Page images

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 respond 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

prospect of emminent danger if it is not handled. Someone is going to have to handle it.

In the process, as technology develops, this may help resolve the acceptibility of AFR sites here or elsewhere, but that decision is down range.

Let me address the whole question of the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle and what we do about it. I personally hold the opinion, because I am a realist, that any State or private power company which goes to apply for a nuclear construction plant license today is foolish, that the cost of construction is escalating out of sight, the regulatory process is such that you are never going to get it built and you will be tying up substantial capital and resources to do it. I feel that eventually the nuclear future of the country rests upon the willingness of the Federal Government to take responsibility for training plantsite operators and to come up with the single acceptable design for nuclear plants.

For this reason, if we don't do so in the future for the prosperity of our children and grandchildren, we are going to be purchasing the resources of nuclear power from Japan and France. That is where we are heading in that process.

One of the ways that we can move toward a clearcut Federal design and role and responsibility for which we will all pay will be to cure the back fuel cycle problem that is with us right now. Mr. GRAMM. Let me say, Governor

Governor CAREY. I am not here to say I am going to shut down the sites-the five sites in New York-and stop the nuclear cycle and dump the waste. No, we are not saying that. We are reciprocating in this regard. We are doing our best to live with the nuclear fuel system we have in New York and to supply it and maintain the State-owned plants, private plants, and we are not asking you to take over our waste problem, but 70 percent of the waste deposited at the site was put there by Federal defense projects.

Mr. GRAMM. Well, let me say just in conclusion, I think that the great bulk of the members of this subcommittee are going to recognize their Federal responsibility. I think one of the things they are going to try to do is to assess to what extent we want, as in return for this Federal payment, currently at 90 percent, to have some assurances that if studies in fact do indicate that this is a facility that could be reopened safely, that it will not be kept closed as a result of local and State political pressures.

Governor CAREY. There are 62 counties in New York, with the exception of the Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens, Manhattan, and so forth. I would say that the judgment of 62 counties about what is best for New York and some of the more remote parts of our State must be based on additional study. Because this facility happens to be at West Valley, West Valley shouldn't be the only nominee in the State for that purpose.

Mr. GRAMM. I don't disagree with you.

Mr. SWIFT. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Corcoran for 5 minutes.

Mr. CORCORAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Governor, I was interested in your comments about the Federal responsibility with respect to the nuclear fuel cycle, because I am

informed that last month you approved legislation which would create a board on temporary nuclear waste repository sitings which is now effective, and I just wonder what the background is for that new authority and what the functions of that board would be? Governor CAREY. Well, it is to recognize the sheer fact of life that we have a legislature in New York State, the Governor does not act alone. The legislature wants to be involved in some procedures, so do the local people. Siting is a critical judgment factor to be made in not only nuclear but all kinds of plants, pump storage, coal-fired facilities, things of that kind, and we are doing our utmost to, if you will, improve the siting process by cutting down redtape and moving toward practical judgments in siting. That is the reason for the siting legislation.

Mr. CORCORAN. My information, not so much with respect to your State, certainly with my own State of Illinois and many other States, is that the genesis for these siting boards is primarily to keep people out rather than to allow in an efficient way the entry either for purposes of storage or development of some new project. Is that the case in New York?

Governor CAREY. Perhaps the record doesn't show I vetoed a bill which would have the effect that you described of preventing siting. The bill that I put in effect when I signed it is one that sets up a pratical, reasonable siting process.

Mr. CORCORAN. Another question I have relates to the ongoing discussions and negotiations over the past couple of years involving the Department of Energy and the State of New York regarding the West Valley site. As I am sure you know, they have gotten involved and I just wonder what would be your comment on the failure or any success up to this point?

Governor CAREY. It sure is a sensitive and complex problem. Going back to Secretary Schlesinger and the present Secretary, Mr. Duncan, and John Sawhill and Mr. Bateman, we have had utmost cooperation from the Department of Energy in trying to reach a solution acceptable to this Congress.

Mr. CORCORAN. So your view at this point is that the legislation that is before us really is the only way to solve the issue?

Governor CAREY. Having worked these Halls for 14 years, I think the degree of collaboration achieved between Mr. Lundine and Senators Moynihan and Javits and both bodies, has been miraculous.

Mr. CORCORAN. Would not the passage of this bill and approval by the President prejudice the negotiations and discussions that have been ongoing now for the last couple of years?

Governor CAREY. No, I feel that they are consistent with the purpose of any tentative agreements we have reached.

Mr. CORCORAN. Another question I have relates to your formal statement, in which you say on page 3, that "I cannot help but wonder if failure to fully develop back end technology will make it necessary for us to purchase elsewhere." Is that a sort of backhand approval of reprocessing? Are you suggesting that the Federal Government should go ahead and complete what we have been working on in the subcommittee now for some time, the rulemaking procedures known as GESMO which would lead to-assuming it is

successful rulemaking-the reopening of the reprocessing technology in this country?

Governor CAREY. My answer, Mr. Corcoran, is that I recently met with three Nobel Laureate nuclear scientists working in a famous research center in New York, and they admonished me to say on their behalf that if we don't do something to keep pace with France and Japan in what they are doing, as I said before, generations to come will be purchasing that technology that is referred to here from these very same countries.

Mr. Larocca has visited the sites in France that are in operation. They are totally nationalized projects-no commercial, no local involvement. They are showplaces and moving toward completion. Mr. CORCORAN. Well, I certainly appreciate our comment on that. Let me just raise one final question that has to do with the away from reactor storage program. One of the fears that I have with the legislation that is before us, and I have been informed since raising the issue with our colleague from New York, Mr. Lundine, that the language that is in the Senate bill on the point is also by virtue of an amendment by the Science and Technology Committee, now in the House bill. That is language which I think concerns not only me but certainly the gentleman from Texas, based on his questioning, which would appear to preclude the possibility of the West Valley site from becoming an AFR storage facility.

What is your position on that? Should the West Valley site, in conjunction with this legislation, be precluded from ever being an AFR site?

Governor CAREY. The word "ever" is the key word. I don't see how we can ever say it can never be considered an AFR site. I don't think it should be a quid pro quo in order to get an equitable redress to a condition which we all are part of, and which New York didn't create. However, neither should we have advance designation of this as an AFR site as a quid pro quo.

Mr. CORCORAN. I don't know that we would want advanced designation, but by inserting the language, which I don't have before me at the moment-yes, I do, you know the benefit of staff assistants here, being a former member of this body. But the language, and I quote: "provides without transfer of title to the high level liquid waste or to the project site," and I think that that language, should it be the final legislation approved by the President, assuming a successful conclusion to this bill, would effectively preclude, would effectively knock out, would suggest that the Congress and the administration do not want the West Valley site to ever become, so long as this particular demonstration project is ongoing, an away from reactor storage site.

Now, the background on this, I am sure you are familiar with, Governor, is that we are not talking about AFR storage sites for each of the 50 States. Rather, we are talking about the existing regional sites with the three candidate sites being, one in my district, one in South Carolina, and the one at West Valley. There is a strong feeling that if we are going to go ahead and deal with the accumulating spent nuclear fuel we have to have, even in the event of reprocessing, some away from reactor storage.

I think to have an expression by the Congress and by the administration in conjunction with this demonstration project which

« PreviousContinue »