I I

WARREN A.;BISHOP

STATE OF WASHINGTON

NUCLEAR WASTE BOARDMail Stop PV-71 * Olympia, Washington 98504 * (206) 459-6670

NUCLEAR WASTE BOARD

Regular Meeting

September 18, 19871:30 p.m.

EFSEC Hearings RoomLacey, Washington

AGENDA

The Nuclear Waste Board will meet jointly with the Nuclear Waste Advisory Council from1:30 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. to discuss recent developments and to hear a report from the Board'ssocioeconomic contractor on the economic base in the Tri-Cities area. There will be break at3:00 p.m.; the Board meeting will resume at 3:15 p.m.

1. Introductory Remarks Warren Bishop

2. Approval of August 21, 1987 Minutes

3. Correspondence/Recent Developments Max Power

4. Economic Baseline and Future Scenarios for Tnl-Cities Max Power/John Petterson, Impact Assessment Inc.

BREAK

5. Revised Methodology on Defense Waste Fees Joe Stohr

6. National Association of Regulatory Utility Richard D. Casad,Commissioners Subcommittee on Nuclear Waste Disposal UTC Commissioner

7. U.S. Bureau of Mines Report on the Bill BrewerFeasibility of Sinking the Shaft

8. Litigation Status Narda Pierce

9. Richland USDOE Report Max Powell

10. Committee Reports Committee Chairs

11. Washington Institute for Public Policy Dan Silver

12. Other Business

13. Public Comment

14. Adjourn

The Nuclear Waste Board welcomes and encourages public participation during the monthlymeetings. The Chairman will invite public comment at various points during the meeting. Inaddition, if there are specific agenda items which you wish to comment upon please sign thesheet on the back table and you will be invited to comment when the Board reaches that agendaitem.

6712030322 870918 - -PDR WASTEWm-l0 ?DPR

Z. I - . F

K-)

ANDREA BEATTY RNIERDirector ,/

STATE OF WASHINGTON

DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGYMAi Stop Pt'- 71 * Olympia, Washington 98504-8717 v (206) 459-6000

NUCLEAR WASTE ADVISORY COUNCIL

Regular Meeting

September 18, 19879:00 a.m.

EFSEC Hearings RoomLacey, Washington

AGENDA.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

Introductory Remarks

Approval of August 21, 1987 Minutes

Revised Methodology on Defense -Waste Fee

Litigation Report

Public Involvement Report

XVarren Bishop

Joe Stohr

Narda Pierce

Marta Wilder/Paul Korsmo

Discussion of Advisory Council Meeting Scheduling Options

Discussion of Advisory Council Orientation Plans

Committee Reports --I--

Other BusinessCommittee Chairs

10. Public Comment

I 1. Adjourn

The Nuclear Waste Advisory Council welcomes and encourages public participation during themonthly meetings. The Chairman will invite public comment at various points during themeeting. In addition, if there are specific agenda items which you wish to comment uponplease sign the sheet on the back table -and you will be invited to comment when the Councilreaches that agenda item.

Io . e 0-=-

WARREN A. BISHbP AChair

STATE OF WASHINGTON

NUCLEAR WASTE BOARDMaid Stop PV1-l1 7 Olympia, Washington 98504 e (206) 459-6670

RADIOACTIVE DEFENSE WASTE COMMITTEE

September 17, 19871:30 p.m.

EFSEC Hearings RoomLacey, Washington

NOTICE

A meeting of the Radioactive Defense Waste Committee has been scheduled for

1:30 p.m. on September 17 at the EFSEC Hearings Room for a USDOE briefing

on the Hanford Defense Waste Final Environmental Impact Statement. Council

members, Board members and the public are invited.

3r-.a

K-;AND>REA BEATT RINKER 1

Director

STATE OF WASHINGTON

DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGYMail Stop Pt'- 71 Olympia. Wlashington 98504-8711 * (206) 459-6000

September 9, 1987

PRESS NOTICE

SUBJECT: Nuclear Waste Board and Nuclear Waste Advisory Council Regular Meetings

DATE: September 18, 1987

TIME: Nuclear Waste Advisory Council Regular MeetingSeptember 18, 1987 - 9:00 a.m.

Nuclear Waste Board and Nuclear Waste Advisory Council Joint MeetingSeptember 18, 1987 - 1:30 p.m.

