STATEMENT OF ROBERT LOUX, ADMINISTRATOR OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, STATE OF NEVADA

Mr. Loux. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I am Bob Loux, administrator of the research and development division of the Nevada Department of Energy. I am here today representing the Governor of Nevada, Richard Bryan.

I would like to thank you for extending the invitation to the State to testify; I think the involvement of the States in these sorts of hearings is further demonstration of the intent of Congress to afford a meaningful role to the States in the high-level radioactive waste issues.

My testimony focuses primarily on the implementation schedule as it relates to site characterization, and the actions of the States to monitor and verify those activities.

In this area, our concerns fall largely into two issues; how it affects the DOE characterization efforts and how it affects the ability of the State to monitor, verify, and confirm the efforts.

Based on review, understanding the activities to be undertaken by DOE in site characterization, a cursory review of the BWIP sitecharacterization report, the draft NRC analysis of that report, it is our belief that the time necessary to do proper characterization with verifiable, accurate, meaningful data, and providing for full public review is a process no less than probably 4 years.

Let me state at the beginning that we fully support the development of meaningful siting guidelines with complete consultation and cooperation with the State and other Federal agencies. The nomination of sites for further characterization and the development of site specific environmental assessments cannot occur until those guidelines are published in final form and then are utilized as a tool against which potential sites are measured.

This should be an open, well-documented process with public hearings in which the States will be active participants. Any attempts to shortcut the process or prejudge sites prior to the publication of final guidelines and the application of the aforementioned process will meet serious resistance.

Specifically, however, we believe it is the inability of DOE to develop meaningful siting guidelines for the recommendation of sites that impact this schedule. Based on our understanding of the current DOE schedule, the nomination of three sites for detailed characterization may occur in early 1984, with Presidential selection possible by mid-1984. The fact that 1984 is a Presidential election year may further serve to complicate the schedule.

Applying the timeframe that was described earlier, the mid-1984 selection date, we believe that the recommendation of a site for the first repository by the Secretary to the President cannot occur prior to midcalendar year 1988. We believe this to be a realistic schedule that can accommodate quality evaluation and characterization with comparative analysis of all three sites and provide for meaningful public involvement in the process. The acceleration of this schedule may lead to evaluations and conclusion that may not receive the type of scrutiny and examination that a program of this magnitude requires and that the public is entitled to.

The second area of concern relates to the State's ability to conduct an adequate monitoring and verification program within that schedule; the one that conforms with the one described in that act. If we again assume that formal selection of three sites for characterization does not occur until mid-1984, and there is strict adherence to the implementation schedule outlined in the act, the State would only have 2, a little over 2 years to complete its review and assessment of the various impacts associated with the repository. We believe that the State must have a complete assessment of impacts by mid-1986 under the current schedule in order to begin to negotiate the mitigation of these impacts prior to selection. The States will have little to bargain with DOE once a site has been selected and congressional review has been completed.

Additionally, the State must continue its monitoring and verification of site-characterization activities at the same time as assessing impacts. The current schedule will place severe demands upon any State attempting to conduct these kinds of activities.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the State believes the current schedule, as outlined in the act, and given DOE's inability to publish_meaningful siting guidelines, is unrealistic both in terms of DOE and State activities to effectively evaluate the suitability of a particular site and to assess the impacts associated with repository development.

Following established scientific methods in the technical evaluation and adherence to logical administrative procedures to insure full public review are critical program elements from our perspective, and should they be in conflict with mandated scheduled, we believe the schedule must be modified. Thank you.

Mr. HUCKABY. Thank you, Mr. Loux. The intent of the Chair is to take questions from Mr. Loux at this point in time since we had Mr. Morgan scheduled to appear separately. Then we would excuse Mr. Loux and hear Mr. Morgan's testimony.

Does anyone have any questions?

The gentlelady from Nevada.

Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Loux, I want to welcome you as a fellow Nevadan and tell how much we appreciate your coming today.

