Page images

contact at the Department of Energy has been Dr. Worth Bateman, who is now Acting Under Secretary of Energy.

There have wide-ranging discussions of the options for dealing with a nuclear waste problem with potentially serious impacts not only for New York, but also for the rest of the country. The most recent discussions between the State and DOE have been between myself and John Sawhill, Deputy Secretary of Energy, on June 6, 1980. The subject of my discussions with Mr. Sawhill was the solidification project legislation which passed the Senate on June 12, 1980 and which you have before you for consideration today. I wanted to assure myself that this act provided a framework for dealing with the most serious near-term problems at West Valley, and that we could implement the legislation quickly should necessary congressional authorization be obtained. The main points of that discussion are summarized in a joint statement issued subsequent to our meeting provided here for the record (attached). Question. What is the State's present estimated cost in performing remedial actions to solidify and remove the high-level nuclear waste stored at this site, and what variable would affect such projected costs?

The Western New York Nuclear Service Center Study prepared by the Argonne National Laboratories in 1978 under the auspices of the Department of Energy estimates the cost of the project in this bill at $160 million to $180 million over ten to fifteen years. New York has no independent estimate of the costs of solidifying and removing the lequid nuclear wastes now stored at the site. Indeed, it would be very difficult for any party outside of the Federal Laboratories to estimate the cost of a highly specialized project like the one at West Valley. New York has, therefore, relied on the Argonne report for cost estimates.

Question. In addition to the solidification and removal of high level nuclear waste, what additional remedial actions does the State of New York believe should be performed at the site, and what are the projected costs of such actions?

Once we know the outlined of the program to deal with the high-level liquid wastes problem, we can begin to review and analyze the need for and the nature of any remedial actions associated with other facilities at the site. Very frankly, most of our time and effort has been spent in developing a program to deal with the waste tanks. Beyond the tasks associated with the project, it is difficult to predict today additional actions which will be necessary at the site.

Question. What is the present status of the State of New York's negotiations with the Department of Energy regarding the use of this site for the storage of spent fuel, and what is the State's position regarding the potential use of the site for such a purpose?

It was agreed at the outset of our discussion with the Department of Energy that neither the project nor its implementation is conditional upon New York State participation in any other nuclear waste program (including the AFR program) or acceptance by New York State of any additional nuclear wastes of any kind. As a practical matter, DOE has informed us that it would use the fuel receiving and storage facility during the project for interim storage of the solidified wastes. Regarding the use of the West Valley pool as an away-from-reactor storage facility after it is no longer needed for the solidification project, we have not precluded its use for this purpose at a later point in time. Of course, use of any West Valley facilities, including the spent fuel receiving facility, as part of a national waste program would be subject to such terms and conditions as Congress determines appropriate and the States agree to.

Question. What is the present status of the State of New York's negotiations with the Department of Energy regarding the use of this site for the burial of additional quantities of low-level nuclear waste, and what is the State's position regarding the use of this site for such a purpose?

The need for a national, regional, and/or state program for low-level waste disposal is separate from the matters related to solidification of high-level liquid wastes and, although the Department of Energy has expressed the opinion that careful consideration should be given to resumption of operations under State license of the low-level burial area for disposal of low-level wastes, no discussions of tying the use of the low-level waste burial area to the solidification project have taken place. Decisions on the low-level waste burial area will be based on a thorough assessment of our technical options for disposing of this kind of material. New York recognizes that it generates a great quantity of low-level wastes and is prepared to play an appropriate role in solving the problem it helps create. But whether the low-level burial ground at West Valley is appropriate must be the subject of extensive further examination by all concerned, including DOE, NYS, and the local community.

Question. What is the present condition of the tanks storing high-level nuclear waste at the West Valley site and does their present condition pose any immediate danger to the public health and safety?

New York has no separate, independent knowledge of the conditions of any of the wastes or facilities at West Valley. We rely, in accordance with the terms of our NRC license and our agreements with NFS, upon NFS and the NRC for all information. For example, it is through NFS and NRC that we learned of the "pan" leak under the main tank to which I refer in my statement.

More needs to be known about the condition of the wastes and the tank. NRC has contracted with Rockwell International to analyze the condition of the wastes and the tank. I am told that NFS has not cooperated fully in getting this work underway. We are supporting NRC and DOE in their efforts to obtain cooperation from the commercial operator. Although there have been some delays in the Rockwell project we are hopeful that the remaining work will move forward quickly and that we will soon have more definitive information on the condition of the tanks. Question. What portion of the cost of the remedial action should be assumed by the State of New York for (i) the solidification and removal of the high-level liquid nuclear waste, (ii) the decontamination of the existing reprocessing facility at the site, (iii) the decontamination of the waste solidification facility if such should be built at this site, (iv) any remedial actions which should be performed now or in the future regarding the existing pools which are being used to store spent fuel, and (v) any decommissioning or remedial action which should be performed regarding the low-level waste burial site?