Nuclear Waste Board Regular MeetingSeptember 18, 1987 - 3:15 p.m.

PLACE: EFSEC Hearings Room4224 6th AVE SE, Building ILacey, WA

A report on the economic base of the Tri-City area and potential future scenarios will be

presented at the regular Nuclear Waste Board and Nuclear Waste Advisory Council

meeting 1:30 p.m. on September 18. The report will be presented by Impact Assessment,

Inc., the state's contractor for an impact study coordinated by the Nuclear Waste Board

Socioeconomic Committee. The Board also will review a report by the U.S. Bureau of

Mines regarding the feasibility of sinking a shaft for a deep geologic repository at

Hanford.

An update on a curriculum work plan project and town meetings will be presented to the

Nuclear Waste Advisory Council at its 9 a.m. meeting. The Council will also receive an

update on litigation filed against the U.S. Department of Energy.

The public is encouraged to attend both the Board and Council meetings.

For more information contact: Marta Wilder, (206) 459-6695, at the Office of Nuclear

Waste Management, PV-Il, Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA 98504.

# # # #

i -

ANDREA BEATTY RINKERDirector

STATE OF WASHINGTON

DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGYA fail Stop PV- 11 . Ol)mpa, Washington 98504-6717 * (206) -459-6(6A

SEPTEMBER 8, 1987 CONTACT: Don Provost/Marta WilderOffice of Nuelear Waste Management

Department of Ecology, PV-1IOlympia, WA 98504

(206) 459-6670

FOR INUNIEDIATE RELEASE

MEETING ON HANFORD DEFENSE WASTE CLEANUP SCHEDULED

(OLYMPIA)--Cleanup of radioactive defense wastes stored for 40 years at Hanford will be

discussed at a meeting hosted by the Nuclear Waste Board's Defense Waste Committee on

September 17, 1987.

The Washington State Nuclear Waste Board asked the U.S. Department of Energy to dis-

cuss federal responses to state comments regarding the USDOE Defense Waste Environ-

mental Impact Statement (EIS). The draft EIS was released by USDOE in March 1986, and

a final EIS is expected late this year. USDOE's draft EIS detailed extensive plans to

clean up millions of gallons of defense wastes at Hanford via a long, technical process

with a multi-billion dollar price tag.

The state Nuclear Waste Board expressed several concerns with USDOE's cleanup

approach, such as USDOE's incomplete research on several disposal options, lack of envi-

ronmental safeguards, an uncertain schedule for permanent disposal of the wastes, and the

impact of defense wastes already at Hanford on the search for a commercial nuclear

waste repository site.

The current federal plan for defense waste disposal is to "commingle" the wastes into a

deep geologic repository along with commercial high-level spent fuel. Hanford, Washing-

ton, is one of three sites being studied as a possible site for a high-level nuclear waste

repository. The other two sites are in Texas and Nevada.

The meeting will be at 1:30 p.m. in the EFSEC Hearings Room, Building 1, 4224 6th

Avenue SE, Lacey, WA. The public is encouraged to attend.

# # #

3

%%V.ACRF.N' A. BISHOP

Chair

STATE OF WASHINGTON'

NUCLEAR WASTE BOARDMlail Stop PV- 11 * Olympia. Washington 98504 * (20) 459-6670

MIINUTES OF THE NUCLEAR WASTE BOARD MIEETINGAugust 21, 1987

1:30 p.m.EFSEC Hearings Room

Rowesix, Building #14224 Sixth Avenue S.E.

Lace)', Washington 98504

Board Members Present:

Warren A. Bishop, ChairSenator Max BenitzCurtis EschclsRepresentative Shirley HankinsSenator Irving NewhouseSenator Lois J. StrattonRichard Watson, State Energy OfficeSenator Al Williams

Board Designees/Alternate Designees Present:

Dr. Reid Miller, Water Research CenterAlternate Designee

Robert Mooney, representing Terry Strong,DSHS Alternate Designee

Ray Lasmanis, DNR DesigneeRoger Stanley, Department of Ecology Designee

Council Members Present:

Pam BehringPhyllis ClausenNancy HovisRussell JimKen MillerGus SimpsonMichael Spranger

3

K)K)

The August 21 'Nuclear WVaste' Board- meeting meeting was called to order by

Warren A. Bishop.

