***************************************************************** 04/02/01 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 9.82 ***************************************************************** RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR POWER CONTENTS 1 Berkley Releases Yucca Transport List 2 Waste dump official gave senator campaign donation 3 Waste operator donates to senator 4 Weekly Comment: President Bush's Policies 5 Nuclear solution to California power crisis urged 6 Political Heavyweights Weigh In on Nuclear Issues 7 New nuclear plant possible in Georgia 8 Letters: Heat turned on Bush 9 New Emergency Powerdown at Czech Nuclear Plant 10 Hearing Statement: Sen domenici 11 Hearing Statement: NRC EDO William Travers 12 Hearing Statement: DOE: W. Magwood 13 Hearing Statement: IEA: M. Hutzler 14 Hearing Statement: NEI R Hutchinson 15 Hearing Statement: INPO: A Tollison 16 Hearing Statement: Exelon: W Sproat 17 Hearing Statement: J Longenecker 18 Hearing Statement: PIRG: A Aurilio 19 CHINESE NUCLEAR POWER INDUSTRY HOLDS EXPO FROM MARCH 30 20 Dump foes cite rail safety concerns 21 Nuclear, debt turnabout highlight Crowell legacy 22 Despite advances, radiation accidents are human reality NUCLEAR WEAPONS CONTENTS 1 Atomic workers accept new contract 2 Berkley Pens Letter To Bush On Radiation Victims 3 Prescribed burns at Flats considered 4 Prescribed burns at Flats considered 5 Uranium victims losing leaders 6 Battle over 'monster laser' heats up ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR POWER ARTICLES ***************************************************************** 1 Berkley Releases Yucca Transport List Berkley (NV01) - Press Release - Congresswoman [Shelly Berkley] First District, Nevada Berkley Releases Yucca Transport List *List To Identify All Members Affected By Transport Routes* Washington, D.C. (March 28, 2001) — In a move designed to aid Nevada’s campaign against the Yucca Mountain project, U.S. Rep. Shelley Berkley has released a report listing every Member and Congressional District in the U.S. House that would be affected by nuclear waste transportation routes. Berkley compiled the list to help her target key votes in the House of Representatives in her effort against the nuclear dump. Berkley was able to convince an additional 51 Members to vote with Nevada in 2000, and is hoping to add even more names to that list before another vote on the dump takes place. Not only will the list help Berkley battle the dump in Congress, but it is also intended to help grassroots and community groups communicate the dangers of transportation to the rest of the country. Said Berkley, “I created the list to help me target votes in Congress more effectively, but the data has a much broader application. Using this list, we can target smaller regions and tell people that this toxic waste could be coming right through their back yards. When people across the country start to realize how this could have a direct impact on the health and safety of their communities, we might finally be able to build the political will in this country to look for sensible long term solutions to this problem.” The list has been made available to public and not-for-profit entities, including the City of Las Vegas, Clark County, the State of Nevada, Stephen J. Cloobeck’s Save Nevada Coalition, Citizen Alert, Public Citizen, Nuclear Information Resources Service, the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce, the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority, and others. It is also available to the public at www.house.gov/berkley. ### ***************************************************************** 2 Waste dump official gave senator campaign donation Bangor Daily News Article By Kristina Shevory, The Associated Press AUSTIN, Texas — A plan by Maine and Vermont to ship low-level radioactive waste to Texas is running into allegations that a key lawmaker in Austin has a conflict of interest. Sen. J.E. “Buster” Brown, R-Lake Jackson, the chairman of a Senate committee hearing a bill to build a radioactive waste dump in West Texas, received a $10,000 campaign donation from a businessman who oversees the company that could operate the site, documents show. Brown, who also is the co-author of the waste dump bill, said he saw nothing wrong with accepting the money and plans to vote on the bill when it comes up for consideration by his Senate Natural Resources Committee. That could happen as soon as Tuesday. “There’s not a conflict of interest,” Brown said. “You could say that I couldn’t vote on any piece of legislation, whatever it is, since there are campaign contributions coming in from every side.” Environmentalists and public advocacy groups disagree. “The only reason this bill is being considered is because of the money,” said Andrew Wheat, head of research for Texans for Public Justice. “The only way to get the bill through the Legislature is to give money to Brown, who will make sure it gets out of his committee and out onto the [Senate] floor for consideration.” Texans for Public Justice describes itself as a nonpartisan, nonprofit policy and research organization. The group identified Brown as one of several state officials who have accepted contributions from people tied to Waste Control Specialists and its parent company, Valhi Inc. Harold Simmons of Dallas, chairman and chief executive officer of Valhi Inc., gave $10,000 to Brown on March 20, 2000, according to a contributions list the senator filed with the Texas Ethics Commission. Valhi is a billion-dollar holding company with subsidiaries operating in the chemicals, component products, titanium metals and waste management industries. Waste Control Specialists already operates a hazardous and nuclear waste facility in Andrews County northwest of Midland. That same county is now lobbying to become the site of the proposed dump. WCS is one of the companies that could get the license for the new site. Brown said he has received money from people affiliated with the company over the past 10 years, but he did not know the total amount. It is legal to accept money from people affiliated with a company, so long as the contribution is not given in the firm’s name. Simmons did not return calls from The Associated Press. Eric Peus, chief executive officer of WCS, said he was not aware of the donation to Brown, but said he didn’t think the contribution was unusual. “Simmons is a very large contributor to many people, including Democrats, but in general, he gives to conservative Republicans,” Peus said. Gov. Rick Perry, Attorney General John Cornyn, House Speaker James E. “Pete” Laney, Comptroller Carole Keeton Rylander, Land Commissioner David Dewhurst and Railroad Commissioner Tony Garza are among the elected officials who have received contributions from people associated with Valhi and WCS, Texans for Public Justice pointed out. Under the Senate bill pending before Brown’s natural resources committee, the state would license private companies to dispose of low-level radioactive waste from Texas, Maine and Vermont at a site in West Texas. Some lawmakers say the bill would allow Texas to make good on its compact agreement with the two northeastern states. The compact — passed by Congress in the 1990s — is part of a nationwide plan to store low-level radioactive waste regionally. Low-level radioactive waste is produced as a byproduct of medical, research and industrial activities and the operation of nuclear power plants. The waste site would be the state’s first permanent storage facility. ***************************************************************** 3 Waste operator donates to senator April 2, 2001 By KRISTINA SHEVORY The Associated Press AUSTIN - The chairman of a Senate committee hearing a bill to build a radioactive waste dump in West Texas received a $10,000 campaign donation from a businessman who oversees the company that could operate the site, documents show. Sen. J.E. "Buster" Brown, R-Lake Jackson, also is the co-author of the waste dump bill. He said he saw nothing wrong with accepting the money and plans to vote on the bill when it comes up for consideration by his Senate Natural Resources Committee. That could happen as soon as Tuesday. "There's not a conflict of interest," Brown said. "You could say that I couldn't vote on any piece of legislation, whatever it is, since there are campaign contributions coming in from every side." Environmentalists and public advocacy groups disagree. "The only reason this bill is being considered is because of the money," said Andrew Wheat, head of research for Texans for Public Justice. "The only way to get the bill through the Legislature is to give money to Brown, who will make sure it gets out of his committee and out onto the (Senate) floor for consideration." Texans for Public Justice describes itself as a non-partisan, non-profit policy and research organization. The group identified Brown as one of several state officials who have accepted contributions from people tied to Waste Control Specialists and its parent company, Valhi Inc. Harold Simmons of Dallas, chairman and chief executive officer of Valhi Inc., gave $10,000 to Brown on March 20, 2000, according to a contributions list the senator filed with the Texas Ethics Commission. Valhi is a billion-dollar holding company with subsidiaries operating in the chemicals, component products, titanium metals and waste management industries. Waste Control Specialists already operates a hazardous and nuclear waste facility in Andrews County northwest of Midland. That county is now lobbying to become the site of the proposed dump. WCS is one of the companies that could get the license for the new site. Brown said he has received money from people affiliated with the company over the past 10 years, but he did not know the total amount. It is legal to accept money from people affiliated with a company, so long as the contribution is not given in the firm's name. Simmons did not return calls from The Associated Press. Eric Peus, chief executive officer of WCS, said he was not aware of the donation to Brown, but said he didn't think the contribution was unusual. "Simmons is a very large contributor to many people, including Democrats, but in general he gives to conservative Republicans," Peus said. Gov. Rick Perry, Attorney General John Cornyn, House Speaker James E. "Pete" Laney, Comptroller Carole Keeton Rylander, Land Commissioner David Dewhurst and Railroad Commissioner Tony Garza are among the elected officials who have received contributions from people associated with Vahli and WCS, Texans for Public Justice pointed out. Under the Senate bill pending before Brown's natural resources committee, the state would license private companies to dispose of low-level radioactive waste from Texas, Maine and Vermont at a site in West Texas. Sen. Robert Duncan, R-Lubbock, is the main sponsor of the bill. Rep. Warren Chisum, R-Pampa, introduced a version in the House. Some lawmakers say the bill would allow Texas to make good on its compact agreement with the two northeastern states. The compact - passed by Congress in the 1990s - is part of a nationwide plan to store low-level radioactive waste regionally. Low-level radioactive waste is produced as a byproduct of medical, research and industrial activities and the operation of nuclear power plants. The waste site would be the state's first permanent storage facility. There are 59 radioactive waste generators in Texas, according to the Bureau of Radiation Control. Many of these sites must store their waste at their own locations in specialized containers. Nuclear power plants send some of their waste to an out-of-state site, but in eight years that facility will be closed to Texas radioactive waste producers. The bill before the Legislature would allow these producers to send their radioactive rubbish to one centralized storage site. HREF="http://www.amarillonet.com/copyright.html">© 2001 Amarillo Globe-News ***************************************************************** 4 Weekly Comment: President Bush's Policies Environment News Service: Healing Our World: Weekly Comment By Jackie Alan Giuliano, Ph.D. Killing Tomorrow for a Few Megawatts Today *We have a beautiful mother Her green lap immense Her brown embrace eternal Her blue body everything we know.* -- Alice Walker The modern day American system of governance has an attribute that the founding fathers of our country may not have anticipated. Today, the primary qualifications for assuming public office seem to be personal wealth and a vested interest in major industries. So, the people making life or death decisions for the American people, their children, and the children of tomorrow, are increasingly becoming the least qualified to be making those judgments. The last few weeks have seen members of the new presidential administration deciding that levels of arsenic pollution that have been endorsed by the World Health Organization are too low for Americans. People whose last science class was years ago in college are telling the world's health professionals that since such controls would be a burden to polluting industries, they will not be implemented. [Bush] President George W. Bush (Photo courtesy the White House) President George W. Bush, who believes global warming is a fad, has gone against the scientists and leaders of the world by directing the United States to leave the negotiating table for the Kyoto Protocol greenhouse gas limitation agreement. He has told the world that the U.S., the largest producer of the planet's greenhouse gases, refuses to be part of the solution because it would hurt our economy. The U.S. has less than five percent of the world's population, yet we produce nearly 25 percent of the world's waste, hazardous substances, and greenhouse gases. The president also closed the White House special offices on AIDS policy and race relations and, in a move that has stunned women's groups, announced he will not reopen a special White House office on women's issues. In the wake of President Bush's decision to renege on his campaign promise to require coal burning power plants to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, he has imperiled our health and compromised the future of people all over the world. The door has now been flung wide open for energy companies to increase investments in a form of fuel that most of us had hoped was on the way out. The U.S. government is embracing coal, the dirtiest form of fuel, and energy producers around the country have begun expanding this archaic, filthy form of power generation. [coal] Moving coal at Niagara Mohawk's Dunkirk steam station in New York. This coal-fired station produces 600,000 kilowatts of 60 cycle power. (Photo by David Parsons courtesy National Renewable Energy Lab) Over 55 percent of the nation's electricity is generated by the burning of coal. Yet more than 600 coal fired power plants around the country don't meet the air quality standards mandated by the Clean Air Act. In fact, they are specifically exempted from the mandates of the 1990 law, passed during the administration of President George Bush, the present President's father. A large percentage of the coal used in these plants comes from strip mines on Indian Reservations that are so huge, they can be seen from Earth orbit. Since 1974, the Mojave Generating Station and the Navajo Generating Station in Arizona have been polluting the world's air. The Mojave Generating Station alone uses 18,240 tons of coal per day at full load. Combined, the two plants require 12 million tons of coal a year and are the largest polluters in the country. Astronauts saw the pollution cloud from these coal fired plants from the Moon! Black Mesa, Arizona, home of the Hopi Indian Reservation and several thousand Navajo is a classic example of the abusive ethic that is destroying our world. Because the Peabody Group wants to expand its coal strip mine, the U.S. government has been leading the forced relocation of the native people who remain at the site, a place they have inhabited since the U.S. Army tried to wipe them all out in 1863. [Black Mesa] The coal-fired Navajo Generating Station near Page, Arizona (Photo courtesy of Northern Arizona University) Nearly 12,000 native people have been forcibly moved from their tribal lands to a contaminated site in New Mexico, home of the largest radioactive waste spill in U.S. history. Efforts continue to remove the remaining 3,000 people, mostly elders, from Black Mesa. This is but one rarely mentioned legacy of coal. Coal fired power plants emit more toxic pollution than any other form of energy production. For every megawatt hour of electricity produced, coal generates 2,071 pounds of carbon dioxide, 13.8 pounds of sulfur oxides, 4.8 pounds of nitrogen oxides, and 3.2 pounds of particulate matter. By comparison, natural gas emits 1,205 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt hour, 0.008 pounds of sulfur oxides, 4.3 pounds of nitrogen oxides, and negligible particulate matter. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that is contributing to global warming, trapping in heat from the Sun and raising global temperature. Some scientists say that within 50 years, all the world's glaciers may melt. This, combined with a predicted 10.5 degree increase in global temperature over the next century, could raise sea level around the world as much as 10 feet over the next 1,000 years. This process has begun in our lifetimes, and certainly in our children's lifetimes, and we may see many coastal cities around the world obliterated. Volcanoes, sea spray, rotting vegetation and plankton emit sulfur dioxide (SO2). But the largest amounts of it come from the burning of coal and oil. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says that high concentrations of SO2 can result in breathing impairment for asthmatic children and adults who are active outdoors. Short term exposures of asthmatic individuals to elevated SO2 levels can result in reduced lung function. Effects associated with longer term exposures include respiratory illness, alterations in the lungs' defenses, and aggravation of existing cardiovascular disease. Individuals with cardiovascular disease or chronic lung disease, as well as children and the elderly, are particularly at risk. SO2 is also a primary component of acid rain. The pollutant travels hundreds or thousands of miles from where it is emitted and falls with rain, forming sulphuric acid that kills life in lakes and streams, kills forests, eats through paint on cars, and destroys buildings. Outdoor sculptures all over the world are being eaten away by acid rain exposure. [power plant] Cherokee Station coal powered plant Denver, Colorado. (Photo by Warren Gretz courtesy National Renewable Energy Lab) In 2000, the Environment News Service reported that coal and oil fired power plants released almost nine million pounds of toxic metals and metal compounds into the air in 1998, many of which are known or suspected carcinogens and are neurotoxic, affecting the nervous system. A report released by the Harvard School of Public Health in May 2000 said that two coal fired plants in Massachusetts were responsible for affecting 32 million people in New England, New York, and New Jersey. The report said that the two plants were responsible for an estimated 43,000 asthma attacks and 159 premature deaths per year. Between 1988 and 1997, SO2 was decreasing in the U.S. thanks largely to the Clear Air Act and the fact that no new coal fired plants were being built. That situation is surely to change with the new Bush administration's rollbacks of pollution controls. Many analysts are seeing these environmentally destructive policies as payback for the huge contributions made to the Republican campaigns by industry. For example, electric utility companies gave a record $16.4 million to Republicans, says the Center for Responsive Politics. They gave $6 million to Democrats. The chairman of the Peabody Coal Group, one of the nation's largest coal companies, contributed $250,000 to the Republican National Committee. Don't be fooled by rhetoric from our greedy industrialist leaders that coal is cheap and that it can be made "green." The faulty arithmetic used by politicians conveniently omits the costs of increased health care and environmental destruction from the equation. If the true costs of coal were figured in, it would rival nuclear power as the most expensive form of power plant fuel. And coal can't be made very green with today's technology. Many environmental analysts continue to insist that serious energy conservation efforts in the U.S. could eliminate any energy crisis and the need for new power plants. Sadly, serious conservation efforts are not encouraged in a land where the country's health is measured by the rate of industry expansion and the consumption of goods, most of which require electricity. Now more than ever before, it is important for your voice to be heard. Write President Bush and your local legislators and put them on notice that you will not tolerate creating a healthy, favorable climate for business and industry while the climate of our planet and the health of our children is trashed. Tell your elected representatives that you personally are working to change our nation's priorities and that you no longer put the acquisition of goods and the consumption of resources as your reason for living. Tell them that you have no use for a system that creates a robust economy by polluting the earth, the air, the water, and our bodies. Tell them that you are, as of this very minute, no longer working for the greedy three percent of the population that gets rich because we demand cheap goods and services and work hard to buy them. Tell them that your top priority is now the health and happiness of your family and the restoration of your connection to the natural world. If we told all these things to our elected leaders, it would scare them to death - and hopefully into action. RESOURCES 1. Read about the details of the toxic coal industry in an Environment News Service article at: http://ens.lycos.com/ens/aug2000/2000L-08-15-06.html 2. Read about the plight of the Hopi and Navajo people as they fight for their survival against the Peabody Coal Company in Healing Our World articles at: http://www.jps.net/jackieg/articles/may03-1999g.html. For the current status of this crisis, visit the Action Resource Center at: http://www.arcweb.org/campaigns/big_mountain/. 3. For a thorough, and chilling, summary of the Bush administration's recent assault on the environment, see the "Seattle Times" special report. 4. Read about the dangers of sulfur dioxide at: http://www.epa.gov/oar/aqtrnd97/brochure/so2.html 5. See the Harvard study at: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/press/releases/press05042000.html 6. Find out who your Congressional representatives are and e-mail them. If you know your Zip code, you can find them at: http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/ziptoit.html 7. Contact President Bush at: president@whitehouse.gov. Tell him that this assault on the environment and on our health must stop. 8. Use your voice at the Act For Change websiteoperated by Working Assets. There, you can easily send email messages on a variety of issues to the right people. [Jackie Alan Giuliano, Ph.D. is a writer and teacher in Seattle. He can be found preparing for the birth of his son, wondering how to keep him healthy in this troubled world. Send your thoughts and ideas to him at: jackie@healingourworld.comand visit his web site at: http://www.healingourworld.com] © Environment News Service ***************************************************************** 5 Nuclear solution to California power crisis urged - 4/1/2001 - ENN.com Sunday, April 1, 2001 By Robert T. Garrett, The Press-Enterprise, Riverside, Calif. To end California's electricity shortage, the state should build a nuclear power plant to run pumps that bring Sierra-fed water to Southern California, an Inland lawmaker said Thursday. "It's time to revisit nuclear," said Assemblyman Bill Leonard, R-San Bernardino. He said nuclear power is clean and affordable. Leonard has introduced Assembly Bill 1492 to suspend a 1970s state law that, he said, effectively blocks licensing of nuclear power plants. But environmentalists and consumer groups insisted that nuclear power remains unsafe. "It's an outrageous idea," said Medea Benjamin, the Green Party nominee for U.S. Senate last year. "Tell him to get with the 21st century." An energy expert applauded Leonard's attempt to prod Californians to take another look at nuclear power. "We're going to as a nation, get back to nuclear power," predicted James Sweeney, an economist and professor of engineering and management science at Stanford University. "It will be the right thing to do." But even if state law is changed, Sweeney said, federal licensing and the construction of Leonard's proposed plant would take 10 years. By then, he said, California probably will have built enough conventional plants to eliminate shortages. Leonard said he is researching various aspects of nuclear power generation and plans to refine his proposal. A draft of a new version of the bill, not yet introduced, would authorize the state Department of Water Resources to issue revenue bonds and build a nuclear generator at an unspecified location — presumably in the Central Valley, where the State Water Project's big pumping stations are located. As envisioned by Leonard, it would supply the juice needed to run the State Water Project's largest pumping station at Edmonston in Kern County. The Edmonston pumps use enough electricity to serve 640,000 homes, he said. The entire State Water Project is California's single biggest user of electricity, Leonard said. The project includes 29 dams and more than 600 miles of canals that end at Lake Perris. It consumes 2,200 megawatts — enough for 2.2 million homes, Leonard said. "If we would become self-sufficient on the State Water Project, we could almost single-handedly end the power shortages" plaguing California, Leonard said. Leonard, a 22-year veteran of the Legislature who served on the Assembly's first utilities panel, said "the safety record of nuclear (power) in America is incredible." He said spent fuel rods from the proposed reactor can be stored safely under water. He said he does not know how much it would cost to build a nuclear generator. The nuclear plant would be only the third built in the state and the first to be publicly owned and operated. At one time, privately owned electric utilities planned to build 25 nuclear generators along California's coast, said former state Energy Commission member Gene Varanini. Only two were built, including the San Onofre plant near San Clemente, of which Southern California Edison is majority owner and Riverside has a small stake. The other is Pacific Gas &Electric's Diablo Canyon reactor in San Luis Obispo County. The law Leonard wants to suspend says the state should not license additional nuclear power plants until the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission and state licensing officials agree the U.S. has resolved how to dispose of nuclear waste safely and permanently. The federal government still has not agreed on where to build a nuclear-waste repository. Stanford's Sweeney said "what really killed nuclear power plants was ... the cost of constructing them just got too high, given the safety measures that had to be imposed in the plants." Copyright 2001, Distributed by Knight Ridder/Tribune ***************************************************************** 6 Political Heavyweights Weigh In on Nuclear Issues Nuclear Energy Institute March 28, 2001 The airwaves have been filled over the past week with senior Administration and congressional leaders talking about nuclear energy. On MSNBCs Hardball on March 21, Vice President Dick Cheney responded to a question about the threat of global climate change by saying, If you want to do something about carbon dioxide emissions, then you ought to build nuclear power plants & If youre really serious about greenhouse gases, one of the solutions to that problem is to go back and take another look at nuclear power. The Vice President went on to say the policy report that he and his energy task force are preparing for President Bush will deal with the nuclear questions. Last Sunday, House Majority Whip Tom Delay (R-TX) told Tim Russert on NBCs Meet the Press that he absolutely would lead the way in the House to get nuclear energy on the agenda, and that he firmly believes new nuclear power plants will built in the United States. Meanwhile, on PBSs the Charlie Rose Show, Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham on March 21 spoke of the need for balanced energy plan. Were going to look at nuclear energy and what it should provide in terms of a percentage of a diverse energy plan that includes natural gas, coal, hydropower and other renewable energy sources. Another cabinet member, Commerce Secretary Donald Evans, recently told a group of Silicon Valley executives that the construction of more nuclear power plants could be part of the long-term solution to Americas deepening energy troubles, according to the Industry Standard. His comments echoed the sentiments expressed earlier this year by Craig Barrett of Intel and Scott McNealy of Sun Microsystems. Copyright © 2000 Nuclear Energy Institute. ***************************************************************** 7 New nuclear plant possible in Georgia - 2001-04-02 - Atlanta Business Chronicle From the March 30, 2001 print edition Erin Moriarty Staff Writer Though it has been almost three decades since the federal government licensed a new nuclear power plant, Southern Co. may seek permission to build one in Georgia or Alabama. Southern Co. is considering applying for a federal license to build a new plant on the site of one of its existing nuclear power plants, said Lou Long, vice president of technical services for Southern Nuclear Operating Co. The Atlanta-based utility is one of a handful of power companies contemplating building nuclear plants in the midst of the California energy crisis and a new round of pro-nuclear legislation in Washington, D.C. The move marks a major shift in the energy industry, since no licenses to build nuclear power plants in the United States have been granted by the federal government since 1975. More than 100 nuclear power plants have been built in the United States, but the 1979 accident at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania -- which was a near-meltdown -- squelched the momentum of the industry. Now, soaring fossil fuel prices and a new political climate in the nation's capital appear to be resuscitating the nuclear industry. Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., has introduced legislation to spend $240 million over the next five years to promote developing more nuclear power plants and dealing with increasing levels of nuclear waste from the nation's existing power plants. Sen. Frank Murkowski, R-Ala., also has introduced legislation to promote nuclear energy through research and tax incentives. Meanwhile, Vice President Dick Cheney has said his energy policy team is studying the future of nuclear energy. Yet while politicians are touting nuclear power as a remedy for the nation's energy woes, the problem of dealing with mounting levels of highly toxic nuclear waste remains unresolved -- a prospect that worries many industry watchdog groups and environmentalists. Process streamlined Adding to the political momentum, the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which regulates everything from nuclear power plants to nuclear waste, has streamlined the licensing process for new nuclear power plants. Requests from utility companies are evaluated individually and are not awarded through competitive bidding. The commission now allows companies to get early approval of a possible site for a nuclear power plant and to apply for pre-approved designs for nuclear reactors. The new processes will be more efficient for companies seeking to build nuclear power plants, said Thelma Wiggins, spokesperson for the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry's trade association. In addition to several pre-approved designs, another new type of reactor is being tested in South Africa by Chicago-based Exelon Corp. (NYSE: EXC). Southern growth If Southern Co. were to apply for a license to build a new plant, it would use one of the pre-approved designs, Long said. Nonetheless, developing the required documentation and going through the federal review process for a new plant could take several years and cost as much as $6 million, Long said. In order for a new nuclear plant to be competitive, it would have to cost about $1,000 per kilowatt, or $1 billion for a 1,000 megawatt plant, said Michael Jones, spokesperson for Southern Nuclear Operating Co. Southern Co. (NYSE: SO) operates two nuclear power plants in Georgia and one in Alabama, each of which has two nuclear reactors. Industry-watchers predict that Southern Co. would be most likely to apply for a license to build a new nuclear reactor at Plant Vogtle near Augusta, since that plant was originally licensed for four reactors, although only two were built. "There's ample room at Plant Vogtle for some additional units, but all our sites are very big in terms of land area," Long said, noting that many other issues such as water supply would be factors in the decision. Nuclear energy currently generates more than 20 percent of the electricity used in Georgia and Alabama, but Long said the company is cautiously examining whether nuclear energy could play a bigger role at Southern Co. "The price of [natural] gas has doubled and tripled and it's susceptible to periods of volatility when the demand is high. And coal plants bring along some environmental issues," Long said. "Nuclear's big advantage these days is that its fuel prices are low and stable and there are no greenhouse gases and emissions." Southern Co. has a representative on the committee that is studying options for new nuclear power plants at the Nuclear Energy Institute. The Nuclear Energy Institute believes that nuclear power could satisfy the nation's growing appetite for electricity, which it expects to grow 50 percent by 2020. The institute also believes that nuclear production could help meet electricity demand in California. The increase in nuclear generation over the past two years would have been enough to meet the power needs of all the residential consumers in California, according to a report from U.S. Department of Energy. Waste woes But while utilities are contemplating building more nuclear plants, so-called "high-level" nuclear waste from existing nuclear plants is piling up. Nationwide, there were 42,900 metric tons of nuclear waste from power plants -- or "spent" nuclear fuel, as it is called -- at the end of 2000. These spent nuclear fuel rods, if stacked end to end about five yards deep, would more than cover a football field, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute. Some parts of this nuclear waste, which is thermally hot and highly radioactive, are so hazardous they will have to be kept in isolation for at least 10,000 years. By the end of the decade, the amount of spent nuclear fuel is expected to grow to 64,300 metric tons and there is still no consensus on where this waste will be stored long term. Critics of new nuclear plants argue that the nuclear waste issue should be resolved before building more waste-producing plants. "It's irresponsible to push for a new generation of nuclear plants when we haven't cleaned up from the past generation of nuclear plants," said Glenn Carroll of Georgians Against Nuclear Energy (GANE). Southern Co.'s Long contends that the company is handling its own waste responsibly. Carroll believes that Southern Co.'s efforts would be better spent on managing existing nuclear waste and researching other forms of energy. "The progressive and positive leadership role we vitally need Southern Co. to play is to develop energy conservation and efficiency in tandem with using natural Southern renewable energies -- wind, solar and biomass," Carroll said. "The future of the nuclear industry is in figuring out how to deal with the waste. Until we deal with nuclear waste, it's just wrong to propose for new nuclear plants to be built." Many environmental groups, such as Georgians for Clean Energy, agree that investing in alternative forms of energy, rather than new nuclear power plants, would be a safer and more environmentally sound alternative. "It's the only form of energy that if there's a major meltdown of a plant it will cause between 700 to 100,000 immediate deaths and between 4,000 to 610,000 injuries per reactor," said Pamela Blockey-O'Brien, a Douglasville resident who closely follows the nuclear industry and has served as a delegate to the United Nations' special sessions on nuclear disarmament. "We have the equivalent of a nuclear bomb with a slow burning fuse in our back yards that is constantly releasing radioactivity to air, water and soil." Long-term problem The nuclear waste dilemma dates back at least to 1982 when the government established a fee for nuclear utilities, and in return, promised that the U.S. Department of Energy would begin disposing of their nuclear waste by 1998. However, the government has not yet assumed this responsibility because its chosen site for a national storage facility, Yucca Mountain, Nev., has faced fierce opposition and has been tied up for a decade in research, as well as political, legal and environmental battles. The government's national repository is not expected to open until at least 2010. With no immediate resolution in sight, some environmentalists fear that the nuclear industry -- especially with the gleam of new nuclear plants in its eyes -- could bury the nation in a nuclear waste problem that may never be resolved. "It's all about money for utility companies," Blockey-O'Brien said. "They don't care because they're going to die before the waste issue is taken care of and it will passed on to generations and generations and generations." 