ML20062H371

Transcript of Subcommittee on Energy Research & Production 791107 Hearing Re Low Level Nuclear Waste Burial Grounds. Pp 1 & 106-140

ML20062H371
Person / Time
Site:	Crane
Issue date:	11/07/1979
From:	HOUSE OF REP., SCIENCE, SPACE & TECHNOLOGY (FORMERLY
To:
Shared Package
ML19269G255	List: ML19269G254 ML19269G256 ML20062H371
References
NUDOCS 8001310187
Download: ML20062H371 (32)

Text

-

3..~; f l

NAME; HSC311010 PAGE 1

. g.

1 RPTR LYDA O~

2 LOW-LEVEL NUCLEAR WASTE BURIAL GROUNDS a

i

3. '

3

..p-4 Wednesday, Novernber 7,1979

[

5 E

p 6

House of Representatives, itkN 7

Subcommittee on Energy Research and Production.

T.l t:

8 Committee on Science and Technology, *

,y

$ =-

9 Washington. D.C.

9p 10 R:

9 11 The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9-00 am., in

f.

w 12 Room 2318, Rayburn House Office Building. Hort Mike

((

p 13 McCormack (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

{

14 p.

ri p.:

Y, yi_

w k

9 w

I L

1,,*

=*

h*

W E

(.

hY:

x v

l

-,?

I

t.,.-

)

e i

i 800131 0/87 E

g

n.,,,,,

m,,g, g,

NAME lHSC311010 PAGE 106 2459 RPTR COPELAND 2460 11:45 a.m.

2461 Mr. McCormack. Our next witnesses are Dr. Joseph Hendrie 2462 and Dr. Worthington Batemart 2463 Dr. Hendrie is Chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 2464 Commissiert Dr. Bateman is Deputy Under Secretary for the

/

2465 U.S. Department of Energy, for the region that is handling 2466 nuclear waste.

2467 If you gentlemen will appear together, it will save us all 2468 some time.

2469 Dr. Hendrie. I think we would be glad to try to help the 2470 committee do that, Mr. Chairman.

2471 Mr. McCormack We have your prepared testimony before us, 2472 and, without objection, it will be inserted at this point in 2473 the record in its entirety. You gentlemen are free to 2474 proceed as you wistt 2475 Dr. Hendrie, would you go first?

2476 I

e,.

5

{%

v 4 iA ;.

'A^

m..,

.a I

I I

NAME. HSC311010 PAGE 107 2477 PANEL l

2478 2479, DR. JOSEPH M. HENDRIE 2480 CHAIRMAN 2481 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2482 2483 DR. WOfiTHINGTON BATEMAN 2484 DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY 2485 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY s

2486 2487 2488 STATEMENT OF DR. HENDRIE 2489 s

2490 Dr. Hendrie. I thank you, Mr. Chairmart We are pleased 2491 to be able to participate with you this mnorning in the very 2492 interesting hearing you have been having on a subject that t.

2493 is of considerable importance. It has been a long morning, 2494 and there has been a good deal of discussion of the sut,'ect y

/

2495 I am hardly in a position of being an opening witness, and he 2496 my remarks hopefully will provide some additional context.e&,

2497, the matter.

2498 Since you would include my remarks in the record why 2499 don't I try to confine my verbal presentation to noting just 2500 a couple of points that I think are key and, while not new t

2501 in the discussion this morning. I would very much like to s

x...

e v

f d

i NAME lHSC311010 PAGE 108 t

l 2502 l emchasize from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission standpoint i

s 2503' The first of these is tnat we have watched over the past 2504 few years the disposal capacity for low-level waste 2505 diminishing relative to the demand for that space, and have 2306 been watching this current near-crisis situation come on 2507 We have tried to encourage people to consioer new low-

~

2508 level sites, thus far without success.

2509 I hope that one of the results of the high attention that 2510 the subject is now receiving will be some useful movement on 2511 the opening of new low-level sites.

2512 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission stands ready to move 2513 very rapidly on applications for new sites in those areas l(

2514 where we would license the facility, and to provide 2515 technical assistance to agreement-States for those sites 2516 where the agreement-State would license.

2517 Secondly, there is a very difficult situation with regard 2518 particularly to the nuclear medicine waste that follows from 2519 the closing of the Hanford site. The Barnwell site is not P

2520 accepting the liquid scintillator samples that are the

[

2521 particular problem, so with Hanford closed, there is no 2522 place for it to go; it is backing up all along the line in 2523 laboratories and hospitals. as you have heard repeatedly 2524 this morning it is an urgan: situation 2525 I will note that it is perfectly practical and within the j

2526 powers of the Governors of the States that do not have low-

. A '.

A

?!

x

,,..n

.v~

~

~. -

mr i w

, _ - ~

. w m.,,

~

~

yy. 'v.

l I

j NAME. lHSC311010 PAGE 109 i

2527 level waste disposa! sites unoer their emergency powers to y

2528 simply open temporary storage depositories for those nuclear 2529 ' medical wastes, and relieve tne pressure if they so choose 2530 on their local institutions. and we are p:epared to provide 2531 technical assistance again, and advice.

