Maryland PIRG Foundation March 2007

The High Cost of Nuclear Power: Why Maryland Can’t Afford a New Reactor The High Cost of Nuclear Power: Why Maryland Can’t Afford a New Reactor

Elizabeth Ridlington Timothy Telleen-Lawton Johanna Neumann Maryland PIRG Foundation

March 2007 Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Michele Boyd of Public Citizen, Paul Gunter of Nuclear Information and Resource Service, David Lochbaum of the Union of Concerned Scien- tists, Mary Lampert of Pilgrim Watch, and Cathy Garger for their insightful review of this report. Thanks also to Tony Dutzik of Frontier Group for editorial assistance.

This report is made possible with funding from the Cooper Family Fund.

The opinions expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of our funders or those who provided editorial review. Any factual errors are strictly the responsibility of the authors.

© 2007 Maryland Public Interest Research Group Foundation

With public debate around important issues often dominated by special interests pursuing their own narrow agendas, Maryland PIRG Foundation offers an independent voice that works on behalf of the public interest. Maryland PIRG Foundation, a 501(c)(3) organiza- tion, works to protect consumers and promote good government in Maryland. We investi- gate problems, craft solutions, educate the public, and offer Maryland residents meaningful opportunities for civic participation.

For additional copies of this report, please visit www.MarylandPIRG.org, or send $20 to:

Maryland PIRG Foundation 3121 Saint Paul Street, #26 Baltimore, MD 21211

Layout: Harriet Eckstein Graphic Design Table of Contents

Executive Summary 5

Introduction 7

Constellation Wants to Build a New Reactor At Calvert Cliffs 8

A New Reactor Would Be Bad for Marylanders 10 Nuclear Power Is Expensive 10 Calvert Cliffs Is a Safety Hazard 14 Nuclear Power Is Environmentally Destructive 19

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission: An Ineffective Regulator 20

Policy Recommendations 22 Do Not Provide Financial Subsidies 22 Adopt a Conditional Ban 22

Notes 24 4The High Cost of Nuclear Power Executive Summary

onstellation Energy has proposed notoriously inaccurate, however. building a third reactor at the Areva, a French-government owned C Calvert Cliffs nuclear power plant in company and Constellation’s partner Maryland. Building a third reactor at in the proposed third reactor, has Calvert Cliffs would be expensive, threaten fallen 1.5 years behind on the con- public health and safety, and damage the struction of a reactor of the same size environment. Maryland should oppose and design in Finland, adding $922 construction of a third reactor. million to the cost of the plant. Encouraged by growing demand for • Radioactive waste generated at nuclear electricity and generous subsidies in the power plants must be guarded and kept 2005 federal Energy Policy Act, Constel- from the environment for tens of lation Energy has proposed constructing a thousands of years. Already, the federal 1,600 MWe nuclear reactor next to the two government has spent decades and reactors operating at Calvert Cliffs. The billions of dollars trying to devise a new plant—larger than any existing nuclear storage solution for nuclear waste reactor in the U.S.—would not be com- without obtaining a solution to the pleted until well into the next decade, and problem. would be licensed to operate for 40 years. Its operation would not be a benefit to • Cleaning up the plant after its operat- Maryland. ing license expires and it has quit Nuclear power is an expensive energy generating power will cost an esti- source at every stage, from plant construction mated $290 to $370 million, excluding to waste disposal and decommissioning. the cost of storing spent fuel and other radioactive waste. • Constellation estimates that designing and building the plant will cost $2.5 Constellation Energy and the French billion to $3.0 billion, if the plant is government-owned Areva may seek to shift built on schedule. Cost estimates for the financial risk of the new reactor to building nuclear power plants are Maryland taxpayers and electricity consumers.

Executive Summary 5 • The federal government has offered up • If the proposed federal nuclear waste to $13 billion in subsidies to encourage repository at Yucca Mountain is ever the construction of new nuclear power opened, waste from Calvert Cliffs will plants across the country. be transported by rail or truck to Nevada, passing within five miles of • Calvert County has already promised 3.1 million people in Maryland. An $300 million in tax breaks to Constel- accident involving a transport vehicle lation if the company builds a new could expose thousands to radiation. reactor at Calvert Cliffs. This is equal to $4,500 per taxpayer in Calvert Despite claims by the nuclear industry, County. The new plant will add 450 nuclear power is not an environmentally full-time jobs in the county, but at a benign source of electricity. The mining cost to taxpayers of approximately and processing of uranium destroys land, $750,000 per job. disproportionately harms native peoples, • Despite this massive tax break, Con- and creates toxic and radioactive waste. stellation may seek additional financ- Though nuclear power has lower global ing from the state. warming emissions than electricity gener- ated from coal or natural gas, it is not an • Constellation could also try to force emission-free power source. ratepayers to pay the cost of its license Maryland should refuse to accept the application, whether or not it decides construction of a new reactor at Calvert to build the reactor, as other utilities Cliffs. Policymakers at the state and local have tried elsewhere. levels can take several steps to prevent con- struction of a third reactor: Building a third reactor at Calvert Cliffs will threaten public health by adding to the • No additional state or local subsidies amount of radioactive material that could should be offered to Constellation and be released through an accident or terror- its partners to help offset the cost of ist attack involving the plant or its radioac- constructing a third reactor. tive waste. • The application and construction costs of a new reactor should not be added • The new reactor at Calvert Cliffs could to the rate base paid by electricity generate an estimated 1,375 tons of consumers. radioactive waste during its 40 years of operation. This waste will be stored • The state should adopt a ban on indefinitely at the site, where it poses construction of additional nuclear an attractive target for potential capacity unless the country has imple- terrorist attacks. mented a long-term solution for all radioactive waste that will be produced • The two existing reactors at Calvert at a new plant. Illinois, California and Cliffs have been fined for safety Wisconsin have already adopted such failures. For example, the Nuclear laws. Regulatory Commission (NRC) fined the plant $50,000 in 1996 for problems • Maryland should invest in energy with emergency equipment that had efficiency programs and encourage the been identified in 1992 but still had development of clean, renewable not been repaired four years later. energy sources.

6The High Cost of Nuclear Power Introduction

aryland is seeking to ensure the re- potential energy efficiency savings are great liability of its energy supply, reduc- enough to reduce energy use, not simply Ming dependence on costly energy reduce the rate of growth in energy use. sources that are subject to unexpected price ACEEE compared the results of energy spikes. In particular, reliance on limited efficiency potential studies in states and natural gas—preferred over coal for its lower regions across the country. On average, global warming pollution and toxic emis- those studies found that electricity use sions—has led to rising costs for electricity. could be reduced cost-effectively by 24 per- Constellation Energy has proposed con- cent through energy efficiency over a pe- structing a new nuclear power plant that riod of 10 to 20 years.2 would add to electricity generation with- Wind and solar energy resources are out increasing the state’s reliance on natu- abundant in the region. Maryland currently ral gas or contributing to global warming. generates only 8 percent of its electricity The plant, to be constructed in Calvert from renewable sources.3 Those sources County, would increase Maryland’s gener- include hydropower dams and biomass. ating capacity by 13 percent.1 But it would The state does not generate any appreciable also be expensive to build, and it will gen- electricity from wind or solar power. By erate radioactive waste that will be danger- tapping its wind and solar resources, Mary- ous to life for thousands of years. land could increase generation from non- Maryland does not need this new plant. polluting sources at a modest cost. Energy efficiency and renewable energy can As discussed throughout this report, meet the state’s electricity needs at a lower nuclear power creates radioactive waste that cost, without producing radioactive waste will remain dangerous for thousands of or contributing to global warming. years. Energy efficiency and renewable en- Energy efficiency can reduce electricity ergy create none of that risk. Maryland consumption. Data presented in a study by should reject the proposed new nuclear the American Council for an Energy- power plant, and turn to the cleaner, safer Efficient Economy (ACEEE) suggests that alternatives that are readily available.

