Images de page
PDF
ePub

Labor Day, it is a different story. I think it really would be a great mistake.

Mr. MAVROULES. I have no other questions.

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Atkins, for a line of questions.

TESTIMONY OF HON. CHESTER G. ATKINS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS

Mr. ATKINS. Governor, were there any of the public safety professionals who were involved in the review-and I understand it involved several dozen people-was there any single one who suggested that evacuation plans were adequate?

Governor DUKAKIS. Well, Secretary Barry might want to respond to that, Congressman, in greater detail. I think there has been a wide range of opinion as to levels of adequacy and what might or might not work, and there was a point early in the year, as you will recall, when Attorney General Bellotti and I were concentrating, and this goes back to the question that Congressman Mavroules asked on whether in some way we could deal with the twomonth problem as opposed to the year-round problem.

Once Chernobyl hit and once we began to look at the lessons of Chernobyl, I think it's fair to say that there were no public safety officials, at least, that I was working with who didn't believe that it was virtually impossible to protect the public, and once that accident took place, we were out of the realm of hypothetical models, and we were really dealing with a real-life situation, and I think at that point whatever difference of opinion, at least, on the part of Massachusetts public safety officials about the relative adequacy or lack of other plans, really disappeared.

Mr. ATKINS. So of the several dozen public safety professionals, and these are people who are career public safety people who do this as part of their profession, there was not a single one after Chernobyl who felt that the plans were anywhere near adequate? Governor DUKAKIS. Not to my knowledge.

Mr. ATKINS. Let me ask you: is there any other instance, circumstance, other than one involving the military and national defense where you as Governor and the Secretary of Public Safety is precluded from protecting or providing for the public safety of the citizens in the case of an accident other than in the question of licensing a nuclear power plant?

Governor DUKAKIS. Except in the case of military activity, none that I know of.

Mr. ATKINS. So, other than the case of military activity, this is the only case where the Federal Government can come in and dictate a course of action to the States that precludes a Governor providing for the public safety of the citizenry.

Governor DUKAKIS. Let me check with Secretary Barry, but I think that is right.

Mr. ATKINS. So, and as I understand it, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission now is embarking on a course wherein they will allow low-power testing at Seabrook?

Governor DUKAKIS. That is right.

Mr. ATKINS. And where they have said that on-site safety approvals are necessary before they require low-power testing but that the off-site approvals are not necessary, is that correct?

Governor DUKAKIS. That is correct.

Mr. ATKINS. So, given that, as I understand it, once low-power testing has taken place, which would probably be within the next several months, is their timetable, then the containment vessel in the facility, much of it would be contaminated, which would severely restrict the value of that construction and that facility for nonnuclear purposes.

Governor DUKAKIS. That is correct.

Mr. ATKINS. Now, at that time, assuming that the NRC recognizes the enormous safety hazards that are posed to people not just in the 10-mile radius, but people such as my constituents who are outside of that 10-mile radius, then the Public Service Company of New Hampshire and the Massachusetts utilities that own a portion of this could come before-in the case of the Massachusetts utilities, the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities, and basically allow or ask to allow to have allowance in their costs for their costs of construction of Seabrook and an allowance for whatever damage was done to cleanup that was necessary from the lowpower testing.

Governor DUKAKIS. That would depend, Congressman, on the effects, if any, on our ability to regulate them under those circum

stances.

TESTIMONY OF SHARON POLLARD

Ms. POLLARD. The difficulty with the Massachusetts utilities who are owners of a piece of Seabrook is that none of them are regulated by the Department of Public Utilities.

In the case of the New England Electric Systems, they are regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC; and, in the case, for example, of MMWEC, the municipal utilities who have bought a piece of Seabrook, they, as well, are not yet regulated by the Department of Public Utilities.

Mr. ATKINS. But their rates will be regulated by the Department of Public Utilities?

Ms. POLLARD. No, they will not.

