Seabrook Station, like many other nuclear plants, is being built on the absolute worst location because the industry is so intent on going forward. Locations are selected not because of the conditions for safe distances from population and thus possible risk to small numbers of people, as required, but because: one, the citizens in the area selected were uninformed, and thus were unable to take any action in the licensing process; or, two, were not united in numbers or organized at the time for their objections to be heard; or, three, most important and most often the case, they believed that the plant would never be given a license. After all, did the regulations not call for a safe evacuation before any nuclear plant could be given a license?

Those of us who live and work here know that NO evacuation plan can work during the summer months, IF-and that is a big IF at all.

And, four, the public thought Congress would never let the regulations there to protect them be circumvented. The public did not know that Congress had no idea what was happening in New Hampshire and in other States as well.

The public did not know that Congress had no power to force the NRC to enforce the regulations. The public did not know that some Members of Congress perhaps did not care what happened to New Hampshire, or other States, as long as it was not happening in their State.

You are here today, so I presume you care. We care, and we are glad that you are here. Hopefully, you will find out what regulations have been violated and will take steps to see that Congress had power to enforce those regulations, cancel the plans that cannot meet those regulations, and protect the public. If only life were that simple!

Evacuation is the reason we are here today. Evacuation, the process that we all thought would protect us, an evacuation that should be first, is last. Years later, billions of dollars spent in construction; hundreds of thousands of dollars spent by citizens to fight the NRC, and the nuclear industry. We now find it is at last time to deal with evacuation.

Evacuation, to be addressed after the plant is 95 percent constructed, after loading fuel into the core, after requests for a power start-up-now, at last, the question is to be answered: Can there be a safe evacuation of the people who live in the affected area?

No one in their right mind would go forth on a project that waited until the end to find out if there could be a safe evacuation. No town would allow me to build my hotel or even get it past the planning board on paper, if I could not prove I had a safe exit for all, not just some, of my guests. The safety of the public must be proven first everywhere except when licensing a nuclear reactor.

The seacoast communities stated from the very beginning that Seabrook Station should not be sited in its present location because of the close proximities of the surrounding communities and thus the impossibility of evacuating those people in the event of an accident.

Those seacoast communities have gone on record, voting at town meetings, at election time for articles that called for Seabrook not to be licensed to operate, or at the very least no further construc

tion until a safe, workable evacuation plan could be assured. Safety, a right that we believed was ours, a right that has been taken away by a process that allows the NRC to determine that not all the people have to be protected, and that all the people have to be able to evacuate, and that the evacuation will wait until last in the process.

It was discovered early in the licensing process that Public Service Co. had failed to count the total population when applying for the site license, which violates the NRC's population center distance, the LPZ. The local communities had, long before the error was discovered by the NRC, told Public Service Co. that the population was greater than reported by Public Service Co. to the site licensing boards.

Like the Good Tooth Fairy, it became magic-wand time for the NRC. Public Service Co. was given three choices. The choices were: one, stop building the reactor; two, close the beaches; and three, decrease the size of the LPZ. Of course, Public Service Co. chose three-decrease the LPZ to draw the circle smaller. A line on a piece of paper was all that was needed to protect the lives of hundreds of thousands of people.

Public Service/NRC would maintain that this should be done because the plant was so safe, a line that we have come to hear each and every time the NRC/Public Service Co. needed to change the rules or violate the regulations.

We have got the idea rather quickly, not to look to the NRC for any help to protect our safety. It was plain and painfully clear the NRC was there to license the plant.

As early as 1974 town meetings rejected the licensing of Seabrook. In 1983, nine town meetings rejected the nuclear disaster plans prepared for them-forced on them by the New Hampshire Civil Defense. Towns believed that to accept these plans would be the true disaster.

The local governments have rejected the evacuation plans. It would appear that we, the local governments, are right. As of April this year, the Federal Emergency Management Agency produced a nine-page report citing problems with transportation, communications among other areas of concern. What FEMA did not report is that it is impossible during the spring, summer-or for that matter, winter days, to evacuate hundreds of thousands of people from the beaches.

The tests that have been conducted by FEMA have been done without the participation of 13 towns. These communities believe that any test will be a whitewash just like so many other things that Public Service Co./NRC has done. The Evacuation Plan is regarded by these communities as failing to protect their residents even adequately.

Several years ago while appearing before the New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission, the question was asked of one of the drafters of the Evacuation Plan: "Will this be a safe plan?" Answer: "I never said 'safe'; I said a plan." And so it is today.

Over 700 teachers have signed petitions calling these plans unworkable, unacceptable-plans that require them to perform certain tasks that they have repeatedly stated that they will not perform.

Mr. MARKEY. [Sounding gavel.]

Ms. HOLLINGWORTH. Excuse me, I know I am over.

Mr. MARKEY. You have one minute remaining. Please try to summarize.

Ms. HOLLINGWORTH. At this time a cease-excuse me.

Last session, 65 New Hampshire State representatives, after being rejected by their own governor, turned to Massachusetts Governor Dukakis for his help and support to protect those who live and work in the evacuation zone as well as the interest of the whole State of New Hampshire.

We, and I mean the American Public, have been deceived by the nuclear industry and the NRC. The nuclear industry and the Licensing Board for all intents and purposes are one and the same. In 1981, Peter Bradford, then a member of the NRC, said it all. He warned that States must take over the task of protecting their citizens' safety in the licensing of a nuclear plant.

