Governor DUKAKIS. Well, you and your colleagues have had plenty of experience at that. For example, when it comes to clean water and clean air, we have a Federal regulatory scheme which sets certain minimum standards; but in virtually all of those cases, I think I am correct in saying that the States can, or the local communities can go beyond those standards. There is no preemption there, but there is a kind of Federal floor which is a matter of national policy the Congress has enacted into law because I assume there is a national interest in a clean environment, at least at some prescribed level; and we operate under that system, but we are also free, thanks to Federal legislation, to go beyond and be tougher if we want to be.

There are there is legislation, as you know, currently before the Congress on the subject of pesticides, where there is a lot of pressure to have a national standard for pesticides. I objected to that legislation because I have no objection to some kind of minimum Federal floor but to suggest to me that we cannot protect our citizens if we think that certain pesticides are more dangerous, say, than the Federal regulatory authorities, I think flies in the face of the traditional role of State and local governments to protect the health of their citizens.

So, we have all kinds of examples in this country of what I would call a dual system in which nationally we would set some minimum standards, and we would say:

Look, wherever you live in this country, you are going to be protected up to a certain threshold. If the local communities or the State wants to go beyond that and exercise their police power, they can do so.

And it works reasonably well.

What puzzles me is that, in this particular area- and it is about the only area that I can think of-we do not have that system, and I think that is what is so puzzling to the governors, Republicans as well as Democrats, liberals, conversatives, whatever-all over the country. You just do not understand why in this particular area, we do not have the kind of authority that traditionally, and certainly over the last 20 or 30 years, you have given us, as part of what I would call a joint regulatory scheme, in a whole flock of environmental public health and other areas.

Mr. SMITH. Following up on the jurisdiction plan, you have been criticized for being basically inconsistent on the issue because if we look at-there are obviously nuclear power plants, other nuclear power plants in the State of Massachusetts. There is certainly a nuclear reactor at Lowell. That is directly under your jurisdiction. Governor DUKAKIS. Right.

Mr. SMITH. You do not have an evacuation plan for that one. I agree that the magnitude; there is a difference between the magnitude in reactors obviously; but how do you respond to that?

Governor DUKAKIS. Well, I think we are learning everyday. I think Chernobyl was an event which certainly had an enormous influence on me, and I sense on the public all across this country and on the Congress, as well; and I think you are going to find us being a lot tougher, a lot more thorough about what we are doing with respect to public safety and public health in these areas than we were before.

Now, we do have this-I am not sure it is an anomalous situation, but a situation in which we have existing licensed nuclear energy plants in our States that already have a full operating license, Plymouth being one, Rowe being another, where we don't have the kind of authority, at least at this point under existing Federal law that we had with respect to Seabrook; but, even in those cases, I can assure you we are going to be monitoring very, very closely what is happening, say, at Plymouth, when it comes to management, when it comes to plant safety; and we are currently under Secretary Barry's leadership doing a thorough review of evacuation plans, and I can assure you that there will be significant changes in those plans, so I think this is an evolving process, and one where we are all learning and expanding our sense of what we ought to be doing.

Mr. SMITH. But if it is a safety issue-and I believe it is-I mean, if it is a safety issue, consistency would dictate that we should either remove those reactors or close, shut them down, or at least write some type of acceptable evacuation plan for, say, Lowell—— Governor DUKAKIS. Yes.

Mr. SMITH [Continuing]. Which has not been done.

Governor DUKAKIS. Well, that may be, that may be something that is justified and something that we ought to do. All I can tell you is that at this point in time, Seabrook has loomed as a major problem and obviously has consumed a great deal of our time.

But I can assure you that, as we move ahead on this one, we are dealing with the whole issue of evacuation planning, emergency planning and preparedness, wherever we find it-and that will include small academically-centered reactors as well as Seabrook, obviously; and, as I pointed out, existing nuclear power plants which we have in Massachusetts.

Mr. MAVROULES. Will the gentleman yield to me?

Mr. SMITH. Sure.

Mr. MAVROULES. Bob, the one point-No. 1, I do not think we ought to be here today, quite honestly, if we had changed the regulations many, many years ago.

Governor, you know full well that today when you want to build a home, you have got to get all the permits before you build a home, before you turn a spade of sand.

You build a highway today, you have the proper hearings, and you have input, and you give the opportunity for input to the people and to the cities and towns. That is the law.

This is crazy. First of all, you have the obligation of about $7, $8, or $9, $10 billion, whatever it is, to build a nuclear power plant. After-you have that obligation, then the responsibility goes back to the customer; and they are going to pay one way or the other. They are going to pay for them, one way or the other. You and I know that. I think what we have got to do here is to change the regulations, Mr. Chairman, whereby you come up with an evacuation plan prior to any permits being given.

