Assembly History, Fifty-eighth Session 235

A. J. R. 15-Mann, Robinson, Price, Hickey, May, Getto, Jacobsen, Hayes, Moody, Chaney, Schofield, Benkovich, Dreyer, Howard, Heaney, Bennett, Christensen, Jeffrey, Vergiels, Sena, and Brook­man, Feb. 26.

Summary-Urges the Energy Research and Development Administration to choose the Nevada Test Site for disposal of nuclear wastes and for solar energy research under the Solar Energy Research, Develop­meatt... and Demonstration Act of 1974. (BDR 1030)

Feb. 26-Kead first time. Referred to u ent mmittces on · · o pnn er.

Feb. - rom pnntcr. o comnuttces. 3 , 3/10, 3f1&1 VMar.17-From committees: Amend, and cio pass as amended. Placed

on Second Reading File. Read second time. Amended. To printen' ""1dar. 18-From printer. To engrossment. Engrossed. Placed on General

File. Read third time. Passed, as amended. Title approved, as amended. Preamble adopted. as amended. To Senate.

Mar. 19-In Senate. Read first timc.,B.cferrcd to Committee on Govern­~ent Affairs. To committee. LIil~, 51t , s/rz..

v"'MayS-From committee: Amena, ano cto pass as amended. Read second time. Amended. To printer.'

./May 16--From printer. To re-engrossment. Re-engrossed Read third time. Passed, as amended. Title approved. Preamble adopted. To AMembly.

✓May 17-In Assembly. Senate amendment concurred in. To enrollment. May 20-Enrolled and delivered to Governor. May 21-Approved by the Governor. File No. 184.

• (

(

•-( .

\

•

A. J. R. lS

ASSE1\-1BL Y JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 15-ASSEMBL YMEN . MANN, ROBINSON, PRICE, HICKEY, MAY. GETTO, JACOBSEN, HAY ES, MOODY, CHANEY, SCHOFIELD, BENKOVICH, DREYER, HOWARD, HEANEY, BENNETT, CHRISTENSEN, JEFFREY, VERGIELS, SENA AND BROOK:­MAN -

FEBRUARY 26, 1975

Referred to Concurrent Committees on Environment and Public Resources and Commerce

SUMMARY-Urges the Energy Research and Development Administration to choose the Nevada Test Site for disposal of nuclear wastes and for solar energy research under the Solar Energy Research, Development and Demonstration Act of 1974. (BDR 1030)

EXPLANATION-Matter in itc,lics is new; matter in brackets [ ] is _-material to be omitted.

ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION-Urging the Energy Research and Develop­ment Administration to chocse the Nevada Test Site for disposal of nuclear wastes and for solar energy research under the Solar Energy Research, Devel­opment and Demonstration Act of 1974.

1 WHEREAS, The now supplanted Atomic Energy Commission has, over 2 the years, demonstrated an outstanding concern for nuclear safety and 3 has compiled, at the Nevada Test Site, an equally outstanding safety 4 record; and 5 WHEREAS, The people of Southern Nevada have confidence in the 6 safety record of the Nevada Test Site and in the ability of the staff of 7 the site to maintain safety in the handling of nuclear materials; and 8 WHEREAS, The unemployment rate in Clark County, Nevada, is 20.7 9 percent higher than the disturbingly high national unemployment rate;

10 and ·. 11 WHEREAS, The people and the leaders in many states being considered 12 as sites for nuclear disposal have serious anxieties and doubts about pro-13 viding disposal sites; and 14 WHEREAS, The existing facilities and the years of expertise in nuclear 15 material handling at (he Nevada Test Site are a tremendous existing 16 resource; and 17 WHEREAS, Southern Nevada also offers an excellent environment in 18 which to explore the potential of solar energy; and

-•

•

•

--2--

1 WHEREAS, National energy independence and a clean environment are 2 dependent upon tapping nonfossil fuel sources of energy for heating, cool-3 ing and electricity; and 4 WHEREAS, The existing facilities of the Nevada Test Site and its sup-5 port infrastructure are available and well suited to scientific research in 6 addition to nuclear projects; and 7 WHEREAS, Nuclear waste disposal nad solar energy research can both 8 be carried out at the Nevada Test Site with minimal capital investment 9 relative to other locations; now, therefore, be it

10 Resolved by the Assembly and the Senate of the State of Nevada, 11 jointly, That the legislature of the State of Nevada strongly urges the 12 Energy Research and Development Administration to choose the Nevada 13 Test Site for the disposal of nuclear wastes; and be it further 14 Resolved, That under the provisions of the Solar Energy Research, 15 Development and Demonstration Act of 197 4 the Energy Research and 16 Development Administration utilize the extensive resources and facilities· 17 of the Nevada Test Site to explore the potential uses of solar energy; and 18 be it further 19 Resolved, That copies of this resolution be prepared and transmitted 20 by the legislative counsel to the administrator of the Energy Research and 21 Development Administration, to the assistant administrators for nuclear 22 energy and for solar, geothermal and advanced energy systems and to all 23 members of Nevada's congressiorlal delegation; and be it further 24 Resolved, That this act shall become effective upon passage and 25 approval .

(

(

(

\ \

- -----~,--

ASSEMBLY ENVIRONMENT & PUBLIC RESOURCES CQI/I_JHTTEE MEETING

MINUTES

DATE: Friday, March 7, 1975 ;;_.;.-2 ~~-

2

MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Bremner, Messrs Coulter, Jacob­sen, Weise, Banner, Jeffrey, Heaney and Price;

MEMBERS .ABSENT: None

MEMBER EXCUSED: Mr. Chaney

The meeting was called =o order at 2:40 p.m. in Room 214 by Chairman Bremner. He read the the-summary of AJR 15 to be dis­cussed today. He called upon Mahlon E. Gates, of the Nevada Opera­tions Office of the Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA) for testimony.

Mr. Gates informed the Committee that ERDA has taken the place of the Atomic Energy Com~ission (AEC) in operations and it includes represefit~tives from the EPA, Department of the Interior and the National Science Foundation as well as ~ix presidential appoint­ments. E~DA presently falls under the jurisdiction of the Assis­tant Administrator for Environment and Safety. Under a survey taken and report made in September known as WASH 1539, "Management of Commercial High LeveJ_ and Trans uranium Contaminated Radioactive Wastes'', much public concern has been caused. The report is two­fold: 1) One part consists of using technology which is readily available now to provide fully retrievable storage at some central place and 2) During the time made available by the retrie~able storage, siveral of the most promising geological formations will be evaluated and a pilot program will be put into effect to put high-level waste into a geological formation. If this pilot program is successful on a specific site, that site would become the per­manent disposal site. All the high-level waste stored retrievable up to that time would be transferred to the permanent disposal site. This facility would be active for approximately 100 years.

Regarding site selections, Mr. Gates stated that 100 sites had been studied by the AEC; three sites were tentatively identified a~ warranting further study. These were: Idaho Falls, Idaho; Richland, Washington, and the ~cvada Test Sit~, Nevada. Regarding the economic impact effecting the site finally designated, Mr. Gates stated that the totel program over the next 30 to 40 years wouid he $1.5 billion; that con~truction costs would approximate $100 million over the same period and that costs of the project would be levied by the Government to the energy producers.

-3

ASSEMBLY ENVIRONMENT & PUDLIC RESOUT"l.CES COI-1MITTEE MEE'rING IHNU'l'ES

Friday, March 7, 1975 Page 2

M.r. Gates shoued the following 13 slides: Usage of nuclear energy from 1953 of 7% to 25% in the year 2010; 2) Nuclear Fuel Cycle~ why the waste storage problem; 3) Typical Cannister ex­plaining the reduction of waste to a glass-like substance 10' x 12" with ten reactors per year in one cannister; 4) Growth in the Number of Cannisters since 1880 from a few to a projected figure of 75,000 in 2010; 5) slide of. a typical spent fuel cask mounted on a railroad car with 12 cannisters on one cask; 6) a cutaway view of a retrievable surface storage facility, {There are two types of storage - air or water); 7) Water Basin Storage Heat Removal System in its native form; 8) *Air Cooled Vault Concept - no mecha.nics involved - 3/8" thick; 9) Sealed storage cask concept where the waste is sealed in a cylinder and surrounded by a 2'' thick additional cannister; 10) slide showing the three sites presently u:-ider consideration, Idaho Falls, Rich­land, Washington and Nevada Test Site, Nevada; 11) slide showing a map of the Nevada Test Site; 12) slide showing EMAD facilities at the NTS. (Mr. Gates stated that their program up to now is completed at the NTS); 13) slide showing the interior of a ''hot bay" in the EJ'E-1,.D Building, cask carrying canisters.

Mr. Gates continued and informed the committee that he re­cently conducted a survey routing a railroad through Southern Nevada by-passing Las Vegas which will be submitted to his office in Washington. This by~passing of Las Vegas was one of the require­ments stated by the Governor for consideration of the NTS as a storage area. He stateo that two days ago he spoke to two men in Washington responsible for this program and he was told it appears ~( review of the EPA impact study would be required and that there would be a possible delay of one year or more on the project; that it looks doubtful that it would be in the 1977 budget.

Mr. Coulter asked Mr. Gates if the Federal Government could insist that the storage area be established in Nevada if Nevada does not approve. Mr. Gates stated that the Federal Government is mindful of public opinion and that he has considerable weight on their decisions. Mr. Jeffrey asked Mr. Gates if he had any figures as to how much research and development would be necessary in Nevada if this storage area were brought to Nevada. Mr. Gates stated that in addition to the present testing, he did not know.

Mr. Jeffrey asked Mr. Gates if he had any figures on the numbers of maintenance and support people to be employed if the waste disposal was located in Nevada. Mr. Gates stated that there are presently 4,000 employees at the test site and that operation after construction the numbers would be in the hundreds.

* Cool air goes out the bottom; hot air out the top.

-

-

•

4

ASSEl'-!BLY ENVIRONMENT & PUBLIC RESOURCES C01'1HIT'I'EE MEE'I'ING MINUTES

Friday, March 7, 1975 Page 3

Regarding the Solar Energy Research and Development aspect of the bill, Mr. Coulter asked Mr. Gates if he felt this was one of the prices we pay if we pass AJR 15. Mr. Gates stated that he doesn't know if this is a "quid pro quo", something given or re­ceived for something else but that "I think it would be an advan­tage if a solar plant were constructed in Nevada because the weather is not'touch and go' as it is in other areas''. Mr. Weise stated that he wasn't aware the Federal Government was aware of public opinion to ·which Mr. Gates replied that he could not dis­cuss the relative merits of the bill as it is before the Assembly; that there is no relationship between solar energy and the waste program. He stated: "I'm a proponent of utilizing existing facilities; it. just makes good sense".

Mr. Weise asked Mr. Gaies hciw Nevada stood in relation to selection as a site as comp ,ired to the other two areas. Hr. Gates stated that each of the three tentative sites selected were equal in priority; that public reaction is a consideration in the ulti­mate decision.

Mr. Heany asked Mr. Gates if he felt there was any greater danger in the transportation of waste masterials just in handling from one point in the country or another. Mr. Gates stated that he is ·not an expert but that the unloading of cannisters is less hazardous an operation than their loading. Mr. Heaney asked if there was explosive danger or just where the potential danger lies. Mr. Gates stated that there was no explosive danger; that that is why the waste will be reduced to a glass substance so that it will not blow away and cannot dissolve in water.

Mr. Coulter asked !~.Gates the effect if all three states being considered were to refuse this proposed construction. Mr. Gates said that this would present quite a problem and that they would have to look elsewhere. Mr. Jeffrey asked Mr. Gates if he had seen the amendment to AJR 15 proposing conditions by the Governor to allay public fears. Mr. Gates stated that he had not seen them; that the Governor had generally accepted the recommendations made to him; that he would favor continued consideration of Nevada under four conditions: 1) that their construction effect only the storage area being considered; 2) any railroad constructed would by-pass Las Vegas; 3) assurances made for the safety in the transporting and handling of the waste material; and that 4) the State and local entities would be involved with the Federal Government when the point arrives for the ultimate study of a site.

Mr. Price asked if experts in transporting the waste to Nevada would be used or if it would be handled by local representatives . Mr. Gates stated that the transportation specifications are subject to the Department of Transportation and that they are not in complianc( with them. (DOT)

ASSEMBLY P.NVIRON.ti!EN'I' & PUBLIC RESOURCES CO.M.MlT'I'EE MEETING 1'!INlJTES

Friday, March 7, 1975 Page 4

Mr. Price stated his opinion that of the three sites under consideration in the west, Nevada offers the most ideal location hydrologically and that there is already considerable radio­activity in Nevada from past testing.

Assembly Mann stated that he was concerned about Nevada's economy; that he had no fears of the safety effecting the State. "What's important to us is the dollars spent in the next forty years and that this may help us diversify the activities in the State; that we'll see a railroad by-passing Las Vegas, warehouses, etc.; that we have waste products in Nevada already buried 5,000 feet underground; t~at if all sites are turned down, the Federal Government will be forced to choose one or the other or it(the waste) would be dumped in the ocean'!.

5

Mr. Weise questioned Mr. Mann about the other nuclear reactors which the Federal Government approved which are now shut down. Mr. Mann stated that this does credit to the Federal Government. He continued that this would provide a new source of energy and that the Federal Government has a good safety program.

Mr. hleise stated that he has received many letters from people all favoring the solar plant development. Mr. Heaney asked Mr. Mann if he has any in-put from Southern Nev~da. Mr. Mann stated that the bill is favor by the Chamber of Comrnerce, the County Com­mission of Clark County; many business grcups and that they all want the Governor's safety standards met. He continued that 14%of his constituents are employed at the test site and that 2,000 of them have been laid off in the past five years and that someone is going to pick up t~ose dollars. Mr. Heaney asked Mr. Hann what was being done on the solar energy plan. r,rr. Mann stated that the University is asking for funds to start this program; that there is much available land around Southern Nevada and that "our economy will be much better off by accepting 'this'"

Mr. Heaney asked Mr. Mann if he would favor this bill even if there is no solar research. Mr. Mann stated that he would because of the economy factor. Hr. Coulter suggested that the solar_energy plan be a pre-requisite to the passage of the measure. Mr. Mann stated that he would be willing to go along with the judgment of the committee. "I want that $1-1/2 billion for Southern Nevada," he stated.

Mr. William Flangas, mining engineer and chairman of the Nevada Public Works Board, said that the existence of wastes are already a reality and the test site is the most logical of the three sites prepared to store them ..... ~There is risk in all progress''. For Mr. Flangas' complete remarks, see Exh_ibi t "A" attached hereto.

-

-

--

. ------- -~-------------6

ASSEMBLY ENVIRONMENT & PUBLIC RESOURCES COMMIT'l'EE MEETING MINUTES

Friday, March 7, 1975 Page 5

Miss Susan Orr of the Foresta Institu~e, in opposition to AJR 15 stated that the ERDA "readily admit that they don't know how to permanently store this persistently toxic debris ....... that in-credibly potent materials whose safe and secure hctndling has to be fail-proof for longer than humanity itself has existed''. She also pointed out that people would think twice about making a capital investment in a place known as a garbage dump. (Miss Orr's complete remarks are attached as Exhibit "B" hereto.)

Mr. Heaney stated that though he is an environmentalist and member of the Sierra Club, the waste is already here; that perhaps our national policy on nuclear development should be reviewed and examined looking toward alternative energy sources. Mr. Price felt that there is great risk involved in interim storage, the reason the Federal Government is taking a second look at this. Mr. Banner stated that if we don't take some risks, we'll never do anything. Mr. Jacobsen stated that he felt the situation was nationwide and that "we should try to find solutions, (to problems) not by-pass them." We feels we demand services that we don't want to pay for and that public information is lacking in this area. Mr. Jeffrey stated that in Clark County the feeling toward AJR 15 is much different than it is in Northern Nevada; that "we've lived with it since 1951 where thousands of people are employed"; that educational programs in Clark County have allayed many fears and that everyone is aware of the safety hazards and lives with them.

Mike Bell of Reno stated that among other things the unanswered questions and concerns people have about radiation "could have a depressant effect upon the growth of the Southern Nevada corrununity. Mr. Bell's testimony is attached hereto as Exhibit "C".

Mr. Richard Wyman, associate professor ·at UNLV, stated that before his-position with the University, he worked at the test site and supports the resolution, that it is good for the State; that the original criteria used to set up the test site is still valid today. He continued that every precautionary facility exists at the test site. He felt that human life was jeopardized in heavily populated areas if storage areas were established in the East and that opposition by the public was because the AEC was too secretive in the past. He felt the construction involved in the project would benefit the economy and that the NTS should be the permanent site for storage. He felt that in Nevada, contrary to Hashington state, contamination would not effect ground water because it would be in glass form. Hc·felt that the Gbvernment would not reduce its bud­get and cut back on security because this is of national importance.

Mr. Jacobsen stated that at a seminar he attended recently, it was learned that all atomic waste could be contained in an area the size of a football field and 15 feet deep.

-

7

ASSEMBLY EINI RONMENT & PUBLIC RESOURCES COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES

Friday, March 7, 1975 Page 6

. Mr. Heaney asked if there is any possible sabotage danger from any use of this material insofar as making bombs or is there real explosive danger. Mr. Wyman stated that this material would have to be re-processed sornevlhere; t!"iat the isotypes are benign and woul~ require a re-manufacturing process.

Daisy Talvitie, representing the Legislative Action Commit­tee of the Clark County Democrat Central Committee, stated that her organization felt that complete, unqualified endorsement of storage of nuclear wastes in Nevada is premature for a number of reasons. Her reasons are specified in Exhibit "D" attached. She also presented a letter from Governor O'Callaghan directed to the AEC <lated October 2 8, 19 7 4, -and a copy of the report of the Nevada Radioactive Materials Storage Advisory Committee, all attached as Exhibit "E".

Referring to a ~tatement presented by Mrs. Talvitie from the Leaoue of Women Voters of Nevada, she stated that this organization recommends the Legislature to strongly question the wisdom of ap­

·proving AJR 15 as it stands. Their statement is attached hereto as Exhibit "F".

Dr. L. Douglas DeNike, Technical Consultant for People for Proof, stated the dangers of storage of nuclear wastes, the in­terests of all states, not just Nevada, especially those directly downwind in the construction of a retrievable surface storage faci­lity. He did not feel this was a matter to be decided in just one afternoon or to be swayed by a momentary need to increase employ­ment. He submitted several bulletins and opinions, all of which are attached as Exhibit "G". :

Mr. Heaney thanked Dr. DeNike for appearing and coming all the way from Los Angeles and asked Dr.DeNike what is to prevent an atomic attack anywhere else in the United States and what is the relevance of an atomic attack in Nevada. Dr. DeNike stated that larger quantities of nuclear waste would be in Nevada from all over the country and also from foreign countries and that the geological location of the storage area in Nevada from radioactivity would effect all the eastern seaboard. He suggested the committee request studies from ERDA regarding the effects that would be placed on the states east of Nevada.

To Mr. Heaney's question regarding the term "WASH-1539", Dr. DeNike explained that this was an AEC statement on contamination effects of waste; that it was very deficient and that WASH-1535 was a "breeder" reaction statement. He felt that one of the Aleutian Islands was a more appropriate J.ocation for this waste storage in that it was very remote and there was less wind danger.

-

-

-

8

ASSEMBLY ENVIRONMENT & PUBLIC RESOURCES COMHI'l"J'EE MEE'rING MINUTES

Friday, March 7, 1975 Page 7

Mr. Price engaged Dr. DeNike in a conversation regarding guerilla attack at the NT8 as contrasted to an urban area and' the psychological effects on a bowb being dropped in a large city. Dr. DeNike told of the so-called "saviors of humanity" just stealing nuclear material for this purpose.

Mr. Lou Paley of the AFL-CIO spoke in favor of AJR 15, stating that it would help the present unemployment factor in Nevada which is more than 10% and in the building trarles is more than 20%. He stated that Workmen's Compensation has always been "kept up" insofar as radio-activity is concerned and that there is no time limit on compensation for injuries of this kind. He feels we're one of the leading powers of the world; that this waste has to go someone and we have to do something about it.

Mr. Jim Arnold, business agent of the Southern Nevada Building Trades union, stateq that the people in labor are not fearful of nuclear waste; that they respect it. They (the union) have sent many letter for the waste storage to be developed in Nevada to t,he Federal government and others. Mr. Shelly I(ent, Sr., business agent for the carpenters in Southern ~evada stated that he has

·worked at the test site for 11 years; that it is very safe; that the present underground tests are far more dangerous than anything proposed in AJR 15.

**Ann Zorn representing the League of Women Voters, stated that her organization felt that complete, unqualified endorsement of storage of nuclear wastes in Nevada is premature for a number of reasons. Her reasons are specified in Exhibit "D" attached.

Reverend Zorn from San Francisco stated that plans must be developed, not wonder if people can sustain a direct hit on any storage facility. He felt the location-should be remote. He feels that surface storage should be out of the question and until the AEC (ERDA) comes up with a proposal along these lines, ·this reso-lution should be held aside. ·

To Mr. Weise's question regarding existing underground caverns, Mr. Flangas pointed out that that 4 to 6 ntiles underground caverns exist from previous testing and would allow waste to boil, then cool and stay underground. Mr. Flangas continued to explain the deton­ating effects of an underground test and that permanent geologic disposal would do the same thing.

Chairman Bremner read the names of people he would hear further testimony from on Monday and adjourned the meeting at 5:25.

Respectfully submitted, Phyllis Berkson ** correction from page 6, paragraph 2· as to person testifying.

-

llro Roger Bremner, Chairman Environment & Public Resources

Committee · Nevada Assembly Carson City NV 89701

Dear Mr. Bremner:

March 7, 1975

Enclosed you will find the following:

10 A copy of my remarks delivered at the federal hearing in Salt Lake City, December 12, 1974.

20 Valley Times editorial dated December 12, 1974.

3. Las Vegas Sun editorials dated December 12 and 13, 1974.

4. Resolutions:

1) Clark County Board of County Commissioners

2) Board of City Commissioners, City of Las Vegas

3) Nye County Board of Commissioners

·4) Lincoln County Board of Commissioners

5) Greater Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce

If further information is required, please advise.

WGF:rvb

Very truly yours,

w.J.~~ W. G. Fla.ngas 4209 El Cedcral Las Vegas NV 89102

9

•... , ., •,i

.. , .

,...

STORII:G AHD MANAGING NUCLEAR WASTE3 AT THE NEVADA TEST SITE

December 9, 1974

My name is William G. Flangas and I am appearing todoy in my capacity as

a native Nevadan, and a Mining Engineer experienced in underground nuclear

Lt 1"1

-10 ·

· ... , testing ar.tivities. I am a graduate of. the Hackey School of Mines of the

University of Nevada at Reno, and am currently serving as the chairman of

....... , .

•• _- • I 1 • ' • - -- . I

the Nevada State Public Works Boa.rd. I am fomiliar with the hazards of

· · radioactive materials and operating in novel radioactive environments .. In

. -

~- ; • IT • 4

~ r : '

. ~ - .

. : ...

'' .....

1958/59 I supervised reentry into the tunnel at the first ·,;holly contained

underground nuclear detonation. I have repeatedly supe:-.- · .sed similar opera­

tions. I am also here on behalf of the Greater Las Vegnf. Chambe:." of Commerce. ·' ::·. -B~i ...... C:.-· _, ~ ·~- ., ~ ,',,... -.-· '.'.:._ ~ ·---'.CJ.';., __ ... ~ ----~ ·'"•· ,..,.

My purpose in appear:lng today is to comment on the suitability and

advantages of storing and managing nuclear wastes at the Nevada Test Site i..'1

Mercury, N~vada. In my opinion, there are six key reasons why the Nevada

Test Site should be selected as a national repository for these wastes~ They

are as follows: .. 1. Availability of professional and craft sld.lls I

:.:.·_ "(~-~r· ._ .. ·. ·, - 2. Appropriate geography, topography and climate :.<·:: ·:/··~ ..... -, .. ""':; :. • ·:_: '. · :·-' t '. ', .~ 3. Possibilities for permanent geologic storage .. ··~~

. . .. :--- -·. ~· I>

- ,.. ,i - ..:: -- ' :' ••. .. ..

....... ·.,

I

: . . ~

...

'·• ...... --J

4. - Geological and hydrological suitability

5. Availability of facilities ..: ·.::_

6. Public acceptance

1. Availability of Professional and Craft Sld.lls

The Nevada Test Site at Mercury has prominently served the nation as

en out.door laboratory for weapons testing and Plowshare tests dating back

to 1951,

. ' t . :.

During thia period, a great number of nuclear evonta have been

, ; !. : " , ~ '

• I -1-

I I ~ ; I

' l ,

:y'

...

''

detonated, both in the atmosphere ond underground, ond we have a hichly 11

.eJd.llcd cudre of professional, technical wid craft personnel who arc thoroughly

schooled in the business and have the ability to cope with the inherent hazards.

This capnbility also includes a highly sophisticated and extensive meteoro­

logical and radiological protection network, and personnel available both

. on and offsite.

The Nevada Test Site has compiled an enviable safety record in all

• · facets of testing activities. Heavy construction, drill:ing and underground

mining operations are very dangerous occupations that entail considerable

risks and account for many accidents :in the country. Some of the best, if

not the best safety records in the field have been compiled by the people

worldng at the Nevada Test Site. Nevada T_est .. S~~e personnel ~e highly . .

_ . eldlled in all aspects of safety,· both onsite for employees and off site for

..,- __ the public. This safety program :involves, in addition to the Atomic Energy .,;- ·c

i- , . __ •. Commission itself, such agencies ss the u. S. Environmental Protection Agency,

i ._:•::. 0, :· _ •-_·the U. S, Air Resouz'.ces Laboratory, the U, S, Geological Survey, the U, S.

I · .: ··.:\::-·:- ·:; Bureau of Mines, and many others. Over a period of years of testing at the I : . • . . [ >·/f :: -. Nevada Test Site 1 good communication has been established with the surrounding

j~ :_'._ ~:~.\.~i>.:·; communities in relation to Test Site activities that enable bhe best possible r . ..... ,. -{.:_:<·:.:<r. :_·'· effort to be made toward maintaining public• safety.

_::~. > .-·-: < :.' "i.'. . 2~ Appropriate Geocraphy 2 Topography and Climate :.~ ~ -~::<~:. -:--.·:

~ 'Iii... . • - -~ ~:. . The Nevada rest Site is located in a sparsely populated area some 65

- '' • - . _: ~. '";,: i_ • .. ,. . '.

:·:-_~ .:· .-·: ,.' .. : . miles northwest of Las· Vegas, and amounts to some 1350 square miles. located . . : .~ . . .

". ) ·-~ ·: · :·. on ~hree sides within the boundaries of the Nellis Air Force Rangeo Nevada . . ~.

_· :,:-·_'.-''.: . ' Test Site io rcrnoteJ. it has a. large area for testing purposes; it io already

l"•"I,. ll .-

·: ··:/ ·.· ·· ·· dedicated to nuclear purposee and hos _no population or cgricultural encroachment. . . . : • ~ : =• ' • • .. :· I

"\ • I • : 1; •

. · · · ·· : ; •· . · : . I. -- I · •. - .... , _. · ·~ .

. · ',~~:;: i. ·:: ::~_·,~~~;:<.· .~;s'.};,};:;·{j.:\>< :) . :• ~--':':i -:~ -: :-: . - : -.• --

••• (I•"

. '

. '

It has no river oystein3, or fast moving underground nquifero, or public

,highways running throueh tho area. Surrounded by mountain rongco, it ho.s -....--------- ~

12

., a built-in natural oe~urity that ·con be end has been easily maintained. Its

r·.

I -

1- , I • . -, .. ' .

I J. 1 . I.

,,.• .. ·. ; . . . ... '.

.. • ~ ·.

1-' ,-_ ~ -.

&- ....... - __ .:... .- --~·: ·: ••

... ' ~ ... ~ I

•

dry climate permits year round activities with little or no weather delnys.

3. Possibilities for Permanent Geolo5i"c Storan:e

While NTS is well suited for rctr:l.evable surface storage, it also has

strong possibilities for permanent geologic disposal. As a mining engineer,

I can tell you that we can tunnel into hard, dry, competent rock end store

the wastes there, no matter what form the wastes are in, for geologic periods

of time. For those wastes to be disturbed would take a geologic upheaval so

catastrophic that the escape of any of those.wastes would be of little conse-. quence by comparison to other damages. We also have the capability, unique

in the world, to drill large diameter holes (up to 120 inches in diameter)

. _: ___ :.:r·:.·~-· .. several thousands of feet deep into rock and geologic fonnations that would

. ·."I,. .. -- -. . ....

. . -.. : :. - ' .• • ~ - ' '.-ii,., ~·.

l ·, . . ' . -. ... . :.· -

. . _, .. -

,. - .:· ' .. . ~ - . . .

. -. '·--·

be acceptable for geologic-storage •

There also has been proposed by the Lawrence Uvermore Laboratory an

in situ permanent disposal method that contemplates injecting liquid commercial

power reactor wastes into deep underground cavities in silicate rock. The

wastes are allowed to self-boil and the steam recycled in a closed system •

When no further wastes are added, the cavity is allowed to boil dry, the heat

_melts the surrounding rock, the rock cools end solidifies, trapping the

radioactive materials in an essentially insoluble rock matrix deep underground.

This is essentially what happens with underground nuclear detonations: the

rock, melted by the detonation, resolidifiea and traps the radioactivity

deep underground. There o.lrendy are o.t NTS more than 350 pocketa of this i

rock-trapped radioactivity frcm \lllderb,Tound nuclear teata. I I

; : . :,;_ ',, ..

I - I•

-: •I ·• ;~ I • -. • ! • 1 • • .. • I • ~

.,, !

• i. ·. •• I", ' _- t .. •"<!, .-•• ' '•,4, • ._· ' .......

• - • I ~ •, '

· I ' i-._o It/'. ; •· •, ,' ·:.:,-"· .. • . ' ... . ~ . .. . .

-/ ! '. ,, ' ',: :, ::• }-.\~.> -.~. , .. II.

' : . ,· .... -·<->. ,.-;: ;,.-::,-.:.:,: 1 •. ·-3-', .. · : : .. , '\ i... . I

I :

-----·•·-·.;.·: .--·:···1"--··..t..:. ___________ ~··---------------1

I' • I '·,

. ' .. ,·. I Ir ... '. :. -- ., ! ~- .

\,

i : . A' . - :_,.~ ..

- ' ' .· .- - ~ .,. ·•

. ' .. ·'.

. ..... .... '

- ·• ... , -.- ii : ~- .

- I .. . - - , . _. .. ~ - .

. ·j ·---.

I • •

·· ... :- ~ -~= •

& .. • T ..

Whnt I run snying i!:3 this: 1:rs. is already committed to the otornee of

,radioactive wastes snfely deep underground. If the retrievable storngo

facility uere located at NTS, I'm certain further study would show UTS ouit­

able for deep underground disposal, thus eliminating tho need to move the

stored wastes except within the boundaries of NTS.

4. p-eologictl and Hydrological Suitability

Because of the numerous underground testing and drilling projects

conducted at the Nevada Test Site over the years, its geological ood hydro­

. _logical suitabiiity has been finnly established and there is no doubt the

. Nevada Test Site is one of the most highly studied and geologically mapped ' ' ·: areas that exist any place in the world.

The unique surface and ground water conditions at NTS provide excellent - . . ,._ - .

. . -.-•.·· ·: - , ..

.. • • ,a••\< I

··-·.·· ..

-- .. r • •• . . '

• .. . !:-

protection against contamination of ground aquifers. There are locations

where the surface water drains. into topographically closed basins, such as

Yucca Flat and Frenchman Flat on site. Areas which drain into Frenchman Flat

would not interfere with nuclear testing. Here, the surface water must

:·-.- ~ ,~• filter down through several hundreds of feet of allrwial fill, and then ;·, --_"" ... _·_:;: ·-· . · · •- ··• through some thousands of feet of volcanic tuff, including zeolitized and . :-~ ·.,>-:··-( ·.

:.: _ _- ~-.:~ ·<- clay zones and finally into underlying carbonate rocks before the water -.·.:- ~--q :; ·.-

. .:~.: · ..... • migrates offsite • • - :~ "... ... -~- • •• !

~ -. ~ ·:·.·:, ·i: .: ~- · , •. •.· •··- : · Measurements of flow rates in the tuff by USGS indicate that tens of . ·,

; ;•.. ,, ...

13

-'...! ·. · thousands of years to one million years are required for water ·to pass through · ·' - . .

_ this volcanic tuff, and radioactive ~ission products in solution decay to .. - ; ...

-· r· : ,:·· ·- tio.rmless levels by then. .. :•

"'. .·1i We don't bolieve that any spills would occur which would contaminate -. i

;· ~ · 1 .· - -' .. _ -:~.

. '

NTS grotmd water~ ±r ground we.tar were ~ontaminated in the 1-ro~st· possible • ' : ' •. I ' _I ..

; : >< .,/,:,·;'.': ('..J:: • , • , - , ; ' .'. I .. • .• ::, '., I • • 1

I , .• ;,_' .: ••:•\ ..,•, ,.-. :•_.• • • ,

• I '

! : : ', - .. { ,' . _- ' : I . -4-.. ' , I•,• I

' ~ -----------------...;·~1.•~------- ---· ...... _·--·-•~-- - ..... -· ~··· -~ ·-- .. ·· .... ... ... . .. . .

. . ~ ..,

'

'. . '.-- "":' " . ',. ... . ~ . .

I · ..••

case, other safety factors besides rndiouctivo decay during the lone exit ... _; ,; . : . . . '. > , _ ... · .time from NTS would apply.

... : .-\·.· .. -. ; . consideration offers this.

To the best of my knowledge, no other area under

The zeolitized tuff is Mother Nature's water - .~ 1 ~{ ~ •

. .: ! :- :·: ~ i . :"·. softener which removes fission products and fissionable metals from water : • ~ - ~ ~ \ j ': .·: - ~#

I. • by ion exchange. Based on scientific evidence, not theory, we have seen I ,; • ' • '

- ·~ -:."' ' . · i ·• -. no radioactivity from nuclear testing in the water of NTS wells, even though

,~, t, • I• :-,-

- •. ~

- & •• ~ •

·~.. I·.,~ 'It

. - -. =~ ! • 1 . . _: 't ..

. ·-=-; i_ •• ,· ;

_ .. -.. · . . \. . ~ ~ ·. ,• . ·- -~ -& - I ~. 41 '

:,. _.

. . . , ~ - ... ; .... ~. . . .

- - _:_ . ·' . -

~- .- _:~,:-:,'._/ ~- ~-'· . ":. ·- :. ··\ ... ;:" ._· .. :

--; ;_.·;~ ... ;.~_::-_:f~-- "I. 41 •

II•_•:"":- _: .•I• ........

. ,. : . • • • - IL ~ •~ • - . - . - ''

• a,. • - . ~ • .

. .-• ! r: ""• a, - __ ~.. - •

.• ~- : -:~~.... . -l:Ii:\f·,-··

•r - 'f • •• • ; ' •!ft• "~ • •

. ··. '. ,:\i"< , -~ ·"\ ·-. •,. , ~ . -

. -. _· ... ~ - : .

. . . • •· ' _1 • ' ... ... • -· . : ~,,.

•, ·"'

' . ... , .....

one of the wells in Yucca Flat is in very close prorlmity ( within six thousand

feet) of a nuclear test ground zero. We have sampled and analyzed water

from all operating NTS wells (up to 15 of them) :in a routine, continuous,

monthly basis for the past 12 years •

An.other safety factor is dilution of~ water as it migrates offsite •

Analysis of Yucca Flat's and Frenchman Flat's ground water recharge versus

discharge of NTS and additional underflowing water at the Ash Meadows spring

line, about forty miles to the southwest, mdicates that this water is highly

diluted as it slowly migrates offsite. These safety factors make Yucca Flat

and Frenchman Flat and surrounding areas ideal for near-surface storage of

- radioactive waste.

At .the north end of the Test Site are two granite stocks that are about

9.3 million years old and have withstood 20 million years of vulcanism and

seven million years of earthquakes and faultingo Fault locations have been

controlled by the stocks and forced to go around or die out at the edges •

The stocks are between one and two miles in diameter at the surface, and

:increase in diameter with depth. They are known to be at least 15 thousand

feet deep and probably oxtend several more miles in depth. The· small amotmt . '

ot water in the stocka ia virtuolly isolated from Yucca Flato

. : . I . . :. : .: I ·:; . . . : .. ' t _. '! : ,· . . : .. r .. . .. . -. '·1··-

1, I . • , I

. ~ i' . s,,-

+· I

:14

----·----·--..... ------. . . ...- _,·:....:..i... .. __ ·- --~---- _________ , ........ ~., ... ,.,., .....

.... , \.

,. . ·. -~ is .. : . ',,.:· ·. In ohort, much of the Ncvndn Teot Site is tmiquo clooed bns:ino nnd

•• • ~.-1 : · ; · • rnassivo geologic structures which geologicolly ond hydrologically inhibit . ... ·e. ;_ ·:, ·. ·. . water migration from the. Test Site.

• .. I .• " . ~ .... ·

· ·< _': r; :··:: 5. Availe.bility of Facilities - . •_ ~ ~;. :• • I ....... •

We have a considerable capital investment in available buildings that .. - . ~ ~ ~ : ~

:- : can be modified for use at minimmn cost. The Nuclear Rocket Development

- - •. I • -. :-•··.

•, '. ~ ---: ·:~. : :

·, ~ .. ·,

. . . ·. . : '·

.. .· ~ - .- :•· . . ' -, : :. - . . ' . .. 'I. I . ~ :" ; ~- . ,_ : '

~ '!: • •

.. • ' ~ ' + • ,w:., • • I

-: • ••

. ; -.:-:-~·~: ·- - • 1- • -- . -- ··: .

- . - . ~--. ;: ... ,.,. - : -. ~ .= ,: ...

_"?'_- "(_... ' ·--.. •·.- .

. - -" . ~ ·-;_.

-~- <' ": "$,

···:.-~ ·<-.-~-: . ·:·

\:\ ~ ·\.)::\.' :'.._ •, • • • • ~ • T

• -~ .:_::! --:....,_·. :· --;...• ". ~ .:

Station, now a part of NTS, presently has facilities available which could

readily be modified to serve as receiving and handling facilities for encap­

sulated radioactive waste. The principal facility that could readily be

adapted is the E-MAD building at Jackass Flats. The E-HAD (which stands for

Engine Maintenance, Assembly and Disassembly building) is 80 feet high,

enclosed in a fenced area of 36 acres, and controns 100 thousand square feet

of floor spaceo It is heated, ventilated and cooled by eleven separate

systems, · comprising a total of 30 supply and exhaust air fans. There are

600 kilowatts of interior and exterior lighting, a 75 thousand-gallon water

storage tank, 31 large power operated shielding doors, 40 lead glass shielded

windows,· a 12-channel closed circuit television system, and a 21-channel

µiternal com'l1unication network that ties together all the world.ng areas.

Two 300 horsepower boilers and an 800-ton 2-stage centrifugal refrigeration

-system provide the facility with temperature and humidity control.

Included in the special remote handling facility are an overhead bridge ... -~ ~ ~~ ~ .. :; ;(: \:· ~·-: -

. , '.',' .••· · ,. crane of 40 tons capacity, with a 10-ton auxiliary hook, two unique sidewall

:; ~r 1' ' • • .• l · .1

~•I._ • "'' ! . I(•••. t •

., • • : ; T,;•, : •. ·- ! ~;.... _,:. . "i - .' ... _ . -• ·; ..

II ~ ,r • -.

' ; .. --. -... ·. ;

I,

----·:·. . . ... · .. ,

manipulators capable of handling loads up to 600 pounds at the end of a 35-foot

arm, a .35-foot diameter turntable of 00-ton tur¢.ng capacity, three scanning

and photographic periscopes ~d ten muster-slave manipulators •

The E--}{AD canplcx comprises eight different fnnctional areas; receiving

end storage, cold os• C!llbly, hot dioasse.mbly,,hot calla, ahopo, office, facility l .. I ' < ' . ·, ., .. :_,;, , .. ·. '.~·

,l • • II • • • I

: i ••• i

,.··~ ;_ ·. :' ·.:·-:\)_\·>· i

' ' . . : . i .' • , . : . :·v ....

