Hubbry Logo
Perry Nuclear Generating StationPerry Nuclear Generating StationMain
Open search
Perry Nuclear Generating Station
Community hub
Perry Nuclear Generating Station
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Perry Nuclear Generating Station
Perry Nuclear Generating Station
Perry Nuclear Generating Station
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Perry as seen from Headlands Park, Ohio

Key Information

The Perry Nuclear Power Plant is located on a 1,100 acres (450 ha) site on Lake Erie, 40 miles (64 km) northeast of Cleveland in North Perry, Ohio, US. The nuclear power plant is owned and operated by Vistra Corporation.

The reactor is a General Electric BWR-6 boiling water reactor design, with a Mark III containment design. The original core power level of 3,579 megawatts thermal was increased to 3,758 megawatts thermal in 2000, making Perry one of the largest BWRs in the United States.

Perry was expected to close in 2021 as it is no longer profitable to run when competing against natural gas plants.[5] To avert this, Ohio House Bill 6 was signed into law in July 2019 which added a fee to residents' utility bills that funded subsidies of $150 million per year to Perry and the Davis–Besse nuclear plant to keep both plants operational.[6][7] However, the bill was alleged to be part of the Ohio nuclear bribery scandal revealed by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) in July 2020.[8][7]

History

[edit]

Perry was originally designed as a two-unit installation, but construction on Unit 2 was suspended in 1985 and formally cancelled in 1994. At the time of cancellation, all of the major buildings and structures for the second unit were completed, including the 500-foot-tall (150 m) cooling tower. It is possible that a second unit could be constructed on the site, but current economic and regulatory conditions are not conducive to doing so (in addition to back taxes that would be due to the "abandon in place" designations on many objects in Unit 2).

Eleven hundred acres at the Perry plant were designated in 1993 as an urban wildlife sanctuary by the National Institute for Urban Wildlife. The area has trees, shrubs, streams and ponds; and a habitat for heron, belted kingfisher, ducks and geese. The forested area is ideal for the crane-fly orchid, a rare species in Ohio. The site includes a wetland that contains spotted turtles, an endangered species in Ohio.[9]

On March 28, 2010, there was a fire in a lubrication system for one of the water pumps that feeds water for generation of steam. Reactor power automatically lowered to 68% due to the reduction in feed water flow, and the fire was extinguished in less than three hours. Two plant fire brigade personnel were brought to a local hospital for "heat stress" following the fire. No customers lost power during this event.[10] On February 9, 2016, the plant was unexpectedly shut down for maintenance to a recirculation pump. The reactor was brought back to full power by February 20, 2016.[11]

In addition to Perry, Vistra Corp also owns and operates the Davis-Besse and Beaver Valley nuclear plants.[12]

In July 2023, Energy Harbor applied for a license renewal for the Perry nuclear power plant, requesting an additional 20 years of operation.[13] This license renewal for Unit 1 was officially approved on July 7, 2025 and will now expire November 7, 2046.[14]

In March 2024, Texas-based Vistra Corp announced it had completed an acquisition of Energy Harbor Corp. and its nuclear generation fleet assets, which was previously announced in March 2023.[15]

  Unit 1 Unit 2
Reactor Type BWR-6
Reactor Manufacturer General Electric
Turbine Manufacturer
Thermal Power 3,758 megawatts Unit canceled in 1994
Electrical Output 1,260 megawatts
Transmission System Connection 345,000 volts
Construction Permit Issued May 3, 1977 May 3, 1977 (construction suspended in 1985)
Initial Criticality June 1986 Unit canceled in 1994
First Electrical Generation November 13, 1986
Operational Date November 18, 1987
Expiration of Original License March 18, 2026

Electricity production

[edit]
Generation (MWh) of Perry Nuclear Power Plant[16]
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual (Total)
2001 822,248 402,972 123,568 798,883 142,023 802,067 324,672 912,057 900,239 930,817 900,034 719,864 7,779,444
2002 918,229 799,411 939,038 900,714 930,813 481,701 909,817 918,977 594,820 745,370 904,754 931,166 9,974,810
2003 930,209 764,817 788,525 82,043 -7,910 867,503 919,276 678,084 809,632 920,924 856,928 935,145 8,545,176
2004 903,869 876,390 916,173 900,902 624,410 694,868 918,960 919,636 872,942 919,947 899,443 779,786 10,227,326
2005 121,586 549,786 -8,878 -12,730 640,649 888,993 912,172 910,533 890,892 912,803 902,642 938,200 7,646,648
2006 904,098 848,230 936,789 880,942 798,087 894,530 906,324 915,903 878,179 918,424 903,221 690,646 10,475,373
2007 925,628 841,117 906,738 8,911 294,340 684,060 168,786 931,004 898,058 929,063 837,810 632,732 8,058,247
2008 951,553 891,180 886,866 598,092 940,362 880,150 921,451 928,586 890,697 950,446 914,227 936,983 10,690,593
2009 944,877 657,957 -6,802 -10,609 392,649 676,761 907,675 928,035 904,217 440,263 812,520 948,929 7,596,472
2010 948,792 844,351 929,709 890,359 680,413 827,853 903,208 921,538 899,634 924,231 910,835 938,788 10,619,711
2011 937,494 834,829 876,861 436,568 -8,539 543,044 918,578 927,009 875,211 373,434 911,926 934,434 8,560,849
2012 941,442 886,315 795,538 373,434 932,521 619,344 914,450 869,909 875,608 926,623 911,517 926,405 9,973,106
2013 721,885 827,548 462,974 -7,203 404,866 620,070 928,048 916,126 777,536 940,124 901,938 947,510 8,441,422
2014 949,623 825,826 906,476 911,860 875,284 898,595 925,829 917,719 873,851 699,994 728,750 941,464 10,455,271
2015 933,301 789,395 200,060 133,474 943,412 902,981 934,710 936,036 892,341 948,465 922,161 946,509 9,482,845
2016 709,583 622,146 946,537 914,375 943,605 814,486 915,017 902,059 850,547 935,958 922,911 946,026 10,423,250
2017 889,629 730,056 81,611 799,786 854,715 900,496 922,662 924,360 901,953 938,167 921,095 947,846 9,812,376
2018 952,931 849,443 951,635 919,725 934,198 890,632 906,864 904,012 882,733 931,505 914,087 896,971 10,934,736
2019 809,277 556,333 177,752 670,859 941,856 841,553 780,669 747,528 859,887 939,869 923,556 923,963 9,173,102
2020 928,860 893,210 932,277 917,959 941,610 891,452 889,355 909,725 892,399 936,477 914,074 943,564 10,990,962
2021 892,962 731,469 134,313 643,595 940,469 886,554 917,399 891,878 897,857 935,011 919,089 913,272 9,703,868
2022 902,658 845,250 920,347 883,206 914,023 866,926 883,939 848,346 822,350 887,197 635,367 924,845 10,334,454
2023 406,723 365,497 -6,309 288,698 938,798 899,050 912,742 718,651 886,140 939,753 920,669 950,500 7,220,712
2024 937,405 890,427 940,755 910,393 609,327 869,592 896,591 899,839 887,950 932,956 908,315 895,313 10,578,863
2025 912,043 755,369 113,480 245,636 942,932 876,905 888,730 922,238 --