Introduction 7 Constellation Wants to Build a New Reactor At Calvert Cliffs

onstellation Energy and its French for nuclear power. Many plants in con- government-owned partner, Areva, struction were halted. The last plant to be C have formed a consortium called built in the United States was ordered in Unistar. In October, 2006, they announced 1973.7 their intention to build a third nuclear re- Calvert Cliffs is owned by Constellation actor at the Calvert Cliffs nuclear plant in Energy through a subsidiary, Calvert Cliffs Calvert County, where there are currently Nuclear Power Plant, Inc. When Maryland two operating reactors.4 deregulated its electricity market in the late Unit 1 began operating in 1974. It was 1990s, ownership of the plant passed from granted a 20-year extension to its initial Baltimore Gas and Electric to its affiliate operating license and is scheduled to con- company, Constellation Energy Group and tinue generating power until 2034. Unit 2 its subsidiary. began operations two years after Unit 1 and In the wake of the 2005 federal Energy with its license extension will continue op- Policy Act, which offers more than $13 bil- erating until 2036.5 The two units, both lion in research and development, construc- pressurized water reactors, have a combined tion, operational, and shut-down subsidies generating capacity of 1,650 megawatts for nuclear power, Constellation Energy (MWe) and currently generate more than and other power companies are proposing one-quarter of the electricity produced in the construction of new plants around the Maryland.6 country. Here in Maryland, Constellation Units 1 and 2 were built in the 1960s is proposing to construct a 1,600 MWe re- and 1970s amid a nationwide nuclear craze actor at the Calvert Cliffs facility.8 Not only fueled by massive taxpayer subsidies, over- would the reactor double the output of estimates of future electricity demand, and Calvert Cliffs, it would be the largest overconfidence in the technology’s safety nuclear reactor in the country.9 Like the and economic viability. Subsequent con- other two reactors, it would be a pressur- struction cost overruns and the accident at ized water reactor, but of a revised design the Three Mile Island reactor in 1979 developed by Areva. A plant of this design undermined public and market enthusiasm has never been operated. Thus, the new

8The High Cost of Nuclear Power reactor at Calvert Cliffs would be untested As we will discuss in the next chapter, and its safety not assured. The 2005 En- using Maryland as a guinea pig for the ergy Policy Act extended federal liability nuclear industry’s desired renaissance is an insurance protection to any new nuclear unacceptable economic drain and threat to reactors built in the United States. public health, safety and the environment.

Constellation Wants to Build a New Nuclear Reactor 9 A New Reactor Would Be Bad for Marylanders

he two existing nuclear power units at nuclear plants undergo a lengthy licensing Calvert Cliffs already create a public process to allow regulators time to review T health and environmental threat to construction, operational and safety plans Maryland. Adding a third reactor to the site at the plant. The plant requires safety sys- would increase those risks, as well as im- tems to control the nuclear reaction and pose a financial burden on the state’s tax- prevent discharge of radioactivity to the payers, and potentially on electricity environment, storage systems to maintain consumers. the radioactive waste, security against ter- rorist destruction at the plant, and insur- ance in case any of those systems fail. Finally, the lag time between the initial fi- Nuclear Power Is Expensive nancial investment of licensing and con- Nuclear energy is not a cost-competitive struction and the start of plant operation way to produce electricity and relies on ex- presents nuclear power plant owners with tensive public subsidies. Nuclear industry enormous debt repayment expenses. officials have openly admitted that without The first step in building a nuclear plant subsidies, they would have no interest in is the licensing required due to nuclear building more nuclear power plants.10 power’s inherent nature as a potential safety hazard and terrorist target. The licensing process is supposed to help lower the risk Why Nuclear Power Is Expensive of catastrophic damage from the nuclear The driving factor behind the cost of plant by making sure that the planned lo- nuclear power is that it is a dangerous power cation, design, and operation of the plant source and nuclear plants must be substan- will not unnecessarily put people at risk of tial structures with complex technologies radiation exposure through an accident or to reduce the release of radiation. Nuclear terrorist attack. However, the licensing power plants are expensive for companies— process fails to protect public safety by ex- and their ratepayers—to construct; federal cluding some types of terrorist attack from subsidies mask much of this expense. consideration and by limiting public Compared to other power plants, participation.

10 The High Cost of Nuclear Power The cost of a thorough licensing pro- building a new plant. In the 1970s, nuclear cess to minimize the chance of a catastro- power plants became notorious for greatly phe should be borne by the owners who exceeding original cost projections, a prob- decide to build the plant, not taxpayers and lem that has made investors wary of the ratepayers. Submitting an application to technology to this day. Standard & Poor’s, construct and operate a nuclear plant re- which provides credit ratings of companies quires extensive design and engineering and projects, considers nuclear power work, with a total estimated cost of $600 plants extremely risky as investments and million.11 Unfortunately, however, in the assigns projects that include a nuclear plant Energy Policy Act of 2005 the federal gov- a risk score twice that of a coal-fired power ernment promised energy companies that plant.14 Most recently, Standard & Poor’s it will pay for any delays in the license ap- declared that “until a plant is completed, proval process, creating a disincentive for we will view [a company’s] operating risk a thorough review of licenses for new as higher than average in order to capture plants. This is merely the first of many sub- the construction risk in the business risk sidies that new nuclear power plants are profile.”15 slated to receive from taxpayers. Without The French-government owned Areva, these subsidies, nuclear power would not Constellation’s partner in expanding be financially viable. (See “Federal Subsi- Calvert Cliffs, is the only company cur- dies to the Nuclear Power Industry.”) rently constructing a nuclear plant in West- Building the plant itself is another large ern Europe. The plant that Areva is expense. Constellation estimates that the building in Finland uses the same design as reactor proposed for Calvert Cliffs will cost the proposed third Calvert Cliffs reactor. between $2.5 billion and $3.0 billion.13 Investors watching the project closely have This estimate understates the likely cost of found nothing to calm their fears about cost

Federal Subsidies to the Nuclear Power Industry

he nuclear power industry is heavily subsidized by federal taxpayers.12 Some of Tthe largest subsidies included in the 2005 federal Energy Policy Act are: • $2 billion to pay companies for any costs incurred in the licensing for six new reactors. Covered delays include those that result from action by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission or litigation, even if the delay helps protect public safety. • Loan guarantees for up to 80 percent of the cost of a nuclear plant. If loans were extended for six plants and half of the plants defaulted on their loans, as projected by the Congressional Budget Office, the cost would be $6 billion. • $5.7 billion in operating subsidies, such as liability insurance in case of an accident and a tax credit for each kilowatt-hour of electricity produced from a new reactor during its first eight years of operation. • $1.3 billion for decommissioning old plants. • $2.9 billion for research and development.