- ·•I. ' I

·• I '•: •· •I It

.. ,:

'·= '·"'. . ~-, •· -· "- · · : · circuit systems, and the remote-controlled railroad ayotem. Construction

I ~ • 9

I !e. ·_.-: -·: . 'I .. - .... •

I ·:- . : ·. \ :· • • • , • .1

. . .... ,•

. was completed and activation of systems started in 1965. Tho overall co• t

. of the E-MAD complex, including circuit facility, rnilroad systems and

facility equiµnent, exceeded fifty million dollars. I : ; :·: -'.;..: . . . ,,.,

'i: ,. \_.::: _-, · We believe the E-HA.D facility, since it was designed to handle highly

· :: . :. / , · radioactive· materials remotely,· would, with modlfication, be ideally suited -. :·-~-->-· ."· ._ . ~

__ . - : ::._;·, . as a r'eceiving facility for handling corrmercial radioactive waste. • .... ...: :-"' ,._

.. ·:_ . ::--(. ·.·. - _ .. _ .. 1 .... 1

I • ,. ,-.-. -:.-:' -_•

.... J ·:•, •

. , ---~~~- ··; :>.;- &t . ···•'.•

- -~ - ,• -~

. '~ .. ~ .. ~ ·:.: -. . .; . - _::_ ' - ·-.•· - " .

• • : -- •• -~ 4

- ..,._. ·~ ,' .. . -~..;... ._·_ ._'.: -; ·:'~, . -...

.': : :{ ::.;_)-;: :.:'.;.

6. Public Acceptance

Thousands of NTS workers and their families live in Las Vegas and have

developed a high degree of confidence in the AEC and the safety of Test Site

activitieso The outst_anding job 8afety record at NTS and the safe conduct

of nuclear testing have both contributed to this confidence. Both local ': _:':/~ ·• ~ rl

, · · ·· ., • -~ · · })Opulation and tourists scarcely nodded when nuclear weapons were being

,- .:~~\-',_;·}- ·-r, .' . det-onated above the surf ace, not too many years

·_·:::.:-.:·_:<~~:~·'· __ ~·-:. - On a coldly scientii'ic and technical basis

ago.

- NTS is the most logical of

the three ~ites being proposed. However, :in addition, the continued economic

benefits to be realized from locating the RSSF in Southern Nevada are well .

,":··;= • · recognized by hardheaded business and community leaders. Nevertheless, these ----·.: .. _\·.r::·~ . '/ cp':..!:~}~.'-''::·:- : · community leaders would not take risks with their families or their businesses . -~ • ·-: =: ;"~:~ • ·.1·

for these economic benefits. They, too, are convinced that NTS can be used

safely for radioactive waste storage., Several prominent labor leaders in ...... > :":\ '.-; .· our cormnunity also have endorsed the location of this facility at NTS. They, ... .,. -I'~ • ; ..•

:;-_ // •· ··. : too, are cognizant of the many ramifications of the nuclear business and are • .: ,'\ i, • ,- _., .••

·~ · •\ ·;. :; ::: · very proud of their contributions toward our preeminence at NTS in this field. . ·\, .. ~: ~ ,.,_. _._ : 'i ,,

· '•~·:/_: · Storage of high level cont&rninnted rndioactive uaste e.t NTS is canpatible

.. ' f: -_.-: ., ~ rlth mdorgromid nuclear woapono testing t-Thich he.a olroady osaent.iolly otorod

. .

.:::-:-, ..... :' ·::- :.\ :\'.: ::,::'.: ' (<< ~-:,-\ •. • - I' -:•" •. ,• P_I ,"i, •• •• , • I, ; • .•.

.. . ,. ......

---•-••---••,.•-• I

'. ,' .. \

: • I ' I • ,, •: ..

-·••• ,,•.- ... I

• I • ,, ... .,. • _.,. I

I _ ._7-. ' I

. ·1 '

~- _· :} :•.-_: · Y''·

I ;

I ...

; I I

I .• r ,.-'- '/ .. ; .

I;

' ; • • I - ' ••

• I

, 17

"': ..... •-:. • •t ..... •

- .. ~

,- __

radioactive wustes in some surface areas and nwnerous underground areas

. without hazard to the public. Radioactive wantc otorage end management ia

·· a natural follow-on to serve as a future mission for rns.

I have reviewed the data concerning shipment of high level nucleor wastes

and particularly noted the provisions made for shipping.the high level nuclear

wastes. I am c~~pletely satisfied that the hundreds of tests that have been

·-' : . ~ • •. ;·:. _, .. conducted on the shielded shipping casks are going to provide us with highly •• I - • _' •• • - •

'.: -[__,.-_:·.:, _ reliable containers.. The design that includes- such items as the ability to

i • · .. _._ -.... y ·- , • ··- ,

withstand a free fall frcm a height of JO feet onto an unyielding surface, . ·- .

-.. •

i '. - ,. --~ a free fall from a height of four feet on a six-inch dimneter steel rod, I - , ... -1- - .'.:'.::.·: -/ I . -: ~: . heat input from exposure of JO minutes to a fire having a temperature of at

1: -_:--r:: ··:.-' . least 1475° Fahrenheit, and total innnersion u: water for eight hours is .. . . --... 1 ·•. . , •·:

I )(:. -. - . · ...

:·•::::~-<_---

; : .. ~ . ' ··-:1·.-:.. ~ <II ,, .-

r~assuring.

Much has been _said in recent years on developing alternate sources of ' .

energy, such s.s solar poNer, harnessing the winds and tides, geothennal energy,

etc. I approve of continuing our efforts to develop these. I also realistic­

ally recognize that breakthroughs here are many years away. Nuclear energy

_. ~ ·:} ·,t.:" · !s a now proposition and in my opinion is our best approach to meeting our

: , .<·:; }-~··;~~ energy needs, for several decades. -. .. : ~···:E~ .: .. -

-., . ·. ~

.. - . "'."

An abundant and reliable source of energy reflects the strength and

vitality of our nation. I get deeply concerned over the negativism that has

surfaced again and again in recent years in relation to anything technical,

~ _ .":-·>- ;'. particularly in regard, to power generation. I have been intimately acquainted • • ..,_.,.: ·: i I

. ' ·, '•

.. - .i .. with nuclear weapons development for the past 16 years. I readily admit that

I don't lmow everything there ia to lmow o.bo".1-t this business, but the one

thing I know for certsin, I don•t ever lHUlt to be in second place., I don't

' ----•-•·· ········••--•- .. J. ..... , J

, .

. ·­' ·: '·

' . /' l

,· : -, ~. · .. : l .. : . : .·

. .. ., i .. '

I

!./ .t

18' , .. ,, fear the future and I huvo great faith in our o.bility to meet the complicationo

I • •,,--. ·: .,_.· .

J • ', •• .. , .. , ... ,. ··r•!.~ ~,- ~, ....

· and hozo.rds involved with developing alternate sources of energy to meet

our needs. I do fear the hysteria end the inaction and the poor jude;rnent

tpat is constantly leveled in this field. There is risk in all progress.

Only those who are willing to move out after proper study and evaluation of

risks are entitled to the fr,;its of progress. This is not a license for

recklessness, but a call for action and decision, once our best technical

evaluations have been made.

In Southern Nevada, we have the s)tllls, the desire, the area, the geology

end the need ·for this project. We have a local population acclimated to

nuclear activity. We are proud of our contribution to the Nation's security

._. ·, : . ' ~- ' ' and are cognizant of the economic benefits to our community. There is no

·.· -:-~- 1/}/?··.~,:-'. -· doubt in my mind that our preeminence in nuclenr activities has been the

·. (<{.;~f- ·:, keystone of maintaining the world peace. There is no doubt in my mind that

;_:~~.:2 : .. :;:· the United States must rema:!rt preeminent in this business. Abundant and

_:~_ '.·:/·.::_: ·:\,_-_. reliable energy is an essential ingredient, not only_ in the security of this f ~-- ,f~:-•(•~• .. ,.-r•: .•: .~ •

.'·:>~:~v-':' ·-';·· nation, but for much of the world. America must always be able to enforce

.. : ; . :--·\-'.\• ·:-. :· . . ' : ·_ ·: ·_ ... •,,: ·: '" ' ; . .:\ i'­I·,·.>--- :: 0.?. '..- ·_peace; not beg- !or it. ·. -·: · ·. ·-i- •.';: · .- :~. ·.-

f .. ·. -

.,,. _- .; ~ .

.. , .

.. ,_ ..

.. ;~ \~~. ::~. ,.•·'

,, I ~ . l .. : _: ; ..... , •. • .. ~ ~- I

: I'.· ••. -

~~/ ! ~~--~·,\:-~· _., ....

• ~I., •, I• I

• ••I: • \.~- • •: -> ;- • • - - II"" . ; ......... · ..... . ·.·- .. _· ..... ·: ........... _ ._.- . I .' _,. · • •". ,,. . ;I I · , • . · _ ,/ " l •

'II - •-, !,~.~ .. !• ,, .. ~·. ; '.ii..? -·.· .: ... ,. ,: ; : ' . ' . ·' I ' ._ • · .

. ...,,_-~---';'.~,: '· .. · ;:·/ -~_..\_-.-.. _~/->,_::_::.·:-\·;:~·~·-:;~- .:·· '." . . ~ .

,, ' .. . ,· ••• ' • I ' I l- : l • ~ ~ ·, • 1 .. ._ : • -,-

• .- 1 ,1,!' I ff 1- •• \ '•, •' •, I

•• 't ' • ' : +.. .' I , :.! -I:- ·; ':': :, . '; . t ·;:.: • I I.

.. -•

'

J ~I. Go Fl-angas ~09 El Cedernl ta.o·Vegas, Nevada

.. l - ,

-9-

• I • I

. : ' .. . · . .-. .. .. ~ _·] -,

.-• •; • ! . • • i ~ • I

j • • I"·: I••',-\ : . \ ' ; •_

, I, ,

,'·. ~

;' : . : ..

•. --~~···~ LL.~- - - __ ,...,_ _ __. ____________ ... , _____________ ----~ -- -- --

• [: ., 1'. . ", ,•, ·1 . ' . - ,':;I·.

-•·r • ,_ '. .. • I _,, ,r, . I • . • ... -. , ; •

. . • -. .• .: . :j '•.·,-·.•.j . : ., /. -~, . ••' _ ...

~'-\·1.i,. ·r-:w. 'i' 1· '·. I ••a• l • •,. l • •

·:'/{f;.}/• . (i: ·: /'.'--{' : ::'/}1/\) • -:- - --... •• • w.· ·~

~{ \(('.'.:::' :· . - ;. ~ \ "i.'·;, . ·.·• . .-:.

. .. - . ' ~

'.:9,;::a,·r 'I:•.

:;}[/t~itt. :·· :._:~:-.·~//:ti\:'.·,\·

!:b)(i')'.!~\ • •· jt .. . 0-' ''., . H ;,-....... ·: ,·.;,: \ .·:_·I· •. -, ... ·.. . . i .. ' .. ~· .•.~ .: . ' I ( I .,I • .,,, _, • •

•· ~ •• •. ,I I 1'1. - . ' • • ...alt: I~•\ ••,, • '

!·.~·-\,'··~·.: : I ._, • /,., •• 1 I '• '• .,,

: .... ~--~j ~-:~ ;.::,- i':: ·,. •._~ .~~,.·•·:·<. .. ' ... ~'('.. . . ~

~ ',/ . I 1 VALl · TIMES Thursd:iy, December 12, 1971,: {,I . . . '

' , V••. r: ,

•· . I . -.. -, ---Vcm ll ll,~ J) '1r ~irnnl~ 5----- l

. ,- , .. . : ' . . ~~- : ..

I _•) ,,\I• I : •

· .....

f1ITf

; · ., . A! (:1 ", :·,1 :1 ; iP . (!,,. ~itJ!. (/it& IJIV (y. & ~I (v.

' ,·

.,. · -

. ,_

•· .I I.

; • f i ~·:· ~ ; _·

;':.i:' ~-'. ]L . (!\ .- •· .• :>. :·J {!,.:,-:: e1tr'§ be· nU1cR<ea:rr ·, :.,

• • • ;:··-,, ••

}"~1 I • ~, ••

~:·:: :'.: ,_... '· . ·-~ r;i. ,.. .,,.! ~ .. I ··] ·~::L ·,·- -_ · o · i'g

{-:~,-... · ·.wa§te sfto1r2lge s111te ., __ .-,, 1''1 · ' . •• I 11._J ;~ .. :, 'I

))f > The question or whctherSout~-- _, sci~ alr?ady is _Im own a~ U!~) ; , ,.;'' .cm Nevada should become the site ., maJor site for nuclear testing in,

,t<<~· .or a massive center for the stor- ·: this nation, and _Southern Ne- J :,.:,/ ing and managing of nuclear . vadans liavc never shown any 1 ) < I ••

. ::.':! ,• wastes could be one of the most .,great apprehension about this-,1 ~_} _ _:,;- . important decisions to confront.• and the possible dangers from j :;,,•,,. ••, • the state in many years. "-'.: fallout or radiation lcal\age. 1 ~t: · The Nevada T~st Site at_ Mer- ... THOSE WHO O~JECT to Io_cat-_1 ,;,,::.··· cury apparently ,s one of three .. - mg the waste site here Cati to., \')\•; ,. sit~s t~ndcr. con~idcrali_on b?' i\t- ... · r~alize that for many l~ng years,:! ;(:: ·_·: om1c Energy officlals.1 he others_· r srnce underground nuclear test-~ !:<:.·•._arc in Idaho and the· state oi i' ing first began, substantial rad- j ~•.';:·! Washington. ~·-·•.ioaclive wastes have been locked 1

~-:~_~,::;_., .. WE CONF~S that _m!r_ initial . ~-r away deep u~derground ·at the-~' ·,\,, •--; __ ;reaction to this poss1b1hty was'·.- Nevada Test Site.. _ .. t.',\·, ... somewhat negative. Why Nevada? .. ,.: Over the years we have de-: rt~~.: .. What good would it do th~ stat:?.-_ vclopcd_ a great deal o~ ~onfi-. ,~·'.._·:,":-·. What about the safety? Wnat will '-' dcnce 111 the AEC's ability to f:Y• . . · the environmental impact be? : cope with nuclear.- testing_ and ( F?'•, What effect could it have on·.: radioactive waste management·{ ,f,~/ .the state many years from now?.'. in a safe manner. There is always .1 ':.-·\·\ .~ These were but a few of the ;- the danger of something happen-), {·_,:_•:·=.'_ Questions that raised serious . ing, but the safety track record ~ g-1,:·:: . doubt for u5; and, we are sure,-.= at the Nevada Test Site is so J .•.'.; : . ... 1many Nevadans. · · unbelievably good that. we chart ''. ~-'~ .. , But more extensive cxamin- ·:·our own safety fears. at zero./} ~.::.-' ation of the various '!actors in-. FOR YEATTS NOW, our states- :

·:c: ·. volvcd now lc:ids us to believe .' men and scientists and leading : .!,f; ·. U1at Southern Nevada is the log- -· writers· have been telling us that.,~ (;•:,.: "lea! choice for the waste di.spo.sal , we arc livin_r, in the i_mclcar age . .'f :.~,,:.,-.site, and should welcome the .. : This is true. But it is equally ~

l{-'.:·: decision if we arc selected. : ·. true Uiat we have, even as th~ ·f flt~ - IT SEEMS OBVIOUS that this · . n<1tion U1.1t led the _way in nu-:, r:·.i· :. · area is idc:il from a geographic ·clear development, failed to make l l-'.,::·. standpoint. We arc not a hir:h . use of its full potential as a pea" •·

·. -,',_:: ·, density pnpul;ition center. The ·· ccful energy source: 1 ••::\ Nc\'ada Test site it.self is a fuli ·.. In reality, this nation may only· ; /.,-: .• fi5 miles away ;ind covers a mas- . now· be on Ute ihrcshold of the , ·~• ;__ slvc 1,350 squa1·c miles. Thero··. 1 real nuclear era. Nevada siiould 1 > •· ', ls a ~ood deal of scientific cvl- •t b~ at the center of it. Our :: !,\> .. dcncc that this remote· site is . selection as a site for nucicar :i

• •.! r.. ceolor,lcally ldc:il as well.· .waste stor:ir,c ;ind nnna1:emcnl •j }.;.: .. ·• Beyond that, Southern Ncvad11 will givo us added credentials ln '•· ,". hnR a rer.cnolr of tnlcnt; !mow- - · (his new nuclear era. We cannot ..

__ ,.';~)-:' lcdr,nbl Illy nnd -~~ro,~i.cnco. In nu-. , n fiord -lo _ turn our. b_a cits, on it., ·J ·.·\'.,..;,.,.ctcr..r ,111.llttorn; lhn If'st Slle·1t 4 • Wo mu.st boa pnrt of it. . . _ ·.1 •6

..

' ••""•·t.t.,11'4v,1..,._,.,h."••-".......,.._!4Ml+-t»,-,..,,.,J.,~..-• ....,.__ .... 1•-4-••• ,L· ...... .,..,i,k.,,:i,.,.,.,,~•·•"'•·, 11 , , .• 1 ,-'•.,~•-•·

. '

'.'

. , i' - 'I ..

. . . . ~ .

. ~-

~ j ·,

)- _. .... , ..........

19

' '\ . ~ .

I-, t1: :-

..:1; •

,j:

.·.'1

;, I.•••

,_._ -

·~ ...

I :" .. '. ·:-

1-

• / ,r

. ....... ,I ...

;:}}.\.}. ' ;~i:-:/.\·~:-· t r-Jj 8r7'[JJN~• ~-rr

{

• /;--., 1 ; "· ~ . I.:;- 1 , l \_ ~ ,.,;•f.--: ~

.Sr(/)~ LAS V[GAS SUN Thurid•y, Dec, 12, 197• f, \~;~,,~(\ !, ,_.1.'.f. • ', - • •• .. I(•' : ,:~•: •'••

[ii".Wi? ·: :_ TodaY's Editorial ··· ... ·-}., t. - i ••• I ~ p .. ._ _.'_ f:. II '

i'.J~:f(X AtomicEnergy /ZJ.i !r;f~'(rj,.{·/Off e rs Best Source.-.:>.

't~r·~!•: :., ·· · ·· ltif · For Fuel .Supply ·:.·: '· <I:• • . • . :·:.i,-. ·-:: -: · An easy way lo develop a case of nerves these days 1s to listen lo

:l'~~L::{/} . . . - . . -. . . . . . . < · ~•:\~: ... ~; wme o[ lhc "scenarios" for disaster pu. forth by people who want lo .·: ~s•·::::·:·>Car~ u~ into a ma)or mmal of national policy regarding peaceful-~

;.:,,,,,-., .. ~application of atomic energy. _· . ·j I!:/i; ~ • .- A freakish combination of failures In the safety s~:5tems at a-· ·.} I [.L/t :: Y1Ucle2r p_owcr pl~nt coul~ d~spcrsr: rad1oac:mlty !or m.llcs aroun~ •-.}.l ! \;•--~:.',;.:<·. ruid possibly "melt a ho1e m the cnrth all the way to Chloa. · . .-, .. j [ld.1t'(:.-)~,. -Terrorists mlght Invade a.n atomic power. plant &nd thr.e~tcn lo ··: 1 :j t::(it~·_:.: blow It up. Nuclear m31Cnals might ?e st01tn to mak~ a pn~ldve . i·.·i

1~ ; .. '.','-~\';"' u!omlc bomb that could be used I.:, olackmail an entire nation or .:·_~ '.·'} (.\i''.:: .. the world. An accident In the t.ransportation oi plu:onium could <j 1-:,-.: :-::• .. i · viipe out vast numb~rs of peopic. · - · i ~-(/•) Whal makes these conjenu,cs so worrisome is that not even lhe :_j

il;t,:,;,/{. ).most ardcn: suppomr,~f atomic :_nergy can argue that n is absoluleiy ,1 ·

l,\ \'~~ .. J lmposs!ble 1~: t.hc1'.1 lO_ nappen. lilgrily 1m?ro_oa.ole to b€ sure, but not ~l ·r::. ,\:} Impossible. 1 ne oniy n:gntmare ru1eo Out uat1y IS that a riuc1e;;r power_ .1

I r/;-_.:·-.:_,.planl could expiode Li_ke i;n ator.tlc_ bomb. '.J:'h_e l;.ws eii physics slm;ily :4 (~" •:'iFOUld not permit that. ·: . . ·. ~ t_ ! _ · ,-: · _ ... .· . , --'.~

I i{i;:_l-•,; ~-\ -. J • • _·. • .. _' •• ·, _' •:· :.~ ';t°,° ." ... _:: -\~:

,,::,,'.~:•.c_::;, · Stated Risks • .-~J- #'" •"i •• ~ 't. • . . ....

f(\\;' We are ldl, then, with an assumption of c:rtain.risks as we push::

l'..,:.~,'i'..!';'- on with de:c!opment ?: nuclear power. There is a l~ndency, especially .-~ •·,::.•. _, among env1ron;nent.aLsts trv1ng to block construrnon ol new atomic tr~.,_,:: power plants, lo ovcrstat>: risks. The f3c:l is, lhe risks they recite in their ·' tt{) \ s-:enarios_are on a par with the risk we all run of being nit on the hca9 b:t_i 1 !,·,.•:;< ~ i mclcontc every Ume we step ouwoors. ,.j i:\\';;· {_; A two-year study o( :.ccl;lcnt probabilities recently com•_:,.~ f.; :\ ;•::·:;,pie led by Dr. Norman C. fiasmussc • ol lhc i\lassachusctts institute , : 1 I-·.·• . ·1 . : \ f:,-~. :.,, ·;. o( Tcchnolof;)' shows that the lrcri'Jcncy of a "core melt" accident ] r~::··.:\ •'~,. wllh any mcasuratle effects would be once In l,70,J years ii !here ·:., ''.it'::i: ,~· arc 100 power reactors ln operation, es there are hoped lo be by •",1

'{/'.::} 1980. Stated another way, the odds 1•,ould be 300 milllon to l lhul a :j ~·: ·• :•·.:-: ( person lh-ing within 20 miles ol a nuclca power pbnt mlghl_bc klll• · ·:·i , ; .-;, ,, .. · • td by such ;in accident in any one }car. '··

i· :: .·. ·::_.'·:· St..1lislically, lhal sJme pmon now runs a 1,IXlQ to 1 risk of bdnr, ·. ·.\.··:,: klllrd In an aulo ac:c!dcnt or a lCrJJf.<} lo l risk o( beln~ k.illed ln an air ••

:;.;'-~:: craft accident. We h:ivc 11·.-cd 11,ill~ lho_sc fl5L1 ~Ince the car anct ;:!rptanej ; i ,;•,; •·. Wero lnvcnkd, tnd our mp:in!& n11 Cs.'"en to try \o t;ulld ultr cm ,incl: p 1· -J,. •. pLrnc, and kam to u,e LJ1cm tafcly:;. -.. \ .... ·' i _.. , ., {: ·,: : •• : ·.; , : , .

4-..J bd f jtd t~ +"e' 11

0 l~~~~{~•-:·;.,,1\1. ~~:", -, ; ,., .....

'r

}

' ·I

... •• •• :: i ••• ··-••l-•1.-L-- ~• ... ,0 ···•~·T··•••__,.;..i,..~

F r l- ·{.. r

• '.

t: ... . . ri.-). '. .. la LAS YE GAS SU'I

{ '· ., j, :.-\ ;". y -, ·. _- ~ .. •, .. .- .

Today's Editorial ·1

' r ·. /I •. -,J I I,

·"

I

;•I.

l... . ... ·'. · .. ' J.".

. 1 I •~

Nu cl ear Vt✓ aste Storage Plan .<,j . -...

--~ ..... --·-····-·

Deserves Study . •\·

\ ·.-. • '·

r.· -. ' · Whether wastes from nuclear-powered generating planLs will

eventually be store-ct at the Nevada Test Site is a matter of current , :, .. debarc and the dccision should te basc<f upon fact. not emotion.

·. · Opponents of the p!an hm·c already raised qucstioos of possi-. 'i. f· b!e coat.antination of air and waler, !oss of tourism and possible

_ ·: : , .... sabot.age by faoatica! groups . . .'.. . · Gov. l\1ikc O'Callaghan has asked that the state continue to be · considered as a possible storage site, pro\1ding certain conditions are

-.. · ... :; . met. These include: _ ·

' · · ·:, Minimize Dangers '.\. "?

. . !

i

· , The governor, among other conditions, has said he will insist that ;",

1

-f · -· : the waste be cooled by a.ir to minimize danger on cor.l3mination of · ,. (·:; : ground water and that a rail spur to transport the nuclear waste be con- -: l ('.:>(' slruclcd away from pop;ilation centers. f t

.).f. , There should be concern about safctr and security in the · ,:_ J . handling and storage of radioactive materials, but fc:u--s about possl-

·i;;" b!e accidents should not b!ir:d us to the fact that the Test Site is un-{; .~ ' 1 fque!y fitted for the mission because of two major factors: '.'t f · , . . The most important is the presence of a work force highly skillc<l ;:. '· . in all aspects of handling radioactive material. .. '

;; :- .' The second is 'the natural terrai!J which, geographically and !-.{ - geologically seems to be ideal for the type cf project the government has -1-, i:. 1n mind. /

--·~.-. Skilled ·Personnel ... '] ~.--~ ~- ~-

These factors were stressed by Las Vegas Mining Engineer William G. Flangas, who has workc<l at the Nevada Tc.st Site for many yea.rs in connection with undcrg-round testing acthitirs. in a recent appearance before the Las Vegas City Commission seeking public sup-: ·:!_.

• .•.- port !or the storage project. ) .r- ";;;ij ·-~~8 'ij ~-~ 0 w ~·~ j _£'fl, .:U§g-[

He s~ld because of experiences with tbc nuclear testing > · · , program, there exists !ocal!y a bi1:b!y skincd c2drc of professional,

· technlcal and craft personnel thoroughly schooled in handling . radloacU\'C material 11.nd \\ith the "ability to cope \\ith the inbcrcnt

-1. ~ t? ,Q):;::::: -i:::,

:;.-··1 ., 0 :S [! "' ~ "'u "-'-"' ~- V1 ~. .s .. ~ -5 0

p .· ~ " '

haL.3.rds." He also notc<l that the fest site is one of the most "highly studied

and geologically ma.ppcd areas" of the world which has established its

""~ .!'.12 'ti

'., '1 ~ -~ ~ 8 -g :5 ..->ii, ~;:i,-...,C:S

·~ l ~ -g_ ~ c:: '3 ;,:; :;:t~ u'ar::]1·

suitability as a storage site. , :n , 4

'Natural Security' I·~

' g ~ .E .,_, :2 ~ '..>--.~i:: .g:oEE1:! f-o:=::l::'J§oc::;1';.o ~ E · g 9 ·0 ~ 6 5-l vi .o .i:: -~ o, B -

...,'B....,E:5.S a; CJ ~ 0 ~--ci Flangas also notc<f there is no popufation or ;igricultural · :-· 1..c: ~ ~ - 1! '--' e ""

I -:::= b CJ. --.J =.:,- ~ 1,.,0 Cl.. !:"-~ - encroachment upon the test site, thus reducing water contaminJUon , ~ • ., ·;;: z -g ,g .;.J .3 ~ 'i .' ~ Uircats Uiat a major ril'cr system is l.:Jcking and surrounding mountain f :',1' .S - "' "' g

t Q<i>~3~'1J~~ ;i. · ranges "Built-in natural security" which has b~n and can easily be - .-,;:: •; ,;:, .a 5 3 "-' 1• ·wd "'"'"':::iact 1: mam ne . . ( ~ ~ 2 " '"

0 ti

The test site Is the most lo[:ica! storar:c facility of three sites "' :;:, ~:i <.r ~j -5; 'aJ ::::? "> L. =-.. 0 u ...0 =i Proposed, F:!anr,as also as;crts bcc:iusc it already is the repository , .{ r· -8 :5 "' c, ~ .,.. _g

,. ::I-'"'.,, :il'-c3 :=i.,, ~ ; : 1 _ of pockets of hfr,h rndloacU\ity as the rcsu!t of more lh~n 350 un- .'';" g., t~ g. -:0:: :5 _=: ;::, .,'J

I _ 1 dcrr,round nuclear lt.sts. Tl1e snfety record c-cmpi1rd liy r;ovcm- ' · . \l t &: ~ {;' ~ 1} ; ] ~ ; ;_. 1 rucot ngcncles Bnd prlnte contrnctors duri:i~ the te~lin~ proi::nm ,

1 . ';J & .. ~ .,t

1

~ 2;

(/'I. ,-- rrsullcd In wide public accept.nncc of the pro&rnm and its possible .'.\ i . • "~ ·§ ~ ~ ~ -9 •: 1 • • • danger, be noted, · · . . L t·' ,· . . Fbnga3 emphasized furtl1cr that existing facilities at the Nuclear ·. -.~ •.• ' _· _, - ~:._· : •. · •. · .•. ~· i .·_ flockct Dc\·c!oprncnt St.1tion could be modifird at minimum costs to __ _

· scrw a, receiving and handling !Jcilit.ics for the radioJctivc wa:(c. q. : Orir,inal Investment in one complc.t ~l'aibb!c for use was about $50 , ,. l~l).~~l~: F'L1JJ~as riatc,, a~d-~~"'u·l~cal~y suited Io~-~hc prop~~~ stora-~c. ,.:;

. ( - . (_

,21

,

I

I

- ~ .

r ~ . { '

WHEREAS, the Atomic Energy of the United States

has developed a Dra..ft Environmental Impact Statement on Management of

Commercial High Level and Transuranic Radioactive Waste; nnd, .

WHEREAS, the Atomic E_nergy Commission is considering three ,. ..

• · i sites for storage of such wastes, namely: the Idaho National Engineering . ,!

Laboratory, the Nevada Test Site, and the· Hanford Reservation in . .

_ · . Y,ashington; and,

••• t ••

•L •) '

22

. :. - . . _.,. .. .: _-

.. ·

-:;· .. ~.·.~ . - ~ •· .! -._ ••

,. --

I •

I . I •

- ·. :-_~ ·: \VHEREAS, the Atomic Energy Commission had previously allowed

. _.: ·public comment to the Draft. Environmental Impact Statement from

September 12, 1974 to October 28, 1974; -and,

!':.~_:·:· I -

r 1.---

1-· ·-j••.-

WHEREAS, the Governor of the State of Nevada has reqqested that

all Nevada citizens be give·n every opportunitY: to comment on the Draft • . I •

·- • -·. ··. Environme??,tal -Impact Statement; and, ,i • .- •• :••• I

/ . ·. .-.. ,·

r .' •

.. ,. ~ - . -_ ~ _· .• .-.. .

••• ··+•. -

·. -·.·.• ..

... - ·.. t .

.. _ .. --

I •• I -

.. · - !

·'

.. ,

WHEREAS, the Atomic Energy Commission h·as ag~eed to extend the

• comment. period to December 12., 1974, by conducting a public hearing on

December 12, 1974, at ·10:00 A. M. in the Ramada Inn., 999 S. IVtain Street

in Salt Lake City, Utah •

\ ..

NOW, THEREFORE., BE IT RESOLVED that the Doard of County

. Commissioners do hereby endorse the request bf the Governor of Nevada, ~ ' . .

nn~l urge the residents of Clark County to review ond comment on the · J . .

· Dtn!t Environmental lmpact Stntcmcnt. 1

•T ~ # .._- r

4 •• .>~ ,... .

. :.~; .. . .... ~.,;- . -• .. rccsqJut10n.

c.- December. 1974 , Page Two

.. '9-·: BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board support the designation

· of the Nevada Test Site as the primary storage site for radioactive

wastes and parlicipat~ in the public hearing of December 12, 1974.

1 & •••

PAS.SED, ADOPTED AND APPROVED this 5th day of Deceraber

1974.

23

. ,

' -_ -i;:· i. ·!· .· : ' < ~ /~~-:1tv/---i-. --

. TOM }iVIE~JCHAIRfylAN -1- ·:· ·I·· , I. J · :

'9l--· - -, · ·ATTEST:

---_- ·. _-- f.\ i ~- I

- - '. r '. , .. '.· 1 I I

. I : '•

. . • I

'· ..

~ I •

I ; •,

j· ... : .

I

I ' ~ ) .. . . .. ' : f . : · -·· r . : . : . I ., I

,. '

' ••

.. ·, ,· ·• ,. .

.-,•1 ... , . I,'•·•. ·.... \ .· .

_• IJ 1' .\ '·.

,. .. '· "' \,. ....

BOARD OF COUNTY CdlvTIVIISSIONERS

~-. •. ' - . . t. ; .

. . . . ' - . . ... •\ ...

,. . -·~ .

... -

,'I . . ' I

...

.. . . . . ,·

\::/,:){ .. . -.. ' . ' .. ,- .. ·. . ~ ... .

• ·-- ;·._ { • • : • ••

'\, ~ . • • •· 4• . 'I I

, . ( )

'.\

RF.SOLUTION

i I

. ..:e .... , . - ____ __:...-.---------- ·-·-_:·:_::_-_· __ · ,_), •. :_-:,:;::._:_:_··, .. : ..... WHEREhS, · the Atomic Energy Commission of the United States ha.a dovclopcd

• ·a Drnft Environmental Impact Statement. on Hanngcment of Commercial High 1- •. .,, ·._··:-, _J'

. t~·,' .. ·_'./ .:·:· ;·-.:;_:_:· __ .' Le11el nnd Transuranic Rndionctive Waate; and -

I· - ; r · · • i . . . • ,. . __ : •

. ,:-. ::. :~-::_:~:-~;::_::::··

J:._-)?{: : •. --4t~ ·:~~ •• :,.~. -~-~ ·:.· .......

WHEREAS, the Atomic Energy Commiasion is_considering three sites for

atornge of such wastes, namely: lbe Idaho National Enginef!ring Laborntory,

the NevndaTest Site, and the Hanford Reservation in Washington; and

·-1-- <?.: :>·~:-· . .. :- _- "::. -·.::. · WHEREAS 'the Atomic Energy Commisoion has previouoly alloweo. public ·

· t-:,: ··}\/._. .. : commen: to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement from September 12, 1974 :.. ·:: ~ · ... · .. -

- ,. .. ·-:-- _:··_\:_.:-,..-_. to October 28, 1974; and

. .... . . .: . "' -~·. -~.. . : '

•: ,,;;,·x>·: IIIIEREAS, - ~ ••• .. ~: _· •• -,

the Governor of the State of ·Nevada has requeoted that all . ~ ':. -.-. . . . . • ..

··;." :-'\/·.<: :· -Nevada citizens be given every opportunity to comment on the Draft •• ~ ' •• • • •

·.24

. t • ! .. •

I. •

·. l._:.

'-,. ,- • •• •' .-. • ••• .,

'.·. :-.:.>•··:.•·: ;-·, ... Environmental ·Impact Statement; and ....... 0

~

'{~ :/t((:! ~EREAS, th;A:::::~iasion has agreed to extend the comment . : ; .. · .. ,I-;. .. • ' .

-:: ·::->~ ::/ .•:.:/ · period to Dec~ber. 12, ·1974, by coi:i,du~ting a public hearing on Decembl'.!r 12 9 • •. - • l •,•,-

• •- •I'+, • •.

-i ~.... .. . '~ "' .. · . • :, .. • .• • • •

- ... _. • • - ti. ·.-~. ... '.

_, ' . -,,··.:.•· - ·, .. ~-·:. -. • - • ~t-.. • • • -~ •..

"',:- ~-··· - - ··-:- :: •-i

1974, at 10:00 A.H. in the Ra.mads Inn, 999 South Main Street in Salt Luke \

City, Utah. . \--·

:-:_!_ ::.~·.> .. :.'.-:.: -~- . .• -.. •. ., . ,•. ·. NOH, 'l1IEREFORE, DE IT RESOLVED that the Board of City Commicoioners of tho ~~::~-.. :.-~;_~. -·;'·.

f ·;:~;·;~· :·:/:: ::_.•; ~ity of Lns Vegas do hereby cndoroa tho requeat of tho Covernor of Nev.ads.,

--: I_ . : .. . 'l

1 ~:><· ,; :,.:\. · and urgo tho reoidcnto of tho City of Las .. Vegno to· revimi and comment on

· }-~·• ·_-t: :-.. : : ·tho Draft' Environmontai .. II.,p~c·t·- St.at·imont, ·.:·;._~: .: .:~.·:~:,:·::-...(.-_-"_: :·,:>;: :,·;-·'f:_:.::;·:__:.·.:.:. ·, -•" · :· · : · ·

I

! I ! I

: I

1 1 I.

,;

1--1

•.·. ·,• ,..

T ~ ••• ... ,.

_._ .. '\, · .. ,_ "• - ~-•.•·

• .,. 1.1,

RESOLUTIOH December, Page 'l\to

--

. () ----· . . f---·-···:---~ .. -: ... ~ ·t '

.I· ·l

1974

, ,.

·: 1-

·I I

·I

: ' ' ,·

BE. IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board support

'· .I.

the designation of the

Nevada Test.Site as the primary storage oite for radioactive waates

parti~ipate in the public hearing of December

---~. '

.... .. ,. ~: I_ r • •

. "--, -·.·-

.. ~ ··~ '~ .. i •• I • I•

·: ~

. ! .. ·- •'-

' '

_.·,.~·-. -.-.- .-- ~-.. ...

'•, .• ' .. -' . ·. r. •'.

I'"': .... I,_• •· ·•·1

':'~ . -·,. ' . - . . . . . ~ I ~ I :· ••

;_:_ :: .-~ . ::· ... (' _,, .-

l

·• ·=····

,.

12, 1974.

25

nnd

1974.

·:~:}}~~~'.: .. : ..

., ... 1,. " ~ ~

•:f J"f:'.,:f {/})Y.f I.i'./ · ;;.· .. oi1fftY~/4/~ _::_r, ., .• , ~-':., . .:;\:-·(· •. :~_'.·'..·:CI'!Y OF ·"t.1.s· VEGAS··:.

.. ' . - -- .-"::~,·-.

. . . :·

' .. I

• t ~ .. . • · .. · := •·." .. -_ ·•:: .. "' • .. :

- ~ 'II,• --~ •

"" _J,,0L • 1 .. ~

-• :- .~. I •• 1t

ATTESI1 .. , , .

• ·• ••·T•· ' i I I --·.\•;t·.~c/- --:·:· .. - -..... . : .;.•:~·.=-.\_T .r •. T • • :·.,.!

•·· • j·•--= .. T~.: • • •. :,·. • -•"t •· ,fl T

'·,·. I • .•'1. • • .• -·. ·:·\\'..

Co0le, ~~:.f?Lc&

0 _,_;~:'.'):~:;··<:\'.-~:•:~· .. ·: .. :; .

......

.. -~- ·: ·:

. ' .. 'r - ·.- . • ~ • T

. ii. •• ~ - •

...• ·.:~:.I -~-. -- ·:~ . . •';.

/ 1" ... f .'. ,:,.:. --;.< l" J• ... : • •. _", •, .::/: \. ·' 1

CITY OF LAS VEGAS . ,·,. ' · -~ -. • ~ :~· ·_ r:_ . - .. : "' ' ~-.

(·°5':{:c_?: -~ ; .• \,~:.,•r ... ;·.~ ... _ .. !•

t - t .• 4 ,I I I I •I•

: ·. -·~·: _:. / .\:\;' ·:'. ·.-

·""' T If '' ,' II

•4_• ~.•:l:.•:,~;.'•· ,••,•

.. - j

' .. I .. " I \ • I~ •

• •••· :: .. 1'\•; • . I . .. t : I· . ··:···\' --- --

... '.,

I. -~\ I •

·; ! .... -

,I . ., ·.-, ; ':··II •. ii I j •• ;1 . . ·\ . ' . • • I · + I .

: :·~·:;) :• .' '.l;· '/1 ~ ! ;: ~-~~~.:~~:-r· ~; :~~.

·• .. ~ : •'.

., t • .-: . • ••• ' ••• -·:

:,_.·,

, . ,•. . ~i.: ·. ' ••• ... . .. -· .. ·... : '? • ••••• ,'

.•·· •- • • ••I 1 ~~ ,~ • :

·• • • =·: ':"'' ~ I I • • I • • I

, .

. , ..... ~;: .. :·'· .. ....... ·.

