accommodation that I hope will continue to prevail. There should be a principal environmental impact statement drawn by the Department of Energy. The NRC, when it goes through the licensing process, however, should not be excluded from any NEPA issues and be permitted to supplement the DOE-EIS to the extent that it is able to provide the information that the NRC feels necessary at that point.

It is a major issue about interim storage of spent fuel, what the real need for it is, say, what the alternatives for it may be. There is tentative agreement, an agreement on my part, that no plant should be required to be closed down for failure to have spent fuel storage available to it. But also a feeling that the issue has been far overblown by the industry, and that onsite and dry storage, storage within the utility system, and private storage are all preferable to any kind of Government-provided storage, even though industry would pay for it.

We are very concerned that unnecessary transportation of waste not take place. The tentative agreement calls for a very tough procedure whereby the industry or the particular utility would have to prove to the NRC, in an on-the-record proceeding subject to judicial review, that in fact it could not solve its storage problems. First through expansion of onsite storage, whether it be through dried casks or whether it be through expanding its existing pools, reloading its existing pools.

Then, second, that it does not do this by transfer within its own. system.

Third, that it could not resolve its problem through some kind of private storage facility. If they can meet that burden of proof, then the Government would provide for an AFR on existing Federal facilities being used for the same or similar purposes, at the industry expense.

There are issues with regard to State participation at every stage, to provide adequate State information and adequate State participation, and ultimately the question is what kind of State veto rights ought to be granted. Whether there ought, on the one extreme, to be required that both Houses of the Congress and the President sustain a veto, or on the other extreme, both Houses of Congress and the President overturn a State veto.

The last major issue that we have to address is the treatment of military waste, or the nontreatment of military waste, as the case may be. That issue proved to be so controversial last year in the last Congress that it proved to be the issue on which the entire effort foundered. We sincerely hope that that problem can be avoided one way or the other this year.

It seems to me there seems to be general agreement that after waste leaves a military installation, there is no sense having separate repositories for military waste and civilian waste, and I would hope something can be worked out.

I would hope that our witnesses would address those issues. We have tentative agreements on some parts of them, but they still are tentative. Our purpose in having these hearings-and we will have additional hearings on Thursday-is to hear your wisdom on these subjects.

At this time I would like to insert into the record certain bills which are related to the subject of our hearing today.

[Testimony resumes on p. 215.]

[The texts of H.R. 1993, H.R. 2881, H.R. 3809, and H.R. 5016 follow:]

I

97TH CONGRESS 1ST SESSION

H. R. 1993

To provide for the development of a plan for the disposal of radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel, to require the construction of repositories in accordance with the plan, to establish a Federal policy regarding the interim storage and commercial reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel, to provide for a demonstration program for dry storage of such fuel, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 23, 1981

Mr. LUNDINE introduced the following bill; which was referred jointly to the Committees on Energy and Commerce, Interior and Insular Affairs, Rules, and Science and Technology

A BILL

To provide for the development of a plan for the disposal of radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel, to require the construction of repositories in accordance with the plan, to establish a Federal policy regarding the interim storage and commercial reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel, to provide for a demonstration program for dry storage of such fuel, and for other purposes.

1

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa

2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

2

1

2

SHORT TITLE

SECTION 1. This Act may be cited as the "Radioactive

3 Waste Research, Development, and Policy Act."

4

FINDINGS AND PURPOSES

5 SEC. 2. (a) The Congress finds that:

(1) Radioactive wastes pose a potentially serious threat to the environment and to the expanded utiliza

tion of nuclear energy.

(2) A comprehensive national strategy to safely manage and dispose of our radioactive wastes has not been fully developed or accepted among Federal agencies, individual States, and interested citizens.

(3) Primary responsibility for the interim management of spent nuclear fuel from commercial reactors

rests with the private sector.

(4) Only the Federal Government has the technical resources to provide a solution to the problem of permanently isolating radioactive wastes from the envi

ronment.

(5) The costs of permanent disposal of radioactive wastes should be provided by the persons or entities

which generate such wastes through payment of a fee

charged at the time the waste is generated.

H.R. 1993-ih

3

(6) The individual States must become an integral part of the planning process for disposing of radioactive

wastes.

(7) Deferral of commercial nuclear reprocessing has not significantly contributed to progress toward establishing an international nonproliferation policy.

(b) It is the purpose of this Act:

(1) To establish a national mission plan for the disposal of radioactive wastes.

(2) To establish a Federal policy toward the interim storage and reprocessing of commercial spent nuclear fuel.

(3) To provide for a demonstration program for dry storage of spent nuclear fuel.

(4) To provide for the establishment of a utility trust fund to pay for the costs of carrying out the mission plan.

(5) To provide for a procedure to assure adequate consultation and involvement of individual States and

Indian tribes regarding potential repositories within their borders.

(6) To authorize payments to States within whose borders radioactive waste disposal facilities are sited.

DEFINITIONS

25

SEC. 3. For purposes of this Act:

H.R. 1993-ih