2532 ft is not a very complicated thing. All you need is 2533 fairly decent grade industrial warehousing reasonable fire t

2534 protection, a modest amount of monitoring to keep track of

^

2535 it, and there could be temporary disposal on a state-2536 operated basis in each of the States where there is a 2537 problem in the nuclear medicine area.

.i 2538 Thirdly, I agree with the thrust of the Governors this e

J 2539 morning that these problems are intrinsically the problems

[

Y:

2540 of the States in which the waste is generated The benefits 2541 from the use of these technologies flow to the citizens of 2542 each State and all citizens and all States have a 2543 responsibility to deal with the waste products then from 2544 that beneficial technology, and I think the only reasonable 2545 course in tne long run is to go much along the line

+

2546 recommended to you by the Governors this morning, and to 2547 make that responsibility crystal-clear, perhaps, if 2548 necessary, by legislation at the Federal level.

2549 Why don't I quit at that point. because i think my

' l 2550 prepared statement covers other aspects.

i 2551 Dr. Hendrie's complete statement follows-

..y,

y.

l NAM:_ iHSC311010 PAGE 110 l

I 2552; I

2553' -- - -- -- ~~ -- -- IN SERT 4 - A 1

I f

I f

s S

a...

/

NAME: lHSC311010 PAGE 111 i

l 2554 Mr. McCormack Thank you. Dr. Hendrie. We will get to 2555 some questions in a minute, but I will ask Dr. Bateman if he 2556 would like to make a statement at this time.

2557 8

6 s

T-s 6

k 4

e f W 5

f,.m r '

v 4

i TA%

?^

b r

y f

Y 3

t +

, +,

s V'

/

.s k i

A h.

I N

k*-

.I,

.s s

^

Y Lv

~

n '-

N

,, =

4-e A.

-e alk

_. ('

\\_;

M, g

8,

[,

. ).

~

Qv"3'

.g;.

' s:

w

J...

if5e i

4 T.

=

b r

! '$-' c - >;,; y,.

.s;t l

s

,..y

.x

,e, 7.y., 7.

x=

.w.

.s 1

4 A

v g

4* '

N

• >7h

l i

i NAME. !HSC311010 PAGE 118 i

l 26891 process?

l I

2690 Dr. Hendrie. Not unless you are willing to reheve 2691 i various requirements of the National Environmental Policy 1

2692. Act, and so on, because it just takes a certarn amount of 2393 time to thresh througn those steps.

2694 Let me point out 2695.

Mr. Wydler. That is absolutely minimum probably in your 2696 way of thinking, because that presumes you don't have a 2697 million and one lawsuits and everything else going on at the 2698 same time.

2699 Dr. Hendrie if we lose a couple lawsuits on a given case 2700 like that, you can he held up for many years, so I am 2701 assuming we win on Ir0gation and that the hearing goes very 1

2702 briskly, which is something we could all speculate about.

2703 But let me point out, for instance, in the case of Oregon, 2704 if it is an agreement-State, then the licensing would be A

2705 done by the State, itself, under

..'N..., procedures that t.

2706 are compatible with the Federal routine, but need not be 2707 identical, and depending on the agreement-State, it could be I

u 2708 a little more or a little less in terms of time.

E 2

2709 in that time, whatever time it would take-to get such a s

U 2710 depot into operation and properly licensed for the long term 2711 burial of these low-level wastes, it would be a perfectly 2712 feasible operation for the State Governor to say we have to

[R 2713 do something with this stuff being generated in our State, Er

~,

.m s.

4 77 3

d i

}

NAME. iHSC311010 PAGE 119 2714 l and I strnply am exercising my eme gency powe s in i

i 2715 I establishing a temporary oepot over here in this 1

I 2716i Mr. McCorrnack. Could this be an existing structure, an 2717. old airplane hangar, and they would just put the stuff in 2718 and cover it with san &

2719 Dr. Hendrie. It is not even necessary to cover it with 2720 sand, just keep the rain off and where it won't blow around, 2721 burn up, or people can't pick tnrough it for items of 2722 interest. and so ort it is really a fairly easy 2723 proposition, and then when their licensed burial ground is 2724 ready to go, the stuff could be transported over and put in 2725 it k

2726 it seems to me that is a perfectly workable way, and that 2727 each State has then the capacity to deal with its own

+

2728 situation if it wishes.

f 2729 I think with regard to burial sites, low-level sites, that 2730 we don't, in fact, need one in every State. I think it 1

2731 makes more sense for States to gather together in regional 2732 groupings and pick a site and have it serve five or six

]

2733 States, or whatever, but it certainly is not, on the other

^

y 2734 hand, impractical for every State to have its own burial 2735 ground These are not difficult things to do, and there are 2736 available sites every place.