Surrounding population

[edit]

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission defines two emergency planning zones around nuclear power plants: a plume exposure pathway zone with a radius of 10 miles (16 km), concerned primarily with exposure to, and inhalation of, airborne radioactive contamination, and an ingestion pathway zone of about 50 miles (80 km), concerned primarily with ingestion of food and liquid contaminated by radioactivity.[17]

The 2010 U.S. population within 10 miles (16 km) of Perry was 83,410, an increase of 8 percent in a decade, according to an analysis of U.S. Census data for msnbc.com. The 2010 U.S. population within 50 miles (80 km) was 2,281,531, a decrease of 3.0 percent since 2000. Cities within 50 miles (80 km) include Cleveland (36 miles (58 km) to city center). Canadian population is not included in these figures.[18]

Seismic risk

[edit]

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's estimate of the risk each year of an earthquake intense enough to cause core damage to the reactor at Perry was 1 in 47,619, according to an NRC study published in August 2010.[19][20]

Security threats

[edit]

At around 6:00pm EDT on April 7, 2021, the FBI's Cleveland Field Office tweeted that there was an ongoing security situation at the plant that necessitated a bomb squad.[21] The following day, law enforcement disclosed that a 33-year-old Michigan man drove to the power plant and told plant security officers that there was a bomb in the trailer he was towing with his pickup truck. No bomb was found; the man was arrested.[22]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Perry Nuclear Generating Station

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The Perry Nuclear Generating Station is a located in North Perry, , approximately 35 miles northeast of , featuring a single , Unit 1, with a generating capacity of 1,303 megawatts. Operated by Vistra Operations Company LLC under a license issued by the in 1986, the facility entered commercial operation in November 1987 and supplies baseload electricity to the grid. Construction of the plant began in 1977 under the Electric Illuminating Company, with initial plans for two units, but Unit 2 was canceled in 1994 after substantial had been built due to cost overruns and changing . The station has maintained a strong operational record, achieving full-power status as of October 2025, and received a license renewal in July 2025 extending operations for an additional 20 years to 2046, affirming compliance with stringent safety and environmental standards. Despite periodic unplanned outages, such as a 2013 coolant that prompted a shutdown for repairs, the plant has demonstrated reliability as a low-emission, high-capacity energy source amid regional challenges from cheaper competition that nearly led to its closure in the late .

Location and Facility Overview

Site Characteristics

The Perry Nuclear Generating Station is located in North Perry, , approximately 35 miles northeast of , on the southern shore of . The site occupies 1,100 acres (450 hectares) of land, providing space for the power plant facilities and surrounding buffer areas. A substantial portion of the site, exceeding 850 acres, comprises natural forests and marshes that support diverse habitats. Approximately 250 acres are allocated to the plant's structural complex, including the buildings, cooling systems, and support , while the remainder consists largely of forested areas. The site's proximity to facilitates once-through cooling, with water intake and discharge directly from the lake, influencing local hydrological and thermal dynamics. Topographically, the site features lakefront bluffs and adjacent wetlands, characteristic of the coastal plain, with underlying geology including glacial deposits and formations typical of the region. These environmental attributes contribute to the site's ecological diversity, though operations require ongoing monitoring of , levels, and aquatic impacts under regulatory oversight.

Design and Capacity

The Perry Nuclear Generating Station houses a single (BWR) unit, designated as Perry Unit 1, engineered by as a BWR-6 model with Mark III . This design features direct steam generation within the reactor core, where fission heat boils water to produce steam that drives turbines without an intermediate , distinguishing it from pressurized water reactors. The reactor core accommodates 748 fuel assemblies, enabling sustained for electricity production. The plant's licensed thermal capacity stands at 3,758 megawatts thermal (MWt), supporting a net electrical output of approximately 1,303 megawatts electric (MWe). This capacity reflects the unit's Generation II technology, optimized for high-efficiency baseload power generation with a design net capacity of 1,205 MWe under initial specifications, though operational ratings have been uprated over time. The Mark III employs a wet suppression system, utilizing a large pool to condense in the event of a , enhancing safety through pressure mitigation.
Key Design and Capacity ParametersValue
Reactor Type (BWR-6)
Containment Type
Thermal Capacity3,758 MWt
Net Electrical Capacity1,303 MWe
Fuel Assemblies748
Although initially planned for two units, only Unit 1 was completed and commissioned, with Unit 2 abandoned in 1994 due to economic factors, leaving the facility with this singular reactor configuration. The BWR-6 design incorporates advanced features such as improved systems and recirculation pumps for operational flexibility and .

Historical Development

Planning and Phase

The Electric Illuminating Company (CEI), the primary developer, initiated planning for the Perry Nuclear Generating Station in the early 1970s to address projected electricity demand growth in northeastern , where coal-fired generation dominated but nuclear expansion was pursued for baseload capacity. In October 1971, CEI publicly announced the project, estimating a cost of $632 million for a two-unit facility in Perry Township, Lake County, approximately 35 miles northeast of on a 1,100-acre site along . The lakeside location provided abundant cooling water essential for the design, while seismic and population density assessments met (NRC) preliminary criteria for siting. Site preparation and initial construction activities began on October 1, 1974, under CEI's oversight, with selected to supply the technology for Units 1 and 2, each rated at around 1,240 MW net capacity. The NRC granted construction permits CPPR-148 for Unit 1 and CPPR-149 for Unit 2 on May 3, 1977, following environmental reviews and findings of technical and financial qualification by CEI. Early progress included foundation work and major structural erection, but the project encountered budgetary constraints from CEI's broader capital investments, prompting schedule adjustments even before full permitting. Construction delays intensified after the 1979 , as NRC-mandated design modifications for safety systems—such as enhanced containment and emergency core cooling—added requirements that extended Unit 1's targeted completion from December 31, 1982, to November 30, 1985, with Unit 2 facing greater slippage of up to four years. These changes, combined with and issues prevalent in the post-1970s nuclear buildout, drove costs well beyond initial projections, reaching billions by the mid-1980s. Unit 2 advanced to completion of key infrastructure, including the base, but escalating overruns and softening electricity demand forecasts led to its suspension in 1984 and indefinite deferral, later formalized as cancellation in 1994 after $510 million in sunk costs. Despite challenges, Unit 1 achieved initial criticality in 1986, reflecting the era's regulatory rigor that prioritized causal risk mitigation over expediency.