Introductory Remarks

Mr. Bishop announced that the early portionof the meeting would be a joint session ofthe Nuclear Waste Board/Advisory Counciland include a panel 'discussion byCongressional staff persons. The regular,monthly Board meeting would follow.

Three newly appointed Advisory Councilmembers were introduced prior to theCongressional briefing. They are:

- Ken Miller, Franklin CountyCommissioner (Pasco, WVA)

- Gus H. Simpson (Spokane, WA)

- Michael S. Spranger (Issaquah,WA).

Congressional Briefing

Terry Husseman introduced Congressionalstaff persons who were at the day's meeting.to ,present a briefing on current. activitiesrelated to a high-level nuclear wasterepository. They were: Phil Jones(Legislative Assistant 'to Senator DanielEvans), Mike Gillett' (Legislative Assistantto Representative ' Al Swift), and DaveBerick (Legislative Assistant to SenatorBrock Adams).

In preface to the presentations,Mr. Husseman reiterated Washington State'sposition on the issue of a high-level nuclearwaste repository. The state had 'reachedwidespread agreement that, the* repositorysite selection process'has lost credibility andwas on the verge of collapse. -Furthermore,a solution had to 'be found -and' seriousconsideration 'should be given to imple-menting a mid-course correction to therepository program. In regard to this issue,

he stated, Governor Gardner had recentlypresented testimony to Congress and theWashington State Nuclear Waste Board hadmade a recommendation in the form ofResolution 87-6. The resolution called foran immediate halt to the site selectionprocess and urged that a forum and processbe designed that would lead toward asolution of the nation's nuclear waste dis-posal problem. The forum and processshould be directed by a panel or commissioncomposed of nationally known and respectedpolicy-makers. Also, it should allow formeaningful participation by federalagencies, Indian tribes, states, local govern-ments, environmental groups, nuclearutilities, utility regulators, and public inter-est groups. The panel or commission wouldbe required to recommend to Congress apreferred course of action that would:(I) lead to a timely solution of the short-term spent fuel storage problem, (2) definea process* that would provide confidencethat the search will be for a superior high-level nuclear waste repository site, and(3) ensure that selection decisions will bebased on credible scientific evidence.

Next, Phil Jones proceeded to describe billS-1481 as an attempt to redirect the pro-gram for the disposal of spent nuclear fueland high-level radioactive waste (under theNWPA of 1982) to -achieve budget savingsand for otherpurposes. It was noted thatthis Act may be cited as the "Nuclear WastePolicy Act Amendments Act of 1987". TheNWPA amendments include the following:

redirection of the program to providefor the sequential characterization ofrepository sites and the construction ofa monitored retrievable storage (MRS)facility as part of an integrated nuclearwaste management system;

- such a'redirection would be required ifthe Secretary of Energy is to carry outhis responsibility under the Act to pro-vide for the 'permanent disposal of

-I-

spent nuclear fuel and high-levelradioactive waste in a manner thatprotects the public health and safetyand the environment; and

appropriate that the FederalGovernment provide payment toaffected Indian tribes, states andaffected units of local governmentwithin whose reservation or jurisdic-tion a repository or MRS facility willbe sited;

direct the Secretary of Energy to selecta single site that is suitable forcharacterization for the first repositoryand to proceed with characterization ofthat site;

direct the Secretary to proceed with theconstruction of a MRS facility as partof an integrated nuclear wastemanagement system; and

provide for benefits payments from theWaste Fund to any Indian tribe, stateor unit of local government withinwhose reservation or jurisdiction arepository or MRS may be sited.

provide for several important studies(two examples are: study for the desir-ability of multiple MRS facilities to beperformed by the Department; andstudy for a joint defense commercialMRS, i.e., to review the desirability ofstoring commercial wastes and high-level wastes together in the samefacility);

the term "EIS" has been amended toread "Environmental Review" (thisdocument must be submitted and willbe a matter of the record when theSecretary makes his decision afterJanuary 1, 1989; and

in bill language, the status of existinglitigation will be protected.

