
SouthTexas-2(#) 1,413 (a) 404,266 9.94 225,230,114
St.Lucie-1* 1,078 (n)
St.Lucie-2* 882 (n)
Summer 1,006 763,800 102.10 3,442,050 94.49 212,829,854
Surry-1 861 672,794 105.03 3,303,808 105.91 222,328,132
Surry-2 890 669,843 101.16 3,301,925 102.40 220,677,273
Susquehanna-1* 1,330 (n)
Susquehanna-2* 1,330 (n)
ThreeMileIsland-1(#) 890 (c) 1,266,096 100.46 211,580,149
TurkeyPoint-3* 885 (n)
TurkeyPoint-4* 885 (n)
VermontYankee 635 478,942 101.38 1,836,662 79.83 162,742,718
Vogtle-1(#) 1,259 (a) 3,565,161 98.38 244,193,958
Vogtle-2(#) 1,229 (a) 2,659,398 75.16 227,379,407
Waterford-3 1,222 828,135 91.09 3,574,342 80.73 240,254,586
WattsBar-1 1,210 887,832 98.62 4,384,548 100.02 158,752,759
WolfCreek 1,249 642,112 69.10 2,013,931 44.51 249,142,263

nucleonicsweek

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (20)

Andere mochten auch

Andere mochten auch (13)

Ähnlich wie nucleonicsweek

Ähnlich wie nucleonicsweek (20)

nucleonicsweek