•·• -.-. r

·.)·1 •. .l • ; t

' ' i I

·I·

-,

I·µ• , • l

I ~ /~Lr~XAN.DRIA N. MCTSCHER

.- -{ i: l i' I j, - AHO l!.lt•OHICI0 C:LU•K 0,-

I _ COUl<TY CLl~K

ANDHEW M. EASON

Ftoocrn H. COf'lNCLL

ROOERT H. RUUD

- . j .. 'i

_.' . : i

THl llOAF.0

. 'illnuri'.t nf illouutg 01n11uninuin11.er.a

ijy2 Qln1:r11ty BiATE OF' NEVADA

F'H0Ntr: "40l-~33O P. O. B0:t 1031 TONOPAH, trno4g

, November S, 1974

United States Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. c. 20545

. Dear Sir:

Attention: Assistant General Manager for Biomedical and Environmental Research and Safety Programs

In response to the recent notice allowing the public to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact State­

·ment on the Management of Commercial High Level and Transuranic Radioactive Waste, please be advised that the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Nye,

.State of Nevada, at a regular meeting held on this date, unanimously adopted a resolution supporting the location of the nuclear waste storage facility on the U.S. Atomic ,Energy Commission's Nevada Test Site, which is situated in this county.

In addition, the Board adopts, as a respresenta­tive attitude of the residents-of the County of Nye, the letter of William P. Beko, a copy of which is attached

· hereto.

Very truly yours, \

Z6

C4-v1 BOARD OF NYE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

. ').._ ·,.

AME:dc

. Enclosure

~- .Cd-t1 t>.J~~ 1). ""-;-t ft.,,

tt. tu·.J-

·.

; / '

{ j

_,._•••••--•~----•••-~__........,.••1-•. t t 11•1,,,,, 1111'/tlt Ir t·"IT"l'lt,•I ,111•ttf1lll•1••'1fl'Hl'l11""11,1"tHll \ 1 '/1!"11,-l~tl 1"'

bl "1Tl'IJ 01:' A 'rl'lHll< 1n: •

l:'J'i:Tl!:[l r.,. l{N'IOH't' A-C,,:>.JW;J;'AJ'l'T DU•T,.JCT ATT'Oll?f:.IT

o.-r1oio or

. ( I I , ., r-oa·r 01r:u-101: nox ao:::i ·

Tt::LO>llONm (70'.l) '6:1--0CO<}

·1 . DISTRICT ATTOI~ . .i_~EY NYE COU~TTY

.~ .

--.f··-·· --oounTUOUF3lll

'.I'OHOPAU. Nl'.:VADA fUX.>4,g -------·

,

: __ I . .. i ·, ·•· ,-. I '

!-. i'

·1: I

'I ... . '._ ~

. I ;.~ '

r -'._-

--T--

United States Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. c. 20545

Novembers, 1974

Attention: Assistant General .Manager for Biomedical and Environmental Research and Safety Programs

',' ,: ·: ; -'i -· :'; ·_;_ I

• - • • .,,. ~ • t i

! . ·., ~: .. _•: :-.• / Re: Draft Environmental Impact

Statement on the Management of ·Conunercial High Level and Transuranic Radioactive Waste

-i . ~- ~: '-,.

Dear Sir:

•.• . --·1.· I wish to avail myself of the opportunity to

submit written comments concerning the proposal to locate a riuclear w~ste storage facility at the U. s. Atomic Energy Commission's Nevada Test Site, situated within

. '.-;· :. ' Nye County, Nevada • • -:., • '• -

1 _ -. I have served as District Attorney of Nye County, , .. _. Nevada, for twenty years, commencing in January, 1955. The i : -· Nevada Test Site lies largely within the concurrent j uris-

···:·1···,:/. · 1

diction of my off ice and the office of the United states .Attorney for Nevada. By reason of the official duties.of

.·._.;_ ~ .. · ... ·. __

1

;.-__ · my office, I have had occasion to make many visitations to the Nevada Test Site for atmospheric tests, underground detonations of nuclear devices, labor st~ikes, attempts by

= ! organizations to interrupt or interfere with scientific experiments being conducted at the Site, and in connection with criminal offenses alleged to have been committed within the Site. At the invitation of the Atomic Energy Commission, I have attended various briefings, conferences and demonstrations· having as their purpose an explanation of the safety measures employed by the Atomic Enerby Coirunis­sion to safeguard the environment and the public during the course of the various tests that have occurred.

I am appalled by the inaccuracy of some of the statements and concern voiced by pcroons and orgnnizntions which haretoforo have enjo,yod a reputation of credibility

... •.

~· ·, .. -., l ... -~ . ,.

I -)··' I • • • I

i .i_

- ·1 I I I

i --1-

1 ; l " I· ·, : r I

I

i

t . r I' I r ·., r - .. r. I , ..

. I • i

I

I

. . { ... -.. \

•United.States Atomic Energy Commisiion

Page Two

·--· ({it'Jovcmbcr S, 1974

concerning the proposal to establish this W".clSte storage site in Nevada. In some instances, these critic.:s practically accuse the Atomic Energy Commission and its staff of conspir­ing to destroy the human race and its envirmment on earth. These assertions are, of course, completely false.

I can only conclude from the falsity of these accusations that the critics have never avaiied themselves of the invitation extended periodically by me Atomic Energy Commission to the public to inspect the site and receive the benefit of the information made available re~arding safe­guards imposed by the Atomic Energy Commissi~n during and following each test. They completely ignore a perfect record of more than twenty years of experimental testing, involving explosions of terrific force and magnitude, ¥ithout a single fatal accident attributable to the tests or ~he failure to · properly protect the environment following SJ:ch tests. Their experience proves that the J..tomic Energy Com:r..:ission has the expertise with which to provide the neccssacy protection, and that every precaution has been taken for sudt-protection. There is absolutely no reason to believe or ~xpect that less precaution will be provided in the future. ·

It is common knowledge that a substantial amount of land area within the ~1evada Test Site will require exclusion of the public for many years to come, as a TI!!sult of contami­nation caused previous tests. This will nec:2ssitate a work force to maintain security. It seems completely illogical to consider any site other than the Nevada Test Site, for the. future storage of nuclear wastes when we have a location, already contaminated, already capably staffed and prctected, in an •area previously determined _to be best adapted for such purposes.

For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully urge the favorable consideration of the.Nevada Test Sit2 as the location of the permanent nuclear storage site, and in doing so, commend the staff of the Atomic Energy Commission for the excellence in their performance and safety record achiewed to date.

WPBsdo

Respectfully submitted, ,-p

~~;~~8~ William P. Deko

"

f I

[-r i r,.

; - I •, ~; _·· --->• ••~, ·. '\ 'i •· ·f • • ~ I

# f ·t, • ,. - ·, .\··: ..

f • I .. ,

.. '·t· '\: i i . ; . '· .

- . . ~ . ~' : ' .... , ', ..•. : . . · __ ,•·.

-:)t ~(.i(>> l 2

·1 ...

- ... I • •• .-, 5

• . . : -( : . : .: ..... -: - 6

··-:;

' .. t .... - 7 '

-'I ,i .... 8

... ·,. _;• .- : 10

·11

",:. ··:··. ·._.· 23

'.' .. •. ·f • ... -...•. - . 24

·-:·::a_ I:;/ 2r: ·-w-L .. o ~ . . I · ~

. :--1··-· 20 ~ ;_~ - ..... ·.

' I . ,. ''

27

20

• • ,u,,. . I ... . \ . ' ... , ..

. . -· ..,. . .. , .- . .......... :, - ..... i

; ..

,.;•

~

WHERE,\S, the At0mic Energy Conrrnls:::ion of th..: Uni tccl Stntcs . . ... f

• • I ~ ·•· '"/

•• \. ~. I I,· I

.. .·,, . . •.•.'

•I

., . ,·

hnr, dcvclop~d·

a Draft Environmcntnl ImpRct Stntcmcnt on H,1n111;c111cnt of Com:nc·rcfnl llirrh Lc·Jcl ··••II.·

lln<l T:.-nnsurnnic. Rncl ionctivc\t-le; te; nnd, . .

':-.~ ..

.... • -

WHEREAS, the Atomic tncrgy Comiosion is considerina three sites

. - /. ..

_}:.- .· for .. .- -.·.• ·

. ' .;" '. !,f

storage of such wastes, namely: the Idnho N~tion~l En~inc~ring LaborRtory,· ·!·.

the Nevada Test Site, nnd the Hnnford Reservntion irt l.1nshin~ton; nnd, ... ,; : -

••: ••• n • r :·•·

· ... : .;·, ·.

WHEREAS, the· Atomic Energy Commission hnd previously allowed public · : .....

• I,"-!_

•'- ,, ,·

comment to the Draft Environmentfll Impact Statement froti1 September 12, 1974 ·to , ·'. '.I :· . · .

October 28, 1974; nnd, . , .. -•.{·

: :l ~ . .-

.. · .. -·;·:~ ~il · '•.·: .. ·-_ .. . ... , .. '

•II ... •./

... _._ .. ·. _:_. ~ . -

--~~· :._ .. :~ :-;;: "!. '._· . . ,.- -.· .. :. ~- . - .- ,. .

. .. _-.. t·:·-:,:-, . ·,.-: ..

WHEREAS, the Governor of the S~ote of N~vadn- has rcqucsted_i~;t nll -_ •.. ! _; . ': - :-.r.; ~ • ~ -• •• . ..... '; ~ .•

Nevada citizens be ~iven eve~. opportunity to ·-comment on ·the Draft Envfron·< ~· .- . : -•. - . . . ~ .. -. . . -I·, .TT • .: • l:

mental,, I~~• c:: S~n t:7.t t:•,:: , '• \: =_ :·:• ::r (t;_:: O}t <•=j_?_~'\:\_.•.:,: .''>·. >(;_• . WHEREAS, the Atomic Energy

• :- •'. ,;; :_i

Comisslo~ 'hns airced to cxte~<l .• the comn1t>nt _

-•.,: ., . . . .- .Ji\'',.\·.--:<-,·· . . _·:.-,. ···:·•_:.:-:,·:::-period to Deccmbe~ 12, -1974, _by. conducting n. public_ h'-:a~·in~· on. Dec~m!Jf"!-:--, l ?, ... \

I • ••• •. . • ; • • • ~ . • - ; • ., ·- • ,·: •••• - - I "'\.-:. +. I· •. _. •.. {_-Tl • ·,.

hereby· endorne the rcques t of the G~vct·nor of N~vodB -o~d \irgl'! the· 1·<>:; ldents of , 11 r' ~ ••• I • • t • •• • • , ~• f '•

Lincoln County. to t'evicw ond _'co~~-nt o,,.-it.he ·n~o(t .t:n"vi'ronmcntal r~1rnct !it.ate-:.

me.n, · ,:. .. = · • -· :<: '·:· · }.U .; · \: , .. , t:ii\ <:'.\8<.-r'._·:_!}_::.:•:_:~.: ... :.f '.i!-:' ·>-' .· :(:: : ._' ··! .• ·. . ,., ' • ••= • ..' . . ;:· ;· . I I

• t •· ••. , I ' "I

: , .. ;,:... •. ·._·;<,· .. _·,.-: .. ,\:•:,.<:~:".;-::_:;:;:;·. '· · .. ,, ...

·1 •'

... : 1, ••

~ : ~'- • •"'l • .~ '• I I I u

...... f

l. . . ' I>. i~- ,• • I 'f ,.·~· - "'.. .

... '. ·~ -1

' 1, I·

2

3

-4

·5

I. ·. \,;. ·.6 1 ·-·,

I - 7

8

i ·9

l- j: ~i~t:~' .. !: 10 -. ··,..•- ·:i.•.· .

--~ ~-::<·.-,-'- -11 . -·.' ..

.. . ·.-:·-::·-· , 12

.,.:

• · •• 11 -- ...... ~ ... •,,·.·- •

.-. ·--::..{:.-.-.·.:;: ._16 • ~ • .:-. • ,I, •• ~

, · .. :/.··:/·17 •-- -.,_ • .;

. ·;..~:· -..... , 18

-.. •... t • I •

-;· .. -. <); .......... - i• . -'· •

. ,,. 19 ,-.

20

21 ... ' : .. ~ . ' -... __

-·. 22

._.=:·,•.:_23 .•. , ..... · ..._ .·, · · 24 ...... ":•.·~\:.

' 25

20

......

·' \_ .,J !{t>.sol11tton Dccernl>P.r, l974 Pnr,c Two

nE IT fURTlleR RJ:SOT.VED

(LJJ)

that· thr ::nn nl

.. " .

r:lw -:lP..sfiir-atfon of

-.ao

lite . ' -. ~ . . Nevada Test Site as the ~rimary storn~c site for radioactive w~~t~s. .•

:,., , I.

PASSED,· ADOPTED AND APPROVE~,-~~!: ·::~t ··; d~;, \/ 0 o : ) ~x - ,t., :•: :_ -j,_ I/. '':'"_'

1974. . ·~·-:.• .. : .. ,:. ~

.... ,.: -_., .. ~. :-. ...

AITEST:

' ... ,; #~ .. I

u•.

- \·- t.~~ .. . : ~ -.

<?tr-,; • / --<_;;·:__::-::_,:·, . ·-- '-~-·-•;-

. ~ -:~-: ./"·~-; " . ~ ..... .., .. ~·. . -• ·. - .·\ .....

....... • _-_. '.- ; r ~t - =_ ....

LEORA r. \~ADSWOR111, County Clerk ..

.. • _.--::f:>:<t".,: .. , , .. . '. . ... '"_

. _: .. ,

,,;, ·' ..

" . J .•

.. :•.

.. ............... .

.: .... -...

' .

' . - .. -:.- :, =j'. ·•.

-=,: .. r :- .

. - .,~. ... : . -~<

. i .. .''· ... •-.

·•"\ • t •·

. - . ,{;~/}/:·

.·!'

·• ... •'\

. . • f

·,·,

;-:•-.~ -_· f:,

~- ,,

'. , ... ,, ... --., , ..

..... •• I

. } . ;.\. , •-· ... :··- -.

,,. .... .. .. .,._ .- ; ~.- -

:.;

•'· ·,'- .. .. , '•' ,.1 .. I•\ It ...

:,

,!, __ .'_,l . -"!-

'

-·~t.- -

: ~-, : . .

...... , ... ~--

.' ,. • ' • • ~ r l I

''.,;/l/:: __ .- ~ I

.· ... ·;

. •. \,'t .,

[ . ...• . ·f

I

'•, ..

.- -·

. ,· . .~

d-

• •.• I :··•·,

I '(,

'•\ .... . : .. '

~ -... .• -c .. J 1 '/,IJ ....

1 .. • I ._ . . ·, .

KEN O'CONNELL .I E1r~11tf.,, V(ct Pru,dMr

-9: >

: ~ r '•

•"-I :,;I

. ·• ·oecew.ber 3, 1974

.. =··· ·.· .. . -...

. . ·; # ii' ._ ..

_: .. -~~ . .:-: . - . ,, . ' ~ :

- .. ! .. .-· ........ ·· .. "/

· ·' ··:::··, \. WHEREAS, the Nevada Test Sire hos over the years been noted for its .---· · '.-.~. /; · .. · hisrory-mak\r.g cchievem0nts in the program.:; and pwjects of t.hc Atomic Energy Ccr.i-

":: _::·: ··. ·' m;ssion, dnd . -------.. • •I, 1, ~ <I ~ • • _ _..~~ ~ -

-..J .- •. -

· · · <-!'·_.·:: · ~;· ·._ · . WHEREAS,· we be Ii eve the Nevada Test Site meets- the tota I requirements · •--' of the AEC RodioccJ-ive Waste lvbnagement Program, and

I j

. II,:•·,:. ,t. •

·_ ·~,: •. WHEREAS, the Greater Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce and scverui :._,._-:.·of its busir.ess members have communicofed with the Atomic Energy Commission in I · l , .-_Wmhington, D. C. to state appro·,cl for the select1on of the t-.Jcvodc Test Site, i: • · ·_ now therefore

. ! ~ .... • <: _.; , .

- t'•

~ . ' . _.

I ·.· .. •. f ...

BE IT RESOLVED, t:1• t Bill Flang::is repiesent the Greater Las Vega:; Chamber of Commerce at wid hearing in Solt Lc.:ke City, Utah wit-h Chamber supported formal statement advocating the AEC Nuclear Waste Storage Program at the Nevuda Test Site,

, __ .· . . . BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Greater Las Vegas Chamber of Commer~e .- · .. :·: -· · .·. 'contact the Nevada Development Aut,horily, the City of Los Vegas and the· County

-:·_-.!:.. · . of Clark seeking th~ir endorsement of tho Nevada Test Site location and that as r:1cny · · · · - Directors as possiblr: ~of the Great<Jr Los Vegas Chamber of Comr:.erce.) be present ot the

December l?th AEC Hearing, · · ·

. . .. FOR TH/)D OF DIRECTORS:

. : --~?J!3L- ,/ -. : . ~~-~V" cc?~

'. ·. _. · Herb Stout · -1- · · President

·

1

- : KO:HS:el

. . I . . -·· ·;. I I. I

• I

'

...

Gl!£hTER LA$ VECA'.; CH.<\·.rn[(~ Of COl\1\~fRCE

J·_.,,,. s • /' I

31

. I . · I

I ..

. !

230\ fAST f:l\ltAnt, /\Vl:NlJE / lE:LEPHUtJE 171J:')'.J57-461i,t / LAS-\.Tl,i\S, NEV,\flt\ G9~Q:-: I · . ' ~

t,{ . ·~J '--\~

LJ.1:...::LJ Lk:' J r:: I I J '.;.' ~ !1,-,' r•:;;p~ ,7 ~ ~ . ~ ( · 2-01 7GOG[JJG-•02 12/02/74 -··· ~-=---· IJ.IC5lern union _ ~v u:.,..J ,, J~ ,IC · • U u ~ :-. ~.:: ~ l CS IPl·l/1 IICZ C:; P . , •" , • , "f- · I 7024574664 MGM TDRN LAS VEGAS NV 12-02 0124P EST , · ( · ZIP 89105

. .• . , ' . .. ·. . . .

l • "·: ~--: {i,..' . i ~- , .. G3£ATER LAS VEGAS CHAMBE~ 1 ·: . ·2.30 l· E,'\ST SAHARA .4 VE : . , · LAS VEGAS tJV 89105

• I .• , • ·I .· ... -

. . . . . . . \ -. . . .. \... . : ..

OF' COM/1£RC£ EL

.. f: . , ... ; · .. ~ '-,. -- .

-. . . .

. . .'

.. ' - '

. -: ( . _· _. ...... . . "' .. #- :

:- .:· _. · .. . i ,,. •.

.• .. -- 'f THIS tlAILGRAII IS A C_OIIFIR11ATI ON COPY OF THE FOLLOWir:G MESSAGE:

<· 7024574664 TDRN L1S VEGAS NV 53 12-02 0124P EST

P/ls SECRET A;iy OF THE C0'1tUSSI ON, CARE ATOMIC ENERGY corm ISSION, T~!X 7Ios2sn475 -C- -. -'.JASHH:8TON DC 20545

~ 11. .... • -

..

THE LAS VEGns PARTY DESIRES TO PARTICIPATE IN THE AEC HEARINGS OECEiJ3ER 12 Ill SALT LAKE CITY. \./E \JI LL HAVE A FOR.-JAL ST AT El-JENT

-l .;uPPoarr liG THE AEC r;lJCLGAR \}ASTE STORAGE PR0Gil,1i·I FOil THC r;EVADA TE,;r SITE. OUH CFFICIAL SPOXESitAN WILL BE IJ G FLAIIGAS l·iMIAG[R F!EW OPERATION FOR ;{EY1J.OLDS ELECTrtIC AND ENGI/lEERHIG COl·IPAliY,

I ·_ .: . \.. . . .

. . P.E/lil Srour PilESIDrnr GREATER LAS 'VEGAS CHAMBER OF C0111-JERCE.,

. " ·. i' .. · .. ' . . . : . '· ~ . .._- .. . :, . . ' . : ·. ·_ .' , . ' L. . . . . ..

1326 £ST . . , .. -: .. i. ·-·i, './_ ::· -'. · • . · · :· I • . . . ' • . . . .. •· . . '· • ; ·-' ... (.. nc;JLSvs Lsv -· - . · . ; : , . . .. ·

·. t j . . • . -_ ·-.-- • • • • --:1·. C ... ,·· ·:·. .- . . ·: . . -·: ·. .

.. I,:· i ·- - •• ~·

. r - • -.'.. • • . -. ; . . . • .. . ~- .- ;: .. c. . l·1i·:.

. 1~: ·:'. ·._ .. , ...

i; i-' . ,. .

.. . . : ··: . .

. .. -. ·· ..

• ~ • • I _'

• • 1 ~ .... . ..

I·•·,.• ••

411 - •:. • -

·;·· I .

'

. '

-32.

.}

' . I. .. -. ; .. (.,) -,. • '

• , . a • I --.,

•.

-.·· .. . . .. . ' .

. ....

. . . ~ .. - \

-: ·.-.- -. i .· . t,.k,vembe~ 20, 1974 i' •.

·- ·.

. -. . - . . . .. :.[, ..... ;.

. -_. ·~1·:.:·· Honorable Mike O'Callaghan .- ~:>I · i Governor - State of Nevada

. . . - . ·. ... ·' ..

. ,•

• i - .. . . . .. • •• • •••••

• • • • : " • " •

. .... • • - ••• • •• :· _ _.· : •• :

Kt!f• O'CONIH'.LL Ell lt:I,/ NrQ V IC'l' f',..,.. ,<J ffl t ·.,

r• • • •• ··• • ••

... I

,• ·._'

:: ~- . · ..

: · ... .... - . . • I~· •: • .. , •" •, . '

.-.· _. 1 ·:: •. : State Capitol Bui[ding, Governor's Offiq,

_· · \ _·. f. ( Car~n City, N~vada_ 89701 . . . _.

33

...

. ·:·._.1 ·- .i.: _.Dear Governor Mike: · ·. .. · · ·. .· . : _ . · . _ ·

: -~- _· ~- I-··.+· Attoche-:' ore ;elegrams whi~h were se~t to th-~ AEC in ~oshin~ton by our0

Grccter las Vegas '..:!,--Chamber of Commerce, the James Cashman Company, Milne Truck Lines, oswell as · : i· Pcnneys, Scars, Woolco, K-tv\art, Skaggs, Nevada Development Authority and Sofewoy

i · Stores. · L· ..

." I '. :.. • •

- .• .·._:r ··:T We pla-n to have a group representing the Greater Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce at --- ;.' .'j· the AEC hearing in Salt Lake on December 12th. Our spokesman will be W. G. Flcngas .,_ :- r · i 1/liJnager, Field Operations for Reynolds Electric end Engineering Company. -. ·. I· .. :· . . . . ·. . . . . .· . -: . J : f .: At a meeting of our Board of Directors hold yesterday the Eoard was unanirr:iously in favor

.. : J·· ·'.: of pursuing this molter to obt-oin the AEC Radioactive Wcsto lv\Jnogement Program for .. ·.·:.the Test Site. · · ·. ·

• : · ' J" . ·:. :_ .. ·. '. . . .. . :, . . ·. . .. ; : . . . .. . ~ .. . ; . "'.. . '. :·. • • .. • a • ., : ; • : • • '~ •• ' I -.

•• • • .. ~: .- ~-. ': .~ '. - ! • • • • ·.: • .. ~ ..... .. _ :'° • ."

1i I • ·• t

---~ :-< ..... : ~ . -··.· --: .. ,· , .. :,. · .. ·(-~·-;·<·.~:-:i·_.·:. ,: .,.•

•' . - ~ =. ·. .,_, ... - • •• - •• • •• - - • •• •

i. ·• :.. . . ...

· _ Executive Vice President KO:ol

·: ... ,·.. . . cc: . 1 ., :· .: · · Encl

, ·. ·I. ·;·. :_ . : ~ • . .. . . ...

• • ·: ••• • I

-·--::• 1·

I - •;

local office

... ' . - .•

. · .. _.

. . . .

• ...

+ .... -

J, • • • ·:

.. ··\,. ·'· -.

..

• • • • ~ •• t .. • •

' . : > ·.: ;l• y .''_:.::i:i·~ ' ·: :> .·• - . ~. ..

.. ·•.•

. ' ...

• .. •

. ; : .

• ,_·

. '. ,,. ·: . · .. . .... . . . . . -

• ! ••. • .••

. .\

•

..

G R F. AT E R L ,\ S V E <: A S C II A M B E \1 O F C O M M E rt C f. 2~01 CAST SAHARA ~\/.ENUE I TELEPHONE l'/021 457-'1.sf,4 I L/\S VEGAS, NEVADA 8~

11~~

- .- ..

,, H

•.• • MGMLSVO- L!3V .. ( '\ . -. ? .. 02/i!ilG'EJl:5002

L: .[CS IPMfWCl CSP "{ ! 702451/iGG4 l'lGl1 "''IP 89105 ( :, . ~ .

.•• A,,·•

. . c· ·_ i ' . .- . . t-

( t>cHAMBER Or COMMERCE EL · 2301· EAST SAHt1P.A AVE

-_,. LAS . VEGAS NV 89105 (i" :

- . ~ . -~ .,- .. ' - . . . .

-

. . · ..

., .· . :. \.

. ,. ' . ·-. .· .. . . . •

......

. ;

( THIS MAILGRAM IS A CONFIRMATION COPY OF THE FOLLO\:/IHG MESSAGE:

1024574654 TDRN LAS VEGAS NV 23 11-11 0358P EST ,._·PMS US ATOMIC ENERGY C0MMISSI0N,AT"fN DOCTOR FRANK PITTMAN, TLX · ·vASHINGTON DC 20545 -

( '

.. ,._.

. . .

:_euRGE THAT NEVADA ( !J/1.STE MA NAGEME!H

ALL CRITERIA JAMES CASHMAN

BE SELECTED AS A SITE FOR AEC RADIO AC1IVE PROGRAM. WE BELIEVE NEVADA TEST SITE MEETS

c. 891 O 1 : CASHMAH ENTERPRISES PO BOX 2080 LAS VEGAS NV

1601 EST (. _ .. _ . : ·. MGMi.S_vB LSV.. I

' -r •••

~ • "' •• - ., ·, •• •• • • ~ • • - -. • •

• • • ~ -· ~- • • -. •• • •

•• . 4' . -·. -: ~ .-•. ... • .... • . . .

- 4 .....

• .. • .. ·-. • ... ~ ... • _.

l : ·~-: , .\·:' -+ •• _· ::.- --· ••• - •

- .. · ..... ·: ... '• !.•

(. . :·-·

• . +. : •• • .... ••

• .... . . . ~ ..

•- .. + • • ,,,'

.. + -._ . •. ~ . . . . : .. .

• ~ .- : 4

I • •. • ..

:_. •.. :~

. . . . . '

• ... :i-

•• • - ... •·

• - •• ----. - .

. ·, . .,

-_ . : .

- . -. ,-, ~ .. . . -. •:. ( .

.i ..

•• ·.• l •.• • I

. . -- .

c-. ,:·- ··_.·· . .':' '-.,

c· • - : ;+ • -.. .

·> .. : ...... ,r- . -~ ..

"\Jo '.,. .-·'. •. : ... ·.,

~ ' .

. (:)

.... ..

.. . .

. . . ~ . • • • - . , I •• -

,; . . - ...

' . . - .. . ·:· ...

. ·. . . . ,._ . . . • I •

• .. • ...

•. -~ - --- ....

-.. • ...

, ' '

(

(

IL-_ (

~. • ,--~ 2· l, 01 1 ·1 ? ~ o ~ ~ ·, s r, o ?. 1 1 , 1 :f'\_ . "

;_ .. ._J.__,() ,.:,, ' •I • ~ "1

(.' [CS lPMfUJCZ C.SP _. ·.; f 7027367CJG1 MGM TORN LAS i· · .. !1":JP 89102 ' ( .,. I . • ! . • • i~ .... ,:_ J' I' - , •.

! (' J>11ILNY. TRUCKLHJ2 RM l ' 475 f POLARIS AVE

r·.:·LAS_ VEGAS NV 89102 •". (. . . . I i . . . :1·- - '···. . . ' . . ' .-- •

- ,- .. ·: f . . I • .• • -

. •-. ~

I •

.. • l • •

.... · ... . ~: . ~. . . .. .

·:·.:

., ..

. .. <':

' • • ... • .. .

. . .

•• 1 • I •

. ~

( THIS MAILGRAM IS A CONFIRMATION COPY OF THE FOLLDVING MESSAGE:

-·~027367061 TDRN LAS VEGAS NV 32 tl-12 1155A EST .. ( PMS ~R FRANK PITTMAN, US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION

WASHINGTON DC 20545 I - ·-

:. c· -.:.--.. -· --_ ...

,-_ (

1

- • .... UHL NY TRUCKLr'NE WISHES TO SOLICITE YOUR SUPPORT TO GIVE NEVADA · ~TOP-PRIORTY FOR LOCATidN OF A RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL DUMP~ THE

. NEVADA TEST SITE FACILITIES MEET ALL REQUIREMENTS FOR OPERATION - OF THIS TY?E

·-. l . ROEf::RT MCNEIL TERM! NAL M,,NAGER. · . · .... ~ -•· . • I ..

:··.-, fiss EST • • ,. • • -... - . . - .... · . - . -; . . . .. :- .

• •• .~ • • •

- MGMLSVB LSV .~ ... -~ - ·: <.-:=-· i/_~· \.=·:<; -. . _· ... .-. ·_. :. ·. . -. . . . ; --. ., ' . ~ .

. ( ·.· \

• ,I·_ : •• ' •

.-c. .. ·- .... ' I •• • ,7• ... • .

- : • . 'I: .. : ..

r~• •• ••' • ~ • : •" •: • •

. .: .. · :_" .;- ·.:-_. ... ·: . ·. .

•• _4•, • -•~ I • •: • ••, • • ,•

... t ·-. • • -- • • • ·-. . - .... · .. : ··•. . .. - ... .. . ... . . - .. - --~ - ... . . : ~ - _ .. ' -... -. -· :

. . -.. - .. -. ... • •. i • ••

. - • ..... -·--·.....:----- - .: ., .. ·. . . . - .

. · ... . · .•

. . . ,-·. - : . .. . . ·. ·•- - . : "• ~ I . .• " • • •• t, : •. • : ; : "~ ~ •1•1 •:

. ; . - .. . . ~ .

. . . . •- .. •·· ••• •• 'I •• • ...

I 1• •'

·.. ~· .

...... · :.- .. -• . .-, • • I

: .. . --- .. ~-~-_;-~-- ·-~---~ ~--- .\"

. . :_· - ·:

. . · ..

• •• I I

- ) ..... , .,

·.~ - .

.\

. ..

..

. 35

.. ·•-

I

.r

.... . . .... ,Mu~1LSVD. L.'.'1V ~ · • f\ :·:2•-02,n11.~2i1s:Jo2 1111.t ,4.

( !CS r IPt-1fnlCZ CSP I 7024574664 MGM TORN LAS

· ZIP 8:)105

: - r' '----~ .'. ••• •· •• •

{ · ...

( ~CHAMBER OF COMMERCE EL 2301 EAST SAHARA AVE

· . LAS VEGAS NV 89 l 05 . { . .

.. '. :·. . . : ' . . .. . . . . ' ..

•••I 0

._ . .. .

• I • •

- .. · . ,. .....

• : • • • .... - ·. -. •. . _· .. ,,,·.; . . . .

J

·;, ..

... . ..

.. . . •·. - .

-.. . "' #

. ~- : . . . . . ... ·. _.

.. ( . .

I •,•.

( - ·THIS MAILGRAM IS A CONFIRMATION COPY OF THE FOLLOWING MESSAGE:

7024574664 TORN LAS VEGAS NV 46 11-11 0404? EST C PMS US ATOM~C ENERGY COMMISSION,ATTN DOCTOR- FRAIJK PITTMAN,· TLX

WASHINGTON DC 20545 • I

. ! ( -

- I

(

- -.- :

. : en:{E GREATER LAS VEGAS ~HAMBER ~F ~0[1MERCE URGES THAT NEVADA • r BE GIVEN PRIORTY CONSIDERATION FOR AEC RADIO ACTIVE ',vASTE Mt-d)AGEMENT

PROGRAMo WE BELIEVE NEVADA TEST SITE MEETS TOTAL REQUIREMENTS

l URGE.NEVADA GOVER~OR MIKE CALLAHAN RECOM[1ENDATIONS BE CPNSIDERED

: : HERB STOUT PRESIDENT GREATER LAS VEGAS tHAMBER OF COMMERCE ~-23O1-EAST SAHARA AVE LAS VEGAS NV 89105 _

( -_. ~ 1. ·G·0.9 ·E,sr ··· · · .·,: ~: · · . . ·.:·_ · · ·- · · - · --··· · -: •_-_. ·•·. ' . -- -. . . _-.•,:·. . . .. 11 ·• • -. • ~ • • • • •• ~ •

• • • •• • •• I -. : ·_• ·•

(. -_ _-MGMLSVB LSV . _ .. _. , •·_._··_-·:~:_:.··.· _··. :: ·- .. ·. •.- ... • • • ... • - • ·:·_•_ - •• • •

' ... ' -·.· .. ·._>:·_:;~-~:-... -~--: .... : · __ -: __ <._:- ~-_. _.-.· ·:_._·:: ··._.··; __ .-;~-.-.--·!··:./:.:.-.'. L-: ·-\···.·: · -~ , . -_

. ·- .-·, ·, ..

-.- ... ' ; . . .. ~

. i •

: -. ~ . ·-

c,. . .

; ~. ' . . . . '

. .. . . . •• • : 'I' • ~.••••' I • •• • 'i.. . • • . • ,.''. • • _- ..

' . . .. . . ; . . .· • .• " ·. . . . : : ~- . . . '

c· ~-(<--:_ . .. : ·._.·,_-.. .: ... -.·_._·· \-~-.-·-::-_· :-_\, ·. ·_ ·.-.. ·. _. -.. _ .. _ ·.·

1

. . . ' -· , ' . . . . . . . . . . : · :· ' . . . . . . . . ' . . . ·. . . . . . t'i . .. ' . . -. ·._..··_.' :. ·-.:.- .. - ___ : :.·-;.:' ·. __ ·.' ••• - . ~ ·. . . .. .··.,,. -. ·- .... - ,-· .:.· ;.- .. . ·-.• ·-.· . .•. •.·. - •.. .. --€. .> ·.

• •• • • •• • I •••

.. . ..

: . . . . ..

.. : =~.

' .. .. - ·.· . . .,

I • ..·. •':. ' . . . . -

; . •• '• ... •

' .. t ' ••

-- .

. ·:

.(

(

(

"

( '

e

-

-

7 March 1975

Good afternoon. I'm Susan Orr, Program Coordinator for Foresta Institute, an environmental research, education and advocacy center that has been working in Washoe Valley for 15 years on issues of local.and global concern. The aim of Foresta's work is to broaden people's awareness of the need to recognize and live within the resour6es and tolerances of the biosphcre ... a concept defined as that part of the world in which llfe can exist; living beings together with their environment." The resolution you are considering today, which asks for both nuclear waste storage and solar research develop~ent to be located at the Nevada Test Site, raises many ~uestions about how together we will continue to be with our environ~ent. I am most appretiative of your invitat~on to present testimony.

Foresta has been involved in the radioactive waste storage issue since late October ·when the Governor's Advisory Cormni ttee held public hearings. We testified then, we testified in Germantown, Maryland, we testified in Salt Lake City. We went on a tour of the Nevada Test Site. We have been amassing great quantities of materials and correspondence and contact lists that document the growing concern of citizens and the scientific :::ommuni ty ·with industry and the governr,:ent' s plans for nuclear power production and radioactive waste storage. Our concern has been to study and promote environmentally considerate alternative energy resources as a challenge to the current pressures- for reliance on nuclear power, whose wastes will threaten all life. for 250,000 years. Our concern has also been to demand that the governmental decision-making process on nuclear matters be accessible and accountable to the public. Einsteih himself said, "Our representatives depend ultimately on decisions made in the village square ..• To the village square we must carry the facts of atomic energy. From there must come America's voice". It bothers me tremendously to have seen the repeated instances of hasty and inadequate notice of public meetings on this issue, and the lack of public education. Government and technology are meant to serve, not subjugate, the people. Do you really feel adequately informed about radioactive waste storage to shape my children's future so irretrievably? You can pass a bottle bill and then decide it doesn't work and rcoeal it, but vou can't subsidize the expansion of the nuclear~power in~ust~y to taking its wastes off its hands and then, after an unforseen chain of events release massive lethal doses of plutonium into the atmosuhere, say "oops, folks, sorry". The question of radioactive n~clear waste storage demands careful, rational, reasoned consideration, not a two-week political judgment. The AEC, now ERDA, has been considering the issue for 15 years and thcv still don't know what to do. How can you? -

e

-

-

lr ; !.-~-

38

Foresta Institute Susan Orr Page 2

I hope to provide, today, sorae serious concern on your part for the gravity of the II inter irn" ru.dioacti vc Haste storage propo::-~al, for the incredible responsibility you arc taking, through this simple resoluti9n, for the future of humanity, of all life. I do not, myself, have great technical expertise. Several experts have paid their way to come here today to share their knowledge with you, because of the gravity of your actions. Beyond that I do have access to a wealth of expertise that is not backed by a profit motive -- the Atomic Industrial Forum is planning to spend $1.2 million this year promoting the expansion of nuclear power production -- or backed by a need to rationalize the government's overbalanced corruni tment to atomic energy. Hany of the opponents to the continuing pursuit of nuclear poi'lcr have actually come to their position from the industry or govcrnm0nt: David Brower, Carl I-Iocevar, Henry Kendall, Alvin Weinbe::rg. We have shelves of materials at Foresta that document the controver­sial nature of all areas of nuclear technology. They are open to you. If I can't answer your questions today I will go back and find answers. If you do nothing else you should talk with Dr. Terry Lash of the Natural Resources Defense Council in California .:.he has done the most meticulous critique of the unanswered technical questions in the AEC's Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the Management of Commercial High-Level and Transuranitun,....Contamina ted Radioactive 1:-laste. I called him for advice on my testimony today and he Hanted to come himself, but is meeting in Washington with Dr. Seamans,. the new Director of ERDA, to discuss the agency's growing recognition of their need to question the validity of any investment in "interim" storage development.

A key point you must recognize is that there are no answers yet developed to many aspects of nuclear power production and radioactive waste storage. The AEC and now ERDA readily admit they don't know how to permanently store· this persistently toxic debris. Dave Jackson, Public Intormation Officer of the Las Vegas ERDA Operation on our to~r of the Nevada Test Site said, "People just don't know everything about radiation.'' Researching solar energy is a b6autiful idea. But don't you feel somewhat presumptuous in so boldly inviting into the state vast quantities of unnatural, incredibly potent materials Hhose safe and secure handling has to be fail-proof for longer than hum~nity itself has existed, thirty times longer. Wouldn't you feel better if you had more company, like an educated Nevada citizenry, making this decision Hith you? Even the Governor was reluctant to take such awesome power in his hands -- insisting to the AEC that we have more substantial information and that Nevadans

-

-

Foresta Institute Susan Orr Page 3

~round·the state have access to the decision-making process on this issue. Yet this resolution, the recorw--:-.-;::ndation to :;:~RDA, will impede further citizcn partici:92.tion, if it passes. I want to impress on you how little you ~now what you are asking for, how prernat~rc this action is in the light of the status of ERDS' s own readiness to mc::.ke a decision on waste stor.:is;-e.

39

The Draft EnvironDental Impact StateDent on high-level and transuranium-contarninated waste management was alnost unanimously acclaimed -- by nuclear power proponents and opponents uJ.ikc -­as b12ing too n.J.rrow and inadcquo.te .:i <locur:-icnl::. ,~t t::1-ir: f;;:l.lt L~1J,:.c City hca.r ing, even Mr. PJ.an(Jct~;, whr~n pre:;;.r;u}, n.drni t tr:r1 L!ir.::rr; •11e:.rc unrcsol vcd technical guc,:;t.ion:c, in the v1astc ~::tor ~gc prc,r,::,~-;;,c;;_J.s. A more thorough version of tho impact statement is not yet complete. In fact, as I mentioned,_scvcral people in the agency are now r12considering the Vl·lidity of working on intcri@ storage at all. Dr. William Rowe, Director of EPA's Office of Radiation Programs, is quoted recently as saying, ".'[,le 're d2ad set against interim storage" b12causc it is too costly and bcc,rnsc it ,.muld delay development of permanent strategics, thereby creating a great risk that the wastes would be left in interim storage longer than desirable. Th&t means either Nevada locks foolish for asking for something tlwt the "experts" in government decide is a bad id12a, or, Nevada is left with interim storage at gr12at risk, because the technology for permanent storage isn't advanced in time. You choose --- I think you lose both ways.