2737 Mr. McCormack. So delays would be procedural in getting 2738 an environmental impact statement and a license?

x

. E s% 5 A

5."

^ j Y' '

$ Y'

4 v

O i

j j

i i

l NATE lHSC311010 PAGE 120 l

l 2739 l:

Dr. Hendrie. Yes, doing the proper site survey so you i

l 2740, understood the ground water conditions and made sure it was 2741 a good site.

2742 Mr. McCormack That could be done in a few months, 2743 couldn't it?

2744 Suppose we exempted the whole program from requirements of 2745 NEPA. just requrred NRC to license thent How long would it 2746 take then?

2747 Dr. Hendrie. I think that would cut the time farrly 2748 substantially, because then I think it is a matter of how 2749 fast applicants--in a case where we would license. how fast 2750 applicants can get in with the necessary site survey 2751 material, ground water conditions, run-off patterns, and 2752 associated things, and their design basis for keeping the bes'dma, ^ off the site, and so on.

2753 trenches from. ___

I would 2754 think that could go along pretty quickly.

2755 Mr. McCormack How about waiving NEPA requirements for 2756 temporary surface storage facilities?

2757 Dr. Hendrie. I would think that would be desirable if we

~;

2758 went down this track, lest we get caught in all kinds of 2759 litigation over whether or not proper environmental impact 2760 assessments have been made of the temporary sites.

2761 Mr. McCormack. Dr. Hendrie, you heard the testimony of x

2762 Dr. Yalow earlier today and saw my demonstration with the

R 2763 Geiger counter and the Coleman gas mantle. Do you believe K

N:

k i

2

~

~

7.,

m m y,.3, -

\\

NAfE !HSC311010 PAGE 121

?

l

?

2764 NR2 standards in low-leve! waste are too restrictive?

t I

2765 Dr. hendrie. Well. perhaps Let me point out tnat the 2766 nergy Act efines a byproduct materia 3 O

STfr s4 2767 it is something that comes from.a. fuel cycle, and g

4<e 2768y and tritium fall ento that category, and then says we 2769 will license users and holders of byproduct materiai. There 2770 are allowances for DE MINIMIS quantities and, in fact, a 2771 good many of thi scintillator samples that are clogging 2772 things up in hospitals, research labs, and so on, probaoly 2773 are at low enough concentrations of radioactivity so that if 2774 those were simply aqueous samples, simple sewage disposal 2775 would be within the regulations.

[

2776 We allow for some of the isotopes of interest. for 2777 instance, tritiated samples at less than 100 nanocuries per t.

2778 milliliter concentration be disposed of in a sanitary 2779 sewage plant The problem with the scintillator sample is

'sT 2780 that is an emulsion containing toluene, sometimes 2781 xylene, and a little water, and then the radioactive 2782 material, the organic is flammable, and the toluene is a 2783 carcinogen, I believe.

2784 We have been reluctant to jest say dispose of them any old 2785 way that you like, more because of a concern of the 2786 flammability aspects than the radioactivity aspects. and we 2787 are looking at a variety of ways to sort that out.

2788 incineration. solidification, separation of the toluene.

... ~. -. -.

]

NAME. {HSC311010 PAGE 122 2789' M-McCormrk. If we use a small amount of Carbon 14

-(

i 2790 what about allowing tnat to be vented into tne atmosphere if 27911 ft is adequately diluted wrth other elements in the 2792 incineration process?

2793 Dr. Hendrie. Sure. Carbon 14 can go down the sewer at b

2794 any emner than 20 nanocuries per milliliter if it is an 2795 aqueous solutiort 2796 Mr. McCormack. I understand NRC is exploring making more 2797 restrictive standards for, is it radiation exposure levels 2798 or maximum permissible concentrations of isotopes, 2799 radionuelides, or neither?

9800 Dr. Hendrie. Well, you probably have reference to some n

(,

2801 particular initiative somewhere in the agency, and maybe if 2802 you would be a little more specific. I don't recognize it.

2803 is my problem.

2804 Mr. McCormack. I will follow up in writing on that s

2805 question, if I may.

2806 Dr. Hendrie. Then we can sort it out in more detail.

2807 Mr. McCormack. Dr. Bateman, how fast do you think DOE can 2808 complate an R&D program to provide proven technology for Y

~

2809 consolidating and solidifying, or otherwise concentrating 2810 and solidifying low-level waste?

2811 Dr. Bateman. I think it depends on what part you are 2812 talking about. We have a demonstration starting up at the p.

2813 University of Maryland. We have done various things at the 6.

4

% _*vy.:-vA,J h

{:_

- ~.,

v n

?W6 y,

l M. '

T' M %%

,_k?

A A

... ~. _.. -. -

-.-.. ~. -.

l

~ l I

NAME IHSC311010 PAGE 123 1

2614 l Hanford site. I tnink these are in various stages of l

I l

2815 ! readiness. My own juegment about it is tnat much more is l

2816 ! possible in this area en the near term than v, tat is being i

2817 done. There are economic problems with rt; there may be 2818 acceptability problems with it in terms of public reaction 2819 to it, but I think there is tne potential to do much more if 2820 those barriers can be overcome with the technology that is 2821 available now.

