ML20154N903

Forwards Typewritten Copy of Chairman Hendrie Portion of Transcript of 791107 Hearing Before Mccormack Subcommittee of Radioactive Waste Disposal for Editing

ML20154N903
Person / Time
Issue date:	11/21/1979
From:	Kammerer C NRC OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL AFFAIRS (OCA)
To:	Hendrie J NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
Shared Package
ML20154N896	List: ML20154N892 ML20154N903
References
TASK-TF, TASK-URFO NUDOCS 9810220123
Download: ML20154N903 (33)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:_ /#c n! oaarcy . [g UNITED STATES "( ) NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y v. r E WASHINGTON, D C. 20555 ' 7;

• 5, d4'[,, #

8 1 \\,, November 21, 1979 p }* f \\ d J ) MEMORANDUM FOR: Chairman Hendrie f FROM: Carlton Kammerer, Di ecfo'r M Office of Congressional Affairs

SUBJECT:

TRANSCRIPT OF MCCORMACK LOW-LEVEL WASTE HEARING O Attached is a typewritten copy of your portion of the transcript ~ of t.he November 7 hearing cefore the McCormack Subcommittee of the House Comittee on Science and Technology concerning low-level radioactive waste disposal. Please edit,our remarks only and return to OCA as soon as possible. Copies of the transcript are being provided to the other Commissioners and interested staff.

Attachment:

As stated cc: Comissioner Gilinsky Comissioner Kennedy Comissioner Bradford ,q Comissioner Ahearne V EDO. L @ MSS l OGC OPE SECY (w/out attachment) SP ELD i 9810220123 791107 PDR COMMS NRCC ._,_,, CORRESPONDENCE PDR .=

~ c O o q p, .NAME HSC311010 PAGE 1 1 RPTR LYDA A 2 LOW-LEVEL NUCLEAR WASTE BURIAL GROUNDS I' 3 1 4 Wednesday, November 7,1979 g, 5' ,x-c 6 House of Representatives,

[

7 Subcommittee'on Energy Research and Production.

p. 7 q

$ca .8 Committee on Science and Technology, .] ^! f.1 ? 9 Washington. D.C. hl. ] 'Q; 10 11 The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:00 am, in Vi 12 Room 2318, Rayburn House Of fice Building, Hon. Mike 13 McCormack (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 14 f o-N n. a: }l1. I ,s, w y) . ti^' .4, ) et .y.,. s.g. 4 i I l-l

~ O O NAME: lHSC311010 PAGE 106 t i i 2459I RFiR COPELAND 2460; 11:45 a.m. 2461 Mr. McCormack. Our next witnesses are Dr. Joseph Hencrie l 4 24', 7nd Dr. Worthington Bateman 246's Dr. Hendrie is Chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 2464 - Commission.. Dr. Bateman is Deputy Under Secretary for the 2465 U.S. Department of Energy, for the region that is handling 2466 nuclear waste. 'l 2467 (f you gentlemen will appear together, it will save us all '2468 some time. I 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. Ycu gentlemen are free to 2474 proceed as you wish. 2475 Dr. Hendrie, would you go first? ) 2476 (, l.r I i ~ I J

O O NAME.HSC311010 PAGE 107 2477 PANEL f 6 2478' 2479{ DR. JOSEPH M.' HENDRIE i 24.80 CHAIRMAN i l l 6 2481 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2482 'c? 2483 DR. WORTHINGTON BATEMAN 2484 DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY 2485 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY e.. 2486 2487 2488 STATEMENT OF DR. HENDRIE 2489 2490 Dr. Hendr/e. 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 st.bject that 2493 is of considerabia importance. It has been a long morning, t 2494 and there has been a good deal of discussion of the subject. 2495 I am hardly in a position of being an opening witness, and 2496 my remarks hopefully will provide some additional context of n 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 o 2500 a couple of points that I think are key and, while not new - a. I 2501 in the discussion this morning, I would..very much like to 1 i

1. O O NAME:;HSC311010 PAGE 108 i 2502 emohasize from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission standpoint. 2503! The first of these is that we have watched over the past -1 2504! few years the disposal capacity for low-level waste 1 l .l 2505 i diminishing relative to the demand for that space, and have i ~ 2506 been watching this current near-crisis situation come on. 2507 We have tried to ent:ourage people to consider new low- -2508 level sites, thus far without success. \\ '2509 I hope that one of the results of the high attention that <1 I 2510 the subject is now receiving will be some useful movement on C/' s 2511 the ope'ning 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 y+ ^l 2514 where we would license the facility, and to provide l L 2515 technical assistance to agreement-States for those sites H 2516.where the agreement-State would license. [h-2517 Secondly, there is a very dif ficult situation with regard .2518 particularly to the nuclear medicine waste that follows from T 2519 the closing of the Hanford site. The Barnwell site is not i 2520 accepting the liquid scintillator samples that are the a 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 L 2524 this morning. It is an urgent situation. 2525 I will note that it is perfectly. practical and within the 2526. powers of the Governors of the States that do not have low- [, l' r