A New Reactor Would Be Bad for Marylanders 11 overruns, as construction on the Finnish harmful for hundreds of thousands of plant is already 18 months behind sched- years.21 The longevity of radioactive waste ule.16 Problems with construction have in- is part of the reason disposal is such a large cluded an overly porous concrete base, an cost. Ensuring radioactive waste is securely unsafe steel containment vessel, numerous stored for thousands of years is a nearly other safety problems and generally poor impossible task, and trying to achieve it is construction management.17 The delays extremely expensive. have cost about $922 million (more than a The federal government has announced quarter of the original estimated cost) but its intention to open a nuclear waste reposi- Areva has said they are “of no surprise.”18 tory at Yucca Mountain in Nevada, at an Areva’s financial status has declined, with estimated total cost of $23 billion.22 Nu- the division that is constructing the Finn- merous problems with the Yucca Mountain ish plant delivering the worst performance site and the Department of Energy’s prepa- in the company.19 rations there make this cost estimate low Nuclear power plants, like all power and the site an unsafe location for storing plants, have some continuing operation waste. Yucca Mountain is made of porous costs, such as worker salaries, maintenance rock through which water can flow easily and fuel. Significant security is needed— and allow radioactive material to enter but not fully used—in every aspect of groundwater. Because the site lacks natu- nuclear plant operation, from protecting ral barriers to the spread of radioactivity, the plant itself to guarding radioactive waste the Department of Energy is attempting to while it is stored onsite. In the three years engineer barriers that could contain ra- following the September 11 attacks, nuclear dioactive material for hundreds of thou- power plant operators across the U.S. spent sands of years, an expensive but likely $1 billion—an average of $3.2 million per futile effort.23 plant per year—to enhance security with Even if Yucca Mountain ever begins more guards and other measures, but the accepting waste, however, the nation’s Government Accountability Office believes nuclear waste will not all fit inside Yucca the security standards should still be im- Mountain. The site will not be able to hold proved.20 For example, the security stan- all waste from existing reactors. Waste from dards required by the Nuclear Regulatory new reactors such as the third unit at Commission appear to reflect “what indus- Calvert Cliffs and other proposed plants try considered reasonable and feasible to will not fit into Yucca Mountain at all. In defend against rather than an assessment other words, the full price of storing of the terrorist threat.” Were plants prop- nuclear waste in the United States is un- erly protected, costs would be higher. known. Not knowing the price of this final The final major costs related to nuclear step of nuclear power production makes it power are for disposal of the radioactive impossible to calculate nuclear power’s true waste—a cost that is paid by federal tax- cost. payers—and decommissioning of the plant Another cost of nuclear power is insur- at the end of its useful life. Radioactive ance in case of an accident. With so many material decays slowly, losing its radioac- things that can go wrong with the opera- tivity after only hundreds of thousands of tion of a nuclear power plant, and because years. It remains harmful to humans and the potential damage in the worst scenarios other animals for much of that time. Plu- is catastrophic, insurance for plants is costly. tonium-239, one of the components of ra- Taxpayers bear most of the risk of insur- dioactive spent fuel, takes 3,665 years to ance through the Price-Anderson Act, lose the first 10 percent of its radioactivity, which limits the liability of nuclear plant but 24,110 years to lose the next to last 10 operators in case of an accident.24 By one percent of its radioactivity, so that it is still estimate, power plant operators would be

12 The High Cost of Nuclear Power responsible for only 2 percent of the cost can be assured of cost recovery and a rate of a worst-case accident.25 Taxpayers pay of return, these utilities won’t risk billions the rest. Without Price-Anderson protec- of dollars on nuclear crap shoots.”29 Duke tion, nuclear power plant operators could Energy is seeking permission from the not secure insurance to cover the billions North Carolina Utilities Commission to of dollars of potential liability in case of a have ratepayers cover the cost of develop- nuclear accident. Price-Anderson, there- ing plans for a new nuclear power plant, fore, exposes taxpayers to tremendous risk. even if the plant is never built.30 And because power plant owners do not Public subsidies are costly for taxpayers, have to pay for their own insurance, this but provide little public benefit. The subsidy acts as a disincentive for owners to Calvert County subsidy, for example, minimize risk of a catastrophic accident. amounts to about $4,500 per county tax- Once a nuclear power plant has reached payer. When granting the tax break, county the end of its life, the site must be cleaned leaders argued that building a third reactor of all radioactive contamination. Costs vary would add jobs: approximately 3,000 con- widely from plant to plant, but the NRC struction jobs and 425 full-time positions usually requires plant owners to set aside once the plant begins operating.31 How- at least $290 million to $370 million for ever, few enough jobs are created that each decommissioning.26 However, the Govern- permanent job will cost taxpayers ment Accountability Office (GAO) has con- $750,000.32 cluded that the NRC has not required A subsidy from the state of Maryland nuclear power plant operators to set aside could take many forms, including tax adequate funds for decommissioning.27 breaks, assistance with permitting, or di- Were operators to save enough, the cost of rect payment toward the cost of construc- nuclear power would be even higher. tion. Alternatively, Constellation and Areva could attempt to shift costs and risks to the Constellation Likely Will Seek individuals and companies that buy elec- tricity by seeking full or partial re-regula- Further Public Subsidies tion of Maryland’s electricity market. When all the costs of nuclear power are Re-regulation is not inherently bad for con- tallied, it becomes clear that it is a very ex- sumers, but re-regulation that pushes the pensive energy source. While in a healthy financial risks of a nuclear power plant onto market this expense would prevent the con- consumers is unacceptable. Taxpayers and struction of new nuclear plants, public sub- ratepayers should not bear any of the risk sidies distort financial incentives and could of constructing a new nuclear reactor. encourage new plants to be constructed. One notorious example of consumers In addition to paying for their share of being forced to pay for nuclear power plants federal subsidies to the nuclear industry, comes from the Pacific Northwest, where Maryland taxpayers will end up paying for ratepayers are still paying for one operat- some of the cost of a new nuclear plant if a ing and two half-built nuclear plants con- new plant is built. The companies have al- structed by the Washington Public Power ready secured $300 million dollars in tax Supply System in the 1970s. Cost overruns breaks from Calvert County, and may look and rising concern about nuclear power for more from the state of Maryland. halted construction before completion. The Power companies across the country half-built plants generate no revenue, yet have been seeking additional public fund- the utility still owes $6.1 billion on the ing before moving forward with construc- plants. With revenue collected from tion of a new reactor.28 An “industry ratepayers, the utility spends $446 million observer,” quoted in an industry publica- annually on debt payments. The debt will tion, commented that “unless they [utilities] not be paid off until 2018.33

A New Reactor Would Be Bad for Marylanders 13 Calvert Cliffs Is a (leading to cancer). When radiation affects a reproductive organ, it can lead to heredi- Safety Hazard tary or genetic defects that are passed along Nuclear power is inherently dangerous. It to offspring. produces long-lived, highly radioactive The National Academy of Sciences, in a waste that is among the most carcinogenic 2005 study, concluded that there is no safe substances known to humans. No technol- dose of radiation.35 Direct exposure to ogy has been developed to ensure these high-level radiation from fuel in the core long-lived wastes remain isolated from liv- of a nuclear reactor delivers a lethal dose ing creatures for the tens of thousands of of radiation within seconds. The amount years it will take for the waste to decay to of absorbed radiation and the damage it negligible levels of radioactivity. does is measured in rem.36 A dose of 2,000 The two existing reactors at Calvert rem of radiation can cause death within Cliffs have already produced more than 900 hours.37 Lower doses of radiation also cause tons of radioactive waste that is stored at significant damage. Exposure to 5 rem can the site. Constructing a third unit will only change blood chemistry, 50 rem can cause worsen the problem. vomiting with hours, and 400 rem can cause death within two months.38 The full health A Primer on Radioactivity impacts of low-level radiation exposure may not materialize for decades. Nuclear power plants generate more than just electricity. The process that produces Radioactive Material at Calvert Cliffs heat to create steam to turn a turbine also As long as a nuclear power plant operates, produces large amounts of radioactivity. An it generates spent fuel. When uranium at- unknown but small quantity is released into oms are split inside the reactor core, they the air and water regularly. release atomic particles that trigger other A nuclear power plant produces energy reactions. Ultimately, however, these by splitting uranium atoms into two smaller byproducts of nuclear fission build up and particles. When a uranium atom splits, it interfere with the efficient release of en- releases a tremendous amount of energy. ergy. As a result, approximately one-third That energy creates heat and generates of the “spent” nuclear fuel is removed from steam, which turns a turbine to generate the reactor each year. Spent fuel must be electricity. contained and kept out of the environment The byproduct is radioactivity. The for hundreds of thousands of years.39 newly created particles and the additional As of 2004, 1,015 tons of waste were neutrons that have split off are unstable and stored at Calvert Cliffs. The license exten- give off radioactivity. The intensity of ra- sion that will allow the plants to operate dioactivity is measured in curies. The core until 2034 and 2036 will result in another of an average nuclear power plant contains 690 tons of waste.40 Adding a third unit with 16 billion curies. For comparison, this is a 1,600 MWe capacity will produce more equal to 1,000 times the amount of long- waste. Assuming that the new reactor pro- lived radioactivity released by the bomb duces the same amount of waste each year dropped by the United States on as the two current reactors combined Hiroshima.34 (which have a 1,650 MWe capacity), the third reactor will produce 1,380 tons of The Health Effects of Radiation waste in its lifetime.41 Radiation has the power to break DNA The United States has never had a plan bonds. When humans are exposed to ra- for safe disposal of spent fuel. When the diation, cells may die or be unable to func- nation’s nuclear power plants were first tion, or may begin to multiply rapidly designed, it was expected that the spent fuel