How in God's name can we first have the obligation and then come up with the evacuation. It makes it difficult for you, Mr. Governor, and difficult for any other Governor; it makes it very difficult for Congress to come in after the act-and I think you and I discussed this a little bit in Washington. I would like to see the di

rection going toward all agreements, evacuation plans, if, indeed, there is going to be a need, all on the table, and agreed to before one permit is given-not for a reactor, for the purpose of even putting a building there.

I think unless we do that, we are going to have this problem forever in this country, and it is a suggestion, and, in my judgment, a good one for the committee to study, Mr. Chairman.

Governor DUKAKIS. Mr. Chairman and Congressman, I agree with you obviously, and I think the present scheme is totally flawed, and I do not think there is much disagreement here or elsewhere at that.

But I think the point Congressman Smith raised was an important one, which is even in the case of very small research reactors, if there is a conceivably a safety problem, should we not be dealing with that one thoroughly and well; and the answer to that question is yes, and we have learned a lot over the course of the past several months in this State and in this region and in this country, especially after that accident in the Soviet Union, and I can assure you we are going to be taking those responsibilities very, very seriously. Mr. SMITH. I would just like to respond to my colleague, Mr. Mavroules, and to say that I agree with you, Nick. I think that the issue that we face, hopefully in the future if there are any more plants licensed that they will be done with all of these details worked out prior to any authorization and licensing.

But I think what we are dealing with now is something that is ongoing, and the question is how do we deal with that, and I think if it is basically as you have said, Governor, if it is basically an issue of one of safety, then I think certainly if a new plant is not safe, then older plants are less safe, and therefore perhaps we ought to be applying the same standards there; and I think, you know, these are-this is just a point

Mr. MAVROULES. Right.

Mr. SMITH. No further questions, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. ATKINS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MARKEY. Sure.

Mr. ATKINS. Just a point of correction on the instance of Lowell, and the reactor at the University of Lowell, that, in fact, has been shut down. I think it is a good case in point as to how we can deal with these things. That was costing close to $50,000 a student for the students who were involved in the facility, and they shut the facility; they used all of the proper safety precautions to protect the public; and they now use it for other research and more conventional modes and cheaper modes, I might add, of energy generation.

So, I think you are on target in looking at the older kinds of facilities. I think in Massachusetts we have started to do that. The example is Lowell; we have saved the taxpayer millions of dollars now by shutting down their facility, and I guess the question is now whether we aren't going to make sure that we do not make a mistake, contaminate the facility at Seabrook with low-power testing; and then add a huge burden to all of the taxpayers and ratepayers when we have to shut that facility down.

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman's time has expired.
Governor, we thank you very, very much-

Governor DUKAKIS. Mr. Chairman, thank you.

Mr. MARKEY. Secretary Pollard, Secretary Barry. I just wanted to tell you that on a regular basis governors from other States-mention you as the example, as the leader on the growing need to exercise States' rights to curb a growing turn in this administration to preempt the legitimate rights of State and local governments. Thank you for your leadership.

Governor DUKAKIS. Thank you for giving us an opportunity to testify.

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you very, very much.

[Responses to subcommittee questions follow:]

Response to Questions From the House Subcommittee on
Energy Conservation and Power

Office of Massachusetts Governor Michael S. Dukakis

1) What is and should be the responsibility of State government, if any, in offsite emergency planning and preparedness activities for nuclear power plants?

The responsibility of State government ought to be in developing effective emergency plans and certifying their adequacy before construction permits are issued for new nuclear power plants. This was not the case at Seabrook. In the Seabrook case, potential problems regarding emergency planning were raised early and often in the NRC licensing process, by the Commonwealth and others, only to be largely dismissed as superfluous to the "defense-in-depth" strategy of nuclear reactor design. Only with the Three Mile Island Accident, and the resulting creation of the NRC/FEMA emergency planning rules, was the issue of offsite emergency planning given the priority it had always deserved in nuclear plant licensing.

The creation of the new emergency planning rules has subjected the Seabrook plant to a regrettable double-jeopardy in licensing. Nevertheless, we believe strongly that the NRC/FEMA regulations mean what they say that no plant should receive an operating license unless the appropriate governors have found that emergency response plans are adequate to protect the public health and safety. Admittedly, the NRC/FEMA regulations also provide several avenues for the approval of plans without a governor's certification as to their adequacy. Nevertheless, none of these avenues have yet been used successfully, and we doubt that anything short of radical amendment of the regulations will allow a plant's licensure on such a basis. The burden will fall to the NRC to demonstrate a credible basis for such amendments.

In the meantime, public trust in the nuclear program can only be maintained by adherence to what we believe is a strong and appropriate role reserved for state governments in the existing regulations; that is, the role of devising and certifying adequate emergency plans before an operating license is granted.