~ O o i

• ' ~

l } NAME iHSC311010 PAGE 109 D l i .2527 level waste disposa! sites under their emergency powers to l 2528 f simply open temporary storage depositories for those nuclear 'l 2529! medical wastes and' relieve the pressure if they so choose i 2530- on their local institutions, and we are prepared to provide j

2531 technical assistance again, and advice.'

i p I 2532 It is not a very complicated thing. All you need is - 2533 fairly decent grade industrial warehousing, reasonable fire 2534 protection, a modest amount of monitoring to keep track of 2 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. l I 2538 Thirdly, I agree with the thrust of the Governors this ] l 2539 morning that these problems are intrinsically the problems 2540 of the States in which the waste is generated. 1he benefits s 2541 from the use of these technologies flow to the citizens of .7 2542 each State and all citizens and all States have a - I '5 2543 responsibility to deal With the waste products then from 2544. that beneficial technology, and I think the only reasonable 2545 course in the long run is to go much along the line e b; 2546 recommended to you by the Governors this morning, and to 2547 make that responsibility crystal-clear, perhaps, if L 2548 necessary, by legislation at the Federal level. i: ' 1 2549 Why don't I quit at that point, because i think my 2550 prepared statement covers other aspects. f I 2551 Dr. Hendrie's complete statement follows: j i ,+ 2

O O ~i i i g NAME :HSC311010 PAGE 110 2552' i l I 25 5 3 ! ********** INSERT 4-A ********** i i i i l I i-O .I i r l O i 4 en i

!t 'e i c

i^

10 i ..? l NAME HSC311010 ' PAGE 111-4 l ~2554 Mr. McCormack. Thank you. Dr'. Hendrie. ' We will get to { 1 t: 'l. s i 2555-some ' questions in a minute, but I will ask Dr. Bateman if he l1 i. t .2556 ;would like to make a statement'at this time.- I 4, I l -2557 i e 1

n.

W w 'Y ri l j.* [ e I 4 i f [i < s b M-N ' &Y .e I j s T c

• 'n' y

s a. i '- i i l l ] s L a --v ~ ,-v- = ~, " ~ ' = - - ^ ' * ' ~ ' ~ - " * * * ~ " ' ' ' ' ' * ' * ~ ' ' ' ' ^ ^ ' ' *

.~ o o -l l NAME: :HSC311010 PAGE 116 i 2639j Mr. McCormack. Thank you, Dr Bateman. l l 2640 I thank you both, gentlemen. I have several questions. i t i 2641 j arjd I will direct them to one or the other, but either may 1 l 2642 ' wish to answer. 2643 First of all, Dr. Hendrie, do you believe that each 2644 individual State should establish a site for storage and 2645 management of low-level radioactive waste, allowing for 2646 compacts between States, so you would have some regional A i ['d 2647 facilities? Or do you believe that DOE should establish 2648 regional sites licensed by NRC on Federal property? Or do a 2649 you believe we.should have some sort of combination of that. 2650 starting with the DOE sites and phasing into the State 2651 sites?

3 2652 Dr. Hendrie. I believe we should stick with the State 2653 sites' thrust There was a while a year or two aco, perhaps yx L) 2654 before, when I think I would have told you that I thought 2655 the Federal Governmeht should step in and take over the low-2656 level waste disposal responsibilities across the country.

2657 I have changed my mind on it it seems to me the States 4 2658 could do a perfectly good job. The responsibility lies out 2659 there; the stuff is generated widely in all the States. 1 l 2660 think your first a!ternative is the one I see now as the 2661 most sensib.le and most likely to be executable in a prompt 2662 . way. 2663 Mr. McCormack. If we should take a State in our

m_ -.. ~.. __ _ ___.. _ f l NAME!HSC311010 PAGE 117 j 2664 imagination that does not presently have a waste site, let's )' l 2665 'use Oregon, which has a law that says you can't have any ~2666 ra,dioactive materials in our State, suppose that we should { i 2667 i prohibit the movement of waste across the State lines except i l: 2668 by agreement of the receiving State. Now the State of 2669 Oregon is then' going to have to face up to handling its own I l 2670 - waste from the hospitals or whatever other waste it 2671 generates.

