Images de page
PDF
ePub

However, even that stage will not mean inevitability; but I think what they are doing is playing a dangerous game of brinksmanship with the people of Massachusetts and New England by doing this kind of undertaking.

As a matter of fact, if they do low-power testing right now, and then it isn't resolved one way or the other until 18 months from now, or 2 years from now, whether they get a license or not-even if they get a license, many of the tests that they would be doing in low-power testing right now, will simply have to be repeated at additional extra cost 18 months or 2 years down the road.

So there is nothing to be gained by doing the low-power testing right now, and a lot to lose.

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

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Hampshire, Mr. Smith.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Just a question that perhaps each of you from your respective States might respond to.

I agree with you that if we can provide stricter safety standards at the local level, we ought to have certainly local communities or the States ought to have the right to do that.

What specifically in your respective States, either in legislation pending or perhaps in discussion among your colleagues, are we doing to prepare for that? The financial, the technical resources that you need to be able to provide evacuation-effective evacuation plans, if necessary, or the technical information that you have got to know regarding something as complex as a nuclear reactor, for example.

I mean, do we-are we prepared for that? And are we preparing for it, I guess, would be-we seem to be in agreement that because of flaws in the Federal process, they have not done that good a job of preparing, preparing us for it, so what are we going to do at the State and local level differently? What plans specifically? If we are going to pass a bill like the Markey bill, we have got to be prepared to take up the whole process, and are we prepared and, if not, what plans do we have to prepare for that?

Anyone.

Mr. COSTELLO. Well, the question of who pays has always been an interesting one.

If someone wants to, say, the shopping center or someplace, they do not come to the State to say, "You pay for the environmental impact statements." They pay for the environmental impact statements.

If you notice what is happening over the last two years, the State of Massachusetts has spent an enormous amount of resources in scrutinizing the evacuation plans.

The question or the statement was made earlier today that no matter what happens to Seabrook, we all pay. I am not so sure that is true. If Seabrook goes on line, we all pay because the work in process charges get passed right on to us.

If Seabrook does not go on line, there is a serious question of whether the stockholders will have to pay.

If there are bad business decisions made in a bank, or in a bakery, you know the people who own that bank or bakery have to assume the responsibility for that.

In a nuclear power plant, I do not see any reason why those charges should be passed on to the public; and it goes the same for evacuation or any regulations involved.

Right now, we are paying the bill, and I do not think that we should have to do that.

Interestingly enough, on my way here today, I heard an ad on the radio, and it sounded like some nice middle-aged woman talking about the need for alternate power, and they conclude the little 1-minute skit with "And we also need nuclear." And then, at the end, it says, "This has been brought to you by this organization, which is a nonprofit organization." That is infuriating. When you start to talk about who is paying the bills, somebody had better investigate an equal-time kind of situation and things like this.

But I mean, you can go on and on.

Ms. HOLLINGWORTH. I would like to address Congressman Smith's statement as to the expertise.

When House Bill RSA-107B was passed-that happened to be my legislation, and in it, it called for between corporations, between the States and the local governments, because who better than the local governments who lives within their area. We knew way on that the LPZ, the numbers that were given were wrong. We were the first ones to indicate that, had those numbers been counted in the original beginning we would never have Seabrook sited near the present location, because they would have not been able to face-you know want to have the site plant.

So, the expertise lies within the local units of government; they know whether there is shelter. We have no cellars in the seacoast communities. The plans sub:nitted by Civil Defense calls for those kinds of things. Who but the local government know the expertise? Yes, if you are going to go ahead with the plant, perhaps you need to bring in some State agency to assist those local governments, but we would not be at the State we are today had those local governments beer: involved.

Mr. SMITH. Yes, I would just like to follow up Mr. Chairman. Believe me, we do not disagree on the right of local communities. I want to make that very clear, to determine this. But my concern is that in question form the technical expert, the technical information that would be required to pass judgment on the safety of something as complex as the nuclear reactor, are we assured that that kind of technical information is available; and, if it is not, are we prepared to assume the financial responsibilities, as well as the technical responsibilities to get that information so that you can make that kind of a judgment at the local level.