(a) What is the basis for assigning this share of the cost to the Federal Government?

We believe that the 90/10 Federal/non-Federal apportionment of costs contemplated by the bill represents a reasonable accommodation of the equities. This 90/10 apportionment is consistent with congressional action in uranium mill tailing legislation enacted in 1978 by the Congress.

Question. What does the State of New York believe the responsibility of the Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. should be regarding the cost of performing remedial action at this site?

(a) What actions are being taken by the State of New York to insure that the operator of this facility will assume a portion of the financial liabilities for performing the required remedial actions at this site?

New York believes that the commercial operator of the site, Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc., and its parent, the Getty Oil Company, must play appropriate roles— including cost-sharing-in a West Valley program and project. To fail to include the only original co-venturer who participated for profit would be inappropriate. The commercial operator has an obligation to share in the burden of clean-up.

We are diligently exploring our legal remedies. However, we are hopeful that NFS and Getty Oil will recognize that it is in their interest to participate responsibly in the project, rather than spend substantial sums necessary to remain at the site and support complicated and lengthy litigation.


JUNE 6, 1980

New York State and the United States Department of Energy, on behalf of the administration, are strongly committed to the early enactment of Senate Bill 2443, sponsored by Senators Moynihan and Javits and Congressman Lundine. The legislation, which would authorize the solidification and removal of the high-level liquid wastes at West Valley, represents an appropriate Federal response to the West Valley problem and is consistent with the national effort to deal with the problem of nuclear wastes. Our joint effort in the days and weeks ahead will be for passage of this legislation.

During our meeting today, we also discussed the program for implementation of the West Valley waste solidification project when authorized and have agreed to the following basic principles:

1. Public health safety is the primary concern. All action taken will be consistent with this concern.

2. Neither the project nor its implementation is conditional upon New York State participation in any other nuclear waste program or acceptance by New York State of any additional nuclear wastes of any kind.

3. New York States will play its appropriate role in the project including meeting its share of non-Federal costs of the project.

4. Both USDOE and New York State will expect and require that the commercial operator of the site will play an appropriate role in the project, including meeting its share of non-Federal costs of the project.

5. USDOE shall take possession of all facilities at West Valley except the statelicensed burial ground for purposes of the project. This will preclude their use for other purposes during the project period.

6. Use of the spent fuel pool at West Valley for additional spent fuel storage is precluded during the conduct of the solidification project.

7. USDOE recognizes the desirability of a state siting process to consider other possible uses of facilities at West Valley following the solidification project.

Mr. SWIFT. The Chair would ask cooperation of the members of the subcommittee; we have a time problem. If we could keep our questions within the time limit, it would be extremely useful. The Chair will try to abide by that himself.

Governor, if it should develop that there be some remedial action required at the high-level waste burial ground as opposed to the liquid waste, would you anticipate coming to Congress for assistance in regard to a project like that, too?

Governor CAREY. You are talking about the liquid high level waste repository which is there now?

Mr. SWIFT. I am talking about the high-level waste, nonliquid high-level waste, I understand.

Governor CAREY. The low-level burial ground?

Mr. SWIFT. No, the high-level nonliquid.

Governor CAREY. That is not the subject of the legislation and it is not now the contemplation the State will be asking for Federal help in that regard.

Mr. SWIFT. When might the State of New York make a decision about subsequent use of the low-level burial ground?

Governor CAREY. We have to face that decision like other States that have cancer treatment centers. We have three major cancer centers. We have major hospital centers that generate radioactive waste from the treatment process. We have been closed out of South Carolina. We were the largest conveyer of waste to South Carolina. We can no longer go there, we have to find low-level radioactive waste sites, and the clear question is, what is ideal, and what is the best way to find those sites.

We are not going to designate West Valley as our prime or as our only target. Within our State borders we will find burial sites for our own contaminated waste.

Mr. SWIFT. You mentioned medical nuclear waste, that kind of thing-

Governor CAREY. A very important and critical area, because if you don't provide hospitals and medical treatment centers with low-level waste burial facilities, they are not going to stop treating patients, they will simply dissipate the waste which may find their way into the water supply. What are they going to do? They are going to continue to treat patients. If we don't find answers as a State, then the medical profession will adopt the most expedient means and the most expedient means could increase the danger. Mr. SWIFT. I understand your answer to say that that is a decision that New York has to get to work on?

Governor CAREY. We must provide it.

Mr. SWIFT. What about the problem of spent fuels, which is different both in kind and magnitude?

Governor CAREY. In the five reactor sites now operating, and the one contemplated site that would be prospectively licensed, we have sufficient onsite storage capacity right now and into the foreseeable future.