2822 Mr. McCormack. Mr. V ydier?

^

2823 Mr. Wydler. I am just interested, Dr. Hendrie, what made 2824 you change your mind? Why were you for federally-handling 2825 this problem at the Federal level a year ago, did you say,

.(

2826 and now you are convinced the States can do it? I am i'

2827 interested in what brought that change of mind about?

s 2828 Dr. Hendrie. Let me sketch the reasons as follows-As 1 2829 observed the difficulties that we have in what clearly is, 2830 and ought to be, a Federal program and responsibility for 2831 high-level waste, as i view the difficulties that the p '>

2832 Federal Government has'in doing even preliminary exploratior 2833 of the possible geologic medium in various portions of the N

2834 country, I see an attitude which is, well, it is a Federal 2835 problem, and they are not going to bring it into my State, 2836 and it has to be solved, but it will be solved on somebody 2837 else's place and net here.

>4 2838 And I am afraid if the Federal Government accepts a e p,"

4

\\

v

. pX- ',

' yq-4 4

9 g

% / "

y,

j i

NAfE,iHSC311010 PAGE 124 2839 responsioility to deal with tne low-levet wastes and sta-ts 2840 looking for additiona! srtes. we are going to get exactly i

2841 ; the same kind of response from the States.

l 2842 Now, I think with regard to low-level wastes, because they 2843 are, in fact, generated in every State in the Union, because 2844 there are very clear beneftts to the citizenry-st-large from 2845 activities that then yield those wastes, that putting it on 2846 an individual State respo nsibility basis puts the problem 2847 right back where it ought to be. After all, if we look at 2848 what you do with assorted chemical and industrial wastes, 2849 raanufacturing processes of all kinds, there isn't a big 2850 Federal program to accept responsibility for arsenic M

2851 compound wastes. They are out there, and the States have to h

2852 des! with them t

2853 Radioactive wastes are no differc.nt, and I think 2854 particularly for the low-level wastes it should be a State 2855 responsibility. And I think furthermore, for reasons along 4

2856 the lines I have been talking about here, that we can get m

2857 decent regional disposal capacity to place a lot faster l

2858 if they art - State responsibility.

2859 Mr. Wyt//e; if I understand what you said--correct me if I ts 2860 am wrong-you said you changed your mind because you 2861 despaired of trying to get a Federal program isn't that 2862 what it amounts to?

2863 Dr. Hendrie. I think the Federal program, because of the 7

Y

{:<

y np m,

n

-.w

1 I

.I 1

NAME. lHSC311010 PAGE 125 1

2864 i kinds of tnings I have referred to, is just going to take a l

1 4

i i

2865 long time, and tnere is gorng to be endless wrangling over i

I 2866, whether the north midwestern regional site goes in 2867 Wisconsin, or Michigan, or Illinois, or what-have you, and 2868 that one way to avoid a decade of wrangles in and out of 2869 court is to say every State is responsible for their own, 2870 and f they can't get together and decide on a regional 2871 basis to deal with it on a compact basis of several States.

2872 good, every State provide for its own I think tt would do 2873 them a lot of good out there to deal with this stuff and 2874 understand that it isn't the end of the world, and that 2875 there are very reasonable things that can be done rather S.

2876 simply with this material to protect it, and I think it 2877 would be a very useful way of dealing with it 2878 Mr. Wyd/er. I tend to agree with what you are saying. 1 2879 think we have come to the point where some of these people p

2880 who have been standing up and pounding their chests, and D

2881 saying I am protecting my people from the problems that 2882 exist because of this technology, are now going to have to G

2883 tell their people how they are going to get along without o_

2884 the technology, and it is going to be an interesting show to 2885 watch, and I tend to agree with you: I think it will be 2886 healthy, because maybe it is pari of the public education 2887 process we are talking about here. If you don't like it.

/

l 2888 okay; you don't have to have it if you don't want a i

l Nl, (e^.

s

+

< M:

y m

m

i l

NAME iHSC311010 PAGE 126 i

i 2889 { garbage dump, you can't est l

f I

I 2890i Dr. Hendrie. If Oregon, for instance. decides indeed that l

2891 under no circumstances are any nuclear wastes going to be 2892 stored in Oregon, I think the citizens of Oregon have 2893 decided for themselves tnat they are not entitled to the 2894 health services from tne practice of nuclea-medicine in the 2895 State, from the industrial uses of radioisotopes, and from 2896 electricity productiort I

2897 Mr. Wyd/er. And from research---

2898 Dr. Hendrie. If they want to make that decision, that is 2899 fine with me. Good enough. But I think that is the sort of I

2900 decision they are making I) p 2901 Mr. Wyd/er. Mr. Bateman, I can only say your program b

k.

2902 sounds to me like one of studying' it a little more-. Is that F

I 2903 about where we are at DOE?