14 The High Cost of Nuclear Power rods would be removed from the cooling So long as radioactive waste is stored in ponds where spent fuel is stored and sent Maryland, the potential remains for an ac- to a facility for reprocessing, where pluto- cident or terrorist attack that could expose nium would be extracted for use in other thousands of people to radiation. Storing reactors. After President Ford temporarily the waste out of state would create another halted reprocessing in 1976 and President risk: to people who might be exposed when Carter ordered an end to reprocessing in the waste is transported. 1977, the United States ended the repro- 42 cessing of spent fuel as a disposal method. Potential Exposure to Radiation However, more recently President Bush has proposed resuming spent fuel reprocessing Releases from Calvert Cliffs as part of a push to increase domestic If the reactors at Calvert Cliffs operate as nuclear power generation.43 Yet reprocess- intended, Maryland residents are exposed ing is not a solution to the problem of ra- to daily releases of radiation. An accident dioactive waste, because reprocessing or terrorist attack could expose thousands creates radioactive and toxic waste that of Marylanders to radioactivity. must be stored. After the reprocessed fuel The safety history of the U.S. nuclear has been used in a reactor, it, too, is radio- industry is not reassuring. active waste that must be stored. Tritium may be released into the air and In the absence of a safe long-term stor- water because tritium’s similarity to hydro- age solution for nuclear waste, spent fuel gen allows it to easily replace hydrogen in often is placed in reactor cooling ponds that water. In the past several years, multiple were never designed for the long-term stor- nuclear power plants around the country age of nuclear waste.44 At Calvert Cliffs, have leaked tritium, which can cause ge- the cooling pond is now full, creating sev- netic damage and increase the risk of birth eral problems. First, fuel ponds that hold defects and cancer.46 more spent fuel than was originally in- The last major release of radioactive tended present a fire risk if water were ever material from a commercial nuclear reac- drained from the pool.45 An over-full spent tor in the U.S. was several decades ago, but fuel pool may be an attractive terrorist tar- there have been close calls since then. The get because of its vulnerability and large worst nuclear reactor accident on U.S. soil volume of radiation. Second, older spent occurred at the Three Mile Island (TMI) fuel must be moved from the cooling pond reactor in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, on to dry storage casks near the reactors to March 28, 1979. A partial meltdown of the make room for newer radioactive waste in reactor’s core led 140,000 people to evacu- the cooling pond. Waste in dry storage ate from the area.47 casks also may be vulnerable to terrorist The accident resulted from a combina- attack. A shortage of temporary storage tion of human and mechanical error—a space and the absence of long-term stor- plant malfunction combined with operator age plans for spent nuclear fuel are serious override of automatic safety systems. problems for many nuclear power plants Cleanup at the plant has cost approximately throughout the country. $1 billion.48 In addition, victims of the TMI Low-level radioactive waste presents accident have successfully sued the plant’s another problem. By the time that a third owner and the nuclear industry for at least reactor begins operation at Calvert Cliffs, $50 million.49 Maryland will no longer be allowed to send The full health consequences of the TMI its low-level radioactive waste to Barnwell, accident are unknown. One study, con- South Carolina, the site of a regional dump ducted by researchers at University of for low-level waste. That low-level waste North Carolina at Chapel Hill, suggests will have to remain in Maryland. that the accident caused an increase in lung

A New Reactor Would Be Bad for Marylanders 15 cancer and leukemia rates downwind of the allowing dirt into the pipe where it was car- Three Mile Island reactor compared to ried away from the site. upwind.50 Calvert Cliffs may be vulnerable to other The Three Mile Island accident does not unexpected natural disasters. Although represent a worst-case scenario for the po- Maryland is not known for its tornadoes, a tential impact of a major nuclear accident. category five tornado (the strongest cat- A 1982 study by the Sandia National Labo- egory, with winds above 260 miles per hour) ratories found that a serious core accident formed in Maryland in April 2002, and at a U.S. nuclear reactor could cause hun- passed within two miles of the Calvert Cliffs dreds to thousands of deaths immediately.51 facility.58 Estimates of early fatalities ranged from 700 Meanwhile, Constellation has pared to 100,000, depending on the size of the back staffing at the two existing units. In reactor and the proximity of large popula- 2001, 1,400 people worked at the plants. tions (in 1982).52 A serious core accident at However, to reduce costs, Constellation has the two existing Calvert Cliffs reactors eliminated 465 positions, cutting the could cause 5,600 immediate deaths, 15,000 workforce to 935 people.59 At the same injuries and 23,000 deaths from cancer, as- time, the facility was generating record suming there are no more people living amounts of energy. Fewer staff increases the near the reactors than in 1970.53 odds that personnel may be forced to work The two existing units at Calvert Cliffs overtime or that there may not be as many have not had a major incident that attracted staff available to handle an emergency. public attention recently. The plant does Calvert Cliffs is also vulnerable to a ter- have a history of violations, however. The rorist attack. Nuclear power plants make NRC has levied fines for unsafe practices attractive potential targets for terrorists— at the reactors. In 1996, the plant was fined either via external assault or internal sabo- $50,000 for problems with emergency tage. Specific information about security equipment that had been identified in 1992 strengths and weaknesses at Calvert Cliffs but had not been repaired four years later.54 is not available because of security concerns; The NRC issued a $176,000 fine in 1997 only general data about nuclear plants has and a $55,000 fine in 1998 because person- been released. That general security record nel at Calvert Cliffs had been careless with of nuclear power plants is far from reassuring. exposure to radiation.55 In tests at 11 nuclear reactors in 2000 Other problems have led to warning and 2001, mock intruders were capable of notices but no fines. Problems have in- disabling enough equipment to cause re- cluded malfunctioning water pumps and, actor damage at six plants.60 Prior to Sep- in 2006, incorrect settings for a circuit tember 11, 2001, half of reactors failed to breaker that allows an emergency diesel defend themselves against simulated generator to function. The incorrect set- attacks.61 A 2003 GAO report found signifi- tings were the result of an error that oc- cant weaknesses in the NRC’s oversight of curred during installation of the emergency security at commercial nuclear reactors, generator in 1996.56 including failing to require plants to cor- In 2001, a sink hole formed outside the rect identified security weaknesses and con- turbine room of the plant. By the time the ducting simulated attacks to test security hole was discovered, it had grown large staff and systems in which plant operators enough that filling it required 40 tons of were given advance warning and an oppor- dirt.57 The sinkhole was caused by an un- tunity to prepare.62 In September 2004— derground drainage pipe that collapsed. three years after the September 11, 2001 The pipe carried groundwater away from terrorist attacks—the GAO reported that the area under the plant and into the bay. the NRC had not yet implemented some Over the years, saltwater corroded the pipe, of the GAO’s earlier recommendations and

