insurance in the event of an accident. States are just finding out that the process to keep them uneducated and uninformed was the way the industry wanted it. States are finding out that Congress and The NRC and big utilities must be told enough is enough.

My communities raised all these areas of concern long time ago. I have been shouting since the very first I heard that Seabrook was to be built that all our questions should be answered before a shovel of dirt was dug or a dime more spent. It has been to the advantage of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Atomic industry to keep the process as it is.

The system is such that the general public cannot participate. Earlier in this testimony I told you that I had been an intervenor for the Chamber of Commerce. I am sure you are well aware of the absolutely ridiculous process that is. I often thought I was like Alice in Wonderland and things got stranger and stranger. The cost to intervene is impossible and we the public are paying for the utitlies lawyers and staff, the NRC judges and staff while we are fighting for our basic right to be heard about our saftey and that of those we represent. The licensing of a nuclear power reactor is a process totally out of control.

About a month ago at my own cost I appeared at an NRC hearing in Washington. The hearing was to consider reduction of the evacuation zone to 2 miles. Public Service Co/NRC. said the hearings were to establish that the plant was "safer built” than Public Service had planned for. Here we go once again, (again magic wand time by the NRC) in case Public Service needs to reduce the evacuation zone to side step the requirements for evacuation plans that have been withdrawn by Governor Dukakis. After several hours of testimony by myself and others it was clear once again that our voices were never heard as we were told that in an event of an accident we (those in the beach areas) could walk to safety since the traffic would be only going 4 miles an hour anyway. I had learned long ago that the word of the NRC was not to be trusted but it does make one pause when we hear a commissioner make such a remark.

I will close hoping that you too are outraged by what has happened to those states facing the licensing of a nuclear plant by the Nuclear Regulatory Reactor Commission, outraged at what has happened to the requirements for a safe evacuation of all the people at risk from a nuclear accident. Now is the time when logic requires us to rethink the size of the evacuation zone and increase rather then decrease the evacuation zone to protect the safety of those at risk, but we have never known the NRC/nuclear industry to be logical.

Mr. MARKEY. The Chair now turns to the State Representative from the State of Massachusetts who has an indefatigable commitment to the proper decision-making process being utilized in this particular issue. If she has called our subcommittee once, she has called it a hundred times over the last several years to ensure there was proper focus on this issue, and I would like to publicly compliment her at this time.

I recognize for a 5-minute opening statement the Honorable Barbara Hildt.

TESTIMONY OF BARBARA HILDT

MS. HILDT. Thank you, Chairman Markey, Congressman Atkins, Congressman Mavroules, Congressman Smith.

I am, for the record, State Representative Barbara Hildt, representing the First Essex District encompassing the towns of Amesbury and Salisbury, and the City of Newburyport, all of which lie within the 10-mile emergency planning zone of the Seabrook reac

tor.

Thank you for coming today to Amesbury and hearing our testimony.

For the past decade we have struggled to make known the absurdity of siting a fission reactor in this densely populated seacoast area. The duplicity and deception of the New Hampshire Yankee Corporation, and the gross negligence of Federal agencies charged with the responsibility of protecting the health, safety and economic security of people in this region.

We look to you, our elected representatives in Congress, to rein in the Nuclear Regulatory Agency which runs roughshod over individuals and communities that question the motives of an industry they ostensibly regulate.

Today's hearing focuses on only one question in the nuclear debate, emergency planning. That we must plan for exposure to radiation at all clearly demonstrates the magnitude of the hazard posed by the Seabrook reactor.

We have been repeatedly told that the possibility of a large scale accident at Seabrook is remote. Yet Oak Ridge National Laboratory studied 19,400 incidents between 1969 and 1979 at operating U.S. reactors, finding 169 which may have led to serious core damage.

Seabrook's joint owners commissioned a study in 1985 which estimated a one in 4,300 chance of serious core damage during its 40 year operating life. Just last year NRC then Chairman Nunzio Palladino testified before this subcommittee that a 50-50 chance of a serious accident with public health consequences was likely in the next 50 years.

In April of this year the Chernobyl-4 reactor spewed its fiery core into the atmosphere, killing dozens, and seriously exposing thousands more, contaminating the countrysides for hundreds of squares miles. Accidents happen.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission states that:

No operating license for a nuclear power plant will be issued unless a finding is made that there is reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency.

It is not clear what this "reasonable assurance” standard means. For the past 2 years communities of this region have attempted to devise plans with which they feel reasonably assured that safety and health are protected.

Yet, after thousands of hours of work, seven separate drafts, the good faith efforts of elected and appointed officials, we have come to the conclusion that no radiological emergency plan can protect us. Therefore, we shall not participate in further planning, testing of plans, or implementation of a plan imposed upon us. Knowing this region, its high population density, captive barrier beach population, poor road network, and uncertain weather pattern, we have concluded that sheltering and evacuation planning is not feasible. Governor Dukakis has wisely come to the same conclusion after studying similar data on our region.

The "Bible" of nuclear planning [NUREG-0654] states:

The concept of emergency planning zones necessarily implies mutually supportive planning and preparedness arrangements by several levels of government: Federal, State, and local governments, including counties, townships, and even villages.

Therefore, evacuation planning cannot succeed without local cooperation.

We have learned in recent months, however, that the NRC has attempted to relax its licensing standards in the face of pressure from New Hampshire Yankee and its political pawns. In its decision of July 24, 1986 the NRC reiterated its position by stating:

What was reasonable and feasible in a given case depended on the cooperative planning efforts of the utility and State and local governments.

However, the NRC went on to assume that, despite their stated refusal to participate in planning, local officials could be expected to make their best effort in the event of an accident by following a utility plan.