Mr. ATKINS. They-

Governor DUKAKIS. In the case of municipally-owned electrics, we do not regulate their rates. We could change our law and do that, but, at the present time, under the existing law, we do not now. Mr. ATKINS. The thing that particularly concerns me is that people are proceeding on a course where they will contaminate the facility.

Governor DUKAKIS. That is correct.

Mr. ATKINS. They will create a situation where the facility will have virtually no value for any other purpose, while right now it has substantial value, and then can come before the regulator and ask the public and the ratepayers to pay the cost of their bad judgment even though everybody told them that it was bad judgment at the outset, and I think it would be very helpful if the DPU would send a strong message to the companies and to their stock

holders that, if they proceed with low-power testing that they will eat the cost that they have from that if the facility is subsequently in litigation, I presume, not allowed to open, because it poses an imminent danger to public health and safety.

Governor DUKAKIS. I would agree with that, and Secretary Pollard would like to comment as well.

Ms. POLLARD. I would just like to add that Massachusetts, through our Attorney General, is involved in prudency hearings that are presently under way at the FERC, for Montauk Electric and the New England Electric Systems, so we are trying to address some of those issues that you have mentioned, Congressman, by representing ourselves at appropriate agencies, certainly on the State level, but on the Federal level as well.

Mr. ATKINS. So, we are trying to deal with that process, understanding the limits of your regulation that we would send a clear signal to all of the utilities involved in Seabrook, that, if they want to proceed in this high-risk strategy, that they proceed at their own risk.

One of the things that involves me, and we are really, when we are looking at the licensing process, we are looking at essentially risk assessment, and what has happened with Seabrook is that all of the risk is being assumed by the citizens who are in the affected areas, in the greater areas, and by the ratepayers.

And, as a specific instance of that, I happened to be on the Interior Committee that is involved in the reauthorization of the socalled Price-Anderson Act, which is essentially the government stepping in, as we do in no other industry to say that we will cover the insurance risks, because all of the insurance companies in the world say that your power plant is too risky for us to provide full insurance for the potential damage that it could do.

The Federal Government in the name of the taxpayers of the United States will step in and will provide that insurance coverage above $160 million, which, of course, is a teeny fraction of the potential damage that would be caused by even the smallest kind of accident, and the utilities are asking the taxpayers, on the one hand, saying to the taxpayers.

We don't-we can't insure ourselves because the risks are too great, and we want you, the taxpayers to pay for our insurance.

And, then, on the other hand, turning around to you, as the Governor, when there is not one single public safety professional that says that there can be a responsible and safe evacuation plan, and saying that this evacuation plan is safe, and we will proceed to open the plant, despite your objections. And that makes no sense to me, and I would hope at a bare minimum that we would say when we reauthorize Price-Anderson that if you do not have the approval of the local public safety officials and the Governor in the case of your evacuation plans that you cannot be a part of the Price-Anderson program. I do not see how everybody can say that the evacuation plan is not safe, is not adequate and then ask the taxpayers to pick up the cost of the risk, which the nuclear companies say does not exist.

Governor DUKAKIS. Well, Congressman, what you have said underscores what I was trying to say when I talked about this unusu

al kind of exemption from State oversight that we provide for this particular form of energy generation.

Now, you all are much more conversant with the history of Federal atomic energy legislation than I am, and I have to assume that it was a combination of the heavily military aspects of this back, coming out of World War II, and perhaps a deliberate national policy to encourage what might be referred to as an "infant industry" at the time, and that certainly was, I assume, behind PriceAnderson and this rather strict limitation on liability, which we don't apply to the best of my knowledge to any other kind of, any other form of electric generation.

I am not arguing for a national policy which disfavors nuclear; I am just saying, let's supply the same rules, whether it is on the insurance side, or the local and State regulatory side, that we applied to all other forms of energy generation.