16 The High Cost of Nuclear Power that the NRC was not yet in a position to stored in spent fuel pools for at least five assure that plants are able to defend against years before it is placed into casks for on- terrorism.63 And in March 2006, the GAO site storage or shipping. Transporting waste was unable to conclude that all nuclear creates a hazard as the waste is shipped via power plants were capable of defending train or truck. themselves against a plausible terrorist at- In theory, the federal waste repository tack, since only about one-third of the at Yucca Mountain will store spent nuclear plants had conducted the necessary inspec- fuel and other radioactive wastes from com- tions through simulated attacks. The GAO mercial reactors around the nation. The also questioned changes made to the NRC’s logistical challenges of actually achieving standards for protection against terrorist this are tremendous. Nationally, 118,000 attacks, noting “the appearance that tons of spent nuclear fuel and 22,280 can- changes were made based on what the in- isters (typically containing 1 cubic meter dustry considered reasonable and feasible of waste) of high-level radioactive waste to defend against rather than on an assess- could be moved to Yucca Mountain if the ment of the terrorist threat itself.”64 Most site is ever opened.67 The Department of recently, the NRC ruled that nuclear power Energy plans for the transportation to oc- plants do not need to create protections cur over the course of 38 years, assuming against the possibility of a terrorist attack the department’s plans are carried out with- by plane, despite evidence that the 9/11 out a hitch.68 The waste would be shipped attackers had considered targeting a nuclear in casks that would each contain as much power plant.65 as 240 times the amount of radioactive Were an accident or terrorist attack to material released by the Hiroshima bomb.69 occur at Calvert Cliffs, evacuation routes Radioactive Waste Management Asso- from the area around the reactor would be ciates, a consulting firm working for the limited and might be insufficient to remove state of Nevada, has estimated that 100 to all residents from harm’s way. The Calvert 450 accidents will occur as nuclear waste is Cliffs reactors are in the far southern tip of transported via train and truck to Yucca Calvert County where the county tapers to Mountain.70 A single serious accident could a point between the Chesapeake Bay and cause thousands of cancers and cost billions the Patuxent River. The only major road of dollars.71 serving the area is Route 2, which runs Fortunately, no major accident has oc- north/south. In case of an evacuation or- curred during the transport of radioactive der, people living south of Calvert Cliffs in material, but many minor ones have. The Calvert County would need to drive south Radioactive Material Incident Report data- on Route 2 to the Governor Thomas base maintained by Sandia National Labo- Johnson Bridge over the Patuxent River to ratories identifies 402 incidents from 1971 St. Mary’s County. to 1999 in which a vehicle transporting In normal traffic conditions, roads lead- radioactive material killed or injured some- ing to the bridge are frequently con- one or was so damaged that it could not gested.66 During an evacuation, the road operate under its own power.72 could become a bottleneck, preventing resi- Furthermore, even outside of an accident, dents from escaping radiation released from emissions from passing casks will deliver the plant. involuntary doses of radiation to people liv- ing within one-half mile of road and rail Releases During Waste Transport routes. The DOE acknowledges that com- The danger to Maryland residents from muters stuck in traffic near a highly radio- radioactive waste will not be over once a active waste shipment would be exposed to federal repository is finally constructed. the equivalent of one chest x-ray per hour. Waste generated at Calvert Cliffs will be In Maryland, waste from Calvert Cliffs

A New Reactor Would Be Bad for Marylanders 17 Worst Case Scenario: A Repeat of the Baltimore Rail Tunnel Fire

n July 2001, a freight train traveling through the rail tunnels beneath Baltimore Icaught fire. The CSX freight train, which was carrying flammable chemicals, derailed and caught fire. The fire burned for several days, with temperatures ex- ceeding 1,500° F. Based on eyewitness reports of a “deep orange” glow from the metal rail cars in the center of the fire, temperatures likely reached 1,650° F. 73 The casks in which nuclear waste is transported might not contain their cargo in such a fire, because they are designed to withstand fires of 1,475° F for only 30 minutes. A report by Radioactive Waste Management Associates estimated that radioactive material would leak from the cask.74 This would lead to 200 to 1,400 cancer deaths in the first year after the accident. The material from a single cask would be enough to contaminate a 32-square-mile area. Cleaning up this con- tamination would cost $13.7 billion. The alternative would be to allow the con- tamination to remain, causing an additional 4,000 to 28,000 cancer deaths in the following 50 years.75 These fatality figures do not include the deaths of firefighters, emergency per- sonnel and others who would respond to the fire.

could be shipped by truck or rail through In 2005, there were 130 train accidents in densely populated areas. If the waste is Maryland, including 24 derailments.81 shipped by truck, the Department of En- Building a third reactor at Calvert Cliffs ergy proposes that waste be moved along could increase the amount of radioactive Route 2, along I-495 around Washington, waste that gets shipped through Maryland D.C. and then on I-70 toward Frederick.76 communities on its way to the Yucca Moun- If waste were shipped by rail, it would travel tain depository or a new site, if a reposi- through Washington, D.C.77 tory is ever opened. A mapping project by the Environmen- tal Working Group found that more than Calvert Cliffs Will Not Be Free of 900,000 Marylanders live within one mile Radioactive Material Soon of a proposed nuclear transportation route Neither the opening of a federal waste re- and 3.1 million live within five miles. The pository nor the closing of Calvert Cliffs project also found that 163 schools and five will automatically eliminate the risks that hospitals are located within one mile of the Calvert Cliffs poses to the health of Mary- routes.78 land residents. Even if the Yucca Mountain Train and truck accidents are common repository is opened, the site will run out and could expose thousands of people to of room before it can take the spent fuel radiation. In 2005, large trucks were involved that power plants already operating around in 57 fatal wrecks in Maryland alone.79 the country have stored or will generate in Nationally, 60,000 tractor-trailers are in- the next few years. Adding a third unit at volved in accidents on interstates annually Calvert Cliffs means that more waste will and in 3,300 of those accidents the truck be stored, indefinitely, here in Maryland. rolls over, potentially losing its cargo.80 Congress has approved storing approxi- Transport by train is equally problematic. mately 84,700 tons of waste at the Yucca

18 The High Cost of Nuclear Power Mountain repository. The nation’s reactors is mined and processed. have already generated 59,400 tons of used Nuclear power generation requires ura- nuclear fuel, along with 13,200 tons of de- nium for fuel. Uranium mining produces fense-related high-level waste.82 Assuming large amounts of waste, similar to coal that commercial reactors continue to gen- mining, tainting water and soil with ra- erate an additional 2,200 tons of waste an- dioactivity and other hazards. nually, by 2011 the 84,700 ton-capacity U.S. plants consume more than 40 mil- of Yucca Mountain will have been exceeded. lion pounds of uranium per year.84 Even before the earliest date at which Yucca Nuclear power also does not alleviate our Mountain might begin accepting waste, dependence on foreign sources of energy, there will be enough waste at sites around because approximately 75 percent of ura- the country to fill the repository. nium is imported.85 Domestically, the Even if all the spent fuel at Calvert Cliffs largest reserves of uranium are found in is transported elsewhere and the reactors Wyoming, New Mexico, Arizona, Colo- are shut down so that they are no longer rado, Utah and Texas.86 generating more waste, the site will remain Uranium is extracted from under- contaminated with radioactivity for de- ground or open-pit mines, causing tre- cades. Nuclear power production generates mendous environmental damage and large amounts of “low-level” radioactive landscape destruction. “Milling” separates waste, much of which would be categorized much of the uranium from the rock in as “intermediate-level” waste if such a cat- which it was embedded. The leftover rock, egory existed here, as it does in Europe. mixed with water, is held in an impound- Nearly every reactor component that has ment. A different technology, in situ leach contact with radioactive fuel or water be- facilities, extracts uranium by injecting an comes low-level waste. This includes hard- acidic mixture into wells, causing the ura- ware, pipes, control rods, resins, sludges, nium to dissolve in groundwater so that it filters, evaporator bottoms, and poison cur- can be pumped to the surface.87 With any tains. Upon decommissioning, the entire method, uranium and other heavy metals nuclear plant, including concrete and steel, such as arsenic may leach into groundwa- will be low-level radioactive waste that must ter and nearby streams. While only two be stored somewhere. uranium mills are currently operating in The NRC requires that nuclear power the United States, the Department of En- plants that permanently cease operating be ergy is still working to remediate contami- “decommissioned,” meaning levels of ra- nated groundwater at five sites where dioactivity in the buildings and on the prop- uranium milling formerly occurred.88 erty must be reduced to a low enough level In Utah, for example, mill tailings from that the facility can be used for any pur- the Atlas Corporation’s mining and mill- pose. The plant owner has 60 years to com- ing operation sit in a pond next to the Colo- plete the decommissioning process.83 rado River. Because the pond is in the Colorado River’s flood plain, it presents a major threat to the Colorado, which provides drinking water for millions of people down- stream in Arizona, Nevada and California.89 Nuclear Power Is Although there are no uranium mines or enrichment facilities in Maryland, the Environmentally Destructive state’s nuclear power generation contrib- Constructing a third reactor at Calvert utes to environmental and public health Cliffs will damage the environment by degradation wherever uranium is mined causing environmental harm where uranium and milled.