2672 How long will it take the State to develop a site and to 2673 have it licensed? - Could it be done in eight months, or

'2674 three months? E l-2675 Dr. Hendrie. I think to meet the sort of criteria we 2670 think is appropriate, and we are publishing as Part 61 of U 2677 our. regulations, we think the minimum time to do the site L 2678 work, shake down the licensing conditions, get agreement on 2679 1 them, get on with construction, 'and be ready to receive 2680 waste, is going to take the best part of two years, simply 2681 because if it is going to be federally-licensed--I better i I; .2682 qualify and say if it.is a Federal license, that is if it p.; l-2683 is not in an agreement-State, so the NRC.will have to l-p 2684 license it, the reasons all have to do with the necessary V l 2685 f processes that a Federal agency has to go through in g l I 2686: granting a license. We have to do an environmental impact j t 2687 I statement---- I

2688'

. Mr. McCormack. Isn't it possible to accelerate this i i I i.. . _,-. _. _ l.

fso O R l NAME.HSC311010 PAGE 118 i i 2689' process? L 2690 Dr. Hendrie. Not unless you are willing to relieve i 2691 various requirements of the National Environmental Policy 2692 : Act, and so on, because it just takes a certain amount of l I 26933 time to thresh through those steps. l l* 2694' Let me point out---- 2695 Mr. Wyd/er. That is absolutely minimum probably in your 2696l way of thinking, because that presumes you. don't have a O. I 2697 million and one lawsuits and everything else going on at the 2698 same time. I 2699l Dr. Hendrie. if we lose a couple lawsuits on a given case 2700 like that, you can be held up for.many years, so I am 2701 assuming we win on litigation and that the hearing goes very 2702-briskly, which is something we coulb all speculate about. 2703 But let me point out, for instance, in the case of Oregon, G U 2704 j if it is an agreement-State, then the licensing would be 2705 ! done by the State, itself, under hopefully procedures that i 2706! are compatible with the Federal routine, but need not be f 2707 i identical, and depending on the agreement-State, it could be 2708 a little more or a little less in terms of time. 2709l In that time, whatever time it would take to get such a ~ i t 2710l depot into operation and properly licensed for the long term l 2711 burial of these low-level wastes, it would be a perfectly l-2712 l' feasible operation for the State Governor to say we have to l 2713 ' do something with this stuff being generated in our State.

- NAME:.HSC311010 PAGE 119 i = 2714 ' and I simply am exercising my eme gency powers in i 2715 i establishing a temporary depot over here in this---- l i 1 2716; Mr. McCormack. Could this be an existing structure, en i i-2717 ! old airplane hangar, and they would just put the stuff in 2718 and cover it with sand? i l )

2719, Dr. Hendrie. It is not even necessary to cover it with i.

2720 l sand; just keep the rain off and where it won't blow around, l 1 2721 burn up, or people can't pick through it for items of - D y' ' 2722 interest, and so on.,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 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. l OV-2729 I think with regard to burial sites, low-level sites, that 2730 we don't, in f act, need one in every State. I think it i 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 certal)ly is not, on the other 2734 hand, impractical for every State to have its own burial 2735 r ground. These are not difficult things to do, and there are 2736 available sites every place. i l .2737! Mr. McCormack.- So delays would be procedural in getting i 2738 ' an environmental impact statement and a license? l j p l J.

] l. O 1 NAME- !HSC311010 PAGE 120 l l 2739 Dr. Hendrie. Yes, doing the proper site survey so you f i 2740l understood the ground water conditions and made sure it was i l 2741. a. good site. j .2742 Mr. McCormack. That could be done in a few months, I i i i 2743 l couldn't it? 2744' Suppose we exempted the whole program from requirements of 2745 NEPA, just required NRC to license them. How long would it, 2746 .take then? [} 2747 Dr. Hendrie. I think that would cut the time fairly 2748 substantially, because then I think it is a matter of how g i 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 2753 trenches from reaching out off the site, and so on. 'I would C;, "s 2754, think that could go along pretty quickly. I i -i 2755: Mr. McCormack. How about waiving NEPA requirements for 1 2756 ' t'emporary surface ' storage facilities? 27572 Dr. Hendrie. I would think that would be desirable if we 2758 went down this track. lest we get caught in all kinds of i i i j: .2759 litigation over whether or not proper environmental impact i l 2760 l assessments have been made of the temporary sites. I 2761-Mr. McCormack. Dr. Hendrie, you heard the testimony of 2762 ! Dr. Yalow earlier today and saw my demonstration with the 2763 Geiger counter and the Coleman gas mantle. Do you believe