My main concern is just to find out the criteria that you are using, or would be using to ask for a 4-year basis on the delay-not the delay, but your whole reason for the 4 years. Why do you feel you need 4 years?

Mr. Loux. Based on conversations with DOE operational people in the field and our analysis of looking at various timeframes necessary to do some evaluation, it looks as if the time necessary to drill an exploratory shaft may be in the 12- to 18-month timeframe alone, to do in situ evaluation of the site in the media perhaps is another 12- to 18-month period of time.

Then if you couple that with the development of a draft environmental assessment, conduct public hearings, and a final environmental assessment, we believe that that is very close to a 32- to 4year timeframe to complete those activities.

Likewise on the State side, if the State in fact does some verification of hydrologic studies, studies in tectonics and those kinds of things, and we believe the same sort of timeframe is necessary for

us to complete those kinds of activities in addition to doing our assessment of socioeconomic impacts.

So 32 to 4 years is based on a combination of those things, but is driven principally by schedules that we have heard are adequate from DOE's perspective to do characterization at the site.

Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Thank you. Would you tell me what has happened; we have had some hearings, DOE hearings in the State, on the site, so forth. What activities have gone on to this point as far as DOE is concerned and also as far as the State is concerned?

Mr. Loux. As you are aware, DOE has been active on the Nevada test site in terms of evaluating potential locations for repositories since 1976. They have involved a variety of screening of various locations with the ultimate attention now being focused on Yucca Mountain. In that vicinity it is my understanding that numerous bore holes have been drilled, core samples extracted, quite a bit of analysis gone on to date. In addition, I think the location for a potential exploratory shaft has been identified.

On the State side, up until early January and the coming into office of the new Governor, the State has only been involved primarily in policy issues and that kind of thing, and this spring, as a result of receipt of DOE money, we have begun to actively participate in some of the technical issues, geologic issues, hydrologic issues as well as begin focusing on socioeconomic impacts; we're beginning to acquire some staff and have begun looking at this thing in a much more comprehensive manner.

The hearings that were held in Nevada in late March, hearings associated with the intent to nominate the site in Nevada as well as to solicit issues to be included in the environmental assessment and site characterization report.

Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Thank you. Just one more question.

Was there any activity in the State legislature recently or any resolutions or anything in regard to the site in Nevada?

Mr. Loux. Two primary activities took place in Nevada during this last legislative session. AJR 11 was introduced. There was a resolution urging Congress to not consider or have DOE not consider the site in Nevada any further due to our historical activity and a variety of other kinds of things that have been outlined previously; Nevada's involvement in the weapons' testing program and the fact that we have had a low-level site for 19 years.

Additionally, it placed some conditions on if the site is selected, the kinds of things that the legislature thought would be important to include in mitigation measures, et cetera. Unfortunately, that piece of legislation did not pass; one other piece did pass and it did establish an interim study committee that will be active betweenin the next 2 years between legislative sessions to work actively with the executive branch in examining socioeconomic impacts and other impacts associated from repository development.

Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Did that pass?

Mr. Loux. Yes.

Mrs. VUCANOVICH. That passed.

Just one other question. The first one which did not pass, was that is there any input from the people down in Clark County, for instance, in Nye County who would be particularly affected by this?

22-891 0-83- -4

Mr. Loux. Legislators?

Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Yes.

Mr. Loux. There was input from both those locations and frankly, they seem to be somewhat split on the issue; there is a certain body that believes that the State should be a little bit more open in the process, and certainly a group of others that are flatly interested in prohibiting development. So there is a split

Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Almost a 50-50 split, is really what you are saying. All right.

Thank you very much, Mr. Loux.

Mr. HUCKABY. The time of the gentlelady has expired.

Are there further questions of Mr. Loux?

If not, Mr. Loux, we thank you for being with us today, and we will excuse you.

Mr. Loux. Thank you.

Mr. HUCKABY. Our next witness is Mr. Robert Morgan, who is the Project Director with the Department of Energy, and Mr. Morgan, we certainly welcome you to the committee and look forward to your testimony.

