This document discusses the decline and rebirth of nuclear power. It provides a case study of a nuclear power plant that originally had a 67% capacity factor but was able to improve its performance, reliability and costs through a series of power uprates, license renewal, and improvements to operations and maintenance. These efforts resulted in capacity factors over 95% and lower costs. The plant was also granted a 20-year renewal of its operating license, demonstrating the ongoing viability of nuclear power.

2. Background - Decline & Rebirth
of Nuclear Power
Case Study - Capacity Factors,
Power Uprates, License Renewal,
Operations/Performance
Improvements to Maximize Value
Ongoing/Implemented Industry
Efforts

3. Economy – Interest Rates,
Recession, Public Fear/Distrust
TMI 2, Chernobyl, Regulatory
Requirements
Relative Inexperience
Poor Capacity/Availability
High O&M Costs

4. Global Warming, Impetus to Conserve/Use
Fossil Fuels Judiciously, High Fossil Fuel Costs
Deregulation, Consolidation of Ownership
Streamlining of Regulations
Improved Capacity, Availability, Performance,
Operations & Maintenance
Cost-Effective Capacity Additions, Operating
License Renewals
Low/Stable O&M Costs, Public Acceptance

6. 2005

7. 5
1
4
12
7
9
8
15
6
10
22
29
38
46
47
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 (As of
Jan.)Year
No.ofOperatingLicensesRenewed
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
CumulativeNumberofOperatingLicensesRenewed
No. of Operating Licenses Renewed Cumulative

9. Originally Licensed to Operate at
2436 MWt in 1974
Until 1994, 67% Average Capacity
Factor
Production Cost in 1994 was 40.0
Mills/Kwhr
RFO was 96 Days in 1994

11. SPU of 5% Implemented in 1997
Increased Focus Since 1994 on Operations,
Maintenance, Safety, Performance & Reliability
Resulted in Average Capacity Factor of 97% for
2000-2002
No Unplanned Shutdown in 2001-2002
Production Cost for Same Period was 12.8
Mills/Kwhr Compared to 40.0 Mills/Kwhr in
1994
Ranked in Top Quartile for Five Consecutive
Years in Capacity Factor & Production Costs

13. EPU of 15% Implemented in Two Phases: First
Phase – 2003 & Second Phase - 2005
In First Phase – Installation of Highly-Enriched
Fuel, Replacement of Power Range
Instrumentation, HP Heaters, Upgrade of
Turbine Control Valves, Rewind of Main
Generator Stator, Upgrade of Condensate
Polishing System Filters, Etc.
Payback from First Phase was Immediate
RFO in 2003 Lasted Only 29 Days

14. In Second Phase – Replacement of
Main Transformer, LP Heaters, Main
Generator Isophase Cooling, Standby
Condensate Pump, Upgrade of RFPs,
Reheaters, Chemistry Systems, Etc.
Environmental Assessment of EPU
Conducted by NRC Deemed Impact
Insignificant

15. In 2004, Application Submitted to
NRC for Renewal of OL by 20 Years
In 2006, NRC Approved Application
and Renewed OL
The Asset Showed Continued
Improvement with 95% Capacity
Factor in 2006 and 97% in Feb.
2007

16. Shorter/Optimized RFO & Planned Outages –
Increased Plant Availability, Lower Operating
Costs due to Reduced Maintenance Costs
Increased Focus on Plant Performance
Re-Engineering, Self-Assessment, Cost-
Effective Capital Investments
Incorporating Lessons Learned – Decreased
Unplanned Outages

17. Improved Outage Management Strategy
Increased Effectiveness of Failure Prevention
Programs including Maintenance – Help to
Identify Advance Equipment Degradation
from Aging
Efficient Use/Sharing of Resources
Greater Use of Analytical Tools to Balance
Costs and Benefits of Proposed Activities
Power Uprates, OL Renewals