Additional statements and correspondence pertaining to the subcommittee's State of Washington: Prepared statement of Hon. John Spellman, State of Utah: Prepared statement of Hon. Scott M. Matheson, Governor.. 1. Prepared statement of Ruth F. Weiner, chairperson, entitled: 2. Prepared statement of Ruth F. Weiner, chairperson, entitled: "En- 3. Prepared statement of Adam Schultz, executive committee, and Page 282 287 293 296 303 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NUCLEAR WASTE POLICY ACT THURSDAY, MAY 26, 1983 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT, COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:20 a.m., in room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Morris K. Udall (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. [Prepared statement of Chairman Udall may be found in the appendix.] The CHAIRMAN. The Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment will be in session. We have a very busy agenda today, complicated by a good deal of business on the House floor and roll calls, as you've already seen. We're going to attempt to cover a lot of ground today and I would make the usual request to the witnesses that you summarize your statements if at all possible, and leave time for questions and for other witnesses. The Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment is meeting today to address issues which have arisen with regard to implementation of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act which was signed into law this year. Of most serious concern is the apparently unacceptable quality of work being done by the Department of Energy in investigation of the potential nuclear waste repository site at Hanford, Wash. The Department of Energy has published a review of the site which has been criticized by the U.S. Geological Survey as in parts "overstated, misleading, or simply incorrect." The Nuclear Regulatory Commission analysis concludes that the DOE report "places too much confidence in the suitability of the site for a repository on the basis of information collected to date." The USGS notes that many of the issues being raised with respect to this report have been raised to DOE for as long as 3 years. We recognize that the Department of Energy is in the early stages of its effort to characterize the Hanford waste site. The Department will have time now to respond to criticisms of its characterization plan and resolve the objections that have been raised about the work to date. What is the most disturbing at this time is the implication that those engaged in the Hanford site review seem to perceive their mission as one of painting as rosy a picture as possible in order to (1) assure that the site is developed as a repository. This is evidenced by a letter sent from the main contractor at the site to its project employees which exhorts these personnel to achieve a goal of becoming the first repository for long-term storage of high-level waste. I want to make it clear to the Department that we view the mission of the Department at this time as providing complete and objective information about the assets and the probems at the sites, so that an intelligent decision can be made when it is time to select one of the sites for licensing. I am interested in determining what has gone wrong with the work at Hanford. If there are problems with the management structure of the Department, this would be an opportune time to address them, since the new Office of Waste Management is now being organized pursuant to requirements of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. Our next series of witnesses will discuss the status of Federal/ State relations in the nuclear waste management program. Several States have indicated they would like to see some adjustments in the process as it is being developed. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act sets up an elaborate system of Federal/State interaction which is the crux of the act's attempt to resolve the institutional and sociological issues affecting siting of nuclear waste repositories. The State of New Mexico will then present remarks on its experience with DOE work on a facility for disposal of intermediatelevel wastes from the defense sector. One problem of special interest relates to the withdrawal of Federal lands for repository_use. This issue may be relevant to the civilian program if a site on BLM lands in Utah is suggested for in-depth study or licensing. Finally, we will review the timetable for implementation of the requirements of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, and some concerns States have had about the tightness of the schedule. Our first panel includes representatives of various Washington Government and public interest groups. If we can now get the first panel to the witness chairs, we have Mr. Nicholas D. Lewis, chairman of the Washington State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council; Ms. Susan Gould, chairperson, Citizens' Advisory Committee; Mr. Melvin Sampson, chairman of the Yakima Indian Nation Legislation Committee; and Mr. David Stevens, assistant to the Governor for energy and natural resources in the State of Washington. Mr. LUJAN. Good morning. The CHAIRMAN. Good morning, Mr. Lujan. Do you desire to make a statement? Mr. LUJAN. Yes; I do. The CHAIRMAN. While the witnesses are getting settled and seated, Mr. Lujan has a few remarks before we begin. Mr. LUJAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do have a few opening observations. It has been less than 5 months since President Reagan signed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, yet a great deal of activity has already occurred, and some significant progress has been recorded. These early results have come during a critical phase of the program, while the Department of Energy is endeavoring to synchro nize their older, existing repository development project with a new one, and with the site schedule mandated by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. Unfortunately, such a redirection of any major effort seldom occurs without some transition pains. I suspect that we'll hear today of such pains. The Department of Energy must clearly work to meet the mileposts mandated in the act. But, Mr. Chairman, there may be times when determined attempts to meet these dates will either adversely affect the ability of impacted groups to fully participate in the process or will prevent scientific groups from satisfactorily resolving new complex technical issues. It has always been my feeling that the ultimate choice for a course of action must always be one which is predicated first on the protection of the public health, safety, and environment. Such course of action should place emphasis on resolution of institutional and technical issues over blind adherence to any mandated schedule. The schedule in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act can be amended by Congress when circumstances warrant such changes. In any case, the goodwill, public understanding, and hopefully ultimate acceptance of measured progress and good-faith efforts by all parties will contribute much more toward the goal of a final solution to the high level nuclear waste problems of this country. I must express one note of caution here. Those of us who worked on the Waste Act over the past several years are sensitive to the "not in my backyard" syndrome, which can give rise to dilatory tactics on the part of provincial groups. I do not condone such tactics which frustrate a program clearly in the national interests, but I certainly would support all other efforts which arise from legitimate sources of concern. So Mr. Chairman, I look forward to hearing from all of today's witnesses on the initial implementation of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. Thank you very much. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Lujan. [Prepared statements of Nicholas D. Lewis, Susan E. Gould, and Melvin Sampson may be found in the appendix.] PANEL CONSISTING OF NICHOLAS D. LEWIS, CHAIRMAN, WASHINGTON STATE ENERGY FACILITY SITE EVALUATION COUNCIL; SUSAN E. GOULD, CHAIRPERSON, WASHINGTON STATE NUCLEAR WASTE POLICY AND REVIEW BOARD AND WASHINGTON STATE NUCLEAR WASTE ADVISORY COUNCIL; MELVIN SAMPSON, CHAIRMAN, LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE, YAKIMA INDIAN NATION, ACCOMPANIED BY JAMES HOVIS, LEGAL COUNSEL; AND DAVID STEVENS, ASSISTANT TO THE GOVERNOR FOR ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, STATE OF WASHINGTON The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Lewis, I guess you are first. Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Chairman, if it is acceptable, we would like Mr. Stevens, the Governor's assistant, to go first, and I will go last. The CHAIRMAN. All right, you just master of ceremonies this thing for me. Who do we go first with? Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Stevens, the Governor's assistant. |