PAGENO="0001"
NUCLEAR WASTE FACILITY SITING
OVERSIGHT HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
NINETY-SIXTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND EQUITY IN NUCLEAR
WASTE FACILITY SITING
HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, D.C.
EUNE 28, 1979
Serial No. 96-8
PART V
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs
0
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
53-932 0 WASHINGTON: 1979
PAGENO="0002"
COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
MORRIS K. UDALL, Arizona, Chairman
PHILLIP BURTON, California
ROBERT W. KASTENMEIER, Wisconsin
ABRAHAM KAZEN, Ja., Texas
JONATHAN B. BINGHAM, New York
JOHN F. SEIBERLING, Ohio
HAROLD RUNNELS, New Mexico
ANTONIO BORJA WON PAT, Guam
BOB ECKHARDT, Texas
JIM SANTINI, Nevada
JAMES WEAVER, Oregon
BOB CARR, Michigan
GEORGE MILLER, California
JAMES J. FLORIO, New Jersey
DAWSON MAThS, Georgia
PHILIP IL SHARP, Indiana
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
PETER H. KOSTMAYER, Pennsylvania
BALTASAR CORRADA, Puerto Rico
AUSTIN J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania
NICK JOE RAHALL II, West Virginia
BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
JERRY HUCKABY, Louisiana
LAMAR GUDGER, North Carolina
JAMES J. HOWARD, New Jersey
JERRY M. PATTERSON, California
RAY KOGOVSEK, Colorado
PAT WILLIAMS, Montana
JONATHAN B. BINGHAM, New York
BOB ECKHARDT, Texas
JAMES WEAVER, Oregon
BOB CARR, Michigan
DAWSON MATHIS, Georgia
PHILIP R. `SHARP, Indiana
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
PETER H. KOSTMAYER, Pennsylvania
AUSTIN J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania
NICK JOE RAHALL II, West Virginia
BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
JERRY HUCKABY, Louisiana
JAMES J. HOWARD, New Jersey
BALTASAR CORRADA, Puerto Rico
DON H. CLAUSEN, California
Ranking Minority Member
MANUEL LUJAN, JR., New Mexico
KEITH G. SEBELIUS, Kansas
DON YOUNG, Alaska
STEVEN D. SYMM'S, Idaho
JAMES P. (JIM) JOHNSON, Colorado
ROBERT J. LAGOMARSINO, California
DAN MARRIOTT, Utah
RON MARLENEE, Montana
MICKEY EDWARDS, Oklahoma
RICHARD B. CHENEY, Wyoming
CHARLES PASHAYAN, Ja., California
ROBERT WHITTAKER, Kansas
DOUGLAS K. BEREUTER, Nebraska
MELVIN H. EVANS, Virgin Islands
STEVEN D. SYMMS, Idaho
MANUEL LUJAN, JR., New Mexico
DAN MARRIOTT, Utah
RON MARLENEE, Montana
MICKEY EDWARDS, Oklahoma
RICHARD B. CHENEY, Wyoming
DOUGLAS K. BEREUTER, Nebraska
MELVIN H. EVANS, Virgin Islands
DON H. CLAUSEN, California
CHARLES CONKLIN, Staff Director
LEE MCELVAIN, General Counsel
STANLEY SCOVILLE, Special Counsel for Legislation
HENRY MYERS, Science Adviser
GARY G. ELLSWORTH, Minority Counsel
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT
MORRIS K. UDALL, Arizona, Chairman
ANDREA DRAVO, Staff Consultant
ROBERT L. TERRELL, Minority Consultant on Energy and the Environment
NoTE-The first listed minority member is counterpart to the subcommittee chairman.
(II)
PAGENO="0003"
CONTENTS
Hearing held: Page
June 28, 1979 1
THURSDAY, JUNE 28, 1979
Statements:
l3ateman, Hon. Worth, Deputy Under Secretary, U.S. Department of
Energy 25,99
Dircks, Hon. William, Director, Office of Nuclear Materials Safety
and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 3,71
Franchot, Peter, staff attorney, Union of Concerned Scientists___._ 58, 142
Helminski, Edward L., director, Energy and Natural Resources Pro-
gram, National Governors' Association 49, 118
O'Hare, Michael, associate professor, Department of Urban Studies
and Planning, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge,
Mass. 40, 109
Seiberling, Hon. John, a U.S. Representative from the State of Ohio;
and member, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs 19
APPENDIX
Additional material submitted for the hearing record from:
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission:
1. Responses to questions raised by members at hearing of June 28,
1979 79
Hon. John F. Seiberling, a U.S. Representative from the State of Ohio;
and member, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs:
1. Prepared statement 89
2. The bill, H.R. 2762 94
3. Section-by-section analysis of H.R. 2762 98
Union of Concerned Scientists:
1. Paper entitled: "Nuclear Energy Policy Position," adopted by the
National Governors' Association, August 1978 128
2. Document entitled, "Recommendations Toward Establishing a Pub-
licly Responsive and Acceptable National Nuclear Waste Manage-
ment Policy," dated May 8, 1979 132
(III)
PAGENO="0004"
PAGENO="0005"
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND EQUITY IN NUCLEAR
WASTE FACILITY SITING
TKURSDAY, JUNE 28, 1979
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT,
COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS,
Washington,D.C.
The subcoramittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:45 a.m., in room
1324, Lon~worth House Office Building, Hon. Morris Udall (chair-
man) presiding.
The CHAIRMAN. The subcommittee will please come to order.
Today our hearing will cover a broad range of social and political
issues. We are trying to answer one simple question: Can we overcome
the understandable and devasting hostility toward our nuclear waste
management program?
The Federal Government has left a trail of technical negligence;
misguided policies toward the States, local governments and private
citizens, and misinformation that stretches back 35 years, and mean-
ders through the country from New York to New Mexico.
We on the periphery of waste management policy have, watched
the time slip for construction of a waste repository at the rate of about
a decade every 2 years for the pastS years.
We have seen the responsible agencies finally admit, after denying
it for 30 years, that there still remain important unresolved issues that
must be settled before we will know for sure whether we can safely
accomplish this crucial task.
I think that public pressure and a committed administration may
have finally broken the disastrous čourse we were on.
Admitting that there are important technical questions to be
answered has made it possible to begin to address them in a serious
fashion.
Today we hope to make a positive contribution toward resolution
of the social and political issues that are stalemating waste manage-
ment.
I think the first step we have to take here is to acknowledge that we
will not construct waste management repositories anywhere in this
country unless the citizens of the area feel the repository will be safe
and that the risks and benefits of waste management are balanced, and
distributed among the different regions of the country.
One approach I have been interested in exploring, is the notion that
we might put together a package of assistance and incentives for pri-
vate citizens, interest groups, and State and local governments that will
reduce the mysterious and villainous aspects of waste facilities.
(1)
PAGENO="0006"
2
Such a package could promote public understanding by giving
groups the ability to make their own educated judgments about waste
repository safety.
It could promote public confidence by assuring that they will have
statutorily protected substantive decisionmaking authority that need
not involve protracted litigation and procedural nit-picking.
We might also provide economic or environmental benefits for
communities which decide repositories are acceptable in order to bal-
ance the unavoidable costs of land use impacts and new strains on
public services.
Any system of incentives must not, of course, be so designed as to
muddy the health and safety issues related to nuclear waste. disposal.
These wastes are dangerous; and they will remain so for hundreds
of thousands of years.
No amount of cajolery should induce our citizens to levy risks on
future populations.
Our witnesses today will offer some cautions and some encourage-
ments on these issues.
Congressman Seiberling wanted to go first, and he is not yet here,
so in the meantime let us go on to the remainder of the witness list.
Mr. LUJAN. Mr. Chairman, I have a small statement, I would like
to pick up on something which you mentioned, and that is the accept-
ance of sort of a solution on a regional basis.
As you know, we in New Mexico get kind of tired of being dumped
on, in effect, by the policies of other States.
In California, they have all kinds of laws that say we will not go
on with this until the problems of waste are solved.
The problems of waste are being solved in my home State of New
Mexico, and I think there ought to be some responsibility on the part
of those States that generate that waste.
In addition to that, because they will not build any additional
powerplants of any kind, we have to build them in New Mexico. Coal-
fired powerplants, which contribute to the pollution of our air, so
there is no sharing of responsibility.
We come to this committee meeting, and we talk about the problems
of West Valley, the citizens of New York saying get this thing out of
here, take it somewhere else, and so the implication is take it down
to Carlsbad, N. Mex., and we are kind of tired about that.
If the States are going to take this selfish attitude, I don't know,
Mr. Chairman, how we can go into a veto power of the States in this
manner, because it has been demonstrated that the States, when the
decision is left to them, are not responsible, and although I am in favor
of good strong negotiations, and making it as safe as possible, I just
worry that those States that will take the reasonable attitude, will
be at a disadvantage when you start facing the selfishness of the power
hungry States that say we will take the benefits, but you States out
there in the hinterlands, you take all of the junk that goes along
with it.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. We will proceed now with
Mr. William Dircks, DirectorS Office of Nuclear Material Sa±ety
and Safeguards, Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Mr. Dircks, we have your prepared statement, and you may proceed
in whatever way you think best.
PAGENO="0007"
3
[Prepared statement of Hon. William Dircks may be found in the
appendix.]
STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM DIRCKS, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF
NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY AND SAFEGUARDS, U.S. NUCLEAR
REGULATORY COMMISSION
Mr. DnlcKs. I will try to go through it as briefly as I can, Mr.
Chairman.
I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission program for public and State involvement in waste man-
agement decisionmaking process.
Appearing with me today is Mr. Jack Martin, Director of the Divi-
sion of Waste Management.
When I spea.k of public participation, I mean participation by all
non-Federal agency groups and individuals. I will limit my discussion
to high-level waste as requested.
I do not at this time, intend to review the responsibilities of NRC
for waste management, unless you of course want to get into that.
Rather, I intend to address public participation in NRC decision-
making, State participation in NRC decisionmaking, and the Com-
mission's views on State veto.
The Commission recently submitted to the Congress a report on
"Means for Improving State Participation in the Siting, Licensing,
and Development of Federal Nuclear Waste Facilities," NUREG-
0539, dated March 1979.
This report covers the area of State participation in depth and
provides specific findings and recommendations for improving this
participation.
Some of the points I am addressing here are included in this report.
There are two key points at which public participation is most im-
portant and affects NRC decisionmaking.
The first is during development of regulations and the second is
during the licensing process.
The public has been involved in our efforts to develop regulations.
In November of 1978, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission pub-
lished for comment a proposed general statement of policy (GSP)
outlining procedures for licensing geologic disposal of high-level
radioactive wastes (HLW).
At the same time, a draft rule consisting of specific requirements
which would implement the procedures of the general statement of
policy was circulated to the State governments for their review.
Comments were received on the general statement of policy from
30 groups and individuals.
Fourteen States commented on the draft rule. As a result of these
comments and the Interagency Review Group's report to the President,
the staff has modified the draft licensing procedure and is planning to
forward it to the Commission for approval to publish for comment in
the Federal Register as a proposed rule (10 CFR 60).
In addition, the staff is planning to request `Commission approval to
publish for comment in the Federal Register an advanced notice of
rulemaking which describes the status of technical criteria which will
PAGENO="0008"
4
ultimately be included in 10 CFR 60 and identifies the staff's current
thinking on important issues which have not yet been resolved.
In addition to seeking early public comments on the proposed rule
via the Advanced Notice of Rulemaking, we will publish results of
technical work in support of the technical criteria to be included in the
rule.
Notice of this will be made in the Federal Register and comments
will be requested.
There have been some changes in what we proposed and comment
in what we will be proposing to the Commission.
In light of comments received and further staff evaluation, the staff
will propose to the Commission licensing procedures which are some-
what different from those outlined in the proposed general statement
of policy sent out for comments.
I wish to stress that the Commission has not focused on this point,
that no Commission decision has been reached on which procedures
will be adopted.
These are principally staff proposals.
As we in the staff presently conceive it, the proposed rule will in-
volve the NRC and the public during the actual license process in four
stages as follows.
The first stage begins when DOE has formulated plans for a pro-
spective repository to the extent that it wishes to begin subsurface
characterization of a specific site or sites.
At this point, DOE will be required to submit a site characterization
plan to NRC.
The plan will address the process by which the media and site were
selected and DOE's program for further development of alternative
media and sites.
At this time, NRC will notify affected States of this proposed action.
The plan will be reviewed by NRC staff with opportunity for State
and public comment on both the plan and a staff analysis of the report.
It is also anticipated that the NRC will hold local public meetings in
the immediate area of the sites to be characterized. These meetings are
both to disseminate information and to obtain public input which will
be factored into the final version of the staff analysis. NRC fully
expects that DOE will involve State and local governments in its site
selection programs. We will require that this involvement will be
described in the site characterization plan.
The second stage begins with the submission by DOE of an applica-
tion for construction authorization at a particular site. At this point,
several sites will have been characterized from which one site will,
have been selected. Formal licensing proceedings will begin at this
stage.
A licensing board will be appointed and the license application and
accompanying environmental report will undergo the first review. Pub-
lic hearings will be held prior to deciding whether to permit
construction.
The third stage commences with an application by DOE to receive
wastes at the repository. Although not specifically required, public
hearings may be held and the public would have an opportunity to
participate.
PAGENO="0009"
5
The fourth stage is the closure of the repository. Once all the wastes
have been emplaced, an application will be made by DOE to close the
repository, and the final review of the repository will begin. The public
will have an opportunity to participate in this stage.
It should be noted that our contacts with the States to date indicate
that each State will probably have different ideas regarding the extent
to which they desire to participate in the licensing process. Thus, the
proposed rule is structured so that each has the flexibility to partici-
pate in the process to the extent it desires or has the capability to do so.
The staff intends to develop guidance to assist the States in. planning
for their participation.
In coordination with the Office of State Programs, my office, for the
last 2 years, has had an active program to bring about greater State
participation in waste management decisionmaking and to exchange
ideas with State officials. We participated in State legislative and
administrative hearings and meetings on waste management and spon-
sored a series of three regional workshops in September 1977 to solicit
ideas from State officials on siting and licensing of high-level waste
repositories. The workshops were attended by 170 State executives and
legislators from 46 States.
A smaller meeting was held in Atlanta, Ga., in January 1979, to
discuss with State representatives means for improving State partici-
pation in siting, licensing, and development of waste disposal facilities.
In addition, based on the draft procedures, and in response to a
report from the State of New Mexico, we started discussions with the
New Mexico officials to reach an agreement on how the State would
participate in a review of the waste isolation pilot plant in the event
DOE submits an application to NRC and NRC has authority to reg-
ulate the facility.
As some first steps in establishing that relationship, we have been
exploring with the State agencies concrete ways in which the State can
interact with NRC. Some of the ways States can participate which are
being explored with New Mexico couJd also be applicable to State par-
ticipation on licensing of a high-level waste repository.
For example:
(1) States could participate in regulatory development especially
in reviewing the basis of our regulations.
(2) States could assist NRC in the review of specific portions of
license applications.
(3) States could perform other technical assistance work, particu-
larly in the area of environmental studies.
(4) States could perform environmental and radiation monitoring
throughout the operational period and after closure.
(5) States could participate by assignment of State employees to
NRC or NRC contractors or by using an NRC employee on assign-
ment to the State during the licensing process.
In summary, States will be provided with the opportunity to par-
ticipate in the licensing process. As recommended in NUREG-0539,
Federal funding should be provided to assist the States. I should like
to note that legislation would be required to authorize NRC to provide
such funding.
You asked specifically for our views on the State veto question. I
should note at the outset that the Commission believes it appropriate
PAGENO="0010"
6
to give statutory recognition to the legitimate concerns of States in
which waste facilities may be located.
The Commission made several recommendations in NTJREG-0539
for legislation to improve the capabilities for improved State partici-
pation in the Federal waste management program and should provide
additional recognition of State concerns. The recommendations re-
quiring legislation include:
1. Establishment of a federally financed planning council composed
of Federal and State officials;
2. Federal funding of an independent technical review capability
under the direction of the planning council;
3. And establishment of a Federal grant program to allow host
States to participate more fully in the Federal waste management
program.
Up to this point, I have described ways that States might partici-
pate as active members in the process of siting and licensing nuclear
waste facilities. When we come to the question of concurrence or veto,
the issue becomes much more complex. In the Commission's NUREG-
0539 report, a number of factors bearing on this question are identified:
1. The practical consequences of failure to achieve concurrence or
the practical consequences if the State vetoes the project. If the State
did so, would this require a complete halt to the process at the time
of the nonconcurrence? Or would activities of siting, licensing and
development be allowed to continue pending resolution of the State's
concern?
2. The grounds on which a nonconcurrence is made. The procedure
might allow an interested State to exercise a veto without any reasons
at all or the procedure might require a State to base its actions, using
the record of the Commission's proceedings, on its determinations that
specific environmental or safety concerns have been violated.
3. The form in which a State might invoke a veto. Should it be on
the action of the Governor, the legislature or some other body within
the State?
4. The point at which the veto might be invoked. We would prefer
that the NRC licensing review be allowed to run its course in an
orderly and untrammeled manner. This process is designed to provide
for extensive State participation and we feel that it should not be
interrupted as a result of a State veto. Thus, if a State veto were to
be allowed we believe that such a veto should only occur after the
NRC has assembled a fully developed factual record and a statement
of the Commission's conclusions. Such a record would then be avail-
able and could be used in the resolution of the remaining differences.
5. The authority to resolve the differences. A veto provision should
include a means to resolve differences between an affected State and
Federal agencies concerned. This might take the form of action on
the part of Congress or a congressional committee.
6. The extent to which a decision, other than that of the Commission
would be subjected to review.
In summary, we believe, that if provision for a State veto were to
be made, that provision should be carefully drafted to clarify the
curcumstances under which the veto can be exercised. This should in-
clude requiring the State to exercise all reasonable means to resolve
its difficulties.
PAGENO="0011"
7
In closing, the NRC's high-level waste program is an evolving one.
We recognize that there are unresolved issues in how to best achieve
public involvement and will continue to explore additional ways to
increase the productive involvement of the public and the State in the
licensing and regulatory process.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Dircks. You have. addressed the
major issues we were to touch on today.
The latter part of your statement pinpoints the difficulties we are
going to have when we come to writing a State veto or State insurance
provision, because you make two points, I thought, rather well.
We have to decide when this veto is exercised, can the State of Utah
or Arizona in advance of any planning, of any study, say, "We veto it,
do not call us, we will call you," or should the States be required to go
through this process and give reasons for giving the veto, but require
it be on specified grounds.
I think your testimony is helpful. I will defer at this point to
Mr. Weaver, and then to my other colleagues who have questions.
Mr. WEAVER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Dircks, has the United States solved the waste disposal problem?
Mr. DIROKS. It is too early to say.
Mr. WEAvER. Yes or no.
Have we solved it as of today, as Of 10:15, June 28, 1979.
Mr. DIRCKS. No; we have not solved it.
Mr. WEAVER. Can you think of any other activities that, when we
deal directly with the. State, we forbid the State to have a decision, a
conclusive decision on whether they want something in the State, for
instance, dams.
Our Department of Engineers said, if the State does not want the
dam, we will not build it there, although that is not involved.
Can you give us any precedence for this, where the Federal Govern-
ment has to force something on the State?
Mr. DIRCKS. No; I cannot think of any, unless it is some defense-
related activity.
The CHAIRMAN. In the military field, the Government says we need
an airbase, and it will be here, without consulting the State.
Mr. LUJAN. And as well for an interstate highway.
Mr. WEAVER. Actually the State highway must be done in part with
State funds, therefore the State obviously has a veto.
Should we have the State put up part of the money to build one of
these waste disposal sites?
It might not be a bad idea., 10 percent financing by the State, to get
this nuclear facility within their confines.
I believe very strongly in the States' right to determine whether
or not we should have a waste disposal within the State, but I be-
lieve you certainly worked out a method by which if it is to be resolved
we can move forward with it.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Lujan?
Mr. LUJ-AN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Dircks, you heard in my opening statement that my concern
is with some of the States that show a certain selfishness; that is,
taking the benefits of electrical power production, but not wanting to
take any kind of responsibility.
PAGENO="0012"
8
Let us take a scenario, for example, of a Governor that might have
high political ambitions.
The CHAIRMAN. This is hypothetical?
Mr. LUJAN. Yes.
There may be a couple of powerplants operating, and maybe two
or three more under construction. And the proposition is put to him,
you ought to take the responsibility in that waste your State is gen-
erating. VVe have an excellent site here, and we need a good proper
place to store the waste. Do you have any method by which you would
encourage that Governor to take the step in the direction of trying to
solve the problem when it is not politically wise; that he might lose a
few votes; how do we move such a person?
Mr. DIRCKS. It is very difficult to say, Mr. Lujan.
I do not have the answer to that question. I think what we would
like to see from our own regulatory process is that the issue be on the
environmental, safety, and health aspects of a facility, no matter
where it is located.
Mr. LUJAN. So that the right of vet.o or concurrence-whatever you
want to call it-would be limited to adverse effects of the environ-
ment, of health, and of safety, generally?
There may be some other considerations?
Mr. DIR0Ks. Generally that is how we would see it.
Mr. BINGHAM. Will the gentleman yield?
I think some of the points the gentleman from New York makes
generally had committees which have been very gung ho on nuclear
power production.
Maybe the Governors' conference shoul.d be presented with a prob-
lem the gentleman is proposing, if they are going to be that gung ho
on production, let them be somewhat gung ho on waste.
Mr. LUJAN. Or on consumption, not just production, that is an-
other factor.
Mr. CLAUSEN. Will the gentleman yield?
I think some of the points the gentleman from New York makes
are right, but I believe what t.he gentleman from New Mexico states
is that you want to enjoy the benefits, you ought to assume the
responsibility.
This is essentially the way we have dealt with projects or programs
throughout the United States, where there has been a broad interstate
interest, and I am convinced we will have to solicit the Governors
Association.
Mr. LUJAN. Mr. Dircks, your statement in answer to Mr. Weaver's
question, "Have we solved the nuclear waste problems," when you were
asked to say yes or no, you said no. You could not say yes. Just no when
you only had those alternatives. That is what you could say. But if you
were able to expand on your answer, would it still have been a flat no,
or do we have some direction that we could be heading in?
Mr. DrRCKS. The statement in the IRG report of March 1979, the
staff agrees with, I think we have enough technical confidence to pro-
ceed now with looking at some sites and proceeding with the site char-
acterization part of the program.
I think we should move forward into the site area.
Mr. LUJAN. In closing I might say that I do believe in the concur-
rence of a State in buil~ing any kind of a facility like that. But the
PAGENO="0013"
9
problem in this country today is that there is such a selfish attitude and
that selfish attitude could lead to our own destruction. I am not just
talking about nuclear power now, but the whole gambit of things
where we see one group saying, "Don't give priorities to that one, take
it away from them and give it to us." We have the taxi strike because
they want more gasoline than anybody else. We go down the highway,
and have the 55-mile-per-hour speed limit, and, you know, you try to
observe it, and yet you see cars going faster than that, with the atti-
tude, well, I will get there faster, no matter that I am using up some-
body else's gasoline. It is this whole selfish attitude that is prevailing
in this country that concerns me, and that is where we might not be
able to get State concurrence too easily.
Mr. WEAVER. Will the gentlemanyield?
I agree with the gentleman on the selfish attitude. I wonder if the
gentleman would agree to a provision of law, if and when we proceed
with this bill, to require the States who benefit from this output of
electricity to solve the waste disposal within their own States or close
down the plant, would the gentleman agree to that?
Mr. L1JJAN. And not import any from any other State, so that you
do not pollute the other State.
Mr. MARRIOTT. It seems to me we cannot be quite that narrow-
minded, because if one State is utilizing nuclear power, then it is not
utilizing something else, which may be of benefit to another State. Is
it not true that when one State uses nuclear, many other States are
allowed to use a greater supply of something else which they may not
have? I wonder if we could be quite so narrow as to say that if the
State with the nuclear powerplant solves its problem, the rest of us go
home free.
Can you comment on that point ~
Mr. LIJJAN. Certainly; there is no question that that can be correct.
Coupled with what the gentleman from Oregon said, about burying
your own wastes in your own State. Then we would say to States like
California-and I do not mean to be picking on California, but they
use a lot of the electricity that is produced in New Mexico at the cost
of our environment-then we will say to them, also you cannot trans-
port that electricity across State lines. If you are not willing to take
the bull by the horns and build your own polluting, coal-powered
plants, or your own nuclear plants-and we have a prohibition on oil
and gas-fired plants-and so if you want to be a hog about using all
of this electricity, then you ought to take some responsibility.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Anybody else to kick California around?
If there are no further questions, Mr. Marriott?
Mr. MARRIOTT. One question. As you look over the States, are there
a few States in the country that seem to have all of the qualifications
and the characteristics to be just the ideal spot to put these nuclear
powerplants? And we would like :to know if you have a few picked out.
Mr. DIROKS. No; we are eagerly awaiting to see what the Depart-
ment of Energy comes up with.
Mr. MARRIOTT. Would the Utah Salt Flats have some special alert
to the gentleman?
Mr. DIRCK5. I have not seen those mentioned yet.
Mr. LUJAN. That is a good suggestion. [Laughter.]
PAGENO="0014"
10
Mr. CLAUSEN. Inasmuch as California has been mentioned in the
conversation l1ere, I want you to know we take care of those portions
of California where I have an influence. There is always an escape
hatch.
We may form our own State up there in the northern part of the
State, so we will not be under the influence of the people who do not
want to take the responsibility. On a serious note, we all want to realize
that we as legislators have a serious responsibility to develop the facts.
On an issue of this kind, it is very easy for people to act more on the
basis of emotions, or stirring emotions without a foundation of fact.
Our time would be better spent if we addressed ourselves to the factual
information. You are to be complimented, sir, for focusing in on some
of the central issue that will have to be addressed.
Now, would you state for us what you perceive to be the factors that
have to be dealt with in the storage of nuclear waste?
Could you delineate them or define them?
Mr. DIR0K5. The approach we are taking, Mr. Clausen, in the Com-
mission, we are looking at a-n in-depth approach, we are looking at
each component of the system, we are trying to build redundant bar-
riers around each part of the system components so that we can get an
extremely high level of confidence that the disposal will be safe. This
means that if one component fails to work exactly as we think, another
component would have the capability to make up for the failed
component.
For example, we are looking at waste forms very carefully, we
are looking at the combination of waste forms, the canister it is packed
in, the overpack that surrounds the waste itself, and we are trying to
build into the design of that thing a requirement that it has to last,
and Mr. Lujan can correct me, at least 1,000 years. This means the
waste will not escape from that form during the lifetime of the ex-
tremely hazardous fission products. We are also looking at the geologic
media, and trying to build into our criteria a requirement that the
repository and site geology serve as a completely satisfactory barrier.
Mr. CLAUSEN. What would be the parameters of the requirements for
a system of nuclear waste repositories? What do you think is going to
be the ultimate dimensions of waste in the years that this will have to
be dealt with?
Mr. DIROKS. I will let Mr. Martin handle that one, the amount of
waste to be dealt with, and I guess that includes both military waste
and the waste coming out of the powerplants themselves.
Mr. MARTIN. I think in terms of volume, that is ultimately what
it will boil down to is how many canisters, and that sort of thing.
I read some figures the other day that say that in terms of volume
by let us say the first decade or two of the next century, projecting
ahead the next 30 or 40 years, that in terms of volume about half of
it will be the existing military waste, and then the other half will
be that. generated over the next 30 or 40 years by the civilian pro-
gram. So if we were to boil it down to canisters of waste, or units of
volume, about half of it exists today, and the other half will be gen-
erated by the civilian nuclear power.
Mr. CLAUSEN. So that a lay person can get the measure of magni-
tude of the problem, can you translate that into terms of area. Will
PAGENO="0015"
1,1
it take half of the State, or will it take an unreasonable amount of
space to accommodate this?
Mr. MARTIN. No; I believe from the figures I have seen, if it is
spaced conservatively, that probably means one or two repositories
having about 3 square miles of area each. It will be in that order.
I may be off, but it is in that general dimension.
Mr. CLAUSEN. Is the technology available to handle this waste and
implement it, or is there a lack of technology?
Mr. MARTIN. I think at the present time we would have to say, af-
ter going through this R. & D. process and looking at it very hard,
there is some more technology that needs to be developed.
We believe there needs to be some work done in this area.
For example, as Mr. Dircks said, one of the approaches we are tak-
ing is a very conservative multiple barrier approach to the thing,
in that we recognize that anything that you try to design has to last
thousands of years, you have great unknowns as to what may happen
in the future, so we are attempting to build several barriers here, each
one of which should be satisfactory, all by itself, and if you stack the
redundancy up, that should compensate for the uncertainties.
One of the issues we are focusing on today is to get the Department
of Energy to develop a waste form that all by itself is pretty well
indestructible.
This is an area that is ripe for additional technological develop-
ment, and there is a lot of promising things that have been developed
at universities, and even in DOE labs, but some more work needs to
be done.
Mr. CLAUSEN. Could you submit to the committee an assessment
as to the state of the art, those areas of technology that you feel need
to be addressed, what progress we are making, and how long you feel
it will take to have that type of technology in place so that we can
address it positively without any kinds of concerns?
Mr. MARTIN. Yes, sir.
Mr. CLAUSEN. An in-depth recitation of where we are at this point,
so we can fulfill what I think is our responsibility, Mr. Chairman,
so we could have on the record the best available, information, and
even an elaboration of the magnitude of the problem, and how it
could be handled in the next 50 to~100 years.
The CHAIRMAN. That information will be available to us.
[Response to Mr. Clausen's questions furnished by the Department
may be found in the appendix. See table of contents for page number.]
Mr. MARRIOTT. Do I hear the gentleman saying that what we would
need in this country would be two repositories, 1 square mile each, in
some isolated place to take care of all of our depository waste
problems?
Mr. MARTIN. Yes; that is about the right number of repositories,
but I would say about 3 square miles each.
Mr. MARRIOTT. Would that include what we have stored in places,
or is that just from here on out? .
Mr. MARTIN. That would include the military waste that is now
being stored.
None of it has been disposed of permanently. It is all being stored
in one form or another, and I will get some more exact figures for
this in-depth analysis that you asked for.
PAGENO="0016"
12
It is my impression that we might be able to get one, but more
than likely we would need two, maybe three at the outside.
Mr. CLAUSEN. One final question. I was reading where a German
scientist was suggesting that one of the potential answers to the waste
disposal problem would be with sufficient thrust capability, to trans-
fer it into space. I would be interested in having something for the
record on the feasibility of that suggestion.
[In response to Mr. Clausen's request, the Department subsequently
furnished the following information:]
While the NRC has not specifically investigated the feasibility of space dis-
posal, the concept is not totally out of the question. The NRC program is oriented
to geologic disposal at this time, in response to DOE's program. However, we do
intend to consider alternative disposal concepts at a future date and, in doing so,
we would expect to explore the merits of space disposal from a regulatory
viewpoint.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other questions on my left?
Mr. Huckaby?
Mr. Hucm~u~y. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In reading your statement, on page 7, your point 5, the meaning and
intent of what you are saying there is that if you want to go into a
State, and the State did not want you, that you are suggesting Con-
gress should have the authority to override that State?
Mr. DIRCK5. There has been a suggestion along that line.
All I was saying was that if you have a confrontation where the
State says no, and somebody else says it is OK, it would be good to
have some authority to resolve the differences, at least mediate them
and listen to both sides of the argument.
It could be the Congress, a congressional committee, or it could be
some other body to listen to the arguments, pro and con.
Mr. HUOKABY. Is the Secretary of Energy in concurrence with the
position you have outlined here?
Mr. DIRCK5. I do not know. This report was developed and approved
by the Commission. We did not ask for the approval of the Secretary.
Mr. HUOKABY. I will send you a copy of the letter that Senator Long
and I received from the Secretary last year stating specifically that
they had no intention of establishing any type of permanent or tem-
porary repository in any State without the State's concurrence, which
is not at all what you are saying.
I wish you would get together and decide which way you are going.
I will submit this for the record.
[Letter from Mr. Huckaby to James R. Schlesinger, letter from
John M. Deutch to Mr. Huckaby, and document entitled "Principles
of Understanding" follow.]
PAGENO="0017"
* ~ ZOS1S
~op(~'CO"~QCT~
(~ongrt~ of t~ ~nitcb ~tate/ ~
3I~ou«=e ot 33eprz«=ent~tibt~
~a.~~ington, ~ 205t5 (31$)3u.0s0
Honorable James R Schlesinger
Secretary, Department of Energy
160u Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mr. Secretary:
It has come to my attention through the media that you.
recently conferred with the Congressional members of the
New Mexico Delegation concerning the federal government's
nuclear waste management program. Specifically, you spoke
about the Department of Energy's consideration of salt beds
located near Carlsbad, New Mexico as a potential nuclear
waste disposal site. -`
According to a press statement made by Senator Pete Domeniōi!,
you had publicly announced that the State of New Mexico
has the authority to determine whether high-level radio-
active wastes can be stored within its boundaries.
~:a~ .~:Ltr1yuwu ny ~ remarks. As you ~nov;, the
Department of Energy is currently conducting identical
studies and experiments to det~errnine the geological and
hydrological suitability of two salt domes located in North'
Louisiana for nuclear waste burial. These projects have
become a very sensitive issue in Louisiana. We are
vehemently opposed to any activities, even in the experi-
mental stage, which might advance the possibility of
Louisiana salt domes being selected as storage sites.
The Louisiana State Legislature enacted a law to prohibit
the disposal of radioactive materials in Louisiana. I
would be very interested in knowing whether your statement
regarding reversal preemption is applicable to the State
of Louisiana as it is to New Mexico. I would like to point
out that to date, New Mexico has not even passed a law to
this effect.
A response from you to clarify Louisiana's situation would
be appreciated.
With kindest personal regards, * .
Sincerely yours,
~eri~..'Huck
JR/ce
13
Js,-~ PiUC)(ASY
INTCRIO~ AND INSULAR ArrA~RS
ISLCIU. IHVtSTIGAT$DNS
February 22, 1978
53-932 0 - 80 - 2
PAGENO="0018"
14
(~.
Department of Energy
Washington, D.C. 20545 ~ 1 6 1978
The Honorable Jerr~j Huckaby
United States House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. .20515
H~ckaby
Thank you for your letter of February 22, 1978, to Secretary Schlesinger
regarding the location of a nuclear waste management facility in New
Mexico. It is Secretary Schlesinger's view that the State of New Mexico
should have a right of concurrence on the construction of any facility
proposed for the long-term permanent disposal of nuclear wastes in that
state.
We have also reached an agreement with Governor Edwards on nuclear storage,
and I am enclosing a document outlining the principles of understanding
between DOE and the State of Louisiana. I call your attention to paragraph
8 of this document.
I hope this response is satisfactory, and if I can be of any further
assistance, please let me know.
With kindest personal regards,
Sincerely,
BY ~ g* DETJT~.
John N. Deutch, Director
Office of Energy Research
Enclosure:
Principles of Understanding .
