H.R. 5016-NUCLEAR WASTE MANAGEMENT COMPREHENSIVE LEGISLATION-BOUQUARD/ LUJAN PROPOSAL WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1981 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY RESEARCH AND PRODUCTION, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 1:30 p.m., in room 2318, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Marilyn L. Bouquard (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Representatives Bouquard, Lundine, and Lujan. Staff present: Dr. John V. Dugan, Jr., staff director, Louis Ventre, Jr., counsel, and Joyce Gross Freiwald, minority science. consultant. Mrs. BOUQUARD. The subcommittee will come to order. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Since the House will adjourn at 3 o'clock today, we are going to dispense with the opening remarks and leave the record open for insertion. We will also closely observe the 5-minute rule for the questioning of the witnesses. Our first witness today will be Mr. Holmes Brown, the associate director of the National Governors' Association here in Washington, D.C. Mr. Brown has been before this subcommittee a number of times in the past, and we certainly want to welcome him here today. Mr. Brown. We have copies of your testimony and you may summarize or proceed as you wish. The entire written testimony will be included. in the record. Please proceed. TESTIMONY OF HOLMES BROWN, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL GOVERNORS' ASSOCIATION, ON BEHALF OF GOV. JOHN V. EVANS, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR POWER Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I will be presenting a statement today on behalf of Gov. John Evans, Governor of Idaho, as chairman of the nuclear power subcommittee of the National Governors' Association. The statement itself is fairly lengthy and attempts to respond to a number of the issues raised in the draft bill and also H.R. 1993 that is under consideration. What I would like to do is submit the entire statement for the record and briefly go through some of the new points that we would like to respond to in the recent legislation. (561) The first issue I would like to address is that of State participation. The Governors' Association has long maintained that the States must play a primary role in decisions affecting nuclear waste facilities. We have used the terms "consultation and concurrence" and "cooperative federalism" to describe how this should happen. The positions and formula contained in the September 29 discussion draft approximates the policy recommended by the National Governors' Association. However, there are several points of disagreement. First, the Governors and the State planning council have recommended a procedure where both Houses of Congress are required to support the Department of Energy's plan rather than one House voting with the State, as the discussion draft provides. The States feel that the burden of securing support in Congress should be on the Department of Energy rather than on the State and that if the Department has designed and implemented its program correctly, congressional assent in both Houses is not an unreasonable requirement. The second comment on the participation provisions provided in the discussion draft involves the time provided for States to submit their objections to the repository development report. Should the President rapidly convey his approval to Congress, a State might have closer to a month to formulate its response to this report rather than the maximum of 90 days that would be permissible if the entire time frame were utilized by the Congress and President. The Senate bill that was recently submitted also allows for a full 90-day period in which States could formulate their response to the DOE plan. We would recommend that that full time be allotted to the States. Third, a technical point on legislative procedure. Last year the bills that passed the House and Senate provided that when a resolution was referred to the committees of jurisdiction that if the committees did not report within a set period of time the resolution would automatically be sent to the floor of the House or the Senate rather than having it be voted out of committee. We feel that there is an unnecessary step provided in this bill and would recommend that a specific period be allotted to the committees and if they did not act during that time, the resolution be reported directly to the floor and be available for debate. A new element in the draft has to do with the State payment. The National Governors' Association appreciates the inclusion of section 13 which recognizes the Federal responsibility to assist States throughout the development of a repository. Section 13 authorizes funds for States to carry out, among other things, responsibilities incurred as a result of agreements negotiated under section 8. Consultation and concurrence provisions such as independent monitoring, public education, and investigations could also be covered. In defining Federal assistance, the Governors' Association also refers to the need for impact assistance to offset or ameliorate potential social, economic, and political impact. Presumably, section 13 is intended for that purpose as well. Discussion among State of ficials on the extent of compensation for hosting a waste facility have focused on several key points. First, a distinction must be made between compensation and incentive payments, which might induce a community to accept a facility. Second, compensation payments should be computed with some specificity, as is suggested in section 108 of H.R. 1993, and these payments should be directed to the community and State in amounts proportional to the impacts which those entities incur. Third, if the preponderance of funds allocated to a State or community is incentives rather than compensation, some parties will consider the payments a bribe and questions on the legitimacy of health and safety procedures may arise. In making these observations, the States don't wish to appear ungrateful. It is a rare occurrence these days when States are offered Federal money. However, in the interest of devising the most acceptable waste management bill, States feel that section 13 deserves further study. In the matter of defense waste, Governors