Commissioning and Initial Operations

The Perry Nuclear Generating Station Unit 1 achieved initial criticality on June 6, 1986, initiating low-power physics testing under the plant's construction permit issued by the (NRC). This milestone followed extensive pre-operational verification of systems, including the General Electric design rated at approximately 3,579 megawatts thermal. The NRC granted the full-power operating license (NPF-58) on November 13, 1986, authorizing progression to higher power levels after satisfactory completion of startup test programs. The unit synchronized to the for the first time on December 19, 1986, delivering initial low-level power output during the final phases of commissioning. Full commercial operation commenced on November 18, 1987, positioning Perry as the 100th in the United States to achieve this status and enabling sustained baseload at nominal capacity. Initial operations proceeded under the oversight of the original licensee, Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, with regulatory inspections confirming compliance with safety and performance criteria during the transition to routine power ascension. No major safety incidents were recorded in this phase, though the extended timeline from start in October 1974 to commercial operation reflected broader industry challenges in and regulatory reviews common to late-1970s era projects. Early performance metrics indicated reliable output, contributing to the plant's subsequent record of generating over 273 million megawatt-hours by 2017.

Ownership Transitions and Modernization Efforts

The Perry Nuclear Generating Station was initially developed and majority-owned by the Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, with construction beginning in 1974 and commercial operation commencing on November 13, 1987. Following mergers in the late 1980s and 1990s, ownership consolidated under Corporation, with FirstEnergy Nuclear Generation, LLC (FENGen) designated as the sole licensee and owner of Unit 1 by an NRC order issued on April 28, 2016. Ownership transitioned amid FirstEnergy's financial challenges, including the 2018 bankruptcy of its FirstEnergy Solutions Corp. and subsequent restructuring. FirstEnergy Solutions emerged from bankruptcy in 2019 as Energy Harbor Corp., focusing on nuclear assets, and on July 21, 2022, the NRC approved direct transfer of Perry's operating license from FENGen to Energy Harbor Nuclear Generation LLC, a , enabling separation of nuclear operations from 's broader portfolio affected by regulatory scrutiny over allegations in . Vistra Corp. further expanded its nuclear fleet by acquiring Energy Harbor on March 1, 2024, in a $3.43 billion all-cash transaction that included Perry, Davis-Besse, and Beaver Valley plants, along with Energy Harbor's retail business serving over 1 million customers. This acquisition positioned Vistra as owner and operator of Perry, emphasizing zero-carbon generation amid rising demand for reliable baseload power. Modernization efforts under recent owners have prioritized license renewal and safety enhancements to sustain long-term viability. Energy Harbor filed a license renewal application with the NRC on July 13, 2023, seeking to extend Perry Unit 1's operations by 20 years beyond its original expiration on November 7, 2026; the NRC approved this on July 7, 2025, authorizing service through 2046 after reviews confirming adequate protection of public health and the environment through planned aging management programs and equipment upgrades. These efforts align with post-Fukushima regulatory requirements, including FLEX mitigation strategies implemented industry-wide by 2016, though Perry-specific details emphasize routine refueling outages for component replacements and digital control system improvements to enhance reliability and efficiency. The renewal supports Ohio's energy policy shifts, including 2019 legislation providing subsidies to prevent premature closure, averting a planned 2021 shutdown announced in 2018 due to economic pressures from subsidized natural gas competition.

Technical and Operational Details

Reactor Technology and Systems

The Perry Nuclear Generating Station's Unit 1 is a BWR-6 , classified as a Generation II design. This reactor type operates by allowing light water to boil directly in , producing that drives turbines for without secondary heat exchangers. The licensed thermal power output is 3,758 MWt, supporting a net electrical capacity of approximately 1,303 MWe. The reactor core comprises 748 fuel assemblies, each containing pellets encased in zircaloy cladding, positioned within a low-alloy . Control is maintained via control blades inserted from the bottom, with systems including safety and rods for reactivity management. Coolant recirculation employs two external loops driving internal jet pumps for enhanced circulation efficiency and flow stability. Steam separation and drying occur within the reactor vessel using cyclone separators and mesh dryers before routing to the turbine. The Mark III containment features a wet suppression design with a large-volume drywell and toroidal suppression pool, providing pressure relief through steam condensation in the event of a loss-of-coolant accident. Engineered safety systems include the high-pressure coolant injection, core spray, and residual heat removal for core cooling under various transients.

Electricity Production Metrics

The Perry Nuclear Generating Station operates a single unit with a net summer generating capacity of 1,240 megawatts (MWe). The unit's thermal rating stands at 3,758 megawatts thermal (MWt), following power uprates implemented in that enhanced output efficiency. This configuration enables baseload electricity production, with annual net typically ranging from 9 to 11 terawatt-hours (TWh), contingent on capacity factors achieved during operational cycles. Capacity factors at Perry have demonstrated strong performance, reflecting effective maintenance and operational reliability. Recent cycles have exceeded 90%, including a 655-day operating period ending prior to a refueling outage where the unit attained 98.2%. Nuclear Energy Institute data report capacity factors of 89.3% and 91.6% for recent annual periods, aligning with industry trends for pressurized and boiling water reactors post-uprate. Earlier records from the show a summer capacity factor of 89.4% in 2009, supporting net generation of 11 million megawatt-hours (MWh) that year. These metrics underscore Perry's contribution to reliable, high-output nuclear generation, with minimal unplanned outages contributing to sustained . Lifetime averages hover around 80-85%, buoyed by post-2010 improvements in refueling efficiency and system reliability. In quarterly intervals, such as April to July 2025, the plant produced 2.7 TWh, indicating annualized potential near design maxima under optimal conditions.

Maintenance and Uptime Records

The Perry Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1, adheres to a standard nuclear refueling cycle of approximately 24 months, during which planned outages facilitate fuel assembly replacement, system inspections, and preventive maintenance to ensure long-term operational reliability. These outages typically involve exchanging about one-third of the reactor's 748 fuel assemblies, alongside upgrades to components such as pumps, valves, and emergency diesel generators. For instance, the 2015 outage included the replacement of 280 fuel assemblies and numerous improvement projects, with the unit returning to service on April 24, 2015, after operating continuously since May 16, 2013. Similarly, the 2021 refueling outage incorporated over 1,800 work activities performed by more than 1,600 personnel, underscoring the scale of maintenance required to sustain the boiling water reactor's integrity. Efficiency in outage duration has improved over time, reflecting advancements in planning and execution. The 2017 refueling and maintenance outage, commencing March 5, 2017, concluded after 29 days—the shortest in the plant's operational history—with the prior record at 34 days in 2011. Recent NRC inspections, such as the 2023 review of the division 3 emergency , confirmed successful outcomes, including replacements that passed post-maintenance testing without identified deficiencies. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's ongoing oversight, including integrated inspections through 2025, has documented no significant violations in practices, supporting the plant's license renewal to 2046. Uptime metrics, measured by —the ratio of actual output to potential maximum output—indicate reliable performance, with historical data showing variability but frequent highs above 90% in non-outage years. Unplanned outages have been infrequent and brief; examples include a 10-day forced outage from July 27 to August 6, 2019, resolved through system diagnostics and repairs, and a 2010 shutdown due to system pressure loss, with rapid recovery. Such events align with industry norms for BWR , where automatic protections trigger scrams to prevent damage, and NRC performance indicators track these against thresholds for and reliability. Overall, the station's regimen has enabled consistent , contributing to its role in regional grid stability.