PAGENO="0019"
15
Principles of Understanding
in accordance with discussions between representatives of
the Department of Energy ("DOE") and the State of
Louisiana, the parties hereby agree thai to the extent
permitted by law, they will use their best efforts to
adhere to the fo~llowing policies and practices with respect
to develournent of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in the
State of Louisiana:
1. Napoleonville Salt Dome--DOE use of this salt
dome and others in Louisiana for strategic petroleum
storage will be acceptable to the State, so long as no
employees :og industries utilizing the domes. are displaced
in their jobs by the Department of Energy in its storage
operations.
2. Atchafalaya Pipeline--The State will support the
nronosed niueline extending frcrn St. James Terminal to
Weeks Island, provided that activities in laying the line
through the Atchafalaya Basin~ will not be undertaken until
after July 1, 1978, and that applicable environmental and
governmental regulations are adhered to.
3. EeckuuOnerations--~3E will give all due
cor~sideration to barging operations as an available backup
method to pipeline transporta ~.icn of strategic reserves in
t~ergencies. In particular, barging facilities at the Port
PAGENO="0020"
16
of New Iberia, and the accompanying dredging and deepening
of the channel there will be studied. DOE will make
available immediately $300,000 to the U.S. Corp.s of
Engineers to be spent in 1978 for the preparation of an
environmental impact statement for the ~Jew Iberia project..
4. Cornuensation--DOE will pay the State $1,239,082
for the State's interest in the West Eackberry Salt Donie,
located on 35 adres of State-owned land under Black Lake in
~eron Parish.
5. Docking Facilities: St. James Terminal--The
State will support the permitting, construction and main-
tenance of the St. James Terminal as a docking facility.
6. Well Pad Construction: Bayou Choctaw and
Haclcberrv--The State will support the permitting of well
pad facilities at these two salt domes.
7. Sabine River/Hackberry Pipeline--The State will
support the granting of permits and rights of way for the
fld1~ f~:T~ :h~ ~ Riv~ Crc:sinj
to the Hackberry Salt Dome.
8. Nuclear Storag~--Al1 Federal Government studies
relating to uculear waste disposal in the Vacherie Salt
Dome in Webster Parish an~ the Ra~urn's Salt Dor~.e in
Bienville Parish will be subject to this stipulation: The
Department of Energy will not construct any nuclear waste
PAGENO="0021"
17
repository for long-term disposal in Louisiana if the State
objects. Studies of possible areas in Louisiana as well as
in other states would continue with some test drilling
which will always be precededby complete discussions with
state officials.
9. Sub-Office'--The Department of Energy will open a
sith-office in New Orleans, accoimnodating some 200 federal
and contractor employees.
10. Reversionary P.ights--With respect to any
d~nations by the State of property to the Federal
GOvernment, DOE agrees that when the use to which the
property was donated ceases, the State will have the right
o~ first ~efusal with respect to acquisition of the
~artment of Energy State of Louisiana
Date2~ Date 1~~-»= ~-`
PAGENO="0022"
18
Mr. DIRCKS. Well, I point out this is the Commission's view, and we
did not check it out with the Secretary of Energy.
Mr. HIJOKABY. No further questions.
The CHAIRMAN. Anything further?
Mr. WEAVER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to take the balance of my
time.
Mr. Chairman, the staff has drawn up questions, they are excellent
questions, and I ask unanimous consent they be submitted to the NRC.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection.
[The questions referred to, with responses from NRC, may be found
in the appendix. See table of contents for page number.]
Mr. WEAVER. I want to ask Mr. Martin a question.
Mr. Martin, these one or two or three repositories you are talking
about, I would like to ask you, suppose you could live forever, we will
not say that, but suppose you were on the face of the Earth at any
given time, how many years before you walk into one of those?
Mr. MARTIN. The hazard of this material basically breaks into two
time frames.
Mr. WEAVER. I want to know how many years before you walk into
one.
Mr. MARTIN. In the order of 500 or 600 years.
Mr. WEAVER. You would walk into one in 600 years?
Mr. MARTIN. Yes.
Mr. WEAVER. I have heard it up to 225,000.
Mr. MARTIN. No; after about 600 years or so, the fission products
that cause the high radiation levels will have died off, and you can
physically walk into one.
Now, there is still a lot of long life material as plutonium, and other
things, not. unlike the radium in mill tailings, you would not want it
blowing around or getting into the water, or people using it to build
things with, and you would not want to have it around to breathe it in
the air, but you could physically walk into it.
Mr. WEAVER. Mr. Martin, one final question. You say you are in
charge of the Office of Waste Management of the NRC?
Mr. MARTIN. Right.
Mr. WEAVER. Would you build a home, your own home, without a
waste disposal system?
Mr. MARTIN. No; I would not.
Mr. WEAVER. Thank you.
Yet the nuclear house has done that, has it not?
Mr. MARTIN. Yes.
Mr. WEAVER. Thank you.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, gentlemen.
Mr. DIROKS. Thank you.
The CHAIRMAN. We have scheduled on the witness list, first of all
delayed, Mr. Seiberling.
Mr. Seiberling, we would `be `happy to hear from you, either at the
witness table or from up here.
I would hope that Mr. Dircks would stay, because he may want
to respond to some of the points you would make.
[Prepared statement of Hon. John F. Seiberling may be found in
the appendix.]
PAGENO="0023"
19
STATEMENT OP HON. JOHN P. SEIBERLING, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE
PROM THE STATE OP OHIO
Mr. SEIBERI1ING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have a prepared statement, which I would ask the staff to pass
out, and I ask unanimous consent that it be placed in the record in its.
entirety. I will attempt to just hit on some of the main points that I
want to emphasize to move this along.
I would also like to ask unanimous consent to put in the record the
section-by-section analysis of the bill that I have introduced, H.R.
2762, which is in the Congressional Record, prior to my testimony, m
order that anyone reading it may have a quick way of analyzing my
testimony.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, we will proceed in that fashion.
[The bill H.R. 2762 and section-by-section analysis of H.R. 2762
may be found in the appendix. See table of contents for page nuni-
ber.]
Mr. SEIBERLING. Mr. Chairman, I commend you for holding this
series of oversight hearings on issues related to nuclear power.
Since you are hearing testimony today on nuclear waste manage-
ment and issues of equity and public participation, I am taking this
opportunity to testify on legislation I have introduced to establish a
procedure for States to participate in decisions on radioactive waste
disposal.
This bill, H.R. 2762, is cosponsored by 3~T of our colleagues, includ-
ing several members of this committee. senator George McGovern has
introduced identical legislation with broad bipartisan support.
At this time I would invite your attention to the form of the legisla-
tion itself, which I would quickly like to outline.
First, it would require the Chairman of the NRC to notify the Gov-
ernor, presiding officers of State legislatures, and the tribal council
of any affected Indian tribe, of any intent to explore a site which is
being considered as a radioactive waste storage disposal site within the
State or Indian tribe area.
Second, it would authorize the Governor to request the creation of a
Federal-State Radioactive 1~faterials Management Commission to
examine all of the issues related to the proposal, and would set forth
guidelines to the composition of the commission.
Third, it would require the Commission to examine all issues related
to achieving substantial concurrence with a State on all aspects of a
proposed site, including socioeconomical, technical, environmental, and
health safety issues. H.R. 2762 would further provide that if the Com-
mission cannot achieve substantial concurrence, the Governor, in con-
sultation with other Commission members, will file a report stating the
areas of disagreement, and identifying alternatives acceptable to the
State. Finally, the legislation would authorize the State legislature to
Concur or disagree with the Commission's decision, and would prohibit
the Department of Energy from proceeding with the development of a
radioactive waste facility within the State until the objections of the
State are satisfied.
* Mr. Chairman, one way to enlist the cooperation of the States may be
simply to offer the Governors of the States, and perhaps the presiding
PAGENO="0024"
20
officers of the legislatures, to name the site the "Governor So-and-So"
or the "Speaker So-and-So" memorial waste storage faci]ity-perhaps
an attractive offer to some since such a facility would probably be a
longer lasting memorial than anything else we could create.
`Whether the rest of the voters would go for that remains to be seen.
But in the absence of such practical solutions we need this bill to affirm
State's right to participate in and influence decisions which affect the
long-term safety and health of their citizens.
I became even more actively interested in this subject when the DOE
some years ago announced that they were considering locating such
a radioactive waste disposa.l facility in salt mines 3,000 feet below the
city of Barberton, Ohio, which is not in my district, but right next
door to the city of Akron, and part of a 600,000 population urban area.
You can imagine the kind of reaction that that met with, and suffice
to say, the DOE has indicated that they are not considering that loca-
tion any longer.
This bill essentially affirms States' right to participate in and influ-
ence decisions which affect the long-term safety and health of their
citizens.
H.R. 2Th2 would amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to require
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to notify a State of any proposals
to explore sites within such a State for the purposes of evaluating or
developing a facility for storage or disposal of radioactive materials
for interim storage, or longer.
Once the State has been notified of a proposed action relating to
radioactive waste disposal, the Governor of the State may request the
creation of a Federal and State Radioactive Materials ~Management
Commission to study all the issues associated with waste disposal at
the specific site or sites identified by DOE.
At the conclusion of the study, the Governor (in consultation with
the other Commission members) and the State legislature, would be
able to issue concurrence and nonconcurrence with the proposed action,~
along with recommendations, alternatives or conditions for further
action by DOE.
The bill would establish for the first time a formal cooperative rela-
tionship between the States and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
and the Department of Energy to evaluate and develop sites for the
disposal of radioactive waste.
Since the inception of the commercial atomic industry in the 1950's,
the Federal Government has had sole authority for regulating the in-
dustry in all matters, including waste disposal.
The basis for the sole Federal authority stems from the first use of
atomic science in weapons systems, consequently establishing the im-
portance of atomic technology to national security.
Since the Federal Government had at that time expertise over the
private sector in the technology and use of nuclear materials, the Fed-
eral preemption in issues of atomic power made sense; but continued
Federal preemption in decisions concerning radioactive waste disposal
is an unrealistic and outdated application of the policy.
The problems of nuclear waste disposal are enormous.
Currently, we have about 74 million gallons of radioactive waste in
this country, and all in temporary storage at plant-sited "pools."
PAGENO="0025"
21
The fission products which comprise this waste include so-called
transuranic elements-radioactive atoms heavier than uranium which
remain radioactive for extremely lōng periods of time-plutonium-
239, for example, has a half-life of almost 25,000 years.
In human terms, the continued radioactive hazard is infinite.
The immediate need for interim storage of this radioactive material
is evident from the increasing frequency of leaks from existing stor-
age sites.
The most prominent example of this is the storage facility for DOE
radioactive wastes at Hanford, Wash., where over 423,500 gallons 0±
high-level wastes have leaked from 16 tanks.
This experience points to the serious health, safety, and environmen-
tal problems associated with radioactive waste-problems which fall
under the concern and authority of the States.
The past failures of storage technology may not be repeated in
DOE's next attempt at developing nuclear waste storage technology.
But there is no guarantee that the: next attempt, probably at interim
storage for a period of 30 to 100 years, will be any more successful.
Just this week the press reported that a report by the National Acad-
emy of Sciences, commissioned by the NRC, on radioactive waste was
suppressed because it criticized a technology for interim storage which
is currently favored by DOE.
The technology, which would solidify high-level wastes into a glass-
like substance, has been the Department's leading proposal for high-
level waste disposal.
The supression of this report, which evidently called DOE's com-
mitment to glass storage "premature," indicates that careful scrutiny
by the States of proposals~ to store wastes at sites identified as geo-
logically ideal for this type of storage is not only logical but desirable.
The incident points to the need for open discussion of potential haz-
ards and the actual risks of nuclear waste disposal before faulty de-
cisions are made and irreversible, tragic results are suffered.
The States have the right and responsibility to voice their concerns
about the problems associated with potential sites and with proposed
technologies for radioactive waste disposal, yet presently the States
cannot exercise that responsibility.
Currently, DOE gives some consideration to States which object to
possible siting of radioactive waste facilities within their boundaries-
DOE has, for example, as I pointed out, temporarily discontinued field
research in Ohio because of the Governor's strenuous opposition to
radioactive waste siting in the State.
In the final analysis, however, there is absolutely no assurance that
the views and objections of the States will be considered when it comes
down to the crunch.
It is apparent that the tremendous task of securing existing radio-
active waste demands a strong state role for the States in which a dis-
posal facility may be sited, but the present policy-which operated
in the case of Ohio-is nothing more than an internal DOE policy,
subject to change with no notice or review.
I note on page three of his statement Mr. Dircks said NRC fully
expects that DOE will involve State and local governments to take
part in its site selection program.
PAGENO="0026"
22
An expectation and an involvement without any definition of what
that involvement is going to be, or any guarantee that it is going to
be a meaningful involvement is not, I am sure, sufficient to satisfy the
population that will be affected.
In addition, the General Accounting Office, in response to a question
by Congressman John Dingell, Chairman of the House Interstate
and Foreign Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power, advised
that any departmental policy which allows a State to reject a possible
waste disposal site could constitute a "veto"-and that DOE has no
authority under existing law to acknowledge a State veto.
Even if a State had a reasonable objection, nothing in present law
prevents DOE from proceeding, except the Department's fear of
earning a terrible public image by foisting radioactive waste on an un-
willing State.
I do not mean to indicate that they would act irresponsibly, but
there is no inhibition other than public opinion in the political process.
This singular authority is unrealistic in view of the immediate need
to develop a workable program to deal with the national problem
of radioactive waste.
The dimensions of the nuclear waste disposal problem demand a
strong State role, and the States are strongly demanding to be heard.
Fifteen States have already passed laws which would prohibit out-
right or set conditions on nuclear waste storage within their jurisdic-
tions, and 10 other States are considering initiatives to put similar
authority on the books.
Under current Federal law, these State laws have no meaning in
final dethsions on radioactive waste disposal.
Yet, in many cases, States are not asking for a veto authority:
They are asking for their rightful role in siting decisions.
H.R. 2762 would establish a process for continuous consultation and
participation between State and Federal agencies on all issues related
to nuclear waste management.
The actual extent of State participation in these decisions will be
up to the individual States.
My bill provides room for a legislative role, where the State law
creates a legislative concurrence process, and generally provides maxi-
mum flexibility for States which have already enacted laws relating
to nuclear disposal to use their own process.
The consultation and concurrence process provided by H.R. 2162
may be time consuming, but decisions on disposing radioactive waste
which remain toxic for thousands of years should not be made in a
hurried manner.
And I would stress that the concurrence process is not necessarily
a veto process.
A veto process would aUow a State to arbitrarily shut out Federal
activity at any point.
The process proposed by my legislation develops a forum for Fed-
eral and State officials to discuss'the issues, and establishes a Federal/
State communications process to negotiate on matters which can be
subject to mediation.
For example, a State may logically fear that accepting radioactive
waste will adversely affect economic growth; the State may not have
the resources to provide sufficient security for the site; or the State
PAGENO="0027"
23
may anticipate transportation problems and require Federal assistance
to widen its roads or develop a route around a highly populated
community.
I envision the process in H.R. 2762 as helping the Federal Govern-
ment to identify resolvable problems such as these which can be met
with increased Federal authority.
Such requirements do not constitute blackmail by the States.
We should not fool ourselves into believing that States which accept
nuclear waste will not need some economic incentives to make it easier
to accept the tremendous responsibility of storing radioactive waste.
This burden must be recognized as part of the cost of nuclear power.
I wish to say that Mr. Dircks made some. good points about having
some authority to resolve differences, and I also note he too suggested
there be a planning council established composed of Federal and
State officials.
My planning council would be created in the form of an individual
task force for each proposed, rather than the single permanent execu-
tive council to study all sites. However, I feel that the proposed
mediation process would end up with some form of a means for re-
solving differences that can only be done in the end through the
Congress.
If we want to have an expediting process, if there is an ultimately
unresolvable dispute, it can come to the Congress, go to the appro-
priate committee, and then it can be reported out within a specified
period of time, and Congress can act on it, and then the President
can sign and enact it into the law. That is the proper way to do it, and
I want to recall to my colleagues what happened several years ago
when the NRC or the AEC at that time wanted to place radioactive
waste in salt mines i~t the State of Kansas. If Mr. Skubitz, our
colleague, had not rallied his fellow members to overrule that decision,
a very serious mistake would have, been made as it later turned out
to be in the case.
I would like to mention one other point.
One view on nuclear waste management would require States which
use nuclear power to be responsible for nuclear waste.
The gentleman from New Mexico raised this point, but in some
small, populous States, such as Massachusetts, this probably would
not be sound or rational policy.
Moreover, since States in the past have been excluded from mean-
ingful roles in decisions on plant siting as well as regulating safety
features of these plants because of the Federal preemption, it would
be unfair and unwise to reverse this policy and automatically hold
these same States accountable for radioactive waste disposal problems
from plants already built or licensed to be built in the State.
Finally, I anticipate that there will be some who will question why
this legislation creates an individual task force for each proposed
action, rather than a single permanent executive council to study all
sites.
The reason is this: States cannot delegate to a Federal agency their
responsibility to protect the health and safety of their citizens.
This legislation provides a workable framework to give each State,
according to its needs and priorities, the maximum opportunity to
PAGENO="0028"
24
participate fully and effectively in decisions on radioactive waste
disposal.
Since one of the issues your subcommittee is studying today is pub-
lic participation, I would point out that this legislation enhances
public participation by giving the people directly affected the right,
through their State. legislators and their Governors, to make final rec-
ommendations on an issue which affects their lives and those of future
generations.
I urge you to incorporate an effective role for the States in site~
selection decisions, as provided by H.R. 276~, and to require that the
full range of site-specific problems are made for interim and long-
term storage of radioactive materials.
Since DOE views the development of an interim storage facility
as an urgent matter, I cannot emphasize the urgency of enacting a
process for State participation in these decisions.
Thank you, and if there are any questions, I would be glad to try
to answer them.
The CHAIRMAN. I thank our colleague for taking the time, and
making the effort to give us his views.
He has been very active in this area. I think you build a constructive
case.
I am glad you are proceeding with it and give us the framework
when we finally get to mark up on these aspects on the overall problem.
We have got to deal with the States, but we have got to do the kind
of thinking you have done to arrange for concurrence in a sensible
way and involve the States. I think you have given us some good
ideas.
Does anyone have a burning desire to cross-examine Mr. Seiberling?
Mr. CLAtISEN. Seriously, John, I think you have provide~d us with
not only a measure of leadership, but I am glad you have taken the
initiative to start to bring together something which we can all focus
upon.
I think it will be a very constructive exercise.
At some point it might be helpful if you could identify the States
that you have included in your statement which have actually passed
these laws.
Mr. SEIBERLING. That is a good point, and without objection, I will
submit such a list for inclusion following my remarks.
Mr. CLAUSEN. I think it might be smart to start from that, from the
ones that have passed restrictive laws.
[The following information was subsequently furnished for the
hearing record.]
States that have passed restrictive laws: Alaska, California, Colorado, Dela-
ware, Hawaii, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana,
North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, and Vermont.
The CHAIRMAN. Anyone else?
If not, thank you.
Mr. SEIBERLING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Our next witness is from the Department of En-
ergy, Mr. Worth Baternan, the Deputy Under Secretary.
The staff has distributed your statement, Mr. Bateman, and we will
be glad to hear from you.
PAGENO="0029"
25
[Prepared statement of Hon. Worth Bateman may be found in the
appendix.]
STATEMENT OP HON. WORTH BATEMAN, DEPUTY UNDER
SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OP ENERGY
Mr. BATEMAN. Let me just take a few minutes to summarize what is
in the statement, if I may, and we can just enter the full statement in
the record, with your permission.
The CHAIRMAN. Fine.
Mr. BATEMAN. It is a pleasure to be here this morning to talk about
some of the problems associated with siting and operating nuclear
waste repositories.
I think this hearing will help focus attention on a problem that we
have been considering for over a year now in the interagency review
group of nuclear waste management; namely, that the resolution of
institutional issues may well be more difficult than in finding solutions
to the technical problems.
I would like to submit for the record a listing of some of the studies
which we have done, which address this issue, with your permission.
The CHAIRMAN. We would be glad to have them for our record.
[The Department subsequently submitted the following informa-
tion.]
NUCLEAR WASTE REPOSITORY STUDIES AND OTHER INFORMATION RELATED TO
THE SITING OF NUCLEAR WASTE REPOSITORIES
The following is a partial listing of recent studies of the social Science aspects
of waste management:
Impact/Siting Problems:
Cluett, Christopher; Mertaugh, Michael T.; Micklin, Michael. A Demographic
Model for Assessing the Socioeconomic Impacts of Large-Scale Industrial De-
velopment Projects. October 1977.
Herbert, J. A. et al. PNL-2400. Nontechnical Issues in Waste Management:
Ethical, Institutional, and Political Concerns, May 1978.
Brenner, Robert D. The Social, Econąmic and Political Impacts of National
Waste Terminal Storage Repositories, January 1979.
Hunter, Ted. Nuclear Waste Repository Land Use Control Considerations in
Selected States, September 1978.
Lindell, M. K. et al. Radioactive Wastes: Public Attitudes Toward Disposal
Facilities, October 1978.
Maynard, W. S. et al. Public Values Associated with Nuclear Waste Disposal,
June 1976.
Siting Incentives:
Cole, Roland J. et al. Compensation for the Adverse Effects of Nuclear Waste
Facilities, July 1978.
Garvey, Gerald. NWTS Policy and Public Choice, January 1979.
Greene, Marjorie R. and Hunter, Ted. The Management of Social and Economic
Impacts Anticipated with a Nuclear Waste Repository: A Preliminary Discus-
sion, May 1978.
Decision Issues: Public, Local and State Participation:
Smith, Randall F. State and Local Regulation Relevant to Nuclear Waste Iso-
lation Facilities, September 1978.
Bishop, A. Brace et al. Public Consultation in Public Policy Information: A
State-Of-The-Art Report, 1977.
PAGENO="0030"
26
MANPOWER REQUIREMENTS FOR CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF SINGLE COMMERCIAL NUCLEAR WASTE
REPOSITORY BY DISPOSAL MEDIUM, FUEL CYCLE, AND IMPACT CONDITION
[Mean man-years per yearj
Construction Operation -
Expected Maximum Expected Maximum
impacts impact2 impact3 impact4
Salt:
Once-through 1, 400 1, 800 870 1,200
Uranium recycle 1, 200 1, 600 1, 000 1, 300
Uranium and plutonium recycle 1, 300 1, 600 1, 300 1, 600
Granite:
Once-through 2, 200 2, 900 1, 100 2, 100
Uranium recycle 1, 700 2, 200 1, 300 1, 800
Uranium and plutonium recycle 2, 100 2, 200 1, 300 1, 700
Shale:
Once-through 1,900 2, 300 880 1, 200
Uranium recycle - 1, 600 1, 900 1, 100 3, 300
Uranium and plutonium recycle 1, 600 1, 900 1, 200 1, 400
Basalt:
Once-through 2, 400 3, 100 1, 100 2, 300
Uranium recycle 1, 800 2, 400 1, 300 2, 000
Uranium and plutonium recycle 1, 800 2, 400 1, 500 2, 100
I Mean man-years per year for 3 yr centered on year of peak manpower requirement.
2 Mean man-years per year for year of peak manpower equirement.
3 Mean man-years per year for operations from 1985 to end of project, excluding last 5 yr of operations manpower data
from calculation.
4 Mean man-years per year experienced from 1986 to 1990.
Source: Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Management of Commercially Generated Radioactive Waste, April
1979, DOE/EIS-0046-D, vol. 1 of 2, p. 3.1.127.
COMPARISONS OF COMMERCIAL NUCLEAR WASTE REPOSITORY CONSTRUCTION COSTS' BY GEOLOGIC MEDIA
AND FUEL CYCLE
[In millions of 1978 dollarsj
Fuel cycle
Salt
Granite
Shale
Basalt
Once-through
Uranium only recycle:
Plutonium in HLW
Plutonium stored
Uranium and Plutonium recycle
1, 000
1, 100
1, 200
1, 200
2, 600
2, 000
2, 000
2, 000
1, 300
1, 200
1, 300
1, 300
3, 100
2, 300
2, 300
2, 300
`Includes mining, backfilling, and shaft sealing costs. Uncertainties in cost estimates ore approximately ±20 percent.
Source: Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Management of Commercially Generated Radioactive Waste, April
1979 DOEIEIS-0046-D, vol. 1 of 2 p. 3.1.133.
COMPARISONS OF COMMERCIAL NUCLEAR WASTE REPOSITORY OPERATING COSTS' BY GEOLOGIC MEDIA
AND FUEL CYCLE
[In millions of
1978 dollarsj
Fuel cycle
Salt
Granite
Shale
Basalt
Once.through
Uranium only recycle:
Plutonium in IILW
Plutonium stored
Uranium and Plutonium recycle
590
830
1, 280
1,210
2, 360
1, 880
1, 880
1,940
810
800
800
830
2, 390
1, 630
1, 630
1,740
`Total operating expenditures over the life of the repository. Uncertainties in cost estimates are approximately ±25
percent.
Source: Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Management of Commercially Generated Radioactive Waste, April 1979,
DOE/EIS-0046-D, vol. 1 of 2 p. 3.1.134.
Mr. BATEMAN. At present, the economic and social benefits of local-
ities in which repositories may be sited are the same as those typically
associated with any relatively large scale Government project. Basic-
PAGENO="0031"
27,
ally, projects of this sort create benefits in the form of employment and
income but result in demands for additional local services associated
with the expanded work force and construction expenditures.
We believe local governments can be expected to gain by increased
tax revenues on property, and local and State income taxes where they
are in effect.
The actual physical and economic impacts that might be associated
with any particular repository of course are unique to the site.
We have attempted in our generic environmental impact statement
on commercial waste management to describe the range of the positive
impacts and they are contained in my testimony. I will not go into
detail, but the table at the back of the testimony provides an illustra-
tion of the range of possible impacts that one might expect.
Of course, these are speculative and should be interpreted in that
light.
The location of a facility like a nuclear waste repository could also
be expected to have adverse economic impacts, as well as positive ones.
Those adverse impacts fall into a few categories.
First of all, an expanded work force would normally be accompanied
by increased demands for local public services, like schools, roads, fire
stations, and so forth.
To deal with these impacts, the current law does not allow State or
local governments to tax federally owned land. We have existing
legislation which permits DOE to make payments in lieu of taxes in
those situations where the local community suffers a loss in taxes, as a
result of projects.
Second, existing legislation allows the Department of Health, Edu-
cation, and Welfare to provide specific assistance to local educational
agencies in which a substantial burden has been created as a result of
the project.
The Department currently has authority to make payments to State
and local governments in lieu of property taxes when property is
acquired by DOE.
In addition, the Department is authorized to make additional pay-
ments when so-called special burdens have been placed on the State or
locality by DOE activities.
However, before arriving at an estimate of what those burdens are,
and how they should be compensated, any benefits accruing to the State
or local government as a result of those activities must be taken into
account.
You have raised the question of what incentives beyond those which
I have just described encourage States or localities to accept the loca-
tion of nuclear waste repositories in their areas.
In our view, based on the review of existing legislation, we now have
the only significant incentives that such communities could presently
derive are the ones which I have just reviewed for you.
You have also asked if there are any systems of environmental trade-
offs which might balance the risks, and environmental costs of con-
struction at a site of the nuclear waste repository. The tradeoffs that
you suggest are similar to the ones in the Clean Air Act; namely, in
those cases where unavoidable environmental effects are compensated
by mitigating them or eliminating them in other areas.
PAGENO="0032"
28
To our knowledge, the application of such a system of tradeoffs has
not been considered in the waste management program to date. This is
an idea which we would like to look into further. Perhaps the proposed
State planning council is a mechanism in which to generate ideas in
this area. Assuming that it is successful, it would be explored further
by the Department and the Congress.
Finally, let me say a word about Mr. Seiberling's bill. We have
looked at this bill, and although there are many ways to proceed with
it, to try to achieve the objectives described in that bill, the steps laid
out there would seem to be reasonable, and consistent with our own
view of the need to consult with States and local communities. The
Department believes that it needs the concurrence of these communities
to proceed with the location, siting, operation, of the nuclear waste
repository.
The last section of the bill, section (g), however, would prohibit
DOE from proceeding with any proposal regarding site selection or
site development for radioactive waste management in the State, un-
less objections raised by the State in the course of the State evaluating
that repository and its location were satisfied by DOE.
If that section is intended to provide a binding legal or statutory
veto over Departmental activities in the repository area by the State,
then we would take exception to that.
As you know, the Department's position has been as a matter of
policy to extend the right of concurrence in any State in which we
propose the location of a waste repository. However, we have not sup-
ported a legislative or statutory veto to be extended to the States at
this time.
I think I will stop there, Mr. Chairman, and I would be happy to
answer any questions you might have.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you for a good summary.
`What is the status of the WIPP project in New Mexico these days;
where do we stand?
Mr. BATEMAN. I have not received a report as of this morning, but
it seems to change daily.
I think that we are approaching a final decision on the future of that
project.
The Department has in the past proposed missions for that proj-
ect which are inconsistent with congressional wishes.
We are proceeding on the basis of congressional mandate; however,
the Congress at the current time in the fiscal year 1980 budget has
basically taken two different positions.
The Senate has said we would like to proceed with the project as
originally defined by the Congress, that is high level R. & P. experi-
ments as a mission, plus permanent disposal of TRU waste from the
weapons program.
The House on the other h9nd has not authorized the project in
fiscal year 1980. Those are the final choices that are offered to the
administration. Of course the Congress directs us to carry out this
project, unless the President decides to veto it, we will carry out the
project itself as Congress directs. But our own position is that first we
should have an additional element, that is the demonstration of the
disposal of up to a thousand commercial spent fuel assemblies and,
second, the project be licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commis-
PAGENO="0033"
29
sion. We continue to believe that both those actions are necessary and
desirable, and there has been no change in that position. But we have
not been able to persuade the Congress of the merit of these positions.
The CHAIRMAN. Has DOE ever requested funds, or authorization
for WIPP as a civilian project?
Mr. BATEMAN. We have not requested that, no, sir.
We have tried to explore possibilities with the congressional com-
mittees having jurisdiction over commercial in terms of taking over
waste jurisdiction of the project.
So far those discussions have not been fruitful.
The CHAIRMAN. Would the Department be willing to submit a re-
quest for funding on the civilian side of this?
Mr. BATEMAN. This is an issue which we have discussed in a recent
memorandum to the President covering a variety of waste issues iden-
tified in the IRG report.
We have not to my knowledge received a Presidential decision on
that.
The CHAIRMAN. Anyone else have questions?
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, in looking over your statement, Mr.
Bateman, there are a number of concerns raised on page 9. You state
you believe the States should have a voice in siting of nuėlear waste
repositories, and I believe the States ought to have a right to veto a
site in some manner.
Maybe early on they ought to have the right to do that. It seems
in these statements that States through various methods could really
make it uneconomical. I mean, if you really give them a strong and
meaningful voice, they could really make some of these decisions im-
possible by virtue of other action after a long period of time.
Mr. BATEMAN. That is exactly right.
Mr. VENTO. I fear, if we are going to end up with some long drawn
out study process by which we permit the States in a period of 7 or 8
years to build a case, rather than giving them the veto up front, and
say we do not want this thing, we do not want to go through the mach-
inations in terms of avoiding it, I think that is a problem.
I thmk we are better off facing up to it in trying to deal with that,
and giving the States that responsibility so we do not have to go
thrOugh some protracted process, and that is the problem, we cannot
get decisions made along these lines.
Mr. BATEMAN. Mr. Vento, I fully appreciate your view on this.
We believe that it is in the national interest in terms of our energy
programs in having a viable supply of electric energy from nuclear
sources to proceed with a waste management program that has the
objective of permanently isolating these wastes from the biosphere.
If we did not believe that at the outset, a number of State laws,
which in effect have said the future commercial development of nu-
clear power is going to be restricted unless a permanent waste disposal
solution is found, further encourages us in that direction.
The question is how do you go about trying to achieve that objective.
Mr. VENTO. I think we have to have a veto on both sides, both by the
DOE and NRC, and on the State side, because I think a lot of States
might accept waste, and they have got 600 years of problems, we do not
want that, but let me ask a question here, are there any security prob-
53-9320-80-3
PAGENO="0034"
30
lems with regard to these wastes as well, and can you resolve all of the
environmental ones?
Mr. BATEMAN. I do not think that is a problem from the point of
view of facilities in safeguards.
Can I come back a minute to the earlier question? I think it is im-
portant to understand in trying to devise a process by which States
and localities can be involved in repository siting decisions, that we
all recognize there are at least three important phases in that process.
The first phase is one in which a number of potentially suitable sites
get investigated, we improve our technical knowledge to the point we
are in a position to select a site, and then we go ahead and select a site.
This is the phase we are in now. We are not up to site selection, we
are trying to figure out what potential sites are available, and then
make a choice from among them. The next step is with construction,
and then the final phase is a period where a repository is placed in
operation.
If that date of repository operation were very close at hand, then I
think what you are proposing is in effect not very different from what
we are proposing.
Our concern is that we will not get to the point where we have some
options to be concurred in.
A lot has to take place between now and the time we get to that
point.
The IRG says we may be 10 or 15 years away from getting to that
point.
The trouble with getting a veto now in our view is that the likely
effect of having a veto option available to the States today is that
States will immediately exercise that veto. We will in effect halt cur-
rent activities which eventually would lead to the point where you
might have an option, or set of options from which to select a re-
pository. So it seems to us that you have to devise a process which
allows enough time to get you to the point where you know what you
have, and what you do not have, and we do not think a veto now is
consistent with that, a process which involves the State early on, at
each of the major decision points until you get to the point where
you can say we might want to locate a facility here, is one we have
to have.
An early veto will never let us get to that point. A veto later on,
that may be fine, but we do not have the information at this point, on
what options are available, what their characteristics are, and whether
those characteristics would be suitable and acceptable to the public to
make a good decision.
Until we get to that point, it seems to me a veto, or nonconcurrence
right legislated by the Congress would just not be appropriate.
Mr. VENT0. Is that not what Congressman Seiberling's goal
provides?
It is not in concrete, but it does mandate all of their participation,
but at the end, if the State does not want it, it does not have to accept
it.
What you are saying is the. same thing. I mean, you are saying by
putting that up there as an end result, they know they can veto it right
now, and it would be inappropriate to do so initially, but in the end,
PAGENO="0035"
31,
if it was at the beginning of the pi~ocess, there could be a significant
savings of time and money.
You know, I think what you are going to have is the same type of
reaction, one Member will have a site put in his State and generate a
heck of a lot of enthusiasm for dealing with DOE, and I think it is just
a problem.
I think it would be better off to start at the State level, they know
where they are coming from, and you know what your problems are,
and that might be helpful.
We have not solved the problems, as of right now. It may be a lack
of knowledge, it may be a lack of urgency with regard to resolving it,
but nevertheless, it remains unresolved.
Mr. SEIBEnLING. I have a further question, and then maybe we can
let the witness go until Mr. TJdall gets back.
Mr. Bateman, in your statement, you include a letter from Secre-
tary Schlesinger of February 2, 1979, to Chairman John Dingell, which
it is stated, and I will submit this letter for the record.
[The letter follows:]
PAGENO="0036"
32
GD
Department of Energy
Washington, D.C. 20585
Feb~uaiy 2, 1979
Dear Mr. Chairman:
This is in response to your letter of November 15, 1978, and
the attached opinion of the General Accounting Office (GAO)
concerning Department of Energy (DOE) authority to give
States a right of nonconcurrence over the establishment of
nuclear waste repositories. I am advised that the legal
conclusions in the GAO opinion are consistent with those in
*the memorandum prepared in our Office of General Counsel on
March 13, 1978, and referred to in the GAO opinion. In
addition, we note that the GAO opinion indicates that we
have not e~ceeded our authority in our discussions with the
States.