2001 American City Business Journals Inc. ***************************************************************** 8 Letters: Heat turned on Bush Guardian Unlimited | The Guardian | Monday April 2, 2001 President Bush may be an "oil man", but he is surrounded by advisers whose overt agenda is a nuclear power revival (EU dismay as Bush reneges on Kyoto, March 30). Dick Cheney's latest pronouncements on the alleged benefits of splitting the atom to boil water have been followed by reversals on environmental promises and regulations and now the withdrawal from Kyoto. None of this should come as a surprise when examining Bush's energy coterie led by Joe Colvin, head of the nuclear industry's lobbying group, the Nuclear Energy Institute, and Tom Kuhn, a Harvard buddy who runs the Edison Electric Institute, the trade group for the US electric power industry. Energy secretary Spencer Abraham, another fan of fission, wants to end the nuclear waste debate, one of the most compelling arguments against new reactors, by opening the controversial Yucca Mountain dump soon. He should pay attention to the protests in Germany. If Bush gives the green light to nuclear waste trains, it will serve as a red rag to hundreds of thousands of US citizens who, in poll after poll, have declared their fervent opposition to nuclear power. Linda Gunter Safe Energy Communication Council, Washington DC lcpentz@erols.com The government's nature conservation organisations are disappointed at the announcement from the White House. There is widespread agreement among scientists that climate change will have far-reaching consequences for both natural and human environments - floods, droughts and rising sea-levels. New research into the impacts of climate change on the wildlife of the British Isles will clearly show how the unprecedented rates of change predicted for the next 50 years will adversely affect many of our habitats and species; some quite literally will have "no place to go". The Kyoto protocol represents a vital starting point for the international community to agree mechanisms and targets for reducing global greenhouse gas emissions. Progress must now be made with or without the cooperation of the US. Mike Harley, English Nature Simon Bareham, Countryside Council for Wales Marcus Yeo, Joint Nature Conservation Committee Noranne Ellis, Scottish Natural Heritage Stan Coveney (Letters, March 31) suggests the Kyoto protocol will prevent developing nations from pursuing standards of living that we enjoy. Unfortunately, unless we all develop different ways of achieving those standards, it will be physically impossible for all the world's people to emulate the present standards of the rich nations. The area of land and water needed to produce all the resources consumed and to assimilate all the wastes generated if the whole world lived like us would require several planets. Dr Peter Slade Guildford peterslade@ntlworld.com Under article 20 of the WTO, a government can consider using trade constraints to protect the environment. The EU, the only continent powerful enough to challenge the US, should therefore tell the WTO that it is to do just that to US exports. US cheap energy also constitutes unfair competition. Those US sectors that are the major beneficiaries of Bush's irresponsible policies should be prevented, for example, from attempting to buy their way into Europe's increasingly deregulated energy supply market. Colin Hines East Twickenham, Middx I wonder if the smug liberals who voted for Nader still believe there is no difference between Gore and Bush? Paul Lay London Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited ***************************************************************** 9 New Emergency Powerdown at Czech Nuclear Plant TEMELIN, Apr 2, 2001 -- (Agence France Presse) A disputed Czech nuclear plant was again powered down under emergency procedures after an oil leak, its latest in an increasingly frequent series of glitches, a spokesman said Monday. Output from the Soviet-built Temelin plant, which has sparked fierce protests in neighboring Austria, was cut to less than 2 percent overnight after "several hundred liters" of oil leaked, said the spokesman. The leak, in a secondary, non-nuclear circuit of the plant's sole reactor, was due to a "seal problem", said the spokesman. The Temelin plant, some 60 kilometers (35 miles) from the Austrian border, was only powered up again on Sunday after its previous technical glitch. By Sunday night, it had been producing 40 percent of its 1,000 Megawatt maximum output. The incident was the third in as many weeks, and follows a long series of problems and shutdowns at the plant since it was first powered up last October. Managers at the plant announced last week that it will be completely shut down for at least a month in June threatening to delay a commercial launch Prague hoped would take place this summer. The Czech government, which suffered a slump in economic growth in recent years, has pressing economic reasons for building the plant, which when fully on stream will provide some 20 percent of the country's power needs. But neighboring Austria, which rejected nuclear energy in a 1978 referendum, has demanded safety guarantees for the plant. Vienna at one stage threatened to block Prague's EU membership negotiations over Temelin. But it signed an accord last December agreeing to allow the plant to start up, but only after safety and environmental studies had been carried out. The accord specified that the plant could start producing electricity commercially if all conditions were fulfilled. *((c) 2001 Agence France Presse) ***************************************************************** 10 The Committee on Energy and Commerce: Hearing The House Committee On Energy and Commerce W.J. "Billy" Tauzin, Chairman* Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality Hearing National Energy Policy: Nuclear Energy March 27, 2001 1:00 PM 2123 Rayburn House Office Building The Honorable Pete V. Domenici U.S. Senate 328 Hart Office Building Washington, DC, 20510 STATEMENT Mr. Chairman, thank you for the invitation to testify before your Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality. I compliment you on the choice of subject for this hearing, the role of nuclear energy in national energy policy -- this issue is of critical importance to our nation’s energy and economic security. Nuclear energy now provides about 22 percent of our electricity from 103 nuclear reactors. The operating costs of nuclear energy are among the lowest of any source. The Utility Data Institute recently reported production costs for nuclear at 1.83 cents per kilowatt-hour, with coal at 2.08 cents per kilowatt-hour. Through careful optimization of operating efficiencies, the output of nuclear plants has risen dramatically since the 1980's; nuclear plants operated with an amazing 87 percent capacity factor in 2000. Since 1990, with no new nuclear plants, the output of our plants has still increased by over 20 percent. That’s equivalent to gaining the output of about 20 new nuclear plants without building any. Safety has been a vital focus, as evidenced by a constant decrease in the number of emergency shutdowns, or "scrams," in our domestic plants. In 1985, there were 2.4 scrams per reactor, last year there were just 0.03. While some use the Three Mile Island accident to highlight their concerns with nuclear energy, the fact remains that our safety systems worked at Three Mile Island and no members of the public were endangered. Another example of the exemplary safety of nuclear reactors, when properly designed and managed, lies with our nuclear navy. They now operate about 90 nuclear powered ships, and over the years, they’ve operated about 250 reactors in all. In that time, they’ve accumulated 5,400 reactor-years of operation, over twice the number of reactor-years in our civilian sector. In all that time, they have never had a significant incident with their reactors. They are welcomed into over 150 major foreign ports in over 50 countries. Nuclear energy and coal are our major producers of our electricity -- those two sources provide over 70 percent. In both cases, their use presents significant risks. Together, they illustrate a fundamental point, that absolutely every source of energy presents both benefits and risks. It’s our responsibility to ensure that citizens are presented with accurate information on benefits and risks, information that is free from any political biases. And where risk areas are noted, it’s our responsibility to devise programs that mitigate or avoid the risks. Solutions, through careful research, for clean coal and for nuclear waste storage address key risk areas for these two electricity sources. Interest in our nuclear plants is increasing along with dramatically increased confidence in their ability to contribute to our energy needs. Interest in re-licensing plants, to extend their lifetime beyond the originally planned 40 years, has greatly expanded. The NRC has now approved re-licensing for 5 reactors, and over 30 other reactors have begun the renewal process. Industry experts now expect virtually all operating plants to apply for license extension. Nuclear energy is essentially emission free. We avoided the emission of 167 million tons of carbon last year or more than 2 billion tons since the 1970's. In 1999, nuclear power plants provided about half of the total carbon reductions achieved by U.S. industry under the federal voluntary reporting program. The inescapable fact is that nuclear energy is making an immense contribution to the environmental health of our nation. But unfortunately, when it comes to nuclear energy, we’re living on our past global leadership. Most of the technologies that drive the world’s nuclear energy systems originated here. Much of our early leadership derived from our requirements for a nuclear navy; that work enabled many of the civilian aspects of nuclear power. Our reactor designs are found around the world. The reprocessing technology used in some countries originated here. The fuel designs in use around the world largely were developed here. This nation provided the global leadership to start the age of nuclear energy. Now, our leadership is seriously at risk. No nuclear plant has been ordered in the United States in over 20 years. To some extent, this was driven by decreases in energy demand following the early oil price shocks and from public fears about Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. But we also have allowed complex environmental reviews and regulatory stalemates to extend approval and construction times and to seriously undercut prospects for any additional plants. As a nation, we cannot afford to lose the nuclear energy option until we are ready to specify with confidence how we are going to replace 22 percent of our electricity with some other source offering comparable safety, reliability, low cost, and environmental attributes. We risk our nation’s future prosperity if we lose the nuclear option through inaction. Instead, we need concrete action to secure the nuclear option for future generations. We must not subject the nation to the risk of inadequate energy supplies. In closing, Mr. Chairman, There is no single "silver bullet" that will address our nation’s thirst for clean, reliable, reasonably priced, energy sources. Energy is far too important to our economic and military strength to rely on any small subset of the available options. In my view, it is critically important to our nation that nuclear energy be treated as a strong, viable option for our nation’s electricity needs now and into the distant future. This would ensure that future generations continue to enjoy clean, safe, reliable electricity and the many benefits that this energy source provides. The Committee on Energy and Commerce 2125 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 (202) 225-2927 Feedback ***************************************************************** 11 Hearing Statement: NRC EDO William Travers The Committee on Energy and Commerce: Hearing *The House Committee On Energy and Commerce W.J. "Billy" Tauzin, Chairman* Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality Hearing National Energy Policy: Nuclear Energy March 27, 2001 1:00 PM 2123 Rayburn House Office Building Dr. William D. Travers Executive Director for Operations U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC, 20555 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ONE PAGE SUMMARY THE U.S. NATIONAL ENERGY POLICY: NUCLEAR ENERGY I am pleased to submit this testimony on behalf of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regarding the NRC’s perspective on how nuclear energy fits into the U.S. National Energy Policy. As the Subcommittee knows, the Commission does not have a promotional role - - the agency’s role is to ensure the safe application of nuclear technology if society elects to pursue the nuclear energy option. The Commission recognizes, however, that its regulatory system should not establish inappropriate impediments to the application of nuclear technology. Currently there are 104 nuclear power plants licensed by the Commission to operate in the United States in 31 different states. As a group, plants are operating at high levels of safety and reliability and have produced approximately 20% of our Nation’s electricity for the past several years. As deregulation of electricity generation proceeds, the Commission is seeing significant restructuring among the licensees and the start of the consolidation of nuclear generating capacity among a smaller group of operating companies. One of the more immediate results of the economic deregulation of the electric power industry has been the development of a market for nuclear power plants as capital assets. As a result, the Commission has seen a significant increase in the number of requests for approval of license transfers. Another result of the new economic conditions is an increasing interest in license renewal that would allow plants to operate beyond the original 40-year term. That term, which was established in the Atomic Energy Act, did not reflect a limitation that was determined by engineering or scientific considerations, but rather was based on financial and anti-trust concerns. The focus of the Commission’s review of applications is on maintaining plant safety, with the primary concern directed at the effects of aging on important systems, structures, and components. The Commission has now renewed the licenses of plants at two sites for an additional 20 years, comprising a total of five units. The thorough reviews of these applications were completed ahead of schedule. Applications for units from three additional sites are currently under review. Many more applications for renewal are anticipated in the coming years. Although the Commission has met the projected schedules for the first reviews, it would like the renewal process to become as effective and efficient as possible In recent years, the Commission has approved numerous license amendments that permit its licensees to make relatively small power uprates, but collectively, these uprates supplied the electricity equivalent to that from two large power plants (approximately 2,000 MWe). The Commission has received applications for several substantial uprates, and anticipates additional applications in the near term. The Commission has responded to numerous requests to approve spent fuel cask designs and independent spent fuel storage installations for onsite dry storage of spent fuel. These actions have provided an interim approach pending implementation of a program for the long-term disposition of spent fuel. The Commission also is in a period of dynamic change as the Agency moves from a prescriptive, deterministic approach towards a more risk-informed and performance-based regulatory paradigm. Perhaps the most visible aspect of the Commission’s efforts to risk-inform its regulatory framework is the new reactor oversight process. Serious industry interest in new construction of nuclear power plants in the U.S. has only recently emerged. The Commission has already certified three new reactor designs and is conducting preliminary reviews associated with other new designs –which some people believe can provide enhanced benefits. The NRC has identified areas where new legislation would be helpful to eliminate artificial restrictions and reduce uncertainty in the licensing process. Introduction Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to submit this testimony on behalf of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regarding the NRC’s perspective on how nuclear energy fits into the U.S. National Energy Policy. As the Subcommittee knows, the Commission’s mission is to ensure the adequate protection of public health and safety, the common defense and security, and the environment in the application of nuclear technology for civilian use. The Commission does not have a promotional role - - the agency’s role is to ensure the safe application of nuclear technology if society elects to pursue the nuclear energy option. The Commission recognizes, however, that its regulatory system should not establish inappropriate impediments to the application of nuclear technology. Many of the Commission’s initiatives over the past several years have sought to maintain or enhance safety while simultaneously improving the efficiency and effectiveness of our regulatory system. The Commission also recognizes that its decisions and actions as a regulator influence the public’s perception of the NRC and ultimately the public’s perception of the safety of nuclear technology. For this reason, the Commission’s primary performance goals also include increasing public confidence. The Commission’s primary focus is on safety. The Commission nonetheless recognizes that the quality, predictability, and timeliness of its regulatory actions bear on licensee decisions related to construction and operation of nuclear power plants. Background Currently there are 104 nuclear power plants licensed by the Commission to operate in the United States in 31 different states. As a group, they are operating at high levels of safety and reliability. _________________________ *Calendar year values used for 1986 through 1995. Fiscal year values are used beginning in 1996. **The hatched areas represent additional data that resulted from reclassification of safety system failures. These plants have produced approximately 20% of our nation's electricity for the past several years and are operated by about 40 different companies. In 2000, these nuclear power plants produced a record 755-thousand gigawatt-hours of electricity. Improved Licensee Efficiencies (Increased Capacity Factors) The nation’s nuclear electricity generators have worked over the past 10 years to improve nuclear power plant performance, reliability, and efficiency. According to the Nuclear Energy Institute, the improved performance of the U.S. nuclear power plants since 1990 is equivalent to placing 23 new 1000-MWe power plants on line. The average capacity factor1 for U.S. light water reactors was 86 percent in 1999, up from 63 percent just 10 years ago. The Commission has focused on ensuring that safety has not been compromised as a result of these industry efforts. The Commission will continue to carry out its regulatory responsibilities in an effective and efficient manner so as not to impede industry initiatives inappropriately. U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Reactor Average Capacity Factor and Net Generation Net Generation of Electricity Year Number of Reactors Licensed to Operate Average Annual Capacity Factor (Percent) Thousands of Gigawatthours Percent of Total U.S. 1989 109 63 528 19.0 1990 111 68 576 20.5 1991 111 71 613 21.7 1992 110 71 620 22.2 1993 109 73 611 21.2 1994 109 75 640 22.1 1995 109 79 674 22.5 1996 110 77 670 21.9 1997 104 74 628 20.1 1998 104 78 673 22.6 1999 104 86 727 19.8 Electric Industry Restructuring As the Subcommittee is aware, the nuclear industry has undergone a period of remarkable change. The industry is in a period of transition in several dimensions, probably experiencing more rapid change than in any other period in the history of civilian nuclear power. As deregulation of electricity generation proceeds, the Commission is seeing significant restructuring among the licensees and the start of the consolidation of nuclear generating capacity among a smaller group of operating companies. In part, this change is due to an industry that has achieved gains in both economic and safety performance over the past decade and thus has been able to take advantage of the opportunities presented by industry restructuring. The Commission has established a regulatory system that is technically sound, that is fair, predictable, and reaches decisions with reasonable dispatch. Initiatives in the Area of Current Reactor Regulation License Transfers One of the more immediate results of the economic deregulation of the electric power industry has been the development of a market for nuclear power plants as capital assets themselves. As a result, the Commission has seen a significant increase in the number of requests for approval of license transfers. These requests increased from a historical average of about two or three per year, to 20 - 25 in the past two years. The Commission has assured that our reviews of license transfer applications, which focus on adequate protection of public health and safety, are conducted efficiently. These reviews sometimes require a significant expenditure of talent and energy by our staff to ensure a high quality and timely result. Our legislative proposal to eliminate foreign ownership review could help to further streamline the process. To date, the Commission believes that it has been timely in these transfers. For example, in CY 2000, the staff has reviewed and approved transfers in periods ranging from four to eight months, depending on the complexity of the applications. The Commission will strive to continue to perform at this level of proficiency even in the face of continued demand. License Renewals Another result of the new economic conditions is an increasing interest in license renewal that would allow plants to operate beyond the original 40-year term. That term, which was established in the Atomic Energy Act (AEA), did not reflect a limitation that was determined by engineering or scientific considerations, but rather was based on financial and antitrust concerns. The Commission now has the technical bases and experience on which to base judgments about the potential useful life and safe operation of facilities and is addressing the question of extensions beyond the original 40-year term. The focus of the Commission’s review of applications is on maintaining plant safety, with the primary concern directed at the effects of aging on important systems, structures, and components. Applicants must demonstrate that they have identified and can manage the effects of aging so as to maintain an acceptable level of safety during the period of extended operation. The Commission has now renewed the licenses of plants at two sites for an additional 20 years: Calvert Cliffs in Maryland, and Oconee in South Carolina, comprising a total of five units. The thorough reviews of these applications were completed ahead of schedule, which is indicative of the care exercised by licensees in the preparation of the applications and the planning and dedication of the Commission staff. Applications for units from three additional sites -- Hatch in Georgia, ANO-1 in Arkansas, and Turkey Point in Florida -- are currently under review. As indicated by our licensees, many more applications for renewal are anticipated in the coming years. Although the Commission has met the projected schedules for the first reviews, it would like the renewal process to become as effective and efficient as possible. The extent to which the Commission is able to sustain or improve on our performance depends on the rate at which applications are actually received, the quality of the applications, and the ability to staff the review effort. The Commission recognizes the importance of license renewal and is committed to providing high-priority attention to this effort. As you know, the Commission encourages early notification by licensees, in advance of their intentions to seek renewals, in order to allow adequate planning so as not to create unmanageable demands on staff resources. Reactor Plant Power Uprates In recent years, the Commission has approved numerous license amendments that permit its licensees to make relatively small power uprates (approximately 2-7 percent increases in the output of a facility). Collectively, these uprates supplied the electricity equivalent to that from two large power plants (approximately 2,000 MWe). The Commission has received applications for several substantial uprates, and anticipates more within the near term. In addition, some nuclear generators have requested Commission safety review of increasing fuel burnup, thereby extending the operating cycle between refueling outages and thus increasing nuclear plant capacity factors. Such approvals are granted only after a thorough evaluation by Commission staff to ensure that safe operation and shutdown can be achieved at the higher power and increased fuel burnup. High Level Waste Storage/Disposal (Spent Fuel Storage) In the past several years, the Commission has responded to numerous requests to approve spent fuel cask designs and independent spent fuel storage installations for onsite dry storage of spent fuel. These actions have provided an interim approach pending implementation of a program for the long-term disposition of spent fuel. The ability of the Commission to review and approve these requests has provided the needed additional onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel, thereby avoiding plant shutdowns as spent fuel pools reach their capacity. The Commission anticipates that the current lack of a final disposal site will result in a large increase in on-site dry storage capacity during this decade. The Commission is currently reviewing an application for an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation on the reservation of the Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians in Utah. Certain matters also need to be resolved in order to make progress on a deep geologic repository for disposal of spent nuclear fuel. The Energy Policy Act of 1992 requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to promulgate general standards to govern the site, while the Commission has the obligation to implement those standards through its licensing and regulatory process. The Commission has concerns about certain aspects of EPA’s proposed approach and is working with EPA to resolve these issues. Risk-Informing the Commission’s Regulatory Framework The Commission also is in a period of dynamic change as the Agency moves from a prescriptive, deterministic approach towards a more risk-informed and performance-based regulatory paradigm. Improved probabilistic risk assessment techniques combined with over four decades of accumulated experience with operating nuclear power reactors have led the Commission to recognize that some regulations may not serve their intended safety purpose and may not be necessary to provide adequate protection of public health and safety. Where that is the case, the Commission has determined it should revise or eliminate the requirements. On the other hand, the Commission is prepared to strengthen our regulatory system where risk considerations reveal the need. Perhaps the most visible aspect of the Commission’s efforts to risk-inform its regulatory framework is the new reactor oversight process. The process was initiated on a pilot basis in 1999 and fully implemented in April 2000. The new process was developed to focus inspection effort on those areas involving greater risk to the plant and thus to workers and the public, while simultaneously providing a more objective and transparent process. While the Commission continues to work with its stakeholders to assess the effectiveness of the revised oversight process, the feedback received from industry and the public is favorable. Future Activities Scheduling and Organizational Assumptions Associated with New Reactor Designs While improved performance of operating nuclear power plants has resulted in significant increases in electrical output, significant increased demands for electricity will need to be addressed by construction of new generating capacity of some type. Serious industry interest in new construction of nuclear power plants in the U.S. has only recently emerged. As you know, the Commission has already certified three new reactor designs pursuant to 10 CFR Part 52. These designs include General Electric’s advanced boiling water reactor, Westinghouse’s AP-600 and Combustion Engineering’s System 80+. Because the Commission has certified these designs, a new plant order may include one of these approved designs. However, the staff is also conducting a preliminary review associated with other new designs. In addition to the three already certified advanced reactor designs, there are new nuclear power plant technologies, such as the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor, which some believe can provide enhanced safety, improved efficiency, lower costs, as well as other benefits. To ensure that the Commission staff is prepared to evaluate any applications to introduce these advanced nuclear reactors, the Commission recently directed the staff to assess the technical, licensing, and inspection capabilities that would be necessary to review an application for an early site permit, a license application, or construction permit for a new reactor unit. This will include the capability to review the designs for generation III+ or generation IV light water reactors including the Westinghouse AP-1000, the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor, and the International Reactor Innovative and Secure (IRIS) designs. In addition to assessing its capability to review the new designs, the Commission will also examine its regulations relating to license applications, such as 10 CFR Parts 50 and 52, in order to identify whether any enhancements are necessary. In order to confirm the safety of new reactor designs and technology, the Commission believes that a strong nuclear research program should be maintained. A comprehensive evaluation of the Commission’s research program is underway with assistance from a group of outside experts and from the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards. With the benefit of these insights, the Commission expects to undertake measures to strengthen our research program over the coming months. Human Capital Linked to these technical and regulatory assessments, the Commission is reviewing its human capital to assure that the appropriate professional staff is available for the Commission to fulfill its traditional safety mission, as well as any new regulatory responsibilities in the area of licensing new reactor designs. In some important offices within the Commission, nearly 25 percent of the staff are eligible to retire today. In fact, the Commission has six times as many staff over the age of 60 as it has staff under 30. And, as with many Federal agencies, it is becoming increasingly difficult for the Commission to hire personnel with the knowledge, skills, and abilities to conduct the safety reviews, licensing, research, and oversight actions that are essential to our safety mission. Moreover, the number of individuals with the technical skills critical to the achievement of the Commission’s safety mission is rapidly declining in the Nation and the educational system is not replacing them. The Commission’s staff has taken steps to address this situation, and as a result, is now seeking systematically to identify future staffing needs and to develop strategies to address the gaps. It is apparent, however, that the maintenance of a technically competent staff will require substantial effort for an extended time. As the Commission is currently challenged to meet its existing workload with available resources, additional resources would be necessary to respond to increased