Safety and Risk Management

Inherent Design Safety Features

The BWR-6 reactor design at Perry Nuclear Generating Station Unit 1 features a negative of reactivity, a core physics property where steam void formation reduces water density, thereby decreasing and increasing leakage, which inherently suppresses power excursions without reliance on control systems. This self-limiting mechanism operates across the full range of operating conditions, contributing to stable reactor behavior during transients such as load changes or coolant flow perturbations. Complementing this is the negative Doppler coefficient, whereby rising fuel temperatures enhance absorption in fissile isotopes' resonance peaks, further reducing reactivity and promoting inherent thermal stability. These coefficients, integral to light-water moderated cores, ensure that deviations from equilibrium conditions trigger restorative physical processes rather than amplification. The design also leverages natural circulation for core cooling under reduced flow scenarios, driven by buoyancy forces from density gradients between the heated core and cooler downcomer regions, eliminating dependence on mechanical pumps for certain decay heat removal phases. Operating at a core pressure of approximately 1,000 psia (6.9 MPa), the system maintains lower stored energy compared to pressurized water reactors, minimizing rupture potential and facilitating simpler pressure relief via direct steam venting to containment. The reactor vessel's integrated steam-water separation and drying within the core region reduces the risk of carryover of radioactive particulates to the turbine, enhancing overall system isolation. Perry's Mark III containment incorporates a passive pressure suppression configuration, consisting of a steel-lined concrete primary containment vessel housing the drywell (reactor enclosure) and a connected wetwell with a 3.5-million-gallon suppression pool. During hypothetical accidents, released enters the drywell and vents submerge into the pool, where condenses the vapor through direct and natural convection, leveraging the pool's thermal capacity to limit buildup to design levels of 55 psig without active compression or recirculation. This gravity-dominated process, augmented by the 's low-leakage liner and shielding, confines fission products via inherent hydrodynamic barriers, independent of external power or operator action.

Seismic and Geological Hazard Assessments

The Perry Nuclear Generating Station site occupies nearly level terrain in , approximately 800 feet inland from a 45-foot-high bluff along , underlain by glacial deposits overlying Upper shale bedrock strata that dip less than 5 degrees southeast, with the erosional bedrock surface sloping northward toward the lake. Geological assessments have identified no active faults directly beneath the site, though regional intraplate seismicity in northeastern includes contributions from distant tectonic sources and potential induced events linked to nearby fluid injection activities, such as disposal wells that have correlated with microearthquakes at depths of 1-3 km within 5 km of the plant. Seismic design incorporates a Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE) with a peak ground acceleration (PGA) of 0.15g to 0.159g, calibrated to withstand ground motions equivalent to a magnitude-6 earthquake, ensuring structures, systems, and components necessary for safe shutdown remain functional. Following the 2011 Fukushima accident, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) mandated reevaluations under Near-Term Task Force (NTTF) Recommendation 2.1; in March 2014, the licensee submitted updated probabilistic seismic hazard analysis results, including the Uniform Hazard Response Spectrum (UHRS) and site-specific Ground Motion Response Spectrum (GMRS) with a PGA of 0.249g, accounting for 1% damping in underlying rock below 100 feet and 3.2% in the upper 500 feet. Comparisons reveal the reevaluated GMRS exceeds the original SSE in the 1-10 Hz frequency range but remains at or below twice the SSE amplitude, confirming adequate seismic margins for beyond-design-basis events via FLEX mitigating strategies without requiring plant modifications. The site withstood the January 31, 1986, northeastern earthquake (magnitude 5.0, focal depth 10 km), which induced minor cracks in non-safety-related structures but no impacts to core cooling or containment integrity, validating design robustness under actual loading. A 2011 Associated Press review of NRC data estimated the probability of earthquake-induced core damage at Perry as up to 24 times higher than earlier licensee figures, citing updated seismic models, though subsequent NTTF-compliant analyses incorporated these advancements and affirmed hazard-informed risk management. Ongoing probabilistic risk assessments, including seismic quantification and sensitivity studies, support license renewal applications by demonstrating low exceedance probabilities for high-consequence events in this low-to-moderate zone.

Security Protocols and Vulnerabilities

The Perry Nuclear Generating Station employs a multi-layered program compliant with U.S. (NRC) requirements under 10 CFR Part 73, including vehicle barriers, hardened structures, and detection systems to prevent unauthorized access to protected and vital areas. Armed security personnel conduct continuous patrols and response drills, with unescorted access granted only after comprehensive background checks, psychological evaluations, and biometric verification such as fingerprinting. The site's perimeter features extended fencing, intrusion detection alarms, and closed-circuit surveillance integrated with a central alarm station for real-time monitoring. Cybersecurity protocols at adhere to NRC's Cyber Security Rule (10 CFR 73.54), emphasizing defense-in-depth strategies that isolate critical digital instrumentation and control systems from external networks, with no direct connectivity for safety-related functions. The plant conducts periodic vulnerability assessments, penetration testing, and to mitigate risks from , insider threats, or supply chain compromises, as verified through NRC baseline inspections. In December 2023, the NRC performed a cyber security inspection at , confirming implementation of access controls, event logging, and recovery procedures without identifying performance deficiencies requiring enforcement action. The emergency plan addresses security contingencies such as unauthorized entry attempts, bomb threats, sabotage, or compromises threatening nuclear safety, triggering classified response levels with coordination between on-site forces, local , and federal agencies like the FBI. NRC security baseline inspections, conducted triennially, evaluate these protocols through scenario-based exercises and sampling of access authorizations, with a January 2025 report documenting completed inspection procedure requirements at Perry. Documented vulnerabilities at Perry have been minimal, with NRC reviews identifying occasional non-cited violations for procedural lapses rather than systemic weaknesses. A 2013 assessment by the alleged potential sabotage risks from insider access or external breaches, but plant operators countered that layered defenses—including redundant monitoring and rapid response capabilities—render such scenarios improbable without detection. No confirmed security breaches or successful attacks have been reported at Perry, though general nuclear sector risks, such as evolving cyber threats from state actors, prompt ongoing NRC-mandated enhancements. Inspections continue to prioritize programs and physical-cyber integration to address hypothetical cascading failures.