We continue to believe that the successful exercise of our
authority to select sites for nuclear waste disposal requires
cooperation with the States and providing them with some
assurances that we will proceed in a cooperative manner,
rather than by force of Federal supremacy. In order to
avoid Federal-State confrontations over the future siting
of repositories, situations which we believe to be inimical
to the public interest, we have been actively trying to
construct a mechanism by which affected States can partici-
pate fully in the selection of suitable sites. We have
found, however, that unle~s some provision is made for State
concurrence, St&te governments will not feel assured that
their participation in DOE site exploration and selection
activities is meaningful. We have, therefore, put forward a
policy that the Department would not make a final decision
to proceed with construction of a waste repository within
any State if the elected leadership of that State actively
opposed such a decision. We believe this approach is con-
sistent with the policy of this Administration to work
cooperatively with political subdivisions at the State and
local level, and it is our considered judgment that this is
the wisest course of action on radioactive waste disposal.
* Both our General Counsel and the GAO have concluded that the
manner in which we are proceeding is consistent with law.
PAGENO="0037"
3~3
The recent draft report to the~ President by the Interagency
Review Group (IRG) on Nuclear Waste Management recommended
the formation of an Executive Planning Council as a mechanism
to define more precisely a consultation and concurrence pro-
cess between the Department and the States. We are hopeful
that the President will concur~ in the IRG's recommendation to
establish ~e Executive Planning Council and that the Council
will develop meaningful processes to avoid confrontation
between any State and the Department over the issue of
radioactive waste disposal.
Sincerely,
/~1~;%~~b Lk4~&~~~
~JJames R. Schlesinger
Secire tary
The Honorable John D. Dingell
Chairman
Subcommittee on Energy and Power
Committee on Interstate and
Foreign Commerce
United States House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
PAGENO="0038"
34
Mr. SEIBERLING. Is that not a veto?
Mr. BATEMAN. I think that amounts to a veto, that is right.
Mr. SEIBERLING. Are you saying that is agreeable as a policy, or that
you can change the policy, and therefore you have the final say?
Mr. BATEMAN. Yes, sir, if you ask the Department today, if we
proceeded through the next 10 or 15 years of site characterization and.
site selection, got to the point where a facility was built, and that all
of the health and safety standards of the NRC and whatever State
laws applied, and the State said no, we do not want to put any nuclear
waste in that facility, the current policy of the Department is we
would not put waste in that facility, but that is a long way away, and
the factors that could lead to State nonconcurrence, or concurrence
for that matter, in that kind of a time frame, are extremely speculative.
We could be faced with an energy crisis much more severe than we
have now.
We could be faced with costs of energy much higher than we have
now.
Those factors could very much influence the way a State, or the way
the Federal Government perceived what decision to make, once that
facility was available.
The problem that we have is that to get to the point 15 years from
now, where that option exists, where we can say yes or no, we want
to use it. We have a lot of work to do. It takes a long time.
A veto legislated now, binding upon the Federal Government by the
State, would prevent us from going through those stages. I think that
would be a mistake.
I think the decision is too far into the future, in terms of the use
of the facility, and to the extent a veto applies early on in that process,
we will never get to the point where we know what options are avail-
able, and whether in fact we can use them safely and economically.
Mr. SEIBERLING. Then this is not really a State veto.
This is a policy that you say you are going to follow, until the
crunch comes, and then you reserve the right not to follow. I do not
really consider that satisfactory at this stage at least.
Suppose we added to H.R. 2762 a provision that said in the event
of a final disagreement between the State and the DOE which is not
resolved, and the State remains firm, the matter will be referred to
the Congress, where it will be referred to the appropriate committee
on an expedited process. In that instance anybody can discharge the
committee after they have had it, say, for 60 days. Each House of
Congress will have 60 days in which the matter then has to come to a
vote. In this way the Congress becomes the final arbiter of the issue,
and makes the final decision to go ahead with the facility, or to allow
the State prohibition to stand. Then perhaps the congressional resolu-
tion should be subject to a veto by the President.
Now, why should not the Department of Energy be under the same
pressure to reach agreement as the State?
They bot.h have the possibility hanging over their heads, that if they
do not reach agreement, Congress will overrule them.
Why is not that an appropriate procedure?
Mr. BATEMAN. If I understand what you say, sir, I think it is a
perfectly appropriate procedure.
I think it is understood that whatever recommendation we ulti-
mately decide to make with respect to facility location would obviously
PAGENO="0039"
35
have to be authorized and approved by the Congress, and I think our
only concern is that we establish a process in dealing with the State,
which allows the Federal Government to get to the point where it has
a choice to make, but in no way are we suggesting that a mechanism
be set up which circumvents or undercuts the ability of the Congress
to work its will in this area.
We just want to get to the point where the Congress can.
Mr. SEIBERLING. I think they are right, and I think the procedure
set forth in my bill, or similar procedure would guarantee that if it
did finally come down to the point where Congress had to decide, then
at least it would decide on the basis of a thoroughly established record,
where the issues have been narrowed and Congress could understand
the facts on which to act. Of course, Congress can always do that in
the end anyway if they choose.
Mr. BATEMAN. That is right.
Mr. SEIBERLING. Nonetheless it seems to me it is much better to have
it worked out to the point where if there is no agreement, Congress has
a format in which to act. I think that is a much more satisfactory way
and of course the only concern then of the executive branch would be
that the Congress might listen to the political arguments of the State
and choose not to override its fellow politicians. But, after all, that is
why we have a Congress.
Mr. BATEMAN. Exactly. I would like to reemphasize, sir, that the
summary of the bill which is in the Congressional Record of March 8,
1979, we think is a reasonable way of proceeding, up through section
(f). That is, I think there are other ways to accomplish the same thing,
but we fully agree that a process should be established which provides
an adequate record for the Department, for the State, for the Congress,
to make a decision, and that certainly is I think one such process.
The area of concern is making a commitment at this point which
would legally bind the Department of Energy from proceeding with
the repository if a State at the end of that process details that it does
not concur with the Department's recommendation. Congress can al-
ways override.
Mr. SEIBERLING. Let me make sure I understand your view. If section
(g) of the bill is modified so that in the event the State and the Depart-
ment ultimately cannot agree, the matter is referred to Congress with
some sort of a rule for expediting the decision; would that satisfy your
concern?
Mr. BATEMAN. I think that that would go a long way to satisfying
the concern, yes, sir.
Mr. SEIBERLING. Thank you. I have no further questions.
Mr. WEAVER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bateman, as of 11 :33 a.m., June 28, 1979, has the United States
resolved the waste disposal problem?
Mr. BATEMAN. Has it resolved it?
Mr. WEAVER. Yes, sir.
Mr. BATEMAN. I think what we have-
Mr. WEAVER. Just yes or no, sir, is all I want.
Mr. SEIBERLING. Or maybe.
Mr. BATEMAN. Maybe.
Thank you sir.
Mr. WEAV1~R. You did not disagree with the person at the NRC.
PAGENO="0040"
36
How long has the United States been working on a solution to the
waste disposal problem?
Mr. BATEMAN. In some form, I think as long as we have had a nuclear
energy and weapons program.
Mr. WEAVER. How many years is that?
Mr. BATEMAN. Approximately 30 years.
Mr. WEAVER. We have been working on it for 30 years, and we have
not any solution?
Mr. BATEMAN. In the sense that we have produced waste, we have
stored waste, we have done research and development on how to handle
those wastes on an interim basis, and on a permanent basis; yes, sir.
Mr. WEAVER. But we have not resolved conclusively according to
your testimony the waste disposal problem, and as of this moment,
and we have been working on it for 30 years?
Mr. BATEMAN. I think that is not fair to characterize the effort that
generally.
I think that in the last 5 years the Department, or the agencies that
preceded it have paid much more serious attention and have worked
on this problem much more intensively than was done in the period up
to that time.
Mr. WEAVER. What you are saying then is that we began building
nuclear plants earlier without being serious about doing the nuclear
waste disposal according to your testimony?
Mr. BATEMAN. I think that less attention certainly was paid to the
waste side of the problem than the production of nuclear reactors and
nuclear weapons.
Mr. WEAVER. Would you build a home, your own home, that you
were going to live in, and it was around other people, without a waste
disposal system?
Mr. BATEMAN. I am sorry.
Mr. WEAVER. Would you build a home without a waste disposal
system?
Mr. BATEMAN. Not without some waste disposal system, but I think
that is a bad analogy.
I think we have had many different kinds of waste handling systems
for residences in the last 30 years or 500 years.
I think they developed, we think they can do a better job, you do a
better job, but only if the benefits exceed the costs.
Mr. WEAVER. I see.
Do you know Steven Stabs, have you heard of him, a physicist who
has held a position with Rockwell-Hanford operations?
Mr. BATEMAN. No, I do not know him.
Mr. WEAVER. Have you ever heard of him?
Mr. BATEMAN. No.
Mr. WEAVER. This is a statement on the Department of Energy
Inspector General, Mr. Steven Stabs, a physicist, he resigned from a
position with the DOE contractor, Rockwell-Hanford operation, said
to the Inspector General, on page 5 of his statement, I was told by
Mr. Barainca of DOE that there was a DOE policy that there will be
no more leaks, due to the bad publicity the public announcement of
leaks gave the nuclear industry.
I would at least assume, frankly I am not sure at all, so for the
moment I would assume this is not an official DOE policy, but could
PAGENO="0041"
37
you tell us whether there are people within the organization, your
organization, who act as though this is the policy; could Mr. Barainca
have told Mr. Stabs this is the policy, that we have leaks about us
of radioactive waste disposal?
Mr. BATEMAN. If the intent of the statement was to say we would
say there are no leaks when there are leaks, I can be certain that is not
DOE policy.
I think the policy of the Department is to not have leaks, but I do not
think we are trying to mislead the public about whether leaks have oc-
curred or not.
Mr. WEAVER. Would you please contact Mr. Barainca if he said that,
and I ask unanimous consent that your written response be placed in
the record.
Mr. BATEMAN. Yes, sir, I will try to get a response.
Mr. WEAVER. Thank you.
[The Department subsequently submitted the following informa-
tion.]
Mr. Barainca stated that he suspected that the conversation Mr. Stabs re-
constructed was actually a conversation he had with Stabs while driving to-
gether to the 200 East Area during the fall of 1978, following Stabs' unsuccessful
primary bid for the U.S. Congress. During that conversation, Stabs discussed
what he (Stabs) perceived to be DOE's policy of not publicizing unfavorable
events, such as tank leaks. Barainca stated that during the conversation he be-
lieved he told Stabs either that it was DOE's goal that there would not be tank
leaks, or that as a result of DOE policy it was our (DOE's) objective to prevent
and minimize tank beaks. Barainca stated that what he meant was that DOE
wanted to minimize the actual amount of radioactive waste which could leak from
the tanks and not that DOE wanted to minimize the announcement of leaks to
the public and that the policy referred to was the Environmental Statement for
Hanford Waste Management Operations, ERDA 1538. Barainca stated that he
told Stabs that DOE was doing everything practical to remove radioactive
liquids from single-shell tanks and that the funding provided by DOE indicated
that the management of DOE and Congress supported these objectives. He
(Barainca) stated that he discussed the construction and operational activities
of constructing new double-shell tanks and installing salt wells (in-tank pump-
ing systems) to remove free liquid from the single-shell tanks, and that one of
the construction projects for the isolation of waste tanks (B-145) included and
acknowledged both those tanks of questionable integrity and leaking tanks as
high risk tanks.
Mr. WEAVER. If we selected a site, one of these sites that may be se-
lected, and we started putting our radioactivity in it for the next 600
years, and then we discovered after it was full, that we had made a mis-
take, there was a leak, or there was a problem whatsoever, what would
be the cost of moving that, putting it some place else?
What are we getting ourselves into when we start determining costs?
Mr. BATEMAN. What are the costs?
Mr. WEAVER. Yes; I have to vote on this, and I want to understand it.
Also I want you to understand that `we resent very much having to vote
in this Congress for the billions add billions of dollars to clean up the
former wastes, and we are told: It is the Government's fault; it `is your
responsibility to clean up the West Valley; and clean up other places.
I had to vote for a bill to clean up some militailings when my con-
stituents are saying cut the Federal budget, and I have to vote for this
money, because what do we do?
I want to know what other pickles are we going to get into.
How much will it cost to have to rectify one of these sites once we
have decided to use it, and find mistakes have been made?
PAGENO="0042"
38
Mr. BATEMAN. I think as you described it, the site, if the facility were
full, as we now conceive of such a facility, I would say it is many mil-
lions of dollars, but I do not have an exact estimate at my finger tips.
Mr. WEAVER. Would it be tens of millions?
Mr. BATEMAN. I would say many millions of dollars.
Mr. MTEAVER. Many millions of dollars.
There was another official from the Department of Energy here a
month or so ago before this committee, and I am sorry I do not re-
member his name, he was an assistant secretary, I believe, who in re-
sponse to my question, how much money do we ne'ed to spend further
to do the research and development on waste disposal, he responded in
the tens of billions of dolle.rs, do you think that is an accurate state-
ment?
Mr. BATEMAN. I do not know what he was including in that.
I think it is correct that the Department has done estimates of the
cost of ultimately disposing of all of the nuclear wastes, which have
been generated to date, and are likely to be generated until the end of
the century, in the range in current dollars of around $25 billion to $30
billion, but I would like to point out that at the present rate at which
those wastes have been produced as a. result of making electricity from
nuclear power, what was referred to earlier, the millions of gallons of
wastes, are wastes that were produced in making nuclear weapons in
the defense program.
Mr. WEAVER. I understand that.
Are any of these temporary deposits right now leaking at this time?
Mr. BATEMAN. No. sir. not to my knowledge.
Mr. WEAVER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. I am a little astounded at your estimate of $25 bil-
lion to $30 billion to clean up the wastes, and before I pursue that
further, 90 military and 10 commercial, is that about the ratio of the
wastes?
Mr. BATEMAN. It is much greater than that, if you are talking about
just liquid high-level wastes.
The CHAIRMAN. Nearly all?
Mr. BATEMAN. Nearly all defense wastes, yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. I thought we were getting on track of a fairly
simple procedure, that you would go to the salt mines in New Mexico,
or the granite formations in Wisconsin, you would excavate a place,
maybe as large as a mile square, as suggested earlier this morning. You
would have to build a facility in West Valley at Hanford to put it in
the cannisters and then move it to New Mexico, or wherever the site
was.
How in the name of commonsense could that cost $25 billion?
Mr. BATEMAN. There is a lot of waste. We are talking about roughly
75 million gallons of liquid waste, and the facilities, to give you an
example, the current estimated cost of solidifying the liquid waste at
the Savannah River, S.C., one of the major defense installations is
about $3 billion.
That is just the cost of solidifying, and I think based on a fairly
extensive technical and engineering data at this point, so I think that
is a fairly good number.
The CHAIRMAN. You need a new huge plant of some kind of solidify
the waste?
PAGENO="0043"
39
Mr. BATEMAN. You need very extensive capital equipment, yes, to
do that.
Th~ CHAIRMAN. Somewhat similar to the reprocessing facility?
Mr. BATEMAN. The waste is really the result of reprocessing, so you
have to get those wastes out of the tanks, decontaminate the tanks,
solidify the waste and put it in a form that can be transported, trans-
port them.
It is an expensive operation. I think it is very easy to imagine a
future if the Congress proceeds with a major program of dealing with
the defense waste problem, sooner or later we will all have to deal
with it and to have multibillion dollar programs per year.
The CHAIRMAN. I had no idea that what was involved was that
expensive.
Mr. WEAVER. Mr. Chairman, the staff advises me of one thing, I want
to clarify this for the record.
Mr. Bateman, when you say 90-10, actually the chairman said it
was actually greater military to commercial waste, that is by volume,
correct?
Mr. BATEMAN. I was simply trying, it is by what you can calculate
in many ways by volume, yes.
I am talking about gallons.
Mr. WEAVER. Now, let us respond to radioactive atoms, the amount
of radioactivity.
Mr. BATEMAN. Let me answer your question, but I want to elaborate
a little bit on it.
In terms of the curie content of the waste, or the commercial spent
fuel, it is about 50-50. What I was trying to distinguish in my answer
before was, or try to differentiate was liquid waste on the one hand
and spent fuel on the other, and in terms of the liquid waste, you are
talking about a much smaller fraction that was the result of com-
mercial activity.
Mr. WEAVER. But when it comes to the actual radioactivity, it is
50-50?
Mr. BATEMAN. Approximately.
Mr. WEAVER. And one final question then for my own information,
and that is, which is more-well, yOu have already answered that-
obviously commercial waste is more radioactive than the military
waste.
This is by unit?
Mr. BATEMAN. The commercial waste is more.
`Mr. WEAVER. Radioactive?
Mr. BATEMAN. Radioactive, no, sir, I do not believe that is correct.
Sir, let me provide a somewhat elaborated answer to that question.
I think that the commercial waste has not been reprocessed, and this
affects the answer that I gave you,~ and I would like to have an op-
portunity in the record to elaborate on that.
Mr. WEAVER. Fine.
[The following information was subsequently submitted by the
Department.]
Three different comparisons were involved in the previous discussion of defense
and commercial radioactive waste. The first pertained to volume of high level
waste (HLW) on hand from past reprocessing operations. Since there are on
the order of 75 million gallons of such waste at defense installations and about
600,000 gallons of commercial HLW stored at the West Valley site, the volume
PAGENO="0044"
40
ratio is over 100 to 1. The second comparison, which was not made directly but
was implied, considers the radioactivity of these two volumes of HLW. Here the
ratio is about 20 to 1 (defense vs. commercial) because the commercial HIJW
originated from fuel exposed to a higher Megawatt days per ton (MWD/T) level.
For the third comparison, the definition of commercial "waste" was expanded to
include spent fuel stored pending a decision on whether to reprocess or dispose.
Although the volume of this material is not large, it does have a radioactivity
content approximately equal (in curies) to that of the 75 million gallons of
defense HIJW. Hence, the 50-50 ratio cited.
The CHAIRMAN. Tha.nk you, Mr. Bateman. I appreciate your help
today.
Mr. BATEMAN. Thank you.
The CHAIRMAN. We will hear from Mr. Michael O'Hare, associate
professor, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Energy Impacts
project.
Your statement has been distributed. We are pleased to have your
help this morning.
You can proceed.
[Prepared statement of Michael O'Hare may be found in the
appendix.]
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL O'HARE, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, BE.
PARTMENT OP URBAN STUDIES AND PLANNING, MASSACHUSETTS
INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, CAMBRIDGE, MASS.
Mr. O'HAIm. I do not want to subject you to my reading of this
material aloud, so I will zip through it, and perhaps we can discuss
it.
I also have some research materials I would like to have included in
the record.
The CHAIRMAN. We will be glad to have them for our official file.
Mr. O'HAni. The first one I would like to make on the nuclear waste
management problem is to put it in context that nuclear waste facili-
ties are not unique as regard their siting problems.
We have a lot of kinds of facilities we have trouble siting, finding
locations for nuclear powerplants, airports, prisons, and sanitary land-
fills, these have a history of widespread agreement that we ought to
have them some place, but not in our backyard.
Some do get built, but many that are believed necessary do not.
In the process by which this siting has gone forward with, seem-
ingly decreasing success for these locally nocuous facilities are facili-
ties perceived to be locally nocuous.
A technical analysis of possible sites is made and a best site is
chosen, generally on technical grounds.
The developer, whether Government agency or private industry,
whoever is responsible for operating the facility satisfies a variety
of regulatory agencies, and his plans meet a set of requirements, and
having obtained the necessary permission from the appropriate au-
thorities, the facility is built and operates, and this process does not
seem to work, and I think these hearings are a recognition that a proc-
ess of that type will not work, at least with the rapidity desired to get
these materials under permanent storage, and, naturally, there have
been some standard responses to the problem of siting failures, and I
PAGENO="0045"
41
will characterize four types of response that have become part of the
congressional wisdom.
The first one is to have citizen participation, to have local involve-
ment, and so on, that has appeared in much of the testimony this
morning, that falls in this category.
The feeling, first of all, that some facilities that did not get built,
did not get built because of real important concerns, which were not
being made known to the developers, and the developers learned only
to their chagrin how important they were when they were ready to
go ahead, and another source of this approach is the recognition that
the people do not trust the process by which these decisions are made,
they will not like the outcome even if it is a very good outcome, it will
not be seen that way.
The second strategy is entirely different, which is to use a bigger
stick.
An example of that in the current context is the proposition the
Congress will not grant States veto power over facility construction,
where the veto power would be withheld from the local communities.
Many State governments have taken local power for the legislation,
over local decision on various kinds Of facilities.
The third strategy is to try to make these projects go forward by
providing more information.
Many of the participants claim~ they did not know what was in-
volved, and if they had been informed sooner or better, things would
have gone along more smoothly, and it is hard to argue that a better
informed decision process will give way to better decisions.
Much of the State and community participation model that is pro-
posed for the waste management scheme is an information difusion
strategy, and of course we have also the provisions of NEPA.
I will talk a little more about information at the end of my remarks,
and I want to point out that the conventional strategy is to require
somebody to provide information at the beginning of the dispute,
unduly it is thought to have provided what everyone else will want
to know as they go through the dispute, the theory of the impact state-
ment is to inform the decision process ad initio.
The final strategy is very much ~i special case of this, but in the re-
cent context, it is especially important, that is technical reassurance
strategy, that if a nuclear waste issue is there, we will find a very good
way by technical research to store nuclear waste, and we will go to
the communities that might otherwise be reluctant to accept it, and
we will show them what a very good safe way we found to store it,
and then the opposition that would otherwise develop will not arise
because the citizens will be assured that the risk is no longer there,
that the risks have been reduced sufficiently.
My first recommendation I would like to make is that you abandon
any expectation that any of these strategies or all of them together,
will be adequate to site nuclear waste facilities.
It may be they will be adequate, but if the Congress is concerned to
really know that it can build one in a short period of time, I think trust
in these approaches is ill placed.
As a corollary to that, I have observed that perhaps States that
have a veto power and perhaps lčcal governments that have a veto
power on these waste facilities, that it is not within the power of the
PAGENO="0046"
42
Congress to withhold, and practically speaking, there is a very great
difference between having legal authority to build something in a cer-
tain place and being able to actually proceed to build it, because there
are many strategies that the affected groups can employ, when they
believe they are being asked to bear a larger share of the costs of a
social benefit from a project than they ought to.
Let me now talk about some special characteristics of siting these
nocuous facilities.
When I say nocuous, I mean locally perceived to be nocuous, and
for practical purposes, unless you can be persuasive, that means the
same thing.
The first essential fact is that a nuclear waste facility of any kind is
scary. It is more scary to some people than others, but it remains a
place where dangerous materials are kept and to which they are
brought in one or another kind of transport.
In addition to the consequences it shares with a minor powerplant
or strip mine or geothermal plant, is that it is scary, it is certainly more
scary to some people than others, but I think it would be very opti-
mistic to think the technical reassurance of any kind, in the wake of
Love Canal, Three Mile Island, the DC-b, Rocky Flats, and for that
matter the inertness of such substances as PCB's and fluoridated hy-
drocarbons, so it is unlikely it will solve the problem by making the
people believe it is an innocuous neighbor.
The second and important quality, and the reasons why the compen-
sation to local and State neighbors that I will recommend is so impor-
tant is the strategic observation about the nature of the problem, that
is the beneficiaries of projects like this tend to be many in number, and
the benefits they receive tend to be few.
Take myself as a typical example. I do not believe in much discus-
sion of using Massachusetts as a nuclear waste repository, it may turn
out we have a. geology that would make it viable, but it is not really
consequential to me, it will take another 5 years, or another 5 years
after that to find a good place to site hazardous wastes, and the con-
sequences are there, but they are very small, and particularly they are
not enough to motivate me to invest a great deal of activity, protesting
political activities, and so forth.
I would like a site to be found, I would like it to be secure, but it is
not the most important thing in my life, or in the life of most people
that receive this particular benefit.
Sufferers tend to be fewer in number, those who feel they are suffer-
ing tend to be fewer in number, and they tend to be large capital costs,
extremely large costs in the event of some accident or failure, and espe-
cially large costs in the terms of the anxiety that they will be suffering.
In a contest between a large group and another, the large group has
very little at stake, but then a small group in each of whose members
have a great deal at stake, but the small group has a tremendous ad-
vantage in being able to organize itself for advantage and in being able
to motivate each individual member in doing something.
The third important quality of a siting debate is the distinction be-
tween a program and its particular manifestations. There is a distinc-
tion in a program of say storage for nuclear waste and the particular
manifestation of storing nuclear waste some place, and there is a dif-
ference that I think has motivated the presenthearings.
PAGENO="0047"
43
Even if we all agree that we need nuclear waste facilities of some
sort, it is quite possible we will go for many, many years not having
them, because every location is full of people that say yes, we need
them, but not here, and quite likely they are likely to have the power to
make a decision to hold back the establishing of that facility.
The present characterization of nuclear waste is people who feel the
risk should be very widely distributed, and in many cases this comes
from the citizens of a State or a whole congressional district, in just
looking at the record, and the last characteristic is important, as cur-
rently perceived, approaching the community with a suggestion that
we build nuclear waste storage facilities with the cooperation of the
members of that community, and the community may be a whole State
full of people, with yes or no positions, yes, we have a facility, either
we will build it as we described it here, or we will not build at all, and
there is really no middle ground in the current formulation of this
problem, and it is not surprising that faced with a choice between two
alternatives, in which one is distinctly worse than the other, the oppo-
nents will pull their heels in and maybe even adopt a position privately
and say, we are simply not convinced to accept these costs by the fact
that there are benefits that you are distributing it to everyone.
I think in the way I have characterized the problem, and if you
accept my characterization of its properties, the conventional solutions
I have described above cannot be counted on to work.
Let me add a footnote, certainly they cannot be counted on to work,
if you are talking about a facility~ which is perceived locally to be
attractive, if the economic gains, if the Federal facility impact assist-
ance to schools and so on, adds up in the minds of the community to
be more attractive than the risk or anxieties, and I think there will
be no problem in siting, but the tenor of the debate so far indicates
that probably is not the case, that those benefits do not add up to the
local costs.
Amplifying citizen participation in a problem of this kind, simply
means amplifying the political power of groups, is the oniy rational
position, and remember the all or nothing position you have given the
community, so it would be more effective and more visible for groups
whose only interest is to oppose, to remain in opposition.
As far as the use of power is concerned, I suppose the Federal
Government can do practically anything it wants to, if there is suf-
ficient population to work on it.
You can impose all sorts of costs on all sorts of people, but this
does not appeal to me like acting on the problem, and I think all of
resources the Congress can bring to bear on trying to put a facility in
place is very likely not to be sufficient.
Government power is not infinite. Also, it tends to cause bad feel-
ings, if you adopt that strategy, and claim that is the strategy.
It is much easier to solve the problem in other ways if you can.
As far as information is concerned, I spoke about the probable
value of technical reassurance.
Furthermore, if information of the particular technical risks, and
there is legitimate respectable doubt about any of the strategies that
have been conceived or can be proposed, there may in fact be a sharpen-
ing of the perceptions of the community, which says I guess this is sort
of an indifferent thing, and it is good for the country, having a heavy
PAGENO="0048"
44
investment, and say a lot of people say, this is really a very attractive
facility to us, even given its value to the rest of the country, I think the
key to breaking that impasse lies in the recognition that this is not a
new type of problem, and we do not have to solve it in a novel way.
When we need to build nuclear waste repositories, we need bulldoz-
ers, steel, we need labor, engineers, and it seems as far as we can tell we
need to use up the amenity of some community.
In all of those list of resources, the only one that can be suggested
without payment is the amenity.
We are certainly not trying to find ways to build nuclear waste
repositories on the theory we will do it when we can find somebody to
give us the dynamite necessary to blast the home ground.
There is a market for risk, and there is a market for anxiety.
There are markets of this kind and choice of occupation and choice
of residents. I might live in the city. I undergo significant added risk
of lung disease, heart disease, traffic accidents, crime, and certain kinds
of anxiety that I would not suffer in the country.
On the whole, the benefits of living in the city outweigh these.
My first recommendation on the siting issue is the siting process of
whether the Congress ought to include explicit promise of compensa-
tion for the community on which this facility impacts, I think in this
case it is important we also recognize such fuzzy ill defined impacts on
anxiety and recognize that the appropriate strategy for siting is not to
force people who do not want a facility to live next to it or accept it,
but to make the facility together with everything it comes with so
attractive, to build the facility itself into a package that includes more
benefits that costs, and t.he way to make the package include benefits is
to add the many different kinds of compensation that can be conceived.
Mr. CLAUS~N. Many kinds of what?
Mr. O'}Luu~. Many different kinds of compensation that can be con-
ceived, and I will give you a couple of examples in a minute.
There are two important consequences for the siting process.
*One of them is that when you go into the negotiations with States
with communities saying we will compensate you for these costs, now,
let us discuss the price, rather than saying we will stick you with this, it
means the choice is now longer than two outcomes very far apart, and
when two outcomes switch to the extent of compensation, it really closes
together.
That is the whole point of the compensation, to make those happen-
ings close together, that is, no facility on the one hand, or a facility
with the right amount of compensation.
The right amount of compensation means that the people are indif~
ferent, so there is much less chance for opposition.
The other important consequence is recognition that the compensa-
tion will not be exactly right, it replaces this all or nothing choice that
you face the community with, with a whole spectrum of choices between
those poles.
This provides grounds in between build and no build in the negotia-
tion, and it means that the parties to this dispute, the community and
the developer, really have something to talk about, rather than each
putting his heels into the ground, and trying to pull the other off the
ground.
PAGENO="0049"
45
You can both wind up on the line in the same place, if there is some
place to stand there.
The CHAIRMAN. We are about to run out of time. Let me suggest you
wind up.
Mr. O'HARE. I do not have much more to say about the compensation
side, except that it is important to recognize the variety including cash
payments, to governments, to individuals, and on the one hand, insur-
ance against property value loss, insurance against health consequences
may be important to consider.
The other remarks I had to do with the use of information in this
dispute. I think it is probably more useful if I leave that in my pre-
pared remarks and take any questions you want to ask about the com-
pensation role.
The CHAIRMAN. You brought us a different perspective, and it is
interesting and helpful to me in particular.
I have been, for a number of months in these hearings, using the
analogy of the project of the Navy in which they had to lay cables over
an extensive area of Wisconsin to communicate to the submarines
which are thousands of miles away. The Navy Department, instead of
going in and telling the citizens here is what we are doing, here is what
the impacts will be and spreading excellent information about, trying
in a rather devious kind of way to sneak in and getting it built before
anybody realized what it was.
So much furor was involved in Wisconsin, that they announced they
were dropping it, and the next thing they did was resurface in the
upper peninsula of Michigan under a different name.
Do you not agree that one of the psychological factors that is im-
portant, is for the Government to come in honestly and openly from
the very beginning and give people accurate information and not give
the feeling of someone trying to get something over on them?
Mr. O'HARE. Yes; I do agree.
I think that is very important. A community expects that it will be
fairly and honestly dealt with, this is very important, in the evidence
we have been able to accumulate on our case studies.
The position of trust between the parties that is established by the
initial approach has a lot to do with the outcome.
The CHAIRMAN. The central theme in your testimony is that we
ought to be offering goodies to the communities. You know that we are
talking about 3,000 to 4,000 jobs during construction, and maybe about
2,000 jobs during operation and investing capital in the community
involving $2 or $3 billion.
You point out that this kind of economic benefit no longer per-
suades neighbors to accept certain facilities. If that is the case, then
why would more money to the neighbors themselves make the thing
acceptable?
Mr. O'HAlm. The difference I guess is that many of the jobs provided
are not jobs for the locals. Many of the locals already have jobs they
are quite happy with, and they can only hold one at a time, so there
is little benefit to that.
The capital investment is in a facility that does not serve any need
they feel, or they would have made it already.
53-932 0 - 80 - 14
PAGENO="0050"
46
Whereas the compensation program provides resources they can use
for their own purpose, rather than having already been committed,
and-
The CHAIRMAN. So you draw a distinction between an indirect kind
of community benefit and those hard to identify or quantify for the
local individual versus the program, which says to the citizen, you get
x thousands of dollars if thic plant is put here.
Mr. O'HAi~. Yes; I certainly do and I think it is a mistake that one
of these facilities will be regarded as a community resource.
It provides no direct benefit to the community at all, except to those
members of the community who would be gaining direct work.
The CHAIRMAN. Any other questions?
Mr. SEIBERLING. I have a couple of questions, Mr. Chairman.
I was intrigued by the auction idea, but I just wonder whether it will
work in practice where no State wants the facility.
Obviously at that point it does not matter how much you pay. Maybe
every community has its price, I do not know, but I suspect that that
is not the case.
Mr. O'HAm~. The only answer I can offer to that is there are some
facilities that some communities do not want them at all, but since
they exist, there are some communities that do want them.
A prison on the local level, there are places where local citizens say
they would not consider living near a local prison, and you can find
some that live happily with prisons, having accepted the responsi-
bilities and costs that go with them.
Mr. SEIBERLING. It may very well be that site choice by means of
compensation and competition, which is the way I would like to see it
done, if it could be worked out, would be the best procedure because
parties may be able to reach an agreement. But if agreement cannot
be worked out, such a process obviously will not work.
In that case where there may be only one technical site, the payment
would be tremendous.
I think it is important to have an arbitrary mechanism for these
disputes, where Congress can be that mechanism. This puts it in a
much more palatable view.
Maybe Congress is not the right mechanism. But in other cases where
we really have to make a deal, and people cannot be brought to the
table, we have arbitration mechanisms. An arbitration mechanism is
our insurance, where the job is to find the right compensation.
There are other ways to resolve disputes over sites for nuclear waste
disposal, but I was addressing myself to the auction idea. I wonder,
since we are dealing with a public body, a community, how can the
auction approach be used, if the community finds another one wants
a higher price. They are likely to say that is the same as they are
getting, so if we are dealing with undesirable facilities, it seems to me
that they are all going to end up wanting the same high price.
Mr. O'HARE. I want to draw the distinction between the fact you
institute a compensation mechanism, and the use of an auction means
to find out how much to pay.
I think I have been much more convincing than we would expect
to be about the importance of compensation, and an auction is the
right way to go.
PAGENO="0051"
47
Mr. SEIBERLING. I am oniy trying to explore the auction idea.
I do not have any questions about the other points.
Mr. O'HAm~. My prediction is if in fact you announce one site will
be chosen from among many candidate communities, reasonable bids
for compensation packages would be entered, and I have to accompany
that with the observation that the amount paid has nothing to do
with the cost of this facility.
This is fairly common misun~derstanding. The cost is there, being
visited on the community, if they are not compensated.
It makes the cost visible, which may in fact be the public virtue of
the scheme.
This is a transfer payment, not a resource utilization.
Mr. SEIBERLING. Thank you.
The CHAIRMAN. Any questions?
Mr. CLAUSEN. I want to make an observation, that, John, I appreci-
ate your challenging line of questioning.