are aware that application of State participation provisions to defense waste was the major factor in stymieing last year's nuclear waste bill. I do not raise the issue in this forum to complicate an already complex issue, but to remind Congress that for States defense wastes pose not just jurisdictional problems but the same health and safety, environmental, and political issues as civilian waste. The States, based on past experience with defense bases and weapons facilities, are keenly aware of the unique issues surrounding State/military relations. Yet waste is discarded material with no further use to the Government. It appears to occupy a different category than active defense facilities. The National Governors' Association urges, at the least, that the issue of defense waste not be ignored but that the congressional committees of jurisdiction explore this session ways of resolving the national security and procedural questions that prevent a greater State role in the disposal of military waste. Another point of interest to the Governors is that of the State planning council. The National Governors' Association has recommended the legislative authorization of a State planning council for nearly 5 years. The nuclear waste bill which passed the Senate last year contained such a provision, and H.R. 1993 creates a State planning council in section 112. Throughout its 18-month life the Governors established a close and profitable relationship with the State planning council created by Executive order in February 1980. We recommend the authorization by Congress of another such council with two changes from H.R. 1993: First, Federal members should not be accorded voting rights, and second, that the council should be able to hire its own staff. On the issue of expedited licensing and judicial review procedures which are included in the discussion draft, while anxious to expedite the construction of a high-level waste repository, the Governors would like to comment at a later date on the licensing procedures and judicial review outlined in section 7 (d) (1)-(11) and section 14. I have asked the National Association of Attorneys General to review these sections. In addition, the nuclear power subcommittee of the National Governors' Association will be meeting next week to review pending legislation. I request the opportunity to submit comments on these sections when opinions from these two groups are available. The Governors participated in discussions earlier this year on licensing revisions involving nuclear powerplant operation. Those changes in procedure were designed to correct problems caused by a temporary shortage of staff in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The rules established in section 7 will govern licensing of all future high-level waste facilities. For this reason we wish to carefully examine the implications of that section. In conclusion, the National Governors' Association welcomes this opportunity to comment on proposed high-level waste legislation. The States worked diligently last session to secure passage of such a bill and are confident that this 97th Congress will enact a comprehensive waste management plan. The NGA has adopted extensive policy recommendations on waste legislation over the years. We have endorsed a decisive state role. Last December Congress adopted the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act which reflected many of the recommendations of the States as represented by the NGA, the State Planning Council and the National Conference of State Legislatures. I am happy to report that all regions of the country are actively engaged in carrying out the mandate of the low-level waste legislation. This year's high-level waste bill contains many of the provisions long advocated by the Governors. We are gratified by the access to and cooperation with Congress which we have experienced thus far. The Governors are convinced that by working together with the legislative and executive branches we can devise a waste management program which satisfactorily balances the interests of all parties and protects the public health and safety which is our paramount goal. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Brown follows:] Testimony of Holmes Brown National Governors' Association on behalf of Governor John V. Evans Chairman, Subcommittee on Nuclear Power Madam Chairman, Members of the Committee: As Governor of Idaho and as Chairman of the Subcommittee on Nuclear Power of the National Governors' Association, I very much appreciate the opportunity to submit a statement to the Subcommittee on Energy Research and Production of the Committee on Science and Technology. The issue of nuclear waste is of critical importance to me, the residents of my state and my fellow governors. It is a problem that has grown in scope and magnitude since America and the world entered the nuclear era 35 years ago. As we increase our reliance on nuclear power, we are increasingly faced with a public mandate to resolve the waste issue. We have unfortunately reaped the benefits of the atom without a public policy for resolving the dilemma of its wastes. The extent of those wastes is now of extreme concern. Seventy-five million gallons of highly radioactive material are stored in temporary tanks at federal facilities. The over-70 licensed, commercial reactors in the country have produced another 600,000 gallons of highly radioactive wastes and over 8,000 metric tons of spent reactor fuel. That spent fuel is now distributed around the nation in water-filled holding tanks. As we are all aware, the public is becoming more and more apprehensive about the effects and disposition of those wastes. That public apprehension and the lack of a clear policy in the area will continue to cloud the discussion of the future of nuclear power until we have Congressional action on the issue. The governors, through the National Governors' Association, have long supported a comprehensive national waste management policy and program. The Subcommittee which I chair has devoted considerable time and effort to formulating and promoting the passage of nuclear waste management legislation. The adoption last session of the National Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act, which |