Incident History and Regulatory Compliance

The Perry Nuclear Generating Station has experienced several operational incidents since its commissioning in 1987, primarily involving , leaks, and system malfunctions, though none have resulted in off-site radiological releases exceeding regulatory limits or impacts. In April 2011, during a refueling outage, four workers encountered elevated levels while retracting an in-core monitor from the vessel, prompting an area evacuation; the maximum exposure was approximately 98 millirems, equivalent to a few chest X-rays, due to failure to adequately survey and control access in a high-radiation area. The U.S. (NRC) subsequently issued a citation for violations of radiological safety requirements, including inadequate procedural adherence and worker preparation. In January 2014, a feedwater valve leak led to the discovery of in on-site groundwater at concentrations exceeding the EPA standard of 20,000 picocuries per liter, reaching up to 46,200 picocuries per liter in monitoring wells; the leak was isolated and repaired without impacting or public supplies. More recently, elevated levels were reported in the plant's underdrain system in January 2024, followed by a voluntary disclosure of a spill involving at least 78 gallons of containing radiological contaminants in mid-2024, with ongoing monitoring confirming no off-site migration or health risks. Additionally, a reactor coolant system leak in May 2024 necessitated a two-day shutdown for repairs, classified as low safety significance by the NRC. The plant has maintained under NRC oversight, with annual integrated inspection reports consistently rating performance as green (very low significance) for key areas such as equipment reliability, emergency preparedness, and radiological controls. Minor violations, such as scoping errors in work orders, have been identified but resolved without escalated . The NRC's assessment affirmed safe operations, with no findings warranting increased scrutiny. In July 2025, the NRC approved a 20-year license renewal extending operations through 2046, following reviews of and environmental impacts that found no significant aging-related degradation or non-compliance issues. Earlier included a 1997 for procedural lapses and isolated non- actions, but these do not indicate systemic deficiencies. Overall, Perry's record reflects adherence to stringent federal standards, with incidents managed per design-basis protocols and no evidence of deliberate misconduct or cover-ups.

Impacts and Broader Significance

Environmental Contributions

The Perry Nuclear Generating Station generates approximately 10,334 GWh of annually with near-zero operational , displacing generation and avoiding 2.48 to 4.39 million metric tons of CO2 emissions per year compared to a combined cycle alternative producing equivalent output. This contribution stems from the absence of in processes, resulting in a SMALL carbon of about 2,130 tons CO2 equivalent annually from auxiliary onsite activities, far below alternatives. Ohio's nuclear fleet, including Perry, collectively prevents 9.3 million metric tons of CO2 emissions each year by supplanting and , enhancing regional . Plant emissions of criteria pollutants such as 0.39 tons of particulate matter, 10.616 tons of , and 2.76 tons of CO in recent operations represent a negligible fraction of Lake County totals, rated as SMALL environmental impacts by the . Unlike fossil fuel plants, Perry avoids substantial SO2, , and particulate releases, supporting improved air quality as recognized in state approvals for nuclear operations as clean energy sources. Radioactive effluents remain well below limits, with public doses such as 9.37×10⁻² mrem total-body exposure in 2022 posing no significant or ecological risks. Low-level radioactive waste and spent fuel are stored onsite in pools and dry casks under 10 CFR Part 72 licensing, with effective management yielding SMALL impacts and no offsite migration concerns beyond monitored tritium levels. Cooling water withdrawals of 4.86 million gallons per day from comply with NPDES Permit 3IB00016, maintaining thermal discharges within standards that prevent or algal blooms attributable to the plant. These attributes position Perry as a low-impact baseload provider, requiring less land than equivalent renewable-natural gas hybrids while sustaining emission reductions without intermittency.

Economic and Employment Effects

The Perry Nuclear Generating Station sustains approximately 700 direct full-time jobs, contributing to employment stability in , where the plant is located. These positions include skilled roles in operations, engineering, maintenance, and security, with ongoing recruitment for specialized nuclear-related occupations such as plant engineers and electrical designers. Combined with the nearby Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Ohio's two primary support around 1,400 direct jobs, fostering high-wage employment in a region with otherwise limited industrial anchors. The plant generates substantial tax revenues that fund local infrastructure and public services, with Perry and Davis-Besse together providing roughly $30 million annually in state and local taxes, the majority benefiting host communities like North Perry Village and Perry . For the Perry Local School District, property and related taxes from the station account for nearly 25% of as of February 2025, enabling maintenance of educational programs and facilities that might otherwise face cuts. Potential closure scenarios have raised concerns of economic contraction, including hikes and service reductions, underscoring the plant's role as a fiscal stabilizer. Broader economic multipliers from Perry include contributions to Ohio's GDP through direct output, wages, and supply chain spending, with the state's nuclear sector—dominated by Perry and Davis-Besse—adding approximately $510 million yearly as estimated in a 2017 Brattle Group analysis updated for ongoing operations. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's July 2025 approval to extend Perry's license through 2046 ensures sustained benefits, averting projected job losses and revenue shortfalls amid regional energy transitions.

Role in Energy Reliability and Policy Debates

The Perry Nuclear Generating Station supplies 1,268 megawatts of baseload electricity to the grid, operating as a dispatchable resource capable of continuous output regardless of weather conditions, unlike intermittent renewables such as and solar. Ohio's nuclear facilities, including Perry, maintained an average of 90.1% from 2021 to 2023, enabling high utilization rates that contribute to overall grid stability by minimizing unplanned outages and providing inertial response to disturbances through its large rotating turbines. This reliability is particularly vital in , where rising electricity demand from data centers and , combined with and gas plant retirements, has heightened risks of capacity shortfalls; Perry's extension through 2046, approved by the on July 7, 2025, ensures sustained delivery of firm power to mitigate these pressures. In policy debates, Perry has been central to discussions on preserving nuclear capacity amid market distortions from low natural gas prices and subsidized renewables, which threatened its viability. FirstEnergy announced plans to shutter Perry in 2020 due to economic losses, prompting Ohio's House Bill 6 in 2019, which authorized approximately $150 million in annual subsidies via ratepayer-funded zero-emission credits to sustain operations at Perry and the nearby Davis-Besse plant, framed as essential for reliability, jobs, and avoiding 15 million tons of annual CO2 emissions. The legislation, however, became embroiled in scandal when FirstEnergy executives admitted to a $60 million bribery scheme targeting former House Speaker Larry Householder to secure its passage, leading to partial repeal in 2021 under Senate Bill 44, though Perry continued operating post-acquisition by Vistra in 2024 without further state subsidies. PJM officials testified in 2017 that short-term closure of Ohio's nuclear plants would not immediately compromise grid reliability, citing sufficient alternative capacity auctions, yet longer-term analyses underscore nuclear's role in addressing projected reserve margins below 15% by 2030 amid retirements and variable renewable penetration. Recent Ohio proposals, such as House Bill 308 passed in , seek to classify nuclear as "" energy—lacking a statutory —to integrate it into clean energy mandates and procurement, countering opposition from environmental groups who argue it entrenches high-waste generation over alternatives like and renewables. Relicensing efforts faced challenges from groups like the Ohio Nuclear-Free Network, who petitioned the NRC in 2023 to deny extension on grounds of aging risks, though regulators affirmed compliance with standards. These debates reflect broader tensions between market-driven retirements and interventions prioritizing dispatchable, low-carbon resources for resilience.