I also conclude from the line of questioning that you are presup-
posing that this nuclear waste situation is in fact and will always be
an undesirable thing per Se. I think most of the members of this com-
mittee will come away with a better understanding, where we are,
and what the ultimate impact will be. Whatever those facts are, we are
not about to let anything go forward unless there is a reasonable as-
surance there will be a measure of protection for the general public,
for their good.
I have lived in my State of California next to an operating nuclear
powerplant. No one has panicked in the area. It was operating for a
while, then they came up with information that indicated there ought
to be a redesign of the core reactor, because of geological conditions,
but no one has really panicked in the area to my knowledge. I think
we have to concentrate on getting the facts, and make certain that
whatever we advance, we will have ample assurance of safeguards, and
that includes the nuclear waste management objective for all to see,
and if it cannot be done, then~ those facts will cause us to take an-
other course of action. I think the gentleman is presenting a very in-
triguing concept here and is a very constructive approach.
Mr. SEIBERLING. I would just like to say I would analyze the nuclear
waste storage problem with respect to imposing a tax.
You will never have an auction between the citizens as to whether
they are willing to pay the most taxes.
Nobody wants to pay taxes at all. We do it as a matter of necessity,
and the same is true, it seems to me, of the nuclear waste disposal
facility.
Nobody wants it, so we will have to have a system for deciding
where to put it, recognizing that it is not the most popular thing to
do, and that is all I am saying.
I wondered if the auction process will work in this type of cir-
cumstance.
Mr. CLAUSEN. It goes back to the first part of the discussion, there
could be certain benefits from the facility for society and along with
it, there will have to be some responsibilities.
The CHAIRMAN. We might get the right combination of incentives
that you are searching for, if you said we have found the following
PAGENO="0052"
48
five sites are suitable, and we in the Federal Government will make
a decision to go with one of the five sites.
The community that will come in to bid, we will work out a fair
arrangement with you, or you can all decide to refuse to bid, in which
case one of you will get selected without any of these goodies and
benefits, and then you have some incentive to bid.
Mr. Bereuter?
Mr. BEREtJTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to welcome
Mr. O'Hare.
I am acquainted to some `extent with the compensation and the im-
plications of the facilities, a.nd I think it is relatively easy to look at
the benefits and ha.ve some agreement because of location. On many
types of facilities we will have some agreement because of costs. On
many types we will have some agreement on other factors, but it seems
to me that one of the problems in applying it to nuclear waste dis-
posal facilities is that there is, on the part of the public, m the area
of cost, at least a substantial amount of disagreement about what
those costs are, and confusion or a lack of acceptance of facts con-
cerning what those costs are going to be.
If you agree that this is one of the difficulties in defining costs to
measure against those benefits, and therefore in terms of compensa-
tion, how is the theory applicable?
I gather you think the theory is applicable or you would not be
here. And how do we overcome this lack of agreement on costs, or
uncertainty on costs?
Mr. O'HAn~. I think there is a case analogous to the market in art,
where there is a. wide disagreement about the value of individual art-
works, but people can get together and buy what they are willing to
give up in order to obtain different objectives which reveals a market
value.
Here we have the wide agreement about the value or disvalue about
living near one of these facilities.
I think the people who can give me the best information about the
living next to one of these facilities are the people that might have
to do it, and I would like to see if it is possible to do it, an auction
mechanism of the type described, because that is a mechanism whereby
the citizens are induced to reveal the real cost of the action, either too
high or too low.
Following that is a law that applies in which you do the best at
deciding these costs with a mechanism that is decided to be fair.
Government is a device that society has invented to solve problems
of this kind.
I think the real serious risk is that if Government understands role
and things involved, and it has appointed certain things for some
people to accept the large costs for the benefit of many, when it is
possible to spread the costs more evenly, that Government might then
be able to do that, so I would be happy with an administrative deter-
mination of costs, if it is the best we can do, and I would say the reas-
surance the compensation be paid, it is by far the most important of
this, and getting the right amount is secondary.
Mr. BET tP~ER. Do you know if there is any national experience on
`compensation being directed to areas or individuals where these costs
are in question?
PAGENO="0053"
49
The British have done some substantial amount of work in locating
various facilities. Some locations are considered to be undesirable.
The French may be doing something in nuclear waste disposal. I am
not certain.
Do you happen to know of any examples?
Mr. O'HAns. One interesting example that comes to mind is the
German strip mining operation in Germany, where whole towns have
been moved and replaced intact out of the way of the strip mining
operation.
The cost has been compensated without referring to the money
compensation costs, simply by relocating the people or something as
nearly as possible.
I do not think that applies in this case, but there are many, many
facilities that get there happily with no particular flap, which and of
themselves would be considered very unattractive, and I am thinking
almost of a kind of industrial facility, and what makes those acceptable
is simply the tax payments they provide.
The nuclear power plant is something that few people would like to
live next to, taking the plant by itself, but when you recognize the
facts of taxes paid by them, and that is money compensation for all of
the strange kinds of costs that people claim they suffer, seems to be ade-
quate, and the method seems to work, and that is my justification that
we are already doing it.
Mr. BEREtTER. Thank you for your testimony.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. O'Hare.
Mr. O'Ethm. Thank you.
The CHAIRMAN. Now, we will hear from the National Governors'
Association, Mr. Helminski.
[Prepared statement of Edward L. Helminski may be found in the
appendix.]
STATEMENT OP EDWARD L. HELMINSKI, DIRECTOR, ENERGY AND
NATURAL RESOURCES PROGRAMS, NATIONAL GOVERNORS'
ASSOCIATION
Mr. HELMINSKI. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, my name is Edward
L. Helminski.
I am staff director of the National Governors' Association Natural
Resources and Environmental Management Committee, and director
of the association's energy and natural resources program.
I am here today to present a statement on behalf of Gov. John Evans
of Idaho, chairman of the NGA Nuclear Power Subcommittee and
Gov. Richard Lamm, chairman of the NGA Natural Resources and
Environmental Management Committee.
Governor Evans has asked me to convey his regrets at not being
able to personally participate in today's hearing and that he stands
ready to work with you, Mr. Chairman and your committee to develop
a technically sound, responsive, and publicly acceptable nuclear waste
management strategy.
Both he and Governor Lamm appreciate the opportunity to have the
Governor's views on nuclear waste management expressed before this
committee.
PAGENO="0054"
50
I know the time is late in the morning, almost the afternoon, so I will
do my best to speed up my testimony and try to get through the main
points very quickly.
As requested in your letter of invitation, I intend to outline the
Governors' recommendations on the establishment of a responsive nu-
clear waste management decisionmaking process and am prepared to
discuss the potential of establishing a compensatory system that would
provide incentives to State and local governments and their constitu-
ents toward accepting a permanent nuclear waste repository.
With respect to the latter, at your staff's request, I have reviewed
papers prepared by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Depart-
ment of Urban Studies and Planning and am prepared to respond to
questions with regard to these proposals.
I have only commented briefly on these proposals in my testimony.
With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to read the state-
ment for the record.
The Nation's Governors-recognizing the critical problem posed by
the accumulation of nuclear materials used for medical, defense, and
commercial purposes-adopted a comprehensive nuclear waste man-
agement policy in August 1978.
Mr. Chairman, I ask your permission to submit the full NGA policy
position for the committee record.
The CHAIImIAN. We will accept that position paper for the record.
[The document referred to entitled, "Nuclear Energy Policy Posi-
tion," dated August 198, may be found in the appendix.]
Mr. HELMINSKI. The underlying principle embodied in that policy
is that:
The waste management problem cannot be solved by a Federal
process alone. It must be based on the principles of cooperative federal-
ism, a strong partnership of Federal, State, and local governments and
private industry is essential to a successful program.
The management of our nuclear waste is a problem we simply must
resolve.
It is one that is not going to go away.
Even if we were to stop the construction of all new commercial nu-
clear powerplants, and shut down all the plants currently operating,
we would still have to dispose of wastes already on hand, wastes which
have been accumulated primarily from defense and research activities.
Whatever decisions are ultimately made regarding the future of
nuclear power, we must seek a permanent method of managing our
present radioactive wastes.
This is a matter that concerns governments at all levels and must
therefore involve all levels of government in the decisionmaking
process.
Public confidence in the governmental decisionmaking process is at
its lowest ebb.
And though public acceptability cannot be the sole justification of a
solution, scientifically sound solutions will not be accepted if they are
developed in a clandestine manner out of public view.
Reinforced by the disclosure of events at Three Mile Island, the
public is questioning the credibility and consistency of Government in
using and regulating nuclear power.
The attitudes of State and local government officials toward Federal
decisionmaking is reflective of these concerns.
PAGENO="0055"
51
Yet, the ultimate site for waste disposal, whether defense or com-
mercial waste, will be within one of our boundaries.
Governors, together with local officials, have direct responsibility to
protect the public's health and safety.
They must act on their constituencies' behalf by anticipating all
eventualities and by participating in the decisionmaking process.
In order to do this, a process must be established at the national and
State level that will allow State and local officials to participate~ both
collectively and on an individual basis, with the relevant Federal Gov-
ernment agencies in the development of all radioactive waste manage-
ment programs and policies.
It is important that such processes have the visibility and the re-
sources to interact effectively on a par with participating Federal
agencies and to provide an open channel of communication to the high-
est levels of Government-the Congress and the President. This cannot
be accomplished on ad hoc, individual, State-by-State basis.
There was an interaction with the IRG, a national workshop that we
held in Denver, in which many congressional staff appeared, and over
100 attendees, State officials and Government officials.
NGA policy recommended the creation of a joint Federal-State
commission as the most viable means of formalizing that process.
NGA policy, in turn, played a significant role in the final recom-
mendations of the IRG to establish a State planning council and to
adopt the principle of concurrence and consultation.
Although the State planning čouncil, as recommended by the IRG,
does not have the authority or responsibility of the commission recom-
mended by the Governors, the IRG recommendations do not preclude
the council's assuming greater responsibility.
The IRG also recommended establishing a consultation and con-
currence process as described in the Governors' stated policy, but left
open to further determination the means needed to resolve potential
nonconcurrence that could halt progress toward final resolution of a
nuclear waste disposal program.
In order to resolve the discrepancies between the IRG report and
the Governors' policy and to define in a concise manner the means by
which the objectives of the Governors' policy could be carried out, the
National Governors' Association Nuclear Power Subcommittee and the
Western Governors' Policy Office, in cooperation with the National
Association of Counties, the National League of Cities, the U.S. Con-
ference of Mayors, and the National Conference of State Legislatures,
convened a national workshop of State and local officials in April of
this year to focus on these questions.
Based on NGA policy, the recommendations of the IRG, and the
discussion at that workshop, we have drafted a set of NGA recom-
mendations on nuclear waste management.
These recommendations have been delivered to the White House by
Governor Evans.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit a copy of those recommenda-
tions for the record.
They include:
1. The immediate establishment of a State planning council by
Executive order of the President to be reinforced by an act of Con-
gress as soon as possible.
PAGENO="0056"
52
2. The State planning council so established shall serve as adviser
to Federal agencies, the President, and Congress on nuclear waste
management policies and programs and have equal standing with
Federal agencies in structuring a nuclear waste management program.
3. If the councils' actions are not incorporated into final plans de-
veloped by the relevant Federal agencies they should be transmitted
directly to the President and the Congress for further consideration.
The CHAIRMAN. We will include that in the record.
[The document referred to above entitled, "Recommendations To-
ward Establishing A Publicly Responsive and Acceptable National
Nuclear Waste Management Policy," may be found in the appendix.]
Mr. HDI~nNsKI. The council should consist of State and local gov-
ernment officials and representatives of Indian nations appointed by
the President.
In order that the council may represent State and local interests in
an effective manner, it is necessary that sufficient resources and oppor-
tunities be provided-including sufficient funds to acquire and develop
its own expertise in technical and policy areas and access to all perti-
nent information, including proprietary information.
If established in the described manner the State planning council
would meet the Governors' policy objectives.
As also emphasized by the NGA policy position, site-specific deter-
minations can be made only with State concurrence.
It must he recognized that in the early development of site charac-
terization, those States with sites that could possibly qualify as meet-
ing the site profile should be consulted and given the opportunity to
concur on the specifics of that characterization.
That process must begin with State or regional concurrence on
overall designs and completed site-specific plans prior to the initiation
of any action including the procurement of land and the initiation of
preliminary construction at a proposed site.
Any procedure for concurrence obviously must allow for the possi-
bility of nonconcurrence.
Neither the IRG report nor the Governors' policy position make a
recommendation to resolve a nonconcurrence stalemate.
Though an override of State nonconcurrence by a Federal adminis-
trator would be unacceptable, the possibility of a congressional review
of nonconcurrence by a State is an avenue that should be studied as
a process that would allow for review, yet provide the States with
the opportunity to continue to participate in a final resolution in the
national interest.
The design of a practical and workable consultation and concur-
rence process that would meet the Governors' stated objectives should
be the first order of business for the State planning council.
The National Governors' Association also adopted a policy which
specifically addresses the development of a spent-fuel storage pro-
gram and low-level radioactive waste disposal.
The policy statement on nuclear energy adopted last August recog-
nizes that interim solutions for the management of spent fuel are
necessary.
Our policy asks that spent fuel be considered as a valuable future
resource and that programs for handling it should be designed to
incorporate the concepts of interim storage and retrievability.
PAGENO="0057"
N
53~
The Governors' policy also recommends the establishment of a user
fee to pay for the costs of storing and managing nuclear wastes.
The Governors recommend that revenues from user fees be dedi-
cated to the costs of regulation, operation, transportation, perpetual
care, and maintenance of waste management facilities rather than to
support research and development.
Both for commercial and military use, research and development
funds should be authorized and appropriated from general tax
revenues.
The Governors urge that expenses incurred by all levels of govern-
ment be reimbursed by the funds from the collection of this one-time
charge.
For further elaboration on the Governors' views on the establish-
ment of a nuclear waste management decisionmaking process, I refer
you and the committee members to the position paper which I have
submitted for the record and again I ask that be made a part of this
record.
I would like to add that the acceptability of the governmental
decisionmaking process will depend upon the degree and quality of
participation of interested public representatives at all levels of
government.
Participatory processes must be established at all levels of govern-
ment to assure public confidence and government accountability.
Although mechanisms to provide for public input at the Federal
decisionmaking process must be provided, it is essential that State
and local participatory processes be established to assure that repre-
sentative elected officials participating in the siting process are doing
soin an accountable and responsive manner.
I will now comment briefly on the proposals put forth in the papers
by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of Urban
Studies and Planning, recommending the establishment of a siting
process based on a competitive auctioning system between potential
sites.
The auctioning process is supposed to provide the potential host
site the opportunity to obtain some measure of benefit of the liability
of the proposed facility that would allow the State and local govern-
ments to compete for the site.
I might add that these views are my own and should not `be construed
as NGA policy.
I have serious misgivings about the proposal outlined by the MIT
group.
Basically, I object to establishing a "process" that allows existing
institutional structures the opportunity to play down the risks, while
holding out potential carrots to enhance acceptability.
The process also allows the publicly elected officials to avoid facing
the responsibility of acting in the national interest over and above their
own parochial interest.
The MIT auction proposal, in the views of the author, is also based
on the premise that the facilities that would be up for auction would
be beneficial to a region and ought to be built somewhere, despite the
localized cost they impose.
The regional benefits of a permanent nuclear management facility, if
anything, are minimal.
PAGENO="0058"
54
The only benefits that would seem to accrue to the local area would
be those tliat could be bargained or conned out of the granting agency
in exchange for positive action.
But this would have no direct bearing on the establishment of the
site itself (a new school, a Federal office building, and so forth).
The net effect would be that instead of focusing on the unknown
risks involved and developing to the extent practicable strategies to
minimize those risks, the siting process could focus on peripheral
benefits.
Another major problem with the process is that it seems to leave
open the question of long-term liability.
The unknown risks involved with the storage of nuclear wastes bags
for the establishment of long-term liability on the part of the Federal
Government.
This responsibility must not be clouded by setting up a process
where State and local governments may have to go through lengthy
litigations.
To obtain redress for adverse effects that were initially unforeseen
and not taken into account in the host site's bid for the depository.
A third problem with the auction proposal is that it assumes that
several sites would be available for the facility under question.
Because of the technological and geological requirements of a nu-
clear waste depository this may not be the case.
The auctioning process could possibly lead to the siting of a deposi-
tory in a location that technologically would not be the best suited.
Though I have some serious misgivings about the auction approach,
I do believe that through a constructive and accountable decision-
making process, economic benefits and cooperation can and should be
integrated into nuclear waste management strategy.
The consultation and concurrence process supported by the National
Governors' Association and recommended by the IRG report would
allow for such negotiations. -
In such a process the focus, however, would be on the meeting of
hearing safety and criteria that would deal with the real and unknown
risks involved rather than with peripheral benefits.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and committee members on behalf of
Governor Ray for allowing the National Governors' Association the
opportunity to express these views.
If you have an questions or further discussion, I am at your disposal.
If I may, let me add a few remarks not contained in my statement,
Mr. Chairman, with your permission.
One is the Governors' policy that has come down to a veto on sub-
stantive grounds.
It asks for cooperative participation with the Federal Government,
but it does not ask for a veto out of hand, so that each State can pro-
tect its own interest with regard to neighboring States and calls for
each State to participate constructively in the process through the
stages, that resources be provided for the States so they can define their
environmental safety needs.
I would also like to add it is very important that there be coordina-
tion at the Federal level. It is pointed out here today, I believe earlier
by more than one committee member that DOE and NRC are not co-
ordinated. I would like to add the fact I am very concerned about that,
PAGENO="0059"
55
the focus of attention of the States has been dealing with DOE and
the IRG on development of nuclear waste management policy, yet the
NRC is developing rules and regulations with regard to the siting
of the nuclear waste repository.
Those two processes cannot go on independently or on parallel
tracks. They must be integrated. 1 would propose NRC not proceed
on their licensing tract until a full nuclear waste management strat-
egy has been developed, this includes what site criteria should be that
defines the role of the State, Federal Government, and Congress in that
such definition be included in congressional legislation.
That concludes my remarks.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. This is very helpful, and
we look forward to working with you and with them, with the
Governors.
Any questions?
Mr. CLAUSEN. I just have one. ,I noted that the nuclear repository
position adopted by the National Governors' Association was submit-
ted as an addendum to your testimony, it was adopted in August 1978.
Mr. HELMINSKI. Yes.
Mr. CLAUSEN. Has there been an update on that position since the
Three Mile Island incident took place?
Mr. HELMINSKI. No, there has not.
Mr. CLAUSEN. Do you plan to doso?
Mr. HELMINSKI. We have not received any policy recommendations
from the Governors for our summer meeting relative to that.
There was consideration of a policy position that was received, and
the Governors through the nuclear subcommittee, the national resource
environmental management committee, in working with the Governors,
we are awaiting for that study so as not to preempt the Governors pre~
rogatives in that study effort.
Mr. CLAUSEN. It clearly would be helpful to us if we had the up-
dated policy position.
Mr. HELMINSKI. I would like to add as a comment to that, that I
guess a little more than a year ago, the Governors through Governor
Edwards, who was then the nuclear subcommittee chairman, they made
the statement with regard to waste and nuclear power, which I think
hits the point you would like to make, the statement Governor Edwards
made, he said though I believe the technology, the implementation
strategy should be encompassing, as feasible, we should allow for the
evaluation of progress toward a final solution in sufficient detail to
determine further courses of action on the development of nuclear
power, though I believe the technology is available, it would be ir-
responsible for me to definitely say a solution was at hand, merely be-
cause a timetable or definitive plan existed and was finally agreed
upon.
Further accelerated nuclear development must he responsibly
weighed against the positive progress toward a solution to the prob-
lem, so the Governors are on record in weighing the solution to a waste
problem with regard to further development of nuclear power.
Mr. CLAUSEN. It would be helpful to us if there is an evolving new
position paper, new policy position. It would be helpful to us if we
could count on you to keep the committee informed and transfer that
to the committee.
PAGENO="0060"
56
I frankly suggest that we ask you to update your poiiey.
Mr. HELMINSKI. Yes; I believe that at the winter meeting, that will
probably come up as a result of the findings of the Three Mile Island
Conunission.
Governor Babcock has been involved in that.
The CHAIRNAN. Mr. Bereuter?
Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Helminski, I thought that the second paragraph on page 2 is
perhaps the most important one that you provided in your paper, I
would therefore ask you, are you stating that there is the possibility for
a. specific procedure to be estalished, whereby in the event of noncon-
currence, that nonconcurrence with the recommendation of the Federal
Administrator or nonconcurrence by the State, would specifically be
brought to the Congress for resolution for agreement or disagreement
with the Federal Administrator? Are you saying that such a proce-
dure might be an acceptable avenue in concluding in a decision?
Mr. HELMINSKI. Yes.
Mr. BEREUTER. Are you thinking about any specifics relating to a
process for expeditiously bringing this to the attention of the Con-
gress?
Mr. HEL~rIxsKI. Yes; in the National Governors' Association, we
have a policy position which we have used to establish our recommencla-
tions.
We have actually asked for a congressional conimnission essentially as
was described by Governor Dixy Lee Ray, the rebirth of the Joint
Atomic Energy Commission, only in the Joint Nuclear Waste Com-
mission, and it would have congressional membership, and such an
entity could be involved with respect to reviewing consultation concur-
rence.
Mr. BEREUTER. Are you suggesting that this entity, which is partly
congressionally manned, would be the decisionmaking factor in this
position of nonconcurrence, as opposed to the whole Congress?
Mr. HELMINSKI. The Congress would have to make a decision on how
it would set up such a body, but our policy decision calls for it being
set up by Congress rather than by the Executive.
Mr. BEREUTER. Is that described in the policy decision paper?
Mr. }IELMINSKI. Yes; it is.
One qualification, we did call for membership of the State and local
government as part of that commission, that was for stronger role, but
we also recognize that may be unwieldly with respect to the congres-
sional process.
Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you.
If I may continue further, would you like to indicate to us at this
time, or for the record, any other alternatives that were discussed, but
perhaps rejected, as not being as desirable from the Governors' Asso-
ciation's point of view, as in the case of the one you finally came up
with?
Mr. HEL~IINsIcI. The State veto was discussed, and the State veto out
of hand was rejected `by the majority of Governors, pro- and non-
nuclear, as far as advocates, because a number of States, both nuclear
power and not nuclear power, but given the fact that they were essen-
tially told that that was the "energy of the future," we were going to
pay virtually nothing for it.
PAGENO="0061"
57
I disagree with some of the perceptions the States should pay for
the penalty of looking toward future energy source as they did in the
1980's, and we rejected the State veto out of hand, based on the fact of
that, that States had to accept nuclear power, because there was no
other way to generate electricity at that time, and also defense waste
figured in the strategy, and as Governor Evans stated earlier, if you go
for State veto, I would only go for it that every State would accept its
share of defense waste.
Mr. BEREUTER. Specifically, in addition to what you said, `which is a
valuable contribution, and I appreciate it, were there any other al-
ternatives considered for a congressional resolution of conffict, other
than the one you already mentioned.
Mr. HELMINSKI. No. rllhe people talked about using the committee
process, they talked about a vote of approval on the plants, and we
did put forward a great bill that outlined the procedure, where annual
plans would be submitted, and Congress and tire plans would have
specified roles for State and local government.
The process would supposedly follow the adoption of a national
energy plan to be submitted annually and updated.
Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Seiberling?
Mr. SEIBERLING. Mr. Helminski, the Governors' Association testi-
mony, and your testimony, seem to agree in principle with that of
I[-LR. 2762 as to the desirability of having a process, and the fact that
the State must consent to site specific decisions. I certainly think
the idea of having congressional opportunity to override the State veto
is a workable concept.
Have you any thoughts on H.R. 2762 specifically?
Mr. HELMINSKI. We were involved in the last Congress in working
with Senator McGovern in a similar proposal.
On behalf of the Governors, we had objection to the Federal legis-
lation to fighting between the Governor and his legislature, but the
basic concept of the proposal we agree with.
At the moment, however, we would like that proposal considered in
light of the various other proposals, that are on the Hill both in the
Senate and in the House.
We would like a comprehensive nuclear waste management plan,
and we would like something at the national level, in addition to the
Federal-State commissioners outlined in your proposal and Senator
McGovern's proposal.
What we recommend rather than a strategy of amending the NRC
Authorization Act, which is going on in the Senate at this time, is to
include and bring that proposal into more comprehensive proposals,
and it would suggest to this committee that your proposal be integrated
into a national comprehensive nuclear waste policy.
Mr. SEIBERLING. Thank you.
I thought you made some other excellent suggestions, such as the
user tax, and user fees, to pay for the cost of storage.
.1 would like to make one other comment. I strongly believe that
where the State and the executive branch do nOt agree, the matter
must be referred for final decision to the Congress-either to the Con-
gress as a whole under an expediting procedure, so the Congress can-
not just sit on it, or the joint committees or committees with jurisdic-
PAGENO="0062"
58
tion over the nuclear industry and the Nuclear Regulatory Commis-
sion. I think these matters are of such importance that they ought to be
decided on a political level by the offices which represent the whole
country-the Congress and the President.
Mr. HELMINSKI. I agree with you.
The recommendation of the joint commission was more to focus
attention in the Congress and the public with regard to Congress'
role, with regard to nonconcurrence, the feeling right now among the
Governors is that the concurrence, the review of nonconcurrence in
the whole Congress, so that the States again are allowed to partici-
pate through their congressional delegation in that review, so we were
not recommending that the joint commission be the body, but the whole
Congress be the body, but the whole commission essentially be the focal
point rather than have many focal points at your disposal.
i~'Ir. SEIBERLING. You do not need to comment on this, but I am in-
herently suspicious of anything suggested by Dixy Lee Ray.
Mr. HELMINSKI. That is part of our commission policy.
Mr. BEREUTER. I appreciate the question you put, because I thought
that I received the opposite answer a few minutes ago-that the corn-
mission, the intergovernmental commmission established would be
making that recommendation.
Mr. SEIBERLING. That is what I thought too.
Mr. BEREUTER. The official policy of the association as I understand
it is the answer you just gave to Mr. Seiberling?
Mr. HEL~IINsKI. That is correct. When you say the official policy,
both Governor Evans and also the NGA position paper asked for the
review and study of a congressional process implying a role for the
whole Congress.
We have not adopted policy, but we recognize the fact that that is
a good avenue to explore, to look at nonconcurrence.
Mr. SEIBERLING. Thank you.
Governor Ray's position as former Chairman of the NRC, gives
her a built-in bias.
Mr. HEL~IINsKI. I should qualify the position actually was devel-
oped, Governor Ray had one vote on it, and the nuclear subcommittee
adopted it, and it was adopted by the full association.
She made that after she had seen the position as drafted.
Mr. `WEAVER. Thank you very much.
Mr. HEI~rINsKI. Thank you.
The CHArRMAN. Our next witness is Mr. Peter Franchot, staff attor-
ney, Union of Concerned Scientists.
Mr. Franchot, I appreciate your coming.
[Prepared statement of Peter Franchot, Union of Concerned Sci-
entists may be found in the appendix.]
STATEMENT OP PETER PRANCHOT, STAPP ATTORNEY, UNION OP
CONCERNED SCIENTISTS
Mr. FRANOHOT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the important issue of
public participation in the siting and licensing of nuclear waste facil-
ities.
PAGENO="0063"
59
The Union of Concerned Scientists is a nonprofit group of scientists
and technical professionals who are supported financially by 80,000
members of the American public.
USC is presently conducting a management program which will be
published in the fall of 1979.
One conclusion from this study focuses on the large difference be-
tween "theory" and "practice" in the area of radioactive waste man-
agement.
In theory, some technical problems of waste management may be
considered solvable.
In practice, however, there is considerable uncertainty about the
implementation of a proper program to protect the health and safety
of future generations.
It is our belief that full public participation in the siting of radio-
active waste facilities has the potential for weeding out technically
sound sites.
We believe that public participation can be insured by giving States -
the explicit power to approve or disapprove the siting of a Federal
radioactive waste facility within their borders, after a review of the
technical, social, and engineering issues involved.
For that reason we would urge this committee to support H.R. 2762
cosponsored by Representatives Kemp and Seiberling and 35 other
Members of the House.
Such explicit authority will minimize the chances that a technically
flawed site will be chosen because it will increase public scrutiny and
examination of the technical issues.
In addition, if a technically sound site is selected and approved by
the public or their elected representatives, there will be greater assur-
ance of public acceptance.
It is important to discuss the background of the U.S. radioactive
waste management program.
The issue of public participation and States rights should not be
viewed in a vacuum.
There are serious risks associated with a poorly managed program.
There is a large and growing inventory of commercially generated
radioactive waste.
There is a careless track record of radioactive waste management in
this country characterized by incompetence and indifference to the
public interest.
A brief review of the program can only lead to the conclusion that
States should be more than equal partners with the Federal Govern-
ment in deciding about the siting of a waste facility within its borders.
Our fear, unlike critics of our position, is not that the Federal Gov-
ernment will fail to choose a site for radioactive waste, but rather,
under intense political and economic pressure, a flawed site will be
chosen despite contrary technical evidence.
The "political" or institutional, problem of radioactive waste man-
agement was recently noted by Mr. Gus Speth, a member of the Council
on Environmental Quality when he said, "I am personally very con-
cerned that those who see shoring up the nuclear option as a vital
objective will see an affirmative answer on the question of the nuclear
future as so important that they will shortchange serious issues and
uncertainties related to safe waste management."
PAGENO="0064"
60
The potential consequences of improperly stored radioactive waste
are, quite rightly, unsettling to members of the public from a possible
host State.
The emissions from this waste are invisible, odorless, and tasteless,
yet they are highly toxic and persistent.
They cannot be felt or heard.
Yet minute amounts are capable of inducing cancer in the living,
birth defects in the unborn, and rnuta.genic effects in the descendants
of those exposed.
Improperly guarded, radioactive wastes may be dangerous for
thousands of years.
The current inventory of radioactive waste is enormous.
As a result of commercial power reactors, we have accumulated over
17,000 spent fuel assemblies that are stored primarily in water-cooled
basins at reactor sites.
Commercial power reactors have also produced approximately 15
million cubic feet of low level radioactive wastes which are stored at
six licensed facilities, three of which are closed.
Government reactors used for military activities have produced 80
million gallons of high-level radioactive waste stored in liquid and
solid form at Hanford, Wash., Savannah River, S.C., and Idaho Falls,
Idaho.
There are 600,000 gallons of liquid high-level wastes and sludge
derived from commercial and military spent fuel stored at the aban-
doned West Valley, N.Y., site.
In addition there are over 140 million tons of uranium mill
tailings that are stored in partially stabilized piles and hundreds of
contaminated Government buildings and facilities that await
decommissioning.
The problem is growing larger.
Although wastes from military activities are expected to increase
slightly, wastes from commercial reactors are expected to dramatically
increase in the near future.
The radioactive waste management program has a track record
marred by many examples of incompetence and attempted political
expediency.
Along with the hazards of fallout from weapons testing, unresolved
reactor safety problems, and other problems under its jurisdiction,
the Atomic Energy Commission, blinded by promotional zeal, also
misled the American public about the problems of radioactive waste.
Today, the Department of Energy is afflicted with a similar conflict
of priorities where it has a dual responsibility for promoting nuclear
power and also resolving the radioactive waste problem-which is per-
ceived as an impediment to the growth of nuclear power.
Some of the conspicuous failures in past history include:
A. The tanks at Hanford, Wash. Millions of gallons of high level
radioactive liquid waste are stored in single walled carbon steel tanks
at the Hanford, Wash., Reservation. Despite warnings from the U.S.
Geological Survey and the General Accounting Office about the integ-
rity of the tanks, the AEC neglected to follow recommendations to dis-
continue their use.
By 1973, 422,000 gallons of liquid waste had seeped into the sandy
soil of Hanford.
PAGENO="0065"
61
One celebrated leak of 115,000 gallons went undetected for 51 days
because no one bothered to compare readings that had been taken from
one week to the next.
B. The Lyons, Kans., debacle. In 1972, the Atomic Energy Commis-
sion testified before Congress that they had spent 15 years and $100
million of taxpayers' dollars studying bedded salt disposal and and the
solution to the problem could be found immediately at Lyons, Kans.
So confident was the AEC that Milton Shaw, Director of the AEC's
Division of Reactor Development, stated before Congress that the site
was "equal to or superior to the others [in the country]."
The site was found to be grossly unsuitable by the Kansas State Geo-
logical Survey.
Dr. William Hambleton of the Survey described the Lyons, Kans.,
site as "a bit like a piece of Swiss cheese" because of numerous gas and
oil boreholes. The site was abandoned.
C. Reprocessing failures. In 1976, Getty Oil abandoned a reprocess-
ing plant in West Valley, N.Y., and yielded ownership of 600,000
gallons of high-level radioactive waste to a reluctant State of New
York.
Other problems and failures have occurred at reprocessing facilities
at Morris, Ill., and Barnwell, S.C.
D. Low-level waste: Hanford, Maxey Flats, and Beatty, Nev. In
1973, the Atomic Energy Commission concluded that the concentration
of plutonium at the bottom of one of its burial trenches at Hanford,
Wash., might be enough to cause a spontaneous chain reaction. The
contaminated soil was excavated and removed.
In December 1977, the Maxey Flats, Ky., commercial disposal site
was closed when plutonium contamination was found in surface soil,
90-centimeter-deep soil cores, monitoring wells, and drainage streams.
The low-level commercial disposal site at Beatty, Nev., was known
locally as "the store" because site employees illegally sold radioactive-
contaminated tools, generators, plywood, and lab equipment to towns-
people in need of inexpensive equipment.
E. The WIPP facility: The waste isolation pilot project is a
bedded salt site near Carlsbad, N. Mex., originally slated for low-level
and transuranium contaminated defense wastes. In 1977, it was sug-
gested that high-level military wastes be put ihere, and in 1978, the
Deutch report suggested putting 1,000 spent fuel assemblies in WIPP
to demonstrate the scientific and technical feasibility of geologic dis-
posal in bedded salt.
The WIPP facility has been roundly criticized for technical reasons
and apparently will not be funded in the fiscal year 1980 budget.
It characterizes the current Federal program of radioactive waste
disposal from the perspective of the States.
I return then, to the question of what role the State government
should have in the siting of a Federal radioactive waste facility within
its borders.
It is our strong contention that faced with the large amount of cur-
rent and anticipated radioactive, waste, and the checkered history of
Federal management of the program, that Congress should establish a
process which both mandates consultation with prospective waste dump
States and also preserves the final right of the affected State to decide
whether it will host such a facility.
53-922 0 - Rfl - S
PAGENO="0066"
62
This combined process protects both State and national interests.
There are several compelling arguments in favor of H.R. 2762.
First, the consultation process implies that any final State decision
will follow, not precede, a full presentation of technical, engineering,
and environmental information associated with the project.
The consultation process guarantees that States will have the bene-
fit of factual data on which to base their decision.
Second, the authority to say "no" allows States to negotiate with the
Federal Government from a position of strength.
Many States may have site-specific characteristics to which Fed-
eral officials are insensitive.
For them, a veto power may prove essential in negotiating the
prgper site standards and equity compensation measures.