2904 Dr. Batemen. No, I think it is not so much a question of i

2905 studying it Really, I think it is more a question of ft i

l 2906 whether it is possible at the Federal level to devise a f

2907 piece of legislation which clearly places the responsibility l',

b 2908 for disposing of these low-level wastes on the States, and y

[

n

{

2909 we think that is possible. We are working on our own 2910 legislative proposals along those lines. I think some of 2911 the ones that have been made this morning are interesting to 9

2912 us.

p i;

2913 Mr. Wyd/er. Suppose we do nothing; what is going to g

1 Y.

5 g.

m a

.8 A'

-W Q**

\\

\\

'V'#h'

8 g

's-S'b

'mPW

%\\ e* % -

]

i I

i I

NAMEtHSC311010 PAGE 127 l

2914 l happen) 2915j Dr. Bateman i tnink the problem tnat we are in today is 2916 that there is notning wrong with the existing institutional 2917 framework as far as rt goes. I mean. we have 26 agreement-2918 States We have commercial low-level wa::te buria!. We have 2919 three sites that until recently were opert 2920 The problem is, and I think Dr. Hendrie is saying more or 2921 less the same thing, as long as it looks like there is no 2922 framework or there is no place in this framework which 2923 distributes this responsibility regionally, ano makes it a 2924. requirement, as we have gone through the '70s and commercial 2S25 sites have closed at West Valley, Sheffield, Maxey Flats.

A 2926 and so on, it becomes a political problem for the remaining 2927 States in the sense they don't want to be a low-level waste 2928 dump for the entire natiort 2929 I have talked to Governor Riley about this many times, and 2930 he has been very explicit about that He is willing to 2931 accept his share of the responsibility for the region, but 2932 he doesn't want to be the low-level waste dump for the 2933 nation as a whole. And I think when we get to a point where 2934 the psychology is I don't want to be the last guy on the 2935 block taking this, we are in real serious trouble. And the 2936 way to fix that, in my opinion, is not to say scrap the 2937 system that we currently have and start over agairt I think i

l 2938 that system can be fixed I think we are on a policy of y

l

y, s

rw.

s.,

<v s

+5.

'l

}

i l

NAME +iSC311010 PAGE 128 I

2939 State respons!Dility. There can be agreement. State i

2940 license, or NRC: I don't have a strong preference sbout 2941 that, but what is missing in tnis framework is not that we 2942 don't have States put in a position to do this; there is no 2943 requirement that they do it No one is beating the door 2944 down at NRC in these 26 agreement-States to basically open 2945 low-level waste burial grounds. It is going the opposite 2946 direction. I think if you can turn around the psychology 2947 where responsible State officials say it looks like we have 2948 a framework here; we all have to share in the responsibility

[

2949 for dealing with this problem. The problem can then be 2950 solved, but it is like depression psyche;ogy if everybody I

2951 thinks there is going to be a depression, there will be a 2952 depression

~

o 2953 But if people have confidence that the problem can be 2954 dealt with on a fair basis or regional basis, I think we can 2955 solve it more or less within the legislative, legal, 2956 institutional framework we have.

.n i,

2957 Mr. Wydler. I tend to disagree with you strongly. I N

F 2958 don't think it will work out the way you think at all. 1

^

2959 think what will happen is they will all sit back and wait 2960 for you to do something And they will say we are waiting 2961 for the government to tell us what they are going to do 2962 abou+ this, which is what the governors are going to say.

2963 Why should one go out and take responsibility for it They h

g Ti h 'h y,

y e.,

, y m;

.,n; g.

]

i I

i l

l NAME lHSC311010 PAGE 129 i

2964 l will say. why don't you go down and talk to DOE; tnat is I

i 2965 ' their problem and they should handle it That is what they 2966 are going to say-you people holding out the idea you are 2967 going to give them legislation, and they will say that will 2968 work out fine for us we will all be for the legislation and 2969 make sure our State is favored You are just going to stall 2970 all the activity.

[

2971 Why don't we tell them there ain't going to be no 2972 legislation.

Why don't we tell them the problem is there:

2973 why don't you people handle it? And they will start 2974 thinking about it for the first '.ime.

They are not worried 2975 about it They look at it as a political problem they are 2976 going to dump on you 2977 Dr. Bateman. We have been saying exactly that; we have 2978 been taking exactly that view. We want to see the States 2979 solve the problem. We think it is a State problem, but at 2980 the same time the legislative framework that we now have has s

2981 gotten us into the situation we are now iri And we have

}

2982 been singing that song that you just described We have 2983 been saying that. but it hasn't led to States accepting 2984 responsibility for dealing with it on a wide enough scale; 2985 otherwise, we wouldn't be in the situation we are in now.

2986 Mr. Wyd/er. All right. Mr. Chairmart c

2987 Mr. McCormack. Mr. Goldwater?

2988 Mr. Goldwater. Dr. Hendrie, is there some problem in the h

us y.

?