Mr. Bishop called for specific questionsregarding Mr. Jones' presentation. SenatorAl Williams referred to the process inmaking the first selection for a site andinquired whether or not a priority ratingwas made of all three sites at the time ofthe selection. In addition, he asked if thesites that were presently designated,-consid-ered to be the "three" sites. Mr. Jonesresponded that the bill language had notbeen specific on this issue. The onlydirective was that the Secretary select onesite for characterization, as of the date. Asof yet, it was unclear how the remainingtwo sites would be dealt with; from ascientific and technical standpoint it wouldbe feasible to rank all three sites when theJanuary 1, 1989 determination was to bemade. If the first site became disqualified,the second site would be pursued at theSecretary of Energy's discretion.

Dave Berick was next to make apresentation. He reported that the SasserAmendment, #428 has been co-sponsoredby first- and second-round states andseveral MRS states. It was essentially amoratorium and review commissionapproach that would account for whether ornot a reevaluation of the overall DOEprogram would be in order. The originalthinking on the introduction of thisapproach had been that DOE selectedfundamentally flawed sites. Concurrently, arecommendation decision could not be madeon which sites should be characterized.

In comparison, the Johnston bill went in anopposite direction by reopening the entireNWPA of 1982.. It presumed that theselected: sites were suitable to recommendfor characterization and also for selection asa final repository site. Mr. Berick under-scored the dramatic change the billrepresented in the existing process and law.He noted in 1980 the Nuclear RegulatoryCommission (NRC) had enacted the Nuclear

-2-

Regulatory' Scheme (Part 60) which statedseveral sites should be characterized prior tothe selection of a site for a final repository.

The legislative process on the Senate sidehas resulted in a great number of legislativeforums in which debates will-[b soon betaking place. First would be the' appropria-tions process; second, 'would be thereconciliation process in which theauthorizing committees are responsible forimplementation of the budgetrecommendations passed by Congress; andthird, would 'be the possibility of 'standalone" bills that might be used in a moreroutine legislative process.

Mr. Berick concluded his discussion bysummarizing Senator Adams' majorconcerns:

Mr. Gillett reported there are concerns inregard to the Senate Energy approach of the.Johnston bill:

- there is nothing inexact withselection process; it also forcesrepository onto a single state;

thethe

- it is premised upon the technicalvalidity of DOE's past actions andratifies the selection of the first threesites; furthermore, it supports DOE'sdecision on the second repository issue;and

- leaves DOE to be in charge of theentire repository process.

In the House approach of the Udall bill,however, the advantages are:

- the process used to select sites forcharacterization was fundamentallyflawed;

- DOE 'does not possess the adequateinformation and date to nominate afinal repository site;

- DOE and its contractors have not'produced credible decisions for a'selection of a final repository'site; and

- there is a 'delineation between Federal'and Cominercial responsibilities offuture spent fuel storage.

The third and final presentatioh was givenby Mike Gillette.' He reported there weretwo major options before Congress. Theyare: (1) The House bill introduced byCongressman Udall, which would establish a'moratorium, while a Commission reviewedthe Nuclear 'Waste :' Program, and,(2) establish' a Federal 'negotiator to'explore"-'the conditions, if any, under which a state''would be willing to host the repository (also"'introduced by Congressman Udall).

- fair to all regions and thusdemonstrated by having co-sponsorsfrom all regions;

- the program would get back on trackas being performed -in a credible, sci-entific manner; and

- would allow the site selection processof Hanford to be pursued from ascientific approach and' 'would mostlikely disqualify the state ofWashington as being a repository state.

There has been significant support of theUdall bill 'in the House legislation. Bycomparison, the Johnston bill 'had receivedvery little interest within the House, butwould undoubtedly be supported 'by DOEand the utilities. The end result,nevertheless, had to be a consensus betweenthe House and' Senate in 'regard to therepository -process.' In conclusion,Mr. Gillett stated that a prediction could notbe made in regard to the final selection ofthe first' repository for high'l le'l nuclearwaste;' ' ' '-

-3-

I

Mr. Bishop called upon the Board andCouncil for general discussion. SenatorWilliams inquired as to the Johnston bill andthe political aspects connected with therepository program. Mr. Gillett commentedthat Bennett Johnston believes there isindeed a political problem but it stems fromthe states. The states' perception is thatpolitical and technical, problems are lodgedfrom within DOE Headquarters. The actualissue of a flawed site selection processemerged when Hanford became one of thethree sites for characterization. Mr. Jonesresponded that the moratorium and reviewapproach would allow for more clearlydefined, non-site specific hydrologicactivities not related to the exploratory shaftfacilities.

