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 50 Leadership & Vision for Our Putere 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 residentsthose 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." NUCLEAR PLANTS HAVE THE BEST INDUSTRIAL SECURITY IN THE NATION As our nation's considerations of energy security and national security grow more urgent, we cannot afford to proceed on either front without considering the broad benefits of nuclear energy. The industry recognizes, however, that the health, economic and national security considerations associated with nuclear energy easily could be overruled if our plants are not operated safely. The industry has proven over four decades that nuclear power plants can be operated safely. In addition to world-class safety, nuclear power plants meet exacting federal requirements for security and emergency preparedness. Our nuclear plants were built to withstand certain natural events, such as earthquakes and hurricanes, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has for more than 20 years required that private security forces defend against an attacking force of saboteurs intent on causing a release of radiation. However, the events of Sept. 11, 2001, caused us to reconsider and to improve. In analyzing this changed world, the nuclear industry started with the firm knowledge that nuclear power plants-although robust and difficult targets to penetrate-nonetheless are said by some organizations to be potential terrorist targets because of public concern over possible radiation releases. However, as stated by NRC Chairman Richard Meserve: It should be recognized that nuclear power plants are massive structures with thick exterior walls and interior barriers of reinforced concrete. The plants are designed to withstand tornadoes, hurricanes, fires, floods, and earthquakes. As a result, the structures inherently afford a measure of protection against deliberate aircraft impacts. In addition, the defense-indepth philosophy used in nuclear facility design means that plants have redundant and separated systems in order to ensure safety. That is, active components, such as pumps, have backups as part of the basic design philosophy. This provides a capability to respond to a variety of events, including aircraft attack. As Chairman Meserve noted, the industry's defense-in-depth philosophy includes protection by well-trained, heavily armed security officers, fortified perimeters and sophisticated detection systems. We also assume that potential attackers may attempt to achieve the help of a sympathetic insider, so the companies that operate nuclear plants conduct extensive background checks before hiring employees. Even 30, to be conservative, our security plans assume that attackers are successful in obtaining insider help. I have attached an NEI publication entitled "Nuclear Plant Security," which explains in more detail the many security measures in place at |