Controversies and Criticisms

Project Delays and Cost Overruns

The construction of Unit 1 at the Perry Nuclear Generating Station, initiated by the Electric Illuminating Company and partners, faced protracted delays extending the timeline from groundbreaking to commercial operation. Site preparation and commenced on October 1, 1974, with initial expectations for relatively swift completion aligned with pre-Three Mile Island nuclear projects. However, regulatory reviews, design revisions, and post-1979 safety enhancements imposed by the prolonged the process, delaying first criticality until June 6, 1986, and full commercial operation to November 18, 1987—a total of 13 years. Cost estimates escalated dramatically from the project's outset, reflecting broader challenges in 1970s-era nuclear builds such as , disruptions, and iterative changes to meet evolving standards. The dual-unit facility was announced in 1971 with a projected total cost of $632 million. By April 1984, as Unit 1 neared 97% completion at an interim spend of $1.8 billion, the overall estimate had ballooned to $5.2 billion due to persistent construction setbacks and financing strains. The final capitalized cost for Unit 1 alone reached $7.4 billion in inflation-adjusted 2018 dollars, an overrun exceeding 11-fold relative to the original budget when accounting for the planned two-unit scope. These overruns prompted scrutiny from the of , which launched a two-phase prudence review in the mid-1980s to assess managerial decisions amid rising capital requirements from design alterations and high inflation rates during the late 1970s and early 1980s. Contributing factors included mandated upgrades for seismic resilience and emergency core cooling systems, alongside labor and material cost surges that amplified financial exposure for ratepayers. Unit 2, advanced to about 43% completion by 1984, was indefinitely suspended that year and formally canceled in November 1985, stranding over $500 million in expenditures without generating revenue. The episode underscored systemic risks in large-scale nuclear , influencing subsequent utility caution toward new builds.

Political and Subsidy Disputes

In March 2018, Solutions filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection and announced intentions to permanently shut down its Unit 1 and Davis-Besse nuclear plants in by mid-2020, citing uneconomic operations in competitive wholesale markets. To prevent these closures, which would have eliminated over 4,000 jobs and reduced reliable baseload capacity, lawmakers passed House Bill 6 (HB 6) in July 2019, authorizing approximately $150 million annually in subsidies for and Davis-Besse from 2021 through 2027, funded via a surcharge on customer utility bills totaling around $1 billion over the period. The legislation's enactment became mired in controversy following federal investigations revealing a conspiracy orchestrated by Corp., which allegedly funneled over $60 million in bribes through dark money groups to then-Ohio House Speaker and his associates to secure HB 6's passage and protect utility interests. , a Republican, was arrested by the FBI in July 2020 on charges including and ; he was convicted in March 2023 after a federal trial established that the payments influenced legislative priorities favoring nuclear and coal subsidies over broader reforms. In June 2023, received a 20-year prison sentence, with his conviction upheld by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in May 2025, underscoring the scheme's scale as the largest case in history. Opponents, including environmental organizations like the and the , criticized HB 6 as an unjustified corporate bailout that bypassed competitive markets and imposed undue costs on ratepayers, estimated at up to 75 cents monthly per household, while also weakening prior clean energy standards. Proponents argued the subsidies were essential for maintaining grid stability and low-carbon generation amid subsidized intermittent renewables distorting wholesale prices, though the bribery revelations tainted defenses of the bill's merits. In response to the scandal, enacted House Bill 128 in March 2021, repealing the nuclear subsidies effective immediately and saving ratepayers an estimated $1.05 billion, though coal plant portions persisted until their repeal in August 2025. Energy Harbor, successor to FirstEnergy Solutions, initially explored forgoing the subsidies in December 2020 amid improving market conditions but ultimately benefited from the interim support, enabling continued operations until the plants' sale to Vistra Corp. in 2023. The episode fueled ongoing debates over state intervention in energy markets, with critics like state Democrats calling for federal probes into systemic utility influence and reforms to campaign finance, while highlighting how corruption overshadowed legitimate discussions on nuclear viability. Additional state charges against Householder in March 2024 for campaign fund misuse further protracted the legal fallout.

Public Opposition and Misinformation Debunking

Public opposition to the Perry Nuclear Generating Station has centered on perceived safety vulnerabilities, particularly seismic and flooding risks, as well as environmental contamination concerns near . Advocacy groups including the Ohio Nuclear-Free Network and Beyond Nuclear petitioned the (NRC) in 2023 to intervene in the plant's license renewal process, asserting that seismic activity in the region—within 40 miles of identified faults—has been underestimated and that post-Fukushima upgrades for flooding remain inadequate. These groups also highlighted potential tritium releases into and aging infrastructure, framing the facility as a threat to and ecosystems. Earlier opposition manifested in widespread protests against Ohio House Bill 6 in 2019, where demonstrators in cities including Toledo and decried the legislation as a taxpayer-funded for and the Davis-Besse plant, estimated to cost ratepayers approximately $1 billion over seven years to subsidize operations deemed unprofitable by . Critics argued the bill prioritized nuclear and interests amid a bribery scandal involving utility executives, amplifying narratives of economic inefficiency and undue political influence. Such opposition frequently relies on amplified perceptions rather than comprehensive . The NRC's 2022 assessment confirmed Perry's safe operation throughout 2021, with no violations of safety significance, underscoring a track record free of major radiological releases since commercial operation began on November 13, 1987. Regarding seismic concerns, Perry's design basis accounts for ground accelerations up to 0.2g, equivalent to a magnitude 6.0 at the site, and the plant sustained no damage while operating at full power during the 2011 's distant effects. Although a 2011 analysis suggested elevated core damage probabilities from earthquakes (1 in 74,176 annually plant-wide), subsequent NRC-mandated high-frequency seismic evaluations and the approval of a 20-year extension on July 7, 2025—extending operations through 2046—affirm that engineered margins and probabilistic assessments mitigate these hazards below regulatory thresholds. Claims of imminent environmental catastrophe, such as unmitigated leaks corrupting waste storage or synergistically harming via tritium and chemicals, lack substantiation from monitored effluent data, which show discharges well below federal limits (e.g., annual tritium releases averaging under 1 million curies across U.S. plants, with no detectable off-site impacts at Perry). A December 2024 voluntary report of a 78-gallon spill of water containing low-level radiological contaminants was fully contained on-site, with operator sampling confirming no migration to or and no exceedance of public dose limits, consistent with routine nuclear industry incidents that pose negligible risks. These events highlight operational transparency under NRC oversight, countering narratives of systemic cover-ups or inevitable disasters propagated by sources with historical anti-nuclear agendas.

