The past two days have offered us a wealth of insight and information—as I trust we’ve come to expect at this, our annual Nuclear Energy Assembly. Indeed, nuclear energy is delivering solid value…and will continue to do so.

The success we are enjoying today is the legacy of our industry pioneers. The continuum of quality our industry now enjoys is, in part, the product of their vision and hard work.

Fifty years ago, a group of companies organized to explore the opportunities offered by one of the most exciting scientific breakthroughs in the history of the world, and to share information on how to best employ this new and prodigious tool for the betterment of the world.

That organization, the Atomic Industrial Forum, and those in the interim…combining ultimately into NEI…have helped to positively shape the U.S. nuclear energy industry.

The founders of our industry came together 50 years ago much as we are together here today…to advance technological frontiers…and to further an idea, and later an industry, in which they deeply believed.

Half a century later, that belief still persists in each of us…as does the belief in the collective strength of our industry that they imbued in us.

You heard Don Hintz speak of what is possible 50 years from now, and what we must do to get there.

That 50 years starts today…and I want to spend these last few minutes of our meeting discussing what each of us individually and all of us as collectively should start doing right now—today—to realize that promise of the future.

As the progenitors of our industry showed us, little can happen without prudent national policy…and national policy does not just happen.

So first and foremost, I ask you to reach out to your legislators and political leaders—both in Congress and in your own states.

Last year, when I was asked, “What are the three top issues before us?” I said Yucca, Yucca and Yucca. The importance of the Congressional vote that was looming ahead as we left NEA 2002 was huge. Many of you here played key roles in the successful outcome. You did a great job of contacting your legislators and impressing on them the importance of upholding the president’s decision.

But we can’t afford to rest on those laurels. We have almost unprecedented Congressional support, and we must work continually to maintain and increase that support.

Aside from the general need to continue to build good will, there is very significant—and positive—nuclear legislation pending on Capitol Hill. This could be the year for comprehensive energy legislation, and right now there are many beneficial nuclear provisions. We must all work hard to see that they remain through final passage.

Last year, Price-Anderson renewal got caught in the switches, even after it expired. It was extended only through the end of this year in an omnibus spending bill. Now, we have an opportunity in legislation before the Senate to get Price-Anderson extended indefinitely.

Indefinite or long-term extension would take Price-Anderson off the table as a tool for nuclear opponents or simply a political chit to be traded. It would remove the uncertainty facing DOE contractors as they work on important projects such as Yucca Mountain and reactor research. And in the longer term, it is vital to our ability to get new plants financed and built.

We’ve also been working hard to make the case that creative financing measures are needed to get the first few new plants over the hump. The legislation before the Senate contains financial incentives that would minimize the market and regulatory risk to private industry, and we need to make sure that remains in the final bill.

There are hundreds of millions of dollars in advanced reactor research in the bills before the Congress—including a reactor for the production of hydrogen. And there are security provisions—some we favor, some we oppose—that require our close attention.

Then there is Yucca Mountain. The project could break down without enough funding, and the current budget system is a recipe for chronic underfunding. Year in and year out, Congress has freely exercised its option to take monies—consumer and shareholder—from the Nuclear Waste Fund and use it for other purposes. We have to emphasize to our legislators that the system must change so that the fund is used as intended.

Political action at the state level is increasingly important to us, particularly on clean air issues. Several states are considering emissions-trading programs, and it is essential that the clean air value of nuclear energy be recognized along with other emission-free energy sources in those programs. The action now is mainly in the Northeast, but as we learned with deregulation, these issues have a way of spreading.

Consider the span of events in a six-week period earlier this year.

President Bush’s call for comprehensive energy policy recognized the key role of nuclear power in our energy diversification and for hydrogen production.

A week later, the Bush Administration unveiled its voluntary greenhouse gas reduction goals—of which nuclear energy will play a significant role by pledging to achieve one-fifth of the president’s goal.

Finally, a report by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in March cited a 30-percent increase in nuclear energy for retail electricity sales in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states from 1998 to 2001[1] as a key factor in the reduction of nitrogen oxides that cause urban smog.

Another reason to build state and local support is a familiar one—used fuel transportation. We still have a massive education job to do with state—and local—governments and the public on transportation. Remember, used fuel shipments are scheduled to travel through 41 states en route to the repository. The Nevada state government is still active in opposition to Yucca Mountain, and we can expect the state to use every means to try to undercut the project. That includes many of the same scare tactics they used in key states to try to drum up public opposition before last year’s Congressional votes.

Even if Nevada is not active, we still have to overcome the basic public concern about safety, and it will take a grassroots effort involving everyone in the industry to reassure the public in every state that used fuel shipments will be safe and secure.

We also need to bring cooperative, proactive efforts to bear to successfully resolve other safety-related challenges that you heard Don Hintz talk about yesterday—in particular materials performance and emergency planning. Each of these challenges has put the industry in the public spotlight…and failure by the industry to address these issues comprehensively and with 100 percent commitment could erode public confidence.
 
Materials performance issues are as old as the industry and will likely be faced by future generations. Over the years, we’ve established several broad, on-going programs and a number of specific efforts related to more specific problems. Overall, they’ve been successful.