~ O O i V t v 7 NAME HSC311010 PAGE 121 i 2764;\\ NRC standards for low-level waste are too restrictive? i 2765 Dr. hendrie. Well, perhaps. Let me point out that the l i. 2766; Atomic Energy Act that defines a byproduct material that 5 1 2767 says it is something that comes from a fuel cycle, and I l 2768 l carbon and tritium fall into that category, and then says we I-2769' will license users and holders of byproduct material. There l 2770 are allowances for DE MINIMIS quantities and, in fact, a j 2771, good many of the scintillator samples that are clogging .% ) 2772 things up in hospitals, research labs, and so on, probably } 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 I l 2778 milliliter concentration can be disposed of in a sanitary 2779 sewage plant The problem with the scintillator sample is 2780 that there is an emulsion containing toluene, sometimes 2781 xylene, and a little water, and then the radioactive i i i 2782 material, the organic is flammable, and the toluene is a -I 2783 carcinogen, I believe. 2784 We have been reluctant to just say dispose of them any old l 1 l 4 l 2785 j way that you like, more because of a concern of the j j i-i I i 2786 ; flammability aspects than the radioactivity aspects, and we I i ) 2787 are looking at a variety of ways to sort that out, 1 l-2788: incineration, solidification, separation of the toluene. /

O O q. ~ .v. 1 NAME: jHSC311010 PAGE 122 i 2789: ' Mr McCormack. If we use a small amount of Carbon 14, I 2790.what about ' allowing that to be vented into the atmosphere if i 2791 it,is adequately diluted with other elements in the - 27,92 ' incineration process? j 'I I .2793 Dr. Hendrie. Sure.- Carbon 14 can go down the sewer at j i 2794 any other than 20 nanocuries per milliliter if it is an-8 1 J 2795 aqueous solution.. 'l l J 2796 Mr. McCormack. I understand NRC is exploring making more i 1 y 2797 restrictive standards for, is it radiation exposure levels t I, 2798 :or maximum permissible concentrations of isotopes, 2799 radionuclides. or neither? 2800 Dr. Hendt/e. Well, you probably have reference to some 2801 particular initiative somewhere in the agency, and maybe if s -2802 you would be a little more specific. I don't recognize it. j 2803 is my problern { 2804 Mr. McCormack. I will foilow up in writing on that 2805 question, if I may. I m 2806 Dr. Hendrie. Then we can sort it out in m' ore detail. ~2807 Mr. McCormack. Dr. Bateman, how fast do you think DOE can l [] 2808. complete an R&D program to provide proven. technology for y i f 09 j consolidating and solidifying, or otherwise concentrating ~ + N [b hs ) WI 2810 and' solidifying low-level' waste? [- 0V) 2811 Dr. Bateman. I think it depends on what part you are OM' -2812 h talking about We have a demonstration starting up at the i jf ( 2313. University of Maryland. We have done various things at the. l + I

~ _ - a l NAME: lHSC311010 PAGE 123 2814 Hanford site. l'think these are in various stages of 2815: readiness. My own judgment about it is that much more is I l 281GI ppssible in this area in the near term than what is being ^ l I 28.17 l done. ' There are economic problems with it; there may be 2818li acceptability problems with it in terms of public reaction l 2819 j to it, but I think there is the potential to do much more if 7 2820:l those barriers can be overcome with the technology that is l .l I I 2821 available now, i 2822 Mr. McCormack. Mr. Wydier? p 2823 Mr. Wydler. I am just interested. Dr. Hendrie, what made 2824 you change your mind? Why were you for federally-handling l 2825 this problem at the Federal level,a year ago, did you say, i 2826 and now you are convinced the States can do it? I am j 2827 interested in what brought that change of mind about?

n' t

2828 Dr. Hendrie. Let me sketch the reasons as follows: As I c 9 2829 observed the dif ficulties that we have in what clearly is, o1 2830 and ought to be, a Federal program and responsibility for 2831 high-level waste, as i view the dif ficulties that the y t 2832 Federal Government has in doing even preliminuy exploration o 2833 of the possible geologic medium in various portions of the I' 2834 country, I see an attitude which is, well, it is a Federal ^ 2835 j problem, and they are not going to bring it into my State. l 1. 2836) and it has to be solved. but it will be solved on somebody I i l 2837 ! else's place and not here. ~2838 And I am afraid if the Federal Government accepts a j i l

y ~ O o 1. NAME: HSC311010 PAG 8 124 2839. responsibility to deal with the low-level wastes and starts j -2840 looking for additional sites. we are going to get exactly i 2841, the same kind of response from the States. 2842! Now, I think with regard to low-level wastes. because they 2843,i are.-in fact. generated in every State in the Union. because i ' l t 1 2844L there are very clear benefits to the citizenry-at-large from { 2845 i activities that then yield these wastes that putting it on 2846, an individual State respoonsibility basis _ puts the problem j i h 28474 right back where it ought to be. After all, if we look at 2848 ; what you do with assorted chemical and industrial wastes, I 2849l manufacturing processes of all kinds, there isn't a big l ^ } I + 2850 Federal program to accept. responsibility for arsenic I 4 2851 compound wastes. They are out there, and the States have to 2852 deal with them 2853 Radioactive wastes are no different, and I think .f t ~ particuiarly for the iow-ievei wastes it shouid be a State i ^ iO: 2854 l 1 [- 2855 ; responsibility. And I think furthermore, for reasons along 1. J 2856 [ the lines I have been talking about here, that we can get q l 1 I 2857 j decent regional disposal capacity to place them a lot faster 5 2858 if they are a State responsibility. ^ e l 2859 Mr, Wyd/er. If I understand what you said--correct me if I ~ { o 1 . I 2860 am wrong-you said you changed your mind ' ecause you o l 2861, despaired of trying to get a Federal program. Isn't that I i i '2862.; what it amounts to? R -i I i 2853i .'Dr. Hendrie. I think the Federal program, because of the L j l.

