- 13.

when the extensive non-resident beach population comes within the emergency planning zone. For them the absence of shelter is disastrous.

All these factors make particularly important expert testimony prepared by Attorney General Bellotti which shows that if a major release occurred at low altitude and under conditions common to the Seabrook site, and if evacuation time were over five hours, many persons within two miles of the plant could suffer exposure to life-threatening

weather

dosages of radiation as they sat in their cars, and widespread exposure to such dosages could occur in a radius extending beyond four miles.

Under favorable conditions it is estimated that evacuation of the Seabrook emergency planning zone would in fact take over five hours at a minimum, during which time potentially lethal radiation exposure would be occurring, and sheltering would be inadequate. If underlying conditions were less favorable and evacuation faltered, the toll could only worsen. view is not a hypothetical worst case, but a situation under the initial set of assumptions I am told to

This in my

foreseeable

make.

14

the

Mention must also be macie of the human factor. Certainly,

reluctance of many

Ukrainians

to be evacuated

by authorities after Chernobyl has no immediate parallel at Seabrook. But in a general sense it underscores how important cooperation is if we are to translate plans into actual operation. On this score it is relevant that the towns in Massachusetts within the emergency planning zone are against licensing, for reasons which even proponents of licensing must respect as honest and sincere. I have continually taken the view that these residents' views must be considered. I have also made clear that if adequate plans could be developed, I would feel myself obligated to submit them despite local opposition. However, such plans rely on previously trained local residents and municipal employees working efficiently and with detailed knowledge of their assigned roles in the evacuation process. In circumstances where I am in serious doubt about whether adequate plans are possible, these doubts are only compounded by questions about whether the necessary singleminded execution, which is absolutely essential for even marginal success of the best of plans, can be achieved at Seabrook. The unpredictability of the human factor in this instance weighs against the ability to achieve an adequate plan. It leads me to a belief that apart from all other

problems, efficient evacuation is not likely.

- 15.

Conclusion

All the

Ultimately, the questions of whether reasonable assurances can be given is a matter of judgment. I rust make ry best judgment based on knowledge and good conscience. In due course the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will make its judgment, and almost inevitably, whatever the Commission's decision, federal judges will be called upon in some manner as well. evidence I possess tells me that while there is room for reasonable disagreement on details, the unshakable fundamental truth is this: if a serious accident occurs as I am told to assume it would, the combination of conditions at Seabrook including principally weather, inadequate sheltering and exit routes, and the altitude of the radioactive plume - either individually or more likely in combination create a foreseeable likelihood of high dosages of radioactive intake, against which emergency planning and evacuation cannot adequately protect.

-

Under such circumstances I do not believe I as Governor can responsibly submit emergency plans, since they could not constitute appropriate protective measures adequate to protect the public health and safety in the event of a radiological emergency, as federal law requires. I therefore do not intend

to do so.

16

Future Energy Needs

federal law and regulation,

-

my

The decision I have made today is based, as a matter of on one factor alone assessment of the adequacy of emergency plans for the Massachusetts portion of the Seabrook emergency planning zone. Nonetheless, having made my decision, I cannot ignore the concerns which the potential non-licensure of the Seabrook station may pose for the future of its owners and investors, the energy picture in New England, and our region's economy.

Massachusetts stands ready to assist the owners of Seabrook and the State of New Hampshire to explore fully and creatively the option of converting either of both Seabrook units to a fossil fuel base. Such conversions are now well into the planning stage at the Midland plant in Michigan and the Zimmer plant in Ohio. Without question, serious issues of economic feasibility and accessibility of fuel supply would face any Seabrook conversion. But preliminary indications are that the engineering itself is feasible, and the potential resource of 1500-3000 megawatts is well worth the effort to fully determine

its overall feasibility.

- 17

Moreover, as Chairman of the New England Governors, I have joined my colleagues in a full review and update over the past nine months of energy forecasts and policies for our six-state region. It is Our intention to produce, as early as Our meeting of this coming December, a comprehensive plan for New England's energy future. Within that approach I expect that we will emphasize such power sources as the purchase of additional power from Canada; the building of a number of smaller, gas-fired generating plants; the creation of new power through cogeneration and "small power" facilities; conservation and land management; and the retrofitting of existing facilities currently slated for retirement.

so-called

I am confident that, working together, the economic and governmental leadership of New England will build a strong energy future that need not rely on the operation of Seabrook as a nuclear generating station.