workload which could result from some of the initiatives discussed in this testimony. Implications of a National Energy Policy The Commission has a stake in a national energy policy and has identified areas where new legislation would be helpful to eliminate artificial restrictions and to reduce the uncertainty in the licensing process. These changes would maintain safety while increasing flexibility in decision-making. Although those changes would have little or no immediate impact on electrical supply, they would help establish the context for consideration of nuclear power by the private sector without any compromise of public health and safety or protection of the environment. Legislation will be needed to extend the Price-Anderson Act. The Act, which expires on August 1, 2002, establishes a framework that provides assurance that adequate funds are available in the event of a nuclear accident and sets out the process for consideration of nuclear claims. Without the framework provided by the Act, private-sector participation in nuclear power would be discouraged by the risk of large liabilities. Several other legislative changes would be helpful. For example, Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970 could be revised to provide the Commission with the sole responsibility to establish all generally applicable standards related to Atomic Energy Act (AEA) materials, thereby avoiding dual regulation of such matters by other agencies. Along these same lines, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 could be amended to provide the Commission with the sole authority to establish standards for high-level radioactive waste disposal. These changes would serve to provide full protection of public health and safety, provide consistency, and avoid needless and duplicative regulatory burden. Commission antitrust reviews could also be eliminated. As a result of the growth of Federal antitrust law since the passage of the AEA, the Commission’s antitrust reviews are redundant of the reviews of other agencies. The requirement for Commission review of such matters, which are distant from the Commission’s central expertise, should be eliminated. Elimination of the ban on foreign ownership of U.S. nuclear plants would be an enhancement since many of the entities that are involved in electrical generation have foreign participants, thereby making the ban on foreign ownership increasingly anachronistic. The Commission has authority to deny a license that would be inimical to the common defense and security, and thus an outright ban on all foreign ownership is unnecessary. With the strong Congressional interest in examining energy policy, the Commission is optimistic that there will be a legislative vehicle for making these changes and thereby for updating the AEA. Summary The Commission has long been, and will continue to be, active in concentrating its staffs’ efforts on ensuring the adequate protection of public health and safety, the common defense and security, and the environment in the application of nuclear technology for civilian use. Those statutory mandates notwithstanding, the Commission is mindful of the need to: 1) reduce unnecessary burdens, so as not to inappropriately inhibit any renewed interest in nuclear power; (2) maintain open communications with all its stakeholders, in order to seek to ensure the full, fair, and timely consideration of issues that are brought to our attention; and (3) continue to encourage its highly qualified staff to strive for increased efficiency and effectiveness, both in our dealings with all the Commission’s stakeholders and internally within the agency. I look forward to working with the Committee, and I welcome your comments and questions. The Committee on Energy and Commerce 2125 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 (202) 225-2927 ***************************************************************** 12 Hearing Statement: DOE: W. Magwood The Committee on Energy and Commerce: Hearing *The House Committee On Energy and Commerce W.J. "Billy" Tauzin, Chairman* Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality Hearing National Energy Policy: Nuclear Energy March 27, 2001 1:00 PM 2123 Rayburn House Office Building Mr. William D. Magwood Director Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology U.S. Department of Energy 1000 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC, 20585 Several U.S. electric utilities are considering building new nuclear power plants in the United States in the very near term. Just a few years ago, many analysts were projecting the decline of nuclear power. They believed that few utilities would long operate their nuclear power plants. Reality has proven these projections to be wrong. Dozens of plants have already begun or will soon begin the NRC license renewal process -- most, if not all, are expected to follow. The reasons for this reversal of nuclear fortunes are very clear: 1) Nuclear plants have performed exceedingly well. As a group, U.S. nuclear utilities have improved the availability of their plants from about 70 percent in 1990 to close to 90 percent today and are producing electricity at about 2 cents per kilowatt-hour (about the same as the most efficient natural gas plants); 2) Consolidation of the nuclear utility industry is leading to the formation of large nuclear utilities with tremendous efficiencies and expertise in operations, maintenance, and training and who have a long-term interest in nuclear power; and 3) The NRC has reformed its operation and has, with the success of its license renewal process, proven itself to be a fair and consistent regulator with which industry can work to continue operating new plants and potentially build new ones. Because nuclear power has many benefits -- it emits neither health-harming pollutants nor carbon dioxide -- DOE has played and is playing a key role in addressing issues that might become obstacles to its future expansion. Our Nuclear Energy Plant Optimization (NEPO) program helps ensure the long-term reliability and economy of current nuclear plants to continue delivering reliable and economic energy beyond their initial 40-year license. We are working with NRC and industry to make advanced U.S. nuclear plant designs -- such as have been and are being constructed in Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan -- deployable in the U.S. in the near term. We are working with NRC to make gas-cooled reactors such as the Gas-Turbine Modular Helium Reactor and the Pebble-Bed Modular Reactor licensable in the U.S. in the next few years. Finally, DOE is leading the international community in the development of Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems. Gen IV technologies represent the next step in nuclear power technology and will result in nuclear systems that will be economically competitive with all alternatives, employ enhanced characteristics which will have safety, waste minimization, and nonproliferation benefits, and live up to the promises made by nuclear technologists in the early years of Atomic power. STATEMENT Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am William D. Magwood, IV, Director of the Department of Energy’s Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology. My office is charged to apply the science, engineering, and art of nuclear technology to address a wide range of civilian requirements. We support research and provide radioisotopes to find new treatments for cancer. We provide the advanced power systems without which the United States cannot explore the solar system. We develop new, advanced technologies to deal with spent nuclear fuel. But our core and most important mission–especially in these days of energy supply concern– is the development of advanced nuclear energy technologies to satisfy the energy needs of the United States in a clean, safe, and cost-effective manner. Our program has undergone a dramatic transformation in the last three years. With the completion of the advanced light water reactor program in fiscal year 1998, we saw our nuclear energy research budget essentially fall to zero. With a great deal of planning and hard work; advice from our independent advisory committee, the Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee (NERAC) and its many subcommittees and task forces; and effective and focused support from the Congress, we have turned the program around. Our office is now focused on three key missions: • Supporting R&D that enhances nuclear power ’s viability as part of the U.S. energy portfolio. • The support for irreplaceable U.S. nuclear R&D infrastructure, both in the Government and in U.S. universities; and • Support for students and programs to develop the human capital required to preserve a viable future for nuclear technology in the United States. While I will touch on all of these key missions in my statement today, I will primarily focus on the first one to provide you with information regarding our technology activities and how they impact the future of nuclear energy in the United States. Recent Developments: *A Path to a Viable Future for U.S. Nuclear Energy * First, however, I would like to provide you with some context for our efforts. Just a few years ago, many analysts were predicting the end of nuclear energy in the United States. Many predicted that–in the face of electric industry competition–large numbers of nuclear power plants would be shut down before the end of their 40-year licenses and the amount of energy generated by U.S. plants would slowly erode. Many believed that nuclear couldn’t compete–that U.S. utilities would turn away from their plants, largely forego license renewals, and invest in alternative sources of electric generation. Reality has proven these forecasts to be incorrect. For the most part, it was always clear that the picture would be brighter than the worse predictions foresaw. But few, even those of us who watch nuclear industry developments closest, would have predicted the turn-around that is occurring today. This reversal of nuclear fortunes has reinforced the Department’s re-energized nuclear R&D activities. We perceive three key reasons for this change in the United States: 1) *Performance of nuclear utilities.* Little more than a decade ago, U.S. nuclear power plants were generating electricity only about 70% of the time. Today, the average is approaching 90%. U.S. nuclear plants rank high when compared with the nuclear plants of other countries and compare very favorably with other sources of generation in the United States. In fact, the average nuclear plant in the U.S. produces electricity at only about two cents per kilowatt-hour -- far below the average U.S. market price and about the same as the most efficient natural gas-fired power plants. Moreover, our colleagues at the Energy Information Administration (EIA) have just reported that U.S. nuclear power plants broke another record, producing more electricity in the year 2000 than ever before -- despite the closure of eight less efficient units over the last decade. 2) *Consolidation of the nuclear utility industry.* Because of the performance of U.S. plants, they have become attractive targets for acquisition. We are now seeing the formation of large nuclear utilities in the United States that more closely resemble the large nuclear-focused power companies in countries like Japan. Instead of many utilities owning one or two plants, we expect that there will soon be far fewer nuclear utilities, with each owning a dozen or more plants. The highly successful Exelon Corporation is a prototype of what appears to be taking shape in this country. This development not only provides for considerable efficiencies of scale in parts, training, and other aspects of operation, but it has two other benefits of possibly greater import. First, consolidation exploits a realization that swept through the industry less than a decade ago: that the safest plants were the most cost-competitive plants and that good management was the key to both. As the best operators of nuclear plants acquire more plants, the performance of nuclear plants is likely to increase. Second, as in other countries which plan to build new plants, large utilities with majority nuclear generation have a long-term interest in nuclear power well beyond that of utilities that operate one plant as part of a larger system. 3) *Successful management at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.* Not long ago, many utility executives cited the unpredictability of regulation in the U.S. as a primary barrier to the construction of new plants in the U.S. and an obstacle to utilities seeking license renewals to operate their nuclear power plants for an additional 20 years. NRC has since that time shown itself to be a fair and effective regulator of the nuclear industry. Its process to approve the renewal of the operating license for the Calvert Cliffs plant and later for the three-unit Oconee plant was a tremendous success for both the Commission and the industry. Completed years earlier and millions less expensively than most analysts predicted, these first license renewals proved that the industry could rely on the NRC for fair, stable, effective, and predictable regulation. Thirty-three nuclear power plants are entering the renewal process now and informal contacts with utility executives now indicate that the overwhelming majority–if not all–of U.S. nuclear power plant owners are planning to apply for license renewals for their nuclear units. Maintaining a strong option to build new nuclear power plants to meet near and long-term energy needs is not an end unto itself for the United States. Nuclear power plants provide important benefits that are not found with other energy options. Nuclear plants do not emit pollutants such as nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, mercury, or particulates that affect human health. Nor do nuclear plants emit carbon dioxide. These plants have proven to be highly reliable in all weather conditions, cost-effective in operation, and act as crucial anchors to the national electric grid. That said, like all sources of energy, nuclear power has issues with which we must deal. Utilities must be certain that the high costs for construction that characterize many plants completed in the late 1980s and early 1990s are not repeated. The United States must successfully resolve the nuclear waste issue. And any remaining public concern over the safety of nuclear plants must be fully addressed. As I conclude my remarks, I will discuss the challenges ahead including some of the barriers that must still be overcome to enable the United States to maintain a strong nuclear energy option for the future. With this backdrop, I would like to highlight what the Department is doing in the nuclear energy arena. We are active in three areas that affect the future of nuclear energy: • We are supporting cooperative research with the utility industry to develop advanced technologies to enable existing nuclear power plants to operate reliably and cost-effectively into the long-term; • We are pursuing technology and institutional activities to clear the way for near-term deployment of nuclear power plants in the United States; and • We are leading a world-wide effort to develop standard, next-generation nuclear energy technologies that could enable nuclear power to fully meet the promise our predecessors saw in the 1950s and 1960s. Technology for Current Plants: *Building on Success * To discuss the prospects for new nuclear power plants in the United States, it is essential that existing U.S. plants be successful–both in terms of safety performance and in terms of economic competitiveness. The industry has made impressive strides to meet this condition, particularly over the last decade. The Department assisted in making some of this performance possible through its past programs to develop high-burnup nuclear fuel (which has enabled utilities to reduce their fuel costs by half, saving some $200 million each year) and to reduce occupational radiation exposures by 67% since 1985. Now we enter a new phase. As U.S. plants receive license renewals, they must be prepared to operate for an additional 20 years–a total of 60 years--far longer than nuclear plants have been operated to date. While NRC’s license renewals confirm that safety will not be impacted as these plants operate for the long term, it is less clear what long-term operation means for reliability and cost-effectiveness. The application of advanced technologies can also continue the process of enhancing safety. The Department’s Nuclear Energy Plant Optimization (NEPO) program plays a vital role in ensuring that current nuclear plants can continue to deliver reliable and economic energy supplies up to and beyond their initial 40-year license period by resolving open issues related to plant aging, and by applying new technologies to improve plant economics, reliability, and availability. The NEPO program is cost-shared with industry through the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) and is conducted in close cooperation with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The research conducted under the NEPO program is identified, prioritized, and selected with broad input from utilities, national laboratories, the Department’s Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee (NERAC), and other stakeholders. With dozens of projects underway, this program demonstrates the Department’s ability to lead without massive funding: about 60 percent of NEPO funding is provided by industry and the suite of projects focuses on areas that industry would not have pursued on its own–projects that look at the long-term and focus on the need for a stable, reliable, non-polluting electricity source for the United States. Near-Term Deployment:* Advanced State-of-the-Art Nuclear Energy Technology for this Decade * Third generation nuclear power plants have been very successful in several countries. Advanced plants based on U.S. technology have been and are being constructed in Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan and are expected to be selected by other countries in the coming years. We believe that small but important enhancements to these plants (which have been referred to as "Gen III+" designs) could help make them state-of-the-art and deployable in the United States by 2010. As part of its Nuclear Energy Technologies activities, the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology is working cooperatively with both the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the domestic commercial nuclear industry in several activities focused on supporting the potential near-term deployment of new nuclear generating capacity in the U.S. in the next five to ten years. Working with both the public and private sectors, we are reviewing the current regulatory requirements associated with designing, licensing, siting and constructing new nuclear-based electricity generating facilities to identify areas where changes in the regulatory requirements could be beneficial to both public and private sectors. Working with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, we are developing a new regulatory framework for advanced gas reactor technologies that recognizes the inherent differences between the light water technology-based regulations that currently govern the regulatory requirements. Working with the nuclear utility industry, we will be developing a demonstration program for early site permitting of potential new generation facilities whether it be new plants on new sites or, more likely, at sites upon which current nuclear plants are operating. This latter activity holds particular interest for us. We believe that many of the difficult issues associated with siting new facilities of any kind can be avoided in the case of new nuclear plants in the United States. Many operating U.S. nuclear plant sites were designed with four or six reactors in mind and currently host far fewer. This provides a tremendous opportunity for expansion in this country and we, working with industry, will examine the issues closely. Finally, through NERAC, we are working with industry to develop a report identifying technical, regulatory, and institutional issues which must be addressed and a delineation of those the actions necessary to successfully deploy new nuclear reactor facilities in the U.S. by 2010. The report on near-term deployment opportunities will be available in September 2001. ERI and I-NERI:* A Peer-reviewed Path to Advanced Nuclear R&D * The Department’s Nuclear Energy Research Initiative (NERI), a competitive, peer-reviewed research and development selection process to fund researcher-initiated R&D proposals from universities, national laboratories, and industry, has reinvigorated the Nation’s nuclear energy R&D organizations. Focused on research to address the potential long-term barriers to expanded use of nuclear power -- economics, safety, proliferation resistance, and waste minimization -- the NERI program is yielding innovative scientific and engineering R&D in nuclear fission and reactor technology. Initiated in FY 1999, there are currently 55 projects underway with an additional 15 projects expected to be selected for award in FY 2001. This program signaled the return of the United States to nuclear R&D, but a return that reflected important lessons learned and a new appreciation for harnessing outside expertise to focus the research. NERI has, despite its limited funding, gone a long way to reinvigorate nuclear R&D in this country. In FY 2001, the Department is launching the International Nuclear Energy Research Initiative, or I-NERI, to sponsor innovative scientific and engineering research and development conducted by joint teams of U.S. and foreign researchers. Established as a cost-shared R&D program, the primary program objectives of the I-NERI are to: • Develop advanced concepts and scientific breakthroughs in nuclear fission and reactor technology to address and overcome the principal technical and scientific obstacles to the expanded use of nuclear energy worldwide; • Promote bilateral and multilateral collaboration with international agencies and research organizations to improve the development of nuclear energy; and • Promote and maintain the U.S. nuclear science and engineering infrastructure to meet future technical challenges. We are in the final stages of signing I-NERI agreements with France and South Korea. We are negotiating agreements with Japan and South Africa, which we hope to conclude this year. We also expect to conclude I-NERI agreements with the Nuclear Energy Agency of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and with Euratom. When implemented, these agreements will magnify modest U.S. investments in R&D many times over with great benefit to both the United States and our research partners. Generation IV: *Realizing the Original Promise of Nuclear Energy * The Department initiated the Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems Project (or more simply, the "Gen IV Project") in January 2000, by convening a meeting of senior policy officials from interested countries. Representatives of nine countries participated in this initial discussion and considered the long-term interest of the countries in the application of nuclear energy, the international interest in advanced nuclear technologies, the barriers that might prevent the future expansion of nuclear energy, and the interest of the representatives in exploring potential multilateral research projects to explore and develop new technologies. These representatives agreed to a *Joint Statement* regarding the importance of the nuclear energy option to the future and to a process to explore further cooperative activities.1 As a result of this meeting, and subsequent meetings, the participants are currently exploring the formal creation of a Generation IV International Forum (GIF) to pursue multilateral coordination and cooperation with the goal of identifying and developing Gen IV technologies that could address the factors impacting the expansion of nuclear energy internationally: economic competitiveness of building and operating nuclear energy systems; remaining concerns regarding nuclear safety and proliferation; and the challenge of minimizing and dealing successfully with nuclear wastes. * The Technology Roadmap * A specially chartered subcommittee of the U.S. Government’s Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee (NERAC) is providing guidance to the Department of Energy ’s (DOE) efforts to create a Generation IV Technology Roadmap–a document which will identify and set research and development paths for the most promising technologies. Professor Neil Todreas of MIT and Dr. Sol Levy, a world-respected pioneer in commercial nuclear power who is a retired manager from General Electric, co-chair this ambitious effort and have brought together a highly experienced team to oversee the Roadmap effort. We believe that to be successful, future nuclear energy technologies must be broadly acceptable–that is, meet the needs of many nations and not only those of the United States. As a result, consistent with the requirements of the United States, the Department is pursuing the Gen IV Project as an international effort–through the GIF. Together, approximately 150 senior, experienced engineers and scientists from at least 10 countries will work together to create the Gen IV Technology Roadmap. We have found that U.S. leadership has been essential to this process and that without the Department’s initiative, this type of effort would not have been possible. This Roadmap is scheduled to be completed by the end of FY 2002 and will: • Draw upon a wide range of experts from government, national laboratories, industry, and academia; • Set ambitious technology goals for next-generation systems; • Identify the most promising concepts for advanced nuclear energy systems to meet future energy needs; and • Identify the R&D activities needed to develop these concepts and make them ready for commercial deployment. * What are Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems? * The international community has deployed over 400 nuclear reactors to produce power, with new projects underway in several countries. Most operating plants are based on the experience gained from the first generation of nuclear plants that were built and operated in the late 1950's and early 1960's. These demonstrations of the practicality of nuclear power enabled second generation plants to be built all over the world, including over 100 in the United States. The lessons learned from the second generation plants led directly to the development and deployment of third generation (*i.e.*, advanced light water) nuclear plants beginning in the 1990's. The next generation, Generation IV nuclear energy systems, would take the next step in the evolution of nuclear power plant design. Finding new approaches–some of which have been postulated in NERI projects–to make nuclear power more cost-effective while further enhancing safety and proliferation-resistance will enable nuclear energy to fulfill the role envisioned in the early days of the development of atomic fission. To develop these new technologies, ambitious but achievable technology goals are required against which technology concepts can compete and toward which research activities can strive. NERAC developed initial draft technology goals for Gen IV systems earlier this year and while they continue to be refined, they have been largely accepted by the international research community. The Gen IV goals reflect the need for future nuclear energy systems to build upon the world’s experience with nuclear technology and develop systems that can be fully competitive with any other form of energy production. These goals represent new thinking in the nuclear community, a recognition that nuclear energy must fully support all our economic, environmental, and societal ambitions. We expect that these goals will be finalized before the end of this Spring and become a standing testament to the determination of the world nuclear technology energy community that nuclear energy must continue its development and meet its initial promise as a widely used source of energy, providing benefit to all the world’s peoples. Challenges Ahead: *Much Work Remains * Despite the United States’ long experience with nuclear power and the promising outlook for near-term deployment of new nuclear power facilities, there remain important challenges to expanding the successful application of nuclear technology. These, in addition to the activities discussed above, are the focus of the Department’s efforts. Foremost, we must continue the hard but essential work of dealing with disposal of spent nuclear fuel. In this connection, the Department’s Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management continues the scientific work and step-wise process for a Secretarial decision on whether or not the Yucca Mountain site should be recommended to the President. Congressional support for this process is essential. Next, we must recognize and deal with the nuclear energy research facility infrastructure within both the Department’s national laboratories and the Nation’s university nuclear engineering programs. Over the last eight years, the Department lost four irreplaceable research reactors and terminated a major project to build a replacement facility. Working with the NERAC, we completed a *Nuclear Science and Technology Infrastructure Roadmap* last year which raised a large number of questions for the Department to address in determining the future course of DOE facilities and their ability to support expanded needs for research. Without such capacity, enhancing our nuclear R&D activities will become increasingly difficult. As a result, we and our colleagues at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission are looking overseas to countries such as Russia to request access to research facilities. As Congress requested last year, we are completing a program plan on Advanced Accelerator Applications, exploring the potential of a new type of research facility to meet U.S. needs in the 21st Century. We will soon issue a report to Congress on the analysis we have completed to date. Finally, we are very concerned about the state of the Nation’s nuclear technology education infrastructure. Through our University Fuel Assistance and Support program, the Department provides direct financial support to the Nation’s 28 remaining university nuclear engineering programs and associated university research reactors. This assistance has shown positive effects in recent years–the decline in students appears to be moderating. But funding is very limited and many important university-based research facilities are in financial trouble. Worse, the number of U.S. students earning degrees in nuclear-related fields is far lower than the annual need. We look forward to working with Congress to consider these issues. We support the Vice President’s interagency task force which is developing a much-needed, comprehensive strategy to the Nation’s energy needs. Together, Congress and the Bush Administration will work to plan for our country’s energy future and together we will address the issues that face us. The Committee on Energy and Commerce 2125 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 (202) 225-2927 Feedback ***************************************************************** 13 Hearing Statement: IEA: M. Hutzler The Committee on Energy and Commerce: Hearing *The House Committee On Energy and Commerce W.J. "Billy" Tauzin, Chairman* Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality Hearing National Energy Policy: Nuclear Energy March 27, 2001 1:00 PM 2123 Rayburn House Office Building Miss. Mary J. Hutzler Director, Office of Integrated Analysis and Forecasting Energy Information Adminstration 1000 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC, 20585 Summary Nuclear power is the second largest supplier of U.S. electricity generation, accounting for 20 percent of all generation by electricity producers and cogenerators in 2000. No new nuclear capacity has been completed in the United States since 1996. However, generation has continued to grow since that time due to improved performance at existing plants. The average time required for refueling and regular maintenance has dropped considerably, and unplanned outages have been reduced. Existing plants are also making technical improvements that can increase their maximum capacity by up to 15 percent, and therefore provide more electricity. The contribution of nuclear power to the U.S. electricity supply is expected to decline over the next 20 years, as some existing nuclear units begin to retire. Nuclear power is projected to provide 11 percent of the nation’s electricity generation in 2020, less than coal and natural gas. No new nuclear construction is projected to come on line by 2020 due to the higher cost of new nuclear construction relative to coal- and gas-fired technologies. Twenty seven units of existing capacity are projected to operate beyond the initial 40 year license period. Currently 5 nuclear units have received approval by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to extend their licenses for an additional 20 years. Another five units have submitted applications for license renewal, and 28 units have scheduled future submittals with the NRC through 2004. The nuclear power industry and the Department of Energy face challenges in the area of disposing of the high-level nuclear waste. The Department of Energy is tasked with siting a final repository for the spent fuel generated by nuclear power, and to take title to the existing waste beginning in 1998. However, the final site has not yet been approved, and an amendment to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act prohibits the Department from creating an intermediate storage site prior to siting the final repository. Therefore, there is no central temporary storage site available, and nuclear generators must continue storing spent fuel at the reactor site. A number of utilities have filed suit against the Department due to its delay in beginning to accept spent fuel. The Department has entered into a settlement with one utility to compensate it for costs the utility incurred related to the Department’s delay. Another potential regulatory issue for nuclear power is the expiration of the Price-Anderson Act in 2002, which will revisit the issue of liability in the event of a nuclear accident, as well as the amount of coverage required for each nuclear power plant. STATEMENT I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss current and future prospects for nuclear power in the United States. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) is an autonomous statistical and analytical agency within the Department of Energy. We are charged with providing objective, timely, and relevant data, analysis, and projections for the use of the Department of Energy, other Government agencies, the U.S. Congress, and the public. We do not take positions on policy issues, but we do produce data and analysis reports that are meant to help policy makers determine energy policy. Because we have an element of statutory independence with respect to the analyses that we publish, our views are strictly those of EIA. We do not speak for the Department, nor for any particular point of view with respect to energy policy, and our views should not be construed as representing those of the Department or the Administration. However, EIA's baseline projections on energy trends are widely used by Government agencies, the private sector, and academia for their own energy analyses. The Committee has requested information about current and future utilization of nuclear power for electricity generation, statutory and regulatory provisions that impact the use of nuclear power, the prospects for using nuclear power to meet future generation needs, and the role of nuclear power in a comprehensive national energy policy. EIA collects and interprets data on the current energy situation, and produces both short-term and long-term energy projections. The projections in this testimony are from our *Annual Energy Outlook 2001*, released late last year. The *Annual Energy Outlook* provides projections and analysis of domestic energy consumption, supply, and prices through 2020. These projections are not meant to be exact predictions of the future, but represent a likely energy future, given technological and demographic trends, current laws and regulations, and consumer behavior as derived from known data. EIA recognizes that projections of energy markets are highly uncertain and subject to many random events that cannot be foreseen, such as weather, political disruptions, strikes, and technological breakthroughs. In addition, long-term trends in technology development, demographics, economic growth, and energy resources may evolve along a different path than assumed in the *Annual Energy Outlook*. Many of these uncertainties are explored through alternative cases. The Current Situation Supply, Demand and Prices The United States currently has 104 operable nuclear units, totaling 97.5 gigawatts of capacity. Electricity generation from nuclear power increased in 2000 to 754 billion kilowatthours, and the average capacity factor for U.S. nuclear power plants in 2000 was the highest in history at 89% (Figure 1). Through 1990, the average annual capacity factor was less than 70%. Increased performance has been achieved through improved operations resulting in shorter and fewer outages. During 1999, the average time required to refuel a nuclear reactor was 42 days, and nearly all nuclear plants operate for 18 months between refuelings. During the 1970's and 80's the average refueling cycle was more typically 12 months, resulting in more frequent outages. The industry’s median unplanned capacity loss factor was just two percent in 1999. In 1999, the production costs (expenditures for fuel and operations and maintenance) at nuclear power plants averaged 1.9 cents per kilowatthour (kwh), roughly the same as the operating costs of coal-fired power plants, and about two-thirds the operating costs of oil and natural gas-fired steam plants. Fuel costs are a small part of the operating costs of a nuclear power plant. In 1999, U.S. utilities purchased a total of 47.9 million pounds of U3 O8e (equivalent) at an average price of $11.63 per pound U3O8e. Foreign sources supplied 76 percent of the deliveries, mainly from Canada, Australia and Russia. Nuclear operators tend to purchase uranium on long-term contracts and the prices are not particularly volatile. Utilities loaded fuel assemblies containing 58.8 million pounds U3O8e into reactors during 1999, and had inventories of 58.2 million pounds at year-end. U.S. suppliers had 68.8 million tons of uranium inventories at year-end 1999. EIA estimates of U.S. uranium reserves total 1,182 million pounds, although the estimated costs of mining and milling the uranium are higher than current market prices. During 1999, a total of 4.5 million pounds U3O8e of uranium were produced by mining, and there were nine commercially operating uranium mines in the United States. Once the uranium is purchased, it must then be enriched (increasing the concentration of the fissionable isotope) before it can be used as nuclear fuel. U.S. facilities provided 46 percent of U.S. utilities enrichment services in 1999, and foreign enrichment plants the remaining 54 percent. Enrichment services are also primarily obtained through long-term service contracts. Legislative and Regulatory Challenges The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) oversees the licensing and operation of nuclear power plants. The typical operating license for a nuclear plant was issued for 40 years. With the first wave of current plants brought online in the 1970s, many of these units could be facing retirement in the near future. However, the NRC has provided a process for nuclear plant owners to apply for renewal of their operating licenses, adding another 20 years to the licensed lifetime. In March of 2000, Baltimore Gas and Electric’s two Calvert Cliffs units were the first nuclear reactors to receive license renewal, extending their license expiration dates to 2034 and 2036, respectively. Also in 2000, three units at Oconee received license renewal approval, and five other units have applications submitted. Future submittals have been scheduled for roughly 40 percent of current plants through 2004. The NRC has created a streamlined process to review applications, and the total time from application submitted to approval has been just under two years. The cost to the owner of pursuing a license renewal has been estimated at between $10 million and $20 million per reactor, and requires detailed descriptions of expected aging effects and how they will be addressed to maintain safe operation. The renewal approval does not require the company to undertake potential capital expenditures to keep the plant running the additional time, which could be substantially more than the cost of obtaining the license. So the eventual retirement date of any plant will likely be based on the economics of its operation rather than the actual date on the license. To date, the longest a commercial nuclear plant in the United States has operated is 33 years. Nuclear waste disposal is a challenge that is faced primarily when the plant is shut down and waiting to be decommissioned. Low level waste (LLW) disposal is the responsibility of the states where the waste is generated. Interstate compacts have been created to jointly develop sites for disposal; however, no new sites have been opened even though the Low Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act stated that disposal facilities could refuse to accept waste from outside their compacts beginning in 1992. Currently, only three low-level waste sites exist: one in Hanford, Washington, which only accepts waste from states in the Northwest Compact in which it resides, and the neighboring Rocky Mountain Compact; one in Clive, Utah, which is only licensed to accept the lowest level - Class A - waste, and one in South Carolina, which is still accepting all classes of LLW from all states except North Carolina. States that do not have access to disposal facilities are likely to require the waste generators to store their waste on-site until new disposal sites are available. South Carolina has recently joined a compact with Connecticut and New Jersey, and has enacted a state law to phase out acceptance of non-compact waste by 2008. The site in Utah, operated by Envirocare, has applied for a license to accept the higher classes of waste, and has no plans to limit acceptance of the waste. Low-level waste disposal issues are important because they affect the cost and timing of decommissioning nuclear power plants. The Department of Energy is working on siting a repository for spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste. The proposed waste site at Yucca Mountain, NV is still undergoing site characterization, to determine if the site is suitable and should be recommended for development. The soonest this proposed facility could begin accepting the waste is 2010. The initial storage of the spent fuel assemblies, once removed from a reactor, is in steel lined pools at the reactor site. However, these are quickly being filled to capacity at most reactors. For temporary storage, dry cask containers have been developed and licensed by the NRC to store the used fuel assemblies. Some of these storage containers should be suitable for transporting the waste once the final repository is sited. The lack of a final repository is not likely to force any operating nuclear reactors to shut down early, but will require the owners to purchase, and receive approval to install, the temporary storage containers on-site. Finally, the Price-Anderson Act expires in 2002 and could create barriers to new construction if it is not extended in its current form. The Price-Anderson Act was enacted into law in 1957, as part of the Atomic Energy Act, to meet two objectives: to remove any deterrents to private sector participation in nuclear energy due to the threat of large liability claims in the event of a catastrophic nuclear accident, and to ensure that adequate funds are available to the public if such an accident were to occur. The Act limits liability to third parties in the event of a nuclear accident to $9.43 billion. It also provides for a series of retroactive assessments paid by all nuclear utilities if the total liability exceeds the amount of primary coverage. If the Act is not extended, coverage for existing units would continue as provided by the Act, but any new nuclear units would not be covered. The Price-Anderson Act has been extended three times since 1957, and current legislation has been proposed in the Senate that includes the extension of the Act through 2012. The Outlook The Annual Energy Outlook 2001 (AEO2001) reference case projects U.S. energy supply, demand and prices through 2020. It assumes a continuation of current laws and regulations, and provides alternative scenarios to deal with uncertainty in the assumptions. It is expected that recent trends in improved performance will be maintained, resulting in average capacity factors for operating plants of 90 percent by the last years of the forecast. The long-term projection, however, is for a decline in total generation from nuclear power as some existing nuclear reactors are retired and replaced by other, mainly gas-fired, generating units (Figure 2). Electricity demand is projected to grow at an annual average rate of 1.8 percent between now and 2020. To meet this demand, and to replace retirements of older generating units, EIA projects 413 gigawatts of new generating capacity will be needed (including cogeneration capacity). Of this new capacity, 92 percent is projected to be combined-cycle or combustion turbine technology fueled by natural gas. About five percent of the new capacity is expected to be coal-fired, and the remaining three percent renewable technologies. The projected operating cost of a new nuclear reactor (including capital recovery) is about 6 cents per kilowatthour, higher than that for coal or combined-cycle capacity which are roughly 4 cents per kilowatthour (Figure 3). Gas-fired units are favored particularly in restructured electricity markets due to their lower capital costs, higher efficiencies, shorter construction times, and better load following characteristics. Within the EIA forecast, nuclear units are forecast to retire when their operation is no longer economic relative to replacement capacity. The forecast incorporates future aging-related costs that could be incurred as plants consider operating beyond 40 years. In the reference case, nuclear plants are assumed to incur additional capital costs of $14 per kilowatt (kw) per year after 40 years, and increase to $25/kw per year after 50 years. These costs are reduced significantly for individual units if they have already incurred major capital investments related to plant upgrades. The aging related costs are similar in magnitude to annual capital additions assumed for existing fossil plants ($4-5/kw for gas plants, $10/kw for oil/gas steam units and $16/kw for coal plants, on average). In the reference case, 27 percent of current capacity is forecast to retire by 2020, mainly after 2010. Of this retiring capacity, one nuclear plant is projected to retire before the end of its 40 year life, 30 units are forecast to retire at the end of their current license expiration and 2 units are projected to retire ten years after their current license expiration (implying a license renewal was received). Another 25 units have original licenses that expire by 2020, but are forecast to receive license renewal and extend their operation beyond 2020. Because the U.S. nuclear industry has no experience operating reactors beyond 40 years (the oldest operating reactor today is just over 30 years old), future operating costs and capital investments required are unknown. Due to the uncertainties surrounding future aging-related costs, several cases were developed to further analyze the effects on electricity supply due to differing assumptions regarding the costs of future operation (Figure 4). These results provide a range of possible futures for existing nuclear power. In the low nuclear case it was assumed that aging related costs would begin earlier, with capital additions of $5/kw per year starting at age 30. A total of 18 additional units were projected to be retired through 2020 relative to the reference case. Additional fossil-fired capacity was projected to be built to replace the retiring nuclear capacity, and the carbon emissions from electric generators increased by two percent (16 million metric tons carbon equivalent) above the reference case in 2020. In the high nuclear case, aging related costs were assumed to be lower by 25 percent, resulting in more plants projected to operate beyond their initial license life. In the high nuclear case only 11 units were projected to retire through 2020 ( 9 percent of current capacity). About 14 gigawatts of fossil-fired capacity (roughly 47 units at 300 megawatts each) would no longer be required, relative to the reference case, and carbon emissions from electric generators would be reduced by two percent (16 million metric tons carbon equivalent) by 2020. There are additional uncertainties affecting other generating industries that could change the competitiveness of nuclear power. Current natural gas prices are much higher than normal in response to low levels of gas storage, unusually cold weather and supply issues. The AEO2001 forecasts that this situation will reverse over the next few years, as increased drilling and production occurs, and that gas prices will return to more typical levels by 2004. Therefore, forecasts of the cost of new gas-fired capacity later in the forecast are based on gas prices below the current levels. More existing nuclear power plants would be economic if current gas prices remained throughout the forecast period, resulting in fewer retirements. However, it is expected that this tight supply situation for natural gas will dissipate before 2010, when the retirement decisions for nuclear units start being made. The electric generation sector may also face restrictions on the emissions of various pollutants in the future. Since the AEO2001 forecast incorporates current laws and regulations, it requires the electric sector to meet sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide restrictions as specified in the Clean Air Act. The summer season cap on nitrogen oxide (for 22 states) will be imposed in 2004 by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Because these reductions are being met by existing fossil plants by adding the necessary control equipment, their operation and costs are not greatly affected. If additional emissions were targeted in the future for reduction, such as carbon dioxide, a large number of coal plants would be retired and replaced mainly by gas-fired technology, leading to higher natural gas prices. This situation would provide an economic incentive to continue operating more of the existing nuclear power plants. For example, the EIA recently performed an analysis of strategies for reducing multiple emissions at power plants, at the request of then-Representative David M. McIntosh, Chairman of the Subcommittee on National Economic Growth, Natural Resources, and Regulatory Affairs of the House Government Reform Committee. In this report, EIA was asked to provide an analysis of proposals to reduce sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxide (NOx) by 75 percent from 1997 levels, and carbon dioxide (CO2) to either 1990 levels or 7 percent below 1990 levels, similar to the general requirements of the Kyoto protocol, but restricted to emissions by electric generators. In order to comply with the CO2 cap, the industry was projected to dramatically shift away from coal to natural gas, and to a lesser extent, renewables. This analysis also showed fewer nuclear retirements (9 percent of current capacity) by 2020, as the higher natural gas prices (as much as 63 percent higher than the reference case in 2010) and CO2 allowance prices made it economical to continue operating more of the existing capacity. This scenario assumed the AEO2001 reference case aging-related costs for nuclear plants, however, the nuclear capacity forecast was similar to the high nuclear case due to the emissions targets and higher natural gas prices. At the request of the Subcommittee, this analysis assumed that no new nuclear power plants would be built throughout the forecast period. Projections of the cost of building new nuclear capacity is difficult, due to the length of time since a new unit has been ordered in the United States, and the lack of experience in building new designs. The AEO2001 reference case bases the cost of a new nuclear unit on the advanced passive reactor design (AP600), which has been approved by the NRC as part of its standardized design certification. This design has evolved from the current operating designs, but also includes passive safety features and is based on a smaller size (600 megawatts). The initial overnight capital cost (in 1999 dollars) of the AP600 is assumed to be $1730 per kilowatt, compared to $1020 to $1220/kw for a coal-fired unit and $420 to $530/kw for a gas-fired combined cycle unit. Contingency factors are applied to the costs of all new capacity, and are made up of two components - a project contingency factor, which is applied throughout the forecast to account for delays during construction due to unforseen problems such as weather or labor issues, and a technological optimism factor, which is only applied to the first four units built of a new design to account for the tendency to underestimate costs for new technologies. Capital costs decline over time as new capacity is built and experience is gained. However, because the initial cost for the advanced nuclear technology is much higher than other available technologies, it is not economic to build nuclear units in the reference case. The Department of Energy’s Office of Nuclear Energy has developed long-term cost goals for these evolutionary designs that are lower than current estimates. An alternative nuclear cost case was developed assuming the cost of the new nuclear technology was $1500/kw initially, falling to $1200/kw by 2015, with a ten percent project contingency factor applied to these costs. In addition, cases were considered assuming both 3 and 4 year construction times. In these cases the nuclear technology was closer to being competitive with coal and gas-fired capacity (Figure 5); one new unit was projected to be built in the last years of the forecast under the assumption of a 3 year lead time. (Nuclear units were not economic under a four year lead time assumption.) Worldwide, work has been developing on a more revolutionary new commercial nuclear power technology, known as the pebble bed modular reactor. South Africa’s state-owned utility has been working on the technology since 1993, but it has recently gained the interest of foreign energy policymakers as well as potential investors. One U.S. based company, PECO Energy, has joined with British Nuclear Fuels Corporation in making financial commitments to the venture. PECO’s parent company, Exelon Corporation, has begun discussions with the NRC about building PBMRs in the United States. The economics are expected to improve for this technology because of the plant’s small, modular design (110 megawatts each). The design incorporates passive safety features and would have higher thermal efficiency than existing nuclear plants, requiring less fuel and producing less waste. The estimates of construction costs ($1000/kw) would be very competitive with new coal-fired technologies available in the United States, if they could be attained. The construction costs would still be almost double that of a new gas combined-cycle unit ($530/kw). Ultimately, this design is still untested, and its future will be determined in large part by the success or failure of the South African demonstration project, scheduled for completion in 2005. Conclusion While nuclear power today provides roughly one-fifth of the nation’s electricity generation, that share is expected to drop over the next two decades as some existing units are retired and replaced by other generating technologies. Coal will remain a large supplier of electricity, and natural gas is expected to greatly increase its proportion of electricity generation. While operating performance at individual nuclear units is expected to remain high, total output from nuclear plants is expected to decline by about twenty percent between now and 2020, as units are removed from service. The ability to relicense existing nuclear plants for an additional twenty years of operation could extend the operating lives of current reactors, and delay retirements. However, achieving new orders for nuclear plants based solely on economics is unlikely at this time due to the high construction costs of the technology, as well as uncertainties related to costs, safety and waste. The challenge of waste disposal is faced by existing nuclear power plants as they continue to store high level waste on-site, waiting for site approval and construction of the permanent waste repository required by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee. I will be happy to answer any questions you may have. The Committee on Energy and Commerce 2125 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 (202) 225-2927 Feedback ***************************************************************** 14 Hearing Statement: NEI R Hutchinson The Committee on Energy and Commerce: Hearing *The House Committee On Energy and Commerce W.J. "Billy" Tauzin, Chairman* Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality Hearing National Energy Policy: Nuclear Energy March 27, 2001 1:00 PM 2123 Rayburn House Office Building Mr. C. Randy Hutchinson Senior Vice President, Business Development Entergy Nuclear on behalf of: Nuclear Energy Institute P.O. Box 32000 Jackson, MS, 39286 Oral Testimony Discussion Chairman Barton, Ranking Member Boucher and distinguished members of the Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee, my name is Randy Hutchinson. I am the Senior Vice President for Nuclear Business Development for Entergy Nuclear. My staff buys nuclear power plants. Entergy's customers -- 2.5 million in Arkansas, Mississippi, ouisiana and Texas -- have long benefited from a diverse electric generating portfolio. Our company has more than 30,000 megawatts of power using a range of fuels -- 29% from natural gas, 26% from nuclear, 17% from coal, 3% from oil and 26% from purchased power -- an almost ideal balanced mix of fuels. As a result, Entergy's electric customers are not as subject to the volatility of foreign oil and gas prices. And Entergy will maintain this balanced fuel mix as the company grows. Entergy Nuclear is headquartered in Jackson, Miss. Entergy Nuclear Southwest has operated five reactors at four locations in Arkansas, Mississippi and Louisiana going back about two decades. Entergy Nuclear Northeast in White Plains, N.Y., is our new regional headquarters for that region. We own and operate the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station in Plymouth, Mass., the Indian Point 3 plant in Westchester County, N.Y. and the James A. Fitzpatrick plant in Oswego County, N. Y. We have agreed to purchase the Indian Point 1 and 2 plants from Con Edison and expect to close that transaction in mid-2001. Indian Point 1 has been in safe storage for 20 years, waiting for decommissioning of the other two operating units. Entergy Nuclear, the fastest growing nuclear operator in the nation, is now the second largest with nine operating units. And we are aggressively competing for additional nuclear units wherever they are for sale. Nuclear power is a principal growth strategy of our corporation. Indeed nuclear energy is our core competency. Entergy has built its success on the foundation of a strong safety culture. When you have invested billions of dollars in nuclear assets as Entergy has, believe me, you are serious about safety at all times and at all levels. We know a reliable, top performing plant is also a safe plant. Our operating experience of 25 years shows they go together. In our view, we are seeing a renaissance of nuclear power for three principal reasons: · Operators of nuclear power plants have made significant improvements in the performance of their plants. Capacity factors were around 65% in the 1980s, meaning nuclear plants were producing about 65% of the power they could produce in a year. Last year, the industry average capacity factor hit 89 percent. Our plants in Entergy were in the low to mid 90 percent range. Safety performance has also improved as shown by INPO's performance indicators. · Secondly, nuclear power is now the lowest cost power in the nation. Production costs at a nuclear plant are below 2 cents a kilowatt-hour, compared to 3-4 cents at a natural gas-fired plant · Thirdly, nuclear does not emit the global warming gases and other pollutants that other energy sources do. Why is nuclear seeing this renaissance now? We are seeing a confluence of forces. Natural gas prices have risen dramatically. Historically gas has been available for prices in the $2-3 per million BTUs range but those prices in the past year have risen to the $4-6 range nationally and even hit $50 and more in California recently. At the same time, the nation's economy has continued to grow, increasing the demand for electric power across the nation. Higher fossil fuel prices and growing demand has been a powerful combination of forces. It is also becoming much clearer to many that nuclear power is the lowest cost power in the nation. The cost of nuclear fuel has long been relatively stable, not subject to oil and gas price increases. Nuclear is also being recognized for its environmental advantages. Nuclear plants do not emit the global warming gases and other pollutants that power plants running on other types of fuel do. California today is seeing the perfect storm. Three colliding fronts. There is too little supply and transmission capacity. No new power plants have been built in California in a decade. State deregulation law forced utilities to sell their plants and buy only in the day ahead market. Long-term power supply contracts were prohibited, a prescription for disaster. Then natural gas prices rose from $2-4 per million BTUs to $50 and up. California could really use the Rancho Seco nuclear plant, shut down a decade ago amid much controversy. Deregulation is allowing and accelerating the consolidation of nuclear power industry that was already occurring and probably would have occurred anyway. Utilities with only one or two nuclear power plants have been realizing that it would be increasingly difficult to remain competitive without the resources and capabilities of larger operators. We at Entergy Nuclear recognized the advantages of operating a fleet of nuclear plants three or four years ago and decided to pursue a nuclear growth strategy. We have now become the nation's fastest growing nuclear operator, and truly a national operator with two fleets of plants - in the South and in the Northeast. Consolidation in the nuclear industry is bringing several advantages. You can bring a very focused management to plant operations. Economics of scale through purchasing can be achieved. You can spread financial risk over several plants, much like spreading risk when you buy a mutual fund. You can pool talent and expertise in financial, technical and management areas. You can respond quickly to a problem at one plant with highly qualified expertise. You can bring the best practices from all plants to each plant. And you grow to understand better what the regulatory authorities want and require. You can easily see why consolidation is occurring. It is rapidly providing our country with higher levels of safety and reliable performance at lower costs. Entergy Nuclear bought the first nuclear plant sold by a utility when we purchased the Pilgrim Nuclear Station from Boston Edison in July 1999. There have been 13 acquisitions of nuclear plants since then, less than two years. Entergy has been the fastest growing, having almost doubled our five-reactor fleet in the South with four plants bought or under contract in the Northeast. Five years ago, 46 operators were running the nation's 103 nuclear plants. Today 24 operators are. Eventually there probably will be 5-8 principal nuclear operators. The average nuclear plant operating today is only about 18 years old, far from the expiration of its original 40-year operating license period. But as some of the earliest plants approach their license periods, we in the industry have realized their useful lives are actually much longer. As computer systems, instrumentation and other technology has advanced, these whole systems have been replaced in today's nuclear plants. In many ways, today's operating plants are virtually new. Many were originally designed with a 60-year life in mind, but were licensed for 40 years to provide an extra margin of safety. As a result, we are convinced the useful operating life of today's plants can safely be extended through a rigorous license renewal process for up to an additional 20 years. Several plants are in the relicensing process at present, including one of ours, Arkansas Nuclear One unit 1. To further demonstrate our commitment to nuclear power, Entergy Nuclear last fall purchased a decommissioning services firm, TLG Services in Bridgewater, Conn., to get world-class technical and scientific engineering expertise in the planning and cost estimating of decommissioning. And we are now offering complete nuclear life cycle management services to the U. S. industry. Will new nuclear plants be built? Yes, we think so. But only if and when we can bring some certainty to the industry. And you, as our nation's policymakers, can help to establish that certainty. New nuclear capacity can and will be built when it makes sense to take the financial risk. The industry must see: · Certainty in the costs of a new plant · Certainty in the regulatory permitting process, and · Certainty in the time required to build. Much work has already been done to design and obtain regulatory approval of new advanced reactor designs that are simpler than today's operating plants. Simpler generally means safer. It also means more competitive in both construction and operating costs. Much has also been accomplished by the industry and the NRC in developing a streamlined license process. So that you can depend on actually operating the plant once built. A new licensing process must be thorough, and result in the issuance of both a construction permit and an operating license. When today's operating plants were built, a construction permit was issued after much review and another review was required before an operating license could be issued, often resulting in years of additional delay and accumulating costs. As a result, as much as 20 percent of the total cost of today's plants was actually interest costs that had grown while the plant was waiting to go into operation. With advanced, simpler reactor designs, an improved construction and operating license process, the time and resulting cost of a new nuclear plant would be better known. That would translate to less financial risk, an imperative in today's deregulated power marketplace. It can be done and is well on the way to reality. Your support as policymakers is critical. In our view, a new nuclear plant will be built when one can reasonably depend on the cost of that capacity will be in the $1,000 per kilowatt range. And that cost will be determined by the above circumstances. We at Entergy and others in the industry have been working together with the NRC to find solutions and bring certainty. We expect several nuclear operators will announce early site locations later this year to begin the process of keeping the nuclear option open in this country. The used nuclear fuel problem is, in our view, a political problem, not a technical one. A decade of science has brought us very close to the selection of a permanent storage facility at Yucca Mountain. The nation's electric consumers have been paying one mill per kilowatt-hour produced at all nuclear plants into a Nuclear Waste Fund that now totals $16 billion. The used fuel solution has been paid for. We are confident the Department of Energy will complete its study and recommend moving forward with the Yucca Mountain facility and the President will agree later this year. Entergy is committed to nuclear energy. We firmly believe nuclear will continue to be a safe, reliable and lower cost source of power for our country. Nationally, nuclear energy is the second-largest source of U.S. electricity, producing one-fifth of all electricity at record levels of safety and efficiency and at production costs lower than coal and natural gas plants. No other source of electricity can provide large amounts of power reliably and reasonable costs while enhancing our air quality. Nuclear energy will continue to help meet our nation's public policy goals for energy security, economic growth and environmental protection. You and your colleagues can make it happen. I assure you, nuclear will respond with safe, reliable and low cost energy. Today, and in the future. With your help, nuclear power can continue to be a critical part of our nation's energy supply. I hope you find this information helpful. Thank you for inviting me today. General Discussion of Energy Policy and Nuclear Energy Nationally, nuclear energy is the second-largest source of U.S. electricity, producing one-fifth of all electricity at record levels of safety and efficiency and at production costs lower than coal and natural gas plants. I would like to thank Chairman Barton and this subcommittee for focusing on the importance of national energy policy and the value of America's nuclear power plants to our nation's energy supply and environmental protection. From an energy policy perspective--the nation is at a crossroad. The