What are the aspects of the "interim" waste storage proposal I. think you should be concerned with? First and foremost, the pernicious nature of plutonium. ERDA tends to gloss over it. But it is the most carcinogenic agent known, and it is man made. The California Bureau o:i: Radiological H12alth claii7ls there is "no threshold for safe levels of radiation exvosure." One one­millionth of an ounce of plutonium has caused cancer in dogs. A small amount of plutonium, about the size of a grapefruit, compressed rapidly, creates a.n ato:mic explosion. A pound of plutonium, if it we:c0 effici8ntly spread around the country, would be more than enough to give lung cancer to everyone. This means you must be vitally concerned about sabotage, about transportation of plutonium across the state from many directions, about having 75,000 cannisters representing 60,000,000 gallons of plutonium, solidi~ied, on deposit at the NTS. An upcoming Science magazine rcpbrt clai~s that there is a Sot higher than statistical average cancer death rat~ in the Hanford, ~ashington tri-city area ... that should be a w~rning? Think about accidents, planned and otherwise. The short history of experience with w~stc stor2gc technology is full of horror stories nnd surprises. I've ~ttached a short list for your information. Think of the faith we must have that

-

-

-

1-- 'f... '.t:~-

40 Foresta Institute Susan Orr Page '1

there will be no hllinan error, none, no faulty design, no moment of frustration or distraction that could cause faulty constructio~ of any single smilll part of this o?eration ... is there any preccndent for fail-proof tech~ology? ~here is si~ply a question of AEC-now-ERDA.credibility. The cu~uiative and long-term affects of radiation exposure are simply unkno~m.

Testing done on animals whose life span is no more than 20 years, if that, has got to be vulnerable to question. I did, in fact, ask the Nevada Operations office, and the response I got was non-specific to my specific question. There is a telling experience with AEC reassurances that have fallen through: After "substantial" investigation, the AEC in 1971 decicJ.::::-d to begin a demonstration project at the Lyons, Kansas mine. It was claimed before the Joint Com:-nittee on Ato:mic I:::ncrgy that all the necessary studies for confirming the mine's suitability had been completed. Subsequent to the Congressional budget hearings, the final environmental statement on the proposed demonstration project badly asserted:

"By establishing this facility, radioactive wastes of the type previously described (including high-level wastes) will be permanently isolat~d from ~an's biosphere, thus providing a direct and lasting ~enefit to the environment. No significant impact on the enviroarnent resulting from the construction or operation of the proposed repository is anticipated." After further study, however it was found that ther~ were several technical problems, great quantities of water ,·1ere found to have disappeared from the salt mine, and the project was abandoned. In the history of th~s development citizen, scientist and private organizations and s~ate officials in Kansas argued against the adequacy of the ABC studies. "It is questionable ·whether or not the AEC would have appreciated the potential hazards involved with the Lyons site if they had not spoken out." (Terry Lash, NRDC)

It is questionable whether or not the. Ji.EC would have ad_;_--ni tted to the radioactive spill in ~cvada, either, had not an outside agency spoken out. The sa~c goes ior the many incidences at Hanford. How can we trust their judgment or their 09enness in recognizing a problem and making it publicly known?

Now suppose none of these things concerns you. Let me try one more. There are 1. 7 million to:::s of radioactive taili"nc,s still at the site of the now docomissio~cd Vitro Chemical ~ili in Utah. The facility is protected only by a chain link fense with warning signs posted "ha.pl1azardly" along its length --

-

-

Foresta Institute Susan Orr Page 5

its ineffectiveness evidenced by the graffitte on the concrete structure. Utah's citizens and politicians have SDent years trying to get the AEC to clean up the site area. BUT THE FEDERAL GOVER:.BIBNT HASI~ ''l GIVEN T~Li.::M )\D:SQUATE Fmms 'l'O DO IT. The same problem occurs in m:inford, si tc of r:iassivc and recurrent radioactive leakage. The govermnent has allocated such a limi tcd budget that '\·.then leakage occurs, th8 only spare tanks that are available are used ones that have been determined to be unsafe. Now how can you expect ERDA to be able to guarantee adequate funding for the life of nevada's storage facility? And when funds get cut, corners get cut, and even highly safe technology is jeopardized.

Several years ago the Natio~al Academy of Sciences National Research Council's Corn.mi tte:, on the· Geological Aspects of Radioactive Waste Disposal put out a ten year report which said that while they were impressed with the dedication of

41.

the staff they observed, they were fearful that too often "considerations of long range safety are in some instances subordinated to regard for economy of operation." Political institutions are fragile, so are budgets: what faith you must have!

I understand the incentive for this resolution: "Whereas: The unemployment rate in Clark County, Nevada, is 20.7 percent higher than the disturbing high national unemployment rate"

People need jobs. Now. But do they need jobs that will threaten their health? and their children's health? . and my childrens? and yours? That's a narrow and short-terrc1 view. Why not get all the jobs through the solar research program? The long-term view is detrimental to the state economy, I think. Won't industry be afraid of capital investment in a state where radioactive wastes are being stored, above ground? Won't new industry stay away and that 85% tourist supported economy be threatened? People may have enjoyed watching nuclear blasts, and the underground blasts are out of sight and out of mind, but a "dump?" ''radioactive garbage?" That's quite another thing. Since the days when the test site was an attraction, people have become far :more aware of the dangers of radiation exposure. I think you do the Las Vegas economy a great dis­service by putting this hazardous facility so close to home.

Why should Nevada be the nuclear indust:-::-y's "dum:::>"? 'I'he latest GAO report says that the technology for short-term storage has been well developed. The wastes have to stay at the reprocessing plant for five to ten years anyway, they should be left there until a permanent method of storing

I . i t. j-

-

-

Foresta Institute Susun Orr Page G

4Z

them is adequately developed. Industry should not be allowed to shunt the wastes out west where they don't have to feel rcspun:-::ible for them. What is the rationality of continuing the generation of these lethal.materials if they can't be handled at the source of production?

This leads to a consideration of alternative sources of energy and the second part of your resolution, though I can only think the coupling of the one poisonous idea of the other life-supporting idea is a political move, so very blatant, it should e~~arrass you more than anything else.

If you recognize the value of developing solar energy, why the first part of the bill at all, let's just go ... There can be money and employment in solar research and program develo;o;nent, and it would bring people .to the state instead of scaring them away. It would change the image of the state from a nuclear wasteland, free for abuse and exploitntion to subsidize others' energy needs, to an image of a pioneer in so'lnr development that could serve Nevada's own needs and others' as well, for just as long as plutonium would pose its threat.

Thank you for your time. I hope I have raised some concerns and can, in the next few days before you vote, help answer them.

-

-

I wish to speak against J~ssen,-oly ,Jolnt Resolution 15 today. I do not Hlsh to relate nuclea.r horror stories or speak of st:_;_te soTireignty. What I am concerned nbout 1s the tendency to allow the questio~able economic benefit that mi~ht occur lf Nevada ls chosen as the w:i.ste dui.J.p site to have equaJ. weight in th the entire concept of waste dumping.

The prlrrnry ouestlon is why must there be nuclea-:: waste to be disposed? Is {t possible, technologically, to tlse that waste rlght·at the location where it is created--or at least to dispose of it•in some manner right on location?

Then there is the en tire realm of qucs tions related to he.nd­ling, shippin~, security, job safety, containerizing. recontaincr­izing(if the containers indeed do not last as long as the radio­active material), to list a few areas of concern.

And these do not even speak to the question of 1ong-terrn com­mitment by federal, state, and local governl!lent entities to -this program--nor of public acceptance at each of these levels to the disposal program. For instance, does this entire program, _j_f it is accepted and initiated, depend upon federal government favor for its continuity? What if a change in ad.ministration or nation­al political mood causes curtailment of this program? Will securi­ty and safety continue?

Another point is that the cor:1mit1Uent at the state and local levels is well-neigh lrrevcrsicle. If the fedeial tovernmcnt be­comes neglectful, the localities can ill affbrd to =do ·the same.

And_all these questions speak to the economic picture. Can we in 1-:evada and especially in southern Nevada o.ssume the continu­ity of the jobs created by this project? And in Hhat numbers are_ these jobs? What services need to be extended to handle this in­flux? Will this project actually ma.Jrn inroads on the unemploy­ment level in southern Nevacla? Or uill it br1n6 people into Neva­da from other areas and have less than the substantial beneficial effect we would like to suppose?

What of ~-"'rn problems created if federal commitment dwindles? Isn't it t.:-,e ,- 1.a~ rif)ht now that unemployment in southern Nevad.a is in sorie r::.:,.:;;or a result of I':",.pid d'JY'"!lop:m?-nt and gr011th with 11 t tle underlying. long-term growth s t.c1 bili ty·?

Like1-rise, what of development and growth? What we don't know about radioactivity is as, or more, iEportant th:.111 ,,;,1r:i.t we do know. And these unansnered ouestions could ho.ve a denrcssant effect upon the growth of' the s~uthcrn Nevada corn.nmni t,y. ·· rJew communities m2~_y have nothing to fca:r from tl1Gir proxirni t,\' to the dump aren.--but-don't deny that the unknovm effect of the site i1ill inhibit develop~cnt in the area.

Only by insisting upon open foru::ns in ,.,--h1ch questions and answers can be traded can we guarantee that the ri~ht questions will be asked. There are almost undoubt~dly areas whicn the gen­eral public shouli question but may never oven coue to consiuer without ~ell-pub~Tcized, open discussion.

-This resolution pre-empts such discussion. It is clearly the

cart before the horse. That 1s why I urge you to defeat this resol­ution.

Thank you for your consideration.

- . ,'"~ __ ,.,.,,

STATEMENT OF THE LEGISLATIVE ACTION COMMITTEE OF THE CLARK COUNTY

DEMOCRATIC CENT'i?.,'\L COMMITTEE ON A.J .R. 15, .MARCH 7, 1975

I am Daisy Talvitie of 1as Vegas. mam speaking as the

representative of the Legislative Action Committee. A letter

has been sent to each of the sponsors of A.J.R. 15 sfating

the Committee position but I was asked to appear here to state

rhe posi~iori more fully with the background information leading

to the statement of the position The CoITLmittee suggests

that complete, unqualified endorsement of stvrage of nuclear

wastes in Nevada is premature for a number of reasons.

The draft environmental statement by A.E.C., Sept., ]974, which proposes interim at three sites, one of which is Nevada,

, has been described by the Western Interstate Nuclear Board--

ampng whose members is Mr. Frank Young as Nevada's representatiye.

"The statement itself is representative of a public information

document but is not an environmental impact statement for use by

State agencies to make decisions or to make recommendations to

their governors." This opinion has been re-iterated by the

U.S. E.P.A., the NRDC, the Idaho's Governor's Committee, the

spokesman for the state of Texas, a number of industries such

as General Electric and Nestinghousc, nuclear scientists, etc.

In fact, Dr. Pitman himself, in meeting with the Nevada's

Gvoernor's Committee and also in the public hearings in

•15

- Germantown, Maryland, stated that the Irnp.:i.ct Statement was intconded

merely to present options on disposal of the wastes and that

·aetailcd studies and statements on specific sites will have

to be prepared before any finaJ._ decisions cc1n be rcnchcc1.

-- Less than two ueeks ago at a public rneetin<J in na!'.fl>jt:.~J Las Vegas

a repres8ntative of A.E.C.-or E.R.9.A. as it is now called,

stated that no in depth study had yet been raade of the Nevada

,_

-

Test Siteto determine its suitability of the full environmental

effects. Becaus~ of this lack of final, com~lete informati9n,

it is essential that the State of Nevada retain a veto power over

the proposal until all information is in and until we can be

satisfied that certain conditions are met that you vill fined

·outlined in the Governor I s Advi.sory Co:mmi.ttee' s Report and

re-iterated in the Cov2rnor 1 s letter to A.E.C.

He must rememb2r that ws are national citi?.ens as well as

citizens of Neva~a. Sa~e very basic natio::1al policy decisions are

::tflVeiu-\1:'.l- involved in the total proposal for ill--l:.erru;t!'.1- interim

storage in Nevada. It is not a purely local question. For

example; one step in the proposed plan ;nay 1)3 the re:9:-O::::es sing

o_f spent fuel for plutonium recov0ry--·Plutoniu.:1, present in the·

sp2nt fu,2.l, is pro:'::a:bly ti1c mos l: toxic sub3t.anc:e knm,:,.1. to man.

It is also the fuel for operatic~ of nuclear plants. The Impact

Statement assmr.es that repoc2ssing will be done:::, the plutonium

removed and stored separately for future use. This, as one of

the initial steps in tl1e proposal, }1as been qncstio;:1cd by ~a::1y

experts and industry representatives revie,ving the imp2.ct

state1nent. Reprr)cessing rilay J;r~ econonically in::0asiblc :'.::ro;:1 t!,e

standpoint of co..3t .:i.n ... i question~, rela-ting to use :Eo:::- the end :::::.--d

produc-::. '.Chere c1.rc also questions ot increo.sed e11vironrn,~:;. "!:al

hazards and th2 prot:ection of the public fro1a the cl,:.nge.";. of the

plutonium fu.11.inc_r into the hc1.nils of terrorists, etc.

l

46

-

-

47

Determination of the viability of this step in tlw proposal should

be made before making final decisions on an interim storage

facility since it is directly related to questions of location

and design of storage facilities. Other questions needing

further examination relate to other alternatives which have

have not been adequately· explored .. For ini3t:ance, General Electric

and Westinghouse both testified at the Maryland hearings

that interim storage facilities could be operated by industry

at the individual sites of origin of the wastes. Another major

and most significant alternative lies in the development of

permanent storage. E.P.A. and others have expressed concern

that interim storage facilities may become permanent storage

sites while not haveing been designed forthat purpose. To

quote the Western Interstae Nuclear Board, it is essential

that AEC "provide to the State selected for the interim storage

site that it is only a temporary storage site and that work will

proceed in a timely and well funded fashion on the problem of

final disposal. This might be done by formal action by the

AEC Commissioners and by a resolution ex.pressing the intent of

Congress to proceed in this fashion." This need is particularly

significant since (]) the site in New Mexico which AEC indicates

in the Environmantal Statement as most promising for final

disposal has not been closed to petroleum exploration which may

very well mean that its use for nuclear waste disposal coilild

be destroyed and ( 2) "ih thin the past ycar--pcrhaps to shift

resources to the near--surface storage facilities concept or

to allow development of mearby fossil fuel deposits--AEC's work

at Carlsbad has been brought to a virtu.:11 hall. 11 (NRDC, jpagc 5~)

-

-

-

48

Other questions needing to be resolved before complete

endorsement of the A.E.c. proposal relate to transportation.

According to the A. E. C. statement, page 9.] -'-6, A. E. C. "would take

title to and responsibility for the waste upon receipt at the site."

This means the commercial operator would be responsible for the

load-ing and transportation to the site. This, of course, would

be subject to D.O.T. regulations. Questions relating to the

adequacy of regulations and degree of enforcement must be

resolved as well as the role to be.played by ~evada and other

States. It is significa_nt, that at present--according to a

representative of D.O.T. speaking in Las Vegas, regulations are

presently being violated about 75% of the time. His explanation

was that regulations are so difficult to interpret that many

shippers simply tdo not understand them and the other reason

is the inadequacy of enforcemt personnel in terms o fl numbers~

We also do not presently know what responsibilities will

fall on the State in terms of monitoring for leakage, clean-up

and responsibility in case of accident, etc. It is essential that

agreements on these questions be reached before a final decision is made.

For these and other reasons, the Legislative Action Committee

Of Clark County Democratic Central Committee makes these recornmendatio

(]) That the Legislature consider and include in any resolution

Governor's •'Callaghan's letter to the AEC and the report of his Radioc:ictive Materials Storage Advisory Committee.

(2) That the solar research proposal, 0hich we endorse, be

presented in a separate resolution.

-

-

-

, ' , .-. ~ ~.

49

To that I would also add a recommendatin that the Legislature

adopt a resolution memorializing Congress to express its

intent to proceed immediately in a timely and well-funded

fashion on the problem of final disposal of nuclear waste,

-M,Kt: O"CALLA!.HAN

CovetHOll

..

"'rHE ST/\iE OF NEVADA

EXCCUTl\'C Cl·!,\l.:Gr:R

c.-.n.:.cm CITY, Nr;Y.UJA. U'.:>701

October 28, 1974

Fx 50

United St~tcs Atonic Enei:'gy Corru-:-.ission

Washington, D.C. 20545

--Gentlemen:

· I herewith transmit to you a copy of the report made to me by a ;anel of Nevadans .follm:ing £our \-;eeks of study of the d=~ft envircn~2ntal impact statement on stor­age of high level radiation waste.

I endorse the fine.in as of this co:;, .. .rni ttec., :;:.:.rti­cularly as re-stated here in e~?anded form from Section V of the report: That Nevada should continue to be consid­

·.ered as-a site for the waste storage if:

a. Air cooling is utilized;

·b. Rail transportation avoiding.the metropolitan .Las Vegas area is established to the site;

c. State and local entities can cooperate in and contribute to ths dev~lo~nent of the AEC's site-specific environffiental impJct statement;-

·.d .. · I.t can be dernonst"!:"a ted that adequate r2.di2. ti.on ~afeguards for storngc nnd transportation can

,. ·:·~be .de.ve loped and will bG ii:!?l eu:en ted.

I believe the Govc:?:"nor of !levuda r.mst be affc=dcd •. '.the p:::-wer to veto loc~tion of the fc:..cility, in the event he ·_,has st=ong objection to the use of a specific site; and tha~ _.,the .AEC should ~'2cosnizc the right cf t1:c State to t2;:-~in2..te ~£urther conside~ation of ~cvada as a s~2ci~ic site if such

r_,:_­L--

,action ap,?oar3 to the St~ te to be re.::.s;:;n::.ble.. · ,·::···

Also ·enclosed with this letter and rc?ort·are iEeres -Of corrcs9cnjence =cccivad by 1ny office in tho time follo~­.·ing su'.:)miss io:, t.o r:1e 0£ the coc:-...--:1i tt::-c ~2:::ort, .:is \·:ell 2:-::; i:1-. di vidt!c1. l co:r::::·::!,:.:s fr:0::1 c:::.c:-i of the C(;:::.--::it~c-c rr:c;:'J)cr-g. If t!1a::-~ is 0 ~-:"'"~--.."""" '-- ...... ~•-. -~-. L ...... ~lr C- ,_ ,=- J,...,. \ ,..-.._ - ..... l•-\.J._ - - - ~ ..,:..a/ ~ ""'.T '......'\ ,.:~•-:;::,---::---on_ co ...... ~ .. , '---••'----~-·••'- c.O ... c::.i.Jc.. o_ .__r:._...:,'-- _ .... ..._o_s J •• 0 .. 1 .• 1.. .••• _1, ..•. -,, ~-------~-·--~----------------- --~_____._-. J.t is tll~~~ :..~-~ ~;._:.:...:..:..tc ~.~::,:.--c :1:--.\~1...-: ~~~:r :~.:_·,.:.--.:-.: .:.:·1l.O~~~-..::lc2.::~:1 .:..,:~-:_~--~~-:• .. :::~--

__ · ·sl:..:111ct~::.cJ Oi. t.1..·.: ~!..~~.:.~...:.1c:.~; JJ':V(/~\:~~c: !.J·~-=-=~-~ :~:-i·\.-' c1~~c.:_:~:.o~ c::::.~ - -,

·-·-·· .. · .. ,-c.:;, (.l C. .L : : c._: •• _. :: .:.. .: : , ·:. ;: •-' c: _..,. _:_ i.: ll .'-- :'. ~ •--'-- l" ~ ,.: : ~ .>: ~· :1 ,

-.

,, r

----

., ' 1,-_ I

, )-

Atomic Energy Conrn1i.ssion October 28, 1974

51

Page Two.

Should continued discussion of Nevada as a specific site occur, I feel ~tis imperative that the AEC undertake public hearings in many of the majDr populiltion centers of Nevada. I would include at least the folldwing cities: Las Vega~, Caliente, Beatty, Tonopah, Ely, Elko, Winnemucca, Fallon, Hawthorne and Reno.

Should ?~cvada be selected for final consideration, it is vital that the State of ~cvada and the AEC draft and adopt a formal written agreement on the relationship of those entities as they are jointly involved in the proposed facility.

A program of off-site monitoring should be provided by an independ2nt agency, to insure data is available to the State at all times regarding effectiveness of radiation con­trols at the site.

The corruni ttee did not address its elf to so;;-ie of the broader-questions which the AEC must itself decide in coopera­tion with the American people. These include the question of nuclear generd~ion of electric power in the first place, and the method of storage of nuclear was~e if this generation is to take place. (The comrni ttee did, hc~-:ever, state that it does not feel Nevada is a suitable site for other than air

___ /f?Oling of waste.)

The Nevada Radioactive Materials Storage Advisory Com.-nittee has done a cor,:.rr.cndable job of reviewing a diffi­cult subject in a protracted period of tiGe. I am pleased to forward to you their findings and wish on behalf of the committee to ex-:,ress mv thanks to AEC er:rolovees ior ass is-

'- ...._ L -.

tance given to the committee during their revie\-i.·

.. ~ -- ... -··

,. ·••;-o•- --~.

-Enclosure -••----.- ....... ..._L.

.Sincerely I

. .. .... ......

·:'l • •

Mike O'Callagh~n Governor of Nevada

--• ~- - ~--· • ~ ..._,._.~

- _.I

• I",_..:-_ ...

f;T,\YL: 01• Ill V/\fl.\

t.:..k:.~uuw-,. Cll,\H.•n"

r: •-· ' J _,

-

-

-

October 18, 1974

The Honorable Mike O'Callaghan Governor of Nevada State Cu.pitol Cars.on City,_ N.evada 8970.1

Dear Governor O'Callaghan:

The report of the Nevada Radioactive Materials Storage Advisory Committee is enclosed and is respectfully submitted to you on behalf of the CoITL~ittee.

_ The Com.,ni ttee instructed me also to inform you that each member of the Committee has reviewed and evaluated the AEC environ­mental impact statement reg.J.rding the storage of com,T,ercial high level and transuranium-contaminated radioactive waste, and their personal comments are included in the addendum to the report. The Committee also noted that it was recognized that there were many alternatives which should have been more fully discussed in the final impact statement; hm,.rever, in view of ~he short pe~iod of time available for review and evaluation, neither the Committee nor its individual _members could deal with all of these alternatives.

The Committee thanks you for this opportunity to be of service to the State. Unless further directed by you, we assume that we have completed the assignment you gave us and that we are, therefore, discharged. ~

NDH:bjs Eri.closure

Cordially,

'--rl· o /n 1 / if /~ c/.J!.. ;ytc,t+-{Ji't,,~ Neil D. Humphrey 0 Chairman

- -·-;;:

sz

-53

REPORT OP NEVl'~Dh R,~d)IO.:\CTIVE i·lNI'CRil~LS

STORAGE ADVISC~Y co~~ITTEE

Section I - Co:mi'\i ttee I s Chnrqe

The Nevada Radioactive Materials Storage Advisory Co1~ittee

was appointed by Governor Hike O'Callaghan on September 20,

1974.

The. Governor's Executive Order cited the Committee's pur­

pose and responsibilities as follows:

1. 'l'o review and evaluate the Atomic Energy Commission I s

Environmental Impact Statement1 regarding t0e storage

of high-level radio~ctive materials.

2. To ensure that the Ato2ic Energy Com.'TL.ission adequately

advises the public of its proposal and disseminates

It relevant information pertaining ·thereto.

-

3. To elicit and encour2.ge maximum public comment on the

proposal.

4. To request any and all additional information from the

Atomic Energy Car.mission pertaining to the environ­

mental consequences of storing high-level radioactive

waste material in the manner and location proposed.

5. To appear at and participate in hearings, conferences

and meetings conducted by the Atomic Energy Con~1ission

or other agencies 1 institutions or entities investi­

gating the environ~ental consequences of storing

1u. S., Atomic Energy Cof.1.ic1ission I Manu.qcment of Co!".'..T,ercia.l High Level und 'r.ran~u::::-c1r:ium-Con t2i.7inct tcd Radio2ct:i vc 1·iaste, Druf t Environmon tal S t~a tcr:1cn t, ~;o. '.-ll\Sll-15 3 9 ( [ 1'.'o.shington J : n.n., September, 1974).

-

-

-

radioactive material.

6. To conduct those public rn~~etings necessary to properly

evaluate the environmental ramifications of using the

Nevada Test Site as a repository for high-level

radioactive material.

7. To prepare a summary of the Committee's findings,

conclusions and recommendations relating to the afore­

said project and sub~it that summary to the Governor

no later than October 21, 1974.

Section II - Organization

The Committee is composed of the following members:

Dr. Neil D. Humphrey, Chairman Chancellor University of Nevada System 405 Marsh Avenue Reno, Nevada 89502

Mr. Norman Glaser, Vice Chairman State Environmental Commission Box 1 Halleck, Nevada 89824

------------------~-------------------------~---------------------Senator Richard Blakemore P. 0. Box 672 Tonopah, Nevada 89049

Dr. H. E. Grier Senior Vice President EG&G, Inc. P.O. Box· 15090 Las Vegas, Nevada 89114

Mr. Harley E. Harmon P.O. Box 990 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101

Mr. Hank Tester KLVX-TV 5700 Mountain Vista Las Vegas, Nevada 89120

Mrs. Daisy Talvitie 1421 Dorothy Avenue, #2 Las Vegas, Nevada 89109

2.

Dr. James Deacon Biology Professor University of Nevada, Las Vegas Las Vegas, Nevada 89109

Dr. Alan Ryall Seismologist .Mackay School University of Reno, Nevada

of Mines Nevada, Reno 89507

Dr. George B. Maxey -Director Center for Water Resources Research Desert Research Institute Reno, Nevada_ 89507

Mr. Harry Wald Caesar's Palace 3570 Las Vegas Boulevard South Las Vegas, Nevada 89109

[ - I / • /• I -

·- 55 Dr. A. T. Whatley Executive Director

He.· Nonrw.n JL:::.11, l\ssist::tnt Director. Depurtm2nt of Conservation and

- l·7es tern In t0r~;ta te Nuclear Eo:1n1 P. o. Box 15038 Lakewood, Colorado 80215

Mr. Jack Parvin District Engineer Nevada Highway Department P. 0. Box 1·; 0 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101

.Mr. Dick Thomas Teamsters Local No .. 995 P. O. Box 1870 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101

Mr. H. M. Byars Byars Construction Company P. O. - Box 7 4 8 Reno, Nevada 89504

Natural P..csources, Eo01;1 213 201 South Fall Street Carson City, Nevada 89701

Mr. Roger Trounday, Director State Departmeont of Ilurnu.n Resources 308 North Curry, Room 203 Carson City, Nevada 89701

Mr. Noel Clark, Chairman Public Service Commission 222 East Washington Street Carson City, Nevada 89701

Section III - ComTni t tee's .?\cti vi ties

1. A meeting· was held October 1, 1974, in Las Vegas, which

- all members attended. Dr. Frank Pittman, Director of the

Division of Waste Management and Transportation, Atomic Energy

Commission, ·washington, D. C., revie,-;ed with the use of slides

the environmental impact statement entitled Management of

Commercial High Level and Transuraniura-Contaminated Radioactive

Waste (WASH-1539).

Following an extensive discussion, Chairman Humphrey

appointed a subcon@ittee to prepare a preliminary draft of a

report, and urged all members of the Cormnittee to submit their

statements to the subcommittee to be incorporated in the pre­

liminary draft. This subcommittee was composed of Norman Hall,

Chairman, Dr. Jnmes Deacon, Dr. H. E. Grier, and Dr. George B.

- Maxey.

3.

2. 'l'hc subcorn:-ni ttec met on Oc toher 7, 19 7 '1, in Lu.s Vegas,

- with all rn<?:mbers present.

-

3. On October 8, 197'1, the Cmr,rnittee toured the proposed

area at the Nevada Test Site.

4. Public hearings were held in both Las Vegas and Reno,

conducted by a hearing officer and court reporter to receive

comments from the public, during the hours of 4:00 to 8:00 p.rn.

on October 11.

5. The Cornraittee met October 17, 1974, in Las Vegas.

6. The media were notified of all meetings of the Com­

mittee.

Section IV - Summary of Opinions of Committee Members

The conl_.ments of Corruui ttee members who wished to present

individual statements are attached hereto, and while there is

a healthy diversity of opinion, several salient points emerged.

1. The Committee members feel the present conceptual

impact statement presents insufficient data to recoITL~end posi­

tively either against or for the acceptance of the project in

Nevada before the site-specific draft environmental statement

is prepared, debated, and understood by the general public.

However, the feeling is that we should encourage the Atomic

Energy Commission to continue to consider Nevada as a possible

storage site in their deliberations.

There is a strong feeling that an agreement between the

State and Federal governments outlining the exact responsi-

- bilities of each should be :ricgotiated if the Nevadu Test Site

4.

I . ./ r . ..,__ .1, '..-r·~·

56

-

-

-

,~ .,· ~- ,_.- -

57 is chosen and that the State should do sufficient inver;l.iyation

and rnoni toring to ensure tlwt. over the long period of. tir:-ic

envisioned, the necessary safeguards arc implemented and con­

tinue, both as to storage and transportation. It is believed

that the Governor of Nevada should have veto power over the

location of a storage site and that the Atomic Energy Com.mis­

sion should agree that if further evaluation of the proposed

site shows it to be unacceptable to the State of Nevada the

AEC will not seek to use it for storage purposes.

, 2. The Committee feels that if the water-shield concept

is to be used, Nevada should not be considered. The commit-

ment of the State's precious water resources to a project

where equivalent air-cooled alternatives exist is not

warranted.

3. From the presentations ,-::a.de to the Corrl!Tii ttee, the

corisefisus is that the simplicity and apparent safety of the

sealed-cask system is to be preferred since the Site has more

than adequate land for this type of i~stallation.

4. The limited transportation network in Nevada makes

it imperative that secure and safe transportation be a prime

~onsideration from the beginning of the project, and the

provision for a railroad should be implemented before waste

operations start.

5. While there is general public acceptance of the lillC's

activities at the Nevada Test Site that present radiation

problems, the further use of the Site as a storage area must

s.

58 be undertaken only after an cxtensiv2 and timely series of

- public disclosures und rncct.ings, concurrent t"li th the dcvclopr:.~-:-n t

of the fina.l environmental irnp?~ct statement.

6. If the AEC tentatively selects the Nevada site, the

Corr.mi ttee strongly recorn .. rnends that th0 Governor take advantage

of Dr. Pi tt..,1wn • s suggestion that a technical commi ttcc be

appointed and funded to work with the AEC in development of

the site-specific draft environmental impact statement, and

to carry out the long-term crnr~ni tments e>xpressed in the

Governor's commission to the ·present ad hoc Co;-rmi ttee. For

example, this technical committee should see to it that all

of the regulations and handling of waste be accomplished

according to the agreement, standards and descriptions as

- _presented in the Atomic E~1e-rgy Ccr;,,rnission' s environmental

impact statement; that certa.in specific physical requirements

be ~utually agreed upon which are not now clearly stated in

the draft envir.:mmental impact statement, such as that the

storage sit~ should be in an enclosed topographic and geologic

basin; that specific possible biological effects be carefully

studied, especially the possibility of concentration of

radioactive materials in the plant-animal chain; that a seismic

hazards study be made; and, in general, that the risk to the

health and safety of the public be reduced to the smallest

satisfactory amount.

Section V - Recorn.mend~1tions to the Governor

1. Nevada should continue to be considered as a site for

6.

-

-

-

the waste storage project if

a. air cooling is utilized;

b. rail transportation to the si tc is es tablishc,d;

c. State and local entities can cooperate in and

cohtribute to the development of th2 AEC 1 s

site-specific environmental impact statement;

d. it can be demonstrated that adequate radiation

·safeguards for storage and transportation can be

developed and implesented.

2. The Governor should establish a funded technical

advisory committee, the con@.1ttee to include at least two

members of the general public, to provide Nevada 1 s input to

and evaluation of the Atomic Energy Commission 1 s site-specific

environmental impact statement.

,_ -

Respectfully subraitted,

Neil D. HlEnphrey ,. (j Committee Chairman

7.

\_.,•I - !· ,,-.

59

-

-

-

l\ddcndum

A. Sta tcrncnts of Cora:11i t tee rae .. ,bers

1. Dr. H. E. Grier

2. Mr. IIank rrestcr

3. Mrs. Daisy Talvitie

4. Dr. James Deacon

5. Dr. Alan Ryall

6. Dr. George B. I•laxey

7. Dr. A. T. Hhatley

-8. Mr. Jack Parvin

9. Mr. H. M. Byars

10. M.r. Norman Hall

11. Mr. Roger Tround.ay

B. Statements of the public

1. Transcript of public hearing he~d October 11,

1974, in Las Vegas.

2. Transcript of public hearing held October 11,

1974, in Reno.

3. Letter from Neil B. Jensen, County Clerk, on

behalf of the Board of County Cornrnissioners, White Pine County.

4. Letter from Mr. Nick Orphan, City Clerk, on

behalf of the City Council of Ely.

5. Letter from Dr. Joseph A. Warburton, Chairman,

Radiological Safety Board, University of Nevada System.

6. Letter from Dr. Richard H. Brooks, Department

of Anthropology, University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

8.

60

-

-

7. Letter from Dr. Andrew C. Tuttle, Depurtmc:nt

of Political Science, University of Ncvuda, Las Vegas.

8. Letter from Mr. Lewis Scott, Instructor in

Radiologic Technology, \•7estern !';"evada Community College.

9. Letter from~~- Larry Franks, Radiological

Safety Officer, University of 1:evada System.

10. Letter from Dr. David L. Conroy, Department

of Philosophy, University of Nevada, Reno.

11. Letter from .Mrs. Jeanne Hewitt.

12. Letter from Hr. Andrm·.1 v. Anderson.

13. Letter from Lr. Bill Fiero.

14. Letter from Dr. Thomas P. O'Farrell, Laboratory

of Desert Biology, Desert Research Institute.

15. Letter from Dr. David Dickinson, Electrical

Engineering Department, University of Nevada, Rene.

16. Letter from Mrs. Charles H. Pearson.

17. Letter from Mr. Paul R. Duckworth.

18. Letter from Dr. Terry Lash and Mr. John E.

Bryson of the Natural Resources Defense Council.

19. Letter from Mr. J. E. Washum.

20. Letter from Mr. Jerry Chernik.

21. Letter from Amy Bargiel.

22. Com."llents of Frank Young, Interstate Nuclear

Board.

23. Letter from Hrs. Elizabeth A. Riseden.

24. Letter from Mrs. Karen Ernst.

9.

61

------, '( , __ _

25. Letter from Mrs. Viviu.n Gr.::tham. 62

26. Let tcr from l•lr. and Mrs. Clarence Johnson.

- 27. Letter from Patricia van Detten, with enclosures.

-

-10.

-----·-

-

-

4;..·- '!:..,· •. ·.~ ,..:i~~'),,, ,, I/ />---)•., \. -:\ ./ L,;1 , . ' J ) ·\ yr,_/_/• 4 I ; ; 1\ • 1 r ...... J ,

\. \ .., ✓r1 ·__ :' I , J __ caguc of \Von1cn \'otcrs of l'\C\'~aa

'> ' .' /, : I: "./ .. \.' . I •"\. ~ ,

\).. -✓-- f \_/.'/,'I Tf ! /

ST'':'::'-?.':'!' C'? ,,,~ 1.:::~:;:T~ C: ·,..-rv;;'T \:~::::::s OF ~~-::·.:c~ CC!:c:::.:::-;:~:;. 1.J .R. 15, ~<>rch 7, 1975

T:-!e 1,e,.5 ,1e of .,,.,.C!-:en Voters o:f 1:ev,.6 thir:ks U:e Leg-isht"C.re s::.ould

stror~ly ½uestio~ the Wiscett cf <>p~rovir.e a.J.?.. 15 .,sit st<>:-ic~.

There ,.re b.,sicnlly two cistir.ctively different prc-;:>cs,.ls ir. the

,.ctivit:.es .. nd the merits of this propos,.l deserve to be presented i::. ~

sep"'r,.te resol1.:tion.

Is preser.t.ly wcrced, t .J .?.. 15 i::ch:.des nor.e of the st:p-..:1,.tim:s to ~.,ice

t:i.e prc~.::;s 0 1 <>ccep"t.<>tle to ~ev .. d,. .. •t.ich :,overn0r C·' Cnll~ghnn e::-.::r~erntec ir:. ,.

h:.s letter of C0:-7,er.t to tte etc:-.ic E:!ergy Co::-_-.:..ssion. Sc::-,e of our cc:-i:::e!'T.s

coir'.cice • .-:.th t:-.::>se cf the Governor's ~cio,.c:.ive ~•.,ter-i.,.ls Stcr,,ge !dv-isc::-y

~.ittee:

The risks ir.:voh·ed in tr.,r.spo:rtntion of' nuc:!.e,,r w,,stes ::..s $1 p::-otlen cf

nPtic~•l r~tter tt~n just loc~l proportic~s. ~o ~,,tter ~~ere tl:e w~ste

the .f!.!'"'st ten ye-.:-s of opernticn CA~'1i~ter ,orr,iv-.J.s nt U.e .sito \.:otld r.:c,e

111ccicer..ts ?:.eitl":er co::s!cered nor resolved tl:e issue of dolit-cr .. !e i!-:.terve::~ic~ -

,_ -·

64 proge 2

- to be cc::--st.:r-..:.cted bet,.-een L.,s VPg.,s l'-lr,d tr.e "'est Site. '?=--eser:tly t~e

st~!)Ul .. tec tt•t oll ~~ch cper~tions must be loc,ted o~ts~ce o~ t~e ~etro-

"wwe .,!_so S!.,.re tb1t Co!7'::.. ttee' s op-::Josi tion to t!":e use of "r:y ;.;oter-:::.,s:.n

in tt:e cec!.si~ tc pl.,ce t~,e •"Ste cispcs"l site i:-:. 't!".e st.,te. ':'!:is :-ie,:-.s

-the pro:,osnl, litC.e in!.t!..,l publicity, J:lnd • he,.rir:~ held 3,COO ?::.:les "-'"'Y

'!'te 1.e,.~e coes e!"lcorse the '.:ioverr.cr'£ req'.lest :or --n "tree""".e:-:.t 1:et\,/'een

- specific s:.te er ever t.r.e locntion of t~.e ~:-eject !.r:. ~:C'Y"'C"' •t t>ll, !.!" t..~ .. t

65

- ~e bel:!.eve it is 1!.~f,,.ir to ho:d c~t t~e cevelo:;:r.;e~t cf,. ~ .. s~e stcr .. fe

site in ~~eTnC.JII ns Q sol,~tion to tr.e Stot,e' s ur:e:-:.plcre::t nrcble:-.s. Ir.ceed_.

eor:structiC:1 jobs i?: t:-.e i.r..:!.tinl ph,..ses, U:e O?er,..ti:":.;-; st..,f.f \.rill r:::...-.:::-er

worcs, ::.c.,,,. soon •"'ill t:-.e .fin .. l cisxs .. 1 site te .. v .. il<>'r-le nnc C"n \"ev .. c::i be

-. t te + 'I:.:' ,. • • ' ·1+ . l u1r ,(+ i • ~ .,_.., 111nc, c quo ,- rece".1 v _.:.s_ !:.ess ~ ec. .,er:_,. , ...... s r.o .... _e,,.s:.~-e,, tte

* '!'r.e <;'.Jesticn of lc-:-,r: lived r.ucJ..e,.:· .-.. stes is ct :1.,ticn .. l ur;:P:-:cy ,,nc.