References

  1. https://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/reactors/perr1
  2. https://www.power-technology.com/data-insights/power-plant-profile-perry-1-us/
  3. https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2516/ML25160A141.pdf
  4. https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/power-uprates/bwr-stretch/unit-1-perry.html
  5. https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/event-status/reactor-status/ps
  6. https://www.nrc.gov/cdn/doc-collection-news/2025/25-041.pdf
  7. https://www.renewableenergyworld.com/energy-business/perry-nuclear-unit-shut-down-after-leak-discovered/
  8. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R46820
  9. https://investors.firstenergycorp.com/investor-materials/news-releases/news-details/2017/Perry-Nuclear-Power-Plant-Marks-30-Years-of-Safe-and-Reliable-Operation/default.aspx
  10. https://portal.energyharbor.com/content/dam/fes/about/files/plantfactsheets/perry-plant-facts-at-a-glance.pdf
  11. https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2124/ML21244A353.pdf
  12. https://dam.assets.ohio.gov/image/upload/epa.ohio.gov/Portals/35/permits/doc/3IB00016.fs.pdf
  13. https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2136/ML21361A222.pdf
  14. https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2111/ML21119A030.pdf
  15. https://world-nuclear.org/nuclear-reactor-database/details/perry-1
  16. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/07/10/2025-12782/vistra-operations-company-llc-perry-nuclear-power-plant-unit-1-license-renewal-and-record-of
  17. https://www.gem.wiki/Perry_nuclear_power_plant
  18. https://www.nytimes.com/1971/10/19/archives/cleveland-electric-slates-nuclear-plant-for-ohio.html
  19. https://ema.ohio.gov/wps/portal/gov/ema/prepare-respond/emergency-preparedness/radiological-emergency/nuclear-power-plants
  20. https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0218/ML021830159.pdf
  21. https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0218/ML021820336.pdf
  22. https://onfn.org/perry-nuclear-power-plant/
  23. https://decommissioningcollaborative.org/perry/
  24. https://www.nei.org/resources/statistics/us-nuclear-plant-license-information
  25. https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0713/ML071340333.pdf
  26. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/04/28/2016-09984/in-the-matter-of-firstenergy-nuclear-operating-company-firstenergy-nuclear-generation-llc-and-ohio
  27. https://adamswebsearch2.nrc.gov/webSearch2/main.jsp?AccessionNumber=ML22200A222
  28. https://www.ohiocitizen.org/firstenergy_solutions_plans_to_change_name_to_energy_harbor
  29. https://investor.vistracorp.com/2024-03-01-Vistra-Completes-Energy-Harbor-Acquisition
  30. https://www.ans.org/news/article-4802/vistra-to-grow-reactor-fleet-with-purchase-of-energy-harbor/
  31. https://investor.vistracorp.com/2025-07-07-Vistra-Receives-Approval-to-Extend-Operation-of-Perry-Nuclear-Plant-Through-2046
  32. https://www.beaconjournal.com/story/news/2023/03/06/akron-energy-harbor-nuclear-power-plants-sold-to-texas-company-vistra-perry-oak-harbor-davis-bessie/69976869007/
  33. https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/bwrs.html
  34. https://corephysics.com/docs/BWR6GeneralDescription.pdf
  35. https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1209/ML120970422.pdf
  36. https://www.eia.gov/nuclear/reactors/reactorcapacity.php
  37. https://www.energyonline.com/Industry/News.aspx?NewsID=4559
  38. https://www.nei.org/resources/statistics/us-nuclear-operating-plant-basic-information
  39. https://www.eia.gov/nuclear/state/ohio/pdf/ohio.pdf
  40. https://www.gridinfo.com/plant/perry/6020
  41. https://investors.firstenergycorp.com/investor-materials/news-releases/news-details/2015/Perry-Nuclear-Power-Plant-Returns-to-Service-After-Refueling-and-Maintenance-Outage/default.aspx
  42. https://apnews.com/article/business-service-outages-electric-utilities-north-america-power-outages-a4aaf2698ce6ceca7ad00e3a00afe2e5
  43. https://investors.firstenergycorp.com/investor-materials/news-releases/news-details/2017/Perry-Nuclear-Power-Plant-Returns-to-Service-Following-Refueling-and-Maintenance-Outage/default.aspx
  44. https://www.power-eng.com/nuclear/perry-nuclear-plant-returns-to-service-after-refueling-outage/
  45. https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2312/ML23122A272.pdf
  46. https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2521/ML25218A020.pdf
  47. https://www.morningjournal.com/2019/08/07/perry-nuclear-power-plant-back-online-following-july-27-outage/
  48. https://www.cleveland.com/business/2010/05/perry_nuclear_power_plant_shut.html
  49. https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/safety-of-nuclear-power-reactors
  50. https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2136/ML21361A203.pdf
  51. https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1730/ML17305A195.pdf
  52. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/07/18/2025-13556/vistra-operations-company-llc-perry-nuclear-power-plant-unit-no-1-exemption
  53. https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ml1933/ML19332D919.pdf
  54. https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2136/ML21361A214.pdf
  55. https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2130/ML21307A253.pdf
  56. https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/geology/article/16/8/739/204746/Earthquakes-injection-wells-and-the-Perry-Nuclear
  57. https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1722/ML17223A367.pdf
  58. https://www.timesonline.com/story/news/technology/2011/03/19/perry-nuclear-power-plant-withstood/18396282007/
  59. https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1409/ML14090A145.pdf
  60. https://publicintegrity.org/environment/regulators-aware-for-years-of-understated-seismic-risks-to-nuclear-plants/
  61. https://inis.iaea.org/search/search.aspx?orig_q=RN:21070884
  62. https://www.cleveland.com/nation/2011/09/perry_nuclear_reactors_risk_of.html
  63. https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2406/ML24067A001.pdf
  64. https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0909/ML090920459.pdf
  65. https://www.nei.org/resources/fact-sheets/nuclear-plant-security-and-access-control
  66. https://www.nei.org/resources/reports-briefs/cybersecurity-for-nuclear-power-plants
  67. https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2400/ML24009A250.pdf
