We have also enhanced our frequency and coordination with local and State law enforcement, the intelligence community and the military. A recently released White House report recommends conducting comprehensive vulnerability and risk assessments of the Nation's critical infrastructure so that resources may be applied to those areas that represent the greatest risk. The nuclear energy industry supports such a recommendation and encourages the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to coordinate its review of nuclear plant security with the Department of Homeland Security. Daily operation of nuclear energy facilities is based on an integrated approach to protect public health and safety. This includes programs to respond to any emergency, whether an operational event or the response to a potential terrorist attack. As with security, the plant safety begins with its design. Safety features are built into the plant. Several separate steel and concrete barriers protect the reactor. Highly trained, federally licensed reactor operators are responsible for safe operations on a daily basis, and they are an integral part of the facility's emergency response plan. Emergency exercises and drills test emergency response capabilities, both at the plant and in nearby towns. The industry, State, and local governments participate in these exercises, which are evaluated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. We know that the emergency response programs work, because they have been used to evacuate residents both during natural disasters like hurricanes and floods or in other nonnuclear industrial accidents. You asked for comments on the Witt Report. The Witt Report on Indian Point and Millstone's emergency preparedness is now final. While we still would take issue with the overall conclusions in the report, I note the report acknowledges that the two plants' emergency plans comply with Federal requirements. The report just takes issue with those requirements. So if Federal agencies pursue additional review of emergency preparedness of nuclear facilities as part of a national infrastructure protection, this industry will willingly and gladly participate in that review. The nuclear industry is constantly reviewing, drilling, and improving its emergency preparedness plans; and we will, as a matter of course, consider further improvements as our efforts in this area continue. In conclusion, security and emergency preparedness, just like safe operation, are fundamental components of a thriving nuclear energy industry; and in all three areas we have an exemplary record. As America's consideration of energy security and national security grow more and more urgent, we must continue to rely on reliable, affordable, clean energy, generated at our Nation's 103 nuclear power plants in Connecticut, Ohio, and across the Nation. Thank you. Mr. TURNER. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Ms. Howard follows:] NEI NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE Hearing Testimony Submitted by Angelina S. Howard United States House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats, and International Relations March 10, 2003 N 50 Leadership & Vision TESTIMONY ANGELINA S. HOWARD BEFORE THE NATIONAL SECURITY, EMERGING THREATS COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM MARCH 10, 2003 Chairman Christopher Shays, Ranking Member Dennis Kucinich, and distinguished members of the subcommittee, I am Angie Howard, executive vice president at the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). I am honored to address the issues before this subcommittee today. I will discuss the steps our industry has taken to build on its already proven security measures, and I also will review the industry's well-developed emergency preparedness programs. The Nuclear Energy Institute is responsible for developing policy for the U.S. nuclear industry. NEI's 270 corporate and other members represent a broad spectrum of interests, including every U.S. electric company that operates a nuclear power plant. NEI's membership also includes nuclear fuel cycle companies, suppliers, engineering and consulting firms, national research laboratories, manufacturers of radiopharmaceuticals, universities, labor unions and law firms. Nuclear energy already is a vital part of our nation's diverse energy portfolio, producing electricity—safely and cleanly-for one of every five U.S.homes and businesses. A comprehensive energy policy must ensure an affordable, reliable supply of energy, and nuclear energy provides one of the solutions to several policy challenges facing our nation. NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS ARE KEY TO ENERGY SECURITY AND CLEAN AIR Given our nation's confrontation with Iraq, this is an important time to consider the importance of nuclear energy to our nation's energy security. One of the most significant ways that our nation responded to the oil embargoes of the 1970s was by rebalancing our energy supply portfolio. The U.S. energy sector reduced its dependence on oil-fired power by increasing reliance on domestic sources, such as coal and nuclear energy. 