It is r.ot s:...-.ply "" tec:-::.:_c-.1 n-:-ot-le'.'1. T?-iese ,.,,stes w:.ll :-e!'".-.i,. J..et:-_,,l

-

-

-

-

p-ve 4 (?~:to,:'.:• '{ri)

iLter:-:.t.7 cf the cis::>cs,.l site curir;,f th.,t period,, tr.e're .,re thi:--.,::s tbt , • i I

losses Pt ph?:it., in ~.;e..- !"ork ,..,_d Ckl,hor,.,,_ t::e ur<>ni~ t,iUr:;::s_ pile lei'"t

in the :--.:._ccle of S<>lt L.,ke City, nr.d tl,-.e tr..tj.:rr. d:!_scc.-ere,d i:1 "' Co:::-r,:,do

be subje,ct to r-....ec!"."':i.ic.,,1 f.,,ili.:re ;.,,.d r:i.:.~iir. error, vill tct.,lly esc<>pe

In co::cl..-;.sicr., we .,sk th-.t yo.1 cc:.sicer se-eki,_~ tr:e cevelop~er:t er

,.?".c! 1>t tr.!:! :e .. st to inc:::de i:1 e.e resolutic,n the stip-.:h:.icns r:_-,,ce by

the Go-:erncr in r.i.s co~ents to the ,.E.C. in Octcber,197~.

-t< I

66

-Information fo;·•_,,J._pcai.~er intro<'luctiona nncl navance publicity

DR. L. DOUGLAS DeNIYE ( {rhymes with Bpi'lre)) received hie

bachelor's <'legree magna cum lau.ne at Harvard in 1959, and h·ia

PhoD• in clinical psychology from Du~e University in 1964.

He served three years on the faculty of the USC Department

of Psychology, and six years with the Department of Psychiatry

· of USC Medical School. Hie. reaee.rch haa been on verbal learning

and ·laboratory analoga of psychotherapeutic proceseec.

Dr. DeNi~::e has served aa Presinent anc1 Vice-PreeiAent of the

Loa Angeles Chapter of Zero Population Grow'Gh, ana_ aa Chairperson

of the Nominating Committee for ZPG 1 o national Board of Directors.

In his wor~ for Zero Population Growth, he is beat ~nown for his

efforts to encourage city planners to consider the adverse effects

- of further population grow".";h.

-

Dr. DeNii--e's concerno about nuclear power stem from hill belief

that the criminal misuse of radioactive materials could bring massive

cUsruption to society. He has written an article on this subject

entitled, 11 Radioactive Malevolence," which appears in the li'ebruary /o/70 issue of the Bulletin of' the Atomic 'Scientinta

0

(lHome address and phone))

2677 Ellendale Place Los Angeles, Calif. 90007 733-9307

-

-

-

Er1~ie Albert, actor Hannes Alfven, Nobel laureate in Phycica 68 Da~id Brower, President, Frienrta of the Earth Ramsey Clo.r1r, former U.S. Attorney General Barry Commoner, well-'lrnown environmental author Alvin Dus1rin, San Francisco busincournan anrr environmentalist Paul Ehrlich, author of ~The Population Bombrt Daniel F. Ford, Hnrvard economist John W. Gofman and Arthur R. Tamplin, former hea~a, Medical

Physics Program, AEC La•.-n ... ence Livermore Laboratory Senator Mi'lre Gravel of Alao'ira Dav:Ld R~ Inglio, physicist, University of 1faesachusette Henry W. Vendall t physicist, Mlrnsachusetto Institute of Technology Jae~ Lemmon, actor Sam Love, Editor, Environmental Action Ian !fc!-mrg, planner, author o:c- ~.D"esign ierith Nature 11

Dennio MeadOi-rn, n irector of the HI1' f,Limi ta to Growth II project Bob Moretti, Spea~er of the Assembly Lewis Humforc'l, author of llThe Myth of the Machine 11

Ralph Na~er, concurner a~vocate Shela.on Novic'v-, Eclitor, Env'LT"onmcnt Richarcl s. Le1·ri0, E<litor, Bulletin of thQ. Atomic Scientj gta Linus Pauling, Nobel Chemistry irizo; Nobel Peace Prize Ernest Sternglacrn, radiation biologlst, University of Pittsburgh Theoc'l.ore Taylor, former Los Ale.moo nuclear weapons designer Edward Teller, physiciot, ,,rho believes all A-plants ohould be

constructed deeu unaer~round Georee Wald, Nobel-laureaie in biology Assemblyman Charles Warren ~enneth Watt, system analyst, University of California, Davia

Southern California Organizationa (as of March 1, 1974 - partial)

Another Mother for Peace California Citizen Action Group Ecology Cent~r of Southern California

-Environmental Alert Group Foundation for Alternative Energy People I a Action Research, People I s Lobby Sierra Club Valley Peace Center Women For Women Stri~e for Peace Zero Population Growth

-

-

-

Statement of Dr. L, Dour,lns DcNikc, Technical Con0ultant, Pco8]c for Pro0f

('I'he Cnlifornia Committee for NuclcDr Safc;yard:;)

I nm deeply honored to address this distinguichcd bocly on a question of

potentially the hiehest importance to the safety and wcll-bcin~ of the United

States. Indeed, the-importance of the matter before you is such that I feel

a burden of responsibility greater than I have felt at any previous time.

The burden results from my firm conviction that a retrievable surface storage

facility built anywhere in the United States would constitute an unconscionable

compromise to our national defense posture. The danger from nuclear weapons is,

by the federal govern..'nent' s own calculations, such that "a one-megaton wea;:,on

detonated within 2½ miles of a reactor would be capable of breach:i.ng the reactor

containment and damaging the pr:i.mary cooling system" (Proposed Final Draft,

WAS~-1535, USAEC., December 1974, p. 7 .. L-13)., lt is clear that a near-miss or

direct hit with a 10 to 20 ... mcgaton nuclear weapon upon the proposed RSSF, with

a radioactive inventory of severnl billions of curies of long-lived fiss:i.on

products, could release fallout sufficient to raise one-fifth of the contiguous

area of the United States to levels requiring semi-permanent evacuation. :aut

the danger is not limited to multi-megaton thermonuclear borr.bs. The news media

69

- daily remind us that we are entering a_ unique period of human history, in which

any nation or e:xtremist group with the ability to ·divert 18 pounds of plutoniuin

is capable of constructing a weapon equal in destructive power to 1000 tons of

hir,h cxplodveo Such a weapon, crude by the st:Jnciards of those who dc:.,:i.t,1 the

devices with whose seismic effects you are personally familiar, could nonetheless

be deb.vered close enough to the proposed RSSF to disperse its contents. Nor is

the danger limited to nuclear eA-plosivcs. The three designs proposed in the dr~ft

WASH-1539 doc\L'Tlent would ;;ll be susceptible to entry and time-bomb ccmolition by

determined terrorists or criminal blackmailers •. Indeed, it is quite conccivublo

that rocket and mortar attack from upwind of the facil:i.ty could ;.,1.•eak damacc

sufficient to make l<1tcr containment and manr,r;ement of the released m.-:iterial

-

-

- 2 -

70 impo::;si ble, for essentially all future ti..'T,e,.

I submit thnt, in advocotinr; a surf;}cc facil:i.ty in which to hou::;c the riir;h­

level waste from the nuclear industric~; of many nations, the r,ovcrn;r,ent i::.: without

justific:ition claiming that no such attac1i:s a:::; I k,ve described arc credible.

This is tnntarnount to saying that the EncrL,ry Reseorch and D:!vclopment Ac.J.cninistra­

tion is capable of predicting and guaranteeing civil and international tranquil­

lity for the next 130 years, and possibly the next quarter-million ycarc:,, if for

quite understandable budgetary reasons the 11 tcmpora:ry 11 RSSF becomes perm;;.nC:nt

through default. It is tantamount to snying that ;:ill motivational state::; of

all persons capable of obtaining access to major weapons can be divined for

time periods exceeding the administrative rcsponsibili ties of any govern~ncnt.,

In advocating such a surface repository, its promoters have, in my considered

judrrment as a social scientist, exceeded the boundDries of reason and prudence

to which we must hold them accountable.,

These hearings are conducted at a time when state-1cvcl action to curb

and reverse the nation's dependence on nuclear fission power is manifestly on

the incrense. Governor Hugh Carey of New York has decreed thDt no new nuclear

power plants will be sited in his state until h0 has been convinced that the

industry can be operated safely. Governor E&~und G. Brown, Jr. of California

has said that he is ''extremely reluctant 11 to supp.art the building of new nuclear

plants until it is "clearly demonstrated that they are safe and provide no risk

to public safety." Stronger stands against nuclear e::,,,_1nrnsion have been taken by

governors Robert Straub of Orecon, Philip Noel of Rhode Island, and Ji~my Carter

of Georgia, who intervened in hearings on the Barnwell nuclear fuel reprocessing

plant under construction in South Carolino. The Tennessee Attorney General has

filed to block a four-reactor TVA nuclear co:nplex at Hartsville, soying tho-t the

plant "will adversely affect the operation of the state govern:-r.cnt and the hecilth,

safety, welfare ;:ii1d ecol).omic well-beinc of the citizens of Tennea:::ec. 11 The Attor­

ney General of the state of Texas has promised to intervene in all propo::;ed nucle;:ir

-

-

- 3 -

pov:er pbnts in that statce As you ;:ire a¼'circ) the state of Icl;,ho deci::;ivcJ_y

rejected the construction of the RSSF on it::; coil.- A{ the level of ci tizcn

action, h7% of the voters in the Fir~;t Scn;itorL:il District of Eas::;3chu::;etb

voted against the construction of two large nuclear power plants on Kovc~b~r 5,

1974. In C::ilifornia, the organiz:1tion which I represent has alre:acJy eatnercd

enough signatures to qualify an initic:itivc for the 1976 ballot, which will cac:se

the California Legislature to study all phases of nuclear power safety in depth,

and to bring final judcment of its adequacy to a two-thirds vote of each house.

71

In this climate of nationwide citizen concern, it would &ppcar that dclibsr­

ation on the construction of a retrievable surface storage facility ought to pro­

ceed in a manner which pcmni ts the most thorouGh and scr,.rchine scrutiny.. ,•:ot only

the state or states receptive to sitinc, but all other states, especially tho~c

directly downwind, have a st.1kc in the outcome., 'Wh::it were the concerns, and the

technical finqines, which led the people of r~ansas decisively to reject the siting

of a supposedly permanent nuclear waste repository in the salt beds at Lyon:::i?

This distinguished body should become conversant with the history of that unpret-ty

episode, in which the federal government's early assurances of storage safety

proved unfounded. It will become clear that decisions which m3y re;:ich farther

into the future than any other dec:i.siorn::; made by Government aro to be maclc only

when all the facts are in, and when those facts unequivocally support a certain

course of action.

If the draft W!SH-1539 can be taken os indicative of the federal eovernment1 s

level of thinking regarding safety aeainst malevolent radioactive dispcrs2ls ot

the proposed RSSF, we are a long ,:ay fro:;n complete and unequivocal findings 0

The draft WJ\SH-1S39 contains !2£ :in0.l:vsis H:'rntcv2r of the vulnerc1b:i.li ty of R.SSF

design choices to acts of terrorism or w~r. Only very sketchy con5idcrztion is

given to the possibility of sobot3ge; fuller exposition on sDbotaGc is pro~~~ed I

in the final draft,. Impacts by nircraft or 11massive missile" (e.g., meteorite)

are cavalierly judged to be 11 incrcdible 11 , and thus um;orthy of analysis, despite

-

-

t.. f. C-

- 4 7Z

the fact that the f.1ci1i ty ia not dcd.c:-ocd ;:ip,ainst ofrcraft :impact, and dc~;pi tc

the f ;ict th;1t on November 11, 197?, .1ircraft hij2.ckcrs thre.1tcncd to cra:<::h t:--,eir

circlin6 commercial aircraft into the nuclear installations at Oak Ri~cc, Tcnnc0scec

What of war? Our peacc:-lovinG nation has been at war during 161, of the years

of its entire history, and u6% of the years since the advent of ato:::ic we;:;pons.

Who are --e to soy that a miscalculating, crazed, or insubordin0te military adver­

sary would not target a facility such as we considGr here? 1·Tno ore ;;e to soy that

a country might not be motivated to see to it that the United States of America

would never again become a significant econo~ic and military co~petito:r? These

are questions of incredible breadth Dnd depth, yet they arc very ccntr;ilJy rc:l;:itecJ

to the RSSF dcci3ion. The people of Hcv;:ida, and nll U-10 c:l.tizr~ns of thc::;e: IJni tcd

States, ore entitled to tho most searchinG and hone.st nns~-1cr::; on these matter:,.

I would submit th;:it this is not an issue to be determined on the ba::;i:; of opinions

r,atnered on a Friday afternoon in Hnrch, or to be s~-1.::iycd by a moment:-;:ry need to

increase the availability of employment. In closing, I would like to submit for

the hearing record several writings of mine which bear directly upon the proble;n

of the malevolent e)..--ploitation of radioactive materials. These arc: 11R.acioactive

Malevolence, 11 from the February 1974 issue of tne Bulletin~ the Ato:-r.ic Scientists

"National Defense Implications of Proposed_ Radioactive ·waste Stor&.ge Options" ( a

critique of the draft WASH-1539), 11Rad:i.oactive '\-laste Storage and Nation3.l I.:efenset,

(testimony presented to the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission at its hearing on the

draft WASH-1539, Nove:nber 12, 1974), "Nuclear Terrorisrr.n (a report written for the

Environmental Alert Group), ond a two-paGe flyer giving accounts of no less thDn

eleven actual crimes invol vinG radioactive materials or the nuclear po,-!er in&..:. :ot::.-y 0

Also, for 1.ts central bearing on the questions at issue here, a copy of testi~ony

given by Dr. John W. Gofmon, formerly of the Ar'.C 1 s L:n-,rcnce Livermore L3bor0to:ry,

to the Legislature of the st3te of South Carolina entitled ''Some Import3nt Un-' '

examined Questions Concerning the R;irnwcll Nucleor Fuel Reproces~;ing Plont."

* * *

-

-

-

L. DOUGLAS DeNIKE

RADIOACTIVE rvlALEVOL:ENCE

"The likely interaction of nuclear technology and the human predisposition to evil have been discussed here. It would seem that unacceptably great misuses of radioactivity cannot be pre­vented at acceptable cost in a world committed to fission em:rgy. The conclusion generated by available e'lidence and theory i.s that we must look el3ewhera for primary power sources. For the near future, some will disparage the clear indications that society is too immature to ac­commodate the nuclear· presence. Others will hope for a "moral breakthrough," while a few will conspire to bring dire events down upon us." L. Douglas DeNike, a clinical psychologist, is vice president of Zero Population Growth, Los Angeles.

The toxicity and persistence of radioactive sub­stances has radically altered the power balance be­tween large and small social units. It is now pos­sible for a few persons to force the evacuation of entire cities through the dispersion of plutonium or high level reactor waste. These materials are rapidly increasing in quantity and availability, coordinate with the growth of nuclear power. Thus it would seem of the highest importance to scrutin­ize the safety of the nuclear industry from human maleficence.

Ionizing radiation causes tissue da~age insensi­bly, persistently and at a distance. This imbues it with an unsurpassed threat value for . criminal misuse. Recent violent crimes and terrorist atroci­ties suggest very strongly that a few persons will commit the most heinous· deeds within their power. Their eventual employment of radioactive materials appears virtually certain.

Many believe that the irradiation perils inherent in the theft, storage or dispersion of radionuclides would automatically deter potential troublemakers. The facts of physics and psychology indicate other­wise. Evildoers will learn that alpha and beta emit­ters, while deadly in the environment, require only lightweight shielding which would present no prob­lems of bulk to thieves. Even spent reactor fuel and high level waste, which emit gamma 1ays and re­quire massive shielding, could be seized in pre-pack­aged and portable form aboard a transport truck.

Mo:ra simply, such a shipment could be destroyed by explosives detonated from a safe distance. On the psychological side, malefactom ignorant of :ra­diation hazard, deliberately misled concerning the nature of their hijacking assignment, or fanatical for their cause could assume risks of radiation ex­posure inconceivable to an informed person.

In any human organization, the possibility ensts for outright criminality or the negligent failure to safeguard against it. In the nuclear energy indu.,­try, several incidents have already occurred despite extraordinary precautiom:

• In August 1971, an intruder penetrated past guard towers and fences to enter the grounds of the. Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant at Vernon, Vermont. He escaped after wounding a night watchman. . ·

• In November 1971, arson caused $5 to $10 mil­lion damage at the Indian Point No. 2 plant at Buchanan, N.Y., just prior to its completion. A maintenance employee was accused of the crimes

• In February 1973, the Atomic Energy Com­mission's former top security officer; William T. Riley, was sentenced to three years' probation. An investigation revealed that Riley had borrowed S239,300 from fellow AEC employees and had failed to repay over $170,000. He used a substan:tial portion of the money for :race track gan,.bling.

• In March 1973, a guerrilla band took te~ rary possession of a nuclear station in Argentina.

• In August 1973, 21 "extremely harmful" cap,. sules of iodine-131 were stolen from a hospital in Arcadia, California.

A certain irreducible number of such events is bound to occur. As the Riley case illuatrates, there are limits to employee testing, screening and sur­veillance. Moreover, no screening program will ob,. viate the fact that during transient intervals nor­mal people do abnormal things. Persons under p:ressure may experience dark moods which prompt bizarre or desperate schemes. Fo:r example, if a virtuous but unstable employee came~ to believe that the perils of nuclear energy had t_o"'"be demon­strated to the public by a dramatic occurrence, he might become motivated to create t}Jat occurrence. Disgruntlement o:r boredom can lead to pointless vandalism or lapses in security precautions, incresa--

Reprinted by permi!sion of Science :ind Public Affairs, t..'le buiktin of the Atomic Scientis~ Copyriyit 197" by the Educ:ition2.I Foon~tion for Nuclear Science.

-

-

-

reticaliy bring 110 square miles to worrisome radio-2.ctive levels, or 3 square miles to the level used by the AEC in determinbg an "extraordinary nuclear occurrence."2 Such deposition could necessitate evacuation, extremely expensive decontamination or the permanent use of face-mask respirators.

Each 1,000 rr.egawatt-electrical nuclear power plant annually produces over 80 million curies of long~lived gamma emitters. One perc~nt of these could theoretically contaminate 500 square miles to levels that would require evacuation.3 Once known to possess such a deterrent, a criminal gang would be virtually immune from prosecution. Arm­ed with plutonium or high level waste in storage, organized crime might demand federal assurances 0£ non-interference with their operations. Punish­ment for non-cooperation might be the loss of Wash­ington~ D. C., as a habitable center. Nuclear thieves could demand large sums of cash, control over policy or special concessions from national govern­ments. One can imagine the plight of an administra­tion seeking to mediate the demands of several radioactive blackmailers--large or small in number, foreign or- domestic, criminal or altruistic.

States and cities could be threatened with radio­contamination of essential public facilities: capitol buildings, city halls, police stations, hospitals, wa­ter and sewage treatment plants. Simple disposal of radioactive material down a toilet could create a sanitary emergency by shutting down sewage treatment facilities. Attacks on workplaces would pose the threat of extremely costly contamination of equipment, manufactured goods and foodstuffs. Such losses would not be covered by most property insurance policies, which specifically exclude dam­age from nuclear radiation.

Any location which attracts the bomber of today will attract the nuclear thief of tomorrow. Places of public assembly such as theaters, stadiums and transportation terminals would be likely targets for nuclear terrorists, blackmailers or hoaxers. In the future, any wealthy, powerful or well~known per­son could receive real or crank threats from those who claimed possession of radioactive substances. Public officials subject to grudge attacks would feel obliged to use radiation detectors to monitor their homes, autos, offices and mail. Once sizable quantities of nuclear material had been diverted to the underworld, no imaginable precautions would prevent its widespread criminal use.

Thieves of radionuclides could induce or coerce an ignorant person to subdivide them for resale. They could then be purveyed anywhere in the world, to anyone possessed of the asking price. ,In this regard, the Nixon administration's plan to 'export nuclear power technology to 19 nations pre­sents grave risks. The foreign sale and subsequent diversion of nuclides potentially presents almost the same danger as the proliieration of nuclear weapons.

The kidnapping of a nuclear scientist is no more difficult than the procurement of special nuclear

[_'1-

74 materials. Even an extremely loyal employee might surrender top secret information were he, she or a family member to be abducted by ruthless crimi­nals. To precluda misleading information,. criminals. might kidnap two or more experts, whose separately coerced accounts could be checked for consistency. · Of course, the possibility of Elhberg-type leaks or even voluntary collaboration of nuclear personnel v;ith criminahl can never- be completely ruled out. Thus, the safety of the "atomic age" from criminal domination must be judged in light of the questions: Does security depend on secrecy? How likely is such secrecy to be permanently kept?

Hoodlums, domestic subversives or foreign agents may attempt to incriminate innocent third parties for acts of nuclear violence. By deliberate fabrica­tion of clues, malefactors may hope to escape the · blow of retaliation and divert the same onto a rival or suspect group. This possibility suggests special perils in connection with smoldering international conflicts. A small nation or faction might arrange nuclear power plant sabotage in the United States in such a way as to make another nation appear responsible. If the dispersal of several large amounts of radioactive materials of mysterious or misleading origin occurred in a short period of time, the nation might feel impelled to retaliate against its most visible enemy with a missile strike. The risks of error would be high, and the consequences, monu~­mental.

Psychosocial Aftermath

One immediate evacuation-related p~blem, fol­lowing a large radioactive spill, would be the eva­cuees' anxiety concerning their degree of radiation exposure. Facilities would be required to deal with hypochondriacal complaints of radiation sickne5S as well as the medical injuries of actual victims. Some exposed women may request therapeutic abor• tions. In the wake of the emergency, other issues would arise. A strong public demand, impossible to grant, might be to shut down all nuclear plants at once. Real estate values close to nuclear facili­ties, especially downwind, might be severely cut. Massive litigation and agitation for indemnification could be expected. Evacuees would have to. be maintained, relocated and reemployed. Persistent contamination of substantial areas would necessi­tate bypass transportation routes, new water sup­plies and sources of agricultural commodities.

Never before have large inhabited zories sud­denly become unusable without visible damage. The administrative problem of keeping people out of such areas might not be solved completely by the fear of radiation. Near the periphery of these

. areas, persons might attempt to loot amt transport materials, some of which might be contaminated. Vagabonds and desperadoes, relatively- unimpressed with official warnings, might take up residence within interdicted zones and mount forays there­from. Thus, these fenced-off areas might pose con­tinuing headaches.

-

-

A n::.ajor percentage of electrical power might thus ;:.;, bst in a single strike.

It is doubtful whether undergrounding, at what­e·:er pmcticable depth, could positiyely exclude ~3.l~factors or prevent the atmospheric reles.se of n'lclide.s following attack or major accident. An underground nuclear power station would have to ::1aintain several connections with the surface. In­truders still might enter, and the volatile 20 per­cent of fission products still might leave following rupture through elevator shafts, stairwells, air con­cE:ioning ducts and sizable freight entrances that are big enough to accommodate spent fuel casks.

T'ne wartime adyantage of undergrounding fades '7tith the recognition that nuclear explosives could destroy even a greatly hardened site. A direct atom bomb hit on a surface nuclear power plant would 2ctually result in less onsita contamination, since most of the material would be carried up to fae stratosphere by the rising fireball. Once rup­tured, any nuclear power plant would be eventually infiltrated by groundwater, whose percolation would carry radiation into the large body of water that supplied the plant's cooling.

4. The unjustified reliance on human scruples. Conscience might prevent all but one in a million persons from committing radioactive atrocities. That would still leave 3,800 people in the world who could endanger most of the others. However, cir­cumstances enable normal human beings to ration­alize vicious deeds. An attacker either subjectively dehumanizes his victims, invokes the right of ven­geance or justifies his behavior as part of a larger noble cause, such as "ending the war."3

5. The false hope of prevention through social science. It has been suggested that physical or psy• chological profiles might be constructed to identify potential nuclear criminals. Such profiles have been of some value in screening possible airline bijack­e!'S at the ticket counter or boarding gate. How­ever, future atomic felons do not so cooperatively present themselves for advance scrutiny. Thus, any screening instrument would have to sift, at great expense, major segments of the population. Prob­ably even a very large net would not catch all the fish. The validation of the screening procedure would be a majcir undertaking in itself. In a free .society, no prior restraint could be placed on those identified in the screening as high risks.

6. So far, so good. Reliance on a good past rec­ord ignores the automatic multiplication of mal­feasance opportunities as the nuclear industry pro­life:ates. Moreover, new technological innovations may pierce formerly impenetrable barriers. The remote-controlled drone airplane, which could put a crude guided-missile capability in criminal hands, is an example.

7. The false hope of insurance. As AEC esti­mates of possible damage in a radioactive release bave risen to Sl 7 bi1lion, utilities' total liability for a single nuclear power pfa.nt disaster is limited by the Price-Anderson Act to less than $600 million.

Private insurance against radio-contamir.ation is largely nonexistent, and the present annual limit oi Small Business Administration disaster loans is S4.3 billion.

8. The fallacy of comparative risk. American society accepts the 57,000 fatalities and 2 million clisable!r!ents that annually result from U.S. high­way travel. Are radioactive disasters acceptable by comparison? Auto accidents are not subject to sudden orders-of-magnitude increases; casualties from radiation are.

:No other risk presents the prospect of long-term incapacitation of sizable inhabited land areas and watersheds, injecting an element of uncertainty into. all planning for land use.

No other hazard poses a distinct threat to the health and genetic integrity of future generations.

No other hazard, save that generated by the in­ternational nuclear industry, quietly undermines our entire system of national defense by making the United States vulnerable to anonymous attack from within.

Since 350,000 Americans die annually from can­cers, perhaps additional cases of radiation-induced cancer would be inconsequential on a percentage basis. Howeve:r, since one out of four U.S. citizens is presently destined to contract cancer, we should not be eager to add unpredictably large doses of carcinogens to our environment.

Another comparative-risk argument invokes the threat to industrial civilization in the absence of an inexhaustible energy source, presumably pro~ vided only by nuclear fission. Granted that a long­term power source is indispensable, potentially in­finite energy may be obtained yet from the varied effects of the solar beam~ the Earth's heat~ and the fusion of light atoms.

NOTES

I. Ralph E. Lapp, ''The IBrunate Blackmail." New York Times Magazine, Feb. 4, 1973; Robert B. Leachman and Phillip Althoff, eds., Preventing Nuclear Theft: Guide­line., for Industry and Gouernment (New York: Pmeger, 1971).

2. This level for tram,uranic alpha emissioruJ is 0.35 microcurie:, per square meter, as given in USAEC Rules & Regulations Section 140.84, Nov. 28, 1970.

3. Gamma deposition of 1.400 curies per square mile would deliver a first-year dosage of about 50 n?m. Thi!I is ten tim;,s the annual maximum permitted to atomic workers in restricted areas_

4. U.S. Atomic Energy Comm.is;iion, Nuclear Fuel Cycle Division. "Fuel Cycle Safeguards," Nov. 6, 1973.

The minimum number of armed guards tbat must ac­cnrnpany shipments of special nuclear material (SNM) in a railroad car Ol" separate vehicle remains at two, The still-required prominent identification numb~ on top of the vehicle enable easy identification by searchers and also enable easy identification and pursuit J;y aerial at-tackers. ·

The general theme" of the transportation rules is to withstand small BSMu!ts with pistols but not to withstand. let alone repel, significant armed attacks. A singl1;1 am:ied guard monito" transfers of SN:\L

5. R. :Kevitt Sanford and Craig Com:;itock. eds., Sanction., for Evil (San Francisco: Jos;,ey-Bass, 1971).

-

-

-

~;-~ ::'::::C'.·I.AL-Dr:.t .'.0JSE IH?LICATIOUS O? FROFC2.:::J EU1.::l:OACTIVE WASTE STORAGE OITIONS

Critique of Eanaze."nent of Co)'TII;';erciE.l· Eigh Level and Transuraniut:t­Cnntaminated Radioacti 'le Waste ( Er,-,""ir~ntal Statement). U.S. Atomic Energy Corn.'nission document ·nASrI-1539 (draft), Septsn.ber 197h

Re-newed by L. Dougl2.s TuNike., Ph.D.

CALIFORNIA~S FOR NUCI.:S.G SAFEGUARIS 2315 Westwood Blvda, L.A., CA 90064

Telephone 213-~7h-3320

This document formally proposes tr.~ construction of a retrievable surface storage facility (RSSF) in which to m~n2ge all high-level radioactive waste from the commercial nuclear power indus:.r.r. Methods are also proposed· for interim management of wastes contaminated with long-lived alpha-emitting artifi~ial elements such as plutoniu..~,

The RSSF is anticipated to be in service over a period of as long as 130 years, from about the year 1980 until 2110, until such time as a proven perman­ent radioactive waste disposal method can be implemented. Three main options are presented for tha RSSF design: (1) Water basin, in which one-by-ten-foot stainless steel waste canisters, each e2itting 1 to 20 ld.lowatts of heat, will

76

be stored under 20 feet of continuously cooled water 30 feet below ground level. (2) Air-cooled vault, in which waste ca:u.sters will be managed just below ground level in reinforced-concrete vaults cooled by passive natural-draft air currents~_ ( 3) Sealed cask concept, in which individual canisters jacketed by two inches of steel and 38 inches of concrete will be emplaced in the open air and cooled by nP.tural atmoscheric circulation inside :he concrete radiation shields. Canister w2ll thiclmess is not specified, but do~s not appear to exceed½ inch.

The three most likely sites for the RSSF as developed in the draft are the Nevada Test Site, the National Reactor Testing Station in Idaho, and the Hanford Reservation in the state of Was~ington. The document makes no recom­~endation among the three locales, nor aCTong the three storage concept~.

~he draft ~~fH-1539 contains no a~~lysis whatsoever of vulnerability of the RSSF choices to acts of terrorism or wa:-. Only sketchy consideration is given to the possibility of sabotage; fuller exposition on sabotage is promised in the final draft,. Impacts by aircraft or 11rn2ssive missile" (e.g., meteorite) are con­sidered to be incredible and thus un~or~~y of analysis. ·

The gravity of these o~issions beco~es evident in consideration of the unique nature of the proposed facility. The p~o1cr.ged period of service expected of the RSSF, the unparalleled hazard posed by its contents should they be dispersed in the environ.~e~t1 and the inc~us~on of_~as~e from many forei~ countries ~_!:.iere 'Will T".ake the RSSF like no other 1.nsT,allation. in the ~.;orld.. FJy tne year 2010; as many as 6,364.1 meg2curies (6~36hl billion cc:=ies) of persistent fission pr9ducts will be stored there. As many as 165 forced-draft cooling tO"'rrers could be needed to cissipate the heat generated by this r.2-:~ri.eil, which could evacuate no less than cne-fifth the land area of the ~8 conti~guous states if widely dispersed~

-

3. ?or credible dispersions invol·.---::..:cg radioactivity levels -sufficiently high to l;,rgel7 preclude direct hur~an p::.:'.cipation in cleam1p., plans should be set in motion for the design c1r:d cnr_, -.r'iction of reTT:ote-controlled or totally robotized machine!')'" capable of perforni:-.~ -the necessary tasks.. Adoption of a final construction plan for the repositc:-y should be contingent upon the success­ful protot::_rpe testing and letting of pre :uctior! cont:-acts for such decontarrtination and cleanup machinerf. Such machinery, together with all provisions for its use and later retirement without human serv-::_:i~g o~ce contaminated, should be stored both at the site and redrJndantly at some cista~ce fro~ the site, lest attack dam­age at the repository prevent use of the equip~ent stored there.

4. In the design and public descri~tion of the security system for the facility, due recognition should be give~ to the fact that secret information about it can "leak out" and become kno,.," to public enemies over the course of mariy decades. Thus, to the fullest exte:-,t possible

3 the security system should

be designed to rely mini.':!ally on secreq, It is not advocated that details of security precautions be publicized unnec2ssarily~ Honever, the system should be so intrinsically sound in its physical c:sign that h✓-pothetically, al~0st every­thing about it could be disclosed withoc.:':. significantly lessening tha safety of the installation. It is '11ost emphatical:.y predicted that secrecy-which momen­tarily ~asks the weaknesaes of an inhere~tly inadequate security system will on]y delay the day of its breaching, not prev~nt it~ ·

77

S. On-surface or near-surface des~zn options for the interim repository~ unacceotahle and mustberejected~ Thi5 conclusion stems directly from recognition of the facility asacredible target for attack b'°J nuclear ;.,eapons,. This principle makes due allowance for the fact that o~ pre.s,_cf:it chief adversaries appear to have no interest in attacking such an instaD..~tion, or would fear retaliation in kind should they do so. As was pointed out 2jove

3 the identity and strategic planning

of enemies of the 1Jni ted States can be e:q,ected to change unpredictably over time. '!'he concl11sion stands independent of a;;.:: international agreements which may be adopted which ·would· declare civilian ato;,:ic facilities non-targetable in warfare. Treaties, and adherence to treatie~, are not of the order of durability which is essential for the repository. The conc:.·.:.sion is unalteTed by the fact that direct hits with large nuclear weapons would d~c:perse most of the radioactive debris into the stratosphere, resulting in a· fallout pEttern tnat would be too ~ridespread for military value. Attacks on any surface~.1placed atomic facility v;i..th nuclear weapons can be calculated so that the b'~st. is sufficiently low in yield, off­target, and meteorologically timed so tt2t de~astating fallout effects may be achieved. Considering once again the ce~t1:Iy-plus period-over which the repos­itory must remain intact, advance allo~2~ca must be made for future refinement in missile accuracy and in weather informa:ion obtainable by an enemyo

6. A hardened deep-underground si:.:.ng ·strategy for .the interim waste repos­itory appears indispensable if our n2tic~..al defense posture is to remain uncom~ promised. A working JllOdel of such a co,_::ept is provided by the North American Aerospace Defense Co:nr:iand headquarters &-: Cheyenne Mountain, Colorado,. Although it is located beneath 1500 feet of gran:~e rock, NORAD headquarters is already recognizec as vulnerable to repeated di~8ct hits with thermonuclear weapons~ Notwithstanding, it epitomizes the pres':o::.tly attainable degree of protec:tior:. against war da::nage. The cost of buildi:-.;;, cooling_, and maintaining such- a deep­underground rock-sited fadli ty would b: s:7all compared to the expecte,~l cost froa a nuclear attack on a surface-built ins~2llation,. Since the United State3 will build no more thaci two such re~osi torie5, there is n,'.:J pressing need to econo::.!ize. Since retrievability follorli'12 attack c:8s not in.~ere in surface-em~laced desi~ns

·- • c:, '

possible loss of retrieval capability i~ a d,32p-1.!-i.'1.derground site does not appear to constitute adequate grounds fer reje::::.i7:g it.,

Atomic En~rgy Commission

o~~ ~s;;~f1lial :;~~/J ,.,, ~.-vt'-r:-~:1 '=/','li•~n pow~,. ;,Jil,,t lu~I to rr,l,f,3,-,., !.-'1~ 11 :.,-!' l_,~f r'!'=:'=-~,p,s.~,l'?g t)!.Jnl. Sl'/own l'!ttf'~ ~ue

/';,Jl":[j"'.,.~ •".:JT- ~"'"''=''"' .::::.e---,• r:~,,:;i~!Jr lu~I 3S:Se!m/)i,j-$ h.)1"19 b~lavr :>.~ ;r~t•l"JJ ~t" r!'!~ , :f:3~r:1 (;Jt.a,-iit;.)I Prcc~,;smg P!iJr,t. TN:- l1.1'!f1 1~ a.,,,,,.3,t,-qi ~r,;•r:f:.~mg wh,c:h will remo,.,-• f)luu,,

n•uf7'1", ;i.J~'?'r""!t~f bl!=!:! ,-.:=-=:~ d~

Unprecedented tragedy looms in the form of terrorism and blackmail involving privately built atomic bombs and the deliberats dispersion of radioactivity. These mounting threats stem from the worldwide proliferation of nuclear power plants. As India showed recently. "peaceful" reactors can be used to manufacture atomic explosive materials such as plutonium. Moreover, staggering concentrations of lethal radioactive wastes accumulate in nuclear power plants. The cost of crimes involving these substances could sum to· billions o(doilars an­nually, which would make atomic fission the most expensive possible way to generate electricity. The key facts are these:

-Each large nuclear power reactor contains enough radio­active wastes to force evacuation of over 10,000 square miles should they be dispersed by sabotage.~ Also, embedded in the spent fuel which a single plant discharges each year is enough plutonium to make 30 "crude" atomic bombs. Each bomb would be at least powerful enough to demolish a skyscraper. the U.S. Capitol Building, or - a nuclear power plant. These deadly materials must therefore never be permitted to come under the control of outlaws. Yet there are no plans to guard shipmer.ts of high-level waste or spent fuel. As for plutonium and other fissionable A-bomb ingredients, a group of Atomic Energy Commission consultants rec~ntly urged that_ immediate steps be taken to greatly strength_en their protection from theft.'

-Atomic bombs and radiation-dispersal weapons are- fairly -asy to build. Two eminent nuclear scholars, Mason Willrich wmd Theodore Taylor. believe that a small group of persons · cou:d do so within several weeks. utilizing only open un·

c!assifi"!d information available to anyone. 3 Such persons would then be in a position to blackmail whole cities, or even entire gov,c,rc:ments through threats ag.ainst national capitals. Via sm wggling. nuclear materials stolen anywhere in the world cou:d be used against the United States.

• ·• ~, _..,___ -: ~ •c~ .. '. - '~- ""~:-·

A joint proj&Ct of Environm11nt::;,/ ;;,BGroup and Environmtmlal Education Group.

.PUBL~C lf\JTEREST

REPORT NUCLEAR TERRORISNl

·: .• the adaptability of nuclear fuels· for usg as weapons poses a growing danger to a.If peopll!s in th~s" tim"s of incrf!asing reliance on nucle11r energy to m!!IJ( the powf!r demands of industri!,I societies that are inr;;reasit'rgly vulnerable to the disruptive acts of df!s;,<Jrate individuals and organizations. The. nuclaa, trigger which threatens the fives of millions. if not the peac" of the world. is nu longf!r within the grasp of ju,;t a very ff!W. Thil failure of governments ta face this ugly fact constitutes another measure of the incr-,asing danger in which-we all fivf!."

"Fission energy is safe only if a number of critical devices work a.s they should, if a number of people in key positions faifow aff their insm.,c­tians, if there is no sabotrige, no hijacking of the transports, if no reactor fuel processing plant or· reprocessing plant or reposUory anywh<!re in the world is situated in a region of riots or guerrilla activity; and no revolution or war - even a 'con­ventional one' - takes place in these regions. The enormous quanritie!i of extremely dangerous mate­rial rnu:.t not get into the hands of ignorant peoplt1 or desperadas. No acts of God can be permitted."

-from Or. Hann.,, Alfv!'n, NOb!'I Laur!'at In Phy.sics, writing in May, 1972 BULLETIN OF THE ATOMIC SCIENTISTS

-Already in the U.S .• several thefts of highly radioactive gamma•ray sources have occurred, and several nuclear black· mail threats .have been received. Incidents of intrusion, arson, and small-scale sabotage have occurred during the construc­tion of nuclear plants in Vermont. New York. and Colorado respectively. Atomic secrets may be obtained by the under• world by bribery or extortion directed against vulnerable employees,4

American nuclear power capacity is expected to triple by 1 980. Foreign capacity will go up eightfold by then. involving 30 nations. Despite these ominous trends; only feeble attempts are being made to develop safeguards adequate to protect the anticipated massive flows of ultra•dangerous materials through commercial channels. Many who have studied the outlook say that no imaginable safeguards could work well enough. The awesome consequences which could follow from even a single breach of the safeguards demand nothing less than perfection in the system.• An international black niarket iri the means of mass destruction appears inevitable unless nuclear fission ppwer industries are shut down ·everywhere.

Hijacking of plutonium. Purified plutonium is stored near nuclear fuel reprocessing plants. When it.is later shipped for fuel fabrication or military weapons production. it is accom­panied by no more than three armed guards. ;Sealed in strong containers, its low-penetration alpha ray emission would pre­sent no danger to thieves. Yet finely powder.ad plutonium in the environment represents an appalling lung.cancer hazard. One 140,000.000th of a pound of inhaled plutonium has caused lung c::incer in animals. Its dispersal by w,nd from a high build­ing could evacuate one to three square miles per pound releas• ed.

A privately built fission bomb would require no more than 18 pounds of plutonium metal. or 22 pounds of the oxide. Pu02 •

--

'3 0 C) 0'

. <

0 u ('. or--­or-\ ;J:: I

~-=-C!.J....::: ~ -1.J'.fT'"" r-1 ,---i r""\(\; C\J .._....

-

0

;-;,,,;,, -~}lo-m .. · :l l - -

1-."E\V YORK tt'l-The New York Times reported Sunday that the fed­eral goverm12ent was unable to ac­count. for thou.sands o! pounds of ur­ar,itLrn &,d plut.:inium that could be used to manufacture nuclear bombs.