Mr. SWIFT. Do you know how many years that is?

Mr. LAROCCA. We begin to exhaust capacity at some of those sites in the mideighties, but we view our part of that problem as no different than most other States. What we need from here is a national spent fuel program.

Governor CAREY. We would be presumptious to move ahead of the AFR decision eventually made by Congress.

Mr. SWIFT. Do you have any comments, Governor, on the GAO proposal that the remedial action we are contemplating in this legislation should be conditional upon reciprocal action?

Congressman Lundine addressed himself to that.

Governor CAREY. We feel we are coming forth with reciprocal action. We are saying we will continue on the first day of 1981 as a licensee. We, the State, will be side by side with the current operator and will be able to act as host and landlord, to work with the Federal Government. That is reciprocal action on the part of New York State dealing with the problem which is created basically by the Federal Government's deposit there of something in excess of 70 percent of the waste. We are willing to do our share and be a part of the solution. That is reciprocity on our part, as much as we can supply.

Mr. SWIFT. One last question.

Governor CAREY. That just happens to be in New York. My answer, if I may address the comment that this is somehow tied to the New York City bailout. This project is located far away from New York City. It is in the heart of America-I will put it that way. The area has its own trouble and wants to be a part of a national solution.

Mr. SWIFT. I wouldn't be surprised if that topic doesn't come up in a moment or two.

What role do you envision nuclear fuel playing in this remedial action project?

Governor CAREY. We intend to hold the commercial contractor to every legal remedy we have available to us, and we would hope that they would stay with us onsite and we will take all possible legal steps to see that that is done.

Mr. SWIFT. Governor, thank you very much.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas for 5 minutes. Mr. GRAMM. Governor Carey, let me begin by summarizing what GAO says in their report and then proceed from there to questions. GAO, DOE, NSF, and NRC have all reported that this facility can probably be reopened. DOE also feels that it could possibly be an ideal site for away-from-reactor spent-fuel storage. If research continues in these areas, and in fact concludes what GAO has set out as a tentative conclusion, what will be the position of the State of New York with regard to reopening and operating this facility, and with regard to this facility as an away-from-reactor spent-fuel storage if in fact it is demonstrated that this is the best place within that geographic region of the country to do that?

Governor CAREY. We won't preclude consideration of West Valley, as I hope no other of the 50 States would preclude consideration of any site as a candidate for AFR sites.

As Mr. Larocca said, in the mid-1980's we will face a saturation problem at the sits of our five working reactors and possibly six working reactors at that time. We will have a very definite interest in the national nuclear waste policy and the choice of the proper AFR site. It could be at West Valley, it could be elsewhere in our State.

The minimum geological and seismic determinations, shouldn't point directly at West Valley. We shouldn't choose West Valley merely because this project happens to be there, but I would say we will be a long way forward if the Federal Government undertakes a solidification solution to ease the choice of AFR sites all over the country.

Mr. GRAMM. Well, let me respord to that because apparently we have got some counterinformation, at least in terms of the information versus the statements that were made by Mr. Lundine and your references to this development of technology.

According to the General Accounting Office, we have had largescale reprocessing of liquid high-level waste into glass in the Pacific Northwest Laboratory. We have a facility in the process of being constructed on the Savannah River that is later going to be used to reprocess 22 million gallons of waste that is virtually identical to the waste at West Valley.

So I am saying that we aren't going to learn something by doing it at West Valley, but what I am saying is, according to the General Accounting Office, No. 1, we have already done it in the Pacific Northwest, and No. 2, we already have an ongoing project that is going to reprocess 22 million gallons on the Savannah River, so it is not a question if we don't do it here we are never going to learn how to do it.

In fact, if the GAO report is accurate, exactly the opposite is true, and it seems to me that we again get back to the point-I am not trying to look at this from a regional point of view-but it seems to me as I listened to Mr. Lundine, what he is saying in essence is we want this stuff moved, we don't want this plant reopened, we want this material moved out of New York, and we want the Federal Government to pay 90 percent of the cost.

Now, it seems to me that if the Federal taxpayer is going to do this-I am certainly not saying we don't have joint responsibility, I think we do what I am saying is I don't think we ought to preclude the use of this facility, since it is already there, and since at least according to GAO, there are many agencies of Government that are responsible for this type of activity that believe that this might be the optimum place to carry out these functions.

Governor CAREY. Won't that essentially be a scientific and technical decision, which the Congress would be much better informed when we are further down the road on solidification? I can't make the judgment as to what will be the appropriate way to handle solidified waste at the time.

But when you referred to the projects that are presently contemplated or may be underway, this is a large-scale project because the waste is there and it should be handled, because there is the

« PreviousContinue »