2 To underscore this point, nuclear energy provided just 4 percent of U.S. electricity supply before the oil shocks of the 1970s, and oil fueled about 20 percent of electricity production. Today, the situation is reversed, with nuclear energy serving as a workhorse of the electricity sector and oil all but phased out of use for generating electricity. The United States remains the world leader in nuclear energy, with 103 reactors generating an estimated record 778 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity in 2002--more than all of the electricity used in Great Britain and France combined. Our 103 reactors are about one-fourth of the world's total. Nuclear energy is the only large source of electricity that is both emission-free and readily expandable. The industry's exemplary safety record, outstanding reliability, low operating costs and future price stability make nuclear energy a vital source of power today and for the future. Nuclear energy accounts for three-fourths of all U.S. emission-free electricity generation and is, without question, a vital component of our nation's clean air policy. Nuclear energy already has made a staggering contribution toward reducing harmful emissions to the atmosphere. Between 1973 and 2001, U.S. nuclear power plants avoided the emission of 70.3 million tons of sulfur dioxide, and 35.6 million tons of nitrogen oxide, compared to fuels that otherwise would have produced electricity. In 2001 alone, nuclear plants avoided the emission of 4 million tons of sulfur dioxide, about 2 million tons of nitrogen oxide and 176.8 million metric tons of carbon. Given that many areas in New York and Connecticut are in non-attainment regarding air quality, nuclear energy's importance to the region is even more apparent. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham recently said of nuclear energy, “It's obvious to me that an energy source capable of supplying a significant proportion of the world's power with no greenhouse gas emissions should be at the center of the debate." In New York state, Attorney General Eliot Spitzer said that emissions threaten the region's public health and environment if left unchecked. Nuclear energy must continue to be a significant part of our diverse energy portfolio if we are to enjoy both economic growth and a cleaner environment. Nuclear energy has long been an engine for economic expansion. It is the most affordable source of baseload power in the United States, with the added advantage of stable forward pricing. Since 1990, nuclear energy has produced-through increased capacity and enhanced power ratings-electricity equivalent to adding 25 1,000-megawatt power plants to our nation's electricity supply. For example, in 1990, nuclear energy produced one-quarter of New York state's electricity, including power for the New York City subway system and other essential services. In 2000, 3 energy has met nearly 27.5 percent of the increased demand for electricity for our entire country over the past decade. Nuclear energy is equally vital to New York. The Indian Point Energy Center, which is owned and operated by Entergy, produced nearly 2,000 megawatts of electricity-about 20 percent of the electric power used in the New York City area. Riverkeeper, an organization that has long been dedicated to shutting down the Indian Point facility, recently admitted that, if successful, its efforts to close the plant would raise consumers' electric bills a "marginal" amount "from $50 to $100." That is not an insignificant sum. A study in 2002 by the Public Policy Institute, the research affiliate of the Business Council of New York State, concluded that the state must add at least a dozen new power plants with at least 9,200 megawatts of generating capacity by 2007 to avoid the risk of serious economic damage from power shortages. The New York Independent System Operator, which is responsible for assuring reliable supplies of electricity for the state, said that New York City alone will need as much as 3,000 megawatts of new generating capacity by 2005. These projections assume continued operation of both reactors at the Indian Point Energy Center. If Indian Point were closed, industry estimates show that the electricity reserve margins for New York would be dangerously low, and consumers could be expected to pay an additional $3.5 billion for electricity over a three-and-one-half-year period. Much of the price increase would fall on New York City's lower-income residents— those that can least afford it. The costs to business from interrupted power supplies would be incalculable if Indian Point Energy Center is closed prematurely," the Business Council said in testimony two weeks ago before the New York City Council. "We need only look at California during their power blackouts to find the toll to business-in lost production, damaged equipment and effect on employees-is unacceptable." In addition, the council testified that importing 2,000 megawatts of power from out of state is not feasible given transmission constraints that limit the amount of electricity that can be imported into southeastern New York. "It is also a fallacy that we could conserve enough power to make up for Indian Point's loss of almost 2,000 megawatts in a single momentary instance." |