I~ or example, former Governor Mike O'Callaghan of Nevada en-
dorsed the consideration of his State as a waste storage site but went
on to say:
The State must have authority to veto the use of storage and transportation
facilities or other items that may account to a poor use of State resources or rep-
resent a real threat to the health, welfare and safety of State residents. Without
this power I would never agree to voluntary location of a facility within this
State. Should information come to light indicating that the radiation safeguards
were going to be inadequate * * * Nevada must have recourse to an expeditious
method of terminating planning involving land within the boundaries of the
State.
Third, H.R. 2762 provides that there will be public acceptance of
those sites that are eventually selected because it forces the Federal
Government to make a persuasive case that a site will be safe and
secure to those people who will be most directly affected.
Fourth, H.R. 2762 provides the type of public scrutiny and examina-
tion and debate which will prevent any politically motivated and tech-
nically flawed waste management proposal from going forward.
Fifth, many States have laws concerning the siting of a Federal
radioactive waste facility within their borders.
rllhose States include Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Ken-
tucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana,
New York, Oregon, South Dakota, and Vermont.
H.R. 2762 would affirm that the siting of a radioactive waste site
is such an important public policy decision that the people of an af-
fected State should be considered as full partners with the Federal
Government through their elected State representatives.
In conclusion, H.R. 2762 is not a ban on radioactive waste disposal.
It establishes a consultation process between affected States `and the
Federal Government which will protect the interests of the individual
States in the resolution of this important issue.
As President Carter said:
The waste generated by nuclear power must be managed so as to protect
current and future generations.
H.R.. 2762 is a step in the direction of a safe and publicly accepted
waste disposal program.
Thank you.
Mr. WEAVER [presiding]. Thank you very much, Mr. Franchot. It
is a very clear position of this situation.
Mr. CLAUSEN. Just a couple of questions. First, we want to thank you
for taking your time to come before the committee.
PAGENO="0067"
63
You mentioned 15 States I asked about before.
Mr. FRANCHOT. I will send a copy of the legislation.
Each of these States have varying types of legislation, but all of
them go in the same general direction that we would like to have some
final control over the decision, should our State be selected.
Mr. CLAUSEN. Would you agree with the previous witness for the
Governors' Association, that no matter where we go in further nuclear
policy, that there be a requirement to set up a conference?
Mr. FRANCHOT. I think without a doubt, there is responsibility for
taking care of current military and commercial wastes.
Mr. CLAUSEN. Do you think it is technologically feasible to do so?
Mr. FRANCHOT. I think the feeling of our organization is that some
of the technical problems are probably solvable, but we are very con-
cerned about the situation when the technical preferred method of
disposal is implemented in the real world, and if you look back at the
track record, there is considerable uncertainty as to whether or not
we can attain in this society under the type of pressures that appar~
ently exist, a proper waste disposal program that will protect, not only
us, but future generations, so what I am saying to you, I am not trying
to be coy, I am saying, yes, some of the technical objections may be
answered and may be solvable, but that is not to say that we are going
to have safe radioactive waste disposal programs.
That is why we are so interested in this particular proposal offered
by Congressman Seiberling, and why we support, for example, an in-
dependent radioactive waste authority, separate from the Department
of Energy.
Mr. CLAtISEN. I read in either a newspaper or magazine publication,
that the technology for the management of nuclear waste exists, that
it was just a matter of implementing the technology.
What is your response to that?
Mr. FRANCHOT. I do not think it is currently available.
The question is whether it will ever be available, in an engineering
sense, probably, yes, although there are some uncertainties there.
Whether or not we will be able to implement in a safe way is really
the question you have to ask, because, for example, radioactive waste
may in an engineering sense be able to be disposed in embedded salt
deposits, the question is whether you can protect States from having
what happened at the Lyons, Kans., site, from occurring in the future,
from having siting errors, and through engineering and siting errors
pick the wrong solution, and that I think is the real question you have
to answer as far as linking the radioactive waste problem to a develop-
ment of nuclear power.
I, for example, would be quite supportive of that concept that would
in the future link the future generation of electricity to different sites,
if the State has a technically viable site for disposing of the waste.
After a certain date, I think the State that benefits from nuclear
power, from either buying or producing electricity, probably should
be held responsible for disposal of that waste, provided there is a tech-
nically sound site within its borders.
Mr. CLAUSEN. There was reference, again from something I read,
from a German scientist indicating that one of the more viable op-
portunities for disposal of waste would be to place it in space, as con-
trasted to dealing with it here on Earth.
PAGENO="0068"
64
Have you heard about that?
Mr. FRANOHOT. I think one of the concerns with the space disposal
method is whether or not you can guarantee the reliability of the craft
that gets it up into space.
I think it is probably very appealing to see the universe as a garbage
pail, but the question is whether we are not subjecting ourselves to
enormous risk, should some kind of space vehicle heavily loaded with
radioactive waste fail to get out of the atmosphere, and I think as far
as the. technical aspects of the current state of the art on a radioactive
waste program is concerned, I would much prefer to have our scientists
and engineers submit written testimony to your questions as to pros
and cons, for example, of space disposal.
Mr. CLAUSEN. Thank you.
Our objective is to pursue any avenue, and these are not to be taken
lightly in any form. Certaintly my objective is to find out what the
truth is, and as we all know, in the pursuit of the truth, you always
have many different interpretations of what every person thinks to be
the truth. Our role, and our responsibility, is to consider even the most
remote suggestions.
Mr. FRANCHOT. I really think one way to get through this is to con-
c.entrate on the speed which you go about the program.
If you take your time, realizing that this is a project which affects
not only us, but future generations, and has to be done right, then you
are willing to say, OK, let us make sure it is done right, let us not get
stampeded into a given site, and a given State, because of an argument
that may not be applicable.
Mr. CLAUSEN. We may have some other questions that we will sub-
mit to you.
Mr. FRANCHOT. Thank you.
Mr. WEAVER. 1~fr. Franchot, you heard the statement, I believe with
Mr. Bateman, that so concerned Chairman Udall, that the cost of de-
veloping the waste disposal system might be $25 to $30 billion.
Do you agree that is too high, too low, about right, do you have any
guesses there?
Mr. FRANCHOT. I assume that would be fairly conservative in their
figures, and I would like to look at their figures and respond to you
in writing.
Mr. WEAVER. $25 to $30 billion would be conservative?
Mr. FRANCHOT. What I am saying is that the Department of Energy
generally has a reputation for being conservative in those computa-
tions that affect, for example, nuclear policy, and that clearly is a
figure that I think that agency would try to be as conservative as much
as possible.
I do not know what the figure is, and I would like to get back in
writing as to what the ball park figure is if it is possible to calculate.
Mr. WEAVER. Thank you.
[EDITOR'S No~ra.-The information referred to had not been sub-
mitted at time of printing and will be placed in the committee files
when received.]
Mr. WEAVER. The gentleman from Nebraska.
Mr. BERETJTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Franchot, two very different questions. First, if I understood
you correctly, you said in an engineering sense, it is possible to have
PAGENO="0069"
65
a safe solution to the disposal of nuclear waste. Is that generally
accurate?
Mr. FRANCHOT. Our tentative cOnclusion I would really like to have
our experts comment on in writing, essentially is that acceptable for
some forms of high level waste disposal, and it is possible to say that
some of the engineering impediments do stand in the way now will be
resolved.
We cannot say conclusively that the program in an engineering
sense is no problem.
Mr. BEREtITER. I would like to take us, for example, to Lyons, Kans.
It seems to me that we had a technical capability, the engineering
capability, to know that the proposal was basically flawed, and that
those capabilities were simply not there.
Would that be an accurate statement, as far as your understanding?
Mr. FRANCHOT. Yes.
Mr. BEREUTER. If that is a fact, then are you really saying that we
have the engineering sense but the problem is a matter of resolving
the political process, or providing a credible and honest application
of known technology to the problem?
Mr. FRANCHOT. What I am saying is that in the real world, it is very
difficult, particularly with a unique problem like the disposal of radio-
active waste to have some checks and balances, and when we look at
the history of the radioactive waste management program in this coun-
try, right up to the current day, under the direction of the Department
of Energy, as represented with WHIP, we feel apprehensive about im-
plementing the safe radioactive waste management program in this
country, and one check on that is to allow States, to have as much
scrutiny to debate technical discussions as possible, and the only reason
we like Congressman Seiberling's proposal is that it does generate con-
siderable scrutiny and debate.
It would be nice to have a neutral scientific organization within the
Government that would do a responsible job of disposing of radio-
active waste.
You can create a new authority. It is very difficult to legislate that
it. be impartial, and that it not respond to political pressures.
You can create a new authority. It is very difficult to legislate that
it be impartial, and that it not respond to poltical pressures.
For example, the State of California, or the State of `Connecticut
recently, or the State of Maine, that says we are not going to allow
any more nuclear reactors to be. built until there is a safe method of dis-
posing the waste, that puts particular pressure on a Federal agency to
come up with a solution, and the question is, there will be a solution,
but let us make sure it is right.
Mr. BEREUTER. Shifting gears to a very different area, the French
of course are experimenting with liquefied waste.
I am sure the people you represent must be familiar with that.
In relative terms, and recognizing the very costs of the process you
have cited: Is anybody among your membership watching?
Mr. FRANCHOT. Yes; this is being done on an examination basis of
not only the French program, but other Western European programs.
I would be happy to supply a list of those.
Mr. BEREUTER. I would appreciate that. As a matter of fact, Mr.
Chairman, I would like to have that submission made a part of the
record.
PAGENO="0070"
66
Mr. WEAVER. Without objection.
[EDITOR'S N0TE.-The information requested follows.]
FOREIGN PROGRAMS IN RADIoACTIvE WASTE MANAGEMENT
To allow comparison with the waste management program of the United States,
short descriptions of foreign waste management programs are presented below.
Although some countries are farther advanced in particular waste management
areas, such as vitrification, no country has progressed beyond the United States
in the field of permanent waste disposal.
UNITED KINGDOM
The United Kingdom has a reprocessing facility which is capable of handling
about 1,000 metric tons per year. The reprocesSing wastes are stored in liquid
form in double walled steel tanks. Eventually, this waste is supposed to be con-
verted into borosilicate glass and buried in geologic formations. Current research
points to two options: Clay formations or crystalline rocks.
FRANCE
France has constructed or is in the process of constructing reprocessing facili-
ties with an annual capacity of 3,200 metric tons. Liquid reprocessing wastes
have been stored in engineered storage facilities until now. The French have
developed a program for converting the liquid wastes to borosilicate glass. They
are also assessing the suitability of salt as a medium for geologic disposal.
CANADA
The Canadian waste management program generally tracks that of the United
States. Presently, no fuel reprocessing facilities for commercial fuel exist in Can-
ada, and spent fuel is stored as in the United States. Studies into the feasibility
of geologic disposal have been conducted, concluding that igneous rock may be a
suitable medium. As of yet, no actual disposal has taken place.
JAPAN
At the present time, Japan has ten operating nuclear reactors and ten others
under construction or in the planning stage. Current reprocessing capacity is 210
metric tons per year, although a 1,900 metric tons/year plant is planned for op-
eration in the 1990's. Reprocessing wastes are stored as acid liquid in stainless
steel tanks. Because Japan has no terminal disposal capability due to its small
land area the Japanese are very interested in activities in other countries related
to geologic disposal. They are also interested in seabed disposal and the island
disposal concept, that is, finding an uninhabited island and dumping the waste
there.
FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY
The FRG has no reprocessing capacity for commercial fuel, but does have a
commitment from France to reprocess all uncommitted German fuel through
1981. Germany plans to construct a fuel cycle center at Gorleben in Lower
Saxony. At this site, fuel will be reprocessed and recycled, and waste will be
buried in salt below the site. Some political problems may arise from this, how-
ever, because the Gorleben salt dome extends under the Elbe River into East
Germany.1 Currently, the German are disposing of low and intermediate-level
wastes in an abandoned salt mine at Asse. This is a commercial program.
BELGIUM
Although Belgium has an active waste management program which is investi-
gating, among other things, geologic disposal, it seems unlikely that any waste
will be buried within the borders of the country as a result of its limited land
area.
1 In the spring of 1979, the German federal government, under pressure from the public
and tile state of Lower Saxony (location of the Gorleben site), decided to postpone construc-
tion of the facility.
PAGENO="0071"
67
SWEDEN
The Swedish government has a reactor licensing policy similar to that of
California. In order to comply with the "Nuclear Stipulation Law", as it is called,
the Swedish power industry established the Nuclear Fuel Safety Project-also
called the KBS Project-to develop and evaluate a method for the management
of glassifled liquid waste from reprocessing through storage in deep crystalline
rock. Under the KBS plan, spent fuel will be reprocessed in France, the liquid
wastes vitrified and placed in stainless steel canisters, returned to Sweden and
allowed to cool for 30 years, with emplacement of the encapsulated wastes in a
crystalline rock repository at a 500 meter depth no earlier than 2020. The storage
holes and tunnels will be backfllled with a quartz sand-bentonite mixture which
possesses good ion exchange characteristics, and which, upon contact with water
expands to become almost totally impermeable. A review of the KBS Report by
the California Commission concluded that many of the technical gaps troubling
the U.S. geologic disposal program would also be encountered in the Swedish
program. An assessment of the report written for the Swedish Energy Commis-
sion by Dr. J. Winchester of the Florida State University Department of Ocean-
ography presented similar conclusions. Sweden is also cooperating with the
United States in tests being conducted in an abandoned iron mine to determine
the response of granite to heating.
U.S.S.R.
The Soviet Union has a very small reprocessing capacity at present, but is
building a commercial reprocessing facility with an 1,800 MT/yr. capacity, to be
operational in the early 19S0's. Experiments with the vitrification of wastes into
glass are being conducted, and studies of geologic isolation have been done. At
present, surface storage for high-level wastes is being emphasized.
One of the more intriguing stories concerning radioactive waste management
has to do with a purported radioactive waste explosion which occurred in the
Soviet Union. The primary source of information concerning this incident has
been Zhores Medvedev, a Soviet emigre biologist currently residing in London.
In an article in New Scientist (Medvedev, 1976), he wrote that a waste
storage site in Kyshtym in the southern Ural Mountains exploded in 1957,
killing hundreds, injuring thousands, and radioactively contaminating some
2,000 square kilometers (770 square miles) to very high levels. Although Mcd-
vedev assumed that the accident was known to Western scientists, this was not
the case, and his report created a great deal of interest and no little controversy.
Nonetheless, the possibility of such an accident was dismissed by most nuclear
scientists in the United States and Great Britain. Medvedev, in an attempt to
prove the truth of his report, began to research the incident and published two
articles which confirmed that some sort of nuclear accident had indeed taken
place. In late 1977, the CIA released documents which indicated that a nuclear
accident-possibly associated with a reactor-has occurred in Kyshtym.
By 1978, Medvedev managed to arouse sufficient interest, hostility, and criticism
to cause the formation of a study group on the Kyshtym accident at the Oak
Ridge National Laboratory. The group published a preliminary report which
stated that Medvedev erred about the `source of the radio active material and the
size of the contaminated area. The study group concluded that the accident re-
sulted from a chemical explosion in a nuclear fuel reprocessing plant and con-
ta'minated 65 square kilometers rather than the 2,000 reported by Medvedev.
However, at least one member of the study group has acknowledged that
Medvedev may have been correct about the source of the explosion. In any case,
the amount of radioactivity released was enormous: up to one million curies of
strontium-90 may have entered a lake near the site of the accident, resulting in
a level of contamination about 1,000 `times greater than that which would be
caused by fallout from the explosion of a nuclear bomb. (See section 7 of bib-
liography for a listing of references about this accident.)
INDIA
India, with three small power reactOrs, and five more under construction, has
a 60 metric ton/year reprocessing plant, and is planning a construct a 100 metric
ton/year plant. India also possesses a plant capable of reprocessing fuel from an
experimental reactor. Plutonium extracted from this fuel was used to construct
the atomic device detonated in 1974. India is investigating igneous rock forma-
tions and selected sedimentary deposits as repository sites.
PAGENO="0072"
68
OTHER COUNTRIES
Many other countries have nuclear programs, with reactors in operation, under
construction, or on order. They do not have any reprocessing or disposal capacity,
however. President Carter announced in 1977 that the United States would be
willing to accept limited amounts of spent fuel from selected countries if such a
move would prevent construction of national reprocessing facilities with the
attendant danger of nuclear proliferation. The Deutch Report estimates that by
the year 2000, the United States may have up to 22,000 metric tons of foreign
spent fuel in storage.
Mr. FRANCHOT. One other point I have heard today that we would
object to is the idea that once the State objects to a radioactive waste
facility, that automatically a congressional override process would be
triggered.
I think that would be unfortunate, and I do not think you ought to
be giving with one hand authority to States to make technical objec-
tions and with the other hand, provide what I think would be a very
easy override provision.
I get a sense that the Congress would be less sensitive to some of
the idiosyncrasies and site specific problems of a rural area like Ne-
vada or Nebraska, than there would be perhaps to the national goal
of developing nuclear power.
Mr. WEAVER. The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Seiberling's name has
been mentioned a number of times. He certainly deserves to question
the witness.
Mr. SEIBERLING. Thank you.
Mr. Franchot, let me first of all congratulate the Union of Con-
cerned Scientists, under the leadership of David Shown, for the many
years of work in this whole field of nuclear problems. I particularly
appreciate their support of H.R.. 2762, and I would just like to ask
you one question. You have probably heard the conversations earlier
today about the possibility of having Congress act as a final arbiter
in the event a State and the executive branch do not agree. I wonder
how you feel about that.
Mr. FRANCHOT. I would propose certain language changes in your
bill.
I would make the commission that the Governors request, and I
would let only the State legislature by law and other powers under the
Constitution make that final decision at the end of the consultation
process.
I think that would clear up any conflict between your legislature and
your Governor.
The reason that I really feel the congressional override that can be
triggered by one State veto to a site is a type of sham, and I would
oppose it.
If six or seven States in a row that had technically suitable sites
were to decide at the end of the consultation process that they did not
want a site in that State, then I can see some mechanism for a con-
gressional override.
I think it is really implicit once you reach that type of situation.
Mr. SEIBERLING. What you are saying is if the process resulted in
an inability to get any State to agree on a site, and obviously we
have to dump the material, at that point there is an impasse which
could not be resolved except by an act of Congress.
PAGENO="0073"
69
Mr. FRANOHOT. Right, and the only difference would be unlike what
we are doing now, we would have the benefit of a thorough examina-
tion of a number of different sites.
Mr. SEIBERLING. I think that is a worthwhile point.
I am not sure whether I would require it to reach that stage or not,
but I think that perhaps that would be desirable.
Congress could always, in the process of making a decision, learn
whether there are other possible sites and take that into account
in deciding whether or not to override the State's objections, and, of
course, Congress can mandate it anyway by an act of Congress on its
own initiative.
Mr. FRANOHOT. I think you have a good bill, and you ought to leave
the congressional override out, because it is implicit, and I think cer-
tain States if they are given enough incentives and assurances that a
site is safe will accept one.
I do not think we are quite in a situation where I would put an edi-
torial in the New York Times, but I read one recently that said one
consultant to the NRC has said nuclear waste be renamed to make it
more acceptable to communities.
That is that it be changed to nuclear bonus material.
Mr. SEIBERLING. That is about as practical as my suggestion that we
name the waste disposal site as a memorial to various elected State
officials.
Mr. FRANOHOT. I think the only answer is to require the Federal
Government to go in and make a persuasive case to people who have the
right to say no, that technically this site will be something that is se-
cure, not only for them, but for their children.
Mr. SEIBERLING. I have some confidence that the Congress in that
sense, where a State was very strOngly opposed, would not likely over-
ride that State's feelings in the matter.
On the other hand, I would hate to see the thing have to reach the
point where we are absolutely desperate before Congress would for-
mally be required to bite the bullet.
Members of Congress like other human beings do not like to make
tough decisions, if there is~some way of avoiding it. It seems to me the
virtue of having the matter go before the Congress is to balance the
scales between the Department of Energy and the State a little bit,
since they both have the uncertainty as to what Congress will do, and,
therefore, would be compelled to try to reach agreement. At the same
time Congress would make a decision, if the matter is not resolved.
However, I think your point is a good one about having the process
exhaustive before making it compulsory on the Congress to come up
with a decision. Congress can always step in at some point if it so
desires, but knowing human nature, I would say Congress is not likely
to want to wade in.
Thank you. I have no further questions.
Mr. WEAVER. I want to thank you very much, Mr. Franchot, for the
leadership provided by the Union of Concerned Scientists.
We count on you, as I know the Congress has, to give us a balanced
point of view to our own efforts.
Mr. FRANOHOT. Thank you for your patience.
Mr. WEAVER. The subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, the subcommittee was adjourned at 1:10 p.m.]
PAGENO="0074"
PAGENO="0075"
71
A P p E N D I X
Additional Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
TESTIMONY OF
WILLIAM J. DIRCKS, DIRECTOR
OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY AND SAFEGUARDS
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS
U.S. HOUSE OF:REPRESENTATIVES
JUNE 28, 1979
I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission's programs for public and state involvement in waste management
decisionmaking. Appearing with me today is Mr. Jack Martin, Director of the
Division of Waste Management.
When I speak of public participation, I mean participation by all non-
Federal agency groups and individuals. Iwill limit my discussion to high-level
waste (HLW) as requested. I do not at this time, intend to review the responsi-
PAGENO="0076"
72
bilities of NRC for waste management. Rather, I intend to address public
participation in NRC decisionmaking, state participation in NRC decisionmaking,
and the Commission's views on state veto.
The Commission recently submitted to the Congress a report on Means for
Improving State Participation in the Siting, Licensing, and Development of Federal
Nuclear Waste Facilities," NUREG-0539, dated flarch 1979. This report covers the
area of state participation in depth and provides specific findings and recommen-
dations for improving this participation. Some of the points I am addressing
here are included in this report.
Public Partici~pation in NRC Decisionmaking
There are two key points at which public participation is most important and
affects NRC decisionmaking. The first is during development of regulations and
the second is during the licensing process.
Development of Re~ulatlons
The public has been involved in our efforts to develop regulations. In
November of 1978, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission published for comment a
proposed General Statement of Policy (GSP) outlining procedures for licensing
geologic disposal of high-level radioactive wastes (HLW). At the same time, a
draftrule consisting of specific requirements which would implement the pro-
cedures of the General Statement of Policy was circulated to the state govern-
ments for their review. Comments were received on the General Statement of Policy
from thirty groups and individuals. Fourteen states commented on the draft rule.
PAGENO="0077"
73
As a result of these comments and the Interagency Review Groups Report to
the President, the staff has modified the draft licensing procedure and is
planning to forward it to the Commission for approval to publish for comment in
the Federal Register as a proposed rule (10 CFR 60).
In addition, the staff is planning tosubmit to the Commission for approval
to publish for comment in the Federal Register an Advanced Notice of Rulemaking
which describes the status of technical criteria which will ultimately be included
in 10 CFR 60 and identifies the staff's current thinking on important Issues which
have not yet been resolved. In addition to seeking early public comments on the
proposed rule via the Advanced Notice of Rulemaking, we will publish results of
technical work in support of the technical criteria to be included in the rule.
Notice of this will be made in the Federal Register and comments will be requested.
Licensing Process
In light of comments received and further staff evaluation, the staff will
propose to the Commission licensing procedures which are somewhat different from
those outlined in~he proposed General Statement of Policy sent out for comments.
I wish to stress that no Commission decision has been reached on which procedures
will be adopted. As we in the staff presently conceive It, the proposed rule
will Involve the NRC and the public during the actual license process in four
stages as follows. The first stage begins when DOE has formulated plans for a
prospective repository to the extent that it wishes to begin subsurface
characterization of a specific site or sites. At this point, DOE will be required
to submit a site characterization plan to NRC. The plan will address the process
by which the media and site were selected and DOE' s program for further develop-
ment of alternative media and sites. At this time, NRC will notify affected
PAGENO="0078"
74
states of this proposed action. The plan will be reviewed by the NRC staff with
opportunity for state and public comment on both the plan and a staff analysis of
the report. It is also anticipated that the NRC will hold local public meetings
in the immediate area of the sites to be characterized. These meetings are both
to disseminate information and to obtain public input which will be factored
into the final version of the staff analysis. NRC fully expects that DOE will
involve state and local governments in its site selection programs. We will re-
quire that this involvement will be described in the site characterization plan.
The second stage begins with the submission by DOE of an application for
construction authorization at a particular site. At this point, several sites
will have been characterized from which one site will have been selected. Formal
licensing proceedings will begin at this stage. A licensing board will be
appointed~ and the license application and accompanying environmental report will
undergo the first review. Public hearings will be held prior to deciding whether
to permit construction.
The third stage commences with an application by DOE to receive wastes at
the repository. Although not specifically required, public hearings may be held
and the public would have an opportunity to participate.
The fourth stage is the closure of the repository. Once all the wastes have
been emplaced, an application will be made by DOE to close the repository, and
the final review of the repository will begin. The public will have an opportunity
to participate in this stage.
PAGENO="0079"
75
It should be noted that our contacts with the states to date indicate that
each state will probably have different ideas regarding the extent to which they
desire to participate in the licensing process. Thus, the proposed rule is
structured so that each state has the flexibility to participate in the process to
the extent it desires or has the capability to do so. The staff intends to develop
guidance to assist the states in planning for their participation.
State Participation in NRC Decisionmakiflg
In coordination with the Office of State Programs, for the past two years my
office has had an active program to bring about greater state participation in
waste management decisionmaking and to exchange ideas with state officials. We
have participated in state legislative and administrative hearings and meetings on
waste management and have sponsored a series of three regional workshops in
September 1977 to solicit ideas from state officials on siting and licensing of
high-level waste repositories. The workstiops were attended by 170 state executives
and legislators from 46 states. I would like to provide for the record the
document~ resulting from these workshops. A smaller meeting was held in Atlanta,
Georgia in January 1979 to discuss with state representatives means for improving
state participation in~siting, licensing and development ofwaste disposal facilities.
PAGENO="0080"
76
In addition, based on the draft procedures, and in response to a report from
the State of New Mexico we started discussions with the state to reach an agree-
ment on how New Mexico would participate in a review of the Waste Isolation Pilot
Plant in the event DOE submits an application to NRC and NRC has authority to
regulate the facility. As some first steps in establishing that relationship,
we have been exploring with the state agencies concrete ways in which the state
can interact with NRC. Some of the ways states can participate which are being
explored with New Mexico could also be applicable to state participation on
licensing of a high-level waste repository.
For example:
- States could participate in regulatory development especially in
reviewing the basis of our regulations.
- States could assist NRC in the review of specific portions of
license applications.
- States could perform other technical assistance work, particularly
in the area of environmental studies.
- States could perform environmental and radiation monitoring throughout
the operational period and after closure.
- States could participate by assignment of state employees to NRC or
NRC contractors or by using an NRC employee on assignment to the state
during the licensing process.
In summary, states will be provided with the opportunity to participate in
the licensing process. As recommended in NUREG-0539, Federal funding should be
provided to assist the states. I should like to note that legislation would be
required to authorize NRC to provide such funding.
PAGENO="0081"
77,
Commission Views on State Veto
i have already noted that the Commission believes it.appropriate to give
statutory recognition to the legitimate concerns of states In which waste
facilities maybe located.
The Commission made several recommendations in NUREG-0539 for legislation.
to improve the capabilities for improved state participation in the Federal waste
manag~ment program should provide additional recognition of state concerns. The
recommendations requiring legislation include: (1) establishment of a Federally
financed planning council composed of Federal and state officlas, (2) Federal
funding of an independent technical review capability under the direction of the
planning council, and (3) establishment of a Federal grant program to allow host
states to participate more fully in the Federal waste management program.
Up to this point, I have described ways that states might participate as
active members in the process of siting and licensing nuclear waste facilities.
When we come to the question of concurrence or veto, the issue becomesmuch more
complex. In the Commission's NUREG-0539 report, a number of factors bearing on
this question are identified:
1. The practical consequences of failure to achieve concurrence. Would
this require a complete halt to the process at the time of the non-
concurrence? Or would activities of siting, licensing and development
be allowed to continue pending resolution of the sfate's concern?
2. The grounds on which a non-concurrence is made. The procedure might
,allow an interested state to exercise a veto without any reasons at
all or the procedure might require a £tate to base its actions, using
the record of the Commission's proceedings, on its determination~th.at
specific environmental or safety concerns have been violated.
53-9320-80-6
PAGENO="0082"
78
3. The form in which a state might invoke a veto. Should it be on the
action of the Governor, the legislature or some other body within
the state?
4. The point at which the veto might be invoked. We would prefer that
the NRC licensing review be allowed to run its course in an orderly
and untrammeled manner. This process is designed to provide for
extensive state participation and we feel that it should not be
lnterrup~daS a result of a state veto. Thus, if a state veto were
to be allowed we believe that such a veto should only occur after the
NRC has assembled a fully developed factual record and a statement of
the Commission's conclusions. Such a record would then be available
and could be used in the resolution of the remaining differences.
5. The authority to resolve the differences. A veto provision should
include a means to resolve differences between an affected state and
Federal agencies concerned. This might take the form of action on
the part of Congress or a Congressional Cormnittee.
6. The extent to which a decision, other than that of the Commission
would be subject to review.
In summary, we believe, that if provision for a state veto were to be
made, that provision should be carefully drafted to clarify the circumstances
under which the veto can be exercised. This should include requiring
the state to exercise all reasonable means to resolve its difficulties.
In closing, the NRC's high-level waste program is an evolving one. We
recognize that there are unresolved issues in how to best achieve public
Involvement and will continue to explore additional ways to increase the
productive involvement of the public and the state in the licensing and
regulatory process.
PAGENO="0083"
79
Udall Com~nittee Hearing on State Participation in the Waste Licensing Process
Question: A description of the state of the art of waste manageme~t technology
which identifies the specific technological shortcomings, provides an estimate
of the amount of tire necessary to resolve those problems, and defines the
roagn~tude of the waste disposal problem.
Answer:
The High-Level Waste Problem
Radioactive waste is the byproduct of the generation of electricity by nuclear
reactors or of the production of plutonium for ~eapors. Fuel assemblies must
be removed periodically from nuclear reactors as fission products accumulate
These spent fuel assemblies contain large concentrations of fissio~ products
which decay to innocuous levels in several hundred years, an~of longer, lived
tr~nsuranic elements and their daughters~i~ich persist for hundreds of thousands
of years.
Spent fuel can be processed chemically ~o recover roost of the plutonium and
unfissioned uranium for possible reuse. Tne residuum from this process is a
highly radioactive ~yproduct usually referred to as `high-level waste.' The
United States currently does not plan t~ reprocess spent fuel; thus, the
immediate problem of commercial radioactive waste is one of handling, storing,
and ultimately disposing of spent fuel assemblies.
Radioactive wastes from military activities are somewhat different. These
wastes are mainly the residue after plutonium has been extracted from
materials that have been irradiated in a reactor designed specifically to
produce plutonium. Although military wastes contain many of the same fission
products and transL'n anic elements as cmmmercial waste and ocupy significant
volumes, their tote' radioactivity is lower per unit volume than that resulting
from power reactors. At present, there isabout the same total radioactivity
in the waste resulting from defense programs as that stored in spent-fuel
assemblies from commercial reactors.
PAGENO="0084"
80
The volume of cormeercial radioactive waste that will accumulate during the
next few decades will depend upon the growth of the nuclear power industry and
on the form of the waste. It has been estimated that by the year 2000,
approximately 95,000 tons of spent fuel will be on hand if none has been
reprocessed. if these spent fuel elements were to be reprocessed, the
resulting3solid high-level waste would occupy approximately 3,000 cubic
meters (in ), and accompanying intermediate-level wastes contaminated
by transuranic elements would occupy a volume one order of magnitude
larger than the volume of high-level waste.
Hich-Level Waste Manaoement Technology
High-level wastes are highly radioactive ard biologically toxic and must
be isolated from the biosphere. Isolation methods being investigated
include disposal into space, transmutation of elements, rock melting,
disposal in very deep drill holes, disposal in seabed sediments, and
disposal in mined repositories in deep continental geologic formations.
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is responsible for developing and
implanenting the technology for managing high-level radioactive waste
and it is our understanding DOE tentatively views geologic repositories to
offer the most viable near-term opportunity for the disposal of high-level
waste. Therefore, NRC is focusing its near term efforts on preparing to
revio;i an application for a geologic repository.
The staff agrees with the findings of the interagency Review Group (IRO)
on Nuclear Waste Management that:*
`Present scientific and technological knowledge is adequate to identify
potential repository sites for further investigation. No scientific or
technical reason is known that would prevent identifying a site that is
suitable for a repository provided that the systems view is utilized
rigorously to evaluate the suitability of sites and designs, and in
riir,imizing the influence of future human activities. A suitable site is
one at which a repository would meet predetermined criteria and which
would provide a high degree of assurance that radioactive waste can be
successfully isolated from the biosphere for periods of thousands of years.
For periods beyond a few thousand years, our capability to assess the per-
formance of the repository diminishes and the degree of assurance is therefore
reduced. The feasibility of safely disposing of high-level waste in mined
repositories can only be assessed on the basis of specific investigations
at and determinations of suitability of particular sites. information
~iport to the President by the Interagency Review Group on Nuclear
Waste Nanagement, Narch 1979, page 42.
PAGENO="0085"
81
obtained at each successive step of site selection and repository development
will permit re-evaluation of risks, uncertainties, and the ability of the site
and repository to meet regulatory standards. Such re-evaluations would lead
either to abondonment of the site or a decision to proceed to the next step.
Reliance on conservative engineering practices and multiple independent barriers
can reduce some risks and compensate for some uncertainties. However, even at the
time of decommissioning some uncertainty about repository performance will still
exist. Thus, in add~tion to technical evaluation, a societal judgment that
considers the level of risk and the associated uncertainty will be necessary."
The specific areas of scientific and technical uncertainty ~,i~ich our
studies and our overall observation of high-level waste management activities
indicate must be clarified with respect to the permanent disposal of M'aste,
are as follows:*
1. The ability to analyze repository perfomancm is limited by the
large uncertaint4es which exist in site characterization. Uncertainty
in the description of site characteristics arise from many sources,
primarily the inherent limitations associated with the instrumentation
used to acquiredata, and the interpretation of site data into nodel
parameters. Additionally, the investigation of a site will most likely
involve the use of intrusive or destructfve tasting methods (e.g.,
boreholes) which may introduce potential pathway for waste release.
2. The ability to analyze repository performance is also limited by the
large uncertainties which are associated with the introduction of
radiation and heat into a geologic system. These phonemena require
significant additional study, particularly in the investigation of
thermal effects on the mechanical properties of the rock (e.g.,
plasticity, stress and strain), and the thermal effects on the
chemical interactions between the waste, groundwater and the rock
(e.g., dissolution, retardation).
3. Uncertainty also exists in the reliability of engineered barriers
to perform under repository conditions. Since the potential hazard
from radioactive waste decreases significantly within the first five
hundred years, engineered features such as waste form and specific
repository design concepts can significantly contribute to confinement
of the wastes during the most hazardous period.
~Additiona1 information on the state of advanced .w~ste management technologies
is presented in the recently completed Department of Energy's Draft Environmental
impact Statement on the Management of Conrsercially Generated Waste, April 1979
(DOE/EIS-0046-D).
PAGENO="0086"
82
To date, the designs of deep geologic repositories have placed major (if
not tctal) reliance for containment of radionuclides on the surrounding
geology. Reliance on the waste form itself and its packaging to prevent
radionuclide release over the long-term has not received intense mnphasis.