But existing programs differ in levels of funding, scope, executive involvement and resources. The efforts and experiences of each program were not integrated into other programs. And, the industry’s commitment to materials performance issues has been uneven.

Last year, the NEI Executive Committee passed a resolution committing the industry to undertake new initiatives in materials. NEI convened an executive task force and a materials working group to assess industry materials performance activities and to make recommendations for improvement. Those groups concluded that the industry needs a more unified approach -- a permanent, executive-level structure that would provide available resources to effectively manage long-term materials issues.

NEI’s NSIAC has voted to approve the guidelines and recommendations developed by the task force. In the coming months, we’ll be developing the executive-level capability we need to anticipate issues and take action before they become critical. It will be up to all of us to make it work—with expertise, with teamwork, and above all, with funding.

We are all accountable for the materials issues at our plants, and I know we all share the desire to see this initiative succeed. For my part, I’d rather be putting out the effort to anticipate materials issues than putting out the effort to remediate, defend—and apologize.

Emergency preparedness, like materials performance, is an issue where public perception is as important as the reality of the situation. Emergency preparedness is linked in the public mind with plant security. For the past two years, security has been a headline issue, and longtime opponents have seized on the events of 9/11 to float far-fetched security scenarios that have gotten a lot of play in the media.

Plants in the most populous areas—notably Indian Point and Millstone—have been the focus of publicity, resulting in part from the report prepared by former FEMA director James Lee Witt for the state of New York. We take strong issue with most of his conclusions, and we’ve responded to the report.

But the public remains concerned, and there have been far-reaching ripple effects at other sites. What do we do about it? We could simply say, well they’re wrong—we’re the best at emergency preparedness and we know it. Would that do anything to reassure the public? Not much.

This is another issue that requires an industry-wide response. We should re-examine our emergency preparedness programs—with a critical eye toward both onsite and offsite response. The NRC has noted slippage in some emergency preparedness programs in its inspections. And the Witt report makes some good points about the need to update communications techniques.

Instead of dismissing criticisms, we should take this as an opportunity to evaluate our programs on an organized basis. We’ve made a good start. Not long after the September 11 attacks, NEI began coordinating a program of industry self-assessments of emergency preparedness programs. At the end of last year, NEI forwarded to industry chief nuclear officers a report on lessons learned.

INPO, with NEI’s help, also has begun a pilot program of onsite emergency preparedness assistance visits to identify onsite areas needing improvement. NEI has also formed an Emergency Preparedness and Event Communications Working Group, integrating a broad range of disciplines…technical personnel, communicators and state and local government liaison.

The purpose of the group is both to improve EP programs, and to coordinate communication of our actions to the public and opinion leaders. We’ll be holding our Emergency Preparedness and Communications Forum in a couple of weeks in Florida – I hope you will encourage your people to attend. And more training is planned for later in the year.

We must give this issue our attention, and our best effort, both working with local and state government and looking inward to our onsite programs. We know our emergency preparedness programs are good. They’ve been good for a long time. But should they be better? We need to find out.

We have a better handle on the strength of our security operations – they’re the gold standard, and they’ve gotten even stronger in the last two years. But we’re still fending off counterproductive legislation in the Congress…and working with the NRC, Department of Homeland Security and government at all levels to develop the right public-private division of responsibility for plant security.

If you’ve detected a common theme in the issues, and the responses required… you’re right. The issues that most need our attention and action are at least in part perceptual—affected by the heightened tension in this country since September 11 and made even greater by the war in Iraq.

We must be better than ever—and we must let the public know about it. Nowhere is it more important to provide reassurance than in our neighborhoods—the communities immediately surrounding our plants.

And I realize that there may be overriding, and even conflicting, security concerns, but if your visitors’ center is closed, this would be a good time to consider reopening it…or making alternate arrangements to reach out to your communities. You may find more public interest than usual.

We’ve made tremendous strides in improving favorability among the public and opinion leaders, and it is paying off—but there are still those who haven’t heard the news about our safety, productivity and reliability, low cost, and particularly the environmental advantages of nuclear energy. We’re delivering solid value, and we should be telling that story.

Don Hintz has painted a vivid picture of the possibilities ahead for the nuclear industry – but they’re still only possibilities until we make them real. But all those possibilities…and all of our support and good will…are fragile and could evaporate if carelessness or indifference leads to an accident.

We can and should look ahead to the future, to the fulfillment of our vision—but if we lose our focus on safety—on the fundamentals—we could foreclose the future of our industry.

The collective strength of this industry is formidable – unbeatable. The founders of our industry came together 50 years ago to explore the possibilities of nuclear energy. We must stay together, and work together, to explore and bring to fruition the possibilities of the future. If we remain focused, involved, and united, that future is unlimited.

We’ve had a great story to tell at this assembly, and I hope to have an even better one to tell next year—of focus, action…and success.

In closing, I want to thank all of our speakers for their participation, and all of you for your attention and your continued support for the industry. I look forward to seeing you at NEA 2004 in New Orleans. Thank you.