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

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, recreatersthat 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 e role which you believe legally States and local com