I mean that is important. It is kind of like the old adage when we talk about passing things back to the States from the-the Federal Government giving up responsibility, passing it back to the States whether it would be for some program, or whether it would be something like this that is important that the States be prepared to accept. If the program is necessary, it is important that the States be prepared to accept that.

I think that is what I am trying to get at, is there something that we are doing now in preparation for this if this, in fact, becomes law for future nuclear reactors where it takes effect in the case of the Seabrook.

Ms. KRASKER. And I think certainly those of us who operate at the State level know that the capability is there at the State level to make these determinations.

How it is going to happen is going to be worked out by state government, by the legislature, and the executive branch working together. But the capability is there.

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Mavroules.

Mr. MAVROULES. I would like to ask Representative Hollingworth a question, if I may, Mr. Chairman.

You state you have a place of business in the Hampton Beach, I would assume?

Ms. HOLLINGWORTH. That is correct.

Mr. MAVROULES. Have you taken any surveys as to what the population grows to during the summer months, late spring, summer, and early fall months versus what you have today?

Ms. HOLLINGWORTH. Yes.

The Chamber of Commerce has a figure of 200,000 people during the summer months.

Mr. MAVROULES. Is that additional people?

Ms. HOLLINGWORTH. That is additional people. The numbers fluctuate, certainly. There are large crowds on weekends or pleasant days during the winter and spring months, so those numbers do change.

The thing is that it is a family community, so what you have is families with large groups of aunts and uncles and cousins sharing homes and cottages, hotels, et cetera. So, it does house more than the usual population of an area.

Mr. MAVROULES. Thank you very much.

Mr. MARKEY. If the gentleman will yield just briefly, I'd like to ask Representative Hollingworth if she has been able to get insurance for her property against the event of a nuclear meltdown?

Ms. HOLLINGWORTH. No. And that is a very important subject as you well know. I think I have corresponded to your committee before on that subject. We are appalled that there is no insurance. That, I guess it's three cents on the dollar that in the event that there would be an accident.

We find that if it is so safe, why can't we be insured?

Mr. MARKEY. The subcommittee will take under active review the suggestion offered by Senator Costello and Representative Hildt for an independent safety audit of Seabrook. There is precedent for this approach. There was an independent audit on quality and assurance issues at the Indian Point plant in New York. The subcommittee will be scrutinizing the conduct of the NRC and Public Service of New Hampshire to determine if they are comporting themselves with the requisite professionalism, and candor which could justify the public placing trust in them.

And I would like, again, in conclusion to thank Senator Costello, Representative Hildt for inviting us here to Amesbury, along with

Congressmen Mavroules, we thank you very, very much for your hospitality. And we thank the entire panel for their contribution. Thank you all very, very much.

At this point I would like to note that Senator Kennedy's staff is here, and that U.S. Senator Kennedy will also be submitting a statement for the record. And that will be included in the record at the appropriate point.

[The statement of Senator Kennedy follows:]

STATEMENT OF SENATOR EDWARD M. KENNEDY

AT HEARING BEFORE ENERGY CONSERVATION AND
POWER SUBCOMMITTEE ON SEABROOK NUCLEAR POWER PLANT
NOVEMBER 18, 1986

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Chairman, I want to commend you and the Subcommittee for calling this hearing to discuss the critical issue of public safety near the Seabrook nuclear power plant.

The controversy surrounding the licensing of the Seabrook facility transcends the traditional debate over our nation's continued reliance on nuclear power. Grave concerns have been expressed over the siting of Seabrook and the extent of individual state authority to stop the operation of the facility in the interest of public health and safety.

I believe that in the event of a major accident at Seabrook, the residents of communities near the facility can not be assured of a safe and timely evacuation. Statistics indicate that during summer months, in particular, the number of people in the area and the limited highway access would preclude a safe exodus. Massachusetts communities within the 10-mile Emergency Planning Zone, as well as a significant number of New Hampshire communities in the same proximity to the plant, have refused to

Six

« PrécédentContinuer »