Prepared Witness Testimony

The House Committee on Energy and Commerce

Comprehensive National Energy Policy

Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality
March 5, 2003
10:00 AM
2123 Rayburn House Office Building 

Ms. Anna Aurilio
Legislative Director
U.S. Public Interest Research Group
218 D Street, SE
Washington, DC, 20003

Good morning, 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.  

Nuclear power is unsafe, unreliable, uneconomic and generates long-lived radioactive wastes for which there is no safe solution.All aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle pose a risk to humans and the environment.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 the last 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 breeder reactor known as the Advanced Liquid Metal Reactor, saving taxpayers at least $5.6 billion.In 2002, the PIRGs helped defeat a nuclear-subsidy laden energy bill in House/Senate conference. 

Today I will be addressing nuclear energy issues, especially focusing on policies that should and shouldn't be included in energy legislation.Overall we are dismayed that the draft legislation developed by this subcommittee takes us in the wrong direction.By extending and increasing nuclear subsidies, reversing decades of nuclear non-proliferation policy, and failing to address major safety concerns, this legislation is a recipe for nuclear disaster, not a safe energy future. 

Uranium mining threatens public health.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.We are particularly disappointed to see that the draft legislation circulated by this subcommittee contains a subsidy for "in situ" leach mining (Section 4029).This section authorizes the Department of Energy (DOE) to spend $10 million annually for fiscal years 2004, 2005, 2006 to identify, test and develop "in situ" leach mining technologies. This uranium mining technology, whereby mining companies inject millions of gallons of chemical solutions into the groundwater to extract uranium from the host rock, pollutes groundwater in the West.We are concerned that a three-year, $30 million subsidy will serve to prop up a failing industry that has a terrible environmental track record.We are particularly concerned that this type of subsidy could allow a disputed project in New Mexico to go forward, threatening a pristine water supply for the Crownpoint Navajo Nation.[1]  

Nuclear power plants threaten nearby communities. 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 [2]. 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.[3] 

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.[4] 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. 

Nuclear power plants are not secure.The tragic events of September 11, 2001 have raised serious concerns about safety and security at nuclear facilities in this country. Many facilities cannot even meet the current security requirements widely considered to be inadequate.Nearly half have failed to repel small groups of intruders on foot in "force-on-force" exercises conducted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Researchers at Princeton University found that an attack on irradiated fuel stored at nuclear power plants could cause contamination problems 8 to 70 times worse than those caused by the 1986 meltdown at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant.[5]  

Even before September 11, we were very concerned about the safety of nuclear reactors currently operating in this country.We are encouraged to see that the draft legislation maintains amendments added by Rep. Markey and Waxman in last year's markup (Sections 4012, 4013).However, these requirements are not enough to guarantee adequate protection from the radiation released in case of terrorist attacks or accident. 

For example, Dr. Ed Lyman of the Nuclear Control Institute estimates that a terrorist attack on the Indian Point 3 nuclear power plant resulting in core melting and containment breach would result in an 1500 fold increase in childhood thyroid cancer for children living 35 miles downwind.[6]Despite these and other risks, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has insisted that the NRC does not have to consider the environmental impacts of terrorist attacks on licensing new and existing facilities since the threat is "speculative."Despite studies that show harmful impacts beyond current evacuation zone boundaries, NRC insists on limiting emergency evacuation zones to only 10 miles. 

This committee should require that NRC be obligated to consider the risk of a terrorist attack on licensing new facilities and extending the license on existing facilities.The NRC should increase emergency evacuation zones to fifty miles and re-evaluate the adequacy of existing evacuation plans to take into account the threat of attacks.Finally, Congress should restore states' rights and give governors the right to veto the siting or license extension of facilities that pose a significant public safety risk.

NRC does not adequately regulate the ongoing safety of nuclear power plants.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.  

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, 2001):"[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."Despite industry's claims that nuclear power is "safe", at least ten existing reactors have experiencing aging-related shutdowns since January 2000.[7]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. The recent events at a reactor in Ohio expose a serious problem in NRC's management culture and decision-making.  

