Page images
PDF
EPUB

NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL

MONDAY, MAY 15, 1978

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:30 a.m., in room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. John Breaux (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Breaux, Hughes, and Pritchard.

Mr. BREAUX. The Subcommittee on Oceanography will please come to order.

The 1970's mark the beginning of an era in which the world is becoming increasingly concerned about the limits of the Earth's energy resources.

Since the major increase in the world price of oil in 1973, the United States and other countries have begun critical evaluations of their energy consumption patterns and trends.

A widespread apprehension about our growing dependence on one energy resource, petroleum, is compelling many nations to look at alternative energy resources, especially coal and nuclear fuel, to meet their future energy demands.

The need to develop acceptable methods to dispose of the extremely hazardous wastes generated from the nuclear fuel cycle will become more and more critical as domestic and global use of nuclear energy increases.

Today, the Subcommittee on Oceanography convenes oversight hearings on the disposal of nuclear wastes in the ocean. I feel that these hearings are important and timely for a number of reasons.

First, several European countries are currently dumping lowlevel radioactive wastes into the ocean. This activity is going on under the supervision of the Nuclear Energy Agency.

Our country for many years dumped containerized low-level radioactive wastes in several dumpsites off our coasts. We terminated this practice in 1970 and now use shallow-land burial for these wastes.

The Environmental Protection Agency, which we will hear from today, is now studying the disposition of these canisters. The information obtained from this research will help in our country's efforts to negotiate acceptable international environmental guidelines for such dumping.

Second, many countries are becoming aware of very serious impending problems with respect to their growing stockpiles of highlevel radioactive wastes. These countries, some of which are not endowed with suitable geological formations, are looking with great

interest at the alternative of disposing high-level radioactive wastes in the seabed.

The President, as part of his national energy plan, has created a task force directed by the Department of Energy to develop and evaluate various alternatives for the disposal of high-level radioactive wastes.

One of the alternatives being considered by the task force is the disposal of these wastes in the seabed. A research team coordinated through Sandia Laboratory in Albuquerque, N. Mex., is pursuing this alternative. Today, we will hear from that group's director, as well as the Department of Energy.

The Subcommittee on Oceanography, which has jurisdiction over issues concerning the conservation and development of marine resources, marine research, and protection of the ocean environment, has a particular interest in the issue of nuclear waste disposal in the oceans and seabed.

The subcommittee has also followed the progress of negotiations at the United Nations Law of the Sea Conference and is acutely interested in our Nation's role in negotiations pertaining to the London Convention on Ocean Dumping and Marine Pollution.

I, for one, have an interest in this issue because one of the alternatives being considered for the disposal of high-level radioactive wastes is the salt domes in my district.

Finally, the Congress recently passed, and the President signed into law on March 10, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act of 1978. This act, among other things, states that this country shall endeavor in negotiating trade agreements for the export of nuclear fuel and technology to insure that the environment is protected from radioactive contamination.

I think that this is significant in that there are countries to which we export nuclear fuel which have not ratified the International Convention on Ocean Dumping.

We will be asking the Department of State and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission about the implications of this act with respect to this issue today.

We will proceed in the following order. We will take first Dr. James Liverman, Acting Assistant Secretary for the Environment with the Department of Energy, and Dr. John Deutch, Director of Energy Research for the Department of Energy, together as a panel.

We will then take Mr. Sheldon Meyers, Director of the Division on Fuel Cycle and Material Safety of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and then Mr. Rowe, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Radiation Programs in the EPA.

Then Mr. Bill Long, for the Department of State, and then Dr. Anderson and Dr. David Reese as a panel.

With those opening remarks, the Subcommittee on Oceanography would like to welcome Dr. Liverman and Dr. Deutch, who we invite to sit as a panel.

Gentlemen, we have copies of your testimony, which, of course, will appear as presented in our record. I would ask, perhaps, if you can, to please summarize your prepared testimony in order that we might get into some questions. I invite you to proceed.

