ar facilities, emergency planning responsibility is a non-nuclear issue.

I urge this committee to take every appropriate action to disallow federal preemption in matters of evacuation planning. The powers of the NRC should be sufficiently restricted so that it cannot overrule the right of states to determine the adequacy of evacuation planning.

We, at the State level, will do our part to guarantee that decisions regarding evacuation planning are consistent with local input and based on local approval.

Congress, which established the NRC and delineated its powers, must guarantee the right of State and local government to determine the adequacy of evacuation planning.

If this requires Federal legislation eliminating NRC preemption in evacuation planning, I urge this committee to recommend such legislation, or to draft and submit such legislation to the Congress. Thank you.

Mr. MARKEY. Very good testimony.

And now we turn to our final legislative witness, the Honorable Thomas Palumbo, State Representative from the State of Massachusetts, who has a keen interest in this issue.

We welcome you, Representative. If you could, please identify the towns that you represent, and then commence with a 5-minute opening statement.

TESTIMONY OF THOMAS G. PALUMBO

Mr. PALUMBO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee.

Mr. MARKEY. Can you move the microphone up a little bit closer, too?

Mr. PALUMBO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee.

You know, sitting on the corner here brings to mind an old quote that I heard as a freshman representative this year in the State House, that "It doesn't matter where you sit but where you stand on an issue that counts." And I think that we can attribute that to you.

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you.

Mr. PALUMBO. Well, be that as it may, I am Representative Thomas Palumbo from Newbury, and I represent seven communities: Newbury, Rowley, West Newbury, Georgetown, Merrimac, Groveland, and one-third of Haverhill.

Three of those communities are within the 10-mile EPZ zone. Those three communities, Newbury, West Newbury, and Merrimac, after due and diligent efforts, have decided to, through town meeting action, withdraw from the planning process, being unable to come up with a plan that they felt that was workable, that was safe, and that would properly ensure the health, safety, and welfare of all the constituents, not only in their communities, but within the district.

Mr. Chairman and members, I am very concerned about any attempts, and would hope that you, as our Congressman, would thwart any attempts to have the EPZ cut down to a 2-mile radius.

I live on Plum Island. I have lived there all my life. It has been about 36 years, and I try to talk with a certain degree of common sense. And I think if you will come out to the island and look at some of the shoreline communities in this district and put the issue of nuclear energy aside, whether it is or is not good for the country, but look at the issue of people—what is and what is not safe for people; can we or can we not evacuate people safely from shoreline communities?

I am very concerned when I think in the summer months that we have not only an onshore group of people—bathers, recreaters— that are using our beaches and shorelines, but I am very concerned to think that we also have offshore people-fishermen, commercial fishermen, sailors, scuba divers, or what-have-you-that are using that area.

We have yet to hear a proposal in any plan proposed either by the utility, by the State, or locally that would address some of those major concerns. And I am very concerned about that.

Mr. Chairman and members, I come here to testify, as a commendation to the hard work and diligent efforts of the members of the local advisory committees, that we are given the burden and task of working and trying to develop evacuation planning for our respective communities. And I am sure I speak for other members within the 10-mile radius.

And they work very diligently. They work with a great deal of commitment, hard work with local officials—very cooperatively, I might add, also with Secretary Barry and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. And it was through the efforts of the Governor that we were able, in fact, to have this process come from a, in fact, state-down process to a process that focused locally: what did the local people, what did the voters, what did the residents, what did the people within the 10-mile zone feel would adequately ensure their safety and protection in the event of a worst-case scenario or a mishap at the Seabrook Station were it to go online.

In our conclusions, as I say, working very objectively, it was found-and it was voted by three of the communities within my district—that they felt that we could not come up with a safe evacuation plan that would ensure the safety of all the residents in the communities.

I would leave you with this note: You, we place a great deal of reliance on, gentlemen, in terms of working with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, in terms of legislation, in terms of amending legislation.

And we, as State officials—and I speak, I am sure, for local officials and local residents throughout this 10-mile zone-are very concerned that, if we reduce that zone from a 10-mile to a 2-mile radius that, in fact, we will not achieve anything in terms of public safety, but we will not only thwart that effort, but we will thwart the effort of trying to move the nuclear energy industry in the direction that it should and properly should be going and has been going for the last number of years.

Thank you.

Mr. MARKEY. The subcommittee thanks the panel very much for their participation, and would like to just pose one question to you, and that is the role which you believe legally States and local com

munities have in the planning process, whether or not you believe it to be adequate and whether or not, in fact, you believe additional legislation might be needed in order to grant proper authority.

Some of you have alluded to that in your opening testimony. I would ask each of you very briefly-very briefly, please, because there are six, and it is going to get logistically very difficult-if you could address the question of what you believe is needed additionally, if you believe that to be the case, in order to guarantee the local and state communities are properly heard in the licensing of a nuclear power plant.

Mr. Palumbo.

Mr. PALUMBO. Mr. Chairman, I firmly believe that over the next 20 years, the quality of the air we breathe, the water we drink, the manner in which we dispose of solid waste, chemical waste, and nuclear waste, are the most critical issues facing us, going into the Twenty-first Century.

I think Governor Dukakis said it best, relative to all of the other issues, we have a certain degree and a very prominent degree of State control; relative to the issue of nuclear energy, there is very little State action in terms of the final result on a particular product, on a particular result.

I think that we need greater State intervention; I think that the decision process must be one that combines local, combines State, and in the final analysis, combines the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. But we have to have a blending of those three thoughts. We have to have a consensus of opinion if this industry is to be viable into the Twenty-first Century.

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you.