In November of 2001, the NRC allowed FirstEnergy, the owner of the Davis-Besse plant in Ohio to ignore warning signs, then delay a shutdown for three months.Inspectors found a six-inch hole in the reactor cover that had only millimeters left until it breached the cover.According to interviews with NRC personnel, the agency backed down from issuing a safety-related shutdown order after FirstEnergy argued vigorously against a shutdown at that time because they didn't want bad publicity nor a drop in their financial ratings.At least one NRC employee felt that the company withheld important information about evidence of serious corrosion. [8]The NRC's decision to let the plant operate and rake in profits a few months longer even with evidence of serious problems jeopardized the health and safety of the surrounding communities. 

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 35 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.  

We are astonished that the industry and the regulatory agency have been lobbying for an even greater relaxation of safety standards and oversight and limiting the public's access to these processes. This committee should exercise its oversight over NRC's operations.It should demand that the commission fully enforce its own safety regulations and report to Congress monthly on its progress. 

Nuclear power is unreliable.Complex and often mis-managed nuclear power plants are subject to frequent fires, leaks and other accidents.For example in 2001, the Nuclear Energy Institute's website boasts that "Increased Nuclear Output Would Satisfy California's Residential Demand." [9]It failed to mention a February 3 fire at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station that shut the plant for weeks and was a key factor in 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.This is an industry that is addicted to government handouts, like an addict, it continues to ask for more handouts. 

Congress should oppose 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, Mark Foley 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. We are extremely disappointed that the subcommittee draft legislation includes authorization of nearly $2 billion in commercial nuclear research and development subsidies.These programs are pure corporate welfare for an industry that has never paid its own way.DOE's own studies (referenced in the draft legislation)[10] show that new reactors developed through taxpayer-funded programs such as Generation IV and Nuclear Power 2010 are not cost-competitive.Private utilities are not interested in building new nuclear plants.Despite DOE's squandering taxpayer dollars on the gas-cooled reactor known as the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor, the project's lone U.S. supporter, Exelon has pulled out of the project.This reactor design remains uncompetitive despite the fact that its developers propose cutting costs by not building containment. 

DOE commissioned a report by Scully Capital called "Business Case for New Nuclear Power Plants," [11]which concludes that existing taxpayer backed insurance (known as the Price Anderson Act), federal research and development funds and ultimately federally-funded nuclear waste program are not enough to make these new reactors cost-competitive.Instead it recommends a mind-boggling suite of new subsidies including:a federal energy credit program, low interest loans, power purchase agreements (at up to 50% more than market rates!), emissions credits and additional insurance.This report estimates that the federal government would have to spend at least $1.5 to 2.75 billion in subsidies to bring down the capital costs of five new nuclear plants.This estimate does not include any additional subsidies for nuclear waste disposal, siting and permitting the new plants. 

Congress should oppose programs, which increase the threat of nuclear proliferation. Plutonium, an element that can only be produced in nuclear reactors, is the material of choice for nuclear weapons. All reactors produce it, but it must be separated from highly radioactive irradiated fuel before it can be used in weapons. This separation process is known as "reprocessing."For at least two decades, the United States has had a policy against reprocessing waste from commercial nuclear reactors and not allowing plutonium to be used as fuel in nuclear reactors to prevent the proliferation of weapons-usable material.There are several DOE projects and provisions in the draft legislation that violate this common-sense policy or otherwise increase the risk of nuclear proliferation.At a time when U.S. citizens are asked to sacrifice to reduce the risk of rogue nations deploying nuclear weapons, these programs will make the world an even more dangerous place.  

Section 6431, the Advanced Fuel Recycling Program specifically reverses the decades-long U.S. policy against reprocessing commercial nuclear waste. It advocates reprocessing commercial nuclear fuel and using several types of reactors, including breeder reactors, to allegedly reduce the volume and toxicity of the waste. Nuclear "breeder reactors" can be configured to produce plutonium.Congress wisely killed the U.S. breeder reactor program in 1994, citing economic and non-proliferation concerns.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. 

