Page images

debate over the terms surrounding the project and greatly slow, if not halt, the project, itself.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the interest of the ranking members and the various chairpersons here today, and I appreciate you calling this hearing. I asked for it, as soon as Congressman Lujan raised the questions before the full Science and Technology Committee.

I welcome the opportunity to shed some light on this matter that I think some people may have taken a position on before they really looked into it.

I only want to say this: that as the author, and as somebody who has been deeply involved in every negotiation concerning this project, I know the intent of Congress in passing Public Law 96-368, at least to these extents:

First, Congress intended that the State was to receive a credit toward its 10-percent share of project costs. I have documented that, if anybody wants the House report.

I would point out that the gentleman from New Mexico just read the report of our fellow authorizing committee. Where he stopped, though, in reading that, I would like to continue. It says: "and the committee intends that the Federal cash contribution exceed 90 percent.'

Now, that is in the report of the Commerce Committee at the exact point that the gentleman from New Mexico was quoting, or just beyond what he was quoting.

The point is, there was no doubt that New York would get some credit toward its 10-percent share for the value of the facilities it owns, and that it will be useful in carrying out the project.

Secondly, I know that Congress intended that the Department of Energy utilize the existing facilities in carrying out the demonstration project. I now understand there is some question about that. There was no question about that in the minds of those Congressmen and Senators who were involved in the authorizing legislation. Third, Congress intended that this project proceed as soon as possible. We set some critical dates, and I think it is entirely within the scope of what was intended, to move forward with the project in accordance with those dates.

I look forward to the questions about the cooperative agreement. I think it is important that the Federal Government live up to the agreement they have made. This is an agreement between a State and the Federal Government, and it seems to me terribly important that the Federal Government, no matter whether it is the Carter administration, the Reagan administration, and, in fact, the State government-no matter whether it is the Carey administration, or some other administration, live up to the agreement they have made.

I believe that, in essence, the agreements that have been made are consistent with the act, but I am not going to prejudge it. We have a saying-I represent a lot of small towns in upstate New York, and there is a saying that nothing much happens in a small town, but what you hear makes up for it, and I have a feelng this morning that what I have heard makes up for what is actually in the cooperative agreement.

I look forward to this inquiry.

Mr. GORE. I thank my colleague. There is no more able advocate in behalf of his constituents in the Congress in bending over backward to be scrupulously fair. I want to be sure, myself, that the people in New York and the gentleman's district are not penalized because the gentleman has been too successful in this effort.

We are trying not to prejudge this.

I might just say that we are trying to bend over backward to be fair, but it is hard to avoid some preliminary conclusions based on a review of the evidence.

For example, the gentleman was reading from the committee report about the 90-percent figure and a little about-about four or five lines further down, it says, "The committee further expects the contribution will not consist entirely of in-kind contributions and the State will make substantial cash payments."

We will go into that as the hearing proceeds.

Our first scheduled witness is Mr. Bateman, but we are going to ask for the indulgence of the witnesses because I want to call on two distinguished members of the New York delegation who have asked for an opportunity to be present this morning and present their views, and I would like to call first on my colleague, a member of the committee, Mr. McGrath.

Mr. McGRATH. Thank you very much for allowing me to testify out of order so I can get to a subcommittee meeting of my own. I was very, very gratified to hear that you somewhat absolved the Carter administration of any political implication in the signing of the contract because it was done so close to Election Day, and I want to tell you if there was a deal to be made, it didn't work, because New York State was carried by Ronald Reagan for President by a substantial number, and we elected six new Republican Congressmen.

In addition, I was happy to hear Mr. Walker's comment that there is truly a Federal problem and Federal responsibility, as opposed to a local and State, and I was happy to hear the overall tenor of the committee in that they seemed to favor the completion of the project at some date.

I am here as a member of the New York State congressional delegation and also as an individual with a keen interest in seeing the problem of nuclear waste disposal addressed in a timely and effective manner.

The West Valley Demonstration Project Act of 1980, Public Law 96-368, provides for a Department of Energy-managed high-level radioactive waste management demonstration project at the Western New York Nuclear Services Center in West Valley, N.Y.

The project includes the solidification of the liquid high-level wastes at the center; the transportation of the solidified wastes to a Federal repository for permanent disposal; the decontamination and decommissioning of the tanks and other high-level waste facilities, the facilities used in the solidification of the wastes, and any other materials and hardware used in connection with the project, in accordance with Nuclear Regulatory Commission requirements. Public Law 96-368 directs the State of New York and the Department of Energy to enter into an agreement to implement the congressionally directed project at the West Valley site. This agree

ment was reached last November, and it is this agreement which is the subject of this inquiry by this committee.

Let me begin by saying that the agreement that was reached affords us the opportunity to get on with the job of disposing of nuclear waste. West Valley stands as a symbol of our Nation's failure to cope fully with the back end of the nuclear cycle. The agreement that was reached is within the parameters of the act, and it is an equitable and effective arrangement for dealing with the most serious problems associated with the center.

The Department of Energy estimated the cost of the West Valley project to be approximately $285 million over a period of 15 to 20 years. According to the provisions of Public Law 96-368, the State of New York shall pay 10 percent of the costs of the project, and the Federal Government would contribute the remainder of the cost. The Federal Government has a high level of responsibility for the project.

Seventy percent of the waste at the plant was provided for reprocessing by the Federal Government from its national defense projects. In a DOE study done in 1970, the Federal liability at this site ranked high, for all the facilities at the site, not just the wastes.

As New York State's share in the project, in full accordance with the provisions of the act, the State shall make available the facilities at the center and the high-level radioactive wastes at the center which are necessary for the completion of the project.