4 7

v

< '< y.; +

n

1 i

l l

NAME. HSC311010 PAGE 130 2989 ; process by wruen low-level waste is packaged and put in tne 2990 ground 7 o,

2991 Dr. Hendrie. There are some practical problems in the 2992 sense that a number of shippers, generators wno pack the 4

2993 stuff originally, simply haven't lived up to the regulations

~

2994 on the packaging standards; so there have been shipments 2995 made where the packaging was defective, and. need6ess to 2996 say, that upsets the receivers of the wastes. tne State 2997 authorities in the States where those sites are located 2998 We have tried to step up our inspection and enforcement 2999 activity over the past five or six months. We have been 3000 talking to the Governors of the tnroe States---

3001 Mr. Goldwater. But you see no deficiencies----

4 ge 3002 Dr. Hendrie. In terms of technological problems?

}.

n 3003 Mr. Goldwater. The standard How much cardboard, v.

3004 plastic?

3005 Dr. Hendrie. No, I don't think so. If people package F

s p

3006 this stuff according to the Dep L, eat of Transportation n:

3007 regulations and the NRC regulations, it is appropriate for f

3008 the level of materiat, and I think those standards are Cl 3009 perfectly adequate, and if they will then do sensible things 3010 like drive the trucks legally and operate mechanical 3011 equipment which is reasonably maintained. I don't see any 3012 problem at all with the transportation, certainly minimum 4

3013 problems with the transportatiort

$f W

m; W

n. ' iv jf

.s 3 s

v.c s.m g.

s

~

+

3 7.:.

.>,s

I NAME. lHSC311010 PAGE 131 l

t 3014 Mr. Goldwater. Wnose responsibility is it to enforce it?

l 3015 Dr. Hendrie. For DOT regulations. I guess tne Department j

t 3016 of Transportation has always had that responsibility.

l 3017 Recently under agreement with the Department of 3018 Transportation. we have amended our regulations to allow us s

3019 to go out and inspect against DOT regulations for our 3020 licensees, just as a way of being able to add our inspection 3021 and enforcement effort to DOTS, since'most of the low-level 3022 material is packaged according to DOT standards rather than u

3023 NRC standards.

3024 Mr. Goldwater. So the NRC is the enforcing body?

3025 Dr. Hendrie. We probably have more people in the field 3026 working on it now than DOT does. Their hazardous material 3027 bureau has to cover a whcle range of things, of which 3028 radioactive rrwterials are not really a large part 1

3029 Mr. Goldwater. Do you have enforcement power or citation 3030 power?

3031 Dr. Hendrie. We have various stages. We can issue stern 3032 letters which go on a formal docket of the license, and is 19 '

1i 3033 considered in renewals, and so on. There are civil

{;q 3034 penalties. We have a prope,; tion we are trying to get O

3035 congressy -upport for, to raise the limit on those civil 3036 penalties. but we do have a civil penalty.

i

s 3037 Mr. Goldwater. My question was, do you have citation 3038 power?

f^

P E

h 7.

y:

,y--

-+

n 3l

_ y-

~

]

NAM:.HSC311010 PAGE 132 l

3039' Dr. Hendrie. In tne sense of being able to essess civil t

i 3040 penalties, and we could lift a person's license if we felt 3041 his violations were flag ant enougri i

3042 Mr. Goldwater. You have plenty of muscle behind the 3043 regulations to enforce any deficiencies?

3044 Dr. Hendrie Yes. I think so. Pulling the license is 3045 pretty clearly a pretty stern measure. Suspending it would 3046 be possible The additional civil penalty authorrty would 3047 be helpful, but our problem has been that we haven't 3048 probably devoted as much staff resource to inspection and 3049 vigorous following up in this area as we should have, and Q

3050 there been some bad packaging.

3051 Mr. Goldwater. Do you have individuals located at each of 3052 these three sites. NRC personnel, to inspect?

3053 Dr, Hendrie i don't think so. There are regular visits 3054 by NRC health inspectors, and a material licensing inspector from the NRC regional office probably runs three to five 3055 3056 days a monih at each of the sites, but we have not felt that 3057 we could put a person full-time at each of these sites.

3058 Now, in connection with discussions yesterday with Governor 3059 Ray about the Hanford site and possible conditions for the 3060 State of Washington considering reopening that site, NRC and N

3061 the Department of Transportation said we would do what 3062 we could to provide a few people out there on a temporary s

3063 basis to do some inspection of incoming material if the site ha 8 m. :,;

7+

x, x

,g-

..n -

'l

}

l I

NAtE. lHSC311010 PAGE 133 i

3064 ; is opened. to in effect stand in for what in tne long term l

1 3065 would be State employees who would do tnat. but it is going l

1 3066 to take a few montns for the State emplo.yees to be trained l

3067 and become able to do that work, and we would provide some 3068 assistance to bridge the gap.

3069 Mr. Goldwater. In your opinion, this problem should be 3070 handled by the States, themselves, clearly separate from the 3071 NRC or the Federal Government?