A January 2003 report, entitled "Report to Congress on Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative: The Future Path for Advanced Spent Fuel Treatment and Transmutation Research, admits that this costly program will not obviate the need for a geologic repository.Further it contradicts itself with regard to nuclear non-proliferation.First, it claims that the program can "destroy" plutonium thus reducing the risks of this material falling into the wrong hands. [12]On the same page, however, it touts the potential for a commercial nuclear fuel cycle based on the plutonium separated from existing irradiated fuel - a program that would dramatically increase the risk of weapons materials falling into the wrong hands by putting separated plutonium into commercial nuclear reactors! 

Congress should phase out the Price Anderson Act.We oppose extension of the Price Anderson Act, which expired in August 2002, and then was reauthorized for one year in the recently passed Omnibus Appropriations bill.This insurance program is an unwarranted taxpayer subsidy to the nuclear industry that has no parallel in any other industry.This law, passed in 1957 and amended in 1988 provides taxpayer-funded insurance for the nuclear industry in the event of an accident.In case of an accident at a nuclear power plant, the industry gets a guarantee of limited liability while the public gets no guarantee of full compensation.This confers a substantial annual subsidy to the nuclear industry in terms of foregone insurance premiums. The Price-Anderson Act also provides blanket indemnity to Department of Energy contractors, even in cases of intentional misconduct and gross negligence.While we are encouraged by some of the House-passed provisions that would:re-evaluate nuclear security measures, require consultation with the Department of Homeland Security and allow for civil penalties in the case of intentional misconduct by a DOE contractor, this committee should reject Title IV, Subtitle A which reauthorizes the Price Anderson Act.Not only does this section reauthorize the Act for an additional fifteen years, it allows new, untested "modular" reactors to pay less money in case of an accident.If nuclear power is as "safe" as its proponents claim, there is no need for a limit on industry liability. 

Protect citizens from unjustified rate increases and bailouts at the state level.We oppose the draft legislation's repeal of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935, one of the only laws still on the books that protects electricity consumers.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.Instead of repealing electricity consumer protection laws, the subcommittee should strengthen consumer protections and block the continued bailout of the nuclear industry through "stranded cost" provisions. 

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. 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. 

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 weakened the site guidelines, a clear case of changing the rules when science gives the answer that is not wanted. 

Last year, Congress ignored serious safety concerns including the risk of transporting this waste across the country, and overrode the State of Nevada's veto to designate Yucca Mountain, Nevada as the nation's nuclear waste dump.The Bush Administration's 2004 budget proposal would reserve funds specifically for the Yucca Mountain project within discretionary cap adjustments for 2004 and 2005. This proposal would inappropriately limit the discretionary authority of appropriators to balance various budget priorities, essentially granting the DOE a blank check for Yucca Mountain spending.The General Accounting Office reported last year that, "DOE currently does not have a reliable estimate of when, and at what cost, a license application can be submitted or a repository can be opened." 

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. 

BIOGRAPHY - ANNA AURILIO 

Anna Aurilio is the Legislative Director for theU.S. Public Interest Research Group (U.S. PIRG).She is responsible for policy development, research and advocacy on energy issues ranging from electric utility restructuring to nuclear waste.Ms. Aurilio also founded and directs the PIRGs' Campaign to Cut Polluter Pork, which works to eliminate anti‑environmental subsidies including those to the oil, coal, nuclear, mining, ranching, and timber industries. Ms. Aurilio is a member of the Board of Directors of the Safe Energy Communication Council and she is a member of the League of Conservation Voters Political Advisory Committee. 

Ms. Aurilio received a bachelor's degree in Physics from the University of Massachusetts at Amherst in 1986, and a Master's degree in Environmental Engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1992. Prior to receiving her Master's degree, Ms. Aurilio was a Staff Scientist with the National Environmental Law Center, and the PIRG's National Litigation Project for three years.At the National Environmental Law Center, a national litigation and policy center, Ms. Aurilio investigated industrial and municipal compliance with environmental laws and provided technical support for citizen lawsuits against Clean Water Act violators in Massachusetts, Ohio, Illinois, Washington and California.

Printer Friendly