Mr. WILTSE. Based on current Federal standards, sir, there is no requirement for evacuation plans for a nuclear incident beyond 10 miles, so there are no requirements or planning standards there. What Mr. Bond referred to, and I also referred to in my testimony, we do see a need to develop, if you will, all-hazards regional plans, especially in congested areas like we have in southwest Connecticut, that could be put in place and utilized for whatever the hazard is that might affect multiple towns; and that is clearly something that needs to be worked out through all levels of government working together.

Mr. SHAYS. And before I call on you, Mr. Blumenthal, kind of give me a sense of what I'm asking, how you respond to what I'm asking and what you're hearing. Try to give me a sense of what this means to you in terms of the 10-mile versus the 50, in terms of one State versus another, in terms of a local community really not quite knowing what their requirement is and what they should do, the fact that we don't even have, it appears, a plan outside that

10 miles.

I mean, there are two ways you get impacted: One is, you get people from within the 10 miles coming in and interacting with your constituents, you know, using your roads and so on; the other issue is the need for evacuation from New Canaan. Should New Canaan have an evacuation plan?

So, Mr. Blumenthal, I'm going to ask you to kind of walk me through some of this.

Mr. BOND. Just one comment.

Mr. SHAYS. Sure.

Mr. BOND. As of this point in time, there are roughly 445,000 people coming into Fairfield County from outside Fairfield County. Mr. SHAYS. Right now, just in terms of the work traffic?

Mr. BOND. Work traffic.

Mr. SHAYS. Yes.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Let me respond, if I may.

I think there is a need for planning at the local as well as the State level, and the two have to be interrelated. In a sense, the local communities are now planning even with an inadequate plan on the part of the plant itself-New Canaan, for example, Westport, a number of the communities who are aware of the effect on them.

One of the problems is that many Connecticut communities are not sufficiently aware of the dangers that are posted. But the impact on Connecticut will be real and immediate and, in fact, the impact on New York will be very sizable as well, because the flight from New York will be to Connecticut. And Connecticut's roads on a good day, at certain times, are parking lots, they are gridlocked. So the evacuation plans involving New York have to be contingent on State and local planning in Connecticut.

Likewise, our food and water supplies, many of them, come from New York. They would be contaminated. We would face the same problems as New York, whether we were in the 10 or 20 or the 50mile radius.

But I think one of the key aspects that you have raised is that a terrorist attack will not involve simply, if there is one, God forbid, a strike against the facility itself; presumably it would also in

volve some effort to cause disruption and damage elsewhere-for example, the Tappan Zee Bridge-which would again force evacuation into Connecticut.

And I guess, you know, to put it in legal terms that are applicable to both Connecticut and New York, there is a requirement that these facilities have plans that take into account all these ramifications in order to continue operating. Their license is contingent on adequate emergency preparedness plans, and our point is that— and we'll bring it to the courts if necessary—they have an obligation to comply with that law.

Mr. SHAYS. OK. You don't have questions?

Mr. TIERNEY. No, sir.

Mr. SHAYS. Mrs. Kelly, do you have any questions you want to ask?

Mrs. KELLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have no questions, except that I am delighted that you have a panel here of people from our neighboring State of Connecticut, because you are absolutely right, Mr. Blumenthal, if we don't work together, the people who live within the 50-mile radius of this plant could conceivably be in jeopardy.

Given the fact that the prevailing wind usually runs from west to east, but also looking at the number of nor'easters we've had this year, dumping snow all over us, there are factors like that we all need to think about, given our tortuous road system in many instances, so I'm delighted you're here.

And I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding the hearing that so that we can work together like this.

Mr. SHAYS. I'm just interested, I don't think any other Members have questions. You don't?

OK. I would be interested in just understanding your concept of the legal requirements. You said, it's just not my opinion; you said "the legal requirements."

Speak to me about the legal requirements. And what legal rights does Connecticut have?

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. We have submitted a petition to FEMA under 44 CFR 350. And the petition essentially is to compel FEMA to follow its own regulations and insist on an emergency preparedness plan as a condition for the plant continuing to operate.

