ML20041C071
| ML20041C071 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 01/26/1982 |
| From: | Hochendoner L DAUPHIN COUNTY, PA |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20041C066 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8202260125 | |
| Download: ML20041C071 (3) | |
Text
.
omer er
./-
COM MISsg COMMISSIONERS MAluNG ADDRESS JOHN E MINNICH. CHAIRMAN h
p
,Q
,88 l-3 p,e e m NORMAN P. HETRICK 4
2 2
LARRY J. HOCHENDONER w
W k......;
' ?
MEETING DAY CHIEF CLERK x
munson Oy' SIDNEY A REESE DAUPHIN COUNTY HARRISBURG. PENNS%VANIA STATEMENT TO SENATOR MARK HATFIELD U.S. SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE ENERGY AND WATER RESOURCES SUBCOMMITTEE I asked to appear as a witness at this comittee's hearing because I believe it important for the committee to hear the concerns of those most immediately affected by Three Mile Island and all decisions regarding it
- the people who live with it day in and day out.
I was not given that opportunity by the offices of both Senator Hatfield and Senator Specter.
That denial, however, does not lessen my duty to the citizens of Dauphin County. My duty remains to inform those who work on the TMI problem of our local perspective.
Thus, I submit this statement for the record.
The major options for the clean-up of TMI (Congressman Ertel's plan, Governor Thornburgh's plan, and the Public Utility Comission's plan) are known well to the committee. All have comendable aspects that I as a county official can support. Yet I can support none of them in their entirety - not because of the details of the financing structure, but because the plans do not deal expeditiously with the imediate concern of this immediate area - safe action on the clean-up operations.
I. consider Congressman Ertel's proposal an excellent one for purposes of a long range strategy to deal not only with nuclear accident but, with some modifications, to other kinds of major disasters. There should be a National Disaster Insurance Fund so that government and the private sector can deal expeditiously with future disasters. The kind of ad-hoc action in which the committee now engages is too cumbersome, too quarrelsome and too late.
I applaud Congressman Ertel's efforts, his vision and insight, in seeking a long term sclution to commercial nuclear accidents, if we are unfortunate to have another TMI.
My objection to Congressman Ertel's plan is precisely that it cannot serve our immediate need - to clean up TMI.
It soon will be three years since the TMI accident. All experts agree that the danger and complexity of clean-up increases over time.
Equipment deteriorates.
Costs escalate. And the oppor-tunity for future accidents at TMI becomes greater.
Without debating details, I think the basic formula for cost-sharing, the combination of direct grants and loans, the method of creating the fund, and the broad base of contributors to the fund are sound proposals.
- But, not for TMI.
It simply will take too long to accomplish in order to satisfy our needs in Central Pennsylvania.
8202260125 820219 PDR ADOCK 05000320 H
\\
5'Similarly, tha plan put forward by Gavarner Thornburgh has many-impressive' features, It is politically and governmentally astute, requir'ng i
no federal legislation and recognizing an appropriate role for all parties concerned with the accident at TMI. The shares of financial responsibility
)
assigned to government, the utility industry and General Public Utilities are generally reasonable.
My argument with' the plan is pragmatic, not theoretical. For example, it appears that little of the federal contribution to TMI's clean-up.actually will accomplish that goal. More than one-third of the approximately 123 million commitment has been earmarked for data acquisition and dissemination,
-l rather than actual clean-up. Also the Department of Energy proposes, as I understand their commitment, to remove only 15% of the reactor core at TMI-2 while leaving the other 85%.
Another problem of Governor Thornburgh's plan is that it relies on an estimate of the total clean-up cost that can only be described as speculation, however educated. What is needed-is a formula that commits various partners in the clean-up to a percentage of the total cost, not to a fixed dollar amount. Otherwise, the risk is real that the clean-up will not be completed as quickly as Central Pennsylvania requires.
j Finally, I believe that Governor Thornburgh's plan, like Congressman Ertel's but to a lesser degree, will requirs too much time to negotiate and implement.
I can support the outline of this plan as a future strategy, but it is already three years too late in the making.
More immediate action is contained in the Public Utility Commission's phased plan for financing the clean-up. However, that plan also contains one condition that I, in the interest.of protecting the health and safety of our citizens, can never accept.. That condition is the requirement that.
TMI-l restart before Med-Ed and GPU can gain access to $25 million in phase II i
earmarked for clean-up.
This is a dangerous and unnecessary requirement, regardless bf whether one is for or against the re-opening of TMI Unit 1.
The danger is the tight-l-
rope GPU and Central Pennsylvania must walk between speed and safety.
If l
GPU takes the timg needed to restore fully the steam generating system in Unit 1, which presently has approximately 150 leaks, the clean-up at Unit 2 cannot begin in the near future.
On the other hand, if GPU restarts Unit 1 prematurely in order to obtain clean-up funds quickly, it does so at the peril of the people who live here. No financing strategy should be considered that puts us in a position that all but guarantees failure, of one sort or another.
Even if there were no health and safety problems that would result from Unit I re-opening, but it had to close down after a short period of operation for major repairs, the financial consequences would be staggering to GPU Nuclear, their stockholders and, most importantly, to the ratepayers.
Even under conservative estimates, if Unit 1 had to be substantially overhauled to address the problems of the. steam generating plant, it would take a minimum of one year and perhaps as much as 2h years, before service would be re,-instated by a functioning Unit 1 system. This would mean that rates would skyrocket to cover the costs of major repairs and purchase replacement energy.
The link of clean-up and restart is unnecessary because there is a means of generating immediate revenue that should be pursued.
Ratepayers to Met-Ed now pay a deferred energy surcharge to retire the debt for replacement energy costs incurred by Met-Ed immediately after the accident. That debt will be retired this spring and according to current plans, the surcharge discontinued.
n.
Paga 3 I-believe it is wiser to continue the surcharge, to which racepayers are already accustomed, and use the $35.7 million in revenues it provides as the trigger for releasing the $25 million that would become available l
upon restart of Unit 1.
This solution would make clean-up funds available almost immediately while this committee decides between the larger, longer term proposals before it.
By design, I have not discussed the details of any proposal in this statement. The details are the committee's concern. Mine is the well-being of the citizens of Dauphin County, which is a more important and pressing Concern.
In your deliberations, I implore you to remember only two things.
First, the clean-up and restare of TMI must be separate issues.
Second, you must act promptly.
Thank you.
Larry J. Hochendoner Dauphin County Commissioner G
9 9
l l
l
.