3072 Dr. Hendrie. I think it should be handled by the States.

3073 Mr. Goldwater. Should they be able to establish their own 3074 standard and regulations and enforce them?

3075 Dr. Hendrie. I am not going to go that far. I want the 3076 States to understand they have a responsibilit'y to go 3077 forward and establish more sites for the disposal of this 3078 material, but the laws require us, NRC, to license unless it 3079 is an agreement-State, and they have to have an agreement 3080 with us in order to do that, and I think we ought to have 3081 some sort of uniform minimum standard for these sorts of 3082 facilities, and I would thus suggest that any new sites that 3083 are established, have the NRC criteria.

3084 Mr. Goldwater. You want the States to have the 1

3085 responsibility but the NRC to have----

3086 Dr. Hendrie. Set standards, set minimum Federal 7

3087 standards, and the law of the land requires us to license i

I l

3088 them in States that are not agreement-States. You could

[;'

> ^

. l A

t

+

>r

.n-7, x

en.n :.

fyyr-l

.m.

t 1

4 NAME IHSC311010 PAGE 134 3089 always change tnat. if you contemplate legislation in the 3090 area 3091 Mr. Goldwater. Dr. Bateman, obviously the closing of the 3092 three sites indicates inefficiency in the Department of 3093 Energy to long-range planning or observation or perception 3094 of the problem Do you agree?

~

3095 4

6 4

/

1 h

?

g s

5 :.

y

+

A 4: 4 4

r;.

r-

?

l'4 E

t 5

4_

?..

l

..7,%

s

}?

'd f

9t

.,p;g,

_w.x3_.

y

_, ~ ~ ~

r. g s

~;

. pe,

,.(,.~,

]

l l

t l

NAME !HSC311010 PAGE 135 3096 RPTR LYDA i

3097 12.00 l

3098 Dr. Bateman i tnink that this is a problem that has been 3099 growing for some trne. We have recognized it as a problem 3100 I think that the things that i described that we have done 3101 and propose to do go a long way to correcting the problem 3102 Mr. Goldwater. I guess tne bottom line is, when are you 3103 going to come out with some recommendations and proposals?

3104 Dr. Bateman. To the Congress? I would expect in the next 3105 session of Congress. Flut we have made recornmendations to 3106 the President on all of these points that I described in my 3107 testimony, and depending on his decision I would expect 3108 those legislative proposals to come forward in the next s

3109 session of Congress.

3110 There is one item which I mentioned that I think will get

-c.

3111 action this year because it is an executive order. We 3112 recommended that the President establish this State Planning n

3113 Council by executive order.

i 3114 We have every expectation that he will do that. The 3115 papers are at OMB now.

3116 Mr. Goldwater. Is there not anything else you can do by j

e 3117 executive order to have legislation?

3118 Dr. Bateman. You would have to have legislation to do 3119 what we believe is most essential and that is to restructure 3120 the current system in a way that we believe requires a y

5

.}.'t'Y Ag

.%/_*

V y,

>' er *_< a AlM..

A

r,-

'j j

l l

NAM:. IHSC311010 PAGE 136 1

3121 restructuring of tne sites.

3122 Mr. Goldwater. Is that tne regional dumping grounds?

3123' Dr. Bateman Yes.

3124 Mr. Goldwater. Under your recommendations, who will make 3125 the oecision as to where those will be?

3126 D. Bateman We would work that out jointly with the 3127 States involved in the region, with the NRC. in providing s

3128 whatever input we can provide by way of a technical nature-3129 in terms of assessment of the suitabilrty of sites, et 3130 cetera.

e 3131 M. Goldwater. Do you think Dr. Hendrie's suggestion that 3132 if you do not open your doors for a site you should not be

^

f 3133 allowed to have within your State nuclear activity----

3134 Dr. Beteman I think if no regional solution can be 3135 arrived at. I think that is going to have to be a 3136 requirement, yes.

3137 Mr. Goldwater. Why do you have to wait until the next 3138 session of Congress? The testimony we have is that right i

s 3139 now it needs fairly immediate solution from what I gather.

f, 3140 Maybe the previous witnesses were overexaggerating, but it

< ?.

w 3141 seems to me if there is a grain of truth in what they are

'l 3142 saying. maybe we can't wait until the next session of 3143 Congress and maybe we need direction right now.

3144 What is the prnblem with that?

l 1

3145 Dr. Bateman. There are several reasons.

[c a

w

..s.u..

vv e

g

,., spy,

.v,

.,7g.

v.g.

4

,j.,.

I

.. e-s NAME HSC311010 PAGE 137 I

i I

3146-First of all I tnrnk the problems, pa-tscula-ty in the i

l 3147 State of Washington. tnat led to the Governors action to l

3148 close the buriat ground can be corrected and I tnink the 3149 discussions between tne NRC, DOT, and tne Governor have gone 3150 ; a long way to resolving that 3151!

