to call this panel at an early time so that these legislators can, in fact, arrive in time for the session. So, I would call at this time the Honorable Lawrence Alexander, who is the Chairman of the Energy Committee of the Massachusetts House of Representatives; the Honorable Nicholas Costello, who is the Chairman of the Energy Committee of the Massachusetts State Senate; the Honorable Barbara Hildt, State Representative of Massachusetts; the Honorable Beverly Hollingworth, State Representative from Hampton, New Hampshire; and the Honorable Thomas Palumbo, State Representative from the State of Massachusetts; and the Honorable Elaine Krasker, State Representative from Portsmouth, New Hampshire. I would ask all of you to please come forward and to take your seats at this time. Why do we not begin, first, by going from right to left, as you sit on the stage; and we will hear you in order, as you are sitting at this time. We first recognize Chairman Lawrence Alexander, Chairman of the State Energy Committee, State of Massachusetts; and we ask, again respectfully, that you restrict your opening comments to five minutes, as is the traditional period of time in Congressional hearings in Washington so that we might have an informative questionand-answer period. Mr. Alexander. TESTIMONY OF LAWRENCE R. ALEXANDER, CHAIRMAN, JOINT COMMITTEE ON ENERGY, COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS; NICHOLAS J. COSTELLO, CHAIRMAN, SENATE ENERGY COMMITTEE, COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS; BEVERLY HOLLINGWORTH, REPRESENTATIVE, STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE; BARBARA HILDT, REPRESENTATIVE, COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS; ELAINE KRASKER, REPRESENTATIVE, STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE; AND THOMAS G. PALUMBO, REPRESENTATIVE, COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS Mr. ALEXANDER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and the members of the subcommittee who are holding this very important hearing. As House Chairman of the Massachusetts Legislature's Committee on Energy, I recognize the need to plan for our region's energy needs. I also believe that any source of future energy must be safe. I do not believe that we can guarantee the safety of our citizens if Seabrook is licensed to operate. Therefore, I am opposed to the licensing of Seabrook as a nuclear power plant. I believe we can meet our region's future energy needs without Seabrook. And, Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak if I might, a little bit about the low-power testing issue, which Congressman Atkins currently raised here. Because of the controversy over emergency response plans is likely to be tied up in the courts for years, it would be a major waste of money and time to proceed with low-power testing before the court appeals are completed. If low-power testing were performed in the next few months, and Seabrook never ultimately receives an operating license, the owners of Seabrook would have wasted well over $60 million, and perhaps as much as $100 million, perhaps expecting ratepayers to pick up some of that tab, or all of that tab; and they would have created a high-level radioactive waste dump on the New Hampshire seacoast at great potential harm to the environment. I would like to itemize, if I might, for Congressman Atkins and your panel, how I reached the goal, the estimate of $60 million. Right now, if low-power testing does not take place, and the owners do not receive a license for the plant, the fuel that is there could be resold. The plant owners could get about $30 million for that fuel. In addition, some of the equipment at Seabrook could be resold, and we figure the plant owners could get at least $6 million for that if it is not contaminated. In addition, if low-power testing takes place, then it is going to be high-level radioactive waste that is going to have to just stay on that site, whether Seabrook ever operates as a nuclear power plant or not. It is going to cost at least a million dollars a year to monitor the expense of keeping that on site. So, there is another $12 to $20 million of expense of doing low-power testing for the next, and having that stored on site for maybe 15 or 20 years until the Federal Government might-might pick up that waste and put it through a Federal repository. If the Federal Government does decide it is going to put it to a Federal repository, it would probably cost $15 to $20 million to ask the Federal Government to do so. So, therefore, if you add up all these costs, it would cost at least $60 million, and perhaps as much as $100 million if low-power testing is done right now, and then the owners do not get a license. There is nothing to be gained by doing low-power testing, but yet a lot to potentially lose, not to mention the significant environmental harm of having a high-level radioactive waste dump there. Therefore, 103 legislators, a majority of the Massachusetts Legislature, have written the joint owners of Seabrook asking them to postpone low-power testing until the license issue is resolved one way or the other; and I again call upon them to respect our request. I would now like to talk a little bit about the emergency planning zone issue. I am totally outraged that the Seabrook