. L. -o ~o 1 3, ^ NAME:HSC311010 PAG 8 125 'i 2864, kinds of things I have referred.to. is just going to take a 2865 long time, and there is going to be endless wrangling over L 2866 ; whether the north midwestern.regicinal site goes in 1 i 2867 I-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 if they can't get together and decide on~ a regional 2871 basis to deal with it on a compact basis of several States. ..'O 2872 good, every State provide for its own. I think it would do l 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 f l 2875 there are very reasonable things that can be done rather 2876 simply with this material to protect it, and I think it l 2877 would be a very useful way of d' aling with it e 6 2878 Mr. Wyd/er. I tend to agree with what you are saying. l m. U 2879 - think we have come to the point where some of these people L 2880.who have been standing up and pounding their chests, and I 2881 saying I am protecting my people from the problems that i 2882 ' exist because of this technology, are now going to have to p 2883 tell their pecple how they are going to get along without != l 2884 the technology, and it is going to be an interesting show to ~ p r [ 28851 watch, and I tend to agree with you; I think it will be 2886 l healthy, because maybe it is part of the public education 4 l i 4 i 2887 l process we are talking about here. If you don't like it, t ^ 2888 ! okay; you don't have to have it if you don't want a ' l-i i l i .L

. ~ O O 1 i / l NAME..HSC311010 PAGE 126 i I 2889. garbage dump you can't eat 2890: Dr. Hendrie. If Oregon, for instance, decides indeed that i 2891 under no circumstances are any nuclear wastes going to be 2892 stored in Oregon, I think the citizens of Oregon have l 2893 i decided for themselves that they 'are not entitled to the I i 2894 health services from the practice of nuclear medicine in the 2895 State, from the industrial uses of radioisotopes, and from l 2896 electricity production. 2897 Mr. Wyd/er. And from research---- I 2898! Dr, Hendr/e. If they want to make that decision, that is i 2899l fine with me. Good enough. But I think that is the sort of i 2900 decision they are making. 2901 Mr. Wyd/er. Mr. Bateman, I can only say your program 2902 sounds to me like one of studying' it a little more. Is that 2903 about where we are at DOE? 2904-Dr. Bateman. No, I think it is not so much a question of 1 2905 studying it Really, I think it is more a question of q 2906 whether it is possible at the Federal level to devise a 2907 : piece of legislation which clearly places the responsibility -2908 for disposing of these low-level wastes on the States, and d 2909 we think that is possible. We are working on our own 2910 j legislative proposals along those lines. I think some of 2911 ' the' ones that have been made this morning are interesting to l 291'2 l us. I' 2913j-Mr. Wyd/er. Suppose we do nothing; what is going to i

.H n.

.I.

O O L NAME: :HSC311010 PAGE 127 I 2914 - happen? 2915' Dr. Bateman. I think the problem that we are in today is l 2916 that there is nothing wrong with the existing institutional i i 2917! framework as far as it goes. I mean, we have 26 agreement-I. \\ 2918 j States. We have commercial low-level waste burial We have l l 2919 l three sites that until recently were open. I 1 2920! The problem is, and I think Dr. Hendrie is saying more or I-I - 2921 less the same thing, as long as it looks like there is no l 2922l framework or there is no place in this framework which j

l l.

2923l distributes this responsibility regionally, and makes it a l 2924 requirement, as we have gone through the '70s and commercial j 2925 l sites have closed at West Valley, Sheffield, Maxey Flats, l l} l 2926' and so on, it becomes a political problem for the remaining i n 2927 States in the sense they don't want to be a low-level waste 2928 ', dump for the entire nation. 4 } 'd 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 j accept his share of the responsibility for the region, but 2932! he doesn't want to be the low-level waste dump for the I I 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 l 2935 i block taking this, we are in real serious trouble. And the l I i 2936 way to fix that, in my opinion, is not _to say scrap the 2937;' system that we currently have and start over again. I think l 2938 i that system can be fixed. I think we are on a policy of l I i , - ~. _t,