The Department of Energy undertook a full analysis of the cost of the project, and also calculated the cost involved in constructing new buildings for the project. By the way, the assessment of the buildings was about $35 million for those presently on the site and some engineering studies done for new buildings would at least double that particular price.

DOE concluded that the most cost-effective solution would be to use the buildings at the site, and determined the value of the buildings for this project to be $35 million to $60 million. DOE further concluded that New York State should be credited for this amount toward its contribution.

The buildings which New York State has made available for $35 million included not only the reprocessing plant, but also numerous other useful facilities at the center.

In addition to the $35 million contribution for the buildings, New York State also agreed to provide $15 million in services in support of the project. The New York State Legislature has already appropriated more than $1 million for this purpose. In addition, the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority has installed a resident engineer at the center and has retained the services of two engineers who also devote full-time work to the project.

The provisions of Public Law 96-368 call for the Department of Energy to take over the facility on October 1 of this year. As we approach this date for actually beginning the demonstration program authorized by Congress to resolve these problems, I am deeply disturbed to find that the new management of the Department of Energy is not living up to its obligations under the act and the agreement.

The implementing agreement for this project is consistent with both the letter and the spirit of the West Valley Demonstration Project Act, provides a sound basis for proceeding with the project, and should be honored by the Department of Energy.

I can understand DOE's reluctance to get involved in a new area, but I cannot accept the fact that DOE seems to be reneging on an agreement that was reached 8 months ago. Everything seemed to be proceeding on schedule with the project, and now DOE appears to be having some second thoughts.

This project is very much in the national interest. We don't need any more interim solutions, such as temporary storage of the wastes. We need permanent disposal. In the West Valley project, we finally have the opportunity to deal with the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle in a real and substantive way.

I want to encourage the members of the subcommittee to proceed with all deliberate speed through this hearing, and I am confident that you will find everything in order and ready to go for this project. By the way, the commissioner of the energy authority from New York, I think, can address the concerns that have been raised by members of the committee and also by members of the Appropriations Committee on a point-by-point basis.

The committee has always been very strongly supportive of the waste solidification project at West Valley, and I am hopeful that this project can begin without further delay.

I thank you very much for allowing me to testify out of order. Mr. GORE. Thank you for helping us resolve these issues.

I would call on my senior colleague from the State of New York, Mr. Fish.

Mr. FISH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate this opportunity to appear here and to speak briefly in support of what my colleague from New York just testified to. There are people on your panel like my distinguished colleague from New York, Mr. Lundine, who is one of the people more familiar with this problem than any in the Congress, and we also have with us the chairman of the New York State ERDA, Mr. James Larocca, who has worked with this problem for many years.

I compliment you for having assembled the people who can help you execute your responsibilities.

As a member of the full House Science and Technology Committee, I have long been a supporter of this most needed high-level nuclear waste solidification demonstration project. As a pilot project, the West Valley demonstration project will avail technologies that have thus far prevented our country from developing a safe, proven, well-defined response to the treatment of high-level liquid radioactive wastes in such places as West Valley and at the DOE Savannah River site.

It is my sincere hope that nothing would prevent the West Valley project from proceeding on schedule as a joint effort between the U.S. Department of Energy and the State of New York.

It is my understanding that pursuant to section 2, paragraph 4 of the act, the Secretary of the Department of Energy was to conclude a cooperative agreement with the State of New York to arrange for the availability of the 3,400-acre facility site and to specify the costsharing elements. These negotiations began in March of 1979, were

concluded over 11⁄2 years later after extensive efforts by both principals.

The State of New York and the Department of Energy committed themselves to perform the essential activities in good faith, and I certainly would like to be able to assume that the West Valley Demonstration Project Act will proceed according to these commit


Mr. Chairman, and members of this committee, I would like to again express my thanks for this opportunity to participate in this proceeding.

Mr. GORE. Thank you very much.

I would like to call now on our first witness, Mr. Worthington Bateman, former Acting Under Secretary of Energy, who was a principal on behalf of the Federal Government on this matter. Mr. Bateman, if you would stand and be sworn.

Do you swear the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Mr. BATEMAN. I do.

Mr. GORE. We appreciate your appearance here this morning, Mr. Bateman. We invite you to make any introductory comments that you wish to make.


Mr. BATEMAN. Thank you, Mr. Gore.

I am Worth Bateman. As you say, I was the Under Secretary at the Department of Energy at the time this cooperative agreement was concluded, and prior to that time had been involved for several years in the West Valley problem, the legislation which has been described this morning, and the report which preceded it, the congressionally mandated report which Mr. Lundine mentioned.

I was involved over, I would guess, about 21⁄2 years with this problem in a number of different capacities, at DOE, beginning as the Deputy Director of Energy Research and finally in the Office of the Under Secretary-though I had been around this problem for quite some time.

I am happy to be here to review with the committee the issues that have been raised about the cooperative agreement and some of it, what I think, the useful background material will be to you and why the agreement is written the way it is.

I think the legislation, as others have said this morning, is really a milestone in developing a comprehensive U.S. program and policy on nuclear waste.

This demonstration is important to gain experience in solidifying high-level liquid wastes on a substantially larger scale than has been done before.

I think it is also important to point out that successfully carrying out this demonstration project will also show that the complex legal, technical, and institutional problems associated with nuclear waste can also be resolved. As you will recall, the Carter administration spent 2 years in the form of an interagency review group on nuclear waste management, looking at this problem in a very comprehensive way and concluded that the institutional problems associated with dealing effectively with nuclear wastes are at least

« PreviousContinue »