The r.ewspaper, ii., a story from Waohington. said the nue1ear materi-2.ls were unaccount~ for at 15 com­mercill plants in the United States regulated by the Atomic &e:gy co~~"11issi.orr. .

Fran.1.c Ingram, 2."1 AEC spokesman in \Va.shingtOn, said ~on offi­cials would have no comment on the _st.cry ~?,l tJ:ey bd ~ jt,. .

Experts in foe indu.t..ry a..rtd L'l uni­versities and unnamed AEC offida.13 were cited by the newspaper as the sources from whlch the account of the missing ele:::i.ents had been coo-­stiucted.

At one UJ"ideritified plant, the newspaper said, about 9,()1)() pounds of h.ighly:·er,.riched umuu.,.-a is Ui.':Z:• counted t6r. , ·

Small amour.ts of the two nudear elements can be combined to fashlon a crude nuclear weacon capable of kil..!L.,g- thousand3 of p<>..rsons. the Iie"W3pape}'.said.· -

·• ,""'" - ,, ,o ·- I\ r,. .. ""_ - -1 r _ _ iR"--_ _ _ ~-': &J__ r.~.ars J tse ~ of A-Threats I A. ..... ~ ...,

W ASHL,GTOX ®-T'n~ FBI has expre,;sed concern about a possible incre33e in the number of e:-:tottion­ists threa.lening to explcde nucleo:ir weapons i.'1 American cities. . FBI officials said Friday they be­

lieved the threats might increase be­cause of publicity about the pcs.;ibili­ty that raclioactive material might be stolen from nuclear plants and t1:,--ed· by terrorists and extat"'Jon.i::.is to fashion crude bombs. _

Two FBI officials familiar with the situation said the agency- had investi­gated seven such threats dunil" the last year. more than in any pre~'ious _y~ars. · ,

But, they said, there have ~n no cases of ;ictual theft of nuclear materials and no cases in which an individual· actually has built a nil--clear bomb. '

"Prom Ro:,1e, Group W corres"Dondent Don Lar.:::-imore renorts that the old adage abou~ not drinking the water in Europe may have to­be dusted offo"

~rt sounds like something out of a fantastic naperback thriller but the govern.T.ent says this nlot really did take nlace and Italy is aghast. Defense :v:inister Giulio Andreotti has told Parlia..'Tlent th2.t r-ight_-wing terrorists plan_"t1ed to poison Italy's water sum:ily this fall with ra.d.ioactive uranium stolen from a nuclear center and placed in var-iou3 aqueducts. 3ight people have been arrested, twelve others are being sought and fifty-fiv·e more have beer:. told they :nay face legal action,. According to press reports,ur:.der huge headlines, the scherr.e also involved a plan to assassinate the P:::-i:r:e ;·.:inister, the Ccmr:mnist- Party leC.:der, and other too officials in the hoDe that larie scale nanic would ensue farcing the arr.w to intervene and opening the way for a rightist govern::.ent takeover. Andreotti, reporting on four years of neo-fascist subversion, also cc:r:.:ir~ed that, i:r:. Dece~ber, 1970, rightists actually got into the Interior ~inistry and stole weapons frorr. the a~mory before that abortive coup fizzled. The forrr:er head of t::.e Ir..te ~ lL:e~ce Service, Geraeral Vincenzo :,aceli >

has been o:fici2lly war~ed"h~ is u~der suspicion of favoring the coup by witholding infor~2tion. This is Don Larrimore for Group W News, Rome.''

.'l.;;ril. 1964 through Jun8, 1972. During this intervsl Vlilliam T.

-MT!9:•1. top nari-onal s9curity oHicar for tha Atomic Enargy Commission, :C,orr:: ...,,.d S239.300 from fellow AEC employ""' and fail~d -to repay o,·,;r S 170"000. A substantial portion of tha money was used in rac.,. t:ac;;, -;iaml;,long. During this int,.rval Ril"Y had acC8ss to thE> nation's h:;':.t:t$':' a1:orntc S'3'crat~. and his y:.;irnb.lmg activ,:-.•,r was. unknown ta hi::; sL::~r•crs. Thu~ ha was a pos~ibls tar5at for blackmail He wa:!; :sentanc­ec: :~ :~-,3a yaars" prol:lation in F,>bruary. 1973. Michael Sa1ch~rl. "The R,;~y A;~ai, .. (2 4-73) and "'E>c-AEC Aid,. Put On Probation·· (2-21-73). ~:,,lr:J"~hi11qtdr, S~ar-t✓ ~w.s.

March. 1973. A guerill1t band took tempor1try possMsion of a _ nuc:lea, station naarlng cornplation in Arg,.ntina.:,- The guerills,s

dec:orated th~ plant with political slogan• and I!!~ without doing any damage. Env,ronmsnt. ..!_une 1973 (Sp,;,,:;trum sa<:t\on), citing Nuclsa, Industry. April 1973.

April, 197 4. Pans of two trains in Ausl:,a w..,-., found contamins,t8d with a radioactive liquid used in madicnl diagnosis. A m·an calling himsalf a ""juslic,. guiH"ilia"' telaphon1td a warning that pas~an5.on' lrv8s war& in dang!tf. Sligh1 tracas of radiation w.,r,. found in (sic, n<H ··on··, eight pa"eng,,r3 and in a bo;.: in the baggag" car. '"Mystary·fl,,diation Hits AnothM Train," Los Ang"l~s Times. April 20. 1974.

-

-

-

ASSFr:BLY EN\'TR0I-H-!El1T & PPBLIC P~S0T.IP.C2S ·co\IMI'I'TEE Friday, March 7, 1975

EXHIBIT "H"

80

Mrs. Barbara !1indling, Post Off ice Box 400, Virginia City, Nevada

telephoned the following message to be submitted to the Committee

on March 7, 1975:

"I would like the residents of ~evada to have a say in the decision

about the disposal of atomic waste in Nevada. More information

should be made publicly available as to t.~e pros and cons of atomic

waste in Nevada".

-

-

\ . t

-

... ·······-·· -----. ------------,------.---. l:.i.~c..,,,.

S0:\1E IMPORTANT UNEXAMINED QUESTIONS CONCERNING

THE.BARNWELL NUCLEAR FUEL REPROCESSING PLANT

John W. Gofman, M. D., Ph.D.

Division of Medical Physics

University of California

Berkeley, California

TESTIMONY BEFORE THE

NUCLEAR STUDY COMMITTEE

THE LEGISLATURE 0:? THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA

January 7, 1972

81

-

-

-

-1-

Int rodt:. ~ti on

I consider it a privilege tc disc:uss with you some crucial q_ue:::;tions

concerning the siting and operation cf the proposed Barnwell l'It:.clear Fuel

Reprocessing Plant of Allied-Gulf Nucl-::'ar Services. A11d I wish to express

my c:.ppreciation to Mr. H. J. Larson, P-_resident, and l•1r. R. I. He,•rrnan, Vice

President of the Allied-Gulf NuclE:ar S-'::-rvices Company. They he.'✓e both been

gracious and totally cooperati Ve in ma'c~ing available to me for study the full

Environmental Report on the proposed B3.rmrell Plant. More than that, tr1ey

have both expressed their sincere desire to have my comments and su.ggesticr1s.

Allied Chemical and Gulf Oil Corporat:i.ons arc two of our foremost

U.S. industrial corporations. I accep-:: completely the statemr-'!nt of :Mr. R. I.

Ne,np.an in a recent letter to me that:

"It has been, is and will ccc:.tinue to be our prime goal to insur~

the safety of the public as ·well as our workers, and to insure that our opera-

tions have a negligible, if any, impact on the environm,;mt."

Therefore, the issues I shall raise here are addressed to these two

great f,roerican corporatio:'.1.s, as well as to the South Carolina Legislature.

As we get into the discussions more deeply, I hope it will become clear that

the Barnwell facility raises questions reQuiring that the necessary participants

ar!: far beyond Allied-Gulf and South Carolina - indeed, we must truly consider

the i.ntP.rests of everycn'= living on the Ee.ste:rn Seaboard of the United Sta t<c,s,

as WPll as those of more inland States. Some of the considerations will

d,cmor,strate th:1t, because of potential :-.·is·k of requiring evacuati or. of

Washinp:ton, D. C., the entire national inte:rest is definitely involved in OUJ.' .-: .....

considerc,.tions.

-

-

-

-2-

Some of you may have heard t:-:at I am a "nuclear critic". Let me

assure you that this is absolutely correct. I am a critic because I have

found through my long period of association with and research in nuclear

energy that some extremely serious questions concerning nuclear power gen­

eration have not been adequately examined, while the industry moves forward

at a rapid rate. But while critical ~uestions are being raised, let me

assure you that I have no interest in doomsday predictions, no interest in

alarmism.

We in .America all must share in the task of insuring a good quality

of life for .Americans, and that means due attention to providing energy,

including electric energy, for our industry and our home uses, to sustain:i.ng

a healthy economy (and here I a~ particularly cognizant of South Carolina's

DE;._eds for industry and jobs), and above all, to insuring that we provide

such energy consistent with the good health and safety of .Americans. You

of the South Carolina Legislature surely share these views, a_11d I am certain

that the Allied Chemical Corporation and Gulf Oil Corporation both share

these views completely.

It is precisely because of the enthusiasm all of us share about

"getting on with the job", that we must paus~ to examine whether we may not

have overlooked some very disturbing poss::i.b::i.lities associated with nuclear

fuel reprocessing plants such as the ~arnwell Facility. While it may seem

that a facility ultimately employing cnly some 300 employees (1000 during

construction) is a small industry, otier associated factors make this

industry and its dev2loprr.e!'!.t one of t:12 most far-reachinr::, sir,;nificant

industrial developments of all time. i'lei ther the Soutl, Carolina Legislature

nor the Board of Directors of both Allied Chemical and Gulf Oil can afford

to leave questions of all-time import~nce unanswered. I hardly think the

83

-

-

-

-3-

stockholders of these two great corporations ~ould appreciate a venture that

might ultiir..ately destroy these Corporations. :ror would the people of South

Carolina appreciate the overlooking, by this Legislature, of questions that

deal ~-:ith the possible evacuation of a large part of the State of South

Ca::>:olina.

It will be necessary for us, mutually, to examine two major areas:

(a) The question of financial liability and how it relates to critical

examination of the dangers of the Barnwell F~::::ility.

(b) The technical question of possible accidents at Barn\.1ell and their

local and national consequences.

Financial Liability and Critical ~valuation of Risks

Every great corporation must necessarily consider financial liabil-,

ity for its ventures and the implications of such liability for the Corpora-

tion's future.

Unfortunately, through the existence of the so-called Price-Anderson

Act, liability for the consequences of a serious accident at Barnwell is

limited to 560-Million Dollars. But I propose to discuss with you accidents

that coJ.ld easily lead to damages in the ·.neig:-:borhood of 10-Billion Dollars

or more, to say nothing of the most massive civilian dislocations and suffer-

ing in peacetime history. The existence of the Price-Anderson Act means

that EE. one carries the financial liability fer about 95% of the damages that

could accrue - no one at all.

I happen to regard the Price-Anderson Act as unconstitutional.

There is a till in the U.S. Senate, introduced by Senator Gravel, to re~eal

this Act. So the Act may be repealed, or theYe may in time be a Supre~e

Court test of its constitutionality. If this Act is repealed or declared

unconstitutional, are the Allied Chemical Corporation and the Gulf Oil

-

-

-

-l-

Corporation prepared to risk their as3>=ts, even though large, on a :tlO-Bil­

lion liability?

Even if the Price-Anderson .::,ct is not repealed, the s:ituation for

these two corporaticr2s is hardly better. There can be no doubt that if an

accident involving $10-Billion in unccmpensable daraages occurs, the reputa­

tion of b~th corporations will suffer irreparably, and the revulsion in the

public may, in effect, destroy both corporations and much of the ·ralue of

their securities in the marketplace,

85

It is neither my intent nor my ability to estimate the probability

of such an accident occurring. But I am fran};:ly amazed that both the South

Carolina Legislature and the Boards of Directors of both great corporations

involved have not insisted upon a fully independent engineering assessment

of such probabilities, including especially the possible effects of internal

or external sabotage. We live in perilous times, and to neglect such possi­

bilities as sabotage is simply to bury our heads in the sand in the fashion

of ostriches.

I have a high regard for the detailed efforts of P.llied-Gulf

Nuclear Services and their consultants who prepared the Environ.mental Report

on Barnwell. But simple, hard-headed business sense tells us that this

must necessarily be the last source o~e would go·to for a critical, independent

assessment of the probability of a serious accident. What is reQuired is

assignment of responsibility to an independent group of engineers to figure

out all tbe ways it is possible for such an accident to occur, and to try

to ass~ss thrc: probabili+,y of its occcir-ri_ng. Such assessment would not be

very costly. I b1::-l i.eve the South Carolina Legislature and the Boards of ~..;..--

Directors of both major corporations can accept no less. I have seen no

such indcn9ndent assessm~nt. Under no circumstances should reviews either

• I

-

-

-

-5-

by the Atomic Energy Corru::.ission or any of its Licensing or Advisory Boards

be misconstrued as an acceptable asses2ment.

Once such an independent assessraent is made, the evidence on both

sides deserves debate and presentation in a full open public forum. Nothing

less will allay public concern, a conc,;;rn that will grow.

If everything goes as planned and as considered in the AG-NS Envi­

ronmental Report, there is probably nc problem of health, safety, or environ­

mental damage. I would hardly wish to quibble over minor questions I have

about that report, especially when vie,ied against the vastly more important

questions that must be answered, and which are not described.in that Report.

There are two very simple questions I propose to discuss with you:

(1) What are the consequences of 1% (that is, one-hundredth) cf the

radioactive inventory of Barnwell at full operation being released to the

environment?

(2) What are the consequences of 0.01% (that is, one-ten thousandth)

of the radioactive inventory being released?

To do this we must turn our attention to some simple technical

realities of Barnwell at full operation.

The Radioactivity Invene-ory at Barnwell at Full Operation

The Barnwell facility proposes to process 5 metric tons of spent

nuclear fuel per day, or 1500 metric tons per year. The long-lived radio­

active waste, after processing, will remain at Barnwell between 5 and 10

years, assuming optimistically that some Federal repository can be developed,

which is very much in doubt. Let us minimize the problem, and assume that

the radioactive waste is at Barnwell for only 5 years even though it may_ ... ..-

remain in South Carolina indefinitely.

86

-

-

-

-6- 87

The processing of 5 metric to,,s per day of s-pent uranium fuel m.E.:ans

the servicing cf about the equivalent of 50 large nuclear power plants, each,

say, of 1000 mega,-1atts electrical [:tvrw( e) J generating capacity. Since each

plant discharges 1/3 of its fuel each y::':U-, the Barnwell receipts will be of

fuel elements each having spent an average of 2 years in the power plant.

The equivalent delivery to Barnwell is 2/3 of the yearly long-lived radio­

acti-ri ty produced in the 50 plants, which is equivalent to the output of 35

such 1000 ?-IW( e) plants.

Each 1000 EW plant produces, in one year, the long-lived radio­

activity of 22 megatons of atomic fission bombs. So, 35 x 22 = 770 megatons

of bombs. A..~d for a five-year storage period, this means 5 x 770, or 3850

megatons. Note, nothing of this should te misconstrued to ruea:r. any explosive

power of this radioactive waste. It is simply necessary to give you an idea

of the astronorr.ical quantity of radioacti-re waste in inventory at Barnwell,

at full operation. We may express this in three ways:

The radioactivity (long-lived) in the Barnwell inventory will be:

(a) Approximately fifteen times as much as all the fission product

radioactivity produced by all atmospheric weapons tests in all time

by the co:::n.bined testing of the USA plus the USSR.

(b) Ap~roximately the radioactivity that would be left decaying for

lO's and lOO's of years from a large, full-scale nuclear war.

(c) Approximately the long-lived radioactivity of 192,000 Hiroshima

or Nagasaki atcm bombs.

Let us turn to the ~inds of radioactive substances present after

the Barnwell plant ha3 been in full operation, using the 5-year residenc:·e _;;·_,,,.,-

time for radic,acti ve waste (remembering that the JDNS :!:'eport suggests an even higher residence time). Again, fron the point of view of minimizing

..

-

-

-

-7-

the potential hazard, I shall consider only the major radioactiv~ materials,

a.~d shall consider only those species which produce a hard gamma ray on

decay, (more than 400 KEV).

The AGNS Environflerltal Report will serve as a source to ascertain

the total radioactivity inventory at 5 years of operation. (Table 3.6-l,

page 74, Se~tion 3, of the Ba'.'nwell Nuclear FuE::l Plant Environmental Report).

I s~all add one additional raiioactive substance, Strontium-90, which although

it· do2s not eEit a hard gamma ray, is very important for consideration of

certain accident consequences.

After correcting for radioactive decay, one reaches the final

figures for radioactive inventory of hard gas:r:ma emitters presented in the

follm·1ing table, (Table 1).

TABLE 1

Hard Ga.1U1J.a Ray Contributors Built Up in the Fuel Reprocessing Pla.".lt Inventory at Five Years

Megacuries Isotope Half,-Life per ton

daily input

Zr95 65 days 0.3774

11b95 35 days 0.7127

Ru 103 40 days 0.1329 l C.,.

R - a u 1.0 year 0.7641

cs134 2.1 years 0.2031 Csl37 30 years 0.1329

Total

* T::0 Cs137 inventory has been ~~ile in storage.

Megacu.ries per 5 tons daily input

1.887

3,564

0.665

3,821

1.016

0.665

Final Equilibriu..~ Inventory at 5 years, corrected for decay

(Megacuries)

176.2

180.0

38.4

2011.0

1128.8

1165.1-i<·

4700 Megacuries

corrected for t~e slight decay it undergoes

Si:1ce we will require it later, t!le sr90 inventory is expected to be 91/133 x csl37 inventor:;, or ( 0. 68 )~cs137 invent·ory.

In megacuries, this is 792 megacuri!'";s of sr90.

88

-

-

-

-8-

The Consequences of a One Percent Release of the Barnwell Inventory

We shall consider here how large an area and bow many peo:;:ile !!l::!.. 6,.t

require evacuation if one percent of the inventory of the Barnwell :9lar.t we:ce

to be released to the atmosphere. Note, it is not our purpose to exa:::n.ine tne

probability of such an occurrence, but the consequences. If the consequences

are very se!ious, then the fullest ind'ocnendent assessment of the probability

is urgent and essential.

Prediction of which region cf the United States ·Hill be affected

89

and how much affected depends, of course, on the weather circumstances at t:'.1.e

time of the release. We shall consider a couple of possibilities, including

the local South Carolina situation and that for more distant regions. With

differing weather conditions, the regions affected will, of course, be differ­

ent, but the order of magnitude of consequences not very different.

Some Conseq_uences at a Distance.

1. Assume 1% of the radioactivity inventory released to the at:n:osphe:re.

2. It is approxiEately 465 miles, straight line, from Barn~ell, S.C.

to Washin~-ton, D.C.

3. Assume a wind in the direction of Washington, D.C. of 19.3 miles

per hour. Thus, in 24 hours, the center of the radioactive "cloud"

will be over the Washington, D.C. area.

From the reports of Tamplin (Tamplin, A.R., "Prediction of the Maxir.1um Dosage

to Man From Fallout of nuclear Devices I. Esti1llation of the Maximll.!!l. Contan:­

ination of Agricultural Land, UCRL-50163 Part 1, .Jar..ua:ry 3, 1967), the radiu.s

of such a cloud at 24 :-1ours is approxir:.'3.t_ely 103 miles. (Using the raiius as

2a - two times the horizontal standa.rd deviation of dispersion of the mate:rial)

o ::= 51.6 miles at 24 ho1rcs. .r:-,,.

-

-

-

-9-

trow let us consider that rainfall occurred at this time, which at

a ~axi~UI'.I, can wash all the radioactivity to earth in the region lLYJ.der the

cloud. What is the deposition on the ground?

The k'ea of the Cloud= n(103) 2 = 33,400 sq. miles.

One percent of Barnwell Inventory = (0.01)(4700) = 47 megacuries or

47,000,000.curies. (1 megacurie = 1-millicn curies).

= 47,000DOOO Deposition, average, per sq. mile - ~ 33, (00

= 1407 curies/sq.mile

How, from the book, "Effects of ?Tuclear Weapons, p. 491-2, Samuel

Glasstone, Editor, USAEC, 1962 11, it is }r,.,.YJ.mm that a deposition of hard gamma

/ -4 / ' emitters of 1 curie sq.mile leads to a dose of 1.2 x 10 R day fro~ external

radiation, just by being in such an environment. No eating of contaminated

foods is required. Just being there guarantees the radiation.

But we have 1407 curies/sq.mile, so the dose will be

(1407)(1.2 X 10-4 ) = 0.169 R per day.

The R unit is a measure of radiation exposure. Note that 0.169 R

is equal to the so-called "allowable" exposure for~ whole year for peaceful

atomic energy purposes, and it is widely agreed that this latter exposure

would have serious consequences. So,people in this vicinity would get their

yearly "allowance" in~ day. In a year they would get roughly 300 times

as much, or about 50 R. While there will be some-decay, it will not be re­

duced to 25 R per year fo~ several years, and will continue at nearly that

level for over a decade. It is obvious that such exposure is not thinkable,

and that evacuation of the affected area must be considered. This means

evacuation of Washington, D.C., Baltimore, Maryland, A.nnapolis, Maryland,

Wilmington, Delaware - everywhere within a radius of 100 miles from

Washington, D.C. In effect, this includes all of the District of Columbia,

most of Maryland, most of Delaware, a good :9art. of Virginia and West Virginia.

9'0

-

-

-

-lC-

If the wind were blowing a 1-:..ttle faster, before the radioactive

cloud ~ncountered a rainstorm, it could. center on Trenton, New Jersey, in

which case it would be necessary to evacuate Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,

New York City, most of new Jersey, a fair part of eastern Pennsylvania, and

a fair part of southern Hew York State.

::Jl

It is seen that we are deali~:g with a situation that might require

evacuating millions, or tens of millio~s, of people, or acc~ptance of the

severe radiation injuries, in the form of cancer and leukemia, that would

otherwise result.

If anyone doubts that the economic consequences of such evacuation

could run into tens of billions of dollars, he is not being realistic. A.'1.d

this says nothing of the societal dislocation of evacuation of Washington;

D.C., the capital of the United States.

Of course, the wind might blsw in a different direction, and a rain­

storm might intersect the radioactive cloud in a region with somewhat fewer

people. In any event, whichever way the wind is blowing, some 33,000 square

miles of the U.S. would become uninhabitable. The winds might be such that

it would mean evacuation of most of th~ State of Florida instead.

Some More Local Possible Consequences.

Columbia, South Carolina is about 55 miles from Barnwell. Atlanta,

Georgia is about 180 miles from Barnwell.

Let us consider the prospects at 8 hours after release of 1% of

the Barnwell inve!ltory, with winds to place the cloud over Columbia, South

Carolina (requires 7 miles per hour wi~d~ or over Atlanta, Georgia (requires

22 miles per hour Wi!id). If the radicactive cloud then encountered a rain-~.._,

storm, over one or th2 other of tbese s.reas, we can calculate the dosage.

,1

-

-

-12.-

The radius of the cloud at 2, hours is approxiwately 3? miles

(again, using 2cr as the radius). The area of depositio:1 is n (36)2 =

4076 square miles.

Deposition = 47,000,000 4076 ll,530 curies/sq. mile.

The dosage received by being in t~is vicinity is

(11,530)(1.2 x 10-4) = 1.33 R per day,

or about 400 R per year. This is simply deadly, and in the one case

Columbia, South Carolina and everythin.6 on a radius of 36 miles from Cohunbia

would obviously have to be evacuated. In the other case, Atlanta, Georgia

and everything 36 miles away from it n::1st be evacuated.

In summary, under highly creiible meteorological conditions, the

consequences of a 1% release of the raiioactivity inventory at Barnwell ~

would be a disaster unimagined for any peacetime situation in the United

States. The economic cost, to say not:--:ing of I:J.aking millions of people

refugees from radioactivity, will undc1btedly be measurfc:d in the billions

or tens of billions of dollars.

-

-

-

-12-

Jn Case There is ~o Rain: 93

Ar:;oicultu,31 Conscquenc-2s of a 1% Relro8.S'cc of tl-:.e 2adioactivity Invc,ntorv at Ec1 rrr.-,e 7 1 at -;;'·c1 ·1 , c: .J•.: ro. :;:i.,J::-:.

We t:1ii:;!1t. suppose that "luck" would be on our si,ie, and that the radioactivity

cloud wonrt run into a washout by rain, after a J.:%, release of the Barnwell

radioactivity inventory. In that case we will, of course, still have what is

known as "dry" fallout. While this rray mean we ,,...ouldn 1 t face evacuation of

millions of people, the agricultural consequenc':'s, as we shall see below, can be

almost eq_UH.lly devastating. Let us consider the "no-rain" situation in detail.

1. Let us assume the wind were blowing about 15 miles per hour

in the direction of Buffalo, New York.

2. The distance from Buffalo to Barnwell is about 750 miles, so the

center of the radioactive cloud will reach the US border at Niagara Falls at

some 48 hours.

From Tamplin's data*on maximum expected by fallo~t at 48 hours, we can

expect the fr2ction of the total cloud radioactivity that will fall out is

-14 a X 10. per sq. meter.

Now, let us estir.ate the agricultural contamination. At 43 hours, dispersion

of" the cloud will make the clouci die meter approximately 293 miles (0-"" L l8x105

meters, dier.!ete~· in 4z.(T, so diameter == 4. 72 ~~ 105 meters, or 295 mL-~s).

So, 3 sector of th(, country, centerine; upon Ba1·r-,well will be involved.

-----Th':' ov~r2.J.l area involved -------~-',:ill ·oe ( 7/ . .1_,:·:9 j) -1- l/,? the: Clo1~·l ,\rea, or

-.,

llv,GOO + 1/2 (67,800) _,..,,

110000 + .53,900 == 1~.1~,000 sq. miles.

* See pr~~vious Tamplin referensc

-

-

94 . How badly will milk from this region of 144,ooo square miles b~ contaminated?

. We can be conservative, and thereby underestinute the seriousness of the problem

by considering all parts of the region to be contaminated only as badly as the

most distant region - that is at 750 miles from Barnwell. We can be certain that

in all regions closer to Barnwell the contamination will be~ severe.

The

He recall that our inventory (Table I) contains

c5 137 1l65 megacuries, or 1165 X 1012 microcuries.

Cs 134 1129 megacuries, or 1129 X 1012 microcuries.

sr9a 792 megacuries, or --792 X 1012 rnicrocuries.

(1 Megacurie = 1012 microcuries)

dry fallout

For cs137

Csl34

I 90 Sr

depositions, for l"/o inventory release, will be

(11.65x1012

) (8 x 10-14

) 0.93 microcuries/sq. meter

(11.29x1012 ) (8 x 10-14 ) = 0.90 microcuries/sq_. meter

(7.92 x 1012 ) (8 x 10-14) = 0.64 microcuries/sq. ~eter

And from Table 3, we can estinate the dosage to be received via milk for forage

receiving such depositions. These are tabulated in Table 2.

Radionuclide

Table 2

Dosa~e to Children via the Mill~ Pathway

Deposition

Microcurie/­sq. meter

o.61~

Deposition required to g~ ve l Rad v~a Mille

~Wh.ole Body) Microcurie/ Sq_ meter

0.12

0.058

O.Oj8

Total Dosage in Rads (via Milk)

Dosage in Rads via MilJc

(W,.:.ole Body)

7.8

15.6

16.9

4o. 5 Rads

It is absolutely unt~inkable that mil..'-< contaminated to this degree ca11:_be

consumed. Children drinking such milk woc:ld have a four-f'old increase in..risk

-

-

----

-14-

of cancer an:i leukemia. Fresh agricultural produce from this region of

14-4,000 s':j,_1.llire miles would be obviously unsalable. While, after a period of

L1onths, the milk level will be much reduced; the agricu1tural. produce from the

region would be unacceptable for r.e.ny years, because of radioactivity acquired

in the produce via the soil-root p9.thway (ouch, much less active than the early

milk, but unacceptable).

It is important to have a good idea of what 144,ooo square miles of

agricultural land being re~dered unusable really means. For the wind direction ing

considered, this would mean render/ unusable for agriculture the following:

Approx. 1/10 of South Carolina plus approx. 1/10 of north Carolina plus approx. 1/5 of Virginia plus most of i-iest Virginia plus approx. 1/6 of Ohio plus more than 1/2 of Pennsylvania plus approx. 1/4 of new York Stzte plus a significant p9.rt of Ontario province in Canada.

This represents a minimum tabulation, for fallout rendering agricultural

land unusable will still be occurring beyond 48 hours, and hence encompassing

more of' Ontario province, :;:uebec and much more of New York State.

The economic costs alone will undoubtedly be in the multi-billion dollar

category} not to mention ir.d.ignation, rage, fear, and dislocation.

And of cou:rse, if t:'".!.e wind were blo-wing in some different direction, the

~ involved t.'ill be the same, but the victimized states would be different.

95

It would only be lessened if the .;.;ind. happened to be blowing to the Southeast, since

much of the fallout woul1 then be ove:· the ocean.

Thus, the overall r.Bgnitud.e of the disast.er will be comparable with that

~reviously described fo~ "ainout of the rad~oactivity. In one case (with rain)

we conterr.plate evacuation of millions of people; in the other case (without rain),

the agricultu!·al loss is staggering b8ycnd usual comprehension.

--15-

The Conseouer::c::s of an O. 011' Release of' tr.e Barnwell Inventory ( One-ten thous3r.ci.th of the To:al Ir.v(:nt,or·r)

We have seen above tb.at 11, release can lead to r,..assive evacuation of major

population cente:-s. Arni r.,;e shall now see the very se:::-ious economic consequences

of even one-hundredth of this quantity released. For this we shall direct our

attention to the e:'fect of deposited radioactivity upon forage, thence to r.iilk

to be consumed.by children.

We shall consider three radionuclides, cs137, cs134, and sr9°.

·From Table 1 we have the inventory at 5 years as 1165 Megacuries of Cs137,

1129 Mega curies of cs134, and separately, ""C.he.t thei·~ '.-iould be 792 Meeacu:ries of

Sr90_

Ng and co-~orkers* have calculated the niniou..T ceposition of these radio­

nuclides required to deliver 1 Rad to children drinking l liter of milk per day.

This is the so-called "grass-cow-milk-chilc:" pathway. 'rhe values are listed

- O!::low i!1 Table 5, (1 Rad is approximately equivalent to l.11.).

-

Table 3

Minim~~ Denosition on Forage to Give 1 Rad to Children Via the Forage to Milk Fa ""C.rsay (Wr.ole Body)

~adionuclide

Csl37

134 Cs

~ 90 .::ir

Half Life

30 years

2,1 years

28 years

Mini:.:um Iienosition reauir2c. to give 1 Ra<i-le--¾--microcuries/so. meter curies/sq. mile

1.2 X 10-1 0.31

5.8 X 10-2 0.15

3.8 ·-2 0.098 X 10

Let us consider- the case described abo'.re, rainout at 24 hours, such that

33,400 sq_. :nilcs of land ~·eceives the d,~posi tion. Sin:::e •~•e are here: concernC;ci

,,Jith agricu.lturi:!l J..c.nJ, it is of littlt: mom2nt whc.tt the Hind d.i:r-cction or spr~ed is.

137 131~ .JHt-Dr. :ag (p':'rsor:al r:ommunication) suggf"sts t::e Cs and Cs values may be raised, from ~c,re rec":nt data, wr1ich wo•.1ld :c~duce their contribution to dosage. However, th(~ char.g(;;S 'Aoulc\ ~o

7t mat~r,ially al~,;;r conclusior,s about unacceptability

of milk corctarui,,;;,_tic!d bv cs~.) , c""lj ~ and ,:,-,.:;,O J ... ' ...,i-

--16-

And we are ass~~ing l of the invc:1tory at Bc.1rnw,~ll_ to be involved in

10,000

the deposition.

Therefore

1 X 1165 = 0.1165 mega curies cs137

10000 131+

l X 1129 0.1129 mega curies Cs

10000

1 X 10000

Depositions are

1"7 For Cs J ,

134 For Cs ,

90 For Sr ,

792 0.0792 megacu:ries 90

= Sr

11G;co jj400

11?9-J0 53c;.OO

7920c: 33:.i.oo

= 3,5 curies/s1. mile

= 3.4 curies/sq. mile

= 2.4 curies/sq. mile

(116,500 curies)

( 112900 curies)

(79)200 curies)

97

- Translating these into rads delivered vie. the milk r,athway

-

For Cs 137 5.5/0.31 = 11.2 rads

For Csl34 3_.4/.J.15 = 22.7 rads

For ,., 90 0r 2.4/0.093 = 2!~. 2 rads

Total 5;3.h rads

Childre;:n drir.:king such milk '.Jould receive 58.4 rads, which is more than 100

times the yearly "2.llo·.-1a0le" dose. Suen 2. <lose would cause a many-fold increase

in cancers and lew:e::r.::.as in such children. It is obvio1.1s that milk from these

53,400 square rr.iles is 11c':':.h' nk:~."::ile for drinking purposes. The loss to agriculture

f~orn this and c:rop cont.2.mirBtio::1 woul1l be phenomenal. In time, the cs1 34

, cs1

37,

am!. sr90 .... ,_mlci find tr.""i.!· ·.my fr:to the so:.l, havinc;; been t-:e2. the red off the forage.

But the 2.gricultun1l :;--;!"oble~n is not over, for 'v.'C must now consider crops crown in

the area, the so-called "soil-:tout pa"l,h\..'9.j'11

•

From Ng et al, we r.:Jvc th!.: ,bta for -:he d2po3ition reciuired to give one Rad

by t,he soil-root path·.,a:,', prc.se:-.ted in T2.-ole IV.

--17-

Table 4

Minimur.1 DenositioD Regui·r2d. to Give 1 Rod to Children vio. th~ Soil-Ront Path•,,1c1y

::;:3.c-lonuclide Half Life D0 nosition Reoui~ed to Give l rad rr:i,...rocuri,,sZ:30 r".2ter cu-,·iesZ sq. mile

157 jO years 4.2 102 1090 Cs X

,.., 134 \JS 2.1 year3 1.3 X 103 3370

Sr 90 28 years 4.8 ;,:: 10 124

Cont:ribution fron 1"'7 Cs~ := 3.5/1090 = 0.003 rads

csl34 := 3.J.~/5570 := 0.001 rads

Sr90 2. 4/121~ := 0.019 r2.cis

Total = 0.025 :rad_s

Wlile these doses are not "disastrously" high, I would doubt tbat such

agricultural products would be salable, an::.i. the effect would last for many years.

~he combination of severe early contaninstion of milk and crops froill such a region,

- :followed by long tern:: significant, unacceptable contamination of crops from an

-

c:.rea like 35,000 square miles ( tr>...at happens ·c.o be an area just a little larger than

South C2rolina) wouJ.d represent economic losses in the billion dollar class. And

e.11 this if only one ten-thousandth of the Barnwell inventorJ of radioactivity were

released to the atmosphere. ·

Some s;de ET~fccts of Either Tyne of Accident

There is little doub~ about one priwarJ effect of either type of accident,

which would be an immediate der:und. by the public for a shutdown_, not only of

Ee.-:-nwell but also of the entire nuclear po'.1er industry. Anrl I must say I believe

t::is reaction would be totally 2.ppropriat2, sinc2 the ,-1arr::ings concerning such

po3sibilities !1.'.lve been ~uite broadly presented. TheLe would be no reasonable

excuse by the nuclear industry. And the widespread publi~ antipathy to Allied ..-•~ .-' r

C:!:'::mical and Gul:· Oil Corpo::a tion mis.ht lead to boycotts that could shake these

ir.dust1·ies economically beyuml repair. The South Cnrulina Legislature would have

a great deal of explaininc to do to tbc citizens of South Carolina and other states.

-

-12-

The Plutor,!.WY, Product

There are two products of th8 Barnwe~l Facility, uraniu:rn and plutonium.

There is little, if any reason to be conce::-ned about the uranium procluc:t. There

are several reasons to consider that the i:,:utonium product ma.y be a total

nightma.re. The AGHS report states carefully that plutonium must be absolutely

contained in the course of ship:nent sway :::-om the plant. And it states :::·urthe::.'

that there· exists considerable difference :;f opinion concerning how this rray be

accomplished. But one does not acquire a ::-eal feeling for the fantastic ir;;­

plications of the quantities of plutonhllli :het will be shipped.

There are two problems :presented by ":1e plutonium p:rncluct:

( l) The Safeguards Problem

(2) The Extreme Toxicity of Pl~tonium

The SafGaUBrds Problem

Plutonium bas other uses besides its ·::ieing a fuel for electric power

production. Specifkally it is the basic in5---redient for the simple fabrication

of atom bombs. Throughout the world, aut':..::>rities on nuclear energy regard the

danger of diversion of plutonium by black :,arket techniques either to governments

or to private orgc::.niz2.tions as a major, ur..solved problem.

39

Let us consider some of the quantities involved in Barnwell shipments and

compare them with the 14 pou.'1ds (7 kilograns) widely stated to be about the amount

required for a 20 Kiloton atom bomb like t:C:at which demolished Nagasaki.

From Table 5.6-1 in the rlarnwell repo:::-:, the datum is given tr:at each ton

of uraniun processed will :iield 338 Curies of Plutoniurr.-2j9, the c.lesired prod1..:.ct.

2"'9 One Curie of Pltitoniur:1 rep:::esents approxi::-2.tely 16 gn::.rns of Pu .,r • In one year

at Barnwell, there will oe 1500 tons of u:::anium processed, so the annual plµtonium

product !'equiring shipment ;:ill be (j38)(:, __ 6)(1500) "° 6,UCJ,OO(J grams of plr.itonium,

or Silo kilograms. That's enough to rroke about 1100 Na[Jlsaki-type ato:r: bombs.,

- a very interesting quantity indeed for the future black market in plutonium.

On page 30, Append-ix VII of the Barm.-ell Environmental Report, it is stated

that the plutonium will be shipped in solution as plutonilLrn nitrate in containers,

each holding 25 kilograms of plutonium. It is stated there that 2 to j such

containers will be carried per truck shipr:ent. So we can say that on the average,

there will be approxiwately 63 kilograms cf plutonium per snipment. For

a total of 8110 kilograms of plutoniurn, tl:is means 8110 , or about 125 seps,.rate ~

shipments per year out of Barnwell.

Each shipment represents enough pluto::iium f_or about 9 atom bombs (Hagasaki

size). Can such shipments be hijacked? B2fore answering this question, it is

worthwhile asking another question. If, t·.-10 years ago, one md been asked about

the liklihood that three huge airliners would be successfu1ly hijacked to the

- Middle East ',dthin ~ week by terrorists, I am sure the probability estimate

would have been vanishingly swBll. Until it happened. Anyone who underestiTates

the ingenuity of determined terrorists anci underworld operators does so at grave

peril. The probability th3t a plutonium s::.ipment will be hijacked successfully·

will be estimated as vers; low until the fi:::st shiprr.ent is hijacked.

-

The Toxicity of' Plutonium

There is a great deal in the Barnwell 3.eport about the irradiation of bone

oy plutoniurr.. I am rr.ore c:onccr:-,,~d o.bout t;,e production of lung ca.nc<!r b:{ ph,toniurn.

My col lea cw 7 Donald Ge~sa::..D.n; :-.2.::; publis:-.ed cstinutc::s that tb~ inr.:llntion or

10,000 :particles of plutonium u::.oxide ~ny ,;:roduce one r~a tal hum-::in lur.g cancer. It

doesn't require th.at ~ person inhale all 10,000 r.,,3,:::ticles - this is a statistical

problem, and it means that for e·;ery 10,0C,J particles inhsl,1d into hurr.an lurigs,

there ,Jill 1)e one lung cancer. Tc:n people inhaling 1000 :rnrticles each wiil

produce the same effect as one per:son inl:..c:2.ing 10,000 particles.

* GT-121-70. Plutonium and Public Health. Preser1t~d at Univ of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, April 19, 1970.

-

-

-20-101

Let us go through the arithmetic relatinE to thes~ plutonium shipments.