Using the so-called "Realism" argument, the NRC claims that an ad hoc response by State and local government will provide reasonable assurance of adequate protection for the public.

The notion that the 3,000 individuals required to implement a comprehensive emergency plan can do so without planning or training is preposterous. Disregard the fact that a utility has no legal authority to direct traffic and people from one place to another, the "realism" argument espoused by the NRC is perverse and irresponsible.

Simply look at the special populations involved: schoolchildren for whom we have buses to move approximately one-third; workers in our industrial parks who have been dropped off at work; fragile elders trapped at home, in nursing homes, in public housing; toddlers in day care centers whose parents are away at work; hospital patients who simply cannot be moved.

We determined that a comprehensive and coordinated evacuation of these people was impossible in the very best of circumstances. The suggestion that New Hampshire Yankee could implement a plan that would be followed by local residents is outrageous, analogous to the foxes directing an evacuation of the henhouse.

Lest the Nuclear Regulatory Commission delude itself further, let me reiterate the point made in six city and town votes by an

overwhelming majority of people in this region. When we said "no" to planning, training or implementation, we meant it!

I cannot emphasize strongly enough the need for Congress to impose its oversight powers upon the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and its related or subsidiary agencies. The NRC has used_too many carrots and too few sticks in its approach to regulation. Consequently, the nuclear industry has become bloated and arrogant, inefficient and dangerously secure in the knowledge that no one in Washngton will hold them accountable.

I urge you to commence a comprehensive investigation in the organization and practices of the NRC, and to halt all further licensing decisions until a complete reorganization of the Commission has been instituted.

For surely as our energy future lies in a broad-based and diverse application of technology and common sense, the survival of our democracy hinges upon the trust and the cooperation that exists between people and their Government.

From where I sit today, the nuclear industry and its apologists in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission represent a clear threat to that fragile relationship which has evolved over the past 200 years. I conclude by urging your subcommittee to immediately initiate an investigation of the NRC, and to also call for an independent investigation of the Seabrook nuclear power plant.

Thank you.

Mr. MARKEY. The gentlelady's time has expired.

The Chair now recognizes the Honorable Elaine Krasker, who is the State Representative from Portsmouth, New Hampshire. Welcome, Representative.

TESTIMONY OF ELAINE KRASKER

Ms. KRASKER. Thank you very much.

Mr. MARKEY. Could you please move the microphone a little bit closer.

Ms. KRASKER. Congressman Markey and members of the committee, I'm Elaine Krasker. I live in Portsmouth, New Hampshire.

For the past 12 years I have served in the New Hampshire legislature as a State Representative from Portsmouth.

I am presently State Senator-elect, District 24, which includes the towns of Portsmouth, Rey, Newcastle, Newington, North Hampton, and Greenland.

With the exception of the town of Newington, the towns in my senatorial district fall within the 10 mile radius of Seabrook station requiring the development of emergency response plans for these communities.

A basic right the New Hampshire people are entitled to are the right to personal safety. In order for evacuation plans to be realistic and workable and to guarantee the health and safety of the people, they must be based on the needs and resources of each community. Therefore, they need to be developed and approved by the towns.

Yet, in New Hampshire, the towns have been shut out of the evacuation planning process. With total disregard for local input and legislative intent, the Governor of the State of New Hampshire

has submitted evacuation plans to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission without the approval of the towns within the 10 mile radius.

As a matter of fact, these plans which have been characterized to me by local officials as unrealistic, as unworkable, a nightmare, a disaster, were even submitted without the knowledge of local officials.

In 1981, I was a member of the State Legislature which voted into law RSA 107-B, known as the "Nuclear planning and response program." That is the law which initiated the evacuation planning process in New Hampshire for Seabrook station.

The intent of the law was to guarantee local approval of evacuation planning by requiring the New Hampshire Civil Defense Agency to cooperate with cities and towns in developing emergency plans according to Federal guidelines.

This law is now being used by the executive branch to tell the people in the towns that they don't have the right to decide when the emergency plans they depend on are good enough to do the job. That isn't fair, and it isn't what the legislature intended in 1981. I have already filed legislation to amend RSA 107-B, and return the right to determine evacuation planning to the people of the towns where it belongs.

The legislation I will introduce into the 1987 session will clarify the intent of RSA 107-B, and recognize that the towns have the right to make the decisions that affect their life, their health, and their safety. This clarification will make clear the right of the local unit of government to determine through its governing body when any nuclear emergency response plan is sufficient to adequately protect the health and safety of its citizens.

This amendment is in keeping with the New Hampshire legislature's ability to confer "Home rule" powers to local units of government. And this clarification of 107-B will render invalid the submission of evacuation plans by the Governor without the approval of the affected towns and cities. I'm convinced the New Hampshire Legislature will pass this legislation.

In New Hampshire, we take the concept of "Home rule" very seriously. We believe that Government decisions should be made as close to the people as possible, particularly in matters of health and safety. Until the people of the towns agree that the evacuation plans are adequate to protect the people in case of accident or emergency, the Seabrook plant must not be allowed to go into operation.

As an elected official, I firmly believe in the right of the State to protect its citizens. As a State Senator from the seacoast, I will do everything within the power of my office to guarantee that the evacuation planning remains within the purview of state and local government, not in the hands of appointed officials sitting in Washington.

Those most directly affected must develop and ultimately approve evacuation planning, for they are the ones who have to implement the plans in case of an emergency. They are the ones who know what will be required to do this.

There must be no Federal preemption in matters of evacuation planning. While the NRC should have the power to regulate nucle