greatest source and constant driver of growth in the United States for the past century has been electricity. Without vast and steadily increasing supplies of power, this nation could not have become the economic marvel that it is. Many of the country's most significant advances--technological and societal--would not have been possible without a constant flow of reliable, affordable electricity. The Nation Needs a Comprehensive National Energy Policy As the "new" economy converges with traditional economic infrastructure needs, electricity will continue to be the driver of our economic engine, whether to power the Internet or the nation's assembly lines. As its cornerstone, any national energy policy must increase domestic electricity supply in order to meet this new demand, expected to increase at least 42 percent by 2020(1). To meet future electricity demand and maintain U.S. energy security, a comprehensive national energy policy must: · Encourage investment in new power plant construction. · Continue regulatory modernization, including regulatory stability for operating nuclear plants and licensing of new plants. · Ensure sufficient funding for research, development and swift application of new nuclear energy technologies is consistent with nuclear energy's future role in meeting U.S. energy needs. · Eliminate discrimination and ensure nuclear energy receives the same treatment as other electricity generating technologies in the marketplace. · Educate the nation about the excellent safety record of nuclear energy and inject sound science and intellectual honesty into the national energy debate so consumers may make informed energy choices. · Maintain U.S. leadership and infrastructure to train the next generation of scientists, engineers and technicians required to design, build and operate nuclear power plants. Our nation cannot meet the demands of our growing population and economy without increased power generation through the construction of new power plants. We need to maintain the proportion of non-emitting baseload capacity through the construction of new emission-free plants. This will maintain a diverse energy portfolio for the nation and continue the price stability nuclear energy offers. Nuclear Energy: Significant Role in the Nation's Electricity Portfolio To achieve these short and long-term objectives requires an energy policy that supports and encourages a continuing significant role for nuclear power. More than ever, the nation relies on nuclear energy to meet the country's soaring demand for power. There is no longer any question that nuclear energy currently plays--and will continue to play--a critical role in providing electricity to the nation. Today, the nation's 103 nuclear plants produce about 20 percent of our electricity. More importantly, as plants have increased in efficiency over the last decade, nuclear power's role in meeting consumer demand has grown by nearly 20 percent. Clearly, nuclear energy is absolutely essential to the integrity of the U.S. electricity grid and to our clean air goals. Nuclear electricity is generated without producing greenhouse gases or other air pollutants, thus providing Americans with tremendous environmental benefits. Without nuclear energy, the United States could not meet air quality standards established by the Clean Air Act or international commitments to reduce greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide. The reduction of air pollutants or the avoidance of emissions imparts significant health benefits to people across the nation, by reducing respiratory illness, for example. Nuclear power plants are the nation's greatest emission-free source of electricity--producing nearly two-thirds of all emission-free power. And, as public demand for clean air and a healthy environment increases in the future, nuclear energy is going to become even more important. The Emerging Energy Crisis In analyzing recent events in California, as well as looking at increased consumer heating and electricity bills elsewhere, the nation appears to be in the midst of an emerging energy crisis. There may be debate about the exact variables at the root of problems in California, but there is no debate that rolling blackouts in one of the nation's fastest growing states--the world's sixth largest economy--represent a serious problem. There is also no doubt that soaring heating and cooling bills for lower income families--including retirees--pose a serious threat to the health and safety of a large number of Americans. And, with population growth and economic expansion expected to increase the need for new electricity generation capacity by more than 393,000 megawatts by 2020(2), events in California may only be the beginning of a widespread energy shortage. A few words from Silicon Valley--one of American's great economic success stories--may illuminate not just the crisis, but what two of the world's most forward-thinking executives see as one potential solution. Nuclear Energy: A Time-Tested Solution That nuclear energy is again figuring prominently on policymakers' and business leaders' agendas is no coincidence. Indeed, this is not the first time the nation has looked to nuclear energy as a solution to its energy woes. Looking back at recent history to the last energy crisis in the United States, nuclear energy provided the most significant and lasting response. At the time of the first oil embargo in 1973, about 20 percent of U.S. electricity supply came from power plants that used oil for fuel. In some parts of the nation--the Northeast, for example--the percentage of oil-fired electric generation was considerably higher. Just five percent of U.S. electricity was produced at nuclear power plants. In the subsequent decades, 89 new nuclear reactors began operating, effectively replacing oil as a fuel source for electricity, and making nuclear energy one of the most successful energy security programs. Today, nuclear power reactors continue to provide a reliable hedge against volatile fuel prices and energy supply disruptions, protecting American businesses and homes from wildly fluctuating energy costs and providing a reliable supply of electricity. Nuclear energy answered the call then, and the industry is answering that call now. It must be remembered that nuclear's role in avoiding emissions also has significant implications for domestic economic development. If a state is not complying with Clean Air Act regulations, it will be constrained when it comes to building new conventional power plants as well as other industrial and manufacturing facilities. Without nuclear energy, there will be difficult choices on the horizon as we try to balance economic development, electricity needs and environmental goals. New power plants will not come on line in the future without serious consideration of their environmental impact. Again, California's woes clearly show that energy, the environment and economic development are inextricably linked. Nuclear energy is the only expandable form of electricity generation that meets all three criteria. Status of U.S. Nuclear Energy: Power for Today and Tomorrow The United States has the largest commercial nuclear power industry in the world. The 103 nuclear power reactors generate enough electricity to serve 67 million Americans, or the equivalent of the nuclear electricity needs of France and Japan combined. The industry's safety record is unparalleled among the world's energy providers, and nuclear power plant efficiency and production have improved steadily during the last decade and today are at record levels. In 2000, nuclear power plants in 31 states produced a record amount of electricity--754 billion kilowatt-hours. The industry's safety record has laid the foundation for this strong operational performance. Safety and excellence are at the very core of the industry, and safety is essential to its continued success in the competitive electricity market. As the industry moves forward, safety and low-cost power will continue to go hand-in-hand. The increase in electricity generation at U.S. nuclear power plants during the 1990s was equivalent to adding twenty-three 1,000-megawatt power plants to our nation's electricity grid. That's enough to meet 30% of all new electricity demand during that time. This dramatic increase in electricity production by nuclear power plants is one the most successful energy efficiency programs of the last decade. Safe, outstanding performance at nuclear power plants, especially during the transition to competitive electricity markets, is one reason why a growing number of policymakers, financial analysts and the public are rediscovering the benefits of nuclear energy. Outstanding operational performance is also a major reason why Entergy and other energy companies are extending the operating licenses at existing reactors for an additional 20 years. In 1997, some energy forecasters were predicting that dozens of nuclear power plants would shut down prematurely and that many more would shut down at the end of their 40-year licenses, issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. However, many of those same analysts today have reassessed the situation and now predict only a handful of plants may close prior to the expiration of their licenses. They now recognize that the vast majority of plants will extend their operating licenses beyond the initial 40-year period. And, it is also why the industry is looking at innovative partnerships for building advanced reactor designs that will be necessary to meet the future demands of a power-hungry digital economy and improve our air quality. The Energy Information Administration, in its 2001 annual energy outlook, forecasts higher nuclear power production. "In 2020, nuclear generation is projected to be 34 percent higher than forecast last year, due to lower estimated costs for extending the life of current reactors and higher projected natural gas prices." Energy Information Administration Energy Outlook, 2001 Even with this two-fold production and environmental advantage, nuclear power plants are the lowest cost electricity generators. In 2000, the average production cost of electricity generated by nuclear power plants was 1.83 cents per kilowatt-hour, making nuclear power the most affordable electricity in the United States. Nuclear Energy's Long History of Protecting our Air Quality The environmental value of nuclear energy was recognized early by policy makers. In Shippingport, Pa., over 50 years ago, nuclear energy's clean air value tipped the scales in favor of construction of the first demonstration nuclear power plant. Beginning in the 1940s, Pittsburgh began instituting strict smoke control programs as part of urban redevelopment plans--well ahead of the rest of the nation. At the time, Duquesne Light Company was petitioning to build a coal-fired plant on the Allegheny River. They were encountering a great deal of resistance from the area's citizens, who were fearful of air pollution from the plant. The main reason that Duquesne chose to bid on the nuclear project was because it offered power without pollution. That benefit is being rediscovered today, and promises to be of prime importance in the future. Energy and the environment are increasingly being linked both locally and globally. Yet, nuclear energy's clean air benefits--its ability to avoid the emission of harmful air pollutants while producing vast amounts of electricity--is still undervalued. In the process of generating electricity, nuclear plants produce no carbon dioxide, sulfur oxide or nitrogen oxides. Between 1970 and 1990, the increased use of nuclear energy alone eliminated more nitrogen oxide emissions than direct industry action taken to comply with the Clean Air Act. Nuclear energy, by avoiding additional emissions as electricity output grows, acts as a vital partner in Clean Air Act compliance. To meet more stringent Clean Air Act requirements and effectively manage carbon risk in the future, the United States must increase its percentage of non-emitting sources of electricity--such as nuclear energy, solar, hydro and wind--above the current baseline of 30 percent. Of these electricity production technologies, nuclear energy generates two-thirds of all emission-free electricity today, and is the only expandable, large-scale electricity source that avoids emissions and can meet the baseload energy demands of a growing, modern economy. Industry Planning is Already Underway for New Nuclear Energy Plants Although the average age of U.S. nuclear plants is only 18 years, we must begin planning now to enhance these services through increases in production capacity, improved efficiency, and license renewal. That's why the industry is working now to set the stage for construction of new advanced-designed nuclear plants that will have more automatic safety systems and will be even more reliable and economical. The industry is working together to lay the groundwork for new plants. Three advanced designs have already achieved certification by the NRC, having gone through extensive, multi-year safety reviews. Of the three designs, two have been built and are setting world-class performance records in Japan, while others are being built in Korea and Taiwan. Additionally, two more advanced designs are undergoing NRC review. One involves a review of changes to an existing approved design, uprating it from 600 to 1,000 megawatts. The other is a new reactor--known as the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor--now in preliminary review by the NRC. The NRC's licensing process for new nuclear plants will ensure that safety, design and site-related issues are resolved before large capital investments are made. A new licensing process will allow the NRC to issue a single license to construct and operate a new nuclear plant. Industry executives have come together--contributing personnel, funding and guidance--to develop a plan that will mark out a clear path for new nuclear plant orders. This plan for the future considers safety standards and objectives; NRC licensing requirements; policy and legislative implications; capital investment needs and changing business conditions. Nuclear Energy: Balancing the Nation's Energy Needs Our nation cannot meet the demands of our growing population and economy without increased power generation through the construction of new power plants. We need to increase the proportion of non-emitting baseload capacity through the construction of new emission-free plants. This will maintain both a diverse energy portfolio for the nation, and the price stability that nuclear energy offers. In order to do this, comprehensive national energy policy must · Encourage investment in new power plant construction. · Continue regulatory modernization, including regulatory stability for operating nuclear plants and licensing of new plants. · Ensure sufficient funding for research, development and swift application of new nuclear energy technologies is consistent with nuclear energy's future role in meeting U.S. energy needs. · Eliminate discrimination and ensure nuclear energy receives the same treatment as other electricity generating technologies in the marketplace. · Educate the nation about the excellent safety record of nuclear energy and inject sound science and intellectual honesty into the national energy debate so that consumers may make informed energy choices. · Maintain U.S. leadership and infrastructure to train the next generation of scientists, engineers and technicians required to design, build and operate nuclear power plants. In a competitive marketplace, the nuclear energy industry has the primary responsibility for ensuring the viability of nuclear technology. However, the industry values the important role that can be played by the federal government in preparing the way for new nuclear power plants. Protecting our air quality and our environment, as well as improving our energy security, are among the reasons why two-thirds of Americans favor nuclear energy as one way to generate electricity. One reason for the steady support for nuclear energy is that the public views nuclear energy as a fuel of the future and believes it is important for future generations. Americans consider solar and nuclear energy as primary sources of energy for the future. In addition, there is broad support for the continued operation of nuclear power plants (76 percent) as well as for maintaining the option to build more nuclear power plants in the future (73 percent).(3) And, a January survey by Bisconti Research Inc., shows an increase in those who favor building more nuclear power plants. Fifty-one percent of those polled said that the United States should "definitely" build more nuclear power plants in the future--compared with 42 percent in October 1999. The increase in favorability for building new nuclear plants was largest in the West, where those in favor increased from 33 percent in October 1999 to 52 percent in the January survey. Clearly, the California crisis is impressing upon the public the need for new electricity supplies. Used Nuclear Fuel: Sound Science Supports Yucca Mountain Federal legislation mandates a centralized geologic repository. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and its 1987 amendments require or authorize the U.S. Department of Energy to locate, build and operate a deep, mined geologic repository for used nuclear fuel. To pay for the permanent repository, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act established the Nuclear Waste Fund. Since 1982, electricity consumers have paid into the fund which now totals more than $16 billion. Based on scientific information gathered from several sites, Congress in 1987 selected Yucca Mountain as the location for further study to determine if the desert ridge is a suitable location for the federally operated underground repository. And, the industry fully expects that the Energy Department will forward a science-based decision on Yucca Mountain to the President later this year. A decade of science has been completed and will lead to a draft report this spring. A decision document is expected to be finalized in the fall, following hearings that will take place in Nevada. It is important that DOE and the Administration move ahead on schedule with the site recommendation process, leading to a decision by the President on site suitability late this year. This decision allows DOE to prepare documents to submit to the NRC to license a disposal facility. Most used fuel is stored in steel-lined, water-filled vaults at nuclear power plants. However, Entergy Nuclear and other nuclear power plant owners are absorbing the cost of on-site storage of spent nuclear fuel, despite the fact that they have already paid the government to perform this service. Other electric companies must build additional storage facilities for used nuclear fuel at nuclear power plant sites until a federal repository is operating. Less than six percent of commercial reactor fuel is stored in additional "dry" storage facilities today, but by 2010, approximately 30 percent of used fuel will be stored in these costly storage containers. Steps must be taken now to avoid a forced shutdown of any nuclear power plant due to a lack of used fuel storage, Universal Application of Nuclear Technology Saves and Protects Lives For five decades, the United States has been the global leader in the use of nuclear technology to benefit society. America's high-tech digital economy and high standard of living simply would not be possible without the use of nuclear energy. In addition, nuclear technology is used in scores of consumer products--both necessities and conveniences that enhance our daily lives. Among the necessities is nuclear energy, which provides one-fifth of our nation's electricity and is our largest supply of emission-free electricity, and nuclear medicine, which is used in one of every three medical diagnoses and treatments. Ten million Americans are diagnosed and treated every year using nuclear medicine. Radioactive isotopes also are essential to the biomedical research that seeks causes and cures for diseases such as AIDS, cancer and Alzheimer's disease. Nuclear technology also is used agricultural applications, industrial manufacturing and environmental protection. The use of nuclear technologies in the field of agriculture improves crop varieties, controls pests and preserves food. The use of irradiation in food safety continues to grow in the United States and has been used for decades in Europe. In fact, food irradiation has been approved to control food loss and to improve sanitation for more than 100 kinds of food in 41 countries. These uses of nuclear technology make significant contributions to our quality of life. The associated economic benefit of the use of nuclear technology and nuclear materials on the economy is significant, accounting for more than $400 billion in revenues (6 percent of the gross domestic product) and 4.4 million jobs. Conclusion: Nuclear Energy Powers America's Future One of the most prominent environmental protection programs in the industrial sector during the last three decades has been America's increased reliance on nuclear energy to power economic growth. No other source of electricity can provide large amounts of power while enhancing our air quality. Policymakers should maximize nuclear energy's potential to improve our air quality while providing low-cost electricity to fuel our economy. Continued research and development funding, streamlined business regulation, implementation of a federal waste management program, and equal access to business incentives will ensure that nuclear energy will continue to help meet our nation's public policy goals for energy security, economic growth and environmental protection. 1.EIA, Annual Energy Outlook 2001 2. EIA, Annual Energy Outlook 2001 3. Nuclear Energy 2000: Public Support Remains Strong, Ann Stouffer Bisconti, Ph. D., *Perspectives on Public Opinion*, April 2000. The Committee on Energy and Commerce 2125 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 (202) 225-2927 Feedback ***************************************************************** 15 Hearing Statement: INPO: A Tollison The Committee on Energy and Commerce: Hearing *The House Committee On Energy and Commerce W.J. "Billy" Tauzin, Chairman* Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality Hearing National Energy Policy: Nuclear Energy March 27, 2001 1:00 PM 2123 Rayburn House Office Building Mr. A.C. Tollison Jr. Executive Vice President Institute of Nuclear Power Operations Suite 100 700 Galleria Parkway, SE Atlanta, GA, 30339 SUMMARY · The Institute of Nuclear Power Operations was formed by the U.S. nuclear utility industry in late 1979 in response to the accident at Three Mile Island Nuclear Station.  INPO’s mission is to promote the highest levels of safety and reliability – to promote excellence – in the operation of nuclear electric generating plants. · In part through participation in INPO’s cornerstone programs, much progress has been achieved by the U.S. nuclear industry in the past 20 years.  This may be best exemplified by a set of performance indicators showing U.S. nuclear industry performance is at historically high levels of safety and reliability. · Plant owners are vigorously pursuing license renewal.  Also, with the advent of deregulation, the industry is consolidating rapidly to further improve efficiency.  All this indicates a foundation is being put in place for a renaissance in nuclear power.  · This foundation requires absolutely that we remain accident-free.  This requires vigilance and commitment, not just to the higher standards we have today, but to continuous improvement. Written Testimony Good afternoon.  My name is Alfred C. Tollison, Jr., executive vice president of the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations in Atlanta, Georgia.  I have been asked to discuss the safety and performance of the commercial nuclear power industry today and the trends we see for the future.  I will begin my remarks with a brief explanation of INPO’s structure and activities and what INPO’s role is in the nuclear industry. THE INSTITUTE OF NUCLEAR POWER OPERATIONS The Institute was formed by the U.S. nuclear utility industry in late 1979 in response to the accident at Three Mile Island Nuclear Station.  INPO’s mission is to promote the highest levels of safety and reliability – to promote excellence – in the operation of nuclear electric generating plants, including applying the lessons learned from the President’s Commission on the Accident at Three Mile Island (the Kemeny Commission).  The nuclear utility industry leaders established INPO as an independent organization – independent from governmental agencies and independent from any individual member. INPO is a nonprofit, independent technical organization with a staff of about 350 and a 2001 budget of $59 million.  The bulk of this budget is dedicated to travel and employee compensation.  Each of the 34 utilities in the United States with operational nuclear plants is a member of the Institute.  To augment its professional staff, INPO utilizes the expertise of loaned employees from members and participants.  This program is designed to provide a continuing source of personnel with recent nuclear plant experience to supplement the INPO staff.  It also provides loaned personnel with an opportunity to gain broader experience in the industry. The Institute’s organization is similar in many ways to a typical U.S. corporation.  A Board of Directors, elected by INPO’s members, oversees the operations and activities of the Institute. The president and chief executive officer of the Institute is elected by and reports to the Board of Directors.  The current president and CEO is Dr. James T. Rhodes.  He also serves as Chairman of the Board. In addition to the Board of Directors, an Advisory Council of professionals from outside the industry reviews Institute activities and provides advice on broad objectives and methods to the Board of Directors.  The Advisory Council is composed of distinguished professionals including prominent educators, scientists, industrialists and health specialists. To ensure that INPO programs benefit from the best technical advice the industry has to offer, an Executive Review Group reviews INPO programs and products in the various technical areas on a continuing basis.  The members of the Executive Review Group are experienced executives – typically the chief nuclear officers – who are currently active in nuclear plant operations or management.  An Academy Council provides advice in the areas of training and accreditation, and an Industry Communications Council provides advice on effective communication of INPO programs and activities. Non-U.S. nuclear utility organizations from 13 countries participate in the Institute’s International Program.  Ten nuclear steam system suppliers and architect-engineering and construction firms worldwide involved in nuclear work also participate in INPO through the Supplier Program. The key technical activities of the Institute can be divided into four cornerstone programs, which I will address in more detail later.  They are: 1. Evaluations – Periodic evaluations are conducted of each operating nuclear electric plant in this country. 2. Training and Accreditation – Training programs for key personnel at each plant are accredited by the independent National Nuclear Accrediting Board.  3. Events Analysis and Information Exchange – INPO analyzes operating experience and feeds back lessons learned to the industry. 4. Assistance – This includes plant visits, courses, seminars, and workshops. In addition, there is a detailed infrastructure to carry out each of these cornerstone programs.  The *Institutional Plan for the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations*, updated last year, and our *2000 Annual Report* provide additional details about the Institute’s programs and are attached to this testimony (attachments A and B). All interactions between INPO and its members are held strictly confidential.  This is vital to the success of INPO’s mission.  Utilities are voluntary members of INPO and are under no regulatory obligation to provide information to INPO – or to be members.  Experience shows that utilities are more willing to set challenging goals and to strive for excellence if they know they will not be criticized publicly if they fall somewhat short of these challenging goals.  Over the years, U.S. courts and administrative agencies have consistently upheld this position. INPO CORNERSTONE PROGRAMS We believe the Institute’s cornerstone programs have directly contributed to the industry’s progress. Evaluations The evaluation program cornerstone is a direct response to a recommendation of the Kemeny Commission that “… the industry must … set and police its own standards of excellence to ensure the effective management and safe operation of nuclear electric generating plants.” A comprehensive program has been established for conducting, on a periodic basis, independent evaluations of the operating nuclear plants and supporting corporate organizations of all U.S. nuclear utilities.  These evaluations are performance-based and are designed to ensure that each utility is striving to meet the industry’s high standards in key areas. Teams of qualified and experienced personnel conduct these evaluations, focusing on plant safety and reliability.  The evaluation teams are augmented by senior reactor operators, other peer evaluators from operating units similar to those at the station being evaluated, and host utility peer evaluators.  The scope of the evaluation includes traditional functional categories such as operations, maintenance, and engineering that generally correspond to the nuclear station organization.  The areas evaluated include organizational effectiveness, operations, maintenance, engineering, radiological protection, chemistry, and training. In addition, the teams evaluate cross-functional performance areas – processes and behaviors that cross organizational boundaries and that address organizational integration and interfaces.  The cross-functional evaluation includes areas such as safety culture, self-assessment and corrective action (learning organization), operating experience, human performance, and training. The performance of operations and training personnel during simulator exercises is included as part of each evaluation.  Also included, where practicable, are observations of plant startups, shutdowns, and major planned evolutions.  Evaluations of each operating nuclear station are conducted at an average interval of 21 months. Results from more than 875 plant evaluations INPO has conducted to date show substantial improvements in the conduct of plant operations, enhanced maintenance practices and improvements in equipment and human performance. Training and Accreditation Another excellent example of the industry’s response to the Kemeny Commission is in its commitment to improved training through INPO.  This commitment has resulted in considerable improvements in both the safety and reliability of the nation’s nuclear power plants. Under the training and accreditation cornerstone, the Institute assists its member utilities in developing, implementing and maintaining high quality, comprehensive training in a wide range of areas.  INPO also evaluates the results of utility training programs through the ongoing operating plant evaluation program and analyzes industry events to identify needed training improvements. INPO manages an industrywide accreditation program for utility training programs through the National Academy for Nuclear Training.  Established in 1985, the National Academy for Nuclear Training provides a framework for the following three essential elements in the industry’s program to strengthen nuclear utility training: o training activities, resources and facilities at nuclear utilities o the National Nuclear Accrediting Board o INPO’s training-related activities The National Nuclear Accrediting Board is an independent body established to ensure that nuclear utility training programs meet the standards of the National Academy for Nuclear Training.  The Board is composed of eminent American scholars and executives from the following four groups: o industrial training experts from fields outside the nuclear industry o members of the postsecondary education community o individuals nominated by the NRC o senior utility executives As an example of the National Nuclear Accrediting Board’s independence, the Board’s charter requires that the majority of each panel be from outside the utility industry when considering each accreditation action. The need for the work INPO is doing in training was recognized by the Kemeny Commission when it recommended the establishment of “agency-accredited training institutions” for nuclear plant operators.  As a condition of membership, each of INPO’s 34 member utilities has committed to achieve and maintain accreditation for 12 key positions involved in nuclear power operations.  These positions include shift managers; licensed and nonlicensed operators; maintenance supervisors, craftsmen, and technicians; chemistry and radiological protection technicians; and engineers. By the end of 1990, all U.S. nuclear power stations had achieved initial accreditation of all applicable training programs.  Accreditation is maintained on an ongoing basis and is formally renewed for each training program every four years. INPO conducts courses and seminars in support of the National Academy for Nuclear Training.  These courses and seminars help personnel better manage nuclear technology, more effectively address leadership challenges, and improve their personal performance.  Examples of courses conducted include the Chief Executive Officer Seminar, Reactor Technology Course for Utility Executives, Senior Nuclear Plant Management Course, Control Room Teamwork Development Course, and professional development seminars for shift managers, maintenance supervisors, engineering supervisors, radiation protection and chemistry supervisors, and training supervisors. Events Analysis and Information Exchange             The exchange of industry operating experience is another direct result of a Kemeny Commission recommendation which called for a “systematic gathering, review and analysis of operating experience at all nuclear power plants.”  Through this cornerstone program, each nuclear station provides data on events to the Institute’s technical staff.  At INPO, these industry events are reviewed for significance.  Following this analysis, the Institute disseminates applicable lessons learned throughout the industry.  As a follow-up, INPO evaluation teams check to see that nuclear stations have implemented all the applicable recommendations. The Institute has reviewed more than 100,000 events since its inception and provided 482 recommendations to member utilities and international participants through 85 Significant Operating Experience Reports.  More than 99 percent of the 482 recommendations (lessons learned) issued to date have been implemented industrywide. Nuclear Network® is an Internet-based electronic communications system available to all U.S. members and international participants.  