STATEMENT OF SENATOR EDWARD M. KENNEDY AT HEARING BEFORE ENERGY CONSERVATION AND MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Chairman, want to commend you and the Subcommittee for calling this hearing to discuss the critical issue of public safety near the Seabrook nuclear power plant. The controversy surrounding the licensing of the Seabrook facility transcends the traditional debate over our nation's continued reliance on nuclear power. Grave concerns have been expressed over the siting of Seabrook and the extent of individual state authority to stop the operation of the facility in the interest of public health and safety. I believe that in the event of a major accident at Seabrook, the residents of communities near the facility can not be assured of a safe and timely evacuation. Statistics indicate that during summer months, in particular, the number of people in the area and the limited highway access would preclude a safe exodus. Massachusetts communities within the 10-mile Emergency Planning Zone, as well as a significant number of New Hampshire communities in the same proximity to the plant, have refused to Six participate in the emergency planning process because they In the case of a recognize that such a plan is unworkable. severe radiation release, reliance on a broad scale evacuation of the area will result in chaos and potentially significant loss of life. I agree with Governor Dukakis' refusal to submit an emergency evacuation plan for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Although considerable time, effort and financial support has been expended to ensure that Seabrook is brought on line, no amount of economic investment can justify risking the lives and safety of hundreds of thousands of New England residents and visitors. I am deeply disturbed over recent reports that Yankee Electric is considering a request to the NRC to reduce the evacuation zone from 10 miles to 2 miles. Such a proposal would only serve one purpose to remove Massachusetts from the - licensing process. I view any effort to circumvent the involvement of the Commonwealth as an assault on the rights of Massachusetts citizens to participate in decisions involving their health and safety. I strongly urge the NRC to dismiss such a proposal not only in the interests of those Massachusetts communities that are directly affected by Seabrook but in consideration of the future precedent that such a decision would establish. 72-431 - 87 - 7 3 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has been charged with a serious responsibility to protect the public from radiation - As exposure in the event of a nuclear accident. In carrying out this responsibility, the Commission must seek the opinions of nearby communities concerning the emergency evacuation plan. the licensing process for the Seabrook facility continues, I have become increasingly concerned that the voices of the public are not being heard. This is unacceptable and in violation of the intent of federal law regulating the nuclear power industry. From the day the facility was first proposed, the wisdom of constructing the Seabrook plant at the New Hampshire site has been seriously questioned. The location of the facility in one of the most densely populated regions of this country was ill-advised. Such a poor decision could have been avoided had the emergency planning process preceded construction. Fifteen years and $4 billion later, we must not allow important decisions concerning licensing of the facility to be made based on the fact that too much time and too much money has been spent to allow it to be abandoned. I reject applying such a short-sighted standard as a guide to granting the plant a license. The time and money were spent by the Seabrook owners with knowledge of the risks involved. The primary concern has been, and will always be, the health and safety of our citizens. Nuclear plants should not be constructed or operate in areas where public safety cannot be assured. Seabrook is no exception. 4 Finally, I want to stress the importance of the NRC proceeding cautiously in evaluating any proposals for low-power testing at the Seabrook facility. Allowing low-power testing at this time when emergency evacuation plans are not in place will only serve to further convince the public that the Commission has already made its decision to grant a full operating license to the facility despite local and state opposition. Any low-power testing will result in extensive contamination of the plant and will make conversion to an alternative energy facility far more costly. I do not believe that any low-power testing should be permitted at the plant until all questions regarding the Seabrook facility are thoroughly answered to the satisfaction of concerned parties. In conclusion, let me say that I am pleased that the Subcommittee is investigating this issue which is so critical to the health and safety of our New England region. I look forward to working with the members of the Subcommittee and with the Massachusetts Congressional Delegation to ensure that decisions concerning Seabrook are only made after thorough examination and public participation. Mr. MARKEY. I would also like to thank, in addition to Representative Hildt and Senator Costello and Congressman Mavroules, the subcommittee would like to thank the people of Amesbury for their hospitality and their graciousness in hosting this subcommittee hearing today. This subcommittee has held hearings on subjects of this nature in Minnesota, in Oregon, and New York, and in states across this country. But without question, this is a special hearing that we take great pride in being able to conduct in a community with such a long and distinguished record as the community of Amesbury. And we thank you very, very much for the hospitality which you have visited upon our committee. In like manner I would ask if that same hospitality could be extended to the next several panels, which will be testifying before this committee. The witnesses which will commence testifying in the next minute or so will be representing views which may not necessarily accord with the majority of people who are in this room. But they do deserve your respect. They deserve your gracious hospitality. And we ask for you to give them the same respect in deference which we believe that should be accorded to those that share the same views that you do. And we ask that you comport yourself in that way. And be noticed that the subcommittee chair will be trying to enforce the policy which will ensure respect flowing to this next group of panelists. We ask if Mr. Richard Vollmer, Deputy Director for Nuclear Reactor Regulation of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission; Mr. Craig Wingo from the Office of Natural and Technological Hazards for the Federal Emergency Management Agency; Mr. Spence Perry, General Counsel for the Federal Emergency Management Agency; Mr. Thomas Novak, Acting Director for the Division of PWR Licensing for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission; and Mr. Vincent Noonan, Project Director for the Division of PWR Licensing from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission of Washington, DC. If they would all please come forward, and take their seats in front of their appropriate name cards, get comfortable, and at the appropriate time we will commence the testimony. Gentlemen, it is my understanding that Mr. Vollmer will be speaking for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. We welcome you, Mr. Vollmer, and we would request that you commence your testimony when you feel comfortable. Please introduce those who are accompanying you with their appropriate titles, and then, please try to restrict your opening testimony to five minutes. And I promise you, you will have plenty of time up here to get in any and all points which you seek to make in the course of this Congressional hearing. So, at this point we recognize Mr. Richard Vollmer, Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Welcome. |