DEQ Home > Issues > Opposition to High-Level Nuclear Waste > Leavitt Testimony
Issues
Opposition to High-Level Nuclear Waste:
Testimony of Governor Michael O. Leavitt, State of Utah
Presented at the Hearing on Proposal to Store Nuclear Waste on Skull Valley Reservation(1)
Before Representative Merrill Cook, U.S. House of Representatives
Salt Lake City, Utah, December 2, 1997
Mr. Congressman, on behalf of the State of Utah, I want to thank you for scheduling a hearing on the proposal of Private Fuel Storage (PFS), a Limited Liability Corporation, to store high level nuclear waste on the Skull Valley Band of Goshute Reservation This is a proposal of critical concern to the State and all of its citizens. However, because of the licensing procedures of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the fact that the site for the storage facility is on an Indian reservation, the ability of Utah citizens and the State to be involved in the licensing process, including consideration of impacts directly related to the proposed facility, has been severely limited.
In addition to my comments this afternoon, I am also submitting more extensive written comments for the record. Copies of the written testimony are available for the public. Dianne Nielson, Executive Director of the Utah Department of Environmental Quality, and Connie Nakahara, Director of High Level Nuclear Waste Storage Opposition for the State, will also address this Hearing, and their comments are included within the State's written submission. The State is also submitting, as part of the record of this Hearing, a copy of the Contentions and related exhibits which it filed with the NRC on November 24, 1997. The Contentions are also available on the Internet, through the home page of the State of Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Radiation Control.
I would like to take a few moments to highlight the basic problems with the proposed facility. To begin, it is important to put this proposal, and the State's opposition, in perspective. The storage facility proposed by PFS is one of a kind, a new facility never before licensed. It is the largest facility of its kind ever proposed for licensing by the NRC. It is significantly larger than existing storage facilities for spent fuel rods at individual nuclear power plants. There is no comparison in facility size or design between what exists now at power plant sites and what is proposed for the West Desert of Utah. The proposed facility is designed to store 40,000 metric tons of spent fuel or 4,000 casks, positioned upright on an open cement pad. To put this in perspective, there are a total of only 361 casks in similar storage distributed among the 110 commercial power plants in the United States, and that waste represents 35 years of operation. PFS has stated that storage of spent fuel rods is a safe operation. If it is so safe, then the waste can stay where it is.
The waste, which is created during the generation of electricity at nuclear power plants, is enclosed in fuel rods. The spent fuel is high level nuclear or radioactive waste. Utah currently regulates disposal of naturally-occurring radioactive material and the lowest levels of low level radioactive waste at the Envirocare facility in Tooele County. The spent fuel rods are orders of magnitude more lethal and remain radioactively lethal for thousands of years longer than most low level waste.
There is also a necessity to set the record straight regarding the acceptability of such a facility within Utah, on or off of the reservation. Previous governors and most recently Governor Leavitt have consistently and forcefully blocked consideration of any storage of high level nuclear waste. Utah actively opposed permanent, deep geologic storage at U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) proposed sites in the Lavender Canyon and Gibson Dome area near Canyonlands. The sites were determined to be geologically unacceptable for permanent storage. There are no acceptable sites for permanent storage of high level nuclear waste in the State. In 1993, during his first month in office, Governor Leavitt blocked plans for a DOE-operated Monitored Retrievable Storage (MRS) facility in San Juan County. Governor Leavitt has also opposed proposals for government-operated and privately-operated sites in Box Elder County and Tooele County, and on the Skull Valley Reservation.
The NRC licensing process is very prescriptive. It requires individuals who want to participate as a party in the licensing process to petition for leave to intervene by demonstrating that they have standing and by identifying problems up front, often before the licensing application and related documents are readily available. For example, the PFS license application was filed with the NRC on June 25, 1997; petitions to intervene were due at the NRC no later than September 15, 1997; and Contentions (i.e. specific allegations about license deficiencies supported by documentation or expert testimony) were due at the NRC by November 24, 1997. Access to the license application, as well as numerous supporting documents, is essential for these filings. The NRC has such documents in its Public Document Room in Washington, D.C., although some documents are only available on microfiche. However, to enable individuals to have timely, cost-effective access to documents, it is essential to establish a local public document room. In May of 1997, the State of Utah began requesting that the NRC establish a local public document room.
Finally, on November 28, 1997, the NRC announced the establishment of a local Public Document Room at the Marriott Library, and that training on the use of microfiche would be available on December 3, 1997. But this is well after the deadlines for filing critical pleadings with the NRC.
Despite the constraints of the process, five entities have petitioned for standing to intervene: the State of Utah; Ohngo Gaudadeh Devia; the Confederated Tribes of the Goshute Reservation; Ensign Ranches, Skull Valley Company, and Castle Rock Land and Livestock; and Skull Valley Band of Goshutes. The Atomic Safety Licensing Board (Board), a three judge administrative adjudicative body set up to hear issues relating to the PFS license application, will hold a pre-hearing conference in Salt Lake City during the week of January 26, 1998. During that time, the Board is expected to announce which petitioners will be granted standing as parties in the licensing proceeding. The State urges the Utah Congressional Delegation to support the right of the petitioners to be admitted as parties into the NRC proceeding.