[Prepared statement of Robert L. Morgan may be found in the appendix.]

STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT L. MORGAN, PROJECT DIRECTOR, NUCLEAR WASTE POLICY ACT PROJECT OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, ACCOMPANIED BY HON. MICHAEL J. LAWRENCE, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NUCLEAR WASTE POLICY ACT PROJECT OFFICE

Mr. MORGAN. Thank you, sir. I have with me Mr. Mike Lawrence, who is my Deputy in the Project Office. It is a pleasure to be here, and I would like to submit my statement for the record. But rather than summarize my statement, I would like to address some of the issues that have been raised here today if I may, please. Mr. HUCKABY. Certainly, Mr. Morgan.

Mr. MORGAN. First, we consider the Nuclear Waste Policy Act as landmark legislation, and we feel that the key to accomplishment is the receipt of fuel for disposal in the repository in 1998. We recognize that some of the interim deadlines and milestones may have to be modified to meet that objective, to get there, but we fully believe that we will be able to receive fuel for permanent disposal in 1998.

Although to date we have met most of the schedules, the first mandate milestone that we are going to miss is that of issuing final siting guidelines. As you know, we published proposed siting guidelines in the Federal Register. We received close to 2,000 comments on the proposed guidelines, and we're currently consulting with the States to respond to those comments and to revise the final guidelines appropriately.

Our first meeting with the States in State working groups was on May 11, at which time we talked about the process of how do we go through the consultation. We proposed a given schedule. We received two counterproposals to that schedule relative to the length of time for consultation and how we would consult with the States-both individually and in a plenary session.

We have just this week presented to the States a compromise suggestion to the guideline consultation process. So far we are receiving generally favorable comments from the States. So before locking in the consultation process, we are consulting with the States, getting their agreement on how we should proceed; and, hopefully, we will have the process resolved by next week.

I must add that we have added steps in the consultation process. The act clearly states in many cases that we have to do an environmental assessment [EA], and that we have to have scoping hearings in States potentially identified as having acceptable sites. We have not only had those hearings, but when draft EA's are completed we have made commitments to the States to have further public hearings if they so desire.

So we are consulting with the States. Some States would prefer to have them, and we will certainly accommodate that; other States would not like to have hearings on the EA's, and we will abide by their wishes.

Our next major priority after issuing the final siting guidelines is the requirement for the mission plan which will lay out the entire program and all the steps through 1998. We will meet the June 1984 deadline on the mission plan and we are going through as you know unchartered waters on the consultation with States, and we are anticipating that we will have some delays as we go now, but I think it is very important that we do get a good working relationship with the States and the affected Indian tribes.

On the issue raised earlier on the education situation, we agree that the publication of the information or public information situation is necessary, and we're trying to scope that so we aren't out trying to sell a program but can do that in some way with the potential States that are affected to have their involvement rather than a situation where the Department of Energy running a propaganda campaign within the States.

We think that there should be collaboration and cooperation between DOE and the States.

The other major issue discussed here today concerned the Hanford site. The Site Characterization Report, which is approximately 16 months old interms of data input, clearly it was overly optimistic and presented a distorted view of the data. It was preliminary in nature and was based on what we had available at the preparation. In fact, in many cases, the report itself stated that.

Clearly, on the hydrology there was an optimistic viewpoint. There have been frank discussions with the Richland operations office, the contractor and NRC. We intend to overview the activities of the on site contractor. To insure high quality of the data and that there are no distortions of the information.

We clearly believe that more data is needed; we believe that we will get that data by an exploratory shaft, and we will have to gain a consensus on the modeling techniques and information on how it is being used. We intend to fully comply with all the proscribed processes in the act. We are not going to adhere to a schedule if that schedule violates the process requirements for any of the technical requirements.

Mr. HUCKABY. Thank you, Mr. Morgan.

Mr. Udall?