owners would even consider emasculating current parital [ph.] law by urging the NRC to reduce the EPZ, the emergency planning zone, to approximately two miles. Citizens living 3 miles, 5 miles, 10 miles, and beyond from the plant would also be in severe jeopardy if there were a bad accident at the Seabrook plant, and the owners of the Seabrook plant, and the NRC cannot just pretend that those people do not exist. The owners of Seabrook display an unbelievable arrogance and insensitivity in even suggesting a 2-mile emergency planning zone. Is it sheer coincidence that the Massachusetts border just so happens to fall just beyond the 2-mile emergency planning zone? Could the real goal of Seabrook's owners be to cut Massachusetts out of the whole process concerning Seabrook? It troubles me deeply that the owners of Seabrook, some of whom are Massachusetts-based utilities would be so brazenly uncaring about the people of Massachusetts as to support such a plant. Objective scientific research and the troubled record of a nuclear industry warrant the expansion not the reduction of emergency planning zones, Mr. Chairman, and I have outlined in my testimony the whole history behind it, of why that turns out to be the conclusion that I believe we ought to reach. In addition, my belief is that resident and elected officials of Massachusetts have a right to participate in the decision on whether to start up the Seabrook nuclear reactor. The Governor does have the authority and responsibility under State law to protect the public health and safety. The determination of whether local resources and plans could adequately protect the public against local catastrophes is clearly a local decision. Local and State governments have the responsibility to protect their citizens, and the Federal Government should recognize that fact. If a Governor finds no evacuation plan can adequately protect the public's health and safety, the Federal Government should abide by that determination. Submission of a utility-developed plan is not a satisfactory substitute for submission of a plan by the government. No evacuation plan should even be considered to be a workable plan unless State and local governments have participated in its development and implementation. And, if they refuse, because they believe that such plans cannot protect the public health and safety as in the case of Seabrook, a nuclear power plant should not be licensed. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission should not be an advocate for the nuclear power industry. It is totally inappropriate, for instance, for NRC Chairman Lando Zech to urge that 200 more nuclear reactors be operating by the year 2000, since it is up to the States to determine their future power needs, and the energy sources from which to derive this power. As a matter of fact, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the States retain their "traditional" authority over the need for additional generating capacity, the type of generating facilities to be licensed, land-use ratemaking, and the like. There is no Federal law that mandates the construction of additional nuclear power plants, and the NRC should respect State's opposition to the construction of these plants in instances where the States find that the public's health and safety cannot be protected. I support the legislation, Mr. Chairman, that you have introduced that affirms State's prerogatives in this area. Let me just finally conclude by saying that to those gloom-and-doom-sayers who predict that the region will suffer tremendous consequences unless Seabrook operates, let me say that a strong viable New England economy is dependent upon a reliable diverse energy supply delivered at the lowest possible cost. Seabrook does not meet these criteria, and we have other alternatives to Seabrook, and we can use those and meet out power needs successfully. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. LAWRENCE R. ALEXANDER REPRESENTATIVE 6TH ESSEX DISTRICT 54 LONGVIEW DRIVE MAROLCHEAD. MA 01945 TEL. 631.7646 The Commonwealth of Massachusetts HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Chairman ROOM 540 STATE HOUSE STAFF DIRECTOR RICHARD COUNIMAN TESTIMONY OF STATE REPRESENTATIVE LAWRENCE R. ALEXANDER, HOUSE CHAIRMAN OF THE MASSACHUSETTS LEGISLATURE'S JOINT COMMITTEE ON ENERGY, OF THE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE OF THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman and the members of this Subcommittee, for holding this important hearing. As House Chairman of the Massachusetts Legislature's Committee on Energy, I recognize the need to plan for our region's energy needs. I also believe I do not believe that we can guarantee the safety of our citizens if Seabrook is licensed to operate. as a nuclear power plant. needs without Seabrook. I believe that we can meet our region's future energy I do not believe that Seabrook is safe because a possibility still exists that a core meltdown could take place at the plant, causing significant emissions of radiation, and there is no way that any evacuation plan could guarantee the health and safety of citizens living within a broad area around the plant. Let me discuss this in more detail. This past Spring, Nuclear Regulatory Commissioner James Asselstine testified |