Extensive discussion followed. Mr. Gillettremarked that there were very few peopleapproaching nuclear energy issues on arational basis at this point in time. Only asmall amount of people were willing to lookat the issues objectively and independentlyin order to make an evaluation of anapproach or project. that would be best forthe United States. In his opinion, thelargest opponent of nuclear power in thecountry was the Department of Energy andas long as DOE, continued to ignore theconcerns of the public, states and tribes, thepublic would become even more resolute intheir opposition to deal with anvthingnuclear at Hanford or elsewhere.Mr. Gillett stated that the U.S. Government,represented by the U.S. Department ofEnergy, should be engaging in sound policyand sound science of which they have notbeen doing.

Mr. Husseman inquired as to what impactthe EPA Standards case 'would have on theon the potential 'for the moratoriumapproach and the. Johnston approach. Herecalled that the Court was due to enter afinal order of which would make the EPAStandards invalid. Furthermore, theGuidelines were supposedly designed to

meet the EPA Standards and theenvironmental assessments were based onthe Guidelines. Mr. Berick commented thatthe Johnston bill, based upon the newstatutory criteria, did not contain anylanguage that would prohibit the Secretaryof Energy from recommending Hanford as apotential repository site. The underlyingquestion of whether or not the three siteswere still in the universe of sites to beselected might still be at issue.

Senator Williams -remarked that GovernorGardner and the Nuclear Waste Board havetaken the position of favoring themoratorium approach for the repositoryissues at large. He asked if Mr. Jones hadstated earlier in his presentation whether ornot Senator Evans had a problem in accept-ing the moratorium commission approachand, if so, how could it be consistent withthe state of Washington's position.Mr. Jones responded that Senator Evansbelieved Congress to have sufficientinformation in order to act now and notdelay the program any further. SenatorWilliams next question was in reference toSenator Evans' acceptance and satisfactionof the three sites chosen by USDOE.Mr. Jones comment was "no", he did notthink Senator Evans was, indeed, satisfiedwith USDOE's approach.

In conclusion of the joint Board andCouncil meeting, appreciation was expressedto Mr. Jones, Mr. Berick, and Mr. Gillettfor the Congressional briefing. There beingno further business, the meeting wasadjourned and a recess of the Board wascalled.

BREAK

The Board resumed and the meeting wascalled to order.

-4-

K>l

Approval of Mlinutes-

A motion was entertained for the approvalof the July 17, 1987 Nuclear Waste Boardminutes. The motion moved, seconded, andcarried unanimously. The minutes wereapproved as written.

Payment Equivalent to Taxes

Max Power reported that the DOE hadrecently released its draft language for aguideline in the administration of the PETTprovisions of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act.As a result of the language embodied inNWPA, the DOE and Washington State havenot been able to agree upon theinterpretation and implementation of theprovisions. Several members of thelegislature, including legislative members ofthe Board, have concurred that a negotiationprocess between the DOE and state andlocal government to resolve the PETT issueshould be pursued.

As follow-up to this controversy, a draftresolution that dealt with PaymentsEquivalent to Taxes (PETT) had beenreviewed by the Socioeconomic Committeerecently. The resolution was :now beforethe Board for its passage. A motion wasentertained for the adoption of Resolution87-7. The motion was moved and carried,unanimously. '(See attached Resolution 87-7.)

Ray Lasmanis stated that in this particularcase DOE was not acting equivalent to anactual taxable situation of a privateenterprise that established its own positionto pay or not pay taxes. He questioned thedirection" of the PETT issue if DOEproceeded with its rulemaking. ' NardaPierce' quoted that 116(c) subsection(3)directs the Secretary of Energy 'shall alsogrant to each state of unit of general localgovernment inv which a site for a repositoryis approved (for site characterization) anamount each fiscal year equal to the amount

such state and unit of general local govern-ment, respectively, avould receive were theyauthorized to tax site characterizationactivities at such site, and the developmentand operation of such repository, as suchstate and unit of general local governmenttax the other real property and industrialactivities occurring within such state and unitof general local governnente. Certainlanguage used within the Act compoundsthe question as to whether or not areasonable interpretation would be that thestate and local jurisdictions could taxactivities related to characterization of aparticular site, as opposed to genericactivities.