Now, in response to your particular, to your specific question, I can assure you we will do everything we can to deliver that message to the extent that we have regulatory authority. I would strongly urge you and your colleagues and the Members of Congress who feel as strongly about this as we do, to make your views heard at FERC, in connection with these proceedings which we are currently involved in. I think your proposal for some change in Price-Anderson is a kind of minimal change, which, at least, would begin to move us in the direction of requiring that these plans stand on their own feet in the marketplace, which is, after all, what this country is supposed to be all about, and I should also point out to you-and I think you are aware of this-that in the case of at least two other substantially completed plants, the Midland plant in Michigan and the-plant in Ohio, those utilities made a judgment that conversion to a more conventional form of energy was the soundest policy from an economic standpoint-I assume from their standpoint economically and their ratepayers, and, as best I understand, those conversions are now proceeding.

There is no question-there is no question that if low-power testing begins at Seabrook, the ability of the utility, and of all of us working with the utility, to adopt the option which has been adopted now in Michigan and Ohio would be severely compromised if not eliminated.

Mr. ATKINS. I would hope, Governor, that you could perhaps get the Department of Public Utility to figure out what the precise potential was to Seabrook would be if they contaminate the facility with low-power testing, and publicly state what that figure is, and then be sure that the stockholders, particularly, in the company appreciate the risks that they will be taking if they contaminate the facility and then do not get the approval to go on to the, to fullpower testing.

What I sense here is the utility has the strategy of-it is like the child who murders both of their parents and then expects to throw himself on the mercy of the court as an orphan-that they are taking a strategy which will put them even further in the soup and then expecting to be able to come to the DPU and to other regulators and to be able to get relief at the ratepayers' expense. And I would hope that they get that message soon that they cannot do that.

Governor DUKAKIS. Well, that suggestion is well taken, and we will proceed along those lines. I would assume that in New Hampshire the problem would be even worse from the standpoint of impact on the rate structure, but at least insofar as Massachusetts is concerned, I think your suggestion is a good one.

Mr. ATKINS. Thank you and Secretary Pollard and Secretary Barry for your leadership on this issue. It has been very important for the State in educating people beyond the ten mile zone of the importance of this issue for the whole State.

Mr. MARKEY. Will the gentleman yield?

Just to interject this point-because Seabrook is owned by a consortium and deals in interstate commerce and its sales are wholesale, it does not come under the jurisdiction of the Massachusetts DPU, but rather under the FERC, and I know it is not a comforting fact to find out that the FERC has never disallowed a nuclear power plant action on the basis of imprudence, even including the worst case, which is the Grand Gulf case down in the South.

So, unfortunately, we have an administration which has turned a blind eye to some of the worst financial, economic management decisions which have ever been made in the history of this country, and we do have a battle which I think is growing between the States and the Federal Government with regard to these costs.

The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from New Hampshire, a friend of the SubcommitteeBob Smith.

TESTIMONY OF HON. ROBERT C. SMITH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Governor, I think the thing that frustrates all of us as public officials, and certainly not only the utility itself but the people and the ratepayers and private citizens is the fact that we are viewing the flawed process, the flawed Federal process, as you indicated, the process that forces us now to deal with an issue, an evacuation plan that should have been written and agreed upon at the time the plant was first authorized.

And I think I would like to deal specifically with you on the question of jurisdiction. I agree with you that State and local control, and certainly an advocate of State and local control, as I am sure you are as a governor-it can cut both ways, though, and I wanted to ask you specifically about it.

For example, if the NRC tries to, in stating that the plan is safe, imposes it upon the will of the citizens of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts or New Hampshire, and you object, then you wish to have that objection sustained, and I agree with you; but how about if it works the other way, and this is one of the dangers that we face. How about if it works that people at the State and local level disagree with, say, the NRC? The NRC says it is not safe, whether, in this case nuclear, but perhaps it might be something else along the line some other danger, and you say that it is, and I say that it is not.

How do you deal with that? How do you write the perfect legislation to deal with it?

« PrécédentContinuer »