The waste form work that has been done has been devoted primarily to
glass. Many feel that several geological settings should be characterized
and `qualified~ before a commitment is made.
The NRC waste rnanage:.:ent staff considers that an analogous argument applies ~o
the waste form and pockaging selection. The potential gains in assurance which
could be made are, in our judgment, sufficiently large to warrant this approach.
The long-term performance of the waste form, packaging, and its reactions
with the host rock c~n be examined in the laboratory and can be extrapolated
with some confidence through testing at aggravated conditiions. mis approach
has been used successfully in modern materials development work. A high degree
of assurance of the performance of the waste form, packaging, host rock interface
would also tend to oTfset the inevitable uncertainties in geologic performance.
As a result, the NRC waste management staff bel thves that a much more aggressive
waste form and packaging development and demonstration effort should be under-
taken in order to provide a multi-barrier r~pository system. Tne completely
encapsulated nuclear waste would be protected by its chemical form and packaoin~
until most of its fission products had decayed. At that point, the geolooic
ra~ository' s radioactive content would not be much different than the original
ore body. This would leave the geology as a fully redundant backup harrier.
Tne NRC staff is working with D3E on this multi-barrier approach and our
prel iminary regul ation work refl ect this view.
We are not able at this time to determine in an absolute sense the significance
cf these areas of uncertainty to the overall safety achievable in permanent
nuclear waste disposal programs. The evaluation of the absolute importance
of each factor is site dependent, and cannot be meaningfully performed
until we have a specific site to assess. Our studies have revealad, however,
areas in ~ich further study is necessary to improve our confidence in
predictions of repository performance. These are:
1. assessment and l.esting of methods for processing waste into chemical
and physical forms which will provide optimuci radiological safety for
handling;
2. development of improved methods for.measuring and understanding the
mechanisms, rates; probabilistics governing the migration of radio-
nucl ides to the biosphere due to hydrological processes, or other
natural phenomena or by. the activities of. man ~n the distant future;
PAGENO="0087"
83
3. development and test of probabilistic risk analysis models which will
integrate and analyze the mulfidisciplinary aata needed to provide
predictive information for siting and licensing of high-level waste
management facilities;
4. development of adequate understanding of the characteristics and
effects of geochemical and hydrological processes which will be
involved with waste and containerswhicr ~ ir repositories;
5. assessments of the engineering designs and mining engineering practices
that may likely be used in developing and operating repositories in
geologic media;
6. confirmation of the short-term reliability and long-term durability of
containers needed for handling and, storing waste and spent fuel; and
7. development of data to confirm understanding of the radiological pathways
and potential impacts on man that could occur if radioactive products from
the wastes should be liberated into the biosphere in the future.
All of these items are key areas requiring resoljtion before a repository
can becc~re operation~l. Since research can turn up new probl~is as well
as resolve old ones, each of the above items should be pursued as quickly
as possible. The most urgent are those which ~rel ate to site sel ection and
to information required to evaluate the l~kely performance of the site
(ite~s2,3,an~ 4 aho.e). This information is needed first so that an
evaluation of the suitability of the site for a repository can be made to
support a construction authorization. This is tne point where a substantial
ccmmitraent is made.
Time Necessary to Resolve These Technological Problems
The interagency Review Group on Waste Nanagmment has expended considerable
effcrt to review the technical problems associated with geologic disposal
of radioactive wastes arid has concluded that technical knowledge is sufficient
to proceed with selecting sites for further investigations. Tnese further
investigations will lead either to abandorreent of the sites or further
development. The Department of Energy is responsible to resolve the
uncertainties through their development program. While we cannot speak for
the Department, we believe a vigorous, well managed, stepwise development
program could reduce the uncertainties to levels which permit rational
decisions over the next decade.
PAGENO="0088"
84
ENCLOSURE 2
Item 1: An evaluation of the state of the art of solidification
- of high-level waste. This should include an assessment
of the French vitrification process to meet either
existing or proposed NRC licensing criteria. The
process should also be compared to the various methods
of solidification being studied by the U.S. Department
of Energy (DOE).
Answer: High-level wastes generated as a result of reprocessing
may be j~rocessed into any one of the following waste
fornis: calcines, cements, ceramics, glasses, glass/ceramics,
and met~l matrix. In addition, the NRC has defined
high-level waste to include unreprocessed spent fuel
assemblies, and these fuel assemblies can be encapsulated
in metal.
Cal cine; are unconsol idated, poorly crystall me or
non-crystalline powders or granules produced by a one
step process of evaporation and partial deco:iposition of
high-level waste at high temperatures.
Cements, related to those used as building material, are
olso candidate waste disposal forms. However, cements
considered for high-level waste disposal (high density
Portland ce~;ant and high aluminum cement) are much
different from the cements commonly known. Once hydrated,
this kind of cement becomes a highly :lense material
compar~:i)le to many kinds of natural rock.
Ceramics are inorganic, nonmetallic, crystalline materials
consolidated by a high temperature process.
Glasses are the inorganic product of fusion, based on a
sil icate or phosphate network, which has been cooled to
a rigid condition without crystallization.
Glass/ceramics consist of residual bare glass plus a
crystalline phase produced by control~ed devitrification
(crystallization) during process anneeling of the waste
form.
Netal matrix waste fones are those in which an "inner"
containu~nt form, such as glass beads or calcine pellets,
is ii;bedded in a metal matrix.
Uiircprucessed spent fuel elements could be encapsulated
in a lead matrix and put within a steel canister.
PAGENO="0089"
85
A very detailed analysis of~each of these major waste
forms including advantages and disadvantages in their
use can be found in the following documents:
- Solidification of High-Level Wastes~ 3~c~/CR 0895)
- Immobilization of Defense High-Level Waste: An Assessment of
Technological Strategies and Potential Regulatory Goals,
Volumes I and II (SAhD 79-0531)
- The Evaluation and Review of Alternative Waste Forms for
Immobilization of High-Level Radioactive Wastes (no document
number).
hRC has enclosed copies of these documents for your review.
In general, ~iaste form processes are significantly better
developed for borosilicate glass than for other alternatives.
Virtually all development work in thr U.S. with waste forms
other than glass has been on a labor~tory scale, mostly
using s~mu1ated waste. Only in a relatively few cases have
laboratory-scale experiments been carried out using actual
radioactive waste. Presently, there are no lerge scale
prototypes of these major processes with the exception of
.he ~»=se Calcining Facility at INEL. Even for glass
production there are many formidable problems to be resolved
before it can be considered an indus~ria1ized process in the
United States.
Kno~:leoge about the furidame~tal properties and behavior
of potential waste forms is~ without exception, in a
formative stage. The methods and tests used to determine
the characteristics and behavior of the ~easte form, packaging,
and their interaction with the emplacement environment are
poorly developed. Also, possible synergism between the
waste form, packaging, and emplacement environment have not
been sti~died in detail. Deternination of the long-term
behavior of the waste forms, packaging and emplacement
environiient will be necessary to compare alternative waste
systems and to assess how well each reets performance
require;nents for licensing. Nuch of the projected behavior
of defeise waste glasses is inferred from studies performed
on compositionally dissimilar glasses developed for commercial
nuclear wastes.
The NRC staff is aware of the French AVM/AVFI vitrification
process in addition to other processes under development in
other countries. The basic French process is sewi-continuous
with separate calcination and vitrification stages. The
technology of the process is in general based upon technology
developed by the DOE at the Hanford Reservation about ten
years ago. Since then, the~developocnt of a refractory lined
ceramic melter at Hanford has progressed to a point that the
pot ic] tiny process used in the AVN/AVH system has been
PAGENO="0090"
86
discarded due to the high rate of failure of the melting
pots and the associated electric resistance furnace elements.
Presently, the French are assessing the use of a similar
refractory lined ceramic melter. The use of this type of
welter way resolve problews encountered with the pot melting
process the French have experienced so far. While a detailed
licensing assessment of the French process has not been
performed by the staff, it is felt based upon our technical
review of the process, that the AV~/AVH system does not
necessarily possess characteristics which would make it the
prefened waste solidification process over the proposed
systems presently being developed by DOE.
Itcm2a: Provide an estiwate of the amount of waste which will be
generated in the U.S. over the next 50 years. The estimate
should include contributions from commercial power reactors,
medical and industr~ial users of radioisotopes, and defense-
related reactors. For each of the a~ove, the estimate
should include the number of curies aid volume of waste
generated.
Ansoar: The generation of radioactive low-fevel wastes is dependent
on so many variables that extrapolations beyond about 20
years are probably invalid. Reactor design, startups,
decc~issionings, and operations as well as other nuclear
industr' and nuclear wemicine growth and developments in
addition to waste management practices (volume reduction,
solidification agents, and other processing) all affect the
rate c,f generation of low-level wast~.;. Based on work in
progress we do have preliminary results for waste projections
to the year 2000. These projections are based on 370 OWe of
nuclear power plants in 2000, a volume reduction factor at
1.66 for reactor wastes, and a 14% annual growth rate in
non-fuel cycle wastes.
Low-Level wastes are currently being generated at the rate
of 4 million cubic feet a year and 1 million cones a year.
By the bear 2003, these rates should 3e increased by a
factor c'f 10 to about 40 miii ion cubic feet a year and 10
million curies a year. During the 22 year period from 1979
to 2000, about 270 million cubic feet of waste containing 96
million curies should be generated. Coamiercial power
reactors in 1978 produced about 65% of the volume of commercial
radioactive wastes. This market share will t)ave slipped to
about 45% by the year 2000. The balance of the waste is
generated by medical and industrial users of radioisotopes.
PAGENO="0091"
87
These estimates include only commercial low-level wastes.
High-level cowmmrcial wastes are addressed in Enclosure 1.
DOE is the agency that controls, manages and keeps track
of defense related wastes. WRC knows of no DOE 50 year
projection of defense waste; howaver,.'..r~e'flv~~y~ir projection
was illustrated in the docur~ent cud `t;';~uclear Waste
Hanager~ent Program Summary Document (DOE/ET-0094). Page
1-5 of this document contains the following projection:
High-Level Waste (Solid) 10.4 X i~6 f~ through 1985
High-Level Waste (Liquid) 2.7 X 10 ft ~hrowgh 1985
TRU 15 to 125 X 106 ft~ through 2000
LLW 70 to 250 X 10 ft through 2000
The nur,;erical range of the last two entries depends on the extent
of decoc~.~i ssioning and decontamination activities.
It should be noted that the hRC has recently completed a
congressionally requested study enti~.led, Regulation of
Federal Radioactive Waste Activities' (NUREG 0527). The
study is expected to be published in Septenber 1979. Oiie
aspect of the study was to provide to the Congress a complete
listinc: and inventory of all radioactive waste storage and
dispose: activities now being conducted or planned by
Federal agencies. The study included a listing and inventory
of all Federal radioactive waste by type of activity (disposal,
storage, processinq), by type of waste (lo~:-level waste,
transu~inic waste, Oak Ridge intermediate level waste,
high-level tcaste), and by site (e.g., Savannah River Plant,
Hanford). Cu:nulative volumes and activities of the various
types of Federal waste were compiled as of December 1978.
The scope of the study did~not include a projection of
volu~;es and activities of the various types of Federal waste
over the next few decades.
ltei 2b: The staff would also like an estimate of the number of sites
necessary to store this waste.
Answer: The number of sites needed to dispose of the low-level waste
depends on how large the sites are. The current shallow land
burial grounds have capacities in* the range of 20 to 40 million
cubic feet. For sites of this size, from 10 to 19 sites will
be filled during the period fror;~ 1979 to 2000.
PAGENO="0092"
88
Iteai3: Specification of the limiting criterion (volume of waste or
activity) in determining ~taste storage capacity.
Answer: The limiting criterion for low-level waste storage capacity
is volume. however, the limiting criterion for the storage
of high-level waste is first the activity of the waste (e.g.,
heat), then volume.
Item 4: An eval ~ation of the state of the art of shallow land burial
for low-level wastes.
Answer: The state of the art regarding shallow land burial has
changed little over the past years, but efforts are underway
to improve the disposal of low-level waste through the
development cf cc:prehensive regulations based on a sound
technical basis. Specific regulations will be developed for
low-le"ei waste which will address not only shallow land
burial~ but will also address alternative disposal methods.
Alternacive i'ethcds are required to provide better isolation
of certain types of wastes. Alternatives under consideration
are deep land burial, use of mined~ cavities, and use of
engineered structures. We are also developing criteria for
the form of the waste accepted for disposal. Such criteria
uouid impose Upon waste generators tia requirement to
transfoii~i the waste into an acceptable form for shipment
and b~iria1. This will not only improve our predictions of
performance cf a site, hut will increase safety during
handling and transport to time site. institutional arrangements
for cc~ trol enc custody are being developed, along with
technical specifications for site suitability. These rules
~:ill be available for public comment late next year.
PAGENO="0093"
89
TESTIMONY CONCERNING NUCLEAR WASTE MANAGEMENT June 28, 1979
AND THE ROLE OF :THE STATES
BY CONGRESSMAN JOHN F. SEIBERLING
Mr. Chairman:
I commen~i you for holding these series of oversight hearings on issues
related to nuclear power. Since you are hearing testimony today on nuclear waste
management and issues of equity and public participation, I am taking this
opportunity to testify on legislation I have :introduced to establish a process
for states to participate in decisions on radioactive waste disposal. This bill
(HR 2762) is cosponsored by 37 of our colleagues, including several members of
this Committee, and Senator George McGovern has introduced identical legislation
with broad bi-partisan support.
This bill essentially affirms states' right to participate in and influence
decisions which affect the long-term safety and health of their citizens. HR 2762
would amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to require the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
to notify a state of any proposals to explore sites within such a state for the
purposes of evaluating or developing a facility for storage or disposal of radioactive
materials for interim storage, or longer. Once the state has been notified of a
proposed action relating to radioactive waste disposal, the Governor of the state
may request the creation of a Federal and State Radioactive Materials Management
Commission to study all the issues associated with waste disposal at the specific
site or sites identified by DOE. At the conclusion of the study, the Governor (in
consultation with the other Commission members) and the state legislature, would
PAGENO="0094"
90
be able to issue concurrence or non-concurrence with the proposed action, along with
recommendations, alternatives or conditions for further action by DOE.
The bill would establish for the first time a formal cooperative relationship
between the states and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Department of Energy
to evaluate and develop sites for the disposal of radioactive waste. Since the
inception of the commercial atomic industry in the 1950's, the federal government has
had sole authority for regulating the industry in all matters, including waste disposal.
Thebasis for the sole federal authority stems from the first use of atomic science
in weapons systems, consequently establishing the importance of atomic technology
to national security. Since the federal government had at that time expertise over
the private sector in the technology and use of nuclear materials, the federal
pre-emption in issues of radioactive waste disposal is an unrealistic and out-dated
application of the policy.
The problems of nuclear waste disposal are enormoim. Currently, we have
about 74 million gallons of radioactive waste in this country, all in temporary
storage at plant-sited "pools'. The fission products which comprise this waste
include so-called transuranic elements: radioactive atoms heavier than uranium
which remain radioactive for extremely long periods of time--Plutonium-239, for
example, has a half-life of almost 25,000 years. In human terms, the continued
radioactive hazard is infinite.
The immediate need for interim storage of this radioactive material is
evident from the increasing frequency of leaks from existing storage sites. The
most prominent example of this is the storage facility for DOD radioactive wastes
at Hanford, Washington, where over 423,500 gallons of high-level wastes have leaked
from 16 tanks. This experience points to the serious health, safety and environmental
problems associated with radioactive waste--problems which fall under the concern
and authority of the states.
The past failures of storage technology may not be repeated in DOE's next
attempt at developing nuclear waste storage technology. But there is no guarantee
that the next attempt, probably at interim storage for a period of 30 to 100 years,
will be any mOre successful. Just this week the press reported that a report by the
National Academy of Sciences, commissioned by the NRC, on radioactive waste was
suppressed because it criticized a technology for interim storage which is currently
favored by DOE. The technology, which would solidify high-level wastes into a glass-
like substance, has been the Department's leading proposal for high-level waste
disposal. The supression of this report, which evidently called DOE's commitment to
glass storage "premature", indicates that careful scrutiny by the states of proposals
to store wastes at sites identified as geologically ideal for this type of storage
PAGENO="0095"
91
is not only logical but desirable. The incident points to the need for open
discussion of potential hazards and the actual risks of nuclear waste disposal
before faulty decisions are made and irreversible, tragic results are suffered.
The states have the right and responsibility to voice their concerns
about the problems associated with potential sites and with proposed technologies
for radioactive waste disposal, yet presently the states cannot exercise that
responsibility. Currently, DOE gives some consideration to states which object
to possible siting of radioactive waste facilities within their boundaries--DOE
has, for example, temporarily discontinued field research in Ohio because of the
Governor's strenuous opposition to radioactive waste siting in the state. In
the final analysis, however, there is absolutely no assurance that the views and
objections of the states will be considered when it comes down to the crunch.
It is apparent that the tremendous task of securing existing radioactive
waste demands a strong state role for those states in which a disposal facility
may be sited, but the present policy--which~operated in the case of Ohio--is nothing
more than an internal DOE policy, subject to change with no notice or review. In
addition, the General Accounting office, inresponse toa question by Congressman
John Dingell, Chairman of the House Interstate and Foreign Commerce Subcommittee
on Energy and Power, advised that any departmental policy which would allow a ~tate
to reject a possible waste disposal site could constitute a "veto--and that DOE
has no authority under existing law to acknowledge a state veto. Even if a state
had a reasonable objection, nothing in present law prevents DOE from proceeding,
except the Department's fear of earning a terrible public image by foisting
radioactive waste on an unwilling state. This singular authority is unrealistic
in view of the immediate need to develop a workable program to deal with the national
problem of radioactive waste.
.~
PAGENO="0096"
92
The dimensions of the nuclear waste disposal problem demand a strong
state role, and the states are strongly demanding to be heard. 15 states have
already passed laws which would prohibit outright or set conditions on nuclear
waste storage within their jurisdictions, and 10 other states are considering
initiatives to put similar authority on the books. Under current federal law,
these state laws have no meaning in final decisions on radioactive waste disposal.
Yet, in many cases, ~tates are not asking for a veto authority: they are asking
for their rightful role in siting decisions.
HR 2762 would establish a process for continuous consultation and participation
between state and federal agencies on all issues related to nuclear waste management.
The actual extent of state participation in these decisions will be up: to the
individual states. My bill provides room for a legislative role, where the state
law creates a legislative concurrence process, and generally provides maximum
flexibility for states which have already enacted laws relating to nuclear disposal
to use their own process.
The consultation and concurren~proces5 provided by HR 2762 may be time-
consuming, but decisions on disposing radioactive waste which remain toxic for
thousands of years should not be made in a hurried manner. And I would stress
that the concurrence process is not necessarily a veto process. A veto process
would allow a state to arbitrarily shut out federal activity at any point. The
process proposed by my legislation develops a forum for federal and state officials
to discuss the issues, and establishes a federal/state communications process to
negotiate on matters which can be subject to mediation.
For example, a state may logically fear that accepting radioactive waste
will adversely affect economic growth; the state may not have the resources to
provide sufficient security for the site; or th2 state may anticipate transportation
problems and require federal assistance to widen its roads or develop a route
PAGENO="0097"
93
around a highly-populated community. I envision the process in HR 2762 as
helping the federal government to identify resolvable problems such as these
which can be met with increased federal authority. Such requirements do not
constitute blackmail by the states. We should not fool ourselves into believing
that states which accept nuclear waste will not need some economic incentives
to make it easier to accept the tremendous responsibility of stroing radioactive
waste. This burden must be recognized as part of the cost of nuclear power.
This brings me to another point. One view on nuclear waste management
would require states which use nuclear power to be responsible for nuclear waste.
In some small, populous states, such as Massachusetts, this problably would not
be sound or rational policy. Moreover, since states in the past have been excluded
from meaningful roles in decisions on plant siting as well as regulating safety
features of these plants because of the federal pre-emption, it would be unfair
and unwise to reverse this policy and automatically hold these same states
accountable for radioactive waste disposal problems from plants already built
or licensed to be built in the state.
Finally, I anticipate that there will be some who will question why this
legislation creates an individual task force for each proposed action, rather
than a single-permanent- Executive Council to study all sites. The reason is this:
states cannot delegate to a federal agency their responsibility to protect the
health and safety of their citizens. T1~is legislation provides a workable framework
to,give each-state, according to its needs and priorities, the maximum opportunity
to participate fully and effectively in decisions on radioactive waste disposal.
Since one of the issues your Subcommittee is studyingtoday is public
participation, I would point out that this legislation enhances public participation
by giving the people directly affected the right, through their state legislators
and their governors, to make final recommendations on an issue which affects their
lives and those of future generations. 1 urge you to incorporate an effective
role for the states in site-selection decisions, as provided by HR 2762,
and to require that the full range of site-specific problems be thoroughly and
openly examined to assure that the best possible decisions are made for interim
and long-term storage of radioactive materials. Since DOEviews the -development
of an.interim storage facility as an urgent matter, I cannot emphasize the urgency
of enacting a process for state participation in:these .decision~.
53-932 0 - 80 - 7
PAGENO="0098"
94
96Th CONGRESS
1ST SEssioN
To provide for a formal process of State participation and concurrence regarding
the management and storage of radioactive materials.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
MARCH 8, 1979
Mr. SEIBERLING (for himself and Mr. KEMP) introduced the following bill; which
was referred jointly to the Committees on Interior and Insular Affairs and
Interstate and Foreign Commerce
A BILL
To provide for a formal process of State participation anl
concurrence regarding the management and storage of ra-
dioactive materials.
1 Be it enacted b~j the Senate and House of Representa-
2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3 That (a) chapter 19 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, is
4 amended by inserting the following new section after section
5 241:
6 "SEc. 242. NoTICE TO STATES WITH REGARD TO
7 DISPOSAL OF NUCIJEAR WASTE.-
PAGENO="0099"
95
I "a. Except as may otherwise be provided, the Chairman
2 shall notify (and publish such notice in the Federal Register)
3 the Governor, the presiding officers of the various chambers,
4 where applicable, of a State legislature, and where applica-
5 ble, the Tribal Council of any affected Indian tribe, of its
6 intent to explore a sit.e in such State, or within an Indian
7 reservation, for the purpose of establishing, evaluating, or
8 contracting for construction of facilities intended for the stor-
9 age or disposal of radioactive materials.
10 "b. Except as may otherwise be provided, the Chairman
11 shall, after making the notification required by subsection a.,
12 and upon the request of the Governor of an affected State or
13 an affected Tribal Council, establish a Federal and State Ra-
14 dioactive Materials Management Commission (hereinafter in.
15 this section referred to as the `Commission') for the purpose
16 of achieving, in an expeditious manner, substantial concur-
17 renee between the State, the affected Indian tribe, and the
18 Department of Energy for each proposal made by the De-
19 partment of Energy regarding site selection, evaluation, con-
20 tracting, or construction of facilities intended for the manage-
21 ment and storage of radioactive materials including high-level
22 defense waste, spent fuel reactor assemblies, transuranic ma-
23 terials and other mid- and high-level radioactive materials.
24 "c. The Commission shall consiSt of-
PAGENO="0100"
96
1 "(1) the appropriate officials from the Nuclear
2 Regulatory Commission designated by the Chairman,
3 "(2) a representative from the Department of
4 Energy designated by the Secretary,
5 "(3) a representative from the United States Geo-
6 logical Survey,
7 "(4) the Governor of each affected State, or his
8 designated representative,
9 "(5) a representative of any affected Tribal Coun-
10 cii,
11 "(6) not to exceed six State or local officials, or
12 interested citizens from the affected State designated
13 by the Governor, in consultation with the leadership of
14 the State legislature,
15 "(7) such other individuals to be selected at the
16 discretion of the Chairman or the Governor of the af-
17 feeted State.
18 "d. The Commission shall meet to' examine all proposed
19 actions to be taken under subsection a., with the objective of
20 achieving substantial concurrence on each and any socioeco-
21 nomic, institutional, technical, environmental, health, and
22 safety issues associated with such action.
23 "e. In the event that the Commission representatives of
24 the affected State determine that concurrence cannot be
25 achieved with regard to any proposed action, the Governor,
PAGENO="0101"
97
1 in consultation with the other Commission members from the
2 affected State, shall file a report stating his objections and
3 identify acceptable alternatives.
4 "f. The State legislature of any affected State may by
5 joint or concurrent resolution or by law, or in those States
6 with a unicameral legislature by single resolution, or by other
7 powers subject to each State's constitution concur or issue
8 nonconcurrence with the decision of the Commission.
9 "g. No Federal agency or its representative shall pro-
10 ceed with any project for storage or disposal of radioactive
11 materials unless the State has determined that its objections
12 have been resolved.".
PAGENO="0102"
98
(From the congressional Record, March 8, 1979)
.r~rrnM-av-Srr'r~rnz AssAtvSIsOp LEGISLATION
-~..._...x Ac'r OF 1954,
INTRODUCED BY CONGRESSMAN JOHN F.
SEIBERLING
The purpose of the bill Is to provide for
.a formal process of state participation and
substantial concurrence regarding the man-
agement and storage of radioactive materials.
Section (a) requires the Chairman of the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to
publish In the Federal Register, and to notify
the Governor, the presiding officers of a
State legislature, and the Tribal Council of
any affected Indian tribe, of any Intent to
explore a site within such State or within
such Indian reservation for the purposes of
establishing a storage or disposal facility for
radioactive materials.
Section - (b) authorizes the Governer, or
the Tribal Council, upon notification by the
NRC, to request the creation of a Federal!
State Radioactive Materials Management
Commission for the purposes of examining
all Issues related to achieving concurrence
between the affected State, the affected In-
dian Tribe, and the Department of Energy
on any proposal by the Department regard-
ing radioactive waste management. Such
radioactive material will Include high-level
defense waste, spent fuel reactor assemblies,
transuranic materials and other mid- and
high-level radioactive materials.
Section (c) sets forth the guidelines for
composition of the Commission. Members
will include one official from each of the
following federal agencies: the Nuclear Reg-
ulatory Commission, the Department of En-
ergy, and the U.S. Geological Survey. The
Commission shall also Include the Governor
of the affected state (or a representative,
designated by the governor), a representatl~e
of any affected Tribal Council, and other
state and local officials to be designated by
the Governor jointly with the leadership of
the State legislature.
Section (d) requires the Commission to
examine all issues related to achieving sub-
stantial concurrence, including socioeco-
nomic, institutional, technical, environ-
mental and health and safety Issues.
Section (e) provides, that if the Commis-
sion can not achieve substantial concurrence
with the proposed action with the affected
State, the Governor, In consultation with the
other Commission members, shall file a re-
port stating the Commission's objections atid
identifying any acceptable alternatives.
Section (f) provides that state legislature
of any affected state, pursuant to the state's
laws and constitution, may concur or die..
agree with the Commission's decision as re-
ported by the Governor.
Section (g) prohibits the Department of
Energy from proceeding with any proposal
regarding site selection or site development
for radioactive waste management' In the
affected State, unless the objectionS of the
State issued pursuant to sections (e) and
(f) are satisfied.Ų
PAGENO="0103"
99
STATEMENT OF
WORTH BATEMAN
DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS
JUNE 28, 1979
Nuclear Waste Repository Siting
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subéominittee, I am pleased to appear
before you today to take part in the discussions on public participation,
compensation and equity in nuclear waste repository siting. These
discussions are particularly timely~now that our siting studies are
progressing such that we can identify specific large areas of potential
interest. These discussions also serve to focus attention on a judgement
of the Interagency Review Group (IRG) on Nuclear Waste Management that
"the resolution of institutional issues may well be more difficult than
finding solutions to remaining technical problems." The resolution of
these issues will occupy a considerable amount of the time of the
Administration, the Department of Energy, and the Congress in the next
several years. I believe the IRG recommendations concerning this
resolution contain a framework within which these issues may be resolved
in a timely fashion, and I will address these throughout my testimony.
But first, with your permission Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit
for the hearing record a listing of some of the more pertinent studies
that the Department has initiated. These studies examine some of the
points that you raised and explore potential mechanisms for their
resolution.
PAGENO="0104"
100
In this regard, there is some legal precedent to guide us. In those
cases where such precedent is lacking, pragmatism will guide our
actions. We continue to believe that the development of a nuclear
waste repository requires us o proceed in a cooperative tanner with
the States rather than by the force of Federal supremacy. With this as
background, Mr. Chairman, I would now like to address the questions
that you raised.
At present,only limited economic or social benefits exist for localities in
which repositories may be sited. These benefits would be the
same as those typically associated with any relatively large, Federal
project. They would result primarily from the channeling of outside
financial resources into the community through repository workers'
salaries and payments for supplies and services which can be locally
supplied. Local and state governments would also be expected to gain
by the increased tax revenues from the increased expenditures throughout
the community. The degree to which this infusion can be considered
"beneficial" is subjective and dependent to a large extent on the
pre-repository situation of the involved community. For example,
economic growth would not be favored by those who would seek preservation
of the pre-repository status quo, and the impacts on a small community
will be much more pronounced than on a large community.
The discussion of potential socioeconomic impacts in DOE's draft
Environmental Impact Statement on Management of Commercially Generated
Radioactive Waste (DOE/EIS-0046-D, dated April 1979), estimates
PAGENO="0105"
101
repository manpower requirements and repository construction and
operating costs. Depending upon such parameters as the choice of
repository host rock, nuclear fuel cycles and load capacities, the
estimates for a single repository can vary considerably. Again, with
your permission Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter for the record a
few tables from the draft EIS which present these estimates for different
assumptions. To illustrate the order of magnitude of a repository
project in terms of jobs and financial impact, I would cite a range of
from 1,200 to 3,100 people directly employed during the peak construction
years and from 900 to 2,300 people employed during the operational
phase. Estimates of construction costs in 1978 dollars range from $1,000
million to $3,100 million and operating costs over the repository
lifetime range from $600 million to $2,400 million. The implications
of these numbers in terms of (a) total project-related inmigrants
(including primary and secondary workers' and associated house-hold
dependents) and (b) their needs for locally provided social services
(such as health, education, sanitation, fire and police personnel,
recreation areas, government services, etc.) are also described for several
different hypothetical settings and repository conditions.
The detailed fiscal and economic impacts depend upon the specific site.
These impacts will be evaluated in an Environmental Impact Statement
covering a number of alternative candidate sites prior to a decision
being made to actually construct a repository at one of these sites.
PAGENO="0106"
102
There exist some Federal and other provisons for mitigating certain
impacts related to construction and operation of repositories. Other
impacts appear not to be covered. First, I should note a distinction
betweeen environmental and socioeconotnic impacts. Both are addressed
in the current draft EIS. I will not discuss at this time the mitigation
of environmental impacts since the entire repository concept is designed to
protect the environment from potentially adverse impacts. The bases
for assurances that the final design and selected site are in fact, adequate
in this regard will be extensively documented in safety assessments.
Further, numerous forums for scrutinizing these bases will be provided, and
independent expert evaluations will be made.
I will instead focus on the mitigation of potential socioeconomic impacts.
These impacts appear to fall into two categories. First, there are those
socioeconomic impacts which would be typical of any Federal project having
the conventional work force and supply service requirements previously
described. To deal with these impacts, and considering that current law
does not allow state or local governments to tax federally owned land,
existing legislation (1) allows DOE to make payments in lieu of taxes
generally based on taxes which would have been payable for such property in
the condition in which it was acquired and (2) provides for financial
assistance to those local educational agencies upon which the government
has placed financial burdens.
DOE has current authority to make payments to state and local governments in
lieu of property taxes when the property is acquired by DOE pursuant to the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and providing certain other criteria
PAGENO="0107"
103
are met. Section 168 of the Act permits DOE to make such payments in
localities where DOE activities are carried on and DOE has acquired property
previously subject to state and local taxation. Section 168 provides that
DOE should be guided by the policy of not making payments in excess of the
taxes which would have been payable for such property in the condition in
which it was acquired, except where "special burdens" have been cast on the
state or locality by DOE activities. In such cases, any benefit accruing
to state or local governments by reason of such activities must be considered
in determining the amount of the payment.,
The legislative history of the Atomic Energy Act itself does not shed
any light on the meaning of "special burdens" or "any benefit". There is,
however, a legislative history reference to "special burdens" as that
term is used in Section 91 of the Atomic Energy Community Act of 1955 which
references Section 168 of the Atomic Energy Act. Senate Report 1140,
dated July 25, 1955, states "The special burden which will be imposed on
those communities is the burden of maintaining services which will attract
the caliber of personnel which are needed to maintain the Atomic Energy
plants."
Generally speaking, "in lieu" payments are not actually benefits to the
local communities since they merely redress probable tax losses.
In the past, the Atomic Energy Commission was empowered to directly finance
community services such as fire protection and water treatments at communities
such as Los Alamos, New Mexico; and Oak Ridge, Tennessee, where the original
PAGENO="0108"
104
existence of the community was due primarily to the presence of the AEC
program. This precedent could perhaps be applied in allowing for direct
financing of ccstrmunity services by the waste isolation program.
It is also the policy of the Federal government pursuant to 20 USCA 236
et seq., to provide financial assistance for those local educational
agencies upon which the government has placed financial burdens.
Such Federal impact assistance would not be much of a benefit since it
would only have the effect of easing a burden placed upon the community by
the Federal project.
I have just described some of the current mechanisms and precedents for
dealing with the conventional socioeconomic impacts. A second type of
socioeconomic impact is far less predictable and/or quantifiable. These
impacts result from a public perception of risks to health and safety
associated with nuclear waste disposal and transportation. To the best of
our knowledge, there is no Federal or other aid currently available to deal
with impacts such as these nor is it clear that such aid would be required.
If a later determination is made that such assistance is appropriate, it
appears that it could be accomodated as part of the payment by the utilities
PAGENO="0109"
105
or other waste generators for disposal of their wastes. We are hopeful that
institutions such as the IRC recommended State Planning Council, constituted
with members having political mandates, can help us determine the appropriate
policies or legislation for dealing with such impacts, if indeed any are
needed *
The matter of incentives to encourage states and localities to accept
location of Nuclear Waste Repositories in their area is in need of more
examination. The only significant incentives presently derive from the
potential benefits described earlier, i.e., jobs and prospects for increased
business activity.
You have asked if any systems of environmental tradeoffs exist which might
balance the risks and environmental costs of construction at a site of a
nuclear waste repository. The term "environmental tradeoff" was used to
suggest the type of tradeoffs now encouraged by the Clean Air Act, whereby
new sources of unavoidable environmental disruption are compensated by
mitigating or eliminating other, avoidable hazards or in other ways improving
environment. The application of such a~system of "tradeoffs" has not been
considered in the Waste Management program to date, but we agree that this
idea could have significant merit. The IRC proposed State Planning Council
may be an ideal mechanism for coordinating a cooperative State/Federal
study of potential tradeoffs such as those suggested as well as other
innovative ideas for resolving difficult institutional problems associated
with the siting of a waste management facility.
PAGENO="0110"
106
The kinds of technical or other assistance or compensation being offered by
the Department to States or localities in areas being investigated, consist
of contracts to States having expressed an interest in providing independent
assessments of the Department's repository siting and development programs.