Fo~ e::<emple, let us suppose t~nt so~e terroris~s were desirous of spreading

plutoniu.~ oxide around near a major metropoli~n center. Let us suppose that that

one contain~r with 25 kilograms of plutonium were exploded open by bombing or

by so'1le co:r.birn:,tion of bombing and fire. With high temper2ture::, much of the plutoniu.~

nitrate would be probably converted to plutonium oxide. We can explore the worst

case, m.mely 2il 25 kilograms converted to pe.rticles averaging one micron in

diar.:eter.

1 micron diameter means each particle has e. volwae of 5 x 10-13

cc. The

density of plutonium dioxide is 11.46 gr:is/cc. So each s1.1ch particle hes

(11.46)(5xl0-13 ) or 5.7 x 10-l~ gra:ns of plutonium o::dcle.*

or 4)~ x 10 l5 So, for 2) ldlog.ca!;}s, we i:;et 25,00.Q

5.7 X l0-l2 particles. If

all these 1x:rticlcs ultimately :.i:'ound their way into hurxm lungs, tbat represents

4.L,xl0l5

104

11 ~ 4.4 x 10 lung cancers. Enough plutonium for 440 billion

:11..U!l2.n lung cancers. Now, the:-e are only 3 billion people on earth, so we aren't

going to get 440 billion lung cancers in any hurry. So, let us suppose there are

a nur.;ber of inefficiencies in this whole process, and as a result, only one

particle out of ten million potential plutoniw::i oxide particles finds its way

into i:.UJ.:1an inr-..al.9.tion pathways. That still m"::ans 44000 lung cancers could be

pr-educed as a result of this terrorist act. That's a lot of' diplomatic leverage

for terrorists. Please note th.':.t all the inhalation needn't occur right away.

~be pluton:_i_u:;: oxide µ:,.rticles cc!.n settle to the ground, be resuspended and carried

by winds o·-1•2:· and ove"!.:, even to very great distances f:ron the point of original

dispe:csal. With a lmlf-life of 21~, 000 years, such plutonium will be around to

produce cases of lung cancer fo~ periods of more than fifty times as long ~-s world '

- history fro::t the birth of Christ to ·.:;he p,es2nt time. Every 10,000 particles

inhaleu can repre3ent one fc.: tal r.ur:an cancer, wherever and for all practical

*Ba1ry~ell Plu]esium is even wm:·31~ t11an Pu-.:,}, because of contamination with Pu j and Pu •

-

-

-

-21-

102 purposes, whenever the plutonium is. inhaled.

We spread plutonium around Palomares, Spain when one of our bombers crashed

there. A rassive clean-up campa:ign was carried through and shiploads of

contaminatec soil were collected to be returned to the U&;. · But people in

Palomares are not too convinced all is well. Palor;:iares is reported to be a

ghost town area now. How many people will enjoy living near a site of a oossive

plutonium dispersal? If we ship enough plutoniu.'11 on our highways, there are

going to be some terrorist explosions and dispersal, and I would suspect there

are going to be ghost towns in addition to old mining towns in Nevau.a and California.

The Barn,,ell Facility points up some good rea5ons for the widespread concern

over diversion of plutonium into the hands of terr'.)rists a.rd the underworld. One

small atom ·oo:nb, properly placed on the Barnwell Facility could, I would suspect,

release a good deal more than one percent of the rad.ioocti,ity inventory there.

And we have already discussed the catastrophic potential consequences of a

QQi:1 percent release.

Recommendations

We can all hooe that neither the l~l release or the 0.017a release accidents

ever occur at Barnwell. But hope alone is not enough. As stated at the outset,

I am in no position to estir.ate the probability of either accident, from sabota3e,

from cooling eQuipment failure, from earthquake, or from hostile action. Certainly

the Barnwell Enviromnental Report provides nothing in the way of reassurance that

such accidents cannot occur. Everything hinges on the probability that such

:::-eleases r.:ay occur. I daub.; th2.t anyone can seriously crollenGe the; possible

co:-isequences ·U the releases of' "':.:1is rr;..q:;nituue occur. D2rJcnding upon the weather,

the precise mGnitude of the disaster, and its form, can vary, but the broad

outlines al:e not overs ta teri.

And we can all hone that plutoniur:: diversion or dispersal into the

environment will not occur.

.. ~ .... -

.. ,)

-

-

-

-22-

I am co:n:;iletely convinced that Allied-Gulf Huclear Services feels it is

doins its very best to make such accidents re• ote. But th:lt is not su.f':c~icient

assurance. That the AEC: or its adviEory cor:'.mittees have reviewed the project

is also not cood enough,

No~ of totally independent stature bas been assigned. the specific job,

of· figurine: out how such rels::ases could oc::ur, whc.t all the vulnerabilities are,

and what the chances are of such occurrenc-2. And it is the absence of st.ch

critical engineering adversary review that is prcci::;ely whn.t has oeen missing

from every aspect of the entire nuclear pc.:.:e::-- industry.

The Board of Directors of the J\llieci '.::heL1ical Corporation should b2

derranding such an independ;::-nt rc,.riew.

The Board of Directors of Gulf Oil Cc::-pora tion should be dew.and in;;; this

review.

103

The Lcgislatm·e of the State of South Carolina should be demanclin.:: this review.

The health and fate of ten r:iillion or more Americans F.ay depend upon the

answers.

Perr.Bps this discussion r.By help clar:.fy why an increasing bociy of opinion

exp:cesses conce:rn over the develo:9ment of -:he nuclear pouer industry. The

morality of goinz ab::ad ,dth th.~ nuclear power ind.ustl·y desel·ves serious

questioning. Especially is this true ·,.1l1cr: the prospects are so bright for

alternativ,~s, such as U":!ne:r·atioc1 of all tr-:'=: electr-icity we could §::!.IT. r-2quire from

solar enerr;y.

Soutt C::n·olj ru:.i) c1nd .Dc.rr:t·'1ell C:ounty ::.:-, pa!·ticubr, needs indust:-:,, e.ncl needs

jobs. How r:1uc":·, brighter c,ur clisc1.1;.;si0ns °':'Jday would be if Allied C--..,emical anrl

Gulf Oil Corporations were r,roposinc; a rJa2::.::- sohr el0ctricit.y resee.-rch and.

dev•~lopm~nt proGram at B3~·nwcll. Such a !'E?.cility providing jOOO jobs, not'joo,

-

-

-

would mke excellent sense for the Corporations, for South Carolina., and for

the \./Orld, Sooner or later, this is inevitable. Why not soar.er, and in

South Carolina? Why not A.G.S,F. - Allied-Gulf Solar Facility? Toward a

bright future, rather than a radioactive o~e.

__ •

-

-

-

SUMMARY RECOMMENDATIONS

TO

THE NUCLEAR STUDY COMMITTEE

OF

THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

John W. Gofman, M. D., Ph.D.

Division of Medical Physics

University of California

Berkeley, California

A Supplement

to

Detailed Testimony

January 7, 1972

ci.G 105

-

-

-

Summary Recor=endations

'f.~G" 106

In the accon:rpa.riying testimony I have estimated for you the potential

consequences of certain releases of par::. of the radioactivity inventory at

the Barnwell Fuel Reprocessing Facility, at full operation. Those consequences

can be summarized in three very brief s~atements:

(a) The possible evacuation cf millions of humans because of the

rendering of such cities as Washin~--ton, D.C., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,

or New York City u.riinhabitable.

(b) Possible damages in the ,~eighborhood of 10-Billion Dollars

from a single such release.

(c) Diversion of plutonium f0r black market atom bombs or

plutonium poisoning.

These estimates are, of course, a bit disturbing. I nave carefully

avoided estimating the chance of such a.._,. occurrence, because sucn an estimate

is outside my area of expertise.

But the South Carolina Legislature and the Boards of Directors of

both Allied Chemical and Gulf Oil cannot avoid, and must not avoid, acquisi­

tion of reliable, independent assessmeQt of such probabilities. It is, of

course, human nature to shy away from h~ving to think about the U11thinkable.

And, hence, there is eveyy reason to ez;,ect that, from several a_-u.arters, the

kinds of accidents discassed in the full testimony will be dismissed out of

hand.

I have a cons-c.Y0J.cti ve suggestion to propose to you as a simple and

rapid method for elimi~ation of obfusce:io~ and cobweb-adorned thinking·on

such matters.

--._

-

-

-2-

I. Let us assuii:e that the Allied-Gulf Nuclear Services Corporation

deems the prospect of such accidents tc be ridiculously small.

II. If that should be the case, _:..;JNS and the parent corporations \-;c, 1.lld

assuredly be happy to bad: that opinic:: •,ri th a full assurance of financ·: .- _,_

liability. At present, since liability is limited to 560-million dollars,

it is clear- that 95% of damages from a 10-billion dollar accident would

necessarily be uncompensable.

Therefore, I propose that the Legislature of South Carolina con­

sider proposing to Allied Chemical and Sulf Oil the provision of a legal

contract as follows:

"In the eve:::it of an accident at the Barnwell Facility, the full

financial resources of Allied Chemical and Gulf Oil Corporations

will be available for compensation claims, over and above those

covered by the P--rice-lwdersor: .Act insurance."

Such a simple contractual doc·J.ment will provide an enormously

effective fog-cutter on these matters. If, by any chance, the question is

raised that such a contract conflicts i~ any way with Federal pre-emption,

then I offer a second suggestion.

That suggestion is that the L:::-gislature of South Carolina will

defer consid1:::ration of permit:.iT'-g fuel reprocessing in South

Carolina until the Price-Anderson Act is repealed, and finan­

cial respo~sibility is therec::r restored to the nuclear power

industry.

The Allied Chemical Corporat::.cn-, the Gulf Oil CO!·poration, and the

Electric Utility Industry all should, c: course, be in the forefront of a

- National demand fO!: repeal of the P-ric'o--A'A~rson Act. 'i:'hesc great industries

107

-

-

-3-

have so often expressed their full confidence in the safety of the nuclear

power industry. The time has arrived for them, therefore, to take the lead

in removing t~ose ominous clouds of doubt occasioned by the absence of

adequate .financial responsibility for this industry.

[._ ,-

llt

f •

ASSEMBLY ENVIRON!'-'-ENT AND PUBLIC RESOURCES CO.MMIT'l'EE MEETING

MINUTES

DATE: MONDAY, MARCH 10, 1975

ME.!'-1BERS PRESENT:

MEJvl_BERS l\.BSEl'-JT:

Chairman Bremner, Messrs. Coulter, Chancy, Jacobsen, Banner, Heaney, Weise, Price and Jeffrey

None

109 I

GUES'I'S: ~ay Winters, Santa Maria Ranch, Dayton, Ne\ sandy McCormick; Robert Elston, Nevada Archeological Survey; Donald Tuohy; 11

" 11

Kit Miller; John Koontz, Katherine Hale Dr. Sandor£

II "

Tom Young, Sierra Pacific Power; Joe Murin, " 11 11

Ethel Axt, Nevada State Museum

"

Jean Ford, Assemblywoman and sponsor of AB Jean Myles, Nev. · Archaeological l\ssn; Keith Ashworth, Assemblyman

The meetinq was called to order at 3:15 by Chairman Bremner. He-called for testimony from witnesses who had attended the corrmit­tee meeting Friday, March 7 and because of time, were not able to testify on l\.JR 15. Miss Katharin·e Gardiner Hale offered the at­tached testimony (Exhibit "A") in opposition to the bill. She stated that more time should be spent making a decision on this matter and that a moratorium ~houid be plac~d on any further nucleor construction so that more facts may be known and citizens can make the decision. "r"7e [the public] should be deluged with facts first", she stated. She asked the committee to determine: 1) will experts continue to work with us if the waste disposal plant is established in Nevada; 2) Will we be expected to take waste from other countric~ 3) Will we be f~ndcd for solar exploration; 4) Will all this be worth it in 40 years; 5) What will employment figures really be; 6) Will the Federal Government listen to us or will we be forced to take on this waste storage.

Mr. Weise asked Miss Hale is she had collaborated with ot!-',er organizations also opposing the measure and, if so, why had t~cy not offered testimony from profcssion~ls. She explained her sources

..

.. (.

(

•-

-

,----- .. '

•

ASSEViBLY ENVIRO-:JMENT & PU!1LIC RESOURCES Cot-1.MI'l'TEE !vlDJ"UTES

Monday, March 10, 1975

110

page two

for her testimony as t~e Foresta Institute, articles from the ~ivermore Radiation Laboratory, AEC, ERDA, San Francisco Chroni­cle, Sacramento Bee and the Smithsonian Institute. She reittcratcd that this measure should be on the ballot and given much more pub­licity. Mr. Weise stated that in opposing the measure, there should be more professional testimony to compare with the-professional testimony received from the proponents. Miss Hale agreed to send the committee a summary of professional opinions. Miss Susan Orr, from the audience, informed the committee that the best professional in the area is Dr. Terry West of Palo Alto.

To Mr. Weise's questioning, Miss Hale offered wind and solar energy as alternatives and to hold off nuclear energy develo2mcnt until more is known about it. Mr. Jacobsen pointed out that wastes in the Hanford, Washington area must be moved to more isolated areas and out of the area of the C'1lumbia River where slight contamination has been discovereo. Mr. PLice felt that land in Southern Nevada is suitable enough to handle any leaks that might possibly develop as compared to that in Washington; that this is a much different problem than completely discontinuing nuclear development.

~ Dr. Irving Jesse Sandorf testified in favor of AJR 15. Dr. Sandorf ·has been a consulting engineer for many years and is new ·vice-chairman of the Ne~ada Public Works Soard. His remarks are attached as Exhibit "B". In discussion with Mr. Price regarding various energy sources, Dr. Sandorf discussed the "hydrogen econ­omy", he commends solar energy and geothermal power. However, he feels the major supply of future energy will come from nuclear

_plants. Others will be used for "spot development" but not as a major utility supply. The University of Nevada presently has a small nitrogen plartt used in conjunction with the Navy.

To Mr. Heaney's questioning, .Dr. Sandor£ explained that the process of nuclear energy does not vary that much from the process of producing other types of energy except that the fluid is par­tially radio-active.

Chairman Bremner recessed the meeting for ten minutes at 4:00 p.rr A letter was received from Patricia van Betten of Las Vegas in opposition to AJR 15 asking that it be withdrawn. Her letter is attached as Exhibit "C".

Miss Bonnie Brown testified against AJR 15, also asking that the matter be tabled until the committee has further information. Her prcscntu.tions a.re attached as Exhibit "D". To Miss Brown's suggestion that the committee request testimony from experts, Mr. Price expl~ined that this was not the function of the committee and that exposure to radiation could be better contained in a small area like Southern Nevada thnn in a heavily populated area. Mr. Bremner continued to explain that the Legislature docs not have

.,

-

-

ASSEMBLY ENVIRONMENT & PUBLIC RESOURCES COMMITTEE MINUTES

Monday, March 10, 1975

111

Page three

sufficient funds to request experts to attend hearings and that .the Committee had visited the Test Site.

Mr. John Miller, a ~tudent and opponent of AJR 15, presented the· committee with a petition signed by 1,000 persons stating that prior to any legislative action, they would like the following stipulations m8t: ( 1) The presentation of detailed informo.tion as to the residents of Nevada including but not limited to an ex­planation of the potential dangers of this waste storage and what, if any,- berrefi ts Nevada residents will gain from having the waste stored within state lines and (2) the oppor~unity afforded to the residents of Nevada to express their opinions on the issue.

A copy of Mr. Miller's petition is filed in the office of the secretary of this cornm-i ttee and marJ.:.ed as Exhibit II E 11

• Mr. Mi "'.ler' s remarks are attach--~d as Exhibit "F".

Mr. Heaney asked !1r. Miller: ''If you knew that \ve were going to amend the resolution so that the Governor would have absolute veto power over the plant if ERDA doesn't live up to the conditions agreed to, would you feel this a ~ufficient safeguard?'' Mr. Miller rep_lied, "No, this should go to the people and I refute 2.nything .th.e f_ederal Government says". He felt the people should have a chance to worry and reflect on their children and their children's children.

To Mr. Weise's question as to educating the public in order for them to vote on this resolution, Mr. Miller explained that he had gathered his names on the petition in two weeks, that as a. stud~nt he does not have a great deal of time, but that he knew concerned citizens would work on it; that it is an_ absolute neces­sity that ERDA provide the absolute facts on all a·spects of the storage process, including transportation, etc. He felt that the solidification process is still not finalized and that this reso­lution will net improve the economy that much when people's lives are at stake.

Chairman Bremner called for testimony on AB 210, a bill es­tablishing the Nevada archeological sc.rvey. Assemblyman Jean Ford, one of the sponsors of the bill, stated that this is one of the last chances that we will have to look into the past in•Nevada; protect and preserve very vaiuable information in Nevada regarding archeological ruins. She stated that several small groups of interested persons have struggled for many years and their efforts have been supported by many Nevadans. She told of an archeological dig she made with her family in the Red Rock Canyon area outside Las Vegas and that they recovered 68 pounds of artifacts and rem­nants of the Piutes. The archcological survey needs and deserves recognition by the State. This measure was killed in the last ses­sion by the lvays etnd Me.:rns Cornmi t tee and she urged a DO Pl\SS re­commendation on AB 210 this session.

-

-

. 1:12 ASSEtAJH,Y ENVIRONMENT & PllBLIC RESOURCES COMI-1ITTEE .t-:INU'I'ES

Monday, March 10, 1975 Page Four

Jean Myles, Chairman of the Nevada Archeological Associa­tion presented a letter from Donald L. Hardesty, Chairman of the Department of Anthropology, expressing their full support of the bill and a small newspaper entitled "Chippi.ngs" published by Am-Arcs of Nevada. Both exhibits are attached as Exhibit "G".

of the Nevada Archeological Survey Mr. Robert Elston/reviewed the testimony presented at the

last hearing on AB 210 and discussed the proposed organization of the Nevada Archeological Survey. This proposed organizational chart is attached as Exhibit "H" and a letter from Robert York, Culturai Management Specialist, U.S. Dept of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno attached as Exhibit "I".

Mr. Heaney suggested that the Archeological Associati6n and Archeological Survey make some attempts to show a connection between their application f0r funds before Ways and Means and a pc~ential tourist increase as a result of the establishment and recognition of the archeological survey by the State of Nevada. He also suggested that this recognition could be professional pres­tigious.

, Mr. John Koontz stated that the biggest virtue of this bill is to bring all these grou9s interested in archeology under one umbrella and that the bill has much merit. -

Kay Winters, representing Lyon County Park and Recreation, presented a letter in favor of AB 210. Her letter is attached as Exhibit "J". To Mr. Price's questions regarding disturbances at the Nevada Test Site of archeological relics, Mr. Touhy stated that many archeological ~alues· have been destroyed, but since an EPA study, the AEC, ERDA and other agencies will have to comply with these regulations. Mr. Heaney felt that it would be helpful if

·the Association and Survey had information to present to Ways and Means showing the loss t6 out-of-state contractors in surveys in Nevada. Chairman Bremner recessed the ~eeting for a break at 5:10.

The meeting re-convened at 5:15 at which time Chairman Bremner asked for action on AJR 15. Mr. Price moved to amend the bill with AmencJment No. 4594 and re-refer it to the Commerce Committee. :'1r. Banner seconded the motion. t1r. Jeffrey questioned the veto powers provided in the amendment ~ivcn to ~1e Governor. Mr. Ashworth statec that the Governor was apprised of the fact and·agrced that the veto power as provided could jeopardize the w~ste disposal storage being established in Nevada and agrees with the amendment. Mr. Heaney also expressed his concern over the Governor's veto power and moved to amend the motion amending the bill to include a time limit of four years on the interim storage. After discussion, it was agreed that Mr. Heaney would work out his amendments to the bill when it went to the Commerce Committee. Mr. Price withdrew !1is motion and moved to adopt amendment no. 4594 to A_JR 15. Members voting in £ave:::-

-113

ASSEMBLY ENVIRONME:'lT & PUBLIC RESOURCES COMMITTEE MINUTES

Monday, March 10, 1975 Page Five

the motion were: Chairman Bremner, Messrs Chaney, Jacobsen, Banner, Heaney, \•7eise, Price and Jeffrey. Mr. Coulter voted NO.

Mr. Price moved that AJR 15 be referred as amended with a "Do Pass" recomm0ndation. !--1r. Banner seconded the motion. Members voting in favor of the motion were: Chairman Bremner, Messr Chaney, Jacobsen, Danner, Heaney, Price and Jeffrey. Mr. Coulter voted "No" and .Mr. \-Jeise did not vote.

Mr. Ashworth explained to the Committee that this Reso­lution merely advises the Federal Government that Nevada is interested in the nuclear waste storage facility being built in Nevada. AdditionaJ restrictions and conditions to the reso­lu~ion would be telling th2 scientists how to do their job. Discussion \~·as held between Hr. Ashworth and Mr. Coulter and the committee. Mr. Weise stated that he was not objecting to the COITUT,i ttee action because ~e did not vote; only that he did not feel he had sufficient time to make up his mind.

Chairman Bremner stated that the Commerce Committee would be holding tt,ore he-arinJS and !:-lr. Ashworth stated that the state of Washington had changed its mind and was not interested in obtaining the storage facility.

Chairman Bremner adjourned the meeting· at 5:30 until the afternoon recess Wednesday.

Respectfully submitted,

PHYLLIS BERKSON, Secretary

-

-

,--. ( . •

114

!<atharir:2 Gardiner Eale 1101 Keystone Avcnu~ Reno, lbvada 89503

Transcript of Statement of Katharine Gardiner E~lc

given at Atomic Energy Co,-:1.s~1ission riall

-s~It Lake City, Utah on

Dece~ber 12, 1974

Gentlernen and Gentlewomen,

I ·am Katharine Gardiner Hale; and have lived in Reno, Nevada, since 1961. I paid my own way here to hel? you make a decision that affects :me 2.s iii"r.ediately as it docs you. This is 2 country governed ''of" 2nc: "fo:c" 2.:n.c. ,;b~l" the -people; t!'lus I f13el it to be r,,y tir.,2 ~o ·offer rr.y service to this country, by spea}:ing tacky.

Since I have no special or official ti~le, I 1 ll tell you a little of my background. I'm a third-generation Californian, well-educated and responsible. I have had responsibj_lity for both a surgical and a meeical wing, as ¼ell as th~ energency room, of St. Mary's Hospital. I have worked as a salesgirl, a hostess-cashier, a civilian ste~ardess flying into Vietnam in 1967, a te:'acher of pre-school child.re:::. utili::i:cg '-!o.ttesc;ori methods, and a teacher of m3th and reading to adults at our local Hental Health InstitutG. Ct:rrcntly, I'm raisin<; my husband's 4 1/2 year old daughter and renovating our three­story stone house ,•1hich is twice as old as t~e Atomic Enercrv Com.'Ttission. I have the hone>::- ( a dubious o~ie) of being as ..,~ old as plutoniun. In another thirty years we will be producing 608,000 pounds of plutonium annually. - It is a known carcinogec1ic substance.

I arrived yesterday, having learned of the hearing seven days ago, so as to insure that I g2t a full night 1 s sleep. Inst9ad, I avidly read Wash-1539. Informative a~d complete as it is, the words that arc nost often repeated are "will be <ls-signed".

\ {. H

l ,-.. .

115

Now we are all excited by ne~ designs, an~ are in favor of research; after all, I didn't push a handcart, o~ foot, to get here. Flying is a delight 2nd I will enjoy the irnprover.,ents that ''will be desig!i.ed "., iYl that, and other fields. nut, there is no evidence at all for any s~fe threshold of radiation exposure .

• "Nuclear pow2r is safe" is an 2r::pty 1:i.e s sage. !)r. Wal tcr Jordan, pro-nuclear member of the .Ato::,ic Safety and Licensing Board said, 11 there is no way to nrove t!"-,a t \·le

have succe2ded in reducing the haza::::-ds to a lm.; level 11•

If I am to judge the care and planning abilities of the A.E.C. on their recent lack of care and planning in regard to informing the citizens of ~evada, then ther8 is real cause for concern. For, it took the A.E.C. a couple of years to produce the Draft Environ~ental Ispact Stat~hent of Cornn,ercial High Level anu 'I'rai1surar.ic ~::cdio2.cti ve Waste, and yet we are expected to digest t~at tone and issue an answer in a couple of months. If I were to ado9t a child, it wouid take t,·10 years and I'd care fo::::- it for 20 years and love it for my lifetime. Yet; you ask rne to adopt your baby with less than a year's notice and blithely eypect me to c.2.r2 for it for 24,000--years; a:1.d that 1 s o:1ly t.he bco.::;y's "half~lifc."!! Only a martyr ,.-muld take on suc:i surrog2.te not:ierhood. "Hal::­life11 is such an applicabl2 phrase. Our lives rr.2.y be halve6 by any one of many uaccidents" \vhich mig~"lt t2.};_e place at N.T.S. (Nevada Test Site).

Let me tell you a bit about your "baby's" proposed hmrre. I was raised in lush country, in Southern California when it was v2,cant lots full of rabbi ts, birc.s and ot::er wildlif 2,

and I learned to swin in the ocean. I camped and swam every year. So, 2-~evada looked e::1:;:ity and barren to r-:.e. It too}: me three years to appreciate that it is a dclicat2ly balanced gentle land. It is not a rough sagebrush wasteland. Since the .A.E.C. has peppered the East Coast Hith :r..ucle~r plants, I can understand how good our govcr~s2nt land Dust look to you. But it is unthinkable that rnore tirne won't be soent iinding out about it. A sage decision requires rnore ihought~

We have seismic eruptions (7 on the Richter scale) that are erratically located. ~o two happe~ in the same place. We have porous rock and sand hecause the state was und2r~ater for centuries and m1y leak could \-:ildf i.rc. ~-,e have a lack of n2o, and our population is growing; R2no has tripled in the last ten years. Consider the problc~s that you've c11countcred

-2-

-

-

116

by building the Virginia ~ater 2~d Po~sr and ~he ~iablo C~nyon, Los Ango les, sites over fault 1 i::c s. ':on sider ycur ad::1i t ted. failures with the c~re-cooling svston and ~he possi~ilities of future failures.

1he A.E.C. said to the N~tional Interve~ors t~at giving such information (concerning the troubles with core-cooling) would be proprietary. Proprietary mea~s that tte a~~er has the "exclusive right to the use or c.isposc::.l of c. thing". This is an arrogance which we cannot abide. ·The ?SO?le ~~ve been able to co11sider ·wheth~r or not they ~~·ant f li..:oride in their n2o, or prayer in their schools, o~ whether or not to u~e a hexachlorophenc product (and those words are u~de~s~ood by lay pre-schoolers), and yet are ~ot asked whether or not th0y want uranium hex~fluoride to move in next door.

As we all realize, 11 iiiterir:-," s~orag2. site IT,22.f!S II fcireve~".

If :i. am forever ·to be in a "?Juel ea~ Pv..r:•:" then I ask you to consider a noratorium so that the safetv factors that ''will be designed II may be completed. I 2_dvoca te-· a Dor 2:::.0:r ~c. un so thut the risks of the OiJeration may be E!aC..e J:r:.o•.,;n, ar:.d so that the citizenry of the states involv2~ say, with such kno~ledge, be heard and make the ultimate decision.

Some people have ~~rned me that it is i~nossible to stop a $40 billion business i~ its tracks. ~hat is hardlv my goal. I feel that so~e of the A.S.C. prece?ts 2~d proposals are naive and I also believe that ~or every soli~ scoundrel encountered, I will also meet a sensible h~raan being. Such has been my experience on pla~et eart~. I a~ speaking now to thos~ people capable of using t~eir highest faculties.

If we can predict the social future for g2~2=ations, including civil and i~ternatic~al strife, revol~tio~s, psychotics, psychopaths, sabote~rs of all ty9es, i~deed, all criminality, including dest=uctive Acts of God, then nuclear waste storage is accenta~le. I am an ooti8istic cynic. I have great faith in-h'J..;---:-.3.nity. B:.it, ::.r:- do r.ot have confidence that so~e exclusive intelligence will arrive to deal with our wastes in the futu=o. I believe in ~~e longevity of human institutions by which ~~is supsr race ~ay be trained. Yet I recall that we are the fcture race in ~ho~ t~e founders of this nation placed such trust and ~e are having a heck of a time. What sort of control do we have over the volatile spirits currently "doing tine" iY"! our peni te,1 t iar ies? Very little, although we learn ev~ry day. We cannot guarantee

-3-

-

,..-~ - --~

that the people of the future ~ill ~ot ~avn even more diffi­culty with our volatile incarcerated :~:..::cl2ar garbage. •~hese artifacts may be forever ento~~cc ~::..t~o~~ benefit of hiero­glyphic \-;arning, and we cannot taI:~ t;-_.::, res:;,onsib.ili ty.

Granted, one person's garbage ~ay be another person's treasure, but genetic deterioratic~ anc c&rcino02nic decline cunnot feasibly be treasur2d.

I feel a little like th':'! 11 pro-1-srbiu~ :::ndian"; the A.. E. C. is "moving west 11 and arrogantly cc:-----:9:::-0:::::..si:r_g the eu.rth as a habitable place for this, 2nd esse~~ia~ly all future, genera­tions. All information regardi~g t~c ea~gers of storing nuclear wastes nust be presented to t~e ?eople so that they may make j uc:.i cious response aY:.C. t::e "c:c-i '.: icali ty" rem st be er:1ph2sized in as c.leternined a fas:-!:.o:: 2s a:ray advr:ortiseFtent

117

for toothpaste, so that our understandins becomes secon~-~ature.

Please utilize Nevada's vast natural resources: geo-therr::,:,.l pmver, solar pm-,2r (" the SU!:. shi::.e s every day in ::-~evada") , and .,_,,ind pm·1er (Mark Twain c2.lled 0:,2 cf o·-..1.r 0.-1iY:.ds the "'i'J.J.sho2 Z!::p}:1yr") The fact that these resources 2re ~ree is econo8ically unplcas~nt to those vested interests that sta~d to ~e~efit by the buildins and licensing of more nuclear plants, an~ t~e storage of the resultant wastes. It is an A~erica~ tra~ition to find ways to reap profits and I have ~o do~~t t~at i~genious means will develop by whic~ profits may be reeliz~d i~ using solar, geo­thermal and wind power. Please pu~ your vast people resources to work on this and related nodes of res~erch. Thank you.

-4-

-118

1101 Keysto~~ A~2~~~ Re:-10, ?:ev2,c.'::. S :13 ':i 3 January 27, 1973

On December 12, 19 74., havin:;J discov2r2d t":-;e. t none- of our "public servants" were going, I paid ~y ·.-;::1:/ to Salt Lake City to testify at the A tornic E:r.ergy Cm:1.r:-,is s .io::: :: 2c:.:- .i:,9s, con 2erning their plan to use Nevadu 's ·11 barren \-;2..steL=.nc. 11 c::.s a Nucl8.ar Powe:- Plant \·las te Storage r·1mp.

Bruce Arkell of Las Vegas te:s ti f icd t.1-!cc t :: ivc::..dans ,·:c1.n t this dump because the Ne-.rad2 Test Si ~e :"!2.5 513-ci :-:'.illion ,.,orth of usable moth-balled equip::i.2:r.t and the g2ol:::i;ic:::..::. :::.::.:;;ability to store wastes indefinitely. He was dalis~~e6 ~.i~h the economic opportunities affo~ded by our accepta~c2 o~ tte A.E.C. 's plan. re stated that he an tic:i_pa ted II no da~ger" c.?!C. :-,?,cl cornple t.e faith in the A.E.C.

This astonish8d us all. Nevada~s h~ve ys~ ~o be inform2d of the dangers, and our opinions have yet ~o ~~ ~eard.

Nuclear waste cont&i~s three deadly ~~~-~~ie :-a<lioisotopcs: Strontiura 90, C2siun 137, 2.::d Plutor:.i·..E:-, 23::. :::e:=c:-e t:1cy los2 their toxicity, Strontiu:-~ a1:d CesiuT:", ::-.1..:s'= cs is:::,l?.:.:.ed fro!n 'lhc environment for 600 to 1000 years, ar:.~ Plcto~i~~ for 250,000 years. Plutoniur:, 239, is c3.rcino:;,rc,,ic. 0:--:~ r:-.:..2.J..iont.h of a gram causes cancer in nnimals (of which ~2.~ is 8~2) when inhaled. Once airborne, it cnn travel tho~sands of ~il23 i~ a short time.

I

Our society is unst.~blc, econo:-:cicall~·, p'J:..",. tL:ally, and socially. We love it but know it to be u~pr2~i=~ajlc. With odd extortionist group and terrorist clu~s c~c~?i~g U? every week, great precautions must be taken. ?crty ?O~~ds of enriched uranium or twelve pounds of Plutoni~n is t~e a='J~~t needed to create a Nuclear weapon capable of killi~s t:lousa~Js of people. Two l\. E. C. employees hct ve been Cu ;,.19:1 t s2:..:~gli:,:: t'::a t arnoun t of Plutonium in their lunchhoxcs. The A.E.C. ~as ~o~ lost 9,000 pounds of enriched urunium and 600 pounds o= ?l~~'J~ium 239.

This is inexcusable.

(

-

-

119 2

Before 1970 l\tornic \-;af:;tcs •.•:-2~c::; '.:,,s·~:::.::..~:-' ;:.,'..lr_:_::.,::l .1n ca.rton:; and barrcL;, with liLtle thought::>: :-,:i::,-:.::::-.::.:..2.: le::.:-:::=~~,!:; and contamination. The A.E.C. rc~~i~s ~~~=-=-~~~:: tha-:. ~~thods "will be d~sign2d 11 for sc1fc dis?os?..l o: -:.:-..::~-:: 0.-:2.5-:.-25. Yet the A.E.C. says: "No p~rn2nc;-1t \-:.:1.~- ::.o :::.::_:::::::-::::33 o::: t::is \·lustc has ye_t b(:!en designed. 11

I must 2.ssurne that th8 rcaso:: t.:ie _-::.._. ~. C. h2.s :wt launched a national and state-wide ca• paig~ ta i~=c== the ?eople of the risks involved is that such info=~a~io~ ~~~l::: te==ify the inhabitants. With an inforrn2d PO?~la~0, ~::~=e ~o~ld b~ no one ~pbn whom they might foist the trea~=~l ~a~~::.ge. I nust also assu.'1te thu.t a $40 billion busir:e:ss (~:-:e: :-.. :2.C.) c2.::::ot afford such a scare campaign.

We are in an energy bind, bu~ that is~~ reason to.µbandon our senses and frantically grab t.l",2 c2::-o:.:s-::!l br2s.3 ring._of Nuclear Power while relinqui~hing o~r ~o~~ on the guiding reins of common sense.

I have used lu.rge nu:,ibe:rs ::..:1 t.::.is l£c:-::.::s~, 2..::--:::. I, like n,ost people; cannot digest those fig~res. ~~':. ~~ st2=2 aichard Carrin9ton' s. ounce of perspe::,c ti \'2: "I::: -:.:-,e e':!.r t.:-: 's :!is tory could be compressed into a single y22~, ~:-= firs~ eight months would be without life, t~e next ':.~o ~o~l~ see t.~e 2ost pri~i­tive creatures, r,1c1mmals \·/ouldn' t 2;::;:.·22.~ c__::-. -::.:.l t>:~ s.econd (2nd) '.•;eek in D22emoc:'r, and no Eo,t,o s~~_;;i2:-. .3 ·.:.~':.:.l ll:<1:S ;i.:-:1. on December 31. The entire perio~ o~ ~~=a:::.-:.;'s ~ri':.t.en history \•:ould occupy the final sixty ( cC) 5s;::c:::::2 ::=c:Eo::e :~_ic:.night."

We are young and inexperis~=e~ i::~~~:.':.~::ts a~ t~e pla~et, and it is proper that we b2 willi:-:.; ~o :2~=~ ~i=s~, then act upon our knowledge, rather tha~ 12~~~ ':.::~ la~e.

The A.E.C. 's tendency to de?2:-:~ o~ ~~2 inge~~ity of future generations and our tendency to ee;:.e:-:~ o~ ~~e A.~.c.•~ ingenuity shows an appealing kind of "trust", ;JU t. ~:, ;;.;>palJ.:.ng lack of respo~sibility for our O¼n actio:-:s.

I uant all building c~:.d li:=2:-!s.=-:-:q c: ::-_:::le2:::- ?o·.-.-cr plu.nts brought to a halt until the A.~.c. ~~s ==~~~ a p~~c~icablQ method of safely dispo!:.,ing of t~Q:_~- ·.·i::o.S':.-:s. I \•:.?..:-:t :;;:evadans to be deluged with facts before t~~ ~-~-=- is allo~ed to bring the Hastes into our state. I \·:2.:.t ~'.:12 ~0:::s:on -:.:.o ;Jc ol~_.£~, on a ballot, if necessary.

I remain, its a willing to be i:-:. f o=:-:-.e:::. :: 2vc.(:c:. ci ti z·cn, cordially yours,

L- l

-

-

120 ASSEMBLY ENVIR.ON!1EHT AND PUBLIC RESOGRCES C01'.!J'-1ITTEE MEETING EX.

Monday, March 10, 1975

Any errors in my testimony may be attributed, in part, to the lack of accurate public information. Even ~r. Gates could only rely on outdated slides.

To· the bill itself: I question the ve~acity of 2 "whereas's" in line 2: "outstanding concern for nuclear safety". Very little respon­sible action has yet been based on said "concern". Lines 11-12: "douc and anxieties'' of people and their leaders have narrowed the choice of states to us. I claim that the people of this state have the same doubts and anxieties if only they were informed of the risks and allowe to use their .good judgment..

This bill is tantamount to a bribe. Our economic appetites are being tempted by $1-1/2 billion for 40 years and by the solar research plum in a giant poison cake. I and other people, capable of listening to the highest idctates of th~ir conscience, will not accept the bribe.

Mr. Mann's said that salt H2o would corrode containers dumped in oceans. "Nature would intervene" in the safe disposal of \vastes. I say that nature could intervene in our state as wel 1; including both mother nature and human nature.

Culturally, this state asks people to pay money for money. We don spend a lot of time asking people to pay money for ballet, opera, etc., &s a profit-seekinq device. This attitude has been much maligned by other states but if may be to our advantage now. For Nevadans are accustomed to turning unusual propositions into commercial successes. I have absolute faith that we can reap a profit by developing solar research, geothermal research and "zephyr" wind prnver research. Per­haps, we as a State, can beat GE to the punch by claiming legal rights to the sun.

Things to ascertain: Will experts come to work with us? Will we be expected to take wastes for 19 other countries? Will we be funded for solar, geo-thermal and "zephyr" research? ,,1ill the economic nibble in a hard economic time be worth the nuisance when the money is spent? What will employment figures actually be? 1'-lill our hearings be in vain or will the govern~ent listen? If our government doesn't listen, will we be forced to take the wastes because we're owned (83%) by the Govern­ment?

,,

I -

•

-

121 AP!'T~1\':"?/\,:·~:!~ 0.? I:•(.'.~;~::~= :;A:!JO:!? :Jr:?c,:~:; ·~~:::: ASS3:-:;.;:·t 3:\ 11120:·1:.~~:~

AND P~l3LIC i{3~0'jii;:;;:;~ :;c:-::.:} ·;·-;:·z:; Li ;j°S;i;l:,r' Cr' ;.~~·:-15

Thenk you for civinc ~8 the vrivl~~cc of anucarinc before yo~ in bch::i.lf of the ;~e•;;1ch. ~•.~~:t Si Le ;i~, ~1 pl8.C!e :!1t,"!. :1:..li ~,;:.;;:le for t!":e storaie of radioac"'.:ivc w:a:;tcs •

3ccau:::;e of: tiic quei:tlons asked by ,uc~bers of your co:rimi ttee 2.t the hcarir:;; Lefore yo:.1 1:-.:.st irids.y (:.:ar':!r~ 7~ I :rno·,·r t!1:1t you hre already R¼are of the econo~ic advRntace~ to southern ~e~lda, the beneficir:.1 impact u;on c:i:nlo:.r:nu:t,::::.:::-; ·,;ell as t:o:?,c infor:r:ation a:;out ti:;.e potential c.2.::1gsr i!i. t:10 most 'J.nlil-:,~ly c:::.t3C? of s~bota,:e,o:::- att2.ck in case of u,s.