As you know, FEMA has found the current plan to be inadequate. It has asked a number of questions of New York officials, Governor Pataki and the four county executives, who have declined to certify that plan. In our view, FEMA has an independent responsibility to take action. I think that the deadline the earlier deadline given by Congresswoman Kelly, than the 75 or 150 days that FEMA wants to take, is much more desirable.

But the point is that the NRC, also under its regulations in our view, has responsibility. There has been a petition to the NRCsimilar to the one that we brought to FEMA-to compel it to suspend the license of the plant so long as there is no adequate emergency plan, again pursuant to Federal law. And that action, I believe, also has been, and can be, taken to Federal court.

But all of what we have been describing for this committee are potential damages that give us the standing, the right and the opportunity to be in court, challenging the current plan and holding

accountable the Federal agencies that thus far have declined, as was evident in the letter from the chairman to you, to recognize their responsibility.

Mr. SHAYS. OK. Now let me just be clear just for the record.

The plan, the legal-you have the right to challenge the plan that has not been acceptable, that doesn't meet legal requirements. It doesn't do the job. But that is just simply a plan that has to deal with the 10-mile radius.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. In our view, no. It relates to the 50-mile radius and possibly beyond, because we are within the 50-mile radius and the emergency preparedness plan includes that area.

Mr. BOND. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SHAYS. Yes, Mr. Bond.

Mr. BOND. Going back to 44-350, in the absence of fully corrected and updated plans for the counties and States that cannot provide reasonable assurance that appropriate measures can be taken in the event of a radiological emergency, it seems to me the plans have to be rewritten, not just say "meet them." I don't disagree with that. But I think they need to be rewritten to what the world is like today.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. And they need to be brought from the Stone Age into the post-September 11 era, where terrorist attack is an urgent and immediate and realistic fear.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Wiltse, how many people do you have on your staff?

Mr. WILTSE. Currently, sir, I have 27.

Mr. SHAYS. OK. Is 27 enough people for you to be able to work with all the communities that potentially you have to deal with Indian Point and Millstone 1, 2 and 3? I mean, it seems to me like you don't have the resources to be able to do this job.

Mr. WILTSE. That would be a very fair statement, Mr. Chairman. As I mentioned in the testimony, our nuclear planning staff-and I think it's similar in most States-are fully funded by the utility. There is no fenced or dedicated funding from the Federal Government for nuclear planning.

But even more so, our issues at the State level, I think we really have to focus at the municipal level.

One of the key parts, if I could mention, of any plan and a key component when you're looking at the evacuation of the 10-mile plan is the importance of host communities. Host communities, based again on the Federal guidance, are where evacuees are directed to go to get a variety of very important things, everything from KI to monitoring to shelter and food if they need it.

All of those communities use their own resources except what they might receive from the special State utility funds, again funded by the utilities. There's a great burden on those municipalities, and quite frankly, it's just because they're professional and they know that there's a need that they step up, they step up to the challenge.

Mr. SHAYS. Let me just ask what you suspect when we ask-and I'm going to be asking the next panel if the general public knows about-if they're within 50 miles of a nuclear plant, if they know that one, there is a plan; two, if they know what that plan is; and

three, if they know what they're supposed to do to implement that plan.

What do you think the response would be around the country? Do you think that we're just a little behind others, or do you think that it's probably typical in a lot of parts of the country?

Mr. WILTSE. I'd say, Mr. Chairman-I think it's typical in all parts of the country. Anyone living within a nuclear zone, one of the great needs and again something that requires, obviously, a lot of resources is public information and education not only, also, for the public, but for first selectmen and those officials who need to, if you will, have the most immediate information available.

There's a great deal-as Mr. Witt and his staff pointed out in the study, for new ways to-technological ways to communicate directly with municipalities so that they can communicate with their people. There is not a good network of communications systems, computer-based information systems throughout the Nation. And that's definitely something that we need to work at.