O 9 NAME HSC311010 PAG 5 128 2939 State responsibility. There can be agreement. State 2940 license. or NRC: I don't have a strong preference aoout I 2941 that. but what is missing in this framework is not that we l 2942 f don't have States p'ut in a position to do this; there is no 2943 requiremcat that they do it No one is beating the door I 2944i down at NRC in these 26 agreement-States to basically open l I ow-level waste burial grounds. It is going the opposite 2945 l 2946 f direction I think if you can turn around the psychology 0 2947 where responsible State officials say it looks like we have 2948 a framework here: we all have to share in the responsibility i 2949. for dealing with this problem. The problem can then be t 2950 i solved, but it is like depression psychology; if everybody 2951. thinks there is going to be a depression, there will be a 2952 depression. i 2953 But if people have confidence that the problem can be (3 b v 2954, dealt with en a f air basis or regional basis, I think we can 2955 l solve it more or less within the logislative, legal. 2956 l institutional framework we have. 1 2957i Mr. Wyd/er. I tend to disagree with you strongly. I i ~ 2958 don't think it will work out the way you think at all. I i l 2959 l 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 i i 29611 for the government to tell us what they are going to do I (- 2962 ; about this, which'is what the governors are going to say. i L 2963' Why should one go out and take responsibility for it They l f I j.

0 0 ( NAM 9;HSC311010 PAGE 129 1 29'4 will say. why don't you go down and talk to DOE; that is 6 2965 ] their problem and they should handle it That is what they 2966 l are going to say-you people holding out the idea you are i 2967 I 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 l 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 b-2972 legislation. Why don't we tell them the problem is there; 2973 why don't you pecple handie it? And they will start t 2974 L thinking about it for the first time. They are not worried 2975 about it They look at it as a political problem they are cl 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 nV 2979 solve the problem. We think it is a State problem, but at 2980l the same time the legislative framework that we now have has i 2981l' gotten us into the situation we are now in. And we have i 2982 j been singing that song that you just described. We have 2983 been saying that, but it hasn't led to States accepting 2984 f responsibility for dealing with it on a wide enough scale; ~ i I 2985 otherwise, we wouldn't be in the situation we are in now. 2986 i Mr. Wyd/er. All right. Mr. Chairman. l I 2987 l - Mr. McCormack. Mr. Goldwater? j i 2988l Mr. Goldwater. Dr. Hendrie, is there some problem in the i t 5 i.

.i O l i NAME;HSC311010 PAGE 130 2989l process by which low-level waste is packaged and put in the 2990' ground? 2991 Dr. Hendrie. There are some practical problems in the i 2992l sense that a numbe'r of shippers, generators who pack the i 2393 ! stuf f originally, simply haven't lived up to the regulations l I i i 2994 on the packag'rg standards; so there have been shipments 2995 made where the packaging was defective, and, needless to l 2996 ! say, that upsets the receivers of the wastes, the State o I 'd-2997'1 authorities in the States where those sites are located. l-i 29981 We have tried to step up our inspection and enforcement ~ l I 2999' activity over the past five or six months. We have been -3000! talking to the Governors of the three States---- l 3001 Mr. Go/dwater. But you see no deficiencies---- 3002 Dr. Hendrie. In terms of technological problems? 3003 Mr. Go/dwater. The standard. How much cardboard, l 3004 plastic? 3005 Dr. Hendrie. .No, I don't think so. If people package 3006, this stuff according to the Department of Transportation 3007 regulations and the NRC regulations, it is appropriate for l 3008, the level of material, and I think those standards are l i 3009 f perfectly adequate, and if they will then do sensible things 1 i i 3010 j like-drive the trucks legally and operate me::hanical i 3011 ' equipment which is reasonably maintained, I don't see any l t i 3012 ! problem at all with the transpor*.ation, certainly minimum l 1 i 3013 l problems with the transportation. t j

-.- ~.. P .c o 1 m ol l-NAME HSC311010-PAGE 131 l 3014 . Mr. Go/dwater. Whose responsibility is it to enfo ce it? l 3015 Dr. Hendrie. For DOT regulations, I guess the Department l 3016 i of Transportation has always had th'at responsibility, j i 3017 Recently under agreement with the Department of 3018 Transportation. we have amended our regulations to allow us 3019 to go out and inspect against DOT regulations for our l7, 3020 ' licensees, just as a way of being able to add our inspection 3021 and enforcement effort to DOT's, since'most of the low-level - O 3022 ~ material is packaged according to DOT standards rather than 3023 i NRC standards. 3024 Mr. Go/dwater. So the NRC is the enforcing body? k 3025 Dr. Hendrie. We probably have more people in the field l 3026 working on it now than DOT does. Their hazardous material 302I bureau has to cover a whole range of things, of which 3028 radioactive materials are not really a large part. 3029 Mr. Goldwater. Do you have enforcement power or citation 3030 power? I 3031; Dr. Hendrie. We have various stages. We can issue stern I I 3032 letters which go on'a formal docket of the license, and is 3033 considered in renewals, and so on. There are civil 3034 penalties. We have a proposition we are trying to get u 3035 congressinal support for, to raise the limit on those civil f 3036 f penalties, but we do have a civil penalty. L l 3037l. Mr. Goldwater. My question was, do you have citation i i 3038' power? l lV a. c

