TESTIMONY OF
GOVERNOR MICHAEL O. LEAVITT
STATE OF UTAH(1)
Presented at the
HEARING ON PROPOSAL TO STORE NUCLEAR WASTE ON SKULL VALLEY
RESERVATION
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.