[The information follows:]

STATEMENT OF Dr. John M. DEUTCH, DIRECTOR OF ENERGY RESEARCH,
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

I am pleased to appear before you today representing the Office of Energy Research to discuss the major initiatives which the Department of Energy and the Administration are undertaking in nuclear waste management.

BACKGROUND

The formulation of a credible and broadly accepted nuclear waste management policy is a matter of the highest importance because we must ensure that nuclear wastes can be effectively isolated from the biosphere. Large quantities of nuclear waste exist today as a by-product of 30 years of production of nuclear materials used in our National defense, and from an increasing amount of electricity generation for domestic use. In order to provide the proper perspective on the waste management issue which we are discussing today, I have attached to my written statement information which summarizes the current and projected waste generation situation. Table I shows the current disposition and quantities of U.S. commercially generated low-level (LLW), transuranic (TRU), and high-level (HLW) wastes, and projected quantities of these wastes. Table II provides similar information for defense (DOE)-generated wastes. Table III provides estimates of current and projected spent fuel generation both dometically and worldwide, which will have to be dealt with through either storage or reprocessing. There is a legitimate public concern over potential disposition of these wastes. The development of an effective and responsible nuclear waste management program that meets these public concerns is an important step toward assuring that commercial nuclear power will continue to play an important role in meeting our energy needs.

President Carter, in his April 29, 1977, National Energy Plan, directed that a review of the entire waste management program be undertaken. The Secretary and senior officials of the Department consider this review of the overall nuclear waste management program to be a matter of the highest priority. The Department has taken the first steps toward conducting that review and developing a comprehensive Administration policy on nuclear waste management and a realistic program to implement this policy.

A DOE Task Force was established by Under Secretary Myers to define the issues and options for dealing with nuclear waste. This task force, under my direction, was composed of members from Energy Technology, Environment, Policy and Evaluation, Intergovernmental and Institutional Relations, Controller, General Counsel, and members of my staff. The report of that Task Force was released approximately two months ago.

TASK FORCE REPORT

The Task Force report presents an assessment of the current nuclear waste managment programs, identifies important issues, and explores alternative courses of action for resolving these issues. While the report contains significant recommendations, it is not intended to establish new policy or to commit the Department or the Federal Government to specific new programs or schedules. Rather, it hopefully should serve as the vehicle to stimulate discussion among a wider range of interested parties during the remainder of the policy formulation process. The issues raised by the Task Force will be addressed by the Administration after a thorough public review.

The Task Force report raises a number of issues with regard to present nuclear waste management policy and programs. I should like to highlight some of the very preliminary recommendations which I consider most significant for management of wastes.

1. A majority of independent technical experts have concluded that high-level waste (HLW) can be safely disposed in geological media, but validation of the specific technical choices will be an important element of the licensing process.-Existing technical issues relate to the selection of the medium. Specific site and repository designs should be considered for each medium. Research is necessary to resolve medium selection and repository design issues. An accelerated effort to compile and analyze existing evidence hearing on geological disposal and feasible alternatives is also needed. The licensing process will assure that there is appropriate public scrutiny of our efforts and that the technical approaches taken are valid.

2. Reprocessing is not required for the safe disposal of commercial spent fuel.— From the point of view of the design at a repository for safe disposal, there is no significant difference between spent fuel and reprocessed high-level waste. Since a repository can be designed to accept either spent fuel or commercial HLW, disposal of spent fuel can be pursued initially.

[blocks in formation]

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. Pritchard?

Mr. PRITCHARD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Dollars in thousands

6,299

2,033

5,228

1,505

2,247

3,051

3,076

1,498

7,853

4,415

1,077

2,396

464

8,774

49,916

I have no questions of Dr. Hess, except to say that I join in agreement with what he said in his approach to this particular bill. Dr. HESS. If it is all right, Mr. Chairman, I would like to pick up on the question that Mr. Pritchard asked Mr. Gage of EPA concerning the problems of municipal wastewater disposal in the Puget Sound area.

Mr. PRITCHARD. I would be delighted.