. -. =. - - - .. ~. _ - - -.... o o NAME: [HSC311010 PAGE 132 I i I i 3039l Dr. Hendrie, in the sense of being able to assess civil i 1 3040: penalties, and we could lift a person's license if.we fe't ) I i i i 3041 his violations were flagrant enough. l 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 V The additional civil penalty authority would 3046 be possible. q 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 3050 there have 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 h 3054 by NRC health inspectors, and a material licensing inspector 3055 from the NRC regional office probably runs three to five 3056 days a month at each of the si.tes, 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 3061 the Departmen't of Transportation had.said we would do what l 1 3062' we could to provide a few people out there on a temporary 3063: basis to do some inspection of incoming material if the site ,o o,. _

NAME HSC311010 PAGE 133 i p 3064 ' it, opcned, to in effect stand in for what in the long term 3065 ! would be State employees who would do that, but it'is going 3066 ; to take a few months for the State' employees to be trained 3067 l and become able to do that work, and we would provide some l 3068 assistance to bridge the gap. [ I 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? i 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 0-3079 is an agreement-State, and they have to have an agreement ! with us in order to do that. and I think we ought to have 3080 3081 some sort of uniform minimum standard for these sorts of i 3082 f acilities, and I would thus suggest that any new sites that 3083 are established, have the NRC criteria. 2 3094' Mr. Goldwater. You want the States to have the 3085 ' responsibility but the NRC to have---- 3086: Dr, Hendrie. Set standards, set minimum Federal i .( l . 3087 j standards. and the law of the land requires us to license I l 3088 them in States that are not agreement-States. You could

O O 1 t i NAME HSC311010 PAGE 134 3089; always change that, if you centemplat'e legislation in the 1 '3090 ! area. 3091 Mr. Goldwater. Dr. Bateman. obviously the closing of the i i 3092 j three sites indicates inefficiency in the Department of l 3093 i Energy to long-range planning or observation or perception I-3094 of 70 problem. Do you agree? 3095 10. i .c 5 D I e I I t i i i -____.____.__--___m.____.

9..

• i NAME:HSC311010 PAGE 135 i

i i 3096j RPTR LYDA 3097 12:00 3098 ! Dr. Bateman. I think that this is a problem that has been I .3099 ! growing for some time. We have recognized it as a problem. I 3100 ',1 think that the things that I described that we have done f 3101 and propose to do go a long way to correcting the problem. l l 3102 Mr. Go/dwater. I guess the bottom line is, when are you 3103 going to come out with some recommendations and proposals? j k) i 3104! Dr. Bateman. To the Congress? I would expect in the next 3105 j session of Congress. But we have made recommendations to i 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 y i 3109 ! session of Congress. 3110 There is one item which ! mentioned i' at i think will get .q b 3111 action this year because it is an executive order. We 1 3112 ' recommended that the President establish this State Planning 3113. Council by executive order. l 3114i We have every expectation that he will do that. The i 3115 papers are at OMS now. 3116 Mr. Goldwater. Is there not anything else you can do by 1 3117 executive order to have legislation? l l 3118: Dr. Bateman. You would have to have legislation to do i 3119, what we believe is most essential and that is to restructure 3120i the current system in a way that we believe requires a i

7 o o

m....

1 NAME HSC311010 PAGE 136 3121 restructuring of the sites. 3122 Mr. Goldwater..ls that the regional dumping grounds? 3123 Dr. Beteman. Yes. f 3124l Mr. Goldwater. Under your recommendations, who will make i l 3125 the decision as to where those will be? I

3126, Dr. Bateman. We would work that out jointly with the f

~ 3127 l' States involved in the region, with the NRC, in providing 3128..whatever input we can provide by way of a technical nature j 3129 in terms of assessment of the suitability of sites, et

• I 3130 l cetera.

l 3131' Mr. Goldwater. Do you think Dr. Hendrie's suggestion that 3132 if you do not open your doors for a site you should not be l 3133. allowed to have within your State nuclear activity---- i l 3134 Dr. Bateman. I think if no regional solution can be 3135 arrived at, I think that is going to have to be a 4(] 3136 requirement, yes. g I 3137 ' Mr. Goldwater. Why do you have to wait until the next I 3138 session of Congress? The testimony we have is that right - 3139 j now it needs f airly immediate solution from what I gather. z 3140 Maybe the previous witnesses were overexaggerating, but it i j-3141 seems to me if there is a grain of truth in what they are l ? I 3142i saying, maybe we can't wait until the next session of l l 3143 ' Congress and maybe we need direction right now. 3144l What is the problem with that? I j 3145I Dr. Bateman. There are several reasons. i i !1

