Early in President Bush's first term, he created a program called Nuclear Power 2010 with the goal of constructing one or more new, improved nuclear power plants, the nation's first in more than 30 years. This program will demonstrate that new licensing and construction procedures will bring reactors to operating status much faster and cheaper, and with less financial risk than in the past. If this demonstration is successful, the door will be opened for a resurgence of nuclear power in the United States.

A recent study by NuStart, a consortium of 12 utilities (including Duke) and reactor vendors, identified SRS and five commercial sites as suitable sites for this demonstration. A previous study had concluded SRS would be the best of the DOE sites for a commercial nuclear power plant.

The NP-2010 program will occur in two steps. The first step, already under way, is for companies, or consortia, to submit reports recommending two new improved reactor designs and two sites for construction. NuStart was created for this purpose, and their report will be submitted this year. DOE will then request other consortia or companies to submit proposals to construct and operate the reactor. This reactor will sell electricity and pay taxes.

The two reactors recommended by NuStart are the Westinghouse AP-1000 and an advanced boiling water reactor (ESBWR) by General Electric. Both of these reactors have advanced safety features and improved designs. Construction could begin as early as 2010, with operation in 2014 or 2015. The capital cost would be near $2 billion with an operating staff of 500 to 700.

Why nuclear? Sixty-seven percent of U.S. citizens favor building new nuclear plants. Among technically educated college graduates, it is 85 percent.

There are some good reasons for this overwhelming endorsement. One important reason is that nuclear power is the only clean and green way of making large amounts of electricity. It does not contribute to heavy metal pollution (e.g. mercury), smog, acid rain or global warming.

The safety record of nuclear plants is excellent, better than coal and natural gas. None of the 103 nuclear reactors operating in the United States has ever had a radiation injury or death. The Russian reactor at Chernobyl is the only reactor to have had a lethal accident, and no reactors of that unsafe design are in operation outside of Russia. Both Westinghouse and GE claim they now have passive (nonpowered) emergency cooling systems that are designed to prevent fuel meltdowns.

The average operating costs of the 103 nuclear plants in the United States is 1.82 cents per kilowatt-hour, compared to 2.13 for coal and 3.69 for gas. With the new licensing procedures and advanced reactor designs, the total cost, including the capital cost, will be at least competitive. So, for safety, cost, and protecting the environment, nuclear is best.

Why SRS? SRS offers significant advantages over existing commercial sites. It has a highly rated security system, which includes high-tech methods and layers of gates, guns and guards. SRS can supply all needed infrastructure such as roads, bridges, steam and electricity. This area has low construction costs compared to most areas of the country.

At SRS, the reactor would be relatively isolated, located about 5 miles from the nearest offsite population. SRS can provide all needed support such as waste management services, trained personnel, technical support from the Savannah River National Laboratory and an outstanding Emergency Coordination Center.

And, finally, the support of area citizens and elected South Carolina and Georgia officials is unmatched anywhere in the United States. Indeed, our 3rd District Rep. Gresham Barrett is leading the effort to obtain this project.