)ly puri)ose i:i r~;r;::,e2.rini; here is t'J e:npi..asi.zc that nuclear p01{(T ca?J ,and s:1011ld r,e, the r2:~;] or factor in -:1:c.·t~in;_; our coun t.ry indepc:ndc:~ of' fore1°-n ',:.l;)'"'liec: o.f 0il . l-,!>1rl ... ..,~,~ t·~,--. r:.v,...,i;•; ...... Ji]it-,r 0:- a,.:;-; C'noc-::>l - . c,- • : ~ ..__. - t ...,_.._....,_ ..,,.#,.._.. UI ~-- ~- .,._.,,__..._ '-. - 1.' ..;.. 1...1..-. -..1 ~ ...)._._

site for ::1·;.1.cle:1r roi;~·er ~-.:--st2s is c:;se:'ltl:"-1 if -:~ 1Jcles.r uc·,-:er is to r,2.v an uno·ostr:.i.ctcd. d;_,V(•lo·:1:r:ent. I do :1ct (1:.s-i:::::ra,:e the t?C:J~o,::.ic be:ief'itc:' to our stc"tc.8; in .fo.ct, it I suspected:-. d:·.~1f;•~r to ti"!e :1ec.1.ltn and t::w env1ro~~ent I would opp~se tte rcsclutlan.

lhe ~any witnessc~ ~to a~ve 2ppA~re6 tcre in cpposit~on to this resolution see:n to ·~;e :,n::.,tT:.cre o::.~ t~.':! ;;!.-cut:::::-- r.>.r;ger to our r1ea1 th 2-:,_s eilv:l.roY:rr:ent ;:·!'o.cJ ti"~e curl',,nt so,.i:·c~~ ;::i1.' e1:..cr;:,,-. ~<l ezueric-:icc o.f 0 11c-;:-·

50 years as an c:1n:i.oyce or c.ons1...::. t;.:,.1;t' to util.~ ~.:Le:-; 1:as si!01m :,.;e th::;.s. For cxr,.::::rple, one o:' :::J col:::.s.~-;c clr(;ec:s::i::-~tes w::i . .:: ~:i1..;..cd 1-;i-;:,}:..i::-1 S yeb.r2 of gradur1.ti.cn ~·:!lilc ·t·:or;~:1 .. ~·1~; fo1~ 2. ;;0 1.•?o.r co:r ... ;~;__l.::-:.y 49 :;::,- T,;or·=< fo!" t:ie AT~: took me i~1to :;est \'lr:~:Lnia. Tht.ffc Is:--,.;,; ti:c oor.:ies of :::i!Hffs laid ir,. ro·,·•s n°a.,,. t· ·1·"'r., n1 7 nn "'D~~-•-ril c, ") •'t·cr ,_,,... ,,,,,:;clT''"I"""·J"·1·~ . ..,.,-'"' .. .LJ"'~ •Yr ·,•e ',~),re, r, 7

-, ... ....,,. _ .1.i.:.... ~~ .-. ... .,t-;; :--' ~- ",Jr __ .,.,. .... .,. • c..., ......... :.,.(,.,.\l •• ~ ..... ·~-- ....,1,,,_,. 1,.1, L: ·"'t-' l u~"""""• ,r 1.,.~ ..... t_; (_,.1,..-l.

seet1 t!lG black cl,T,,•i,., ·n-:.,~.;:;~:eo frJ:1. t.1::: s'.;,:,~~:; r::: p:';.!~:l' 711::.~~ts r:,nc of lli.8.TIJT !_ndust~"JiC!:."'i; 1·JC 3.l~8 n.11 :~:·iClI'D of t.!r;e =\d-\rcr,.~,2 effectc of thC38 on our hc2.lt:1 .:~!1d. Gi.:vir:::c::r::i.:. ·::c: :1~ve '.lJ.l tr,.:.7c1lc:d ::.c.lo::i,; ct~r ~3-gl1,-;~:../~~ n-rrd see!l tl1e· ·trec8 \-;-:~os2 ·c.r:~1.t,;-.. l· .. :,1..~~:; De-en ~~c:ile(1 ·:}?- t~"ic ~)·o-iBo:1011t; [;t:.scs exhausted from our c&r3. ~~~c of thc3c a~~ersc effects 2re associated with ~uclear po~er. As yet, na documanted clal;jS c~ da~a~e to healti or e!lviron~;;.'c'!nt 11~ t::e vicLJ.ity of nu::::._2ar -pc:,w:.- -pl<"nts ~i~1ve ·cecr::. :::iace

!f.entio:1 h8.S 08Qrl iJ.~.1J.c l:'Jrln 6 tl:es,: ::eari.ii..c,_>: of th~ r-~:,,c·,.,-al .:ro~rr snr'vicc oi· se,:er·r~l :1ticlt::.~•1r DO'/rer~ ul~J_!1."t.r; ·ucc~~:.:;se of· tl~e clisco\r81 ... \r o:~ leaks. i'ic !ll2:-1tion l:2 :!l::.'.d2 th2.t :r:o:t of tr~cse lE:s.ks are assoc5J:.t~d ,,.,it portions of tte nuclear pl~~ts ~t:ch ~re tne ~Gm~ as t~ose in the conventional fossil-fuel-~ired vl2nt3. :o mcn~i~~ is n~dc that no serioun injuri2G to m3n or environment have bee~ ussociatcd ~1th t~cs leaks. ;.;or is mc,n.:;icn • ~:.de tl;/c,.;:; c:, ... riYI::~ rmy f:;i-vL;;-, }'8~"!.::::- t:-:cre wi1.l be hundreds of 6 en2ra·::;1ng u.n:;. 7.2 ·::.n ccm.vc~1 ti 0~1::;.l -;-:1::.::ts out of service fo:~ ro:..i.tinc r.1c,.int2:1:.:::1ce G!' pcssi·oly bec,J.u:.:e of P- olown-\1-p ·ooiler or a fire cau:;; cd by a tur st ol l L .. !te. ?he::; r: co net r:n ·:<:c the no! ti on:il headlines. I ~ill bot t~it none h~rc k~ow t~at scme years b~ck the PG&E lost a 2aJor ~c~cr=tin; ~nlt wit~!n n few day~ of its ~]~cement into service.

You arc pos 3i "bly a·:1'.·t:'2 !;!12. t c 0!1s t.:-u(! ti on :Jf ~.:;orie n~c:}. c:ir -plan ts have been co..ncclloc:.. 'I'i'.:.e :11.zh cc:;t o;· :-~ rrnclc:il' pl,.,nt r'lt.i1cr U1::".Y1 t::c cnvircn:::entalis ~:::; .rj.:•e :cP-f.~pe:;1::i-:::ilc fer ti1L;. I a;:.-, one of t~ic::,e •;.;r}:o reco!"!.1:::c:iclc:l to tlie ::.;p?;:>.' •. ,r,,.~ny yc':rc1 ~co th8.t 1;:1cy c·i1'.i.J_d !TJ.~lesr power plants. It i!: ·,10r"t.,L :::;untic!1ln3 !;h:.::.t if 1::.~;.-:lc'.lr T'1e.n-:s ,,c;:-e cupplylns ti1c p o·,rcr ·::;~1cre ~-ro:J.lci !"lv t nu·.r 1 c t lie 1·:.· 1J.s tra ~i a:1 ovc r freq,;c1n rate lncr<):lscs. '2ae S??::::c. ·i,:..:.J.·oullu ~- c:o:.il fl.reel nlant. bccau0c !1uc:lcclr nL!.•1t,r:, ,.i.rc too co::::tl::,·. 'l'~ls 0xc:c~;sive co'.,t :-:.~s been brougbt a~out 1:~y' t:12 i:::1c:!.u~;io11 i!l t.Lo de~,ic;nf~ ~f avery conccivc.ble ;ucuns to prcvcn"!. :1cc:idcr:.c~; t:1::ct ·,roulu. r,~'..:i'J.l"t ir1 r:,cii;_1tlon du.:i~a::;e. 'l'r:e evidence fro:r1 i:!o~;e cxnr . .:t i:1 t:11:; fir~l.c:. is tl4~1t ~ :r::.1jor ;lcclclcnt in a Ill''-.1 .... r ,11·-1n·t i"' ... ,, .. · 1"''" 1-~ ·r<---"' ,,.. +o ,, ... ctir ·t·i"l'l ~ :i a co~1\rc•1+io..., 01l \, C. V __,. ._.... )'-'" ~ '- I --.J _I.., '.-. * . I._., ~-' o..1 • ..._ .L. ~ L .._, ..L c..1 \I V '--"' .,._. Ji .._ .. .J.. 1r ,.__ ii. _._ t..J • "- •

l "nt o, ·· .... 01·1c , ... c..1•1· C"l~ 1 . ., ~1-, .,,1-,• ac•·,·i.o-c··r.:.. :~~ ,-n.t cccur anc8 v "' • r , d _, L: 1. 11 '--' ~-- l u. , -· .. , .. J .., _ ~ - ... . • • ,· ., • .:. . • . .•

in 3000 yc:1.r~,.

• j

-

{ 2) 122

::::.ast I•'rld--::iy, .:;0~H,l'<1::_ :.:;1b}c:l :,o.tcs sLcYr;ed Y8J. ";)iCtures of tile containe~s of tic r~dlo~cti~c wastes ~~ich will ~c stor8d in the open,te;:;;.,o:.-,')_rily, 1_L•1til ::er;2:.1rc:·. <~nj_ (;_c·n_:lor~1E:;:t ·p:--ovides n pe:rDanent solution to tr1e :3t8:·,i,:,2 ;:,rotlGJ' .• ::1es•:: :;.:>nt.,1:1.!lt:~rc; 8.re i--:.u,::;e, c:';Cll weigtinc taus ~nd ~re·-:o· co~~truct~d o~ sieel ~1.d concrete as to be practic<.i.lly lnd.c::str:1ctlbl8 ·e,y- accic.e~t durins tr:i: .. s-port,'.t:on or by sabotage on t~c stor~;c site.

Mr. Flanzas ect~iled the geolocy cf the ~ro~oscd area. If by malicious i!1text. or:,;/ ,,n--:..r :...~,e ·,.;:i.ste :;,:_~ter-l_2l ,:-;~re relc:-:-:.seci the radiation would. ce con:!:'i:1cd ·'Jy v~o ::;u1-ro;_mdl!l:_: ,:-io:1.ntaius s_r:d ·.-::):1ld have no L.nr:1duJ_ e:'i'28~ ::: it 1:,enet:•:-3.~;ec. -:;:,w ~-,;ur:~cce. A:id 11.' t~:e radio:::ctiv~ "d~--'-3tGS ~-~ere l'Cd:~ceu te: Ft c;l·_:_t;f-li:-<:::: ::;olid, and tl!iS is the dire~-cic!l of :1:...cL rest~:~rch ::enc. de 0:("!.0--pr.1u1t .'.1Gi·,.. tsin:, cn.rricd o~, the:i tn.c:: rad.:.a.tiO!l · .. ;ould L1·:ceu ~,e ccn.:_·:-:..ned t.o r, 15..:iil -',:,ed. :.::.re,::.. The propose.d st.ora,:e'.,1-;:;c:1 s-:-;or~~;e)r:.rer:_ i::; "c. ~cw }n.;.r: 1~red :.;.cr,3s 0:..1.t of 1:.he Ihoi·c ti'"..l8.~1 :;.. -c:~oil~32.;~G squ_wr·,-~ 1~1-ll~~~ o.t: ~":2e ·:~est ~Ji t:J.

It:r.~?l:l~l;~s ,:~ls~) c0::~:~er1tccl 01: ~::-12 i·e~si:.~·'Llity of stOL'i!'lS t~e .. wastes ~:r1ds1",~;:-·cl~11C :-~-t t;I'G~t dct1t~:~3. :-;~~ !:..~:.~ :1:..0. [~ _-cL;-iJOl' r·cs~_:c~1si8illty· ~or n1•en:,.l·r:>;_,· +!·c) · 1 11r~:,-r .. ·r•)•">1'; ~~0 1~ ••:71' ""'"le'-",Y' '.·i·1 -s--:;i-,-,., c·t•·r1'·,-,, t•·o D':~-'-- ~•• !- • ....1..,,l,.,.ai.:.,_-_;:; li~~--.• ,._J. ,-...-..'-~~ ~_.•'"" \.,. ~"---..t- ..:.. .,. l,,.__V _.J:_......._Vr ~-"""'"' L ---.-~11.. V"--' .{,._ ~.l.l~_; ,J...._,. I.(...,\...; V

several ye~rs. I~ is possijl2 ~~ut a~ cx:stinc o~~~tar created by a~ es.rlicr "tl:::.st CO!..i_ld ;,e 1:..;~cd; ii' n~t,~.00 '.cDCC!:1.ccl l;,):i::;:ber co•;l,:;, :::e cre::ctcd t:r l Ulc-1.st :•Ti~=·: t;-:e :\l"J.O~r·!lC(l_j:.~ t:~!"--~t- t:.;.D c::~-~=:t(101--- ~:~:..~ c:';~:-i.t,ecl :!OJ.:.~ s~~r·c the wa:::;tes pr:::,d,_)_cccl curl::.,~; :;c•;cr;il dec2-c.es by nuclear ~)O~•rcr pJ.~Jats or by the ~lllta~y.

· In co11cl1.tsi:);.1, I -~c~ie"\;t; t;~:~t t:;_9 i•-:e·t:1d.:?. "l'or;t Site i~ t~~c. :;;ost s-..,it,_,.\::;J.c oi' ~,:.i.1 t::c "l.a:1:i :::~tee ::.~o 1:~1r co~1:.:t62r2c_; j_t is f2..r rno1,c Stlit~::.t)le ..1~1:~;1 ·:JlJ.;_~:t;;._l ~:.t S8~t ~·~j_tt t:-~c :)oss:~~lc dls;-1st1 .... o:.1s l~-tG!."" et·.f'o.cts of ser.1. llfG; l t j_:-; 1:~;:.r :norG s:.1~l ~~~.;:>j_e- ~~~~:.:: stcl .. ~;_~~e o~.1 so::"1"18

-'~ c-~r.o·t 2 j_ ·sla~:d ·r c:J.C :,L~.-:.l e 0:-:l:t .J :'4'r :_l. tdou ;;~_':.r.tC. :T.:.iJ~ C Sc~ \To:ra.i;O • I urge the adoJtion of A;~-15.

I wouJ_d 2.lso co:r,:;,e~15. t:1e 1adis-s -:;,;?w h~'-·,re o.nner,:!.·ed here anc. l"riv;:, c-ho•m -'-h,-;,-ir C·O'l'~""l"" ~~(''- .... ,,.,.., ,C,•1·-·,.·,··l•Y'"C'>)'-t• •.• ~-o,.._;,· ... ~-e'• _,_•,-i.,.1t~·" 01 J.C_ v""' u • .., t'1 J. '-''-•..__ • ...._ , .;. vt.;; .:..1 _ .,..,,_ \._;~..i,. ........ \- ~•-...a. ,.J1;..i.t;,..J, , -+- ...... ~-·.._, \);..1.. ~: ~_Jc .... _~ ...--..1..-

their vlzilancc in tei~l; ~~ ?r • t:ctini o~~ environxe~t rrnd ho~c ttat B0!':18 o: tQe t.t.in~:c:. ::,.a-.rc ::;e~:\;:.::me:d :::l:O\"'.'.! ·:rl:.l ~:-,:-=-:.::;est to tie:n so:uc new directions for t~cir ze~l.

•

-

c---._

•

123 1663 La Jollil -~venue Las Vegas, Nevada 89109 March 6, 1975

To: Bremner, JCbmmittee Chm, Environment Robinson, Committe Chm., Commerce Schofield, Assemblyman Governor O'Callaghan

Gentlemen:

Today's mail brought me a copy of AJR 15, and I am writing to tell you of my strong opposition to the language in the resolution which relates to the selection of the 1'J.ew::da Test si.'.:e as the selection site for the disposal of nuclear wastes.

First, I believe that a resolution should deal with one matter for consideration; a resolution which seeks to treat two such totally different issues shows, as a minimlL11, a lack of sensitivity to the depth of problems involved.

The Atomic Energy Cormnission, as it had been called, has .not begun to answer the kinds of specific concerns regarding transportation and safe storage that have been raised at public hearings on the issue or that have been raised by members of the Governor's advisory committee on the issue. ·

I was present and testified at the hearing inJCQark County. Not one of the persons who has co-sponsored AJR 15 from the Clark County legislative delegation was present at that hearing. Had they been present, they -would be more aware of the complexities involved, they would be more aware of citizen concerns, and they would be more aware of the information gaps, both past and present, in presentations from the AEC.

The Governor'sJlbmmittee had a role to play in reviewing the application for storage, and that committee raised concerns and questions that need to be reviewed. If not raised by the corrnni ttee its elf, then they were raised by interested citizens through public hearings held by that committee.

It is an erosion of the function of that committee to seek a legislative mandate on an issue like this, and particularly when those sponsoring have shown no particular degree of concern in the past. What kind of study have these assemblymen done on the issue?

How can these members of the Assembly justify the glib remark, stated in the Resolution, that "The People of Southern Nevada have confidence in the safety record of the Nevada Test Site, and in the abiiity of the staff of the site to maintain safety in the handling of nuclear materials .... " Have they been unm•.rarc, or have

-

-

-2-

they so quickly forgotten the December leak? Have they been unaware of the public concerns at the recent hearings? Have they also remained unaware of the testimony of Maya Miller, speaking for the·many of us who could not attend, at the Germantown hearings? I believe that the efforts of these AssemblymeiL to obtain a legislative mandate on the issue is an insult to me;

1i4

I do not recall my Assemblyman making this a campaign issue, or even attempting to obtain an opinion from his constituents.

My apologies for not including all of my concerns ~--· but time is a factor. I am anxious to go to the Post Office with this in hopes that it might reach you before tomorrow's hearing. I also learned of the hearing in today's mail ...

As you well know, few of us have the flexibility or the financial resources to make spontaneous trips to Carson City. I would be happy to send to you my teitimony from the last hearing; I would also be happy to refer you to other sources for a comprehensive bibliography.

Again, I strongly op,ose the resolution to eLcourage nuclear waste storage in Nevada, and ask that it be withdrawn.

I would appreciate it, should this arrive in time, if.you would share my views with your committee.

. ,-... '--

'\, ·~,{

'.

-

Toetimony eubmi ttod to the, Novo.do. St.a to Aooi,mbly Co~ two on

E:nvlroU!tlont ~nd Publio ReBourcoa

Bonita Dro\1ll Bou 102 Silvor . City, lfovndct 89428

,,

1.25

/

/

-

-

( ,. '

Hy nnmo i e Boni u Drown c.nd I httvo como to expraSl) cy oppoai tion to tho

ARO,now ERDA propooml to conotruct nn 'Intor1m1 highOlovol rndioQotivo

\fqt1te otorago fo.cili ty in lfovc.do. and pnrticulo.rily objoct to AJR t!l5.

I oorn6 in rooognition tha.t thei rocornroondo.tiono that will como from.

theeo hcHtringa will offoot e;oMro.Uono to cor...o.

I b~eo my conoluniona upon tho ronding of the Dro:ft Jm.viroPI!l!)ntnl

Sta.tGmont {i-U.SH-1559) J from oy own rooeo_rch; from teotimony gi von. by

Govornor 0 1 0:l.llo.ghD.U 1 s lfo.eto Study Oommitt'.:loJ from tootinony given at

tho Snlt Lnko Hoa.ringo (n.t which I toutifiod) f o.nd 9 moat importmt .... e

I havo to.lked to L1ru1y Hovado.no.,

The Unitod Sto.toa bets been gonornting \:rlleMn for ;,O yoc..ra, and o.ftor- ,0

yee.re no aito ho.o boon found th'1-t 1~ ouitablo for parnc.nont dicpooa.l

of tho wo.etoo. Thua Nova.do. im boing nokBd to prov5..de tho badly noodod

1~6

1 lntorira1 oi to, vi thout much plo.nning timo. 'I'he Go highly toxic, con.r.:,:,roia.lly

produced 11aetoc muot bo kopt out of tho biocphoro for hundroda of

thouonnds of yo~ra. Mankind will bo committod to porpetuoJ. curvoillauo

of'thooo oubntancos tor n grontor timo· tho.n ia attributod to n.ny civiliza.tion.

It ldll bo in our rooponoibility for tho lifo of tho planot.

Primarily, tho accumulnted wastes have been ,thuB f~r, re.o.nuf'noturod ~ithin,

ths voRpon~ progro.m. Th~ wa~toa NovadQ ia to dtorc nro theso ~aotoo,

o.nd tho wa.ato a yot to ba produced by commorcial, prot'i t-mrucing nucloar

po~or plr..nto, tmd uaotoo fron 19 foreign oountrioo. Tho fodera.l

Oovernmant euboidizoe tho powo,·plunto ui th tochnioo.l ho'pi>, inoura.nco. ••

through tho Prloc-And&rnon Act, (nano privu.to inournno8 oompeny vill \

inoure thom fully) ••• mid now, further mibo1dy rlll ho prov1dod in~

•

-

ThQ nuoloar power progra~ hao boon doclgnod nan atop-gap to eupply

enorgy to thin nn.tion until moro onvironmontnlly oound nnd r0l10.blo

Bourceo ~ro dovolopod.

1<!7

A. groving oxport nnd ne.tiond concern han dovolpod 1quootiont.ng tha oconoi.;i.l oe

nnd oafoty ot tho powor plnnta.

2; of tha 57 potter plnt,13 in opo/ntion ho.vo boon shut dovm t\1ioo in tho

lant oix month~ duo to dn.mcgo in tho omar~cncy cooling oyotemG. And thoso nre juot n tow of tho probloma th~t hnvo hit th~ pla..nto.

Ga1tlomen, it has boen otate~ mn.ny tim~s in tho~e hearingo th~t •vo hnve

tho 1-ta.otoo nnd vo muet put thom nomcnrh<lro 11 .. o Md, ll110 mu.ot do our pa.rt in

i:ro.tionn.l Sec-uri ty- 11• ; 0 O.!'l Hr Fle.ng-:-o otat,Qs 11 I don 1 t over \Jo.nt to bo in

eooond Plnoe 110 The r!ambo1~0:f' thio colID!llttoo trho h!'l.vo or a.ro omp:ioyod

nt tho ·rm, ho.vo nn undorotnndublo concorn in tho nili. to.r:r o.opo ot of tho

nuoloar proer~.

· I intend to ~ko no con,7.3nt c..n thnt n.opoot oi"tho prcgrru¾ I havo no k:no11lctlgo

or do sire., tiho. t I do 1::uggost is s

I. Ve, ha.vo approximn.t~ljr 6 rtlllion go.llona of h.!..ghly ro.dioo.ctivo ,mu.t.oB

BOU 1 otorod ci.round tho country,. \10 oha.11 undoubtedly produoo noro

. 1.n tho woa.pono progrru.a, but thin qunnti ty ifl nogliea.blo ithon

0om1rnred to tho oxpootod runounto of tho yeo.r 200(),..<=.=,~~2~~') ( eo--.a:t:.oroH1.i'il1,

produced) No moro thc.n noceirno.ry chould be produced.

2. Nov~da ia boing cckod to provid~ an 1 InteriQ1 atorngo oito. I

propooe tha.t D.11 offortl'l end monoy bo dodicated to tho oolution

of a porm.t1.nont, ae humanly poooiblo Mfo diopoi:,o.l., and, Thn.t

energy oourcac, othor tho.n tho quoetioooblo nuclonr be dovolopod•

nolf.

US ho.Te 1 t, it raiet go oo:nGJllhero, lot 1 t bo done right.. 'Intorin1 Btor;;go

1g,tho propooition of dooporstiou-.

,,

•

-

••

I fc,ol tho profleint propoau.l fo urio tha lfovn.da. Teflt Bito(N TS) 111

unexoopt~blo tor mnny roQoono •

l. I cnnnot 01q:iopt tho juatif"1cr~t1on of protluoing tha wa.ct.oo through

nuolonr gon1rnt,,d powor.

2. I fool tho AEO'S orodibility ie EJUGpoct in rognrdff to its

oome fo.moua oxo.mplc~ of to.nk Gtructur~l fniluro, hwann orroro nooo2pruiyiog

the lonke , nuoh at ll~nford (106 tG.nk, 1973) • Up until 1970, noot unct.Qo _,\,,-a.nd t.ml::o., f·ll

uoro buried in tr-one-her./ Ida.ho lma roful"l a,l tho di: ovo rrn:1 ni:to • n. I dr,ho

00.nnot. cor..nidor tho oito until tho romovo.l of tho '-fo.otly largo lll.lfl,bar

of bnrrolo end boxoo containing trano-urnnie uaot.oo ,1hich were Un"l1iooly

buriod in tho ground (c..t tho lmTQ) prbor to 1970., 11 \1hn.t this i:;io&n.a tho

gonilou~n io that robotiiod rrlning k'UBt bo dooo on 80 noroo of/Itlhho

ro0orvo.t1or:n to onve tho groat c..qttlfi<l:" of tho Snako River tho.t io in ,.

danger of boing oontr..minQ.tod • In lfo .. uf'ord thoro ic o. tronch of buriod

Plutoniuc tho.t \:fill hllvo to bo i:i.ln~d by robotizod m.n.chinod in on1or C,CU~L'\'j f:!0.;0(i':-Clf'6'() c-,..\ ""'i-,: rtr

to pi·ovt1nt c. potontiL\l •-,-;Y'L~.:re~.:;-.~-tt.a~ooultl 1·owlt in ue..al'Jivo

oomto.mino.tion to tho Po.oii'io Horthwoot.

Hou OD.l1 \.'o be D.Grmrod tha.t tho plc.nn6d oi to o.t tho m.:J \till- bo

nny s!U'orf Ho,t '1111 u0 know of o.ny los.ko or aooidont.o t1h<m moot of tho

lenko and nooidontc nt Hru1ford, Savo.nn.uh Rivor,Idobo ho.v& uounlly

been clocucontod by eor::o other ngoncy bof'oro ndm.i ti.ad by tho AEOf

'• With oaoh propooQd ~thod of otorngo th~ro io adclttodly nn in-oit-0

1~oleo..l'lo ·of' ro.dio.tion. (DES,!> .. 1-15) nul:.) ro.dio.activo ma.torio.l roloa.eod

during noroal oporo.tiono aro vory auu.ll qucntitioo thnt vould bo oxpoot-Od

undor routino opernting condi tiona duo to noma.l co~trutlnntidh lovolo. •

Thia io of ooncorn in tho light or rocont findin&H in Cano.d~ ttnd thGUB •

~~-ulohuoi. Oii.ri ctio, on bohc.lr of tho Otnto of Idc-.1"10. D::O. 12, 1974

A"SO.· 80-lt, Le,.i.:o Oity Hoe.dug. ,,

•

-

. oonoorning tho etudy ofthe long t<>rr.1 ofi'ooto of lov lovo~ rfl.d1G.t1on.

Studioo ho.yo ohown that humo..n rndint1on dnmo.go tlllY not nhov V'P until

ono or t\lo gm orn. ti one fol lowing tho ini tio.l expo cruro. Thug, vorkort1

and oi tizono ui thin c..nd. ourrounding rrucloar inot.Allo.tiono rrnoh as a

po,10r pln.nt nnd ei tci o euoh 11.0 tho !ITO' o.ro oxpoaod to groo.tor ru:i:.ount.9

1~9

of lo'l-1-lovol rndintion e.nd c..ro tho ono e connidorod in tho ntudio o[\t.6S>.J.~w ,n-t 1r1 C-~G,-R.c--Jf~·

The oxpoeod pore on may ht..vo P. normn.l lif'a-opun, but tho of footo at tho (Ju 6,~

rndintion ie ohouing i te0lf' in incroo.Dod loultchla a..nd gc;n.otio ch..-'lnl:os

in tho porBon1 a ohildron end grondchildron. (Reub'lr tio only ho..vo ha.d 1~(\(l;';')

!,0/0::.:porionco) Not only o.ro loukomia. and co.ncor re.too ino roo.eod

in ~rono ourrounding nuclonr inotallationo, but offocto nro SGottlngly

continuing to childron having nothing to do Hi th c.ny moaourocl. oxpoouro,

I lived in the Pnoifio HorthHeot, rmd ono ,,ould only hc.vo to go to

nni bar in Richlo.nd, \;!c.ohington end ti:i.lU to people to han.1•,of' many

pooplo with cMcor,.

for Novn.dn, boco.ueo or ito groat domar.do of o.vd.lD:b~_o imtor.. According

to the DES(l,.2e!> .. ) 11 \!ator- conaumption \1ould bo o.bout 70 oillion

go.llonl'.'I por yoar (nt poilk inventory) for oithor of tho t\.'fo concopts

uoing pe.o oive o.U·•coo}.:ing •• !t. Oonrrurning tho oi, . proj o cto d n.m.ounte of 'Wll. ter

in Nova.da. would be and irrovoro1 blo nnd irrotroi voble cornmi tmont ot i te

wntor reooureooo Lae Vogno io gro'.:'inz rapidly, uithlta O\fll l<nter demands.

Do lfO ho.vo onough1

Anolhorpoint of ooncorn ia tho ooiflmioity of tho nroa of tho NTS. }/-

Jlho r6oorvationa oxproeood by Dr,. Alun Ryo.11 indiel'.to my concorn. 11 Novo.de.

is ono of tho r.-;oet o..ctivo aoi ~roic regions in tho Uni tod Sta.ton. During

tho hiotoric poriod oinco ~bout 18-lJO six oarthqunkoe have occurod in

w~atorn N~vndu Pnd oouthoaetorn C~lifornio with the magnitudo gro~tor

than nbout 7, ond ono of thoo~ (Chlous Vnlley, 1872) ,,

tl.tlY ho.vo tho mttgni tudo groator thn11 8 0 Scihmioi ty in thi e rcvgion

___ ,,,f'ta. ...... _ _._ -

•

-

( , -

~Jof1

1 e e M.ro.ctori r:od by o. tondoncy for grtiot onrthqua.koe not to roour in

'tho 111M1,::i plncoo, ovor porioda which e.re probably on tho ordor of thouan.ndc

or yenro. fhuo, tho ohort hiatorio rooord of' floi~micity ifl not ropr·oaontc.tivo

of a.roe.a in which lnrgo ohockt1 might ocur in' tho non.r :iu:t,,:;.,.u,. If tho

RSSP 1 a to opornto for eevorttl C:oco.doo, tHo or r.1.ort't great <;e.rthqunkon

will bo expected to oounr eomn~roro in the rogion during tho lifo tima

oftho facility •. Until dotoilod receo.rch provoe othor ,dna, the poooibility

. cannot be ruled out tb.r..t ona, of th.e.Bo co.ul.d. occur on tha Hovcl.da 'l'o at Si to. l'il

6. Trrtneriortntion SQf0tv0 Ono of the ir.oot obviouo plucoa for pourntial problomo concornin,5 tho pr;poood RSSF could bo in tho tr1;1..neportntion

of t~o wuotoe fro~ th~ npo~t fuel roprocoooing plo.nt to tho o1to.

According to (DES 9.1-23) "a docioion on ,:hethor to build en 1':3S2? rr;,ay

bo made "i thout rog11rd to tho potontio.l ri cka of trant1portation" • Thio

Stntoro:mt in bo.oed upon tho a.oeumption tho.t o. rolonrio of rndioo.otivo

ra ·o.:ter-inl o,,_uc;ed by c.o ac·oLont ( tntcl.:: or ro.il) ia an impoce.ibili ty9

,ind that tho tho rs.dio..tion omnn&.ting from tho ooolod cnoko in tr1moit

1 o oo om$.l l Cltl it doo on I t trn.rl"ont oonai do rq:tion1 .,

Ono must roviolr govor.uc>.onta.l protBeU1.tiono of eo.foty, whon t-:umerou11 Ct.\15os

of grooo lnxi ty have dovolopod in tho handling of Nono gae, oxplooivoo,

nnd rodicnctive rno.torinlo, uhich he.v0 been clOCU!.1Clntedo Tho DES(9.l---6)

'that thoy ttill tnko ti tlo to nnd bo- rooponoi blo for thG "'nsto upon recoipt

o.t tho oito.• Thie placoo tho groa~ot burden of eo.fl'>ty upon th() 8oo~n

o~rrior•. DOT ro&1.1lutiono nrc not fully dovolopod or ~Aintninod in thio

vi to.l nroo.. In t:.a.ny cc.0011, tho dri YQre hn.va no ronl trllining in tho

ho.ndling nnd hc.ulin.g ol'.i nucloo.r waat<.im. Hany rndioa.otivc cnrgoea

aro not proporly idontitiod. ~nd cargo routoo arQ. not mado knoum to

loonl nuthouition r~oponaiblo in tho protootion or tho loonl populaog.

Trmn o.nd Truok nooidonto ha.ppcn rof;Ulo.rtf nnd prodiotQ.bly. o.o tho

,,

•

-

numbQr of ohipmonto go up, th riok of ~orboua ~ocidonta ~ctu~lly hnpponing

1n8[(,nnrr~ Tho AF:O ttdmi tt('Jd 2 monthe ai,;o, that thouen.nd of poundn of rn ouc \O natorinl cannot bo cccountod for.

.

Thore hnvo boon rc.dit\tion loo.kn during ehipmontrJ. A cuo in point i" ..,~ one oitod by Dr. Jnrr...-,a Doacon •• 0 .nthat a loak of lou lovol rndlo~cc~ve

ru.torio.l occurod nbout 2~ yo are ago in North Lu, Vogns, during tro.nnfor

from rail to truck.J Thie loeJc m:..e doniod by tho AEO until docm:.~nted

by tho el'A0 Wt::.PU>n o.ro rogula.rly tro.neported through L!l.8 Voga.o.

Ao.cordin;; to tho DES(; .. l"c"'.'18.). "no.r:u.e.L ro-lo.c.D.C,lO \-:ill 0.1-:iglno.t-s prir..1a.rilr

from va.ote caniotor i-0001 ving frnd hmdling c.raa., vhoro routi no ourfe.oo

oonto..mination io nuch m.oro probc.blo thnn in otorugo n.rco.o. 11

Tho DJ;S thon goeu on to liet lil.Zi.ny othor o.roue of routino ent{.x;-_•1tod

rolofrnGn of ro.dio.tio1"4 IL i l'l incred1 blo 0

70 Tho AE.O ir:s ago.in ouapoct in 1to o.bility to ho.ncHo radioc.otivo

VO.OV-;,a or:i.foly e.s no nhipping co.nli: opooii"i co.lly doe:l.gnod for high~lo-:ol

nnd tho..t ilthoro uill ba o.ddi tion::i.l oxpo-ricnco fron1 10,000 ooro ohipi::,::m,o

which will b& raado in tho noxt novon yoo.ro~ Tho c~ok deoign~

tor the, high-hvol ,1,u,to ohipconts roquirod to bogin in tho noxt ton

yoa.ro cc.:.n incorporat0 tha boot dn[;oty foo.turcd ba.nad on thio o,:porionoo 11 •

Thue for the next oovon yoaro nctual ohipoont vill b; tootB for

the now cc.o1c: deoign'l'

8& Lo.ot F'rldny, Dr. Douglo.o D,Hiko opoko of tho tiyrid poeeibilitloo

for dootruotivo enbote.go all nlong th, nucloc.r progro.mo Thie io o.not.h0r

objection;,

9. Fini::.uly, thor6 cannot bo o.nd ldnd of him:::.n orro1· or Cl8 HanGAlfron

ectid, •i:o ncto or God a.to porml tt/.>d••

-

-

po.go 7

Thero a.re t!~Y <lltornll.tivo• that I could liot1

o.nd a.ro lietod in tho

Dr~ft Environmontnl S!).ato~ont0 that could bo dono ~1th tho W~6to

inatend of Int6rim etoroga. Tho DES indic~toa tte oould loave tho

vuto ,rhoro it h ,until ll final eolution ie implomontod:.. (D~l. 5--4)

ON!, riolution thn.t hs.o boon fonurdod by tho DSS nnd Cri tico a.liko is a mothod of

tho poonibility of uoing/Trnnnmutation Rnd p~rtitioning on the vaato.

Th1" irr ,!horotho ,rue to i e eopo.rnted into frnctione of signific1mtly

dif'fe-ront propctrtio,o eo th0:t the f'roC"t:i:o-n-o t7.'.ly thou be gi von: ditforont

tro~trr~nt. Tho moro long-live radionuclide whould then bo oubjoctGd

to nucloor bombnrdiumt tti th the object of ch:mging eignificnnt nut:).boro

of P,o rodioftctivo ato!:!.1> into nto1:10 with ohortor h.o.lf 0 1ivee0 [:?t:S5e?}.4.)

Thuo chortoning tha form of containrr.ont fol"'t'l milliono of yot>.ro to

hopefully, thouo~ndo 0

Hy conoorn io prii:.a.rily id.th tho pro.,•mn.turity of tho rocolut1.crn AJn rill5 • ..

Ono roquont tho.t hno b-oon conotC1..n'c, throughout Novn.da. , from tho Governor

to l:Iovudo. 1 o rocidonto ho.o boo tho.t Novudo. ncodo moro timo, more ini'or­

lllD.tion. ond boo.rings throughout tho state to properly evnluo.ts tho propoeol .•

Thia h~o not boon donoo ~ ~ ~ ..... __.. ~

On one hand we have a population that hao ("eµeat~dly aoked for facto,

h ·~ and earinga nnd not gotton them, o.nd on tho othor , today ~o ho:;;,..;.a.

rosolutioh1 that in eoeenco rlll stand cu1 n mando.te from N1;1vadc..no, nokin.g

for tho oi to they know 11 ttlo nbout. You hnvo ectid Sou thorn Ifovadt\llo

donit ,1orry o.bout th~ lITS, tho.t thoy a.re usod to it, and truot it.

Vall , gentlom~n, porhupo Laa Vogns 1s 1nuclear ori0nt~tod • ao thoy

eay, oithor through oxporience no ~~ny of you h~vo or porhnpe ignorunco

fut tho only tootinony I ho.vo hoo.rd horo on th() ro oolut~on fa.voring

t.ho ua.oto etoro.go c.ro poop lo Yho uill dirootly gnin from 1 t, moni to.rily,.

. . . . '· - -... _____ , ,. __ _

•

132 t'i

-

-

Tho oth~r Le.o Vognt1 01 ti:z:ono who UJ ~t1fio d lriJro opponod to 1 t.

Vo nll hnve o. doGp ooncorn for tho rioing rnto of ummaployu.ont rmd

eoonomio probloma of aouthorn llovo.dn ••• na in tho n0-tion.

lh no ,1a.y ocm thio grnv-.i problem b("J minimizod.

jobo n._re noodod, but I. tool thn_t vory fow Hovadrmo givon a i"'oJ.r

133

knowlodgo of thie propooition 1fould conoidor tho potontin.l oconomic booot

tho facility mny givo to Lao Vonno worth tho inhoro.nt nnd irrov•

eroiblo de.ngor th~t oom.o vith tho oito.

\lho.t oth,$r induoty could Nova.du. o.ttract oxcopt nuclctl._r oriontn.tod onoo

if thio f1:tcili ty \:ore to be cone o.ctuo.H Hoot 111::oly atudy contora t-;.;C~l-00 Got-.! Cir•

in tt.edicinorolnlod to ro.dir,tiGn; t1mt about tho touriotc'l

'l.1:iie dSoioion, crumot bo ~do oo quicklyo

I· o.ok th~t A.JR§ 15 Bo ta.blod.

Al tornati voB must bo acti valy oo;,1ght to holp 0.lcwia.to tho ooonomio

oi tuo.tiom. I fool thnt to ouggo r;t th:::.t Hovo.dn. 3eok to bo o. nn.tion~l

oolar nnd gootho:rmal 2·tHioti.rch oontor i o a vn.lid nvcnuo fo1· invo otigo.tion.,

\to n.re tnlkin,g o.(fout tho futuro,;. not juat tho noxt · lju yeo.rfll.

In clooing l wvuld l1ke to quot-0 Dr. John r~fn.:lns

11 Thero 10 no aign1f1cnnt tochnico..l oontrovoray that ce.n bo rooolvod by a. dobato on the ~:ri t of opooific gadgotn in the nucloar powor induotry. 1fhnt 10 renlly at ineuo ia ~ norul quootion .... tho right of ono gonorl,,tion of hur;;,~no to trJco upon i tcolf thccHi.rror;:i.nco of probably eomproruioing tho earth :'.l..O o. hnb1to.blo place, for thio and oooentic.lly oll f'uturo gonora.t1on.o. 11

Tho.rut you

,,

Y,, I t: t -