The system allows rapid transmittal, storage and retrieval of nuclear plant information, and it provides a means for questioning other members and participants about their experiences in solving nuclear operations problems. The Institute collects and analyzes data and information related to nuclear plant performance.  Members provide data on quantitative performance indicators on a quarterly basis.  This plant data is then consolidated for trending and analysis purposes.  Industrywide data, plus trends developed from the data, is provided to member and participant utilities for a number of key operating plant performance indicators.  These include the performance indicators used by the World Association of Nuclear Operators (WANO) for worldwide nuclear plant performance comparisons.  Members use this data in setting specific performance goals and in monitoring and assessing performance of their nuclear plants.  INPO uses performance goals from individual utilities to help establish industrywide performance goals for plants in the United States. Assistance The assistance cornerstone has also contributed to the industry’s improvements by fostering comparison and the exchange of performance information and successful methods.  Visits to member utilities by INPO personnel in response to requests by the utilities are one of the most important modes of assistance.  To date, INPO has conducted more than 3,500 assistance visits. Several categories of documents (such as guidelines and good practices) are designed and developed to assist member utilities in their efforts to achieve excellence in operation, maintenance, training, and support of nuclear plants.  These documents are now in widespread use at every U.S. nuclear station and at many utilities worldwide. Another element of the assistance cornerstone is workshops.  INPO sponsors workshops that afford the Institute, international participants and U.S. member utilities an opportunity for face-to-face information exchange.  Typically, all U.S. nuclear utilities are represented at these workshops that routinely address topics such as operations, operating experience and maintenance.  International speakers are featured at most INPO workshops to promote the worldwide sharing of information.  INPO has sponsored 178 workshops with a cumulative attendance of more than 20,000 personnel.  In addition, INPO has sponsored more than 330 working meetings and seminars with a cumulative attendance of more than 5,300 personnel. INPO’S INTERNATIONAL PROGRAM, WANO-AC As INPO developed and expanded its activities, an International Participant Program was formed in 1981 to promote the widespread application of INPO standards of excellence and ensure that INPO programs benefit from good practices and lessons learned worldwide. To accomplish this, the International Participant Program, which is observing its twentieth anniversary this year, facilitates the exchange of operating experience and technical information with participating international nuclear utilities and utility organizations in other countries. There are currently 13 countries participating in the program.  These include Belgium, Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Taiwan and the United Kingdom. It is important to note that following the Chernobyl accident, the International Participant Program was instrumental in the formation of WANO.  The mission of WANO is to maximize the safety and reliability of the operation of nuclear power plants by exchanging information and encouraging communication, comparison, and emulation among its members. WANO is organized through regional centers and includes every operating nuclear electric plant in the world.  INPO represents all U.S. utilities as a member of the WANO-Atlanta Center. INPO’S RELATIONSHIP WITH U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCIES INPO coordinates its activities with federal government agencies as appropriate.  The Institute maintains a formal Memorandum of Agreement with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and with the Department of Energy (DOE).  These agreements reflect the desire of both organizations for a continuing, cooperative relationship in the exchange of experience, information and data related to the safety of nuclear power plants.  Although nuclear plant safety and protection of the public are fundamental goals of both INPO and the NRC, their roles, while complementary, are different.  INPO was not created to supplant the regulatory role of the NRC, but to provide the means whereby the industry itself could, acting collectively, make its nuclear operations safer.  It was recognized that in establishing and meeting its goals and objectives, INPO would have to work closely with the NRC, while at the same time not becoming or appearing to become an extension of or an advisor to the NRC or an advocacy agent for the utilities. INPO provides assistance to DOE to support improvement of operational safety at DOE nuclear facilities.  INPO conducts a limited number of assistance visits to DOE nuclear facilities, provides DOE with copies of selected INPO documents and domestic operating experience reports, and allows DOE personnel to attend industrywide workshops and conferences.  A limited number of DOE personnel are given access to Nuclear Network and selected information available on INPO’s member Web site. Additionally, certain aspects of INPO’s international program are coordinated with the Department of State. PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENTS In part through participation in INPO’s cornerstone programs, a great deal of progress has been achieved by the U.S. nuclear industry.  This progress may be best exemplified by a set of performance indicators that reflect the considerable progress in the areas of operations, training and maintenance. In the mid-1980s, INPO began an initiative to develop additional methods for measuring and comparing the performance of nuclear plants.  A series of 10 nuclear plant performance indicators was selected, and utilities have been reporting their performance.  These indicators have been adopted by WANO and are now used worldwide.  Aggressive goals are established at five-year intervals.  The year 2000 marks the end of the third five-year period. The basic principle inherent in the performance indicator program is that nuclear plants with good performance, as measured by the overall set of performance indicators, are generally recognized as well-managed plants.  Such plants are generally more reliable and can be expected to have higher margins of safety. Year 2000 was successful overall for the U.S. nuclear industry – the best ever in terms of safety and reliability.  For the first time, the industry met or exceeded the five-year goals in all categories.  Additionally, performance in every indicator was as good as or better than the previous year’s performance.  The 2000 results continue the remarkable record of progress that was started in 1980. I won’t discuss each performance indicator in detail today.  Instead, I will illustrate the industry’s progress using a few selected indicators, which are included in the *INPO 2000 Annual Report* I mentioned earlier. Unit Capability Factor is a measure of the plant’s ability to stay on line and produce electricity.  A high unit capability factor indicates effective plant programs and practices to minimize unplanned outages and to optimize planned outages.  In 1980, the industry median was 62.7 percent.  In 2000, the median was 91.1 percent.  This represents the best performance ever for this indicator; and for the second year in a row, it exceeds the 2000 goal.  Unplanned Automatic Scrams shows the number of automatic shutdowns for approximately one year of operation.  A low number indicates care in operations, good maintenance, and good training.  The median number has been reduced from 7.3 percent in 1980 to zero in 2000.  In fact, the median value has been zero for three straight years and continues to exceed the 2000 goal. Safety System Performance monitors the availability of three important standby redundant safety systems to mitigate off-normal events.  The industry’s goal is to encourage a high state of readiness, with at least 85 percent of these systems meeting specific 2000 goals for availability in excess of 97 percent.  The 85 percent target allows for normal year-to-year variations in individual system performance.  The 2000 performance of 96 percent is an increase over 1999 and continues to exceed the 2000 goal. Collective Radiation Exposure examines the effectiveness of personnel radiation exposure controls for boiling water reactors and pressurized water reactors.  Low exposure indicates strong management attention to radiological protection.  Worker exposure has been reduced significantly over the past 20 years.  The 2000 median value of 150 man-rem per unit for boiling water reactors is the best performance ever and exceeds the 2000 goal for the fourth straight year.  This is a striking improvement over the 1980 figure of 859 man-rem per unit.  Likewise, the pressurized water reactor value of 82 man-rem per unit exceeds the 2000 goal for the third straight year, also a significant improvement over the 1980 figure of 417 man-rem. Not shown in the material provided, the INPO Performance Indicator Index is an excellent illustration of the industry’s overall progress since 1985.  This Index is a weighted composite of the individual indicators on a scale of 0-100.  In 1985, the aggregate Index value for the industry was 43.  In 2000, the value was 94 – an all-time high. TRENDS IN THE INDUSTRY In short, the industry has made excellent overall progress in safety and reliability since 1980 and is committed to seeing these improvements continue. U.S. nuclear plants are performing at historically high levels from a safety and reliability standpoint.  Owners are vigorously pursuing license renewal.  Also, with the advent of deregulation, the industry is consolidating rapidly to further improve efficiency.  All this indicates that nuclear power is being recognized as a valuable, reliable source of energy for the future.  The business community is now recognizing what the nuclear industry has spent 20 years demonstrating:  These plants can be operated safely and efficiently; and, if properly maintained, there is no reason they can’t continue this performance well beyond their original 40-year licenses. Unquestionably, the industry will face – and is already facing – new challenges as it deals with deregulation and life extension issues.  Long-term industry success will require vigilance and commitment, not just to the higher standards we have today, but to continuous improvement.  INPO is helping the industry focus on the key issues that will be important in the near future – issues like human performance, equipment performance, and self-assessment and corrective action.  New training needs will also emerge as we prepare a new generation of nuclear professionals to operate and maintain our nuclear fleet. The U.S. industry will continue to set challenging goals for itself.  Already, new 2005 goals have been established for the performance indicator program.  Taking into account the dramatic improvement of the industry as a whole during the past two decades, these new goals focus more on plants that are performing below the industry median.  In concert with these changes, INPO is also adapting its programs to further help these outlier plants improve their performance. CONCLUSION In conclusion, nuclear energy is a God-given resource; and its proper management is vitally important, not only today, but for future generations.  I don’t believe it’s an overstatement to say that a foundation is being put in place for a renaissance in nuclear power. But this foundation requires absolutely that we remain accident-free.  This requires vigilance and commitment, not just to the higher standards we have today, but to continuous improvement.  With vigilance and with commitment to safety by the industry, supported by INPO, and with oversight by a strong and fair regulator, I believe nuclear power has a bright future in helping fulfill our nation’s energy needs. At the 1989 INPO CEO Conference, on the observance of INPO’s tenth anniversary, then-U.S. Secretary of Energy Admiral James D. Watkins said, and I quote: In the past 10 years, INPO has done an outstanding job in helping the nuclear industry improve its performance.  Ten years from now, on the twentieth anniversary of INPO, I sincerely hope that we can all celebrate the absence, during the 1990s, of a single significant incident at a nuclear reactor.  If we do, we will be well on our way to reestablishing nuclear power as a safe and viable source of energy, not only for America, but for the world. Thanks to the nuclear industry’s continued pursuit of excellence in plant safety and reliability, I believe we are seeing the realization of Admiral Watkins’ vision just as he predicted. Thank you for the opportunity to share INPO’s perspective.  Subject to your questions, this concludes my testimony. ATTACHMENTS TO WRITTEN TESTIMONY Attachment A:      *Institutional Plan for the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations*, November 2000 Attachment B:      *INPO 2000 Annual Report* (Copies provided upon request) The Committee on Energy and Commerce 2125 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 (202) 225-2927 Feedback ***************************************************************** 16 Hearing Statement: Exelon: W Sproat The Committee on Energy and Commerce: Hearing *The House Committee On Energy and Commerce W.J. "Billy" Tauzin, Chairman* Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality Hearing National Energy Policy: Nuclear Energy March 27, 2001 1:00 PM 2123 Rayburn House Office Building Mr. Ward Sproat Vice President of International Programs Exelon Corporation 300 Exelon Way Kennett Square, PA, 19348 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF TESTIMONY BY EDWARD F. SPROAT III Exelon Generation is the largest nuclear power generator in the United States, owning and operating approximately 20 % of the nuclear capacity in the country. We have evaluated various technologies and options for future electricity generation and have determined that small, modular nuclear power plants could provide a competitive advantage in the deregulated wholesale power marketplace while at the same time, make a significant contribution to the reduction of greenhouse gases and air pollution attributed to electric generation. As a result, we have made an investment in a joint venture to study the feasibility of an advanced nuclear reactor design called the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor. This technology is currently being developed in the Republic of South Africa and we are investigating the feasibility of licensing power plants based on this technology here in the United States. The key advantages of this technology appear to be increased nuclear safety, minimal environmental impact, low capital and operating costs, stable fuel costs, short construction time, and the ability to add incremental capacity to regional markets to economically match load growth. We believe that these advantages are clearly both in our competitive interests as well as the national interest. In order to move forward with the implementation of this technology, additional design and licensing work is required as well as some key regulatory changes. In particular, there are several non-technical regulations that require revision because the concept of merchant nuclear power in a de-regulated marketplace was not contemplated when they were initially written. Legislation to allow the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to make some of these changes may be necessary. Also, some form of cost-sharing between the Department of Energy and the private sector may be needed to defray the high licensing costs expected with the "first time" utilization of the 10 CFR Part 52 licensing process and the cost of developing an advanced reactor licensing framework to be used by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission TESTIMONY OF EDWARD F. SPROAT III Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: I appreciate the invitation to appear before the Subcommittee to discuss the views of Exelon Generation Company regarding our interests in building new nuclear power plants in the United States and the potential barriers we currently face in our efforts to do so. My name is Edward F. Sproat and I am the Vice President of International Projects for Exelon Generation Company. Exelon Generation is a wholly owned subsidiary of Exelon Corporation, which was formed last year by the merger of Unicom Corporation of Chicago and PECO Energy Company of Philadelphia. Exelon Generation currently owns and operates approximately 37,000 megawatts of diversified electrical generation with another 8,500 megawatts under construction or development. We are the largest nuclear generation operator in the country with approximately 20% of the nation’s nuclear generation capacity. Both Unicom and PECO Energy were pioneers in the commercialization of civilian nuclear power with each company building its first nuclear plant in the early 1960’s. As a result, our new company has both a deep respect for and a keen understanding of nuclear power and we have been able to make it the foundation of our successful generation business. Exelon’s Involvement in the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor Project You may have recently heard or read about the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor, or PBMR, that is currently being developed in the Republic of South Africa. Exelon is investing approximately $7.5 million in this project to complete the preliminary design so that a feasibility study of the technology and its economics can be completed. Our other partners in this venture are ESKOM, the national electric utility of the Republic of South Africa; the Industrial Development Corporation of South Africa; and British Nuclear Fuels Limited (BNFL) of the United Kingdom. The study is due to be completed early this summer. If the technology is deemed ready for commercialization, and if the economics prove to be competitive against other forms of generation, the partners with the appropriate approvals of the South African government will proceed to build a demonstration plant in South Africa near Cape Town. Construction of that plant will take approximately thirty-six months, followed by a twelve month testing period. If Exelon’s review of the feasibility study is favorable, we do not intend to wait for the completion of the demonstration plant in South Africa to begin the licensing process to build a number of PBMR’s in this country. We would intend to submit a license application for early site permitting in 2002, followed by an application for a combined construction and operating license in 2003 after the detailed design is completed in South Africa. We believe that the licensing process, under the best of circumstances, could be completed in twenty-six months; but in reality, the time required is unknown as there are a number of technical and legal issues that will need to be resolved. I will come back to the legal issues in a moment. Reasons for Exelon’s Interest in the PBMR Both Illinois and Pennsylvania are at the forefront of the deregulation of the electric utility industry. As a result, Exelon has been able to learn about the market dynamics of the deregulated marketplace very quickly. To be able to compete in the deregulated wholesale power markets, which have distinctly unique regional characteristics, new generation sources must be able to meet several criteria. Specifically, new plants must be able to be permitted and brought on-line quickly, in thirty-six to forty-eight months at the most, and they must be able to compete with gas–fired combined cycle power plants on a total cost basis in the 3 to 3.5 cents per kilowatt-hour range. They must be small enough so that as their capacity is added to the market, an oversupply situation is not created in the region that drives prices down below the producers’ marginal costs. They must also meet the environmental constraints of the region. We don’t believe that the currently available designs of light water reactor nuclear power plants can meet all of these criteria. We believe that the PBMR is the only reactor currently under development that may be able to meet the needs of this deregulated marketplace in the next five years. We intend to find out if it can. Description of the PBMR The PBMR is a small nuclear power plant that would produce approximately 125 megawatts of electricity per module with four of these modules being able to fit on a football field. Each module has a high temperature gas-cooled reactor that heats helium under pressure to approximately 900 degrees Celsius, which turns a gas turbine connected to a generator. The helium then returns to the reactor. This direct cycle allows higher efficiencies than existing nuclear plants and also significantly reduces the amount of water required for plant cooling over other power plants. The coupling of a gas turbine directly to the helium reactor has only recently been made possible through advances in gas turbine technology The reactor core is comprised of about three hundred thousand fuel spheres that are approximately the size of billiard balls. Each sphere contain approximately 14,000 coated particles of 9% enriched Uranium 235, each 0.5 millimeters in diameter. The coating on each particle is designed to contain the radioactive gases produced by nuclear fission and can withstand extremely high temperatures. As a result of the reactor and fuel designs, the fuel cannot melt under any conditions, a significant safety improvement over existing reactor technology. The reactor and fuel designs have been demonstrated through years of testing in Germany where the Pebble Bed Reactor was invented in the early 1970’s. The South Africans are utilizing the German fuel and reactor technology for the PBMR and would be the suppliers of the fuel to be used in our reactors. The ceramic nature of this fuel also make it insoluble in water which is significant in that it can’t leach into ground water when stored underground in a spent fuel repository. Regulatory Hurdles As I mentioned before, the expected length of the process that we will face to license the first set of PBMR’s is difficult to determine. While the technical issues will be complex, there are legal hurdles that appear to be more difficult to resolve. Specifically, there are a number of regulations that were promulgated when it was anticipated that only regulated electric utilities would build nuclear plants. These regulations never foresaw the dawn of a deregulated power generation market and are now obsolete. If Exelon proceeds with building PBMR’s, they will be merchant nuclear power plants that will not be in a regulated utility rate structure. The financial risk of the plant will rest on the shareholder, not the ratepayer. The financial burden imposed on small, modular plants by these inappropriate regulations clearly has the potential to make the economics untenable. Some of the key regulations which need to be addressed include the financial protection requirements of 10 CFR Part 140, the decommissioning funding requirements of 10 CFR Part 50.75, the antitrust review requirements of 10CFR Part 50.33a, the annual fees on a per reactor basis in 10 CFR Part 171, and the large emergency planning zone requirements in 10 CFR Part 50.54(m). In addition to the above regulations, the licensing process which we would follow under 10 CFR Part 52 to obtain a combined construction and operating license for these plants has never been utilized. As a result, we expect that there will be a steep learning curve for both the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff and ourselves on how to execute this process with resultant high costs and delays. We will also need to work with the NRC staff to develop the technical licensing framework for the PBMR as the existing regulations are written for light water reactors. Regulations will need to be developed for gas reactors, also at additional costs and potential delay. Potential Role for Public Funding Exelon believes strongly that the development of the design and the cost to commercialize and build the PBMR should be borne by the PBMR partners. It is anticipated that the partners will invest upwards of $600 million of their own money to make the PBMR commercially viable with Exelon investing a significant additional amount to license and build the first PBMR’s. There are, however, a number of first of a kind costs that Exelon will bear as the first licensee for this new technology that will flow directly to government agencies such as the NRC in the form of licensing fees and the national laboratories as consultants to the NRC. As stated earlier, we expect that the costs of licensing this technology will be higher than normal because of the unproven nature of the 10CFR Part 52 licensing process and the need to create a gas reactor licensing framework. The technical expertise needed to review the PBMR application does not currently exist either in the NRC or in the national labs and will need to be developed. We believe it is appropriate for some level of government funding to be provided to fund the work of government agencies in these areas. Summary In conclusion, as the shortage of electricity supplies in several areas of the country looms large with the approach of summer, we must find w ays to cut through the morass of archaic legal and procedural impediments to building new environmentally benign sources of electricity. This is an issue of urgent national priority. Nuclear power has earned the right to be counted among this country’s most viable options as a future power source. It has achieved an outstanding safety record and serves as a stable and abundant domestic source of electricity which emits no air pollutants or greenhouse gases. If we’re able to make the PBMR commercially viable and cost competitive, we will have at least one potential solution to our future energy needs. The Committee on Energy and Commerce 2125 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 (202) 225-2927 Feedback ***************************************************************** 17 Hearing Statement: J Longenecker The Committee on Energy and Commerce: Hearing *The House Committee On Energy and Commerce W.J. "Billy" Tauzin, Chairman* Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality Hearing National Energy Policy: Nuclear Energy March 27, 2001 1:00 PM 2123 Rayburn House Office Building Mr. John R. Longenecker Longenecker &Associates, Inc. Management Consultants PO Box 3094 Del Mar, CA, 92014 Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to address the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality on the issues involved with the US nuclear fuel cycle.  I have been involved with nuclear energy and nuclear fuel cycle issues for more than 28 years, and previously managed DOE’s uranium enrichment business as Deputy Assistant Secretary of DOE, and later as the first Transition Manager of USEC. Today, parts of the nation, including my home state of California, are experiencing electricity shortages, with rolling blackouts that disrupt business and productivity in some of the nation’s key high-tech industrial regions.  Nuclear power currently represents about 20% of electrical power consumed in the US, and any uncertainty regarding the reliable and economic supply of fuel to US nuclear power plants could pose a serious threat to our nation. My key conclusions regarding the US nuclear fuel cycle industry are as follows: 1.  A reliable, economic supply of nuclear fuel is essential to the future energy security of the United States.  That supply in endangered. 2.  US nuclear fuel cycle companies are being challenged by a range of factors including the sale of Russian HEU, US HEU, and USEC’s inventories of natural and enriched uranium. 3.  A very severe situation exists in the uranium enrichment business, where the US is operating 50-year-old plants, has no proven technology to replace them, and relies on Russian HEU blending to meet more than half of all customer deliveries.  Constructing new, cost competitive enrichment capacity in the United States as soon as possible is critical to the future of all parts of the US nuclear fuel cycle industry. 4.  Maintaining political and financial stability for the Russian HEU Agreement is essential for the fulfillment of international policy objectives.  However, the US government should carefully consider (a) the assignment of the role of Executive Agent on behalf of the US government, (b) how the billion dollar trading profits from brokering Russian enriched uranium should be allocated, and (c) whether it is in the best interests of the United States to allow USEC to broker additional supplies of enriched uranium from Russian commercial enrichment plants.  5.  Government subsidies for non-competitive companies and trade sanctions against foreign competitors do not build a sustainable basis for the continued use of nuclear power in the United States. It is particularly alarming that the antidumping action brought by USEC against its European competitors could increase fuel costs to US ratepayers by $650 million to $1.2 billion per year, and has created uncertainty about assurance of supply under existing import contracts.  6.  The United States must define a comprehensive strategy to maintain viable, competitive nuclear fuel supplies for this country for the decades ahead.  The roles in implementing a long-term strategy to keep the US nuclear industry competitive must be clear, and must include substantial participation by both the government and private sector, with the private sector taking the lead. Background  The nuclear fuel cycle market is restructuring and consolidating.  This restructuring has had some painful effects, exacerbated by the sale of Russian Highly Enriched Uranium, US HEU, and USEC’s inventories of natural and enriched uranium. Maintaining political and financial stability for the Russian HEU Agreement is essential for the fulfillment of international policy objectives.  The US government’s goal must be to assure that the Agreement’s supply contract stabilizes delivery arrangements for the next 15 years.  The viability of the Agreement must not be jeopardized if newly negotiated pricing terms or conditions in the contract fail to assure the continuity of deliveries. However, the Russian HEU contract is only one part of the equation.  The United States must have an overarching objective to define a comprehensive strategy to maintain viable, competitive nuclear fuel supplies for this country for the decades ahead.  Short term fixes and band-aid approaches must be avoided. Today’s highly competitive market is no surprise to anyone who has followed the nuclear fuel markets over the past 20 years.  We have known for more than a decade that due to the construction of fewer nuclear power plants than originally projected and HEU blending, nuclear fuel supply exceeds demand in every sector.  We have also known for more than 25 years that US gaseous diffusion uranium enrichment technology would become economically obsolete and would need to be replaced.  However, today the US lacks any plan to address the key nuclear fuel cycle issues both in the near term and in the long term. In the context of assuring reasonable nuclear fuel supply at competitive prices, I believe that the US must assure that it is not totally reliant on non-US sources for its fuel.  However, in order to survive, US fuel supply companies themselves must be competitive.  Government subsidies for non-competitive companies and trade sanctions against foreign competitors do not build a sustainable basis for the continued use of nuclear power in the United States.   For example, the antidumping action brought by USEC against its European competitors in late 2000, has created significant market uncertainties, and could increase fuel costs to US ratepayers by $650 million to $1.2 billion per year.  In the final analysis, US citizens end up paying the bill for such actions, either though higher taxes or higher electricity rates.  The US nuclear fuel businesses must be able to compete head-to-head in the world nuclear fuel market.   To develop a comprehensive nuclear fuel cycle strategy will require collaboration among the Congress, the Administration, industry, labor, state governments, and other constituencies.  The ultimate goal must be to have a competitive, stable, viable nuclear fuel supply for this country.  Reliability of supply and price are crucial elements in this plan.  More specifically, we must assure that nuclear fuel prices do not suffer a shock similar to that experienced with natural gas prices recently.   Fuel prices must be stable and predictable if the nation is to rely on nuclear power as part of its supply mix for the future.  The roles in implementing a long-term strategy to keep the US nuclear industry competitive must be clear, and must include substantial participation by both the government and private sector.  The nuclear power industry must not and will not rely on the government to implement a solution.  The private sector should take the lead.  However, the government also has a key role to play.    This role should be defined after the private sector plan is defined. A key policy debate revolves around the Russian HEU Agreement.  At present the Russian HEU contract is under re-negotiation and will expire on December 31, 2001. The contract has already generated substantial profits for the exclusive US Executive Agent, USEC.  Under USEC’s proposed “market based” revision to the supply contract with Tenex, the Russian Executive Agent, trading profits are estimated to be $1 billion or more over the next 10 years.  USEC has also sought Administration approval to import and resell an additional one million SWU per year from Russian commercial enrichment facilities.  Since this is a government-to-government agreement, and the Executive Agent is selected by the US government, there needs to be an open dialogue regarding whether and how profits generated by this government created franchise are allocated to promote the long-term viability of the nuclear fuel cycle industry. More specifically, should this billion-dollar benefit accrue solely to USEC, for use at its discretion, or should the US government have some say in how the trading profits from this government-to-government agreement are utilized?  As part of this dialogue, consideration should be given to establishing a second Executive Agent that would purchase a portion of the low enriched uranium derived from HEU now being blended in Russia.  Such action could increase the assurance of continuity of the Russian HEU Agreement, allow USEC to take advantage of its low marginal costs by increasing production at Paducah and thereby enhance its near term profits and viability by lowering its average GDP production costs.  