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.

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 submitted 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.