US EPA Standards

Narda Pierce stated that in a recent decisionin Natural Resources Defense Council vs.U.S.E.P.A, the First Circuit Court ofAppeals remanded EPA high-level wasteregulations. The Court held (1) the injec-tion of nuclear waste canisters into arepository was an underground injectionsubject to the Safe Drinking Water Act(SDWA), (2) having found that the SDWAapplied, Congress determined the EPA hada duty to review the possible endangermentof drinking water through the undergroundinjection as they were 'promulgating theirrules on 'releases at a repository,(3) individual protection - standards wereinconsistent and allowed for exposure toindividuals greatly in excess of SDWA'standards, (4) EPA failed to provide anexplanation as to their selection of 1,000years as the period the individual protectionrequirements would be in effect, and (5) theEPA promulgated ground water protectionstandards without proper notice andopportunity for comment.

The Court has vacated the EPA standardsand remanded them to the agency forfurther proceedings. The- Court also

'' 'remanded EPA's ground -water protectionrequirements to provide an opportunity for

-5-

further notice and comment procedures. OnJuly 30, 1987, the EPA and the intervener-utilities requested an extension of time inwhich to file a motion for reconsideration.The utilities' motion was granted for anextension of August 31, 1987.

Iodine Data

As per a previous request, the Office hadrecently received a shipment ofapproximately 300 documents in regard tothe study of Iodine-129 on or near theHanford Reservation. Upon compilationand review of these documents against a listof known documents on the subject, it wasnoted that approximately 160 additionaldocuments had yet to be received. TerryHusseman reported that a thorough,technical -analysis would be conducted onIodine-129 contamination of the confinedand unconfined aquifers in the Hanfordarea upon acquisition of all the requesteddocuments.

Based upon evidence thus far, the Iodine-129 information had been determinedrelevant to the repository issues. Thedocuments will be reviewed for three majorissues:

- what are the implications of theinformation contained the thedocuments for public health and safety(the Department of Social and HealthServices will evaluate the potentialdoses that off-site contaminationrepresent and the adequacy of existingenvironmental monitoring programs);

- what does the information add tocurrent knowledge about groundwatertravel time and inter-communicationbetween the confined and unconfinedaquifers; and

- are there relevant documents whichhave not been included in key USDOEdecision-making documents such as the

Hanford Environmental Assessment(EA) and defense waste EnvironmentalImpact Statement (EIS)?

Max Powell, BWIP-USDOE, reported that aletter transmitting the summary documenthad been mailed recently. The letter statedthe Iodine- 129 information previouslyreceived by the Office would be re-catalogued and include the additional 160documents.

Roger Stanley asked if USDOE or itscontractors had implemented any validationtype studies due to the Iodine-129 issue.Mr. Husseman responded there has beencompiling of data on a "well by well" basisand on an "aquifer by aquifer" basis,however the Office has not seen the actualdata. There have been indications,however, that the SCP was to contain actualsamples of geochemistry work.

Litigation Status

Narda Pierce reported the Court hadscheduled a conference on September 22 inSan Francisco, California. The issues ofdiscovery and possible briefing scheduleswere to be the topics of discussion in regardto the Siting Guidelines and May 28, 1986First Repository Selection decisions.

Richland USDOE Report

Max Powell briefly reported that grantrequests for FY 88 were to be submitted toUSDOE by September 1.

In reference to a previous PETT meetingheld between the state and DOE, Mr. Powellnoted that he had commented DOE wouldfund the activities related to the gatheringof information in regard to the repositoryPETT payments. However, it would behelpful if negotiations of unresolved issueswere to take place prior to the submissionof actual payments.

K)~

-6-

Committee Reports , completed in early October. The second:.-; ,- -. : ,.committee mneeting'had been held to review

.Socioeconomic Committee: . Curtis Eschels '' the transportation aspects of 1AI's workingreported that the draft research design fo t Rieserch design and to developmentthe Impact Study, had been received from.,. recommendations in view of the overallImpact Assessment, Inc. (IAI) and was cur-, , socioeconomic' , impact study andrently under review., Likewise, the selection ~''' transportation issues..of a Peer Review Panel,'was proceeding as...scheduled. - The committee has scheduled its next