A full and complete evaluation of the proposed facility has also been hampered by the actions of the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). The BIA has shirked its responsibilities by not properly discharging its duty in accordance with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements prior to "conditionally" approving the lease agreement for the proposed storage site. Instead of preparing an independent and objective Environmental Impact Statement, the BIA has deferred its obligations to the process under the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. In addition, although the proposal has significant impacts off the Skull Valley Reservation, the BIA has restricted access to the lease agreement and effectively eliminated any public process or review of the lease.
The State recognizes the need for and problems associated with economic development in rural Utah, on and off the reservation. However, the problems and impacts of high level nuclear waste storage and the associated costs of dealing with those problems far outweigh the up-front payments and promises. The State is working with Tribal governments to evaluate economic development alternatives, and we will continue that work together.
Problems regarding the proposed high level nuclear waste storage facility can be summarized in the following categories:
- The NRC does not have the statutory authority to license a centralized, away-from-power plant Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) such as that proposed by PFS. The U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) should be directed by Congress to account for its actions in using Federal resources for licensing activities which are not allowed by law, are not consistent with the NRC's own rules, and violate the due process of the State and its citizens as they attempt to be involved in the process.
- Although this radioactive waste facility is proposed to be temporary, there is no way to guarantee that it will not be a permanent facility. Neither NRC nor PFS have the authority or capability of ensuring that the facility, which is designed for temporary storage, will in fact be temporary. Furthermore, PFS does not have the financial wherewithal to ensure decommissioning or closure of the facility.
- Need for a temporary high level nuclear waste storage facility is not established. The General Accounting Office, with DOE concurrence, has determined that sufficient temporary storage capacity already exists at power plants for spent fuel rods. The Federal government has failed to meet its obligation to identify, construct, and operate a facility for permanent deep geologic storage of high level nuclear waste, and has stated that it will be unable to meet its obligation to accept such waste from nuclear power plants as required by law by January 1998. However, this failure on the part of the Federal government is not justification for licensing a temporary storage facility away from existing power plants in the East, Mid-west, and California.
- Utah does not generate high level nuclear waste and should not be expected to bear the risks associated with storage of such waste. Uranium ore has been mined and milled in Utah. But Utah has assumed its responsibility for regulating those operations. In fact, we are struggling right now with NRC procedures and delays which have failed to provide necessary protection of surface or groundwater resources, or support the State's program for providing such groundwater protection, at the Atlas uranium mill site. We expect the industries working in Utah to meet their obligations for environmentally responsible operations and reclamation or decommissioning; we accept our role in regulating those operations; and we expect the Federal government to meet its obligations. Likewise, we expect states and the Federal government to meet the obligations which go along with the benefits of nuclear power plant operations. We will not accept the dumping of high level radioactive waste from out-of-state nuclear power utilities.
- Risks and problems of handling high level nuclear waste, including transportation and onsite and offsite impacts, have not been completely or accurately identified and evaluated in the license application and cannot be mitigated. These problems justify rejection of the PFS license application.
A detailed statement of the technical, environmental, health and safety, financial and legal problem concerning the PFS proposed facility are provided in the State's Contentions, filed with the NRC. Those problems are also summarized below.
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) licensing actions are not allowed by law, are not consistent with its own rules, and violate the due process of the State and its citizens as they attempt to be involved in the process.
- Congress, through the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, has authorized the "establishment of a federally-owned and -operated system for the interim storage of spent nuclear fuel at one or more facilities owned by the Federal government with not more than 1,900 metric tons of capacity...." Neither the Nuclear Waste Policy Act nor NRC's general statutory authority permit NRC to license the proposed type of privately-owned, away-from-power plant, spent fuel storage facility.
- High level nuclear waste fuel would be transported to the proposed facility from all over the United States. Such action is hardly consistent with Congress' directive in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act to "minimize the transportation of spent nuclear fuel."
- There is no link between storage of fuel on the Skull Valley Reservation and completion of permanent storage at Yucca Mountain. There is no assurance that high level nuclear waste stored at the proposed site will ever be moved.
- While Congress authorizes financial assistance to States for the impacts of transportation and storage of spent fuel rods transported to facilities licensed under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, no such financial assistance exists for this proposed facility.
- Congress has established significant reporting requirements under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act for authorized transportation and storage of high level nuclear waste, but no such requirements exist for the proposed facility under consideration by the NRC.
- PFS will be subject to numerous licensing and permitting requirements from other agencies beside the NRC. However, PFS has failed to acknowledge required State of Utah permits, including permits covering groundwater impacts and the construction and operation of the Intermodal Transfer Site at Rowley Junction.
- PFS has failed to disclose lease terms which are critical to ensuring that it has the right to site the proposed facility and the capability to operate the facility and respond to and mitigate problems related to the facility on the Skull Valley Reservation, as well as the facility at Rowley Junction.
- The PFS's proposal is wholly inadequate in its balancing of costs and benefits, and it has failed to quantify factors which are quantifiable.