So assuming there is a satisfactory resolution of the 3152 issue she has raised, Washington could, of course, be 3153 reopened Barnwell is still open it is possible that 3154 Nevada could be reopened as well once the problems Governor u

3155 List has are cleared up.

3156 So I think we should note that although I think it is a 3157 serious problem, we are not at a crisis point at this time.

~,-

3158 We also have contingency plans, which I described in my 3159 testimony, which coi'id relieve the congestion in the system, g

i 3160 if that is necessary, on a short-term basis.

3161 So I think there is fjexibility here to deal with it on a 3162 near-term time frame. But I think that although much of the 3163 existing system, I think, is adequate to deal with the p.

k.c 3164 problems, both near term and long term, I.think some 4

3165 legislative solution is going to have to be required 6

3166 I think we can wait until the next session of Congress. I 3167 think the Congress has a lot on its agenda to deal with in 3168 this session in the energy area. We don't think the 3169 situation at this point warrants adding this issue to it at s

l 3170 the present time.

e n.

tb n

s a

n

,_ g e

^

s,

' ~ ~

NAME !HSC311010 PAGE 138 l

3171 But if it looked like tne problems tnat I oescrioed could 3172 not be resolved satisfactorily. obviously we could get rignt 3173. up here and try to deal with tnem as expeditiously as we 3174 could 3175 Mr. Goldwater. Well, we are talking about low-level 3176 waste. My perception of the immediacy of dealing with this 3177 is not accurate perhaps, but i think you have that problem 3178 and you also nave the problem of high-level waste. It is 3179 kind of in the same kind of boat.

3180 We are not doing too much in that area eitner. I mean, we

~

3181 are doing a lot of studies like that, but we don't have any 3182 program, any dynamic leadership that is going to put this

'l 3183 thing to bed once and for all 3184 We sit back here in Washington twiddling our thumbs while 3185 the States are the ones that are having to deal with this.

3186 it is almost like what is happening in aviation to some 3187 degree. You are getting States taking over the jurisidction 3188 of what is normally a Federal responsibility so as not to 3189 interrupt the interstate commerce. We are finding States 3190 establishing their own standards and criteria for operation 3191 of airports.

3192 Here we are allowing States in essence to disrupt the 3193 national concern. a national problem, because of the failure 3194 of the Federal Government to aggressively and dynamically 3195 deal with the' problem of waste disposal 4

s

.p :a

. w;;:6

/

e

i l

e.,.

2

\\

NAME lHSC311010 PAGE 139 3196 High-level waste is anotner problem we are not talking l

3197 i about today. But it is still symtomatic of the same tning i'

3198 we are finding today as far as low-level waste. It is 3199 behind tne curve before it becomes a crisis. Maybe it is 3200 not a crisis, but it could be if in fact these States reject 3201 these negotiations that we are talking about 3202 I would like to see.some aggressive leadership down there.

3203 I know it may be a somewhat difficult problem but it is 5204 not insoluble. You had better start moving out m some 3205 visible program that is going to develop some confidence in 3206 this nuclear business.

3207 Mr. McCormack I thank the gentleman from California for 3208 his comments. I want to say I agree very much with the 3209 thrust of what he is saying. We need more aggressive 3210 programs.

3211 With all due respect. Dr. Bateman. I would point out that 3212 the last statement of the interagency review group i believe 3213 moved us back to before 1974, previous to the time I chaired 3214 hearings as a member of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy r

3215 on this subject p

3216 I think we must get with it I want to say we have 3217 examples of low-level wastes that have been concentrated 3218 here that have been prepared by the Brookhaven National 3219 Labors:ory under NRC fund.ng.

s 3220 There are a number of. technologies that are available on

~

Y

,~ 3 s

my

~.

.p v

NAME-lHSC311010 PAGE 140 l

3221 l this I hope we will move very aggressively in tnis area.

r 3222, There is no reason on eam why we coule not, it seeens to 3223 me, in a year have several technologies avaitaole fer 3224 consolidation or consideration in one manner or another, 3225 concentration of the wastes or their residuet 3226 I think it is essential that we do it. I tnink it is 3227 important that we move expeditiously.

3228 I would like to romand both of you gentlemen that I have 3229 addressed letters to both of you as chairman of the 3230 subcommittee, to you, Mr. Hendrie, and Secretary of Energy 3231 Duncan, on this subject requesting your comments on the 3232 proposed legislatiori I

3233 I agree with Mr. Goldwater that we must be moving quite 3234 expeditiously.

1, frankly, don't have the slightest idea 3235 where our deliberations will take us in terms of 3236 legislation, but I think we are going to have to work very 3237 hard and we are going to have to work together very 3238 carefully and we are going to be pointing toward having 3239 legislation in order for congressional action this year, if p

3240 possible, but if not, then immediately upon reconvening the 3241 Congress next year.

3242 I want to thank yo. both very much for coming today.

3243 Thank you all 3244 The meeting is adjourned i

3245 Whereupon, at 1240 pm the subcommittee adjourned l

-l l

dl l

s

,s

,