O o 3 NAME jHSC3110.10 PAGE 137 3146 First of all, I.think the problems, particularly in the i 3147 f State of Washington. that led to the Governor's action to 3148 ; close the burial ground can be corrected and I think the 3149 discussions between the NRC, DOT, and the Governor have gone ? l 3150, a long.way to resolving that. i, 3151' So assuming there is a satisfactory resolution of the l l 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 { 3155 List has are cleared up. 3156 So I think we should note that although I think it is a i 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 could relieve the congestion in the system, 3160 if that is necessary, on a short-term basis. , r's D 3161 So I think there is flexibilit'y here to deal with it on a 3162 I near-term time frame.' But i think that although much of the 1 3163 existing system, I think, is adequate to deal with the i 3164 problems, both near term and long term, I think some 3165 legislative solution is going to have to be required. 3166 1 think we can wait until the next session of Congress. I l r 3167. think the Congress has a lot on its agenda to deal with in f I i 3168 ! this session in the energy area. We don't think the 1 I l 1 3169 f situation at this point warrants adding this issue to it at 3170 ! the present time. t t 1 l a

h c*g.. * ] j 4 3 NAME: [HSC311010 ' PAGE -138 l i } .3171 ~ But 'if it looked like the problems that I described could i 1 I i '3172 [ not be resolved satisfactorily. Obviously welcould get right i i l 3173 'up here and try to deal with them as expeditiously as we i 3174 'could. P I3175 Mr. Goldwat.sr. - Well, we are talking about tow-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 have the problem of high-level waste. It is 1-3179 kind of in the same kind' of boat. ,u 3180 We are not doing too much in that area either. 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 3183 ' thing to bed once and for all .-r 3184 .We sit back here in Washington twiddling our thumbs while 'l 3185 the States are the ones that are having to deal with this. I h' 3186 It is almost like what is happening in aviation to some 1 3187 degree. You are getting States taking over the jurisidction 'l '3188 of what is normally a Federal responsibility so as not to ~I s L 3189 interrupt the interstate commerce. We are finding States 3190 establishing their own standards and criteria for operation 3191 of airports. L, .3192 Here we are allowing' States in essence to disrupt the ] 3193 national concern, a national problem, because of the. failure I 3194 i.of the' Federal Government to aggressively and dynamically '3195' deal with the problem of waste disposal. l

O ]

y..

j i L NAME-lHSC311010 PAGE 139 l -{ 3196' High-level waste is another problem we are not talking l 3197 [ about today. But it is still symtomatic of the same thing i F 3198 we are finding to' day as f ar as low'-level waste. It is I 3199 behind the curve. before it becomes a crisis. Maybe it is 3200; not a crisis. but it could be if in fact these-States reject l 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 V 3204 not insoluble. You had better start moving out in some 3205 visible program that is going to develop some confidence in - 3206 this nuclear business. s 3207 Mr. McCormack. I thank th.e gentleman from California for s 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.- i. l With all due respect, Dr. B' teman, I would point out that 3211 a 1 3212 the last statement of the interagency review group i believe 1 3213 moved us back to before 1974, previous to the time I chaired i t 3214 hearings as a member of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy [ 3215 on this subject .] '3216 i think we must get with it I want to say we have i 3217 examples of low-level wastes that have been concentrated p 3218 here that have been prepared by the Brookhaven National 3219 [ laboratory under NRC funding. 1 l 3220 There are a number of technologies that are available on j l

O O 1

9.,

i t .NAME-lHSC311010 PAGE 140 l-i 3221. this. i hope we will move.very aggressively in this area. 3222 ' There is no reason on earth why we could not, it seems to i 3223 m,e. in a year have several technologies available for i 3224 conso!idation or consideration in one manner or another, i l . 3225, concentration of the wastes or their residues. l 3226 I think it is essential that we do it. I think it is i .i 3227 important that we move expeditiously. I 3228 . i would like to remind both of you gentlemen that I have 'd 3229, addressed letters to both of you as chairman of the -] l 3230 subcommittee, to you, Mr. Hendrie, and Secretary of Energy i 3231, Duncan, on this subject requesting your comments on the { l 3232 I proposed legislation.

.r -

l!. 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 l t 'edr 3236 ; legislation, but I think we are going to have to work very i i 3237 ' hard and we are going to have to work together very [ .j i 3238 carefully and we are going to be pointing toward having l i 3239 ; legislation in order for congressional action this year, if l l= 3240 possible, but if not, then immediately upon reconvening the 3241 Congress next year. l l 3242 I want to thank you both very much for coming today. l l 3243l Thank you all t 3244; The meeting is adjourned. j 3245! Whereupon, at 12:40 pm the subcommittee 7:fjourned. i i L i i i i}}