Uranium Enrichment Today, USEC is the only North American supplier of uranium enrichment services, and the long-term future of this business is highly uncertain.  USEC is the high cost supplier in the market, and enrichment operations at the GDPs in the future will operate at a loss.  USEC utilized only about 29% of its nameplate GDP capacity in 2000 (see Table 1), and over the next year will supply a majority of its customers needs from Russian and US HEU blending.   This situation led to the decision to close the Portsmouth GDP in 2001, and at some point in the future will lead to the closure of the Paducah GDP.  Trading profits from the Russian HEU agreement and sale of natural and enriched uranium inventories provide essentially all of USEC’s cash ($150-200 million per year) that is used to pay for dividends, capital upgrades, R&D, and sales, general and administrative costs.  USEC is finding it more profitable to operate as a trader of blended HEU rather than as a primary producer.  This approach appears to lead inevitably to USEC exiting the market as a primary producer.  As a result, constructing replacement enrichment capacity in the US should be the key focus for the next few years. Nominal Estimated Percent Estimated Production 2000 of Total Capacity Capacity Sales 2000 Utilization (MSWU/year) (MSWU/year) Sales USEC (2 GDPs) 18.5 11.0 32% *29% COGEMA 10.8 7.1 20% 66% TENEX 14.0 8.5 24% 61% URENCO 4.8 4.8 14% 100% Other 3.4 3.4 10% 100% Total 51.5 34.8 100% 56%                         * 5.5 million SWU supplied by Russian HEU Table 1  Worldwide capacity, sales and production of separative work A reality of the uranium enrichment industry is that prices have been declining since 1985.  This decline was driven by the deployment and gradual improvement of centrifuge technology, primarily in Europe.  The continuing decrease in prices should have been no surprise to anyone, since the Department of Energy (see Figure 1) Office of Uranium Enrichment, the predecessor to USEC, predicted this trend in 1984.  DOE committed to Congress and to its customers in 1985 to deploy AVLIS technology to meet this challenge.  As shown in Figure 1, DOE was reasonably accurate in its price projections.  Also as predicted by DOE, Urenco added new enrichment capacity to the market with production costs well below those of the US gaseous diffusion plants. Figure 1   1984 DOE Projections Of Future SWU Prices However, after an investment of about $1.5 billion, DOE did not deploy AVLIS, instead transferring all rights to the technology to USEC.  In 1994, USEC announced plans to deploy AVLIS, and proceeded to price aggressively in the market, only to cancel those plans in 1999 when it faced financial problems.    USEC’s credit rating was downgraded to below investment grade (junk bond status) within 18 months of privatization. USEC’s continued reliance on GDP technology in 2001 is not driven by the competitiveness of GDP technology, but rather by its lack of a proven technology to replace the GDPs. The high costs of GDP operation have been recognized for years.  In fact, the US Atomic Energy Commission announced in the mid-1970s that its three GDPs were soon to be economically obsolete.  Thus, 25 years later we should not be surprised that the Portsmouth GDP is closing, and that the closure and replacement of the Paducah GDP is a reality that must be planned for. What is surprising, and in fact astounding to many in the world, is that despite the expenditure of more than $7 billion dollars of US government funds on centrifuge and AVLIS technology development and deployment over the past 40 years, the United States today is still operating economically obsolete 50-year old gaseous diffusion plants.  In 1994, USEC announced its plans to have an AVLIS plant operating by 2002.  If USEC had succeeded in this plan, it would have very different future prospects than it has today.  The solution to the future competitiveness of the US uranium enrichment industry was and still is the deployment of new, cost competitive enrichment capacity.  Low cost technologies have been developed and deployed by non-US enrichment companies over the past three decades, while the US has failed to follow through on past commitments to deploy new low cost enrichment technologies.  It is ironic that the same companies who followed through with the investment in advanced technologies and new enrichment capacity over the past decades, now face trade sanctions in the US.  In addition, US utilities face supply uncertainties due to these possible sanctions.  However, even with proven technologies, there are risks inherent in building any new enrichment capacity in the US.  These include market risks, regulatory risks, and actions by governments such as trade restrictions.   Assuming that these risks can be managed, Urenco and Russian centrifuge technologies are the low cost proven production options, and absent trade restrictions, are poised to dominate the market for the foreseeable future.  The question is whether the US will cede this business to foreign suppliers.   The US DOE has proposed a revival of its centrifuge technology program, but after being out of the centrifuge R&D arena for the last 15 years, the US has no proven advanced gas centrifuge (AGC) design, limited design infrastructure, and no production infrastructure.  Although the US has a strong history in AGC development, the time, costs and risks involved with developing a competitive design, proving it, and deploying may be much less financially attractive than simply relying on proven designs and equipment.  One path forward could be a private sector initiative to construct an enrichment plant using proven technology, while the US government pursues advanced technologies for the long term, either centrifuge or laser, in an attempt to define an option that is substantially cheaper than today’s centrifuge plants.  However, if the government decides to pursue such an option, it must be soundly based to assure that the end result will be a substantial economic advantage.  If there is not a high probability of such an advantage, government funds should not be spent. The workers in the uranium enrichment industry have done a great job keeping the US competitive for decades.  However, with 50 year-old GDP technology, they can only do so much. Furthermore, workers know that there is no long-term future in working at economically obsolete facilities.  They need to know the path forward, or they will soon be forced to move to other industries with the obvious loss of technical expertise and skills. Although it sometimes gets masked by rhetoric, the uranium enrichment business is all about producing SWUs cheaper than you sell them.  If the US keeps this focus, it will have an economically viable production base at the end of the decade.  Uranium Natural uranium is a critical element of the nuclear fuel cycle.  For the past several years, world production of uranium has been substantially less than world demand.  The difference between production and consumption was made up from HEU blending, enrichment of depleted uranium tails and inventory sales.  The largest single inventory seller was USEC, who sold about $100 million worth of inventories that it obtained from DOE prior to privatization, in its fiscal year 2000 to raise cash for its operations. The countries with rich ore deposits today dominate the world uranium market.  Providing a measure of supply security to US utilities, Canada, with its vast low cost reserves, is the world’s largest producer of uranium. As shown in Table 2, Australia was second, and former Soviet Union countries were the third largest producer of uranium in 1999.  US production was a small portion of world requirements, a situation that is unlikely to change substantially even as prices recover, due to relatively low uranium ore grades and high mining costs. A summary of 1999 uranium production follows: Area of Production Production % Of World Production Canada 27 Australia 19 Former Soviet Union 18 Central Africa 10 Southern Africa 12 United States  6 Other  8   Table 2  1999 Uranium Production World uranium prices in the spot market hit an historic low in real terms in 2000, at about $7/lb before recovering to the current level of about $8.20/lb.  Prices have been strongly impacted by Russian HEU blending and inventory sales.  At present, about one third of world uranium requirements are met from inventory sales and HEU blending.  Although most uranium is delivered to utilities under long-term contracts at prices higher than spot market prices, inventory sales have lowered even long-term prices.  Shown below in Table 3 are the spot prices for uranium over the past decade. At present, spot uranium prices in the US market are about $8.20/lb, with long-term prices at about $9.75/lb.  Outside the US market, which restricts the importation of Russian uranium, spot prices are substantially less at about  $6.75/lb.   Overall, the uranium market is expected to be challenging over the next five years as USEC and other inventory sales and Russian HEU blending continues.  As these inventories are depleted, primary producer sales will increase and prices should recover.  Year Price/lb U3O8       US$ 1990           9.73  1991           8.73 1992           8.55 1993         10.10 1994           9.37 1995         11.36 1996         15.50 1997         12.09 1998         10.42 1999         10.20 2000        8.37 Table 3  Spot U3O8 Price Trends 1990-2000 – In Restricted Market Conversion The conversion of uranium concentrates into uranium hexafluoride (UF6) for enrichment by GDP or centrifuge is commonly called conversion.  Although conversion represents a small portion of total nuclear fuel cycle costs, it is an essential component.  Worldwide consumption in 2000 was about 52 M kg/year, as compared to installed production of 63.2 M kg/year. The principal suppliers of conversion services now include ConverDyn in the US, Cameco in Canada, BNFL in the UK, Cogema in France, and Minatom in Russia.  Over the past decade, the worldwide conversion capacity decreased with the closing of the Sequoyah Fuels facility in Oklahoma, reducing the number of conversion suppliers in North America from three to two.  In addition, BNFL announced recently that it would withdraw from the business in 2006, with Cameco assuming ownership of its operations.  Capacities of these plants are shown below. Country Owner/Operator Plant Capacity MTU/year United States ConverDyn                  14,000 Canada Cameco                  12,500 China CNNC                    1,000 France Comurhex                  14,350 Japan PNC                        50 South Africa AEC                    1,000 United Kingdom British Nuclear Fuels, Ltd.                    6,000 Russia Minatom                  14,000 India DAE                      295 Total                63,195;(consumption ~52,000) Table 5   Worldwide Uranium Conversion Capacity Due to excess supplies and aggressive selling of inventories by entities including USEC, conversion prices decreased to about $5.75/kg in 1996, and to about $2.50/kg in 2000.  However, recently conversion prices have recovered, and now stand at about $4/kg for spot sales and $4.50/kg for long-term contracts. In the future, as inventories are depleted, the conversion industry should stabilize. However, even though US customers can take some comfort from having two North American suppliers, further industry consolidation is possible. Disposal of Used Fuel As part of its overall nuclear fuel cycle strategy, the government must place top priority on assuring that a permanent disposal mechanism for used fuel is implemented as soon as possible.  Later this year, DOE will issue its site recommendation for the Yucca Mountain Project.  This recommendation must be acted on promptly, and a path forward defined and funded as quickly as possible.  Without some certainty on the disposal mechanism for used fuel, no additional nuclear power plants will be built in the United States. Summary In summary, now is the time for action to address the critical issues in the supply of nuclear fuel cycle to US power plants in a manner that is technically and financially sound.  Due to a range of factors, the future of US nuclear fuel supply is in doubt.  The situation is somewhat more secure for uranium and conversion services due to the existence of competitive supply sources in Canada, but the long-term prospects of USEC, the only North American supplier of enrichment services, are highly uncertain. The current US situation results from market factors, resource limitations, and in some instances from management misjudgments.  However, the reasons why we arrived at this dysfunctional state are not as important as where we go from here to address the problems. If the government and private sector evaluate the nuclear fuel supply situation and decide that reliance on non-US sources is acceptable due to the high costs and risks involved in developing or maintaining a competitive US industry, that’s okay. However, an immediate public policy debate is warranted on how best to assure the flow of competitively priced nuclear fuel to provide reliable low cost electricity to our nation.  Thank you for your attention. The Committee on Energy and Commerce 2125 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 (202) 225-2927 Feedback ***************************************************************** 18 Hearing Statement: PIRG: A Aurilio The Committee on Energy and Commerce: Hearing *The House Committee On Energy and Commerce W.J. "Billy" Tauzin, Chairman* Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality Hearing National Energy Policy: Nuclear Energy March 27, 2001 1:00 PM 2123 Rayburn House Office Building Miss. Anna Aurilio Legislative Director U.S. PIRG 218 D Street, SE Washington, DC, 20003 Good afternoon, my name is Anna Aurilio and I’m the Legislative Director of the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, or U.S. PIRG.  U.S. PIRG is the national office for the State PIRGs, which are environmental, good government and consumer advocacy groups active around the country.  Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. The state PIRGs have a long history of working for a clean affordable energy future.  Our goal is shift from polluting and dangerous sources of energy such as nuclear and fossil energy to increased energy efficiency and clean renewable energy sources. Today I will be addressing nuclear energy issues. Nuclear power is unsafe, unreliable, uneconomic and generates long-lived radioactive wastes for which there is no safe solution.  It should be phased out as soon as possible and should not be encouraged as a future energy source. Since the late 1970’s, the PIRGs have worked to protect the public from unsafe, expensive nuclear reactors.  PIRGs successfully opposed the construction of several nuclear power plants because of cost, safety and nuclear waste concerns.  For example, in 1982, litigation by MASSPIRG helped cancel the proposed Pilgrim 2 nuclear power plant. In 1983, NJPIRG helped cancel the proposed Hope Creek nuclear power plant.  CoPIRG worked for the creation of the Office of Consumer Counsel (OCC) in 1984.  The OCC was key in protecting ratepayers from being burdened with "stranded costs" in the St. Vrain nuclear power plant case.   During reauthorization of the Price-Anderson Act, the PIRGs successfully advocated for lower taxpayer liability in case of a nuclear accident.  From 1993 through 1995, PIRG helped shift more than $500 million in nuclear and fossil R &D spending to efficiency and renewable programs.  During that time, we helped convince Congress to eliminate funding for two extremely expensive advanced reactor programs, the gas-cooled reactor and the Advanced Liquid Metal Reactor, saving taxpayers at least $5.6 billion. Nuclear power is unsafe.  Nuclear power poses an unacceptable threat to humans and the environment.  All aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle pose a risk to humans and the environment.  Uranium mining and enrichment has caused sickness and death in workers and has generated tons of mining and enrichment wastes, which continue to threaten nearby communities. Current uranium mining practices include “in-situ” leaching, which pollutes precious aquifers in the arid West.   Irradiated fuel from nuclear reactors is perhaps the most toxic material generated by humans.  Unshielded, it delivers a lethal dose of radiation within seconds.  According to the Department of Energy, 95% of the radioactive waste (by radioactivity) in this country has been generated by commercial nuclear reactors.  Nuclear power plants are very complex and contain enormous amounts of potential energy in the fuel at the core of the reactor.  The most tragic example of the dangers posed by this technology is the 1986 accident at the Chernobyl reactor in the Ukraine.  The explosion and core meltdown at Chernobyl released radiation that generated a plume encompassing the entire Northern Hemisphere [1]. Here in the U.S., in addition to the partial core meltdown at Three Mile Island in 1979 which forced the evacuation of nearly one hundred fifty thousand people, there have been four other nuclear accidents in the U.S. involving at least partial core meltdown.[2]  The potential consequences of a serious accident are staggering.  A 1982 study by the Sandia National Laboratories found that a serious accident at a U.S. nuclear reactor could cause hundreds to thousands of deaths in the near term.[3] In 1985, in response to a question posed by Representative Markey, an NRC commissioner responded that there was a 45% chance of a severe nuclear accident in the following twenty years. We are therefore very concerned about the safety of nuclear reactors currently operating in this country.  We are astonished that the industry and the regulatory agency have been lobbying for a relaxation of safety standards and oversight and limiting the public’s access to these processes. We are concerned that utility deregulation and new ownership of reactors may increase risks of accidents because of increased pressure to run the plants closer to the margin.  This risk is heightened by the fact that the 103 operating reactors around the country are deteriorating with age more quickly than expected.  Even Vice President Cheney acknowledged the aging problem on the television show “Hardball” (March 21):  “[T]oday nuclear power produces 20 percent of our electricity, but that's going to go down over time because some of these plants are wearing out.” Current regulation is inadequate to protect public health and safety. For example, one aging-related problem is reactor embrittlement.  Cracks in the reactor vessel caused by constant neutron bombardment could lead to a meltdown. When problems were found, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) simply changed the safety margins and allowed the utilities to recalculate their compliance.  Steam generators are also susceptible to premature degradation.  The failure of as few as ten tubes can lead to a reactor meltdown, yet the NRC has inadequate steam generator tube standards.  For example, the Indian Point 2 nuclear power plant is located 24 miles north of New York City, along the Hudson River.  It had been scheduled for steam generator tube replacement in 1993, yet this never happened thanks to increasingly lax NRC requirements.  On February 2, 2000, a tube ruptured, releasing radioactive steam. There is a consistent pattern and history of lax NRC enforcement and oversight ranging from fire prevention to worker fatigue.  The agency is focused on increasing the industry’s profitability, not protecting humans and the environment.  In fact a recent letter to this subcommittee from the NRC’s Chairman Meserve reveals an agenda focused on, among other things:  wresting control of certain radioactive materials regulation from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); limiting the scope of NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) review for new power plants; and promoting new nuclear power plant siting.  None of these changes will lead to increased public health and safety.  In fact, the NRC has been battling with the EPA for years over radiation standards.  NRC’s proposed standards are consistently less protective than the EPA’s. Nuclear power is unreliable. Complex and oftenmis-managed nuclear power plants are subject to frequent fires, leaks and other accidents.  For example, the Nuclear Energy Institute’s website boasts that “Increased Nuclear Output Would Satisfy California's Residential Demand.” [4]  It fails to mention a February 3 fire at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station that has shut the plant for weeks and is a key factor in current rolling blackouts in California. Nuclear power is uneconomic. Nuclear power would not exist in this country today if it weren’t for enormous subsidies paid for by ratepayers and taxpayers.  Originally touted as being “too cheap to meter”, nuclear power plants are still too expensive for America. The nuclear industry has received the vast majority of energy research and development funding, a special taxpayer-backed insurance policy known as the Price Anderson Act, unjustified electric rates from state regulators, enormous and unwarranted bailouts in state deregulation plans, taxpayer-funded cleanup of uranium enrichment sites plus a giveaway of the Uranium Enrichment Corporation, and an ultimately taxpayer-funded nuclear waste dump.  Many of the issues I raise here are described in more detail in the Green Scissors report (www.greenscissors.org) released by U.S. PIRG, Taxpayers for Common Sense and Friends of the Earth.  It is incredible that the nuclear industry shamelessly revises history to pretend that it has transformed itself into a cost effective energy source.  Yet the industry continues to ask for more handouts.  Taxpayer dollars should not be used for more nuclear research and development funding.  According to the Congressional Research Service, nuclear research and development has gotten more than 60%, or $66 billion in energy research and development funding from 1948-1998.  Led by Representative Markey and others, Congress wisely killed funding for the gas-cooled reactor and the breeder reactor, saving taxpayers at least $5.6 billion.  Now proposals to revive research programs to develop these uneconomic and dangerous reactors are creeping into the Department of Energy’s budget.  Supporters of the gas-cooled reactor proposed for South Africa may tout its cost.  They do not highlight the fact that the design cuts costs by not building containment.  The breeder reactor supporters ignore the dismal failure of France’s breeder reactor program and the chance of a reactor explosion if the coolant (usually highly reactive sodium) leaks.  Phase out the Price Anderson Act.  The industry is also lobbying for an extension of the Price Anderson Act, which is due to expire in 2002.  This law, passed in 1957 and amended in 1988 provides a taxpayer funded insurance for the nuclear industry in the event of an accident. We believe that this insurance program is an unwarranted taxpayer subsidy to the nuclear industry that has no parallel in any other industry.  During reauthorization of the Price Anderson Act, PIRG and others successfully fought for lower taxpayer liability in the event of an accident.  The American public is being barraged by misleading NEI ads touting the safety and positive economics of nuclear power. Yet the February 28 letter from NRC Commissioner Meserve to Chairman Barton states, “[W]ithout the framework provided by the Act, private-sector participation in nuclear power would be discouraged by the risk of large liabilities.”   The Federal Trade Commission has said that NEI’s “advertising campaign touting nuclear power as environmentally clean was without substantiation.” Several reactors are extending their operating licenses through a process which cuts out the public and essentially rubber-stamps the renewal application.  If these plants are safe and economical enough to get a license extension, they shouldn’t need a taxpayer-backed insurance plan.  Protect citizens from unjustified rate increases and bailouts at the state level.  We realize that this committee does not have jurisdiction over state deregulation and rate-making.  However, in analyzing current electricity problems, it is important to recognize the magnitude of the ratepayer subsidies enjoyed by this industry and the role these subsidies have played in blocking competition and propping up economically marginal nuclear power plants.  In the 1980’s, the PIRGs successfully blocked unjustified rate increases for nuclear power mismanagement.  As states across the country restructured their electricity markets, the promise to consumers was that these changes would provide competition among electricity providers. Instead, utilities lobbied, and for the most part received, an unjustified ratepayer-funded bailout of their uneconomic investments, usually nuclear power plants. The PIRGs, free market, and other consumer and environmental groups in several states fought back against these requests for "stranded cost" recovery.  We argued that these bailouts were unjustified and unfair to consumers and would hamper efforts to shift towards clean energy.   According to a report released in 1998 with the Safe Energy Communication Council entitled “Ratepayer Robbery” we estimated these bailouts could total more than $112 billion for just eleven states.  There is strong evidence that without these bailouts, almost half of the nuclear power plants would have shut down. Instead, aging plants have been given a new lease on life, are in some cases, still shielded from market forces.  Some have been sold at rock-bottom prices to new owners who have every incentive to run them close to the margin.  Curb taxpayer costs for nuclear waste and index the fee to inflation. The nuclear industry is the only industry that we are aware of which has a government program to guarantee disposal of lethal waste.  We agree with the industry that the DOE has mismanaged the program.  However, our solution is stop spending money on the program and insure that enough money is collected now to adequately cover future costs of a sound waste disposal program.  A 1998 financial review commissioned by the State of Nevada concluded that the funding shortfall for the program would range from $12 to $17 billion in 1996 dollars.  We urge that the Nuclear Waste Fund Fee be indexed to inflation so that there will be adequate funds to cover the ultimate cost of nuclear waste disposition.  There is no current sound solution for the nuclear waste problem.  Nuclear waste is one of the most dangerous substances created by humans.  This waste remains dangerous for at least a quarter of a million years (based on the decay of Pu-239).  One would expect that policies for dealing with this lethal material would be based on sound science and protecting public health.  Instead nuclear waste policies in this country have been based on political expediency.  The incredible problems faced by citizens living near former DOE weapons sites, such as Hanford, Washington should be a lesson to those who want to ignore science and public health.    We believe that the current project should be stopped, as the proposed dump site at Yucca Mountain cannot meet current standards for containing the waste.  In 1998, PIRG and more than one hundred environmental, consumer and safe energy organizations petitioned then-Energy Secretary Richardson to disqualify Yucca Mountain because it would not meet current standards for containing the waste.  Instead, DOE is in the process of weakening the current site guidelines, a clear case of changing the rules when science gives the answer that is not wanted. We are pleased that President Clinton vetoed dangerous nuclear waste legislation last year.  This legislation would have interfered with EPA’s ability to set radiation standards and would have prematurely moved nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain, unnecessarily risking the lives of millions of Americans who live along the transport routes.  We are concerned that there are ongoing efforts by both the Department of Energy and Nuclear Regulatory Commission to weaken radiation standards for the site.  We are also concerned that EPA’s ongoing review will lead to a standard that will not adequately protect Nevadans who live near the site.  We urge this committee to re-examine nuclear waste policy and develop a public, fair process based on sound science and protecting the public for deciding the ultimate fate of this extremely dangerous material.  No country in the world has a permanent solution to this problem.  The U.S. should reject its current mismanaged program that relies on changing the rules when the science isn’t favorable to the industry’s solution.  Instead, we should show leadership by developing a solution focused on sound science and protecting the public. Conclusion Nuclear power is unsafe, uneconomic, unreliable and generates waste for which there is no sound solution.  It is a failed technology of the past and would not exist were it not for enormous and unjustified government subsidies and policies.  The U.S. should do everything it can to protect the health and safety of the public as well as our pocketbooks.  Nuclear power should be phased out as quickly as possible and replaced by energy efficiency and clean renewable energy. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [1] OECD Nuclear Energy Agency report *"Chernobyl Ten Years On, Radiological and Health Impact"*, November, 1995. [2] Public Citizen website http://www.citizen.org/Press/pr-cmep84.htm [3] Union of Concerned Scientists, Nuclear Plant Safety: Will the Luck Run Out? December 15, 1998 [4] http://www.nei.org/doc.asp?docid=724 The Committee on Energy and Commerce 2125 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 (202) 225-2927 Feedback ***************************************************************** 19 CHINESE NUCLEAR POWER INDUSTRY HOLDS EXPO FROM MARCH 30 [Asia Pulse] Story Filed: Monday, April 02, 2001 12:21 AM EST SHANGHAI, Apr 02, 2001 (AsiaPulse via COMTEX) -- China's expanding nuclear power industry is offering big opportunities for nuclear designers, manufactures and services worldwide, according to industrial sources at a nuclear exhibition opened on March 30. The Fourth International Exhibition of Nuclear Power Industry has attracted dozens of nuclear businesses worldwide. Westinghouse, which has recently merged its nuclear department with the British nuclear fuel company BNFL and the nuclear power department of ABB, staged a strong presence at the event, together with its partners in Japan, the Republic of Korea and Spain. James W. Veirs, deputy head of Westinghouse's Department of Nuclear System, said his company is keenly watching China's rapidly growing economy and its nuclear power plan, and is trying its best to take part in China's nuclear power projects. Over the past five years, China embarked on the construction of four nuclear power plants in Zhejiang, Jiangsu and Guangdong, witha total installed capacity of 6.6 million kilowatts. The figure is three times over the combined capacity of the first phase of the Qinshan plant in Zhejiang and the Dayawan plantin Guangdong that had already gone into operation. Yet nuclear power currently accounts for only 1 per cent of the county's power supply, compared to 21.9 per cent for the United States, 33.4 per cent for Japan and 77.4 per cent for France. China's coastal areas, which witnessed rapid economic growth over the last two decades, are showing great enthusiasm towards nuclear power. Li Guangjun, an official from Taizhou city in Zhejiang, said the city is very likely to embark on a nuclear power plant in the next few years, because it is facing a serious power shortage and has a good site for a nuclear power plant. Authoritative sources said China has basically acquired the technologies of pressurized water reactors and reported rapid progress in raising the local contents of nuclear power equipment. In the future, the sources said, China will raise higher demands on foreign partners in the advancement of technologies and technology transfer. Veirs said the key to getting nuclear power contracts in China is safety, reliability and economical competitiveness. He said Westinghouse is ready to transfer the latest nuclear reactor technologies and operation management method to China, and will form into a closer partnership with Chinese research institutions and manufacturers. XIC) (C) 2001 Asia Pulse Pte Ltd ***************************************************************** 20 Dump foes cite rail safety concerns [Las Vegas Review-Journal] Monday, April 02, 2001 Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal Increase in derailments heightens risk, they say THE ASSOCIATED PRESS RENO -- Opponents of a federal proposal to locate a nuclear waste dump in Nevada are voicing concern over new statistics that show an 18 percent increase in train derailments nationwide since 1997. Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., and other foes said the statistics underline the dangers of transporting nuclear waste to the proposed Yucca Mountain site, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas. "This really highlights what Nevadans have been saying all along," Reid said. "Transporting nuclear waste to Nevada is a dangerous business." Top Nevada elected officials have long opposed the plan to make Yucca Mountain the nation's nuclear waste dump. The waste now is stored at nuclear power plants across the nation. Derailments climbed from 1,741 in 1997 to 2,059 last year, the Federal Railroad Administration and U.S. Department of Transportation reported last week. But Union Pacific Railroad spokesman John Bromley said the report is misleading because most accidents occurred in rail yards and on railroad spur lines where the average speed is about 5 mph. "Most of the accidents cited were the equivalent of fender-benders," he told the Reno Gazette-Journal. "The general trend in railroad safety shows a tremendous improvement." But Kaitlin Bachlynd, executive director of the Reno-based Citizen Alert environmental group, said, "Common sense tells us that it won't be easy to maintain safety. If the waste is shipped by rail, there will be a number of train accidents, no question about it." This story is located at: http://www.lvrj.com/lvrj_home/2001/Apr-02-Mon-2001/news/15777257.html ***************************************************************** 21 Nuclear, debt turnabout highlight Crowell legacy The Times Free Press on Monday, April 2, 2001 By Dave Flessner *Business Editor* KNOXVILLE -- From his 12th-story office suite overlooking downtown Knoxville, Craven Crowell's favorite view is not out the window but at three plaques hanging on the wall. The awards displayed at the entrance to the office of the Tennessee Valley Authority chairman recognize the top industry ratings for each of TVA's three nuclear plants. "I remember in the 1980s, there wasn't a lot of pride in our nuclear program, and that cost us a lot," Mr. Crowell said. "Today, we have one of the best nuclear programs in the country, and we continue to get better." The turnaround in TVA's nuclear program -- and the related reversal three years ago of TVA's mounting debt -- are Mr. Crowell's proudest achievements during his eight years as head of the nation's largest government utility. But like much of Mr. Crowell's term, the changes didn't come without controversy. Despite his own public relations and Capital Hill experience -- or perhaps because of it -- Mr. Crowell has been a lightning rod for political criticism of TVA even as the utility's business performance has improved. He will retire as TVA chairman two weeks from today with the utility generating a record amount of power from the fewest number of employees in a half century. But while TVA's power operations and balance sheet have improved, TVA has lost much of its nonpower mission established when the agency was created in 1933 as part of President Roosevelt's New Deal. "Craven leaves with a mixed record," said Dr. Stephen Smith, executive director of the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, a consumer and environmental watchdog group of TVA. "TVA certainly has become a more efficient operation during his watch. But TVA has probably had more problems in Washington in the past four or five years than it has had in the previous 40 years combined. You would think that someone who came to TVA with the media and Washington experience that Craven had would have done a lot better with the public and Congress." CONSEQUENCES AND CONTROVERSIES Mr. Crowell dismisses much of the criticism against him as either short-sighted or politically motivated. He blames the shift in congressional leadership in the 1990s and the ongoing debate over electricity deregulation for most of the heightened attention on TVA and its activities. As California and other states struggle to keep their lights on this summer, Mr. Crowell insists that TVA is well positioned to supply power at rates below the national average well into the future. "I'm proud of the decisions I have made and can honestly tell you that they were made because I thought they were right, not because they were always popular or would have got the best publicity," Mr. Crowell said. "I know something about PR. But what I have always done is to try to do what is best for TVA and the Valley. You can't be consequential if you are not controversial." Mr. Crowell, a former chief of staff to Sen. Jim Sasser of Tennessee and the city editor at the Nashville Tennessean when Al Gore was a young reporter, was appointed TVA chairman in 1993 by former President Clinton. Mr. Crowell also served as director of government and public relations at TVA in the 1980s and returned to TVA with strong memories of the agency's nuclear woes in the 1980s. In 1985, TVA was forced to idle all five of its nuclear reactors because they failed to meet federal standards developed after the 1979 accident at Three Mile Island. Three years later, TVA decided to suspend work on its newest plant, the twin-reactor Bellefonte plant in Hollywood, Ala., after investing nearly $6 billion. The plant outages, deferrals and cancellations left TVA without any operating nuclear reactors and the biggest debt burden of any electric utility in America. TVA was on target in the 1990s to surpass the agency's congressionally imposed $30 billion borrowing cap. Rather than try to convince Congress to allow more debt authority as TVA had done in the past, Mr. Crowell laid out a strategy to pay down the debt for the first time in 35 years. Mr. Crowell, along with fellow Democrat Johnny Hayes and Republican Bill Kennoy, ultimately decided to try to start up only one of TVA's unfinished reactors in the 1990s -- Watts Bar Unit 1. The reactor had been under construction for more than two decades and anti-nuclear activists urged TVA to cancel the plant. Pro-nuclear forces criticized TVA for not finishing more of its nuclear plants. Mr. Crowell says now that history proved the value of the board decisions. Watts Bar Unit 1 is the nation's most expensive commercial nuclear reactor but it is also one of the best-performing nuclear plants, according to plant evaluations by both the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Institute for Nuclear Power Operations. Watts Bar is the last commercial nuclear plant to be completed in the United States and it played a key role in meeting several summertime power peaks last year, power officials said. "He made the right decisions to finish Watts Bar but also to cap spending on other new plants to begin to pay down the debt," said EPB President Harold DePriest, one of dozens of public officials who have honored Mr. Crowell during the past month for his TVA service. "He realized that TVA needed to deal with its debt to prepare for electricity deregulation." Mr. DePriest also praised Mr. Crowell for bringing more stability to the TVA staff, which was cut in half during the term of former TVA Chairman Marvin Runyon. Most of the staff reductions during the past eight years at TVA have come from voluntary resignations and retirements. SMALLER DEAL FOR TVA But while Mr. Crowell brought focus and stability to TVA's power operations, he failed to generate the same level of support for TVA's nonpower programs. Controversies over contracts and jobs awarded to former associates, relocations of TVA employees to more expensive facilities and the attempt to dismiss TVA's own inspector general provided ammunition to TVA critics gunning at the federal utility. "In some ways, we will miss Craven Crowell because with all of his scandals and controversies it made our job questioning TVA all that much easier," said Dick Munson, executive director of the Midwest/Northeast Coalition, a northern states group that believes TVA is unfairly subsidized by taxpayers. During the Crowell term as chairman, Congress discontinued federal funding for TVA, forcing the agency to trim some of its nonpower programs and pay for the rest from its electricity sales. TVA also was forced to turn over its biggest land holding -- Land Between the Lakes in Kentucky -- to the U.S. Forest Service after members of Congress from Kentucky complained about TVA's operations. TVA attempts to start a Center for Rural Studies, secure TVA money to rebuild the Chickamauga Lock and take over hydroelectric operations on the Cumberland River also were stymied by congressional concerns about the role of TVA. At its peak, TVA received $220 million a year for everything from river navigation to economic development programs. But in 1997, Mr. Crowell floated the idea of cutting off taxpayer support for TVA programs to help the agency avoid the ongoing political attacks about what some called unfair subsidies for TVA. Mr. Crowell later withdrew the idea. But once floated, the idea of cutting off TVA financial support was quickly adopted by congressional budget planners. TVA didn't walk away empty-handed, however. At the urging of Tennessee Valley lawmakers, TVA gained congressional approval two years ago to refinance $3 billion of high-interest government debt at lower market rates. That will save TVA more than $100 million a year in interest costs over the next decade. "I took a lot of heat, but in the end it worked out just fine," Mr. Crowell said. "The savings on refinancing that debt will more than pay for our other costs." While Mr. Crowell and TVA were criticized in Washington, Tennessee politicians were more favorable to the TVA chairman. "You always helped Chattanooga when we needed it," Mayor Jon Kinsey told Mr. Crowell last month. Tennessee Gov. Don Sundquist said he was pleased to have a Tennessean lead TVA. "Craven has been a champion for Tennessee and this region," Gov. Sundquist said. CROWELL'S FUTURE For his own part, Mr. Crowell isn't saying much about his own job future. The 58-year-old Nashville native said he expects to keep his home in Knoxville, "at least for the time being," and may rent an apartment in Washington, D.C., and do some consulting work. He is leaving TVA on the same date that his term as chairman of the Electric Power Research Institute ends. Mr. Crowell said he is ending his nine-year term a year early, in part, because he thinks it is important for the administration to strongly support the TVA chairman. Mr. Crowell said in his eight years on the TVA board he doesn't recall any decision by the three directors being made based upon partisan politics. But the lifelong Democrat observed that board appointments and presidential administration support are influenced by partisan politics. "I always enjoyed the support of the Clinton administration which appointed me to the board," said Mr. Crowell. "It's probably best for TVA to have a chairman who President Bush strongly supports also." *E-mail Dave Flessner at dflessner@timesfreepress.com* Email this story to a friend | To print this article use print button at top ***************************************************************** 22 Despite advances, radiation accidents are human reality [KnoxNews.com] April 2, 2001 By Frank Munger News-Sentinel senior writer On May 5 of last year, an Egyptian man found a metal instrument along the road near Meet Halfa, his hometown. He took it to his house, where he lived with his wife, two sons, two daughters and a sister, and placed the shiny object on a cabinet near the front door. A month later, June 5, the man's 9-year-old son died in a local hospital, where doctors diagnosed the boy with bone-marrow failure and skin inflammation. A week later, the father died of similar symptoms, triggering a look-see from authorities at the government's infectious disease outfit. Soon thereafter, the rest of the family was hospitalized, all with the same signs. This time, a search of their house was in order because the collective evidence pointed to radiation sickness. Sure enough, the roadside curiosity piece turned out to be an unshielded radiography source containing iridium-192 -- a beta-gamma emitter used like a portable X-ray machine to check the quality of welds and perform other industrial scans. The Egyptian family had been exposed unwittingly to radiation for several weeks at home. And, to a lesser degree, so were 150 to 200 friends and "family associates" who gathered on a regular basis outside the entryway to talk and enjoy each other's company. Fortunately, the rest of the family recovered from their radiation-related illnesses, although there could be delayed health effects -- including a higher risk of cancer -- in years to come. The tragedy at Meet Halfa is one of the radiation accidents discussed last month at an international conference in Orlando, Fla., sponsored by Oak Ridge-based REACTS (Radiation Emergency Assistance Center/Training Site). Robert Ricks, a radiation biologist who direct REACTS and hosted the conference, shared some of the accident details and his observations in a recent interview. "I think the message is that sources of this nature can be very dangerous when they're lost to the environment or improperly disposed of," Ricks said. People get hurt or even die, despite improved knowledge and technologies available for treatment of radiation victims, he said. "The bottom line is there are human factors involved in all of these accidents, and humans are imperfect," Ricks said. Radiation accidents involving discarded medical and industrial sources don't get as much attention as problems at nuclear power plants or weapons facilities, but they occur around the world with surprising regularity and, in some instances, they prove deadly. Here's another radiation horror story from last year, this one in Thailand. Three sources of cobalt-60, once used for medical therapies in a Bangkok hospital, were abandoned, still encased in their lead shielding, in a parking lot. A scrap collector and his associates attempted to crack open the containers, but they were unsuccessful. So together they were able to lift and transport one of the teletherapy devices to a nearby junkyard, where a worker used a cutting torch to break open the lead cover. In the process of the salvage operation, the radioactive cobalt inside the container fell to the ground undetected. Unfortunately, the 450-curie source of cobalt stayed there for another two weeks, exposing all who came near to high levels of radiation. Calculations indicated that an hour next to the junkyard source would be lethal, Ricks said. Lots of people were in and around the radioactive source over a 16-day period, with at least 10 people receiving severe doses of radiation -- the first victims showing up at hospitals with skins burns and suppressed immune systems. Three of those people died over the next couple of months. "Nobody will ever know exactly what the exposures were because we don't know how long they were anywhere near the source," Ricks said. "One would have to estimate the doses were somewhere between 300 and 500 rads." Ricks said radiation accidents continue to happen worldwide, despite efforts to educate people regarding the dangers of these sources and the importance of disposing of them properly. The good news, he said, is that medical response to radiation accidents has improved, with information now available widely on how to treat symptoms and enhance the chances for surviving extreme doses. One reason for improved clinical care has been the introduction of cytokines, in particular a naturally occurring growth factor that helps proliferate the blood count in victims, Ricks said. "The genetic code for it has been identified, and it can now be produced in large quantities using what's called recombinant DNA technology," he said. Ricks added: "The therapy has been around for about 11 years, but we're learning more and more about how it works. ... One of the problems in whole body radiation at any significant dose is that individual blood counts fall and a person is immuno-suppressed, at risk of infection and bleeding. Now there are molecules that can be administered to increase the blood count." Senior writer Frank Munger can be reached at 482-9213 or by e-mail at twig1@knoxnews.infi.net. This weekly column on science and technology also is available on our Web site at http://www.knoxnews.com/science/munger/. ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR WEAPONS ARTICLES ***************************************************************** 1 Atomic workers accept new contract Oak Ridger Online --> Story last updated at 12:55 p.m. on Monday, April 2, 2001 by Paul Parson Oak Ridger staff By a 2-to-1 majority, members of the Atomic Trades and Labor Council this weekend approved a three-year contract extension that includes raises in both pay and medical co-payments. The council represents 2,250 hourly workers at Oak Ridge federal facilities. Carl "Bubba" Scarbrough, president of the group, said this morning that the majority of those workers voted on the contract Saturday at the Machinists Hall in Oak Ridge. "It was a long day," he said. However, Scarbrough declined to release the number of people voting for and against the extension. The contract extension includes a 4-percent wage increase for the first year and raises of 3.8 percent and 3.5 percent respectively for the following two years. Also included is a 15-percent jump in the pension-calculation formula. But the deal also calls for an increase in medical and drug plan co-payments, excluding mail-order prescriptions. These increases will apply to all active employees covered under the CIGNA and Aetna insurance plans. The contract extension affects union workers for BWXT Y-12, UT-Battelle, Bechtel Jacobs Co., Duratek Federal Services, The Washington Group, WESKEM and Canberra. While the extension won't end until 2004, Scarbrough said the Atomic Trades and Labor Council plans to start work soon on the next contract. He said trying to increase pensions will be a big part of upcoming talks. The council's last contract extension was approved in April 1996. That five-year deal gave workers a 3-percent raise each year. All Contents ©Copyright* The Oak Ridger * ***************************************************************** 2 Berkley Pens Letter To Bush On Radiation Victims Berkley (NV01) - Press Release - Congresswoman [Shelly Berkley] First District, Nevada Press Release Washington, D.C. (March 23, 2001) — *U.S. Rep. Berkley (NV-1) today penned a letter to President George W. Bush protesting the proposed bureaucratic delay for the victims of Nevada’s test site. The text of the letter follows:* Dear Mr. President, I am writing to express my strong opposition to a proposal to shift responsibility for the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program from the Department of Labor to the Department of Justice. Such a move would result in the delay of payments to workers who have already waited far too long for compensation, and for the nation’s recognition of their sacrifice. During the debate on the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program representatives from the Department of Justice explicitly stated that they did not have the resources to administer this program properly. While the Justice Department has handled the one-time payments under the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, this is extremely different from the medical claim reimbursements authorized under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program. The Department of Labor has historically administered federal worker compensation programs, and was specifically named by Congress, in this instance, as the appropriate agency. The spirit of the law has been guided by the best interests of the workers, and I respectfully request that your decision in this matter continue to reflect this foremost consideration. The men and women who would benefit from this program are heroes who sacrificed their health, and in some cases their lives, for our country. Many of these unsung heroes are in the late stages of illnesses caused by their years at the test site, or even on their death beds. This is no time to play programmatic hot potato, or pass the buck. A decision to shift responsibility from the Department of Labor to the Department of Justice will cause these patriotic workers to wait even longer for the recognition and reimbursement they so richly deserve. In order to ensure that our sick nuclear workers have been served as expediently as possible, it is essential that the Department of Labor continue to administer these programs. Thank you for your consideration of my views. Sincerely, SHELLEY BERKLEY Member of Congress ***************************************************************** 3 Prescribed burns at Flats considered [www.TheDailyCamera.com] By Beth Wohlberg *Camera Staff Writer* Board members of the Rocky Flats Coalition of Local Governments plan to discuss today how to sample for radioactive contamination in the Rocky Flats buffer area — where site managers plan to do prescribed burning. The Department of Energy wants to use controlled burns around the industrial area of the former nuclear weapons plant to restore native prairie and reduce potential wildfire fuel loads. About 50 acres were burned last spring south of the Rocky Flats industrial area. The coalition board will discuss whether to ask the Energy Department to organize independent experts to review existing data on past burns at Rocky Flats; review technical aspects of performing controlled burns; review alternatives to burning; discuss collaboration with the Energy Department on how often to sample an area before burning; and conduct a public hearing that includes independent experts. At last month's meeting, board member and Boulder City Councilwoman Lisa Morzel said she needed additional information from site managers to show that prescribed burning did not release contamination into the air. In early summer, the Department of Energy plans to release a draft Buffer Zone Sampling and Analysis Plan, which will describe sampling techniques. "They've done a lot of sampling," said David Abelson, the coalition's executive director. "The question is, should they do more, and how do they do it?" The board will also be hear about decontamination and decommissioning at the site from cleanup contractor Kaiser-Hill, the Energy Department and the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. The meeting is today from 8 to 11:30 a.m. in the Terminal Building at the Jefferson County Airport, 11755 Airport Way in Broomfield. For more information, please call (303) 412-1200. *Contact Beth Wohlberg at (303) 473-1364 or wohlbergb@thedailycamera.com.* Copyright 2001 The Daily Camera. All rights reserved. Any ***************************************************************** 4 Prescribed burns at Flats considered [www.TheDailyCamera.com] By Beth Wohlberg *Camera Staff Writer* Board members of the Rocky Flats Coalition of Local Governments plan to discuss today how to sample for radioactive contamination in the Rocky Flats buffer area — where site managers plan to do prescribed burning. The Department of Energy wants to use controlled burns around the industrial area of the former nuclear weapons plant to restore native prairie and reduce potential wildfire fuel loads. About 50 acres were burned last spring south of the Rocky Flats industrial area. The coalition board will discuss whether to ask the Energy Department to organize independent experts to review existing data on past burns at Rocky Flats; review technical aspects of performing controlled burns; review alternatives to burning; discuss collaboration with the Energy Department on how often to sample an area before burning; and conduct a public hearing that includes independent experts. At last month's meeting, board member and Boulder City Councilwoman Lisa Morzel said she needed additional information from site managers to show that prescribed burning did not release contamination into the air. In early summer, the Department of Energy plans to release a draft Buffer Zone Sampling and Analysis Plan, which will describe sampling techniques. "They've done a lot of sampling," said David Abelson, the coalition's executive director. "The question is, should they do more, and how do they do it?" The board will also be hear about decontamination and decommissioning at the site from cleanup contractor Kaiser-Hill, the Energy Department and the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. The meeting is today from 8 to 11:30 a.m. in the Terminal Building at the Jefferson County Airport, 11755 Airport Way in Broomfield. For more information, please call (303) 412-1200. *Contact Beth Wohlberg at (303) 473-1364 or wohlbergb@thedailycamera.com.* *April 2, 2001* ***************************************************************** 5 Uranium victims losing leaders DenverPost.com - News: Colorado and Denver Denver Post Four Corners News Bureau Apr. 2, 2001 - THE FOUR CORNERS - The coalition trying to hold the U.S. government to its promise of monetary relief for sick uranium miners and those caught downwind of nuclear testing has a serious problem with its leaders. They keep dying. "Since the coalition was founded in January 1999, we've lost four of our leaders," says Lori Goodman of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act Reform Coalition. "The latest to die was Carol Dewey of Dove Creek, a downwinder." Dewey was 52 when she died in January. As a youth, she had spent a weekend camping in southeastern Utah. It was the wrong weekend. She was downwind of a nuclear testing site in Nevada. She died of a rare and extremely aggressive form of thyroid cancer. The hardest part for Dewey, Goodman says, was telling her cousin and camping companion years later what she had learned about the consequences of their illtimed outing. Her cousin had been pregnant at the time and later had a child with a serious birth defect. Two generations had been imperiled by a desert picnic. But there was no way for them to know that then. "They were deceived. They were experimented on," says Goodman, who also works with Dine Care, a private nonprofit agency concerned with environmental issues on the Navajos' Four Corners reservation. "They still think they're dealing with a bunch of hicks and Indians." The Four Corners' 4,000 mines provided the United States with much of the uranium that built the nuclear arsenal for the Cold War. The industry was the region's bread and butter for decades, but it also poisoned many thousands of people here. The inhabitants ruefully call this the "National Sacrifice Area." Waiting for compensation Dewey, like roughly 3,500 others, was deemed eligible by the government for one-time compensation of up to $100,000 under a 1990 law, called RECA for short, that was amended last year. Congress just increased payment amounts by $50,000 and expanded eligibility to cover previously excluded workers, such as mill workers and some of those who smoked cigarettes. However, the government hasn't made good on even the first act. Roughly 300 of those whose claims were approved have never been paid (100 of them eligible since 1990), and the program is out of money. The Justice Department has issued IOUs. Many IOU holders have gone to their graves without compensation, and many others didn't live long enough to see even a piece of paper. Former miner and mill worker Kenneth Randolph, 72, of Cortez, says he can name 40 uranium workers who died in their 40s of lung diseases such as silicosis, fibrosis and various cancers. He has lost three brothers and some cousins. "I'm past due," Randolph says. "I'm one of the lucky ones, but it's catching up with me." He has had spots on his lungs for 20 years and has such trouble breathing that he can't do much of anything. He received his IOU two years ago. "They don't seem to be in any hurry to pay me," Randolph says. Norma Howell's husband, Robert, spent his last 14 years gasping for breath. He died of lung cancer in 1994 in Cortez. He had started hauling uranium ore to a mill near Uravan in 1957. He later worked five years at the Happy Jack Mine in Fry Canyon, 78 miles west of Blanding, Utah, where a trailer park for miners sprouted up over mine tailings. "We were really close to the mine site," Howell says. "The stockpile was across the road. I had to wipe the dust off my table before every meal. The men would come home to lunch in their diggers. You just got used to sleeping with sand in your bed." Flash floods would bring pools of runoff, radiation-contaminated water, into the camp, and the children would splash around in it. "Kids played on the stockpile every day," Howell says. "It makes me shudder to think of it now, but we were assured at the time it was safe. The government knew better, since 1947, but they needed the product." In the 1970s, mine managers started taking some precautions, Howell says, but the early workers were hapless guinea pigs. Now 71, she also has lung and thyroid problems. Her husband's claim for compensation was denied because he was a smoker. Many Navajos affected The Navajo Nation provided many, perhaps one-quarter, of the workers in the uranium mines and mills of western Colorado and New Mexico, eastern Utah and Arizona. And Navajos, Goodman says, are at a particular disadvantage in dealing with the U.S. government in the aftermath. Many don't speak English. Many Navajo homes - some agencies estimate as high as 80 percent of rural residences - are without telephones, electricity, televisions or any other means to stay abreast of the issue. Widows of uranium-contamination victims were told to produce marriage certificates to qualify for benefits. Many Navajo widows do not have state-issued marriage certificates. And, because the earlier law excluded lung-cancer patients if they smoked, it excluded Navajos who used tobacco ceremonially, however infrequently. "My father worked in an underground mine without any kind of protection," says Earl Saltwater of Shiprock, N.M. "I have pictures of him standing in a front of a mine in a T-shirt with short sleeves and a hole, denim pants and a helmet - no gloves, mask, goggles, no special shoes. They never informed him his job was dangerous or he was exposed to radiation. They never tell him anything like that." Saltwater's father had a seventhgrade education. His mother had no schooling. His father suffered for 30 years with respiratory illnesses before dying at age 92 of lung cancer. His mother, who lived in the uranium camps with her husband and children, died of cancer at age 70. "I was so angry for years," Saltwater says. "They killed my father and my mother. They still give us a hard time to compensate us. They make all kinds of excuses. They ask for all kinds of documents. We are exhausted from this." After five years of the claims process, Earl Saltwater Sr.'s heirs were paid $100,000; the lawyer got $10,000. "I was raised in mining camps in southern Colorado and on the Navajo Nation," 43-year-old Gilbert Badoni says. "The people who worked in the mines were like prairie dogs, driven in and out of holes." Badoni is president of an 800member advocacy group called Navajo Nation Dependents of Uranium Workers. "We have lost hundreds of miners (including his father), and we are seeing deaths among the spouses, also dying of silicosis and fibrosis. We see birth defects at an alarming rate. We will not rest until Congress apologizes to the workers and to the family members." Republican lawmakers such as Sens. Pete Domenici of New Mexico and Orrin Hatch of Utah, as well as Rep. Scott McInnis of Colorado, have introduced bills to get enough money to pay all the approved claims. Meanwhile, others are pending and more than 1,000 additional claims could be filed this year as Congress debates what to do with the budget surplus and President Bush's proposal for a $1.6 trillion tax cut. Copyright 2001 The Denver Post. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 6 Battle over 'monster laser' heats up KnoxNews.com - News - Latest National News *By LAWRENCE SPOHN* *Scripps Howard News Service* *April 01, 2001* A quiet war over the nation's biggest and most controversial science project, the giant, $3.6 billion National Ignition Facility fusion laser, moves back into the open battlefield this week in Washington. The project, several years late and a couple of billion dollars over budget - depending on who's counting - is under construction at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, east of San Francisco. The laser was also being challenged this week in a federal court hearing in the capital. It undoubtedly will be a hot topic of conversation as well this week in Albuquerque, at the Nuclear Weapons and Materials Monitor's Second Annual Nuclear Security Decision-maker's Forum. Meanwhile, Hoya, the Japanese lens company responsible for making half the special glass needed in the laser, has suspended shipments to Livermore and is reassessing its role in the project. The project is getting heat from some Japanese critics and officials, who see it as a facility for continuing the development of nuclear weapons. In short, the laser's mission is to generate tiny thermonuclear bomb blasts in the laboratory. Using the force of laser beams from every direction, it aims to compress a fusion fuel pellet to generate fusion-energy bursts. The Energy Department and its nuclear weapons labs see the laser project as critical in replacing the traditional tool of testing - underground nuclear bomb explosions, now banned. Critics, like Greg Mello of the Los Alamos Study Group in Santa Fe, see it as a design tool for the next generation of nuclear bombs. Longtime critic Leo Mascheroni, an independent Los Alamos fusion physicist, insists that the laser "will not work," that it actually represents a threat to national security and that it has been a costly diversion in the 50-year quest for a fusion energy power plant. The United States currently has a moratorium on nuclear testing, but the Senate two years ago rejected the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which has been approved by dozens of nations, including Japan. For years, the battle lines over the laser have been drawn, with proponents and opponents squaring off over whether it's is needed, whether it's cost-effective and whether it's even technically capable of achieving its mission of fusion ignition and studying the most detailed energy outputs of hydrogen bombs. How the coming battle plays out will have a substantial impact on the entire U.S. nuclear weapons program. At issue is whether to continue building the monster laser at full throttle, to substantially alter its marching orders by slashing its budget and reducing its objectives, or possibly to discharge it all together, as Congress did with the Energy Department's last big science fiasco, the Superconducting Super Collider. Already, the laser has forced Congress to repeatedly supplement the Energy Department's defense programs budget to keep the ever-bloating laser program from completely overwhelming the rest of the nuclear weapons program. Los Alamos, Sandia and Livermore are the nation's three nuclear weapons labs, whose mission has shifted since the Cold War from designing and engineering new nuclear warheads to maintaining the nation's nuclear arsenal through DOE's science-based Stockpile Stewardship and Maintenance Program. Each has a billion-dollar-plus annual budget, and each has significant pieces of the stockpile stewardship puzzle. Although all three weapons labs directors officially supported NIF, several of their own nuclear weapons scientists have raised serious technical and fiscal concerns about the project. Several senators last year fired shots across Livermore's bow, and critics - from anti-nuclear groups to tax accountability organizations - are pressing Congress more than ever to blow taps for the troubled project. On Saturday, the Energy Department sent Congress a mandated report on the program's status, including: a certification that it can get the project back on track; reassurances that the laser can achieve its technical promises; and an assessment of alternatives, such as slashing its design from 192 beams to 48 or even a single module of eight beams. The project, which rose out of the Energy Department's still partly classified military fusion program, has become far more than a nuclear weapons plum. It is seen as having significant implications for all science, for future research funding and even for Livermore's prestige and life. "A lot is riding on this," says nuclear weapons program analyst Christopher Paine, of the Natural Resources Defense Council in Washington, D.C., which has a pending lawsuit against the Energy Department which seeks to bar the department from using two expert reports in justifying the laser program to Congress. Livermore and Energy Department officials have repeatedly said that the program, while troubled, has survived numerous and continuing scientific and technical reviews that warrant its full support and continuation. The Energy Department says the report will comply with all congressional requirements, including assessing various permutations of the project and other technical alternatives. (Contact Lawrence Spohn of The Tribune in Albuquerque, N.M., at http://www.abqtrib.com.) ***************************************************************** NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: *****************************************************************