Dr. Hess. We have a research program looking specifically at that problem. It is called the MESA Puget Sound Project. It has two objectives, one is to look at the central basin, and the other has to do with the problems of oil in the northern area. the program has been underway for about a year, and as I said, it is a relatively small effort at this time, but we do feel that within the next year we should have something useful to say about the question of the necessity for secondary treatment.

Mr. PRITCHARD. Well, I appreciate that.

What we would like to do is not be forced into some action until that study is completed. If this action is determined to be necessary, then it is necessary, but the pressure has already been exerted on us to take some steps to start secondary treatment, even though this study by NOAA has not been completed.

I am aware of what you are saying. This is not just the Puget Sound area, you have it off California, and off Hawaii, and I really feel upset when EPA is pushing us down one road, and yet we have not yet done the research to know whether that is in the best interest or not.

So I appreciate what you people are doing there, and we are very anxious that we get some answers to these important questions so that we can make some sound economic decisions regarding water quality in Puget Sound.

Thank you, Dr. Hess.

Mr. BREAUX. Well, Dr. Hess, I guess your bottom line is that the administration and your Agency do not support legislation before us at this time, because it is not timely, and because you think you have the existing authority.

I quite frankly feel that while your Agency may have authority, that there has not been a lot done. Particularly, I am looking at section 202 of the Ocean Dumping Act.

Now, there are a lot of reasons. You listed three, and I listed a fourth one, which is no money, which is probably the largest

reason.

I do not think there is enough thinking about the section 202. Either we are going to get aggressive under that section, or Congress is going to end up in duplication, end up mandating that it be done, and hopefully shake someone loose in OMB, in order for the money to be appropriated. Whether it is going to be EPA or NOAA, or the Coast Guard, or the Corps, someone is going to have to really get aggressive and get active in the area of research and development as far as ocean pollution is concerned. Right now we have the shotgun type of approach, and it isn't working, and there are a lot of reasons why it is not. I am not putting it all at the doorstep of NOAA, but the money is one of the most crucial problems why it is not running. You cannot run a research and development program if you do not have the funds.

I am not sure that that has been sought out as aggressively as I would have liked it to have been. I hope to work with you in the future very closely. We would hope a great deal of attention on the part of NOAA would be given to section 202 of title II of the Dumping Act.

I do not know if I asked this or not of your Agency, Dr. Hess. Could you give us, for the record, a listing of the existing laws, and any Executive orders, under which NOAA is presently given authority to establish and administer any programs relating to ocean pollution research? Therefore, we could have before us a collection of different areas of your authorization for these types of programs, and to try to straighten it out.

Dr. Hess. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman, we will supply it. [The following was received for the record:]

MARINE RESEARCH LEGISLATION

The following is a list of the more pertinent legislative authorities pertaining to marine research. Attached to the list, for your convenience, are a few excerpts from each of the statutory authorities pinpointing research and development. We have only included the more obvious sections.

NOAA LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITIES FOR MARINE RESEARCH

Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, 33 U.S.C. 1401-1444, 16 U.S.C. 1431-1434.

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407.

Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, 16 U.S.C. 1801–1882.

Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, 16 U.S.C. 1451, et seq.

Coastal Zone Management Act Amendments of 1976, P.L. 94-370.

Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, 16 U.S.C. 742a-74K.

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, 16 U.S.C. 661-666C.

Sea Grant Program Improvement Act, 1976, 33 U.S.C. 1121 et seq.
Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1970.

Endangered Species Act of 1973, 16 U.S.C. 1531-1543.

Special Energy Research and Development Appropriation Act, 1975, P.L. 93-322. Migratory Game Fish Study Act, 16 U.S.C. 760e-760g.

Commercial Fisheries Research and Development Act of 1964, 16 U.S.C. 779-779f.
Anadromous Fish Conservation Act, 16 U.S.C. 757a-757f.

The Act of August 4, 1947 (The Farrington Act), 16 U.S.C. 758-758d.
Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission Act, 63 Stat. 70.

33-546 - 78 - 13

« PreviousContinue »