Such contracts have proven mutually beneficial in several ways. For
example, they help States to fund independent reviews and assessments of
drafts of important documents and plans prepared for the Department by its
contractors. These reviews have the effect of further assuring that the
states are aware of and understand the latest plans, progress, and developments.
The Department additionally benefits because these reviews often result in
comments on the documents or other feedback from the State's political and
technical experts which assist the Department in its evaluations and
further planning efforts. Additionally, the DOE funds have facilitated the
establishment of effective forums and continuing mechanisms for the
exchange and airing of views among state and local officials, the general
public, and the Department.
So far, such contracts have been or are expected shortly to be executed
with agencies in the States of New Mexico, Louisiana, Mississippi, and
Texas. Success to date with this approach leads us to believe that it can
be a key implementing feature in the process of consultation and
concurrence which I will further address later. For example, Mississippi
PAGENO="0111"
107
Executive Order 276 requires among other measures that the Governor's
Select Committee on Nuclear Energy and Nuclear Waste RepoBitory be informed
and provide written agreement prior to the Department initiating any new
activities within the State. A contract with the Mississippi Fuel and
Energy Management Commission helps fund the logistics and expertise needed
by the State to review and concur in planned activities. Both the State
and the Department benefit.
This leads to your questions regarding the extent to which we believe the
States should have a voice in siting of nuclear waste repositories and the
best mechanism for this participation. The Department has long held and
continues to believe that states and localities should, as a matter of
principle, and must, as a matter of practicality, have a strong and meaningful
voice in the siting of nuclear waste repositories within their boundaries.
This view has been reaffirmed by the IRG. The mechanism proposed for this
participation is "consultation and concurrence". The Department's position
in this regard was described in a letter of February 2, 1979, from Secretary
Schlesinger to Chairman John D. Dingell,Subcomniittee on Energy and Power,
Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, U.S. House of Representatives.
In that letter, the Secretary stated:
"We continue to believe that the successful exercise of our
authority to select sites for nuclear waste disposal requires
cooperation with the States and providing them with some
assurance that we will proceed in~ a cooperative manner, rather
than by force of Federal supremacy. In order to avoid Federal-State
confrontation over the future siting of repositories, situations
which we believe to be inimical tbthe public interest, we have
been actively trying to construct a mechanism by which affected
States can participate fully in the selection of suitable sites.
We have found, however, that unless some provision is made for
State concurrence, State governments will not feel assured that
their participation in DOE site exploration and selection activities
PAGENO="0112"
108
is meaningful. We have, therefore, put forward a policy that the
Department would not make a final decision to proceed with con-
struction of a waste repository within any State if the elected
leadership of that State actively opposed such a deci.ion. We
believe this approach is consistent with the policy of this
Administration to work cooperatively with political subdivisions
at the State and local level, and it is our considered judgement
that this is the wisest course of action on radioactive waste
disposal. Both our General Counsel and the GAO have concluded
that the manner in which we are proceeding is consistent with
law."
The recent report to the President by the Interagency Review Group (IRG) on
Nuclear Waste Management recommended the formation of a State Planning Council
as a mechanism to define more precisely a consultation and concurrence
process between the Department and the States. We are hopeful that the
Council, if established, would develop meaningful processes to avoid
confrontation between any State and the Department over the issue of
radioactive waste disposal.
Lastly, you asked what are the better mechanisms for improving incentives
for States and localities to accept siting of deep geologic nuclear waste
repositories in their areas. We believe the discussions held under the
auspicies of the State Planning Council and the national committment to
cooperative federalism through a process of consultation and concurrence
are the primary mechanisms available today. Such mechanisms could, we
believe, significantly facilitate the timely and efficient development of an
adequate number of techically qualified candidate sites as a basis for site
selection,
I hope this testimony has been fully responsive to the questions posed in
your letter. I will be pleased to respond to any questions you may have.
PAGENO="0113"
109
~pp~pensation and Information Management
in Nuclear Waste Facility S4~5
Testimony before the Committee.on Interior and Insular Affairs
House of Representatives
U.S. Congress
June 28, 1979
Michael O'Hare, Department of IJrban Studies and Planning
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Cambridge, Massachusetts
Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee:
My name is Michael O'Hare. I am Associate Professor of Urban
Studies and Planning at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in
Cambridge, Massachusetts. For the past three years I have been
directing a research project sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy
concerned with the siting of energy facilities. I'm pleased to share
with you on this occasion some of the principal results of that research
as they apply to siting nuclear waste storage and processing facilities.
Naturally,these remarks do not necessarily represent the position of the
Department of Energy.
The first point I would make to you is that nuclear waste facilities
are not unique. The problems we will have in siting them -- other than
technical problems, which are certainly important -- are not unlike the
difficulties posed in recent years by finding locations for a variety
of facilities that provide benefits rather thinly across a large popula-
tion but impose large costs on particular interest groups or on
immediate neighbors: oil refineries, nuclear power plants, airports,
prisons, sanitary landfills and even low income housing projects have
had similar histories in almost every state at least since the 1960's.
The traditional process of locating these facilities has been
characterized by three steps:
1. A technical analysis of possible sites is made and a "best site"
is chosen.
2. The developer, whether government agency or private industry,
satisfies a variety of regulatory agencies that his plans meet a series
of specified legal requirements.
53-932 0 - 80 - 8
PAGENO="0114"
110
3. With a complete set of permits in hand the developer constructs
the facility and operates it under whatever supervisory powers apply.
In the last ten or fifteen years this process has seemed to fail
more often than it has succeeded. Such failures have motivated a few
basic strategies on the part of governments anxious to proceed with
facilities widely agreed to be beneficial for the society as a whole des-
pite the opposition they arouse from specific groups or interests:
1. Citizen participation. Many of the early failures involved pro-
jects that really ought not to have gone forward; the quintessential
example in my part of the country was a highway planned for the middle
of Cambridge, Massachusetts that would have wiped out stable neighbor-
hoods and hundreds of homes with trivial long-term benefits. Planners
and engineers inferred that the planning process, as then constituted,
did not take into account enough different interests and concerns, and
built in elaborate mechanisms of public participation and comment. The
theory was that if the planning authority were properly informed of the
whole spectrum of citizen's concerns, it could take them into account in
designing and proposing "better" facilities which would then be publicly
acceptable. Behind this justification was a basically sound recognition
that the process by which major decisions were made needed to satisfy the
affected parties; the best conceived project would be opposed if the
process by which it was developed seemed to be insensitive or tyrannical.
2. Bigger sticks. A more recent development in facility siting
practice has been the arrogation to state government of increased legal
powers, typically power to override local land use decisions. The cur-
rent debate over whether states should have a veto on nuclear waste facili-
ty construction concerns just this sort of strategy.
3. Information provision. A third theory of why worthwhile pro-
jects stalled held that the public would be cooperative if it could have
the facts, and at the same time that the projects would be better con-
ceived and more beneficial if enforced disclosure of the various impacts
of such projects led the supervising agencies to take account of these
impacts in the design and planning stage. Environmental impact statement
legislation at the federal and state levels is one example of a strategy
to improve public decision making by providing more information about par-
ticular projects to the public and to interest groups that might be affected.
PAGENO="0115"
iii
My first recommendation to the committee is that you abandon any
hope that these strategies, or.all of them together, will be sufficient
to provide nuclear waste storage or processing facilities. While they
have produced occasional successes, their record has for the most part
been poor and you would be ill-advised to rely on any or all of then
especially in the case of nuclear waste. The policy that will make it
possible to proceed, with whatever technical solution to the nuclear waste
problem is chosen is one of explicit compensation for the risks and costs
that such a facility is expected to impose.
The compensation mechanism I recommend will be more easily under-
stood if I briefly sketch the elements of the siting problem first.
(1) The first essential fact is that a nuclear waste facility of
any kind is scary. It is more scary to some people than others, but
(whatever precautions are taken) it remains a place v~iere dangerous mater-
ials are kept and to which they are brought in one or another kind of
transport. Furthermore, it is unrealistic to expect the level of anxiety
induced by a nuclear waste facility to be reducible by any reassurance the
government can provide, especially in the wake of such recent demonstra-
tions of seeming scientific overconfidence as Love Canal, Three Mile Island,.
the DC-lO, Rocky Flats, and the "inertness" of such substances as PCB's
and fluoridated hydrocarbons. Government and industry reassurance is
selling at a discount and will for some time to come..
(2) The second important quality of a facility siting process is
that the beneficiaries of the project tend to be many in number and to
face modest per. capita gains, while the sufferers tend to be few in num-
ber and to expect large per capita costs. The importance of this alloca-
tion of gains and losses cannot be overestimated fro~i a strategic point
of view; the concentrated interest group, playing for large stakes, will
always have an advantage over the diffuse, large group no member of which
has very much to gain or lose.
(3) The third important quality of a siting debate is the distinction
between a program and its particular manifestations. Even if all parties
can agree that "we need nuclear waste facilities," it is possible that*
none will be built, as a series of individual site proposals are success-
ively defeated by specific opponents, each adding to the unanimous senti- .
ment its own caveat, "but not in our town!"
PAGENO="0116"
112
Nuclear waste facilities, furthermore, threatento impose cost at
some distance from their immediate vicinity, whether by contaminatiQn of
ground water, transportation accidents, or atmospheric contamination in
a rural area. A nuclear waste facility also promises disruption of an
accepted way of life by creation of aboom town during construction, pos-
sible loss of property values, ongoing transportation risks, and the threat
of technical failure, while its benefits are limited to property tax pay-
ments if privately operated. The political debate surrounding nuclear
waste facilities confirms that its neighbors -- and because of the possible
diffuse environmental impact, the "neighbors" can include populations
at a substantial distance from the site -- will see the facility as mak-
ing them distinctly worse off than they are without it.
The all-or-nothing quality of this choice is important. As cur-
rently conceived, a nuclear waste facility offers a community only two
outcomes of very different attractiveness. Faced with this. pair of
widely different alternatives, the neighbors (and we may be speaking of a
whole state full of neighbors) can be expected to fight the project with
whatever weapons they can get hold of. Add to this opposition the likely
alliance of environmentalists uncertain about the long-tern security of
whatever technical solution is adopted, and skilled in the use of litiga-
tion as a tool with which to stop or delay the development, and we can see
the outlines of a powerful political force. Unfortunately, no such con-
centrated and committed force can be invoked to support any particular
site.
Against this background the inadequacy of the three conventional
measures described above should be clear. In a problem of this type, for
example, citizen participation simply means anplifying the political
power of groups whose only rational position is uncompromising opposition.
As to the use of power, it might seem that government could invoke enough
power of one sort or another to impose a facility even on a protesting
community, but there are many opposition tactics. In the case at hand,
these include political pressure, long-drawn-out-litigation, and extralegal
actions (sit-ins, demonstrations, and the like). Combined with the appa-
rent justice of the communities' position, these means, which have an excel-
lent track record in similar cases, will ensure that all t~e powers avail-
able to federal and state legislators are not sufficient to force a nuclear
PAGENO="0117"
113
waste facility on an unwilling community. I cannot overemphasize the
importance of this perception; and 1 urge the membersbf the Committee
to consider, if they doubt my conclusion, the number of locally noxious
projects that have been stopped or stalled despite the developer having
every legal authority to proceed with his plans.
Finally, it should be clear that informing the parties to this
debate in greater detail about the consequences of the project being pro-
posed will simply confirm and sharpen their perception that it really is
much worse for them than the status quo.
The key to breaking thia impasse~ lies in the recognition that this
negotiating problem is not novel, nor does it paralyze society in most of
the cases in which it arises. After all, a nuclear waste facility re-
quires all sorts of .resources: steel, concrete, labor, engineering ex-
pertise. It also uses some of the amenity of the community in which it is
to be located, and I suggest to the Committee that you should no more ex-
pect to use that amenity as an input to the production of a nuclear waste
facility without paying for it,than you should expect to obtain steel or
labor for free. Note in this context that it is not typically the owners
of the land on which an unpopular facility will be built that provide the
major opposition; even if the developer has taking power,the landowners
see as the worst possible outcome selling.their property and moving away:
assuming a fair price is paid, this is something people do quite regularly
im the normal course of things. The opposition to facilities of this kind
comes from neighbors who expect to have their quality of life taken away
from them without being paid for ~t. I recommend accordingly that nuclear
waste processing and storage facility plans include e~ēplicit compensation
for the individuals who can expect to be injured by it, including such in-
tangible injuries as anxiety.
I suggested above that such compensation is merely an extension of
the principle of paying for resources consumed that we apply in the case
of labor, land and materials. It also :has two important consequences for
the strategic problem I outlined earlier.
(1) In the first place, the assurance that compensation will be paid
for the injuries imposed by a nuclear waste facility means that the local
community faces a worst case outcome. that is probably equal in value to the
status quo, rather than being much worse. The motivation for a local com-
munity to oppose a facility is vastly less if the future they can expect
PAGENO="0118"
114
with the facility has been made comparable to the status quo by the inclu-
sion of fair compensation. This reassurance, also, makes it more diffi-
cult for geographically diffuse opposition groups to form effective coali-
tions with locals.
(2) The other important consequence for the strategic position of
the parties is that the promise of negotiable compensation provides an
infinity of outcomes in between the poles of "build" and "no-build."
Rather than facing a community with a decision in which the only way to
avoid injury is to oppose the facility uncompromisingly, a compensation-
based siting program faces the community with a whole spectrum of possible
outcomes and therefore with an issue on which to negotiate.
As to the type of compensation to be used, a variety of alternatives
should be considered, but some general principles apply. First, compensa-
tion should be addressed to, and focused on, those individuals who live
in the site community when the project is first announced. Insofar as
possible, it should be withheld from newcomers, who arrive knowing that
the facility is planned or exists, and who by the fact of their arrival
demonstrate that the move has made then better off than they were before.
(One typical reason for such a move is that housing is less expensive near
an unattractive facility -- the newcomers are compensated for the facility
by lower housing purchase price and do not need to be compensated again.
Naturally, the seller who finds his property has lost value since the com-
ing of the facility is, by the same, argument, deserving of coinpensatiom.)
Much of the socio-economic impact of facilitiOs such as we are dis-
cussing is capitalized in property values, and a substantial capital loss
on the principle asset of a family (its home) is one of the worst fears
of a proposed site community. This suggests that one very attractive type
of compensation, at least for near neighbors of the facility, would be a~
insurance mechanism to maintain property values for the first seller
after the facility is constructed: its frontend costs and budget Impact
are low, and it automatically provides about the right amount of compen-
sation. Note that if fears of property value decrease are unfounded, the
price to the developer of this compensation mechanism will be zero!
One problem likely to arise in negotiating compensation with a
single site community is the possibility of substantial overpayment. If
only one site is under consideration, the amount of compensation will
PAGENO="0119"
115
probably have to be determined by a combination of negotiations and ad-
ministrative determination of costs. For this reason I strongly recommend
that the siting process be designed to simultaneously evaluate several
different sites, at widely separated locations, for each facility that is
expected to be built. What we should be aiming for is a sort of competi-
tive market of communities attempting Ci) to under-bid each other so as to
obtain the facility and its intended compensation, while (ii) not bidding
less than the real cost each community expects to bear. The outcome of
such a process, in the absence of collusion by the candidate locations,
will approximate the real social costs of the facility that is eventually
built, and if the site ultimately chosen is that for which the cost of con-
struction plus the cost of compensation is least, we can be sure of having
chosen the economically most efficient site.
I would now like to add some remarks on the use of information in
this process. Information is a very peculiar economic good. It has,
among other special qualities, the prOperties that
1. Its value varies widely over different individuals, and even for
the same individual depending on whether he has already received
* it.
2. Even worse, the quantity of information in a particular document
or statement varies from individual to individual, since infor-
mation is measured by the use of probabilities that are intrin-
* sically subjective.
3. It is not possible to know whether information has been consumed:
receiving a book is not the same as reading it, and reading it
is not the same as believing what it says.
Our traditional approach to public information in issues like facil-
ity siting has been to order a public agency or developer to anticipate
the information that affected parties might want and provide it, ab initio,
in "objective' form. This approach is. naive and unrealistic for a variety
of reasons. The siting process should not only recognize that the parties
to the debate will want to get their own information from sources they res-
pectively trust, but should encourage them to do so, perhaps by a "planning
grant" or "intevenor funding" mechanism. In any case, I urge the Committee
to recognize that, entirely aside from the costs imposed on the site commun-
ity by the nuclear waste facility itself, merely suggesting a community or
PAGENO="0120"
- 116
state as a site for such a facility imposes a cost of analysis on that
government which is the cost of gathering enough information to know
what position to take arid how to negotiate the matter. An environmental
impact study statement prepared by. a federal agency does not satisfy this
requirement of information. Both as a sign of goodwill and a matter
of simple justice, the federal government should provide an explicit
funding mechanism for impact projections and technical analysis by affec-
ted communities - by which I mean not only communities that receive
facilities in the end, but communities that are proposed as possible sites
early in the process.
Another important consideration in information management is care-
ful attention to the extremely limited effort that most participants can
commit to obtaining it. Some information consumers, it is true, can in-
vest whatever time and resources are necessary to comb the record and the
literature; among these are the greatly affected powerful parties such as
government agencies, developers, and opposition groups looking for errors
and omissions that will support litigation. But neighbors and interested
citizens do not participate in siting conflicts full time; even for those
facing large per capita costs from a decision they oppose, the time they
can rationally invest in information gathering is limited by two proba-
* bilities, both usually small: first, the probability that the information
will change the user's mind (if it doesn't, it has no value), and second~
that the user's -efforts to change the outcome will have any effect on it.
A realistic information management program will package facts and
projections carefully to provide what people want to know in accessible
* form. What people want to know is basically what the future will be like
for them given each possible outcome. This means what their health will
* be, not how many microcuries the drinking water will contain; what will
happen to their home's value, not what the multiplier for direct employ-
ment increase is. Projections of facility impacts should be presented
in terms relevant to individuals' concerns, and -- equally important --
organized by class of impacted individual, not by type of impacts.
PAGENO="0121"
117
REFERENCES
O'Hare, M., "Not on My Block, You Don't: Facility SEting and the
Strategic Importance of Compensation," Public Policy Voli. 25, No. 4
(1977): P. 407.
O'Hare, M. and D. Sanderson, "Fair Compensation and the Boomtown
Problem," Urban Law Annual Vol. 14 (1977): p. 101.
O `Hare, M., "Compensation for Development Impacts," Environmental
Comment Sept. 1978: P. 13.
Olson, M., Jr. The ~g~ē of Collective Action. Camb~ridge, Mass.:
Harvard, 1965,1971.
Sanderson, D., "Compensation in Facility Siting Cor~1icts,"
Laboratory of Architecture and Planning, M.I.T., Cambridge, Massachusetts.
(forthcoming technical report) -
Schelling, T.C. The Strategy of Conflict. New York Oxford University
Press, 1960.
PAGENO="0122"
118
TESTIMONY OF
EDWARD L. HELMINSKI
NATIONAL GOVERNORS' ASSOCIATION
ON BEHALF OF
GOVERNOR JOHN V. EVANS
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMiTTEE ON ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT
COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS
U. S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
JUNE 28, 1979
PAGENO="0123"
119
MR. CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE, MY NAME IS EDWARD L.
HELMINSKI. I AM STAFF DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL GOVERNORS' ASSOCIATION
NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE, AND DIRECTOR
OF THE ASSOCIATION'S ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES PROGRAM. I AM HERE TODAY
TO PRESENT A STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF GOVERNOR JOHN EVANS OF IDAHO, CHAIRMAN OF
THE NGA NUCLEAR POWER SUBCOMMITTEE AND GOVERNOR RICHARD LAMM, CHAIRMAN OF THE
NGA NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE. GOVERNOR EVANS
HAS ASKED ME TO CONVEY HIS REGRETS AT NOT BEING ABLE TO PERSONALLY PARTICIPATE
IN TODAY'S HEARING AND THAT HE STANDS READYTO WORK WITH YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN AND
YOUR COMMITTEE TO DEVELOP A TECHNICALLY SOUND, RESPONSIVE, AND PUBLICLY ACCEPTABLE
NUCLEAR WASTE MANAGEMENT STRATEGY. BOTH HE AND GOVERNOR LAWN APP~ECIATE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE THE GOVERNORS' VIEWS ON NUCLEAR WASTE MANAGEMENT EXPRESSED
BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE.
AS REQUESTED IN YOUR LETTER OF INVITATION, I INTEND TO OUTLINE THE GOVERNORS'
RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A RESPONSIVE NUCLEAR WASTE MANAGEMENT
DECISIONMAKING PROCESS AND AM PREPARED TO DISCUSS THE POTENTIAL OF ESTABLISHING
A COMPENSATORY SYSTEM THAT WOULD PROVIDE INCENTIVES TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
AND THEIR CONSTITUENTS TOWARD ACCEPTING A PERMANENT NUCLEAR WASTE DEPOSITORY..
WITH RESPECT TO THE LATTER,AT YOUR STAFFS RF~QUEST, I HAVE REVIEWED PAPERS PREPARED
BY THE MASSACUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT OF URBAN STUDIES AND PLANNING
AND AM PREPARED TO RESPOND TO QUESTIONS WITH REGARD TO THESE PROPOSALS. I HAVE
ONLY COMMENTED BRIEFLY ON THESE PROPOSALS IN MY TESTIMONY.
PAGENO="0124"
120
WITH YOUR PERMISSION, MR. CHAIRMAN, I WOULD LIKE TO READ THE STATEMENT
FOR THE RECORD.
`THE NATION'S GOVERNORS - RECOGNIZING THE CRITICAL PROBLEM POSED BY
THE ACCUMULATION OF NUCLEAR MATERIALS USED FOR MEDICAL, DEFENSE AND COMMERCIAL
PURPOSES - ADOPTED A COMPREHENSIVE NUCLEAR WASTE MANAGEMENT POLICY IN AUGUST
OF 1978.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I ASK YOUR PERMISSION TO SUBMIT THE FULL NGA POLICY
POSITJON FOR THE COMMITTEE RECORD.
THE UNDERLYING PRINCIPLE EMBODIED IN THAT POLICY IS THAT:
THE WASTE MANAGEMENT PROBLEM CANNOT BE SOLVED BY A FEDERAL.PROCESS
ALONE. IT MUST BE BASED OND~E PRINCIPLES OF COOPERATIVE FEDERALISM,
A STRONG PARTNERSHIP OF FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND
PRIVATE INDUSTRY IS ESSENTIAL TO A SUCCESSFUL PROGRAM.
THE MANAGEMENT OF OUR NUCLEAR WASTE IS A PROBLEM WE SIMPLY MUST RESOLVE.
IT IS ONE THAT IS NOT GOING TO GO AWAY. EVEN IF WE WERE TO STOP THE CONSTRUC-
TION OF ALL NEW COMMERCIAL NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS, AND SHUTDOWN ALL THE PLANTS
CURRENTLY OPERATING, WE WOULD STILL HAVE TO DISPOSE OF WASTES ALREADY ON HAND -
WASTES WHICH HAVE BEEN ACCUMULATED PRIMARILY FROM DEFENSE AND RESEARCH
ACTIVITIES. WHATEVER DECISIONS ARE ULTIMATELY MADE REGARDIN~THE FUTURE
OF NUCLEAR POWER, WE MUST SEEK A PERMANENT METHOD OF MANAGING OUR PRESENT
RADIOACTIVE WASTES.
THIS IS A MATTER THAT CONCERNS GOVERNMENTS AT ALL LEVELS AND MUST
THEREFORE INVOLVE ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT IN THE DECISIONMAKING PROCESS.
PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN THE GOVERNMENTAL DECISIONMAKING PROCESS ISAT
ITS LOWEST EBB. AND THOUGH PUBLIC ACCEPTABILITY CANNOT BE THE SOLE JUSTIFI-
CATION OF A SOLUTION AND SCIENTIFICALLY SOUND SOLUTIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED
IF THEY ARE DEVELOPED IN A CLANDESTINE MANNER OUT OF PUBLIC VIEW.
PAGENO="0125"
121
REINFORCED BY THE DISCLOSURE OF EVENTS AT THREE MILE ISLAND, THE
PUBLIC IS QUESTIONING THE CREDIBILITY AND CONSISTENCY OF GOVERNMENT IN
USING AND REGULATING NUCLEAR POWER. THE ATTITUDES OF STATE AND LOCAL
GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS TOWARD FEDERAL DECISIONMAKING IS REFLECTIVE OF THESE
CONCERNS. YET, THE ULTIMATE SITE FOR WASTE DISPOSAL, WHETHER DEFENSE OR
COMMERCIAL WASTE, WILL BE WITHIN ONE OF OUR BOUNDARIES. GOVERNORS, TOGETHER
WITH LOCAL OFFICIALS, HAVE DIRECT RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC'S
HEALTH AND SAFETY. THEY MUST ACT ON THEIR CONSTITUENCI'ES' BEHALF BY
ANTICIPATING ALL EVENTUALITIES AND BY PARTICIPATING IN THE DECISIONMAKING
PROCESS.
IN ORDER TO DO THIS, A PROCESS MUST BE ESTABLISHED AT THE NATIONAL AND
STATE LEVEL THAT WILL ALLOW STATE AND LOCAL OFFICIALS TO PARTICIPATE, BOTH
COLLECTIVELY AND ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS, WITH THE RELEVANT FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
AGENCIES IN THE DE~ELOPMENT OF ALL RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS AND
POLICIES.
IT IS IMPORTANT THAT SUCH PROCESSES HAVE THE VISIBILITY AND THE
RESOURCES TO INTERACT EFFECTIVELY ON A PAR WITH PARTICIPATING FEDERAL AGENCIES
AND TO PROVIDE AN OPEN CHANNEL OF COMMUNICATION TO THE HIGHEST LEVELS OF
GOVERNMENT - THE CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENT. THIS CANNOT BE ACCOMPLISHED
ON AN AD HOC, INDIVIDUAL, STATE-BY-STATE BASIS.
NGA POLICY RECOMMENDED THE CREATION OF A JOINT FEDERAL-STATE COMMISSION
AS THE MOST VIABLE MEANS OF FORMALIZING THAT PROCESS.
NGA POLICY, IN TURN, PLAYED A SIGNIFICANT ROLE IN THE FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS
OF THE IRG TO ESTABLISH A STATE PLANNING COUNCIL AND TO ADOPT THE PRINCIPLE
OF CONCURRENCE AND CONSULTATION. ALTHOUGH THE STATE PLANNING COUNCIL, AS
RECOMMENDED BY THE IRG, DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY OR RESPONSIBILITY OF THE
COMMISSION RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNORS, THE IRG RECOMMENDATIONS DO NOT PRECLUDE
PAGENO="0126"
122
THE COUNCIL'S ASSUMING GREATER RESPONSIBILITY.
THE IRG ALSO RECOMMENDED ESTABLISHING A CONSULTATION AND CONCURRENCE
PROCESS AS DESCRIBED IN THE GOVERNORS' STATED POLICY, BUT LEFT OPEN TQ
FURTHER DETERMINATION THE MEANS NEEDED TO RESOLVE POTENTIAL NON-CONCURRENCE
THAT COULD HALT PROGRESS TOWARD FINAL RESOLUTION OF A NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL
PROGRAM.
IN ORDER TO RESOLVE THE DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE IRG REPORT AND THE
GOVERNORS. POLICY AND TO DEFINE IN A CONCISE MANNER THE MEANS BY WHICH THE
OBJECTIVES OF THE GOVERNORS' POLICY COULD BE CARRIED OUT, THE NATIONAL
GOVERNORS' ASSOCIATION NUCLEAR POWER SUBCOMMITTEE AND THE WESTERN GOVERNORS'
POLICY OFFICE, IN COOPERATION WITH THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES, THE
NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES, THE U.S. CONFERENCE OF MAYORS, AND THE NATIONAL
CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES, CONVENED A NATIONAL WORKSHOP OF STATE AND
LOCAL OFFICIALS IN APRIL OF THIS YEAR TO FOCUS ON THESE QUESTIONS.
BASED ON NGA POLICY, THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE IRG, AND THE DISCUSSION
AT THAT WORKSHOP, WE HAVE DRAFTED A SET OF NGA RECOMMENDATIONS ON NUCLEAR
WASTE MANAGEMENT. THESE RECOMMENDATIONS HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO THE WHITE
HOUSE BY GOVERNOR EVANS. MR. CHAIRMAN, 1 WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT A COPY OF
THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE RECORD. THEY INCLUDE:
O THE IMMEDIATE ESTABLISHMENT OF A STATE PLANNING
COUNCIL BY EXECUTIVE ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT TO
BE REINFORCED BY AN ACT OF CONGRESS AS SOON AS
POSSIBLE
PAGENO="0127"
123
O THE STATE PLANNING COUNCIL SO ESTABLISHED SHALL SERVE
AS ADVISOR. TO FEDERAL AGENCIES, THE PRESIDENT AND
CONGRESS ON NUCLEAR WAST.E MANAGEMENT POLICIES AND PRO-
GRAMS AND HAVE EQUAL STANDING WITH FEDERAL AGENCIES IN
STRUCTURING A NUCLEAR WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM,
O IF ITS RECOMMENDATIONS ARE NOT INCORPORATED INTO
FINAL PLANS DEVELOPED BY THE RELEVANT FEDERAL
AGENCIES THEY SHOULD BE TRANSMITTED DIRECTLY TO
THE PRESIDENT AND THE CONGRESS FOR FURTHER
CONSIDERATION
THE COUNCIL SHOULD CONSIST OF STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
OFFICIALS AND REPRESENTATIVES OF INDIAN NATIONS APPOINTED BY THE
PRESIDENT,
IN ORDER THAT THE COUNCIL MAY REPRESENT STATE AND LOCAL INTERESTS
IN AN EFFECTIVE MANNER, IT IS NECESSARY THAT SUFFICIENT RESOURCES
AND OPPORTUNITIES BE PROVIDED -- INCLUDING SUFFICIENT FUNDS TO
ACQUIRE AND DEVELOP ITS OWN EXPERTISE IN TECHNICAL AND POLICY AREAS
AND ACCESS-TO ALL PERTINENT INFORMATION, INCLUDING PROPRIETORY
INFORMATION,
IF ESTABLISHED IN THE DESCRIBED MANNER THE STATE PLANNING
COUNCIL WOULD MEET THE GOVERNORS' POLICY OBJECTIVES -
- AS EMPHASIZED BY THE NGA POLICY POSITION, SITE-SPECIFIC
DETERMINATIONS CAN BE MADE ONLY WITH STATE CONCURRENCE, IT MUST
BE RECOGNIZED THAT IN THE EARLY DEVELOPMENT OF SITE CHARACTERI-
ZATION~ THOSE STATES WITH SITES THAT COULD QUALIFY AS MEETING THE
SITE PROFILE SHOULD BE CONSULTED AND GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO
CONCUR ON THE SPECIFICS OF THAT CHARACTERIZATION
PAGENO="0128"
124
THAT PROCESS MUST. BEGIN_WITH STATE OR REGIONAL CONCURRENCE ON OVERALL
* DESIGNS AND COMPLETED SITE SPECIFIC PLANS PRIOR TO THE INITIATION OF ANY
ACTION INCLUDING THE PROCUREMENT OF LAND AND THE INITIATION OF PRELIMINARY
CONSTRUCTION AT A PROPOSED SITE.
ANY PROCEDURE FOR CONCURRENCE OBVIOUSLY MUST ALLOW FOR THE POSSIBILITY
OF NON-CONCURRENCE. NEITHER THE IRG REPORT NOR THE GOVERNORS' POLICY POSITION
MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO RESOLVE A NON-CONCURRENCE STALEMATE. THOUGH AN OVERRIPE
OF STATE NON-CONCURRENCE BY A FEDERAL ADMINISTRATOR WOULD BE UNACCEPTABLE, THE
POSSIBILITY~OF A CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW OF NON-CONCURRENCE BY A STATE IS AN
AVENUE THAT SHOULD BE STUDIED AS A PROCESS THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR REVIEW,
YET PROVIDE THE STATES WITH THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONTINUE TO PARTICIPATE IN
A FINAL RESOLUTION IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST.
THEDESIGNOF A PRACTICAL AND_WORKABLE* CONSULTATION AND CONCURRENCE
PROCESS THAT WOULD MEET THE GOVERNORS' STATED OBJECTIVES SHOULD BE THE
FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS FOR THE STATE PLANNING COUNCIL.
THE NATIONAL GOVERNORS ASSOCIATION ALSO ADOPTED A POLICY WHICH
SPECIFICIALLY ADDRESSES THE DEVELOPMENT OF A SPENT_FUEL STORAGE PROGRAM AND
LOW LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL. .
THE POLICY STATEMENT ON NUCLEAR ENERGY ADOPTED LAST AUGUST RECOGNIZES
THAT INTERIM SOLUTIONS FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF SPENT FUEL ARE NECESSARY. OUR
POLICY ASKS THAT SPENT FUEL BE CONSIDERED AS A VALUABLE FUTURE RESOURCE AND
THAT PROGRAMS FOR HANDLING IT SHOULD BE DESIGNED TO INCORPORATE *THE CONCEPTS
OF IN1ERIM STORAGE AND RETRIEVABILITY.
THE GOVERNORS' POLICY ALSO RECOMMENDS.THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A USER FEE TO
PAY FOR THE COSTS OF STORING AND MANAGING NUCLEAR WASTES. THE GOVERNORS
PAGENO="0129"
125
RECOMMEND THAT REVENUES FROM USER FEES BE DEDICATED TO THE COSTS OF REGULA-
TION, OPERATION, TRANSPORTATION, PERPETUAL CARE AND MAINTENANCE OF WASTE
MANAGEMENT FACILITIES RATHER THAN TO SUPPORT RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.
GIVEN THAT THE NATIONAL INTEREST IS AND HAS BEEN SERVED BY NUCLEAR DEVELOP-
MENT, BOTH FOR COMMERCIAL AND MILITARY USE, RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT FUNDS
SHOULD BE AUTHORIZED AND APPROPRIATED FROM GENERAL TAX REVENUES. THE
GOVERNORS URGE THAT EXPENSES INCURRED BY ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT BE
REIMBURSED BY THE FUNDS FROM THE COLLECTION OF THIS ONE-TIME CHARGE.
FOR FURTHER ELABORATION ON THE GOVERNORS' VIEWS ON THE ESTABLISHMENT
OF A NUCLEAR WASTE MANAGEMENT DECISIONMAKING PROCESS, I REFER YOU AND THE
COMMITTEEE MEMBERS TO THE POSITION PAPER WHICH I HAVE SUBMITTED FOR THE
RECORD. I WOULD LIKE TO ADD THAT THE ACCEPTABILITY OF THE GOVERNMENTAL
* DECISIONMAKING PROCESS WILL DEPEND UPON THE DEGREE AND QUALITY OF PARTICIPA-
TION OF INTERESTED PUBLIC REPRESENTATIVES AT ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT.
PARTICIPATORY PROCESSES MUST BE ESTABLISHED AT ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT
* TO ASSURE PUBLIC CONFIDENCE AND GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY. ALTHOUGH
MECHANISMS TO PROVIDE FOR PUBLIC INPUT AT THE FEDERAL DECISIONMAKING
PROCESS MUST BE PROVIDED, IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT STATE AND LOCAL PARTICIPATORY
PROCESSES BE ESTABLISHED TO ASSURE THAT~REPRESENTATIVE ELECTED OFFICIALS
PARTICIPATING IN THE SITING PROCESS AREDOING SO IN AN ACCOUNTABLE AND
RESPONSIVE MANNER.