A New Reactor Would Be Bad for Marylanders 19 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission: An Ineffective Regulator

he public health and environmental overly optimistic view of the safety of indi- risks posed by adding a third reactor vidual reactors.92 T at Calvert Cliffs would be less threat- The most significant failure by the NRC ening if Marylanders could count on an ef- in recent years occurred at the Davis-Besse fective federal regulator to enforce nuclear plant in Ohio. Workers discovered regulations and require operators to fix a football-sized cavity in the reactor’s ves- problems promptly. Unfortunately, little in sel head. Left undetected, the problem the NRC’s history instills confidence that could eventually have led to leakage of ra- it can play this regulator role effectively. dioactive coolant from around the reactor Over a period of just two years, the Gov- core and, possibly, a meltdown. The GAO ernment Accountability Office (GAO) is- concluded that the NRC “should have but sued seven reports that detailed the need did not identify or prevent the vessel head for improvement in NRC practices to en- corrosion at Davis-Besse” and that the sure the safety and security of nuclear power NRC’s “process for assessing safety at plants, the safe storage of radioactive waste, nuclear power plants is not adequate for the collection of adequate funds for nuclear detecting early indications of deteriorating decommissioning, and the effective opera- safety.”93 tion of nuclear reactors.90 In a 2002 inter- In the past 27 years, safety at 38 nuclear nal survey, nearly half of all NRC reactors in the U.S. became so severely employees responding thought their ca- compromised that the plants had to remain reers would be harmed if they raised safety closed for a year or longer to complete re- concerns, and nearly one-third of employ- pairs to meet minimum safety standards.94 ees who had reported safety concerns re- These problems occurred at plants that are plied that they had suffered harassment or not merely working out the kinks as they intimidation as a result.91 begin operation or at facilities of a brand- The NRC’s reviews of nuclear power new design. The problems happened at plant safety are fundamentally flawed. A reactors with many design similarities to 2003 Union of Concerned Scientists docu- plants around the country with the same ment identified numerous problems with deficiencies, yet the NRC still struggled to the reviews, which, combined, lead to an identify safety problems in a timely fashion.

20 The High Cost of Nuclear Power These problems call into question the real threat. Despite the NRC’s position, NRC’s ability to safely oversee a new reac- American Nuclear Insurers, which provides tor at Calvert Cliffs that is of a new design. insurance to the nuclear industry, has raised Furthermore, the NRC has refused to its insurance premiums by 30 percent since take terrorism into account in its licensing the September 11, 2001 attacks because of decisions, calling the threat of a terrorist an increased risk of an attack.96 attack at any single reactor “too specula- The NRC’s track record does not inspire tive and remote.”95 The NRC has also de- confidence that the agency will be able to clined to require reactors to defend against protect Marylanders from safety problems the possibility of a terrorist attack using an or a terrorist attack at a new nuclear reac- airplane, despite evidence that it could be a tor at Calvert Cliffs.

The NRC: An Ineffective Watchdog 21 Policy Recommendations

ny one of the problems listed The company has been promised a $300 above—high costs, threats to pub- million tax break from Calvert County if A lic health, susceptibility to terror- the reactor is built. The county commis- ism, lack of safe long-term storage for sioners should withdraw their financial sup- nuclear waste, and environmental harm— port of Constellation Energy and its foreign should be enough to call into question the partner and should not offer additional wisdom of building a third reactor at funds. Calvert Cliffs. As noted earlier, federal of- Maryland should not authorize the use ficials have provided inadequate oversight of state funds to help finance expansion of of nuclear plants and are likely to raise few the Calvert Cliffs nuclear plant. objections to adding a third reactor at Nor should the cost be passed along to Calvert Cliffs. Stopping the expansion of electricity ratepayers by including the capi- Calvert Cliffs will likely lie with Maryland’s tal or financing costs of the power plant in local and statewide leaders. electric rates or exposing ratepayers to any of the financial risks involved in nuclear power plant construction. Do Not Provide Financial Subsidies Nuclear energy is an expensive and risky Adopt a Conditional Ban source of power. It is unlikely that any en- Additionally, Maryland should prohibit the ergy company will be able to finance con- construction of any new nuclear facility struction of a new plant using private unless the United States has a plan for the financing. In addition to the federal subsi- safe and proper disposal of nuclear waste. dies that Constellation would receive for a The on-site storage of nuclear waste poses new plant, the company likely will seek ad- one of the greatest safety threats resulting ditional subsidies from Maryland state or from the operation of nuclear power local taxpayers, or from ratepayers. plants—and current plans for the transport

22 The High Cost of Nuclear Power of nuclear waste in close proximity to popu- law requires that a nuclear power plant be lated areas are no more reassuring. judged to be economically advantageous to Illinois, Kentucky, Wisconsin, Montana, ratepayers compared with other feasible Maine and California have adopted mora- alternatives. toriums on the construction of new nuclear The Montana law goes several steps fur- power plants unless certain conditions are ther, requiring that there be “no reason- met. The primary condition is a permanent able chance” of the discharge of harmful solution for spent fuel.97 The Kentucky and radioactivity, that the safety systems of the Maine laws also require that a high-level plant be demonstrated as effective, and that nuclear waste storage facility be in op- nuclear facility owners post a bond equal eration at the time that disposal of to 30 percent of the capital cost of the plant nuclear waste must occur. The Wisconsin to cover decommissioning expenses.98

Policy Recommendations 23 Notes

1 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Informa- Department of Energy, Maryland: Competing tion Administration, Maryland State Electricity Fuels, downloaded from www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/ Profile, June 2006. nuclear/page/at_a_glance/states/statesmd.html, 2 Steven Nadel, Anna Shipley and R. Neal 21 November 2006. Elliott, American Council for an Energy- 7 “Nuclear Power Is Heating Up Again,” Efficient Economy, “The Technical, Economic Business Week Online, 27 June 2006. and Achievable Potential for Energy-Efficiency 8 “Constellation Plans New Nuke,” Electricity in the U.S.: A Meta-Analysis of Recent Studies,” Daily, 2 November 2005. from the proceedings of the 2004 ACEEE 9 U.S. Energy Information Administration, Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings, U.S. Nuclear Reactor List-Operational, November 2004. 2004. 3 Data for 2003. U.S. Department of Energy, 10 Thomas Capps, CEO of Dominion Re- Energy Information Administration, State sources, as quoted in Shankar Vedantum, Energy Consumption, Price, and Expenditure “Uncertainties Slow Push for Nuclear Plants,” Estimates, 24 October 2006. Washington Post, 24 July 2005. 4 Constellation Energy, Constellation Energy 11 “Calvert County Site Pushed for New Announces Plans to Submit for Combined Construc- Nuclear Reactor,” Associated Press, 21 May 2005. tion and Operating License; Nuclear Regulatory Commission Filing Brings Next Generation Nuclear 12 Public Citizen, Nuclear Giveaways in the Power One Step Closer to Reality (press release), 27 Energy Bill Conference Report, downloaded from October 2005. www.citizen.org/documents/ energybillnukeconfreport.pdf, 22 February 5 Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Calvert 2007. Cliffs I and Calvert Cliffs 2, downloaded from www.nrc.gov/info-finder/reactor/calv1.html and 13 Comments by Executive Vice President www.nrc.gov/info-finder/reactor/calv2.html, 28 Michael Wallace in Tom Pelton, “An Energy December 2006. Boom in Calvert,” Baltimore Sun, 21 August 2005. 6 1650 MW: Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Calvert Cliffs I and Calvert Cliffs 2, downloaded 14 Standard & Poor’s, Project and Infrastructure from www.nrc.gov/info-finder/reactor/ Finance Review, October 2002. calv1.html and www.nrc.gov/info-finder/reactor/ 15 As cited in Dorothy Kosich, “S&P Finds calv2.html, 28 December 2006. 26 percent of That U.S. Utilities Are Pursing Domestic Maryland’s electricity came from nuclear sources Nuclear Energy Projects,” Mineweb, 11 January in 2003: Energy Information Administration, 2007.