Mr. Alexander.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Thank you.

I strongly support your own legislation, Congressman Markey, to clarify States' rights concerning protecting the public health and safety of their citizens. If the laws right now are not clear enough to spell out the States' rights, I believe that they should be written in order to do so.

I would add that if you look through the history there is some suggestion that the NRC recognize the possibility of perhaps local communities or States blocking certain nuclear power plants in that back in 1980 there was a statement from the NRC in which it sought State and local participation, the development and implementation of the plans while-"recognizing there is a possibility that the operation of some reactors may be affected by this rule through inaction of State or local government, or an inability to comply with these rules."

In addition, my feeling is that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission needs to be totally overhauled. Its purpose should be simply to make sure that specific, technical aspects of nuclear power plants are being adhered to, but it in no way-in no way-should try to be the advocate for one particular type of energy over another.

That is a State function. If the Federal Government decides to be involved in it, it certainly is not a decision of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to be involved in it; it is the decision of Congress, overall; and, again I cite the Supreme Court decision, the U.S. Su

preme Court decision, and the cite is in my written testimony, which says that:

Traditional authority over the need for additional generating capacity, and the type of generating facilities to be licensed is one that states have traditionally retained.

Mr. MARKEY. Senator Costello, do the States need a specific veto power?

Mr. COSTELLO. I believe so, Congressman Markey. I think that this is clearly a question of States' rights. I think we have come an awful long way in this whole issue. At first, we were talking about just the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant, but it is very evident through all of the testimony that has been heard, and especially in the last couple of years that the States are really being preempted in their authority in their ability to be able to cope with these problems.

If we have to assume the responsibility, we should have some decision in the policymaking of it. I think on the Federal level though, I think it is imperative that the NRC, any appointments to that Commission, because it is so important, and it seems to have so much power should be ratified by Congress.

I think any just as any other important committee should be, but I think that clearly that that is a question that has to be resolved, and I think that the Governor and the Legislature should have more power-radiation does not respect borders. Mr. MARKEY. Representative Hollingworth.

Ms. HOLLINGWORTH. Yes, I totally agree that there should be veto power by the States. It is painfully clear to me because when I was in Washington just recently appearing before the NRC on the possibility of lowering that 2-mile limit, one of the Commisssioners made the comment that, "Well, we could walk to safety anyway, in the event we had to evacuate."

And it clearly states exactly where the NRC is, so I think it is absolutely imperative that the NRC be thoroughly investigated. I think that they, if the people who are in the industry have come, who are the NRC, have come up from the industry; and therefore we have a serious problem in who is really minding the store. Mr. MARKEY. Representative Hildt.

Ms. HILDT. Thank you.

Like my colleagues on this panel, I agree 100 percent that the NRC has displayed total disregard for public safety concerns in the licensing of nuclear power plants and because of their arrogance and disregard it is essential that the Congress get behind legislation like the initiatives that the Congressman has filed.

So, I feel that this is something that is imperative to be carried forth.

Thank you.

Mr. MARKEY. And Representative Krasker.

Ms. KRASKER. Thank you. I believe I addressed this point in my statement, but I will just reaffirm the fact that in other areas States have a right to enact more stringent standards than the Federal Government. They should have this right, as well, in the area of nuclear power in order to safeguard public health and safety. I too would support pending legislation.

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you.

My time has expired. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Mavroules.

Mr. MAVROULES. I do not have any questions, Mr. Chairman. Obviously, I think I know where all six are coming from, so I have no questions.

Thank you for your testimony. It has been very helpful.

Mr. MARKEY. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Atkins.

Mr. ATKINS. I have one quick question for Representative Alexander, and that is on the question of low-power testing.

Your estimates of the potential cost of that, on the ratepayers, do you have any suggestion as to how the State can assure that Public Service does not proceed with low-power testing prior to the resolution of litigation in this matter?

Mr. ALEXANDER. Well, there is a problem in that our DPU does not regulate the specific Massachusetts utilities that are involved in Seabrook. It is FERC that does, instead.

However, I think that the utilities that have been vested in Seabrock from Massachusetts, which own a considerable shareMMWEC is the second or third largest shareholder now in Seabrook. New England Electric System owns a significant share. Eastern Utilities owns a significant share.

I think that all levels of State and Federal Governmental officials should talk to the utility owners as good neighbors and urge them to refrain from doing low-powered testing until the licensing issue is resolved one way or the other.

Well, obviously, I am against the licensing of the Seabrook nuclear plant. I think that people who signed this_request, asking that they refrain from low-power testing, in the Legislature, were on both sides of the issue, ultimately about whether the plant should be licensed or not.

But I think that there is nothing to be gained by it, and everything to lose by doing low-power testing right now. So, therefore, the utilities should be talked to, I hope, by State and Federal officials to urge them, just as good neighbors who live and work in our respective districts to refrain from doing low-power testing right now, whether we agree with them or do not agree with them on the ultimate licensure issue, until we see what the courts are going to do about the licensure issue because I think nobody can predict with absolute certainty how the courts-and I think it ultimately will be the U.S. Supreme Court will rule on a governor's refusal to submit an evacuation plan.

Mr. ATKINS. What is your sense as to why there is this great rush to low-power testing? It is pretty clear that the utility claims they need three to six months to do low-power testing; and I can understand their wanting that.

It is also clear that litigation will take at least 18 months, probably substantially longer. Do you have a theory as to why there is this great rush to get into low-power testing?

Mr. ALEXANDER. I think that the utilities, frankly, see this as a public relations ploy, to take one step further towards near-completion of the plant, and then make people think that they are so far along that it is inevitable.