ML20052B741
| ML20052B741 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 02/02/1982 |
| From: | Hochendoner L DAUPHIN COUNTY, PA |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20052B715 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8205030522 | |
| Download: ML20052B741 (2) | |
Text
(
omer or p.
j 4 C O M Mis,0 s
4r COMMISSIONERS O
=^ lung ADDRESS JOHN E MINNICH. CHAIRMAN Q
- .o. sox tas i
g dl
^i3' M*""'ssuna, na irios NORMAN P. HETRICK mmz7c LARRY J. HOCHENDONER L
)
MEETING DAY CHIEF CLERK f
Tuunscar 0p SilNEY A REESE t3D P.M.
DAUPHIN COUNTY HARRISBURG. PENNsY1.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 committee's hearing because I believe it important for the committee to hear the concerns or those most immediately affe.cted 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-2 (Congressman Ertel's plan, Governor Thornburgh's plan, and the Public Utility Commission's plan) are known well to the committee.
All have commendable 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 immediate 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 solution 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 Dil accident.
All experts agree that the danger and complexity of clean-up
'increases over eine.
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 THI.
It simply will take too long to accomolish in order urisfy en our needs in Central Pennsylvania.
820 50 3 0 SM
Similarly, tha plen.put forwned by Govarner Thornburgh has many imprassiva fccturcs, It is politically and governm2ntally astute, requiring to federar Ic'gfslation and reccgnizing en appropriate role for all parties ccncarned with the accident at TMI.
The shares of financial responsibility cssignad to government, the utility industry and General Public Utilities cro gGnerally reasonable!
My argument with the plan is pragmatic, not theoretical.
For example, it cpp2ars that little of the federal contribution to TMI's clean-up actually will accomplish that goal.
More than one-third of the approximately 123 nillicn commitment has been earmarked for data acquisition and dissemination, rcther than actual clean-up.
Also the Department of Energy proposes, as I undarstand 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, htw2 var educated.
What is needed is a formula that commits various' artners in tha clean-up to a percentage of the total cost, not to a fixed dollar cmount.
Otherwise, the risk is real that the clean-up will not be completed es quickly as Central Pennsylvania requires.
[
Finally, I believe that Governor Thornburgh's plan, like Congressman Ercol's but to a lesser degree, will require too much time to negotiate and impicment.
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 phns d plan for financing the clean-up.
However, that plan also contains cua candition that I, in the interest of protecting the health and safety of cur 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 ocrmarked for clean-up.
This is a dangerous and unnecessary requirement, regardless of whether enn is for or against the re-opening of TMI Unit 1.
The danger is the tight-rop 2 GPU and Central Pennsylvania must walk between speed and safety.
If GPU takes the time needed to restore fully the steam generating system in Unit 1, which presently has approximately 150 leaks, the clean-up at Unit 2 cennst begin in the near future.
On the other hand, if GPU restarts Unit 1 prcmeturely in order to obtain clean-up funds quickly, it does so at the peril of tha 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 und2r conservative estimates, if Unit I had to be substantially overhauled to cddress the problems of the steam generating plant, it would take a minimum of en2 ysar and perhaps as much as 2% 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 etjor repairs and purchase replacement energy.
I The link of clean-up and restart is' unnecessary because there is a means of gGnerating immediate revenue that should be pursued.
Ratepayers to Met-Ed new pay a deferred energy surcharge to retire the debt for replacement energy i costs incurred by Met-Ed immediately after the accident.
That debt will be ratired this spring and according to current plans, the surcharge discontinued.