  68. https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2307/ML23073A166.pdf
  69. https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2500/ML25008A121.pdf
  70. https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2234/ML22349A114.pdf
  71. https://www.cleveland.com/business/2013/03/perry_nuclear_power_plant_was.html
  72. https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2319/ML23198A284.pdf
  73. https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1123/ML11238A081.pdf
  74. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/high-radiation-prompts-evac-at-ohio-nuke-plant/
  75. https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1406/ML14063A063.pdf
  76. https://www.power-eng.com/environmental-emissions/tritium-leak-discovered-at-perry-nuclear-power-plant/
  77. https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/event-status/event/2024/20240108en
  78. https://www.cleveland.com/news/2024/12/radioactive-spill-reported-in-northeast-ohio-nuclear-power-plant.html
  79. https://www.wkyc.com/article/news/local/lake-county/coolant-leak-perry-nuclear-power-plant-shut-down-nrc-says/95-3647b505-dfc8-4b8b-8138-53bc94d3bc1c
  80. https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2421/ML24214A188.pdf
  81. https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2328/ML23284A173.pdf
  82. https://www.nrc.gov/cdn/doc-collection-news/2025/25-021-iii.pdf
  83. https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/enforcement/actions/reactors/ea97430o.html
  84. https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2223/ML22236A504.pdf
  85. https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2511/ML25113A032.pdf
  86. https://dailyenergyinsider.com/news/4787-new-report-hearings-examine-benefits-ohio-nuclear-plants/
  87. https://ohioairquality.ohio.gov/wps/portal/gov/aqd/home/news-and-events/all-news/2020-03-24-oaqda%2Bapproves%2Bnuclear%2Band%2Brenewable%2Bgeneration%2Bfund%2Bprojects
  88. https://www.news5cleveland.com/news/local-news/oh-lake/lake-county-concerned-hb-6-repeal-could-cause-perry-plant-closure-economic-issues
  89. https://www.indeed.com/q-nuclear-power-plant-l-perry%2C-oh-jobs.html
  90. https://www.greatlakesnow.org/2021/01/ap-2-nuke-plants-1-bribery-scandal-no-answers/
  91. https://www.cleveland.com/opinion/2018/12/looming-nuclear-plant-closures-will-hurt-ohio-schools-and-communities-jack-thompson-opinion.html
  92. https://search-prod.lis.state.oh.us/api/v2/general_assembly_136/committees/cmte_s_energy_1/meetings/cmte_s_energy_1_2025-02-18-1000_109/testimony/1182/uploaded-doc/
  93. https://spectrumnews1.com/oh/columbus/news/2021/04/08/-they-were-promised-wealth-that-would-go-on-through-eternity--what-happens-to-perry-if-the-nuclear-power-plant-shuts-down-
  94. https://www.brattle.com/insights-events/publications/report-by-brattle-economists-assesses-economic-and-carbon-value-of-ohio-nuclear-power-plants/
  95. https://interestingengineering.com/energy/perry-nuclear-power-plant-life-boost
  96. https://www.nei.org/CorporateSite/media/filefolder/resources/fact-sheets/state-fact-sheets/Ohio-State-Fact-Sheet.pdf
  97. https://www.ans.org/news/2025-05-02/article-6967/us-nuclear-capacity-factors-stability-and-energy-dominance/
  98. https://hub.vistracorp.com/nrc-approves-perry-nuclear-plant-license-extension/
  99. https://www.ans.org/news/article-2687/ohio-senate-votes-to-repeal-nuclear-plant-subsidies/
  100. https://www.spglobal.com/commodity-insights/en/news-research/latest-news/electric-power/040121-repealing-subsidies-to-2176-mw-of-ohio-nuclear-power-leaves-uncertainty
  101. https://www.brickergraydon.com/DevelopOhio/Nuclear-plants-not-needed-to-maintain-grid-reliability-PJM-official-says
  102. https://ohiohouse.gov/members/bride-rose-sweeney/in-the-news/lawmakers-tackle-energy-efficiency-want-to-label-nuclear-power-green-5027
  103. https://signalakron.org/a-symbolic-gesture-or-trojan-horse-ohio-groups-question-purpose-of-green-nuclear-bill/
  104. https://ohiocapitaljournal.com/2024/02/06/federal-agency-energy-harbor-seek-to-keep-citizen-groups-out-of-perry-nuclear-plant-case/
  105. https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/CountryStatistics/ReactorDetails.aspx?current=725
  106. https://www.nytimes.com/1984/04/30/business/c-ohio-utilities-face-nuclear-plant-doubts-162108.html
  107. https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2023/ML20236P177.pdf
  108. https://www.cleveland.com/open/2020/12/energy-harbor-seeks-option-of-turning-down-hb6-nuclear-bailout-money.html
  109. https://www.ohiohouse.gov/news/republican/ohio-house-repeals-nuclear-subsidy-more-with-passage-of-energy-bill-105649
  110. https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdoh/pr/former-ohio-house-speaker-sentenced-20-years-prison-leading-racketeering-conspiracy
  111. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/29/us/ohio-speaker-bribery.html
  112. https://www.courthousenews.com/bribery-conviction-of-disgraced-former-ohio-speaker-upheld-on-appeal/
  113. https://blog.ucs.org/steve-clemmer/5-reasons-why-hb6-should-be-rejected/
  114. https://uclawreview.org/2019/09/11/h-b-6-is-this-the-end-of-nuclear-power-in-ohio/
  115. https://www.dickinson-wright.com/news-alerts/fleisher-repeal-of-ohio-house-bill-6
  116. https://www.commoncause.org/ohio/resources/a-cycle-of-corruption-a-timeline-of-the-householder-hb6-scandal/
  117. https://ohiohouse.gov/members/c-allison-russo/in-the-news/roots-of-hb-6-corruption-scandals-run-deep-in-ohio-justice-department-must-investigate-4684
  118. https://www.wosu.org/2024-04-24/new-fallout-in-hb-6-nuclear-bailout-scandal-leads-to-calls-for-more-campaign-finance-disclosure
  119. https://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/Media/News-Releases/March-2024/Ex-Ohio-House-Speaker-Larry-Householder-Indicted-o
  120. https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2333/ML23332A785.pdf
  121. https://www.toledoblade.com/local/environment/2019/06/03/Protesters-oppose-House-Bill-6/stories/20190603170
  122. https://bgindependentmedia.org/bg-protests-pork-in-hb-6-for-nuclear-and-coal-power/
  123. https://www.news-herald.com/2022/05/20/nrc-assessment-finds-that-perry-nuclear-power-plant-operated-safely-in-2021/
  124. https://www.news-herald.com/2011/09/03/perry-nuclear-power-plant-prepared-for-quake-with-video/
  125. https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1722/ML17223A362.pdf
  126. https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applications/perry
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.