Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to talk with you today about the current state of emergency preparedness at commercial nuclear power plants in the United States.

My experience includes 23 years in the commercial nuclear power industry. During my career I have been a participant, observer, or evaluator in more than 500 drills and exercises. And, for many years I have co-sponsored and taught an emergency preparedness continuing education program at Harvard University.

I have served as the manager of two nuclear power plant emergency preparedness programs. A benefit of being at the two utilities that have multi-jurisdictional emergency planning zones, is that I have been involved in developing the interface between the utility and the federal, state and local agencies, and know, first hand, that they are well-founded and effective.

During my 14 years at the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations, I completed over 280 evaluation or reviews of emergency preparedness programs. I have been to every plant in the United States and many outside the United States.

I look at my testimony today as an opportunity to provide information about an area that has, since September 11, 2001, generated considerable concern and much speculation among many Americans, and that is, the safety of the public in regard to emergency preparedness programs.

Today I would like to cover three important areas:

First: Commercial nuclear power plants in the U. S. have comprehensive, well-developed and regularly tested emergency preparedness programs.

Let me point out to you the full scope of federal regulation, technical guidance, and scientific reports would cover a length of 28.7 feet; the bibliography alone is over 1 inch thick. A description of the scope of these comprehensive programs was included in my written testimony.

There is strong interagency coordination among federal, state, and local agencies and with the utility to plan and carry out their specific response actions. (And I believe all or most of these agencies are under this committee’s oversight)

Nuclear power plants are required to participate in independently reviewed, full-scale exercises every two years (and a self-evaluated exercise in off years). Nuclear power plants have conducted and benefited from nearly 1,000 full-scale, Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) graded exercises, in addition to the many training drills each year.

Training is provided to local fire fighters, police, medical personnel, ambulance personnel, school personnel, school bus drivers, and local farmers. These integrated training programs are an excellent method to build trusting relationships with the local communities that surround the power plants and credibility with federal and state personnel.

Second, the emergency preparedness programs are founded on a strong scientific and technical basis including the two emergency planning zones around nuclear power plants.

In 1976, a joint task force of the Environmental Protection Agency and Nuclear Regulatory Commission developed the planning basis for off-site emergency preparedness efforts for nuclear power plants. The task force performed a detailed analysis of the full range of possible reactor accidents to determine the appropriate distances from the plant that should be used for planning prompt protective actions, such as evacuation and sheltering, as well as longer-term actions such as protecting food supplies.

The task force received substantial input from all the federal agencies and relevant state agencies that would be responsible for implementing protective actions.

Following two years of study, the task force concluded that it was highly unlikely that prompt protective actions for the public would need to be taken beyond 10 miles. This study led to the 10-mile and 50-mile emergency planning zones that are used today.

We know the plans work! Emergency response plans developed by the nuclear industry have been activated successfully by local officials for use in other, non-nuclear emergencies. Some examples include:

• Evacuation of 10,000 people from Cedar Rapids, Iowa, in July 1985, following a fire at a city-operated sewage treatment plant that dispersed a black cloud of toxic fumes over the city using a plan developed for Alliant Energy’s Duane Arnold nuclear plant. 􀂃
• Evacuation of 17,000 residents of St. Charles Parish, La. following a leak from a nearby chemical plant in December 1982 using a plan for Entergy’s Waterford 3 nuclear plant. 􀂃
• Evacuation of personnel around Mt. St. Helene’s using the Trojan Nuclear Plant plan, the response to Hurricane Andrew using the Turkey Point plan and Hurricane Fran using the Brunswick Nuclear Power Plant plan, and many others.

Over the years, as new insights and experience regarding reactor safety have been analyzed, the 10 and 50 mile planning zones have continued to be found valid for emergency preparedness programs. I am not aware of any new scientific or technical information – even post 9/11 – that would support fundamental changes to the existing 10-mile and 50-mile emergency planning zones

Third, continual learning is an integral part of each emergency preparedness program. A commitment to excellence throughout the industry coupled with continual training, self-assessment, and testing has produced a high level of preparedness.

•  Effective methods are used to assess performance in drills and exercises.
  
• We update our Emergency plans and include lessons learned from actual events, drills, exercises, and independent critiques. 
  
• State-of-the-art response facilities have been built and existing facilities upgraded. 
  
• Sophisticated plant computer systems and communication technology are used as effective tools for dealing with emergencies.

Summary
During the past 30 years, the nuclear industry has conducted nearly 1,000 full-scale, graded exercises. We have evidence that our emergency preparedness programs are effective. We continually strive for new levels of safety and excellence within our emergency preparedness programs.

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony at this hearing. I am sure that all of us here today share a strong commitment to protect the health and safety of the public. This is a common commitment that binds us all. I will be happy to answer any questions.