I WILL NOW COMMENT BRIEFLY ON THE PROPOSALS PUT FORTH IN THE PAPERS
BY THE MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT OF URBAN STUDIES
AND PLANNING RECOMMENDING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A SITING PROCESS BASED ON
A COMPETITIVE AUCTIONING SYSTEM BETWEEN POTENTIAL SITES. THE AUCTIONING
PROCESS IS SUPPOSED TO PROVIDE THE POTENTIAL HOST SITE THE OPPORTUNITY
53-932 0 - 80 - 9
PAGENO="0130"
126
TO OBTAIN SOME MEASURE OF BENEFIT OF THE LIABILITY OF THE PROPOSED
FACILITY THAT WOULD ALLOW THE STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO COMPETE
FOR THE SITE. I MIGHT ADD THAT THESE VIEWS ARE MY OWN AND SHOULD NOT BE
CONSTRUED AS NGA POLICY.
I HAVE SERIOUS MISGIVING ABOUT THE PROPOSAL OUTLINED BY THE MIT GROUP.
BASICALLY, I OBJECT TO ESTABLISHING A `PROCESS THAT ALLOWS EXISTING INSTI-
TUTIONAL STRUCTURES THE OPPORTUNITY TO PLAY DOWN THE RISKS, WHILE
HOLDING OUT POTENTIAL CARROTS TO ENHANCE ACCEPTABILITY. THE PROCESS ALSO
ALLOWS THE PUBLICLY ELECTED OFFICIALS TO AVOID FACING THE RESPONSIBILITY
OF ACTING IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST OVER AND ABOVE THEIR OWN PAROCHIAL
INTEREST. THE MIT AUCTION PROPOSAL, IN THE VIEWS OF THE AUTHOR, IS ALSO
BASED ON THE PREMISE THAT THE FACILITIES THAT WOULD BE UP FOR AUCTION
"WOULD BE BENEFICI~AL TO A REGION AND OUGHT TO BE BUILT SOMEWHERE, DESPITE
THE LOCALIZED COST THEY IMPOSE." THE REGIONAL BENEFITS OF A PERMANENT
NUCLEAR MANAGEMENT FACILITY, IF ANYTHING, ARE MINIMAL.
THE ONLY BENEFITS THAT WOULD SEEM TO ACCRUE TO THE LOCAL AREA WOULD BE
THOSE THAT COULD BE BARGAINED OR"CONNED"OUT OF THE GRANTING AGENCY IN EXCHANGE
FOR POSITIVE ACTION. BUT THIS WOULD HAVE NO DIRECT BEARING ON THE
ESTABLIShMENT OF THE SITE ITSELF (A NEW SCHOOL, A FEDERAL OFFICE BUILDING,
ETC.). THE NET EFFECT WOULD BE THAT INSTEAD OF FOCUSING ON THE UNKNOWN
RISKS INVOLVED AND DEVELOPING TO THE EXTENT PRACTICABLE STRATEGIES TO
MINIMIZE THOSE RISKS, THE SITING PROCESS COULD FOCUS ON PERIPHERAL BENEFITS.
ANOTHER MAJOR PROBLEM WITH THE PROCESS IS THAT IT SEEMS TO LEAVE OPEN
THE QUESTION OF LONG-TERM LIABILITY. THE UNKNOWN RISKS INVOLVED WITH THE
STORAGE OF NUCLEAR WASTES BEGS FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF LONG-TERM
PAGENO="0131"
127
LIABILITY ON THE PART OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. THIS RESPONSIBILITY
MUST NOT BE CLOUDED BY SETTING UP A PROCESS WHERE STATE AND LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS MAY HAVE TO GO THROUGH LENGTHY LITIGATIONS
TO OBTAIN REDRESS FOR ADVERSE EFFECTS THAT WERE INITIALLY UNFORESEEN AND
NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN THE HOST SITE'S BID FOR THE DEPOSITORY.
A THIRD PROBLEM WITH THE AUCTION PROPOSAL IS THAT IT ASSUMES
THAT SEVERAL SITES WOULD BE AVAILABLE FOR THE FACILITY UNDER QUESTION.
BECAUSE OF THE TECHNOLOGICAL AND GEOLOGICAL REQUIREMENTS OF A NUCLEAR
WASTE DEPOSITORY THIS MAY NOT BE THE CASE. THE AUCTIONING PROCESS
COULD POSSIBLY LEAD TO THE SITING OF A DEPOSITORY IN A LOCATION THAT
TECHNOLOGICALLY WOULD NOT BE THE BEST SUITED.
THOUGH I HAVE SOME SERIOUS MISGIVINGS ABOUT THE AUCTION.. APPROACH,
I DO BELIEVE THAT THROUGH A CONSTRUCTIVE AND ACCOUNTABEEDECISIONMAKING
PROCESS, ECONOMIC BENEFITS AND COOPERATION CAN AND SHOULD BE INTEGRATED
INTO NUCLEAR WASTE MANAGEMENT STRATEGY~.
THE CONSULTATION AND CONCURRENCE PROCESS SUPPORTED BY THE NATIONAL
GOVERNORS' ASSOCIATION AND RECOMMENDEb BY THE IRG REPORT WOULD ALLOW FOR
SUCH NEGOTIATIONS. *IN SUCH A PROCESS THE FOCUS, HOWEVER, WOULD BE ON
THE MEETING OF HEARING SAFETY AND CRITERIA THAT WOULD DEAL WITH THE
REAL AND UNKNOWN RISKS INVOLVED RATHER THAN WITH PERIPHERAL BENEFITS.
I THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS ON BEHALF OF
GOVERNOR RAY FOR ALLOWING THE NATIONAL GOVERNORS' ASSOCIATION THE
OPPORTUNITY TO EXPRESS THESE VIEWS. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR FURTHER
DISCUSSION, I AM AT YOUR DISPOSAL.
PAGENO="0132"
128
***~*
~ National Governors' Association u~n M. Canol
- of Kentucky
St*phen B. lazber
Director
NUCLEAR ENERGY POLICY POSITION
ADOPTED BY
NATIONAL GOVERNORS' ASSOCIATION
AUGUST, 1978
HAL!. OFTH~ STATES* £44 North C~.pttn1 S,neot* Wouiringnon. D.C. 20001 . (2021 621-5300
PAGENO="0133"
129
~~EAR ENERGY POLICY -
Preamble - . - - - - - -
Energy from aLl. sources is the underlying base of economic and social
activity in all states. The limited availability of energy adversely affects
every aspect of our lives.~Nu~lear energy -is and mustbe, a critical and
essential component of.themation!snesr..tern- and-mid-term energjs~ippiy.'- - In -
the continued development of this component, the -Governors insist -that health,
safety, ~ ~e~given paramount consideration; -~In addi- ~
tion, the~Govemnors stress.thatpriorjtybe given- to the following -consideratiońs~~Z
1. Radioactive ~iaste~man4ex~ent - _ -
2 Transportation of radioactive tniterials -
3. Advanced nuclear systems development, - -
4. Siting of nuclear energy facilities, - -
S. Nuclear light water reactor, -
6. Breeder reactor, and . - - -
7. Abandoned uraniun mine and mill tailing sites.
Radioactive Waste Management -
Both federal and nonfederal sites for the disposal of radioactive waste
are located within the boundariej of one or more states. In dealing with the
issue of radioactive waste management, the Governors, along with local and
federal officials, must protect the public health and safety and the environ-
ment.
The radioactive wastes that have accunulated from military activities,
coomercial reactors, medical researth, and other sources are a national responsi-
bility. AU states generating any part of the problem need to participate in its
resolution. The waste management problem cannot be solved by a federal process
alone. It must be based on the principles of cooperative feoeralism. A strong
partnership of federal, state, and local government and private industry is
essential to a successful program. That partnership must be continued and - -
strengthened. Continued dialogue on details of program plans is also essential
to developing a sound program that will ensure public conf~denca. - - - -
The Governors urge-Congress and-the President to create a joint coission
on. radioactive waste management,..consistingof seven members, a najority of uh~ch
is drawn from the states. - The conmjssion should have the responsibility for
developing a conorehensjve radioactive wa.gte disposal policy and ~nplenentation
plan in conjunction with states, federal agencies, -and locil governments. Other
responsibilities of the coissjon should include oversight of the development
of generic environmental impact statements (GElS) on the final disposal of - -
commercial waste; investigation of the feasibility of establishing publ±c-prlva:e
waste nanagement corporations, initially federally financed, on a site-specif±:
PAGENO="0134"
130
basis ann development-of recoend.ations ror away-from-reactor (APR) soent-
fuel storage. Such programs shou.t~d move. forwardon an accelerated basis.
~
The Department of Energy should become more aware of and sensitive to the
potential. social., economic, and political impacts of waste management plans and
programs on e.~d.sting institutions.~Greater attention should be given to the
arrangements needed to offset or ameliorate those inr~acts To that end the -
Department of Energy needs to develop more erfect~ve methods to obtain timely
Lnformed and responsible public participation in formulating these pdlicies
and orograms Early in ~the~process nf~'preparing~envirodmental impact T~ate- ~
ments for specific -sttes or facilities the Department or Energy should 1.nvolve
state and local. officials.-,.. State and.~lora1 ofricials-sliould help rurnish the
~inforaation needed Jor `thesa ~cnivities ~DOE~-mu~t Cobtain state con~irrence ~
prior to final site determination In addition~ significant DOE management
attention must be redirected no the analysis of'~nvironmennal impact statements
for radioactive waste management ~Schedules must be accelerated and additional
technical personnel must be assigne4-~o this takZ~~~ -
Although the ultimate disposal of ~iigh-ievel defense and cosmerc~a2iy
generated wastes must have the highest priority, the Governors recognize that
interim solutions for the management of spent fuel. kill be necessary in order
to continue using present nuclear capacity. .
3ecause spent fuel should be considered a valuable future energy resource,
programs for handling spent fuel should be designed to incorporate the concepts
of `interin storage" and "retrieveability." .. . . . :.
The Governors believe that long-term program plans for low-level radioacēi~'e
waste that continua to permit private operation and "agreement-state" regulation
of low-level waste burial grounds on a cooperative basis with federal authorities,
wherever this is both preferred and practicable, should be finalized as expedt-
t_ouslv as possible
Rather than delay action until a "perfect" program for the disposal of -`
radioactive wastes can be developed, the relevant federal agencies should utilize
to the fullest extent practicable already available and workable technologies
and solutions to forge an implementation strategy, giving priority to the prorec-
t..on o the environment arid the hea.lt~i and sarety or the general public
Adequate funding for the costs of developing and implementing waste disposal
orograrts should be provided to the states through user fees and other sources
Abandoned Uraniun Mine and Mill Tailing Sites `~
Numerous abandonedT~raniun mines and in.aātive~ mill tailimg piles pos~
potential health hazards to the general public. These abandoned mines and mill -
a...J.~g piles are the results of mining or uraniun f.ie.1. under federal contac*s
mr purposes of energy productfon and national secu'iry The Governors i'ge
Congress to pass .legislat~onmakinj i~~the full responsibility of the-federal~
government to clean up and réstore~the~abandoned nine sites and inactive mill ~~-!`~
ta~.l..'g p.~.es resulting rem the minin& or u~anium
Transoortation of Radioactive ~aterialsT~ ~. . -... ..
The transportation of radioactive materials, including nuclear waste, is'
~rcwtng concern to the general public. Increased citizen awareness and
PAGENO="0135"
131
Loncern must be dealt with thoroughly and responsibly. The Governors recom-
mend that a set of unifo~m regulations and procedures relative to the crams-
poitacion of radioactiveinaterials be developed by state and federal officials.
Such regulations and procadq~ea must address the interests of individual states
in issues such as routing, insurance, licensing, packaging, loading, and in-
loading. They must define the responsibilities and coordination mechanisms in
the event of theft, diversion, or accidents involving radioactive materials.
Such regulations and procedures should also address the coordination of Local;
state, and federal roles in the day-to-day operation of radioactive materials
transportation systems. Adequate funding for the enforcement of and impact from
the implementation of the above regulations and procedures should be provided
A federal agency should administer all aspects of federal involvement in the
transportation of radioactive materials
Advanced Nuclear Systems Develonment
Domestic sources of cosercjal-gcale uranium ore are limited and are
diin{~~ishing. With our present resource base so short-lived, we must pursue
continued exploration of all nuclear and nonnuclear tachnologies. This includes
breeder reactor technologies and nuclear fuel reprocessing. These technologies
must receive, adequate co~tment for federal research, development, and demon.
stration. . .
Siting of Nuclear Energy Facilities
Congress is currently considering the Nuclear Siting and LIcensing Act of
1978. Certain aspects of this act would require expediting the licensing of
nuclear facilities through a number of improvements in the federal administrative
process. The act, as proposed, also recognizes the importance of states in making
need-for-power determinations and in being responsible, under federal guidelines,
for making environmental impact analyses under the National Environmental Policy
Act.
Avoidance of Delays in Construction of Nuclear Power Plants
Recent examples of regulatory delays in the construction and operation of
nuclear power plants highlight the inability to bring new generation on line
when needed. These delays have resulted in substantial increases in the cost
of electricity to the consumer.
The Governors support licensing procedures that provide for full public
participation and encourage a careful review of all health, safety, and environ-
mental concerns. However, policies must be developed that provide for clear
and definitive decisions. Any reconsiderations of these' decisions must be
limited to significant new issues that indicate the facility or site would not
comply with the original requirements or yo new information that indicates that
* the health and safety of the public would~ be endangered. Reconsideration must
be handled in an open and expeditious manner.
The Governors request that any such pending issue be resolved with utmost
dispatch in order to minimize uncertainty in the provision of power and ultimate
financial loss to the electricity-consuming public.
The Governors reaffirm the principles stated in the previously adopted
polIcy position on energy facility siting, emphasizing state flexibility and
i'.vo.vement in sIting.
*~.,pcad August 1973; replaces the existing D.-13,
:.-L-. D.-l3, and D.-35.
PAGENO="0136"
132
RECOMMENDATIONS TOWARD ESTABLISHING
A PUBLICLY RESPONSIVE AND ACCEPTABLE
NATIONAL NUCLEAR WASTE MANAGEMENT POLICY
A Position Paper Based on National Governors' Association Policy
and Further Developed at a National Meeting of State and Local Officials
The National Governors' Association
Nuclear Power Subcomittee
Governor John B. Evans, Chairman
May 8, 1979
PAGENO="0137"
133
Introduction
In August 1978, the National Governors' Association adopted a nuclear
waste management policy, calling for the establishment of a comprehensive
national nuclear waste management program within a framework of cooperative
federalism. The policy states:
Both federal and nonfederal sites for the disposal of radio-
active i~aste are located within the boundaries of one or more states.
In dealing with the issue of radioactive waste management, the
Governors, along with local and federal officials, must protect the
public health and safety and the environment.
The radioactive wastes that have accumulated from military
activities, commercial reactors, medical research, and other sources
are a national responsibility. All states generating any part of
the problem need to participate In its resolution. The waste
management problem cannot be solved by a federal process alone. It
must be based on the principles of cooperative federalism. A strong
partnership of federal, state, and local government and private
Industry is essential to a successful program.
In order to affect the development of,a national program based on these
objectives, the governors' policy recommended that a joint federal-state
comisslon be established and stated that the Department of Energy must "obtain
state concurrence prior to final waste disposal site determination." The
joint federal-state commission proposed by NGA, with governors as members,
would have a substantial role in all facets of nuclear waste management. It
would be responsible for developing a comprehensive radioactive waste disposal
policy and Implementation plan in conjunction with the states, federal agencies,
and local governments.
The NGA policy played a significant role in the final recommendations of
the Interagency Review Group to establish a State Planning Council and to adopt
the principle of concurrence and consultation. Though the State Planning Council,
as recommended by the IRG, does not have the authority or responsibility of the
PAGENO="0138"
134
NGA recommended joint federal-state commission, the IRG recommendations did
not preclude the Council's assuming greater responsibility.
The IRG did recommend establishing the consultation and concurrence pro-
cess as described in the governors' stated policy, but left open to further
determination means to resolve potential non.concurrence that couldstop
progress toward final resol~~tion of a nuclear waste disposal program.
In order to resolve the discrepancies between the IRG report and the
governors' policy and to define in a concise manner the means by which the
objectives of the governors' policy could be carried out, the National
Governors' Association Nuclear Power Subcommittee and the Western Governors'
Policy Office, in cooperation with the National Association of Counties, the
National League of Cities, the Ii. S. Conference of Mayors, and the National
Conference of State Legislatures, convened a national workshop of state and
local officials attended, with representatives from 35 states and Congressional
committee staff and from the Department of Energy.
The workshop was structured to develop recommendations to resolve the
differences between the IRG recommendations and the National Governors'
Association policy in order to develop practical means of achieving the basic
objective -~ the establishment of an effective and acceptable intergovernmental
decision-making process to formulate a national nuclear waste management program.
Findings and Recommendations
The recommendations of NGA are based on the following premises:
- That final resolution of the waste management Issue Is a
matter that all states must consider regardless of whether
commercial nuclear power facilities are placed within their
boundaries or not;
PAGENO="0139"
135
- That a solution to the waste problem must be developed
through a process that is thorough, understood,
believable and accepted by the public;
- That more effective involvement of state and local
policymakers should be sought.
* The IRG recommendations to establisha State Planning Council and a con-
sultation and concurrence process are in line with these objectives, and
therefore offer a good foundation to establish a workable process. The
recommendations of NGA on the development of the State Planning Council and
the process of consultation and concurrence are formulated to meet the governors'
objectives,
General Principles of Consultation and Participation at the National Planning
Level
An acceptable nuclear waste management program can only be developed and
implemented through a process that recognizes that elected state and local
government officials, in order to fulfill~ their responsibility to protect the
general welfare and safety of the public, must be directly involved in the
nuclear waste management decision-making process from policy development to
implementation. *
In order to ensure the participation of state and local government officials
at the national planning level a mechanism must be established that can work
effectively and responsively in concert with the federal government agencies.
It is important that such a mechanism have the visibility and the resources to
interact on a par with federal agencies with responsibility for the nuclear
waste management effort, -
PAGENO="0140"
136
Consultation at the national policy and planning level between state and
local officials and the federal government must be a meaningful process that
provides an open channel of coniiiunication to the highest levels of govern-
ment -~ the Congress and the President. In order to realize this objective,
consultation at the national policy level cannot be carried out on an ad hoc,
individual, or state-by-state basis. It must be accomplished through a visible
mechanism that will focus public concern and provide the opportunity for the
building of consensus among state and local officials whenever possible.
In order to assure state and local government officials that the consulta-
tion mechanism so established is indeed their vehicle for participation,
their consultation role should be defined by the state and local government
community and not restricted by federally dictated boundaries. The national
workshop participants, who were predominantly state officials sent to represent
their governors, concluded that a national consultative mechanism should be
advisory in nature but with sufficient leverage to assure that advice given
was incorporated into the development of national programs. One limitation to
the consultation mechanism voiced at the workshop was that a body so constituted
to perform this function could not speak for individual state needs or have
authority to preempt in any way individual state action.
The State Planning Council
The State Planning Council recommended by the IRG can, If properly estab-
lished and structured, meet these requirements and allow for substantive parti-
cipation by state and local government officials in the development of a
national nuclear waste management program.
PAGENO="0141"
137
However, in order to do that, the State Planning Council must first be
established as the body independent of federal direction and with the necessary
statutory backing that will, assure its existence and participation, regardless
of future Administration policy.
Since it is critical that implementation of nuclear waste management
strategy begin immediately, executive action must be taken to establish the
Council immediately with confirmation through Congressional statutes as soon
as possible.
The proposed State Planning Council can satisfy the objectives of NGA
policy if:
o the State Planning Council as recommended by the IRG Is created
immediately by Executive Order of the President;
o legislation to assure the continuity and role of the Council Is
transmitted to Congress as soon as possible;
o the role of the State Planning Council is defined as that of
advisor to the President and Congress on nuclear waste management
policies and programs, and to assist those federal agencies
responsible for nuclear waste management;
o the Council is involved in the formulation of all nuclear waste
management programs including, but not limited to, high level,
low level, mill tailings, and decommissioning strategies for
both civilian and defense waste;
o the Council will have equal standing with the federal agencies
in structuring a nuclear waste management program. Its recommenda-
tions, though advisory, must be either incorporated into final
plans developed by the relevant federal agencies or be transmitted
directly to the President and Congress for further consideration.
PAGENO="0142"
138
o the Council's activities focus on generic issues related to
nuclear waste management and on the process of consultation
and concurrence that must be established between the federal
government and the potential host state or states.
o the Council is given the responsibility to develop guidelines
for the consultation and concurrence process to aid individual
states in dealing with site specific issues. Such guidelines
should be flexible enough to allow states to address their
specific needs when interacting with the federal government.
In order to fulfill these functions, the Council must be structured in
a manner that recognizes that state governments, through their governors, are
an effective medium for public participation in the national decision-making
process.
With this in mind, it is recommended that the Council:
o be appointed by the President and consist of only elected
state and local government officials and representatives
of Indian nations;
o have a majority of its membership be governors, with a governor
designated as chairman of the Council;
o exclude representatives from the federal agencies.
In order for the Council to represent state and local interests in an
effective manner, it is necessary that sufficient resources be made available
to support Council activities. The Council, therefore, should be provided
through the enabling Executive Order and then by Congressional initiative
with:
o sufficient funds to acquire and develop its own expertise in
technical and policy areas through the employment of full
PAGENO="0143"
139
time staff and the employment of outside consultants.. These
funds should be provided by an independent authorization and
appropriation to allow the Council to function in an accountable,
independent and objective basis;
o necessary authority to obtain access to all pertinent information,
including proprietory information with the understanding that
all rules of confidentiality would apply.
The effectiveness of the State Planning Council will depend in great part
on its ability to interact collectively and individually with all those federal
agencies having respp.psibility for nuclear waste management. This cannot be
achieved if the Council is subsumed under the aegis of a single federal agency.
The Council must be viewed by the competing~federal interests as a captive of
none in order to carry out the functions intended by the state and local
community. For these reasons, it is recommended that the Council beestablished
as an entity of the White House, possibly attached to the Domestic Policy Council.
To complement the functions of the Council and enhance its abilityto work
collectively with the various involved federal agencies, it is also recommended
that an interagency federal coordinating council or group be established
chaired by a designated lead agency.
Th~ State Planning Council, established in the described manner and
structured accordingly, would meet the governors' policy objectives. These
recommendations are designed to supplement those contained in the IRG Report
that outline the fUnctions of the Council to include
o provision of state perspectives for the development of the
national Nuclear Waste Management Plan, the site characteri-
zation program and other waste activity planning and other
planning documents to insure that they adequately address
the needs of the states and the localities;
PAGENO="0144"
140
o preparation of an annual report on its activities to include
its recommendations concerning the government's nuclear waste
disposal programs;
o advice on the regional distribution, characterization and
placement of facilities for the management and disposal of
nuclear wastes and review and make recommendations regarding
the process for selecting, characterizing and determining the
suitability of potential repository sites;
o assistance to DOE and the states in recommending proposed sites
for licensing by NRC to assure that the needs of the states
and localities are met;
o establishment under its auspices of such advisory committees
as are deemed necessary to assist in its deliberations. Such
committees should include representatives of all relevant
interest groups.
o defining additional state roles in the federal government's
waste management program including state organizational and
other institutional questions.
Participation in Implementation - Consultation and Concurrence
The Implementation of an agreed-upon national plan must include consulta-
tion and concurrence mechanisms between individual states and the federal
government.
As articulated in the governors' policy position, site specific deter-
minations can be made only with the concurrence of the host state or states.
It must be recognized that in the early development of site characterization,
those states with sites that could qualify as meeting the site profile should
PAGENO="0145"
141
be consulted and given the opportunity to concur on the specifics of site
characterization. As Indicated in the, NGA recommendation, the process of
concurrence should be developed by the State Planning Council.
Site Specific Consultation and Concurrence
Proceeding with the determinatlon~ of alternative sites, concurrence and
consultation becomes a process between states with potential host state
having the overriding responsibility. The process must begin with state or
regional concurrence on overall designs and completed site specific plans
prior to initiation of any action (pročurement of land, preliminary con-
struction) at a proposed site.
Concurrence must also allow for a state to perform overall evaluations
of the risks and benefits associated with a specific waste site, as site
development is in progress, in addition to evaluation of discrete portions
of the program.
Non-Concurrence
The procedure for concurrence obviously allows the possibility of non-
concurrence by a state. The IRG report and the governors' policy position
make no recomendation to resolve a non-concurrence stalemate. The issue
definitely bears further study. Though an override of state non-concurrence
by a federal administrator would be unacceptable, the possibility of a
congressional review of non-concurrence by a state is an avenue that allows
for review and override yet provides the states with the opportunity to
participate in the final resolution.
The design of a practical and workable consultation and concurrence
process that would meet the governors'stated objectives should be the first
order of business for the State Planning Council.
53-932 0 - 80 - 10
PAGENO="0146"
142
Union of
CONCERNED
9CIENTISTS
Testimony of
Peter Franchot
On Behalf of the Union of Concerned Scientists
before the
Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment
Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs
United States House of Representatives
Congressman Norris K. Udall, Chairman
June 28, 1979
Washington, D.C.
1208 Massachusetts AvenueS Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138 . Tetephone (617) 547-5552
1025 15th Street N.W. . Washington, D.C. 20005 . Tetephone (202) 347-5800
PAGENO="0147"
143
Zir. Chairman and members of the Committee,
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the important
issue of public participation in.the siting and licensing of
nuclear waste facilities.
The Union of Concerned Scientists is a non-profit group of
scientists and technical professionals who are supported finan-
cially by 80,000 members of the American public. UCS is presently
conducting an independent assessment of the United States nuclear
waste management program which will be published in the fall of
1979. One conclusion from this study focuses on the large dif-
:Eerence between "theory" and praOtice" in the area of radioactive
waste management. In thep~, some technical problems of waste
management may be considered solvable. In p~ractice, however,
there is considerable uncertainty about the inplanentation of
a proper program to protect the health and safety of future
generations.
It is our belief that full public participation in the
siting of radioactive waste facilities has the potential for
weeding out technically flawed sites and for gaining public ap-
proval of technically sound sites. We believe that public par-
ticipation can be ensured by giving states the explicit power
to approve or disapprove the siting. of a federal radioactive waste
facility within their borders, after a review of the technical,
social, and engineering issues involved. For that reason we
would urge this committee to support H.R.2762 cosponsored by
Representatives Kemp and Seiberl~ng and 35 other members of the
House.
PAGENO="0148"
144
Such explicit authority will minimize the chances that
a technically flawed site will be chosen because it will increase
public scrutiny and examination of the technical issues. In
addition, if a technically sound site is selected and approved
by the public or their elected representatives, there will be
greater assurance of public acceptance.
It is important to discuss the background of the U.S.
radioactive waste management program. The issue of public
participation and states rights should not be viewed in a vacuum.
There are serious risks associated with a poorly managed program.
There is a large and growing inventory of commercially gener-
ated radioactive waste. There is a careless track record of
radioactive waste nianagement in this country characterized by
incompetence and indifference to the public interest. A brief
review of the program can only lead to the conclusion that states
should be more than equal partners with the federal government
in deciding abo~ut the siting of a waste facility within its borders.
Our fear, unlike critics of our position, is not that the Federal
government will fail to choose a site for radioactive waste,
but rather, under intense political and economic pressure, a
flawed site will b~ chosen despite contrary technical evidence.
The ttpoliticalll or institutional problem of radioactive waste
management was recently noted by Mr. Gus Speth, a member of the
Council on Environmental Quality when he said, "I am personally
very concerned that those who see shoring up the nuclear option
as a vital objective will see an affirmative answer on the
question of the nuclear future as so important that they will
PAGENO="0149"
145
shortchange serious issues and uncertainties related to safe
waste management."
The potential consequences of improperly stored radioactive
waste are, quite rightly, unsettling to members of the public
from a possible host state. The emissions from this waste are
~invisible, odorless, and tasteless, yet they are highly toxic
and persistent. They cannot be felt or heard. Yet minute amounts
are capable of inducing cancer in the living, birth defects in
the unborn, and mutagenic effects in the descendants of those
exposed. Improperly guarded, radioactive wastes may be dangerous
for thousands of years.
The current inventory of radioactive waste is enormous. As
a result of commercial power reactors we have accumul~ted over
17,000 spent fuel assembles that: are stored primarily in water
cooled basins at reactor sites. : Commercial power reactors have
also produced approximately 15 million cubic feet of low level
radioactive wastes which are stored at six licensed facilities,
three of which are closed.
Government reactors used for military activities have
produced 80 million gallons of high level radioactive waste stored
in liquid and solid form at Hanford, Washington, Savannah River,
South Carolina, and Idaho Falls,: Idaho. There are 6Q0,000
gallons of liquid high level wastes and sludge derived from com-
mercial and military spent fuel 5t0red at the abandoned West
Valley, New York site. In addition there are over 140 million
tons of uranium mill tailings that are stored in partially
PAGENO="0150"
146
stabilized piles and hundreds of contaminated government build-
ings and facilities that await decommissioning.
* The problem is growing larger. Although wastes from mili-
tary activities are expected to increase slightly, wastes from
commercial reactors are expected to dramatically increase in
the near future.
The radioactive waste management program has a track record
marred by many examples of incompetence and attempted political
expediency. Along with the hazards of fallout from weapons test-
ing, unresolved reactor safety problems, and other problems under
its jurisdiction, the Atomic Energy Commission, blinded by pro-
motional zeal, also misled the ~merican public about the problems
of radioactive waste. Today the Department of Energy is afflicted
with a similar conflict of priorities where it has a dual responsi-
bility for promoting nuclear power and also resolving the radio-
active waste problem - which is perceived as an impediment to
the growth of nuclear power. Some of the conspicuous failures in
past history include: -
A. The Tanks at Hanford, Washington
Millions of gallons of high level radioactive liquid waste
are stored in single walled carbon steel tanks at the Hanford
Washington Reservation. Despite warnings from the U.S. Geological
Survey and the General Accounting Office about the integrity of
the tanks, the AEC neglected to follow recommendations to dis-
continue their use. By 1973, 422,000 gallons of liquid waste had
seeped into the sandy soil of Hanford. One celebrated leak of
115,000 gallons went undetected for 51 days because no one bother-
ed to compare readings that had been taken from one week to the
next.
PAGENO="0151"
147
B. The Lyons Kansas Debacle..
In 1972, the Atomic Energy Commission testified before
Congress that they had spent 15 years and $100 million of tax-
payers' dollars studying bedded salt disposal and the solution
to the problem could be found immediately at Lyons, Kansas. So
confident was the AEC that Miltbn Shaw, director of the AEC's
Division of Reactor Development stated before Congress that the
site was "equal to or superior to the others (in the country)."
The site was found to be grossly unsuitable by the Kansas
State Geological Survey. Dr. William Harrtbleton of the Survey
described the Lyons, Kansas site as "a bit like a piece of
Swiss cheese" because of numerous gas and oil boreholes. The
site was abandoned.
C. Reprocessing Fai1ure~
In 1976 Getty Oil abandoned ,a reprocessing plant in West
Valley, New York and yielded ownership of 600,000 gallons of
high level radioactive waste to a reluctant state of New York.
Other problems and failures have occurred at reprocessing
facilities at Morris, Illinois and Barnweil, South Carolina.
D. Low Level Waste: Hanford, Maxey Flats, and Beatty, Nevada
In 1973, the Atomic Energy Commission concluded that the
concentration of plutonium at the bottom of one of its burial*
trenches at Hanford, Washington night be enough to. cause a.
PAGENO="0152"
148
spontaneous chain reaction. The contaminated soil was excavated
and removed.
In December 1977 the Naxey Flats, Kentucky commercial
disposal site was closed when plutonium contamination was found
in surface soil, 90 centimeter deep soil cores, monitoring wells,
and drainage streams.
The low level commercial disposal site at Beatty, Nevada
was known locally as "the store" because site employees illegally
sold radioactive contaminated tools , generators, plywood and
lab equipment to townspeople in need of inexpensive equipment.
E. The WIPP Facility:
The Waste Isolation Pilot Project is a bedded salt site near
Carlsbad, New Mexico originally slated for low level and trans-
uranium contaminated defense wastes - in 1977 it was suggested
that high level military wastes be put there and in 1978 the
Deutch Report suggested putting 1,000 spent fuel assemblies in
WIPP to demonstrate the scientific and technical feasability of
geologic disposal in bedded salt. The WIPP facility has been
roundly criticized for technical reasons and apparently will
not be funded in the FY 1980 budget. It characterizes the current
Federal program of radioactive waste disposal from the perspec-
tive of the stat~s.
I return then, to the question of what role the state govern-
ment should have in the siting of a Federal radioactive waste
facility within its borders. It is our strong contention that
faced with the large amount of current and anticipated radioactive
PAGENO="0153"
149
waste, and the checkered history bf Federal management of the
program, that Congress should establish a process which both
mandates consultation with prospective waste dump states and ~lso
preserves the final right of the affected state to decide whether
it will host such a facility. This combined process protects
both state and national interests.
There are several compelling arguments in favor of H.R. 2762.
First, the consultation process implies that any final state
decision will follow, not precede, a full presentation of tech-
nical, engineering, and environmental information associated with
the project. The consultation process guarantees that states
will have the benefit of factual~data on which to base their
decision.
Second, the authority to say "no' allows states to negotiate
with the Federal government from a position of strength. Many
states may have site-specific characteristics to which Federal
officials are insensitive. For them, a veto power may prove
essential in negotiating the proper site standards and equity
compensation measures. For example, former Governor Mike
O'Callaghan of Nevada endorsed the consideration of his state
as a waste storage site but went, on to say:
"The State must have authority to veto the
use of storage and transportation facilities
or other items that may amount to a poor use
of state resources or represent a real threat
to the health, welfare and safety of state
residents. Without this power I would never
agree to voluntary location of a facility
within this State.
Should information come to light indicating
that the radiation safeguards were going to
be inadequate. . .Nevada must have recourse to
PAGENO="0154"
150
an expeditious method of terminating planning
involving land within the boundaries of the
State."
Third, H.R. 2762 provides that there will be public ac-
ceptance of those sites that are eventually selected because it
forces the Federal Government to make a persuasive case that
a site will be safe and secure to those people who will be nost
directly affected.
Fourth, H.R. 2762 provides the type of public scrutiny and
examination and debate which will prevent any politically
motivated and technically flawed waste management proposal from
going foreward.
Fifth, many states have laws concerning the siting of a
Federal radioactive waste facility within their borders. These
states include Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New
York, Oregon, South Dakota and Vermont. H.R. 2762 would affirm
that the siting of a radioactiv~ waste site is such an important
public policy decision that the people of an affected state-should
be cbnsidered as full partners with the Federal government through
their elected state representatives.
In conclusion, H.R. 2762 is not a ban on radioactive waste
disposal. It establishes a consultation process between affected
*states and the Federal government which will protect the interests
of the individual states in the resolution of this important
issue. As President Carter said,
`The waste generated by nuclear power must be managed
so as to protect current and future generations."
H.R. 2762 is a step in the direction of a safe and publicly
accepted waste disposal program.
0
PAGENO="0155"
PAGENO="0156"