24 The High Cost of Nuclear Power 16 3 year estimate, personal communication downloaded from www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/ with Paul Gunter of Nuclear Information and regulatory/decommissioning/faq.html#19, 28 Resource Service, 17 November 2006. 1.8 year December 2006. and 600-700 million Euro estimate: “Areva 27 Government Accountability Office, Better anticipe un net recul de son résultat Oversight Needed to Ensure Accumulation of Funds opérationnel,” EasyBourse, 21 December 2006. to Decommission Nuclear Power Plants, May 1999, 17 Lauri Myllyvirta, Greenpeace, Olkiluoto: and Government Accountability Office, NRC Scandal After Scandal, 5 January 2007. Needs More Effective Analysis to Ensure Accumula- 18 Areva, Finnish EPR Olkiluoto 3: The First tion of Funds to Decommission Nuclear Power Reactor of the Third Generation Under Construction Plants, October 2003. in the World, downloaded from www.areva- 28 Peter Baker and Steven Mufson, “Bush Calls np.com/common/liblocal/docs/press/ for New Nuclear Plants; President Talks of OL3_EPR_press%20kit__06_06_en.pdf, 4 Environmental Benefits, Safety,” Washington January 2007. Post, 25 May 2006. Steven Mufson, “Warming 19 Lauri Myllyvirta, Greenpeace, Big Losses on Up to Nuclear Power,” Washington Post, 27 April Olkiluoto a Warning to Barroso, 28 September 2006. 2006. 29 See note 8. 20 Lorraine Mirabella, “Nuclear Plant’s Owner 30 Christopher Kirkpatrick, “Duke Energy Says It’s Completely Safe,” Baltimore Sun, 25 CEO Reveals Doubts About Nuclear Plant: August 2004. Government Accountability Proposal Faces Obstacles of Storage and Office, Efforts Made to Upgrade Security, but the Finance,” The Charlotte Observer, 20 January Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Design Basis 2007. Georgia Power has made a similar request: Threat Process Should Be Improved, March 2006 Georgia Public Service Commission, PSC Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Approves Agreement on Georgia Power Request for National Security, Emerging Threats, and Accounting Order (press release), 22 June 2006. International Relations, Committee on Govern- 31 Tom Pelton, “An Energy Boom in Calvert,” ment Reform, House of Representatives. Baltimore Sun, 21 August 2005. Available at www.gao.gov/new.items/d06388.pdf. 32 $4,500 per taxpayer in Calvert County 21 Center for Disease Control, Radioisotope assumes about 90,000 residents (from 87,925 in Brief: Plutonium, Emergency Preparedness & 2005), with 73.5% over the age of 18 (as of Response, downloaded from www.bt.cdc.gov/ 2004): State and County Quickfacts: Calvert radiation/isotopes/plutonium.asp, 17 January County, Maryland, US Census Bureau, down- 2007. loaded from quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/24/ 22 Government Accountability Office, Yucca 24009.html, 27 December 2006. Mountain Project: Information on Project Costs, 33 Steve Weiss, Northwest Energy Coalition, briefing to Chairman of the Federal Workforce personal communication, 16 June 2005. and Agency Organization Subcommittee, 34 1,000 times: NuclearFiles.org, A Project of Committee on Government Reform, U.S. the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, Nuclear House of Representatives, 23 October 2006. Energy: The Basics, Introduction, downloaded from 23 Joan Claybrook, Public Citizen, Yucca www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/nuclear- Mountain: The Hazards of Nuclear Waste Storage energy/basics/introduction.htm#, 22 December and Transportation, testimony to the Subcommit- 2006. tee on Energy and Air Quality, Committee on 35 National Research Council, Board on Energy and Commerce, U.S. House of Repre- Radiation Effects Research, Health Risks From sentatives, 18 April 2002. Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation: BEIR 24 Government Accountability Office, NRC’s VII Phase 2, 2005. Liability Insurance Requirements for Nuclear Power 36 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Plants Owned by Limited Liability Companies, May Radiation Glossary, downloaded from 2004. www.epa.gov/radiation/terms/index.html, 22 25 Public Citizen, Price-Anderson Act: The Billion December 2006. Dollar Bailout for Nuclear Power Mishaps, updated 37 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, September 2004. Understanding Radiation: Health Effects, down- 26 Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Frequently loaded from www.epa.gov/radiation/understand/ Asked Questions about Reactor Decommissioning,

Notes 25 health_effects.htm, 22 December 2006. 50 Steve Wing, et al, “A Reevaluation of Cancer 38 Ibid. Incidence Near the Three Mile Island Nuclear Plant: The Collision of Evidence and Assump- 39 Nuclear Regulatory Commission, High-Level tions,” Environmental Health Perspectives 105:1, Waste, downloaded from www.nrc.gov/waste/ January 1997. high-level-waste.html, 16 January 2007. 51 U.S. House of Representatives, Committee 40 Environmental Working Group, X Marks the on Interior and Insular Affairs Subcommittee on Spot, October 2004. Oversight & Investigations, Calculation of Reactor 41 The current reactors have a combined Accident Consequences (CRAC2) for US Nuclear capacity of 1,650 MW, per Nuclear Regulatory Power Plants (Health Effects and Costs) Conditional Commission, Calvert Cliffs I and Calvert Cliffs 2, on an ‘SST1’ Release, 1 November 1982, as cited downloaded from www.nrc.gov/info-finder/ in David Lochbaum, Union of Concerned reactor/calv1.html and www.nrc.gov/info-finder/ Scientists, Nuclear Plant Risk Studies: Failing the reactor/calv2.html, 28 December 2006. Their Grade, August 2000. 20-year license extension will produce an 52 Ibid. additional 626 metric tons of nuclear waste, per Environmental Working Group, X Marks the 53 These estimates are very low for other Spot, October 2004. The new reactor will be reasons, also. The study assumed that everyone licensed for 40 years. within a 10-mile radius would be evacuated within six hours, that medical staff would 42 Anthony Andrews, Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing: aggressively treat victims of radiation exposure, U.S. Policy Development, Congressional Research and relied on a now-outdated assumption about Service, 29 November 2006. cancer rates from different radiation doses. 43 Peter Baker and Dafna Linzer, “Nuclear 54 Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Notice of Energy Plan Would Use Spent Fuel,” Washing- Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty ton Post, 26 January 2006. ($50,000), (NRC Inspection Report Nos. 50- 44 Arjun Makhijani, “A Bad Approach To 317/96-05 and 50-318/96-05), 25 July 1996. Nuclear Waste,” Washington Post, 13 February 55 Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Escalated 2002. Enforcement Actions Issued to Reactor Licensees, 45 Principles for Safeguarding Nuclear Waste at downloaded from www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc- Reactors, endorsed by several dozen organiza- collections/enforcement/actions/reactors/ tions, available at www.citizen.org/documents/ c.html#CalvertCliffs, 29 December 2006. PrinciplesSafeguardingIrradiatedFuel.pdf. 56 Ibid. 46 Leaks: Public Citizen, Tritium Leaks at 57 Jianghai Xia, et al, Using Wave Method to Nuclear Power Plants Contaminate Groundwater, Define a Sinkhole Impact Area in a Noisy Environ- downloaded from www.citizen.org/cmep/ ment, downloaded from www.kgs.ku.edu/ energy_enviro_nuclear/nuclear_power_plants/ Geophysics2/Pubs/MASW(Abstracts).htm, 30 reactor_safety/articles.cfm?ID=15089, 24 November 2006. February 2007. Health impacts: National Research Council, Board on Radiation Effects 58 Southern Maryland Online, F5 Class Tornado Research, Health Risks From Exposure to Low Strikes Southern Maryland on April 28, 2002, Levels of Ionizing Radiation: BEIR VII Phase 2, downloaded from somd.com/news/headlines/ 2005. 2002/04/tornado/, 29 December 2006, and Johnathon Briggs, “Tornado Just Missed 47 Dickinson College, Three Mile Island 1979 Nuclear Plant: Storm Passed Two Miles Emergency, Virtual Museum, Saturday March 30, Northeast of Calvert Cliffs, Officials Estimate,” Day 3, downloaded from www.threemileisland Baltimore Sun, 1 May 2002. .org/virtual_museum/march30_1979.html, 22 December 2006. 59 Daniel Horner, “Constellation Sees Nuclear Fleet Boosting Earnings in Coming Years,” 48 Uranium Information Center, Three Mile Nucleonics Week, 17 February 2005. Island 1979, Nuclear Issues Briefing Paper 48, March 2001. 60 Union of Concerned Scientists, Nuclear Reactor Security, downloaded from www.ucsusa 49 Three Mile Island Alert, 20th Anniversary of .org/clean_energy/nuclear_safety/ the TMI Accident (press packet), downloaded page.cfm?pageID=176, 24 July 2003. from www.tmia.com/PressP2.html, 22 December 2006. 61 Project on Government Oversight, Nuclear

