Speakers at Hearing Question Need for Pilgrim Nuclear Plant

"I have clients who are probably the major manufacturers of nuclear reactors in the world. They assure me that the rationale for them continuing their production of reactors is simply because the money is too good to pass up," Howell Hurst, an independent candidate for the U.S. Senate and an energy conservation consultant, said last night.

He spoke before a group of 300 at the State House during the Department of Public Utilities (DPU) hearing on Boston Edison's construction plans for the Pilgrim II nuclear facility.

Frank Staszesky, executive vice-president of Boston Edison, disagreed. "Neither Boston Edison nor any other utility has a vested interest in the type of power plant it builds. Pilgrim II is necessary not only to meet the needs of Boston Edison, but to meet the needs of the New England region as a whole," he said.

The hearing forms the first step in a DPU investigation into the need for the Pilgrim plant.

The utility is trying to halt the investigation on the grounds that the Mass. Energy Facilities Siting Council has scheduled a similar inquiry, as required by law. The DPU hearings are therefore "a complete duplication of the inquiry," Staszesky said. The utility has filed a petition to stay the proceedings in the Mass. Supreme Judicial Court and with the DPU.

Christine B. Sullivan, the Mass. Secretary of Consumer Affairs, and representatives from different public interest groups claimed the Pilgrim facility need not be build now, if at all, because future demand for electricity will increase at only about half of the 4.99 per cent rate the utility predicted when it first planned the plant in 1974.

They also claimed that even if the state does need increased capacity, unresearched alternatives such as solar and wind power, and insulation may be cheaper and safer.