- PFS's site selection process does not meet the demands of the President's Executive Order No. 12898 regarding Environmental Justice. Nor does it meet the requirements of NEPA. The NRC cannot license the facility in violation of NEPA. Furthermore, the President's Directive is of little value if Federal agencies do not see themselves bound by it.
Although this radioactive waste facility is proposed to be temporary there is no way to guarantee that it will not be a permanent facility.
- PFS's proposed facility is not designed to facilitate decommissioning, because the facility does not have the capability to repackage canisters by transferring individual fuel assemblies.
- PFS has failed to demonstrate that it is financially qualified to operate and decommission the proposed facility.
- There is no indication that PFS has sufficient funds to properly decommission the facility or that it can assure decontamination and decommissioning will be protective of public health and safety and the environment.
Need for a temporary offsite high level nuclear waste storage facility is not established.
- PFS has failed to demonstrate a need for the proposed facility, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
- Furthermore, PFS has failed to provide the link between the proposed facility and the national high level waste program, a connected action, as required by NEPA.
- The Environmental Report prepared by PFS fails to meet the requirements in NEPA for a "No Action Alternative" (also know as the No Build Alternative), and does not adequately evaluate the range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed facility.
Risks and problems of handling high level nuclear waste, including transportation and onsite and offsite impacts, have not been completely or accurately identified and evaluated in the license application and cannot be mitigated.
- PFS will ship casks containing spent fuel rods from all over the United States to Rowley Junction. There, the casks will be loaded onto heavy haul trucks at an Intermodal Transfer Site. However, PFS has failed to seek approval for operation of an Intermodal Transfer Site at Rowley Junction for receipt, transfer, and possession of spent fuel, despite the fact that such a facility is integral to the proposal. The Rowley Junction site adjacent to I-80 is not merely part of the transportation operations. Given the enormous volume of high level nuclear waste that must pass through the site, it has the potential for being a significant bottleneck and threat to public health and safety.
- Potential accidents have not been adequately identified, and PFS and the NRC have refused to include the necessary emergency response groups up front in the licensing process, as required by law. As a result, PFS is unprepared to prevent or mitigate the consequences of accidents and cannot safely operate the proposed facility.
- PFS has not demonstrated that it can meet radioactive dose or exposure limits as required by law.
- By law, PFS is required to demonstrate that it has identified the types of man-made or influenced events as well as naturally-occurring events (accidents) which could occur as part of the operation of the facility, and demonstrate that it has the ability to mitigate those individual and cumulative impacts such that the facility can be safely operated. If this is not done, the facility cannot be licensed. PFS has failed to adequately evaluate credible, man-made or influenced and naturally-occurring conditions and accidents which could affect the storage site, the Intermodal Transfer Site at Rowley Junction, and along the Skull Valley Road, including cumulative impacts of nearby hazardous waste and military testing facilities. The proposed facility and related operations cannot be safely licensed.
- Contrary to NEPA and related regulations as well as NRC requirements, PFS has not adequately evaluated the reasonably foreseeable potential adverse environmental impacts of the proposed facility and the Environmental Report neglects to sufficiently address environmental impacts of transportation activities related to the facility.
- Training and certification of PFS personnel fail to satisfy regulatory requirements and will not assure that the facility is operated in a safe manner.
- PFS cannot meet the NRC requirement for controlling and limiting occupational radiation exposure or limits to exposure to individuals outside the controlled areas of the proposed facility.
- PFS's Quality Assurance program is utterly inadequate to satisfy the requirements of federal law.
- The design of the proposed facility is inadequate to protect against overheating of storage casks and concrete storage cylinders.
- The design of the facility poses undue risk to public health and safety because it fails to provide a procedure to inspect, maintenance, and test components, including the presence of helium inside spent fuel canisters.
- The proposed facility does not include a hot cell or other facility, which would be needed for opening the casks and inspecting the condition of spent fuel rods.
- The proposed site cannot be demonstrated to meet geologic and seismic conditions or design requirements necessary for siting of the facility.
- Flooding of the proposed site could occur, resulting in structural damage or failure and transport of chemical and radiological contaminants offsite to soils, groundwater, and surface water.
- PFS has failed to evaluate and mitigate impacts of flooding, as well as cumulative impacts associated with earthquakes, at the proposed storage site and in the area of the Intermodal Transfer Site.
- PFS has failed to adequately assess the health safety and environmental impacts of construction, operation, and decommissioning of the facility on groundwater.
- Ecologic and species impact are not assessed as required by NEPA and other federal law.
For all of these reasons, the State of Utah has and will continue to take an active role in oppose this proposal for storage of high level nuclear waste within Utah, on or off an Indian reservation.
Thank you for the opportunity to present these problems and concerns on a proposal which will have significant impact on the State of Utah.
1. Includes text of comments by Dianne R. Nielson, Ph.D., Executive Director of the Utah Department of Environmental Quality and Chair of the Task Force to Oppose Nuclear Waste Siting, and Connie Nakahara, J. D., P. E., Director of High Level Nuclear Waste Storage Opposition, State of Utah.