26 The High Cost of Nuclear Power Power Plant Security: Voices from Inside the Fences, 70 Ibid. 12 September 2002. 71 Ibid. 62 Government Accountability Office, Nuclear 72 Sandia National Laboratories, RMIR Regulatory Commission: Oversight of Security at (Radioactive Materials Incident Report) Database Commercial Nuclear Power Plants Needs to Be Transportation Accident and Incident Experience, Strengthened, September 2003. 1971-1999, downloaded from www.sandia.gov/ 63 Government Accountability Office, Te sti- tp/rmir.htm, 21 December 2006. mony Before the Subcommittee on National Security, 73 See note 69. Emerging Threats and International Relations, 74 Ibid. Committee on Government Reform, House of Representatives: Nuclear Regulatory Commission: 75 Ibid. Preliminary Observations on Efforts to Improve 76 Department of Energy proposed truck route, Security at Nuclear Power Plants, 14 September as cited in State of Nevada Agency for Nuclear 2004. Projects, Highway, Rail and Barge Routes To Yucca 64 Government Accountability Office, Nuclear Mountain, May 2002. Power Plants: Efforts Made to Upgrade Security, but 77 See note 40. the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Design Basis 78 Ibid. Threat Process Should Be Improved, March 2006. 79 National Highway Traffic Safety Administra- 65 Steven Mufson, “Panel Rejects Anti- tion, National Center for Statistics and Analysis, Te rrorist Shields for Nuclear Plants; 9/11 Traffic Safety Facts, 2005 Data. Commission Cited Plans to Hit Facilities,” Washington Post, 30 January 2007. 80 See note 40. 66 Joshua Partlow, “Dyson Again Calls for New 81 Federal Railroad Administration, Office of Thomas Johnson Bridge,” Washington Post, 19 Safety Analysis, Accident/Incident Overview for February 2006. Maryland, January to December 2005, down- loaded from safetydata.fra.dot.gov/Office 67 118,000 tons and 22,280 canisters: Robert J. ofSafety/Query Default.asp?page=state Halstead, Transportation Advisor, Agency for overview.asp, 21 December 2006. Nuclear Projects, State of Nevada, testimony before U.S. House of Representatives Commit- 82 Reactors had already generated 44,000 tee on Transportation and Infrastructure, metric tons of waste by 2002 and produce Subcommittee on Highway and Trust, Subcom- another 2,000 metric tons per year, per Nuclear mittee on Railroads, Joint Hearing on Transpor- Energy Institute, Nuclear Waste Disposal: Common tation of Spent Rods to the Proposed Yucca Objections to the Yucca Mountain Project, and What Mountain Storage Facility, 25 April 2002. One the Science Really Says, downloaded from cubic meter per canister: State of Nevada, www.nei.org/index.asp?catnum=2&catid=197, 26 Nuclear Waste Project Office, Transportation of December 2006. Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive 83 Audeen Fentiman, P. Andrew Karam, and Waste to a Repository (factsheet), 20 May 1999. Ronald Meyers, Ohio State University, Exten- 68 Robert J. Halstead, Transportation Advisor, sion Research, Low-Level Radioactive Waste from Agency for Nuclear Projects, State of Nevada, Decontamination and Decommissioning of Facilities testimony before U.S. House of Representatives that Use Radioactive Materials (factsheet RER- Committee on Transportation and Infrastruc- 14), downloaded from www.ag.ohio-state.edu/ ture, Subcommittee on Highway and Trust, ~rer/rerhtml/rer_14.html, 15 December 2006. Subcommittee on Railroads, Joint Hearing on 84 Data is for 1998. Union of Concerned Transportation of Spent Rods to the Proposed Scientists, How Nuclear Power Works, down- Yucca Mountain Storage Facility, 25 April 2002. loaded from www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/ 69 Marvin Resnikoff, Radioactive Waste nuclear_safety/offmen-how-nuclear-power- Management Associates, testimony before U.S. works.html, 26 December 2006. House of Representatives Committee on 85 Energy Information Administration, Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommit- Uranium Purchases Report 1992, August 1993, as tee on Highway and Trust, Subcommittee on cited in Institute for Energy and Environmental Railroads, Joint Hearing on Transportation of Research, Uranium: Its Uses and Hazards, Spent Rods to the Proposed Yucca Mountain downloaded from www.ieer.org/fctsheet/ Storage Facility, 25 April 2002. uranium.html#(5), 24 February 2007.

Notes 27 86 Energy Information Administration, U.S. Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Plant’s Shutdown, May Uranium Reserves Estimates by State, June 2004. 2004. 87 Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 94 David Lochbaum, Union of Concerned Backgrounder: Uranium Mill Tailings, August Scientists, Walking a Nuclear Tightrope: Un- 2006. learned Lessons of Year-Plus Reactor Outages, 88 Ibid. September 2006. 89 Representative Jim Matheson, Moving the 95 Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Memoran- Moab Uranium Tailings, downloaded from dum and Order CLI-02-24: In the Matter of Duke www.house.gov/matheson/info_tailings.shtml, Cogema Stone & Webster, Docket No. 70-3098-ML, 26 December 2006. 18 December 2002. 90 Government Accountability Office, Te s t i- 96 Testimony of John Quattrocchi, Senior Vice mony Before the Subcommittee on Clean Air, President, Underwriting, American Nuclear Climate Change and Nuclear Safety, Committee on Insurers, before the Senate Environment and Environment and Public Works, U.S. Senate, Public Works Committee, Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulatory Commission: Challenges Facing Transportation, Infrastructure and Nuclear NRC in Effectively Carrying Out its Mission, 26 Safety, United States Senate, 23 January 2002, as May 2005. cited in Safe Energy Communication Council, Is the Price-Anderson Act a Subsidy? Government 91 Peter Bradford, Nuclear Power’s Prospects, Studies Determined It Is (factsheet), downloaded Powerpoint presentation to California Energy from www.nirs.org/reactorwatch/paa/ Commission Nuclear Issues Workshop, 16 priceandersonsubsidyseccfctsht.pdf, 29 Decem- August 2005. ber 2006. 92 David Lochbaum, Union of Concerned 97 CA Pub Res Code § 25524, ME Rev Stat Scientists, Nuclear Plant Risk Studies: Failing the §4374; KY Rev Stat § 278.610, WI Stat Ann § Grade, August 2000. 196.493. 93 Government Accountability Office, Nuclear 98 MT Code § 75-20-1203; 35-A ME Rev Stat Regulation: NRC Needs to More Aggressively and §4374; KY Rev Stat § 278.610. Comprehensively Resolve Issues Related to the

28 The High Cost of Nuclear Power