But simply the area of public information, reaching out to the public, only by investing there are we going to be able to address the issue of spontaneous evacuation.

I think Mr. Witt, in-if you will, the-his final comments that he just released really hit on it and made a very good clarification. He was not saying that plans are should be disregarded, the current plans, and that they need to be thrown out; the point that he made is that they need to be improved.

We do have some basic plans. They're certainly better than not having any plans, as I mentioned, as in the case of some other industries. But that means we need to invest and put the investment in to make the plans what they need to be.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you.

Is there anything that we need to put on the record, Mr. Bond? I mean, your concise "no" is probably the most important answer that we've received during the whole hearing.

Mr. BOND. I think, in all due respect, Connecticut has done some interesting things. As of probably this week, they've the healthDr. Garcia has put in a system with every health director in every town, and New Canaan has a Nextel. With one number ring, they can contact all the health directors in the whole State. That's one thing.

And then they are making available to every police department, ambulance corps and fire department an 800-megawatt radio.

So we are making some progress, but we need some guidance and we need some from the State and more so than this, particularly on the evacuation concern. And also we think that—again, that it would be preferable to correct the errors now and not wait for 6 months or a year. I think it'd be helpful.

I think the feeling of the community would be so much-greatly improved by the fact not to shut it down for good, make it right then come on back.

Mr. SHAYS. OK.

Mr. Blumenthal, anything that you would like to put on the record before we get to the next panel?

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Once again, my thanks for helping to raise awareness in Connecticut about this problem because, in answer to

your question, Connecticut is less aware than it should be. In many parts of Connecticut, if you ask that question about where is Indian Point and should we be preparing for a possible emergency, they would say: Indian Point? It's not on their radar screen, and it should be.

And there should be and I would just conclude with this thought. There should be better planning and coordination between the two States in communication, evacuation, medical and food and other supplies; and right now there is virtually none.

Just as the answer to your question about New Canaan was "no," the answer to the same question, if asked, is there ongoing planning for Indian Point as a possible disaster area between the two States, the answer would be "no." That is really an irony, because one of the findings of the Witt report is that the news of a disaster, whether it is a terrorist attack or any other kind of disaster, will spread instantaneously. And the current plans are inadequate because they assume that the government will be disseminating this information in the way that it wants to. Rather the public will be using cell phones and all the technology that are really not taken into account by the current plan. So, again, my thanks to you for increasing public education which we need to increase even more. Thank you.

Mr. SHAYS. I thank you. I'll use my old theology just before concluding here to say that I suspect that the view used to be, and still is, unfortunately, that if we tell people about a evacuation plan and what they have to do, they will start raising questions about why do they need to know this. And then, unfortunately, it might call into question whether we need nuclear energy at all, which I happen to believe has a role to play in this country.

And so I think the industry probably tries to downplay it. But if we're going to be honest with the American people if we have this type of energy-and we do; we get 20 percent of it for electricity throughout the United States-we'd better know how to respond to it and how to protect ourselves.

But in one sense this is kind of a surreal conversation, though isn't it because if we had to evacuate, there's the question, would you ever get to come home, which is a little unsettling?

I thank you all very much. I appreciate your waiting so long and this is very helpful to us. Thank you so much, gentlemen.

Mr. SHAYS. We're going to do our panel three, which is Mr. Jim Wells, Director, Natural Resources and the Environment, U.S. General Accounting Office; Mr. Michael Slobodien-if I'm saying that correctly; I'm probably not-director of Emergency Programs, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.; Mr. William Renz, director, Nuclear Protection Services and Emergency Preparedness, Dominion Resources Services, Inc.; Ms. Angelina Howard, executive vice president, Nuclear Energy Institute; Mr. Alex Matthiessen, executive director, Riverkeeper; and Mr. David Lochbaum, nuclear safety engineer, Union of Concerned Scientists. Big panel, but a very important panel. We appreciate your being here.

Thank you for staying-standing, and I will swear you in now. Is there a likelihood that you would be calling on someone else to be able to respond? We'll get another chair if we need it.