He said:

State Governments are the only place left to raise the safety issues, as Congress and the NRC have discouraged public participation in the licensing process.

In New Hampshire, because of our Governor's desire to license the plant at any cost to the safety of those who live here-we cannot even look to our State for our protection. Our Governor has used all his powers to go forth with this licensing.

Mr. MARKEY. The gentlelady's time has expired. [Ms. Hollingworth's prepared statement follows:]

Good morning;

Thank you for allowing me to come here today to testify before you. My name is Beverly Hollingworth. I am a New Hampshire State Representative from Hampton and Hampton Falls, District 17. I own and operate a small motel at Hampton Beach. Until three years ago I owned one of the larger Hotel/dining room complexes in the Hampton Beach area. I am a recent past president of the Hampton Beach Area Chamber of Commerce representing several hundred businesses in the seacoast, in Mass. and New Hampshire. Prior to being elected president of the HBCofC. I represented the Chamber as the intervenor before the Nuclear Reglatory Commision, in the licensing process. I will elaborate on that later in this testimony. My family and I reside in Hampton, N. H. about one mile and a half from Seabrook Station. My place of Business is two miles from Seabrook Station. I was born and raised and live, and have raised my children within what is now commonly referred to as the ten mile evacuation zone. I have been elected to four terms as a State Representative in great part because of my strong opposition to Public Service Co./ Seabrook Station, and because the rights of those citizens most effected are being totally disregarded by the Nuclear Reglatory Commision.

Seabrook Station, like many other nuclear plants, is being built in the absolute worst locations because the industry is so intent on going forward. Locations are selected not because of the conditions for safe distances from population thus possible risk to small numbers of people as required, but because

1: The citizens in the area selected were uninformed, thus unable to take any action in the licensing process.

2: Were not united in numbers or organized at the time for their objections to be heard.

3: Most important and most often the case, they believed that the plant would never be given a license, after all didn't the regulations call for a safe evacuation plan before any nuclear plant could be given a license. Those of us who live and work here knew that NO evacuation plan could work during the summer months, IF, and its a big IF at all.

4: The public thought Congress would never let the regulations there to protect them be circumvented. The public didn't know that Congress had no idea what was happening here in N. H. or in other states as well. The public didn't know that Congress had no power to force the NRC to enforce the regulation. The public didn't know that some membersp of Congress possiblly didn't care what is happening in New Hampshire or other states as long as it was not their state. You are here so you must care. Hopefully you will find out what regulations have been violated and will take steps to see that Congress has power to enforce the regulations, cancel the plants that can't meet those requirements, and protect the public. If only life were that simple!

Evacuation is the reason we are here today. Evacuation, the process that we all thought would protect us. Evacuation, what should be first is lost Years later, Billions of dollars spent in construction, Hundreds of

thousands of dollars spent by citizens to fight the NRC and the nuclear industry. We now find it is at last time to deal with Evacuation. Evacuation, to be addressed after the plant is 95% constructed, After loading fuel into the core, After requests for a power start up, Now, at long last,the question is to be answered. Can there be a safe Evacuation of the people who live in the affected area? No one in their right mind would go forth on a project that waited until the end to find out if there could be safe evacuation. No town would allow me to build my hotel or even get it past the plannning board on paper, if I couldn't prove I had safe exit, for all not just some of my guest. Safety of the public must be proven first everywhere exept here when licensing a nuclear reactor.

The seacoast communities stated from the very beginning that Seabrook Station should not be sited in its present location because of the close proximity of the surrounding communities and thus the impossiblity of evacuating those people in the event that an accident should occur. Those seacoast communities have gone on record, voting at town meetings and at election time for articles that called for Seabrook not to be licensed to operate, or at the very least no further construction until a safe workable, evacuation plan could be assured. Safety, A right that they believed was theirs. A right that has been taken away by a process that allows the NRC to determine that not all the people have be to be protected, and that not all the people have to be able to evacuate, and that evacuation will come last in that process.

It was discovered early on in the licensing process that Public Service Co. had failed to count the total population when applying for the site license, which violated the N.R.C.'s population center distance,(LPZ). The local communities had, long before the error was discover by the NRC, told Public Service Co. that the population was greater than reported by Public Service Co.to the site licensing boards. Like the Good Tooth Fairy it became magic wand time for the NRC. Public Service Co. was given three choices. The choices were, 1 Stop building the reactor. 2 Close the beaches .3 Decrease the size of the LPZ. Of course Public Service chose 3,,decrease the LPZ, to draw the circle smaller. A line on a paper was all that was needed to "protect" the lives of hundreds of thousands of people! Public Service /NRC would maintain that they could do this because "the plant was so safe", a line we have come to hear each and every time the NRC/PSC needed to change the rules or violate the regulations. We here got the idea rather quicky not to look to the NRC for any help to protect our safety, it was painfully clear the NRC was there to license the plant.

As early as 1974 town meetings rejected the licensing of Seabrook. In 1983 nine town meetings rejected the nuclear disaster plans prepared for them by N.H.Civil defense (Towns believed that to accept the plans would be the true disaster).

The local goverments have rejected the evacuation plans. It would appear that we, the local goverments, are right. As of April this year the Federal Emergency Management Agency produced a nine page report citing problems with transportation, and communication among other areas of