- meeting on September .9th at 3:00 p.m. atIn regard to local governments and grants' the State Energy Offi6e, Conference Room.approval has been received for the Mid- .'Columbia Consortium of Governments. The' Environmental Monitorine Committee: Therequest for the Intergovernmental Resource committee did not'meet during the monthCenter in- Vancouver'. and.. the Cowlitz,_ of August.Wahkiakum Governmental Conference had .not yet been received. In addition, the',' Defense Waste Committee: The committeecommittee had received. a preliminary did not meet for the month. It was notedrequest for funding from 4-governments in.-".", the USDOE would be issuing its responsesthe Spokane area, to the comments on the draft Environmental

- Impact Statement in the 'near future.The next meeting of the Socioeconomic Assuming that USDOE will be able to meetCommittee will be on September 22, at' 9. ,'their schedule, the Department will presenta.m. in the Emrployment Security Building. a, briefing to thoe Board and Council on

, --. -. . ...'.' September 17 at 1:30 p.m.Hanford Historical Documents Review S 1 a 1 p'm'Committee:. The committee met in Portland, Washington Institute' for Public PolicyOregon during the month of August withthe Peer Review Panel to discuss the criteria''. -Ellen Caywood 'reported that .in-'an earlierfor the nominations and selection of >'a'- request by, the Board to the WIPP, an In-Technical Steering Panel (TSP). During the state 'Review' Panel had been appointed toafternoon . meeting Battelle, -Pacific review the research 'design, submitted by theNorthwest,,Laboratories presented a draft' '- 'Contractor,', IAI.' On August 7, fivew6rk'lan in'"' regard to the' -joint dose members of the Panel reviewed the workingreconstruction'study. Mr. Eschels reported draft research design report and submitteda follow-up of the TSP nominations would comments to the Socioeconomic Committee.begin -in the near future.

Other BusinessTransportation Committee: The committeemet twice during the month of August.Dick Watson commented that the first meet-ing was devoted to the follow up of a Junemeeting (Transportation of TransuranicWaste from Hanford to the Waste IsolationPilot Project). A subcommittee of theTransportation Committee has been formedto develop a proposal to USDOE that wouldaddress the state's needs in dealing with theshipments. The proposal was expected to be

Robert Mooney, DSHS, reported that theBoard has previously requested' that theEnvironmental Radiation Quality AssuranceTask Force follow up on tworecommendations of the Hanford HealthEffects Panel. One of the recommendationsis a follows:

'The radiological monitoringprograms of Washington and

-7-

- %

Oregon should be Independentlyassessed to assure their quality,efficiency, and coordination.

Each existing environmentalmonitoring program conducted bythe states, the Indlan'tribes, andthe DOE should have a clearstatement of Its purpose, goals,and objectives so that its effec-tiveness can be adequatelyassessed and, If necessary,Improved."

On behalf of the Quality' Assurance TaskForce, Mr. Mooney moved that the fol-lowing recommendation be approved. TheTask Force is' requesting that 'the NuclearWaste Board endorse phase I implementationof an independent team of experts who willperform the program evaluation. A reportwill be produced that will '-compare thevarious programs and assess their quality,effectiveness, and regional coordination, andidentify program strengths versus weaknessesneeding further valuation (Phase 2). Amotion was called to- adopt theEnvironmental Radiation Quality AssuranceTask Force recommendation. Mr. Bishopcalled upon ' the Board to support therecommendation presented by Mr. Mooney.The motion was moved,' seconded andcarried.

Linda Steinmann informed the Board that inOctober 1986, Congress withheld $79million from USDOE's 1987 appropriations,pending certification that USDOE had madea good faith effort in regard to C&C withthe states and tribes. The U.S. Departmenthad recently submitted a C&C CertificationReport to the Chairs' of the appropriationcommittees in both Houses and also theappropriate subcommittees in a request forthe release of the $79 million. Theexpectation is that USDOE will 'attempt toobtain'the funds, with a rollover of the $79million to FY 88. These monies would beadded, in addition, to the sums appropriatedby Congress.

Ms. Steinmann called the Board's attentionto a draft report to Congress prepared bystaff which detailed the state's C&Cexperience sine 1986. She noted that thereport would be sent within two weeks' timeand invited Board comments on the draft.

Public Comment

Mr. Bishop called upon the public forcomment. There was none.

- Adjournment

There being no ''further business, theNuclear Waste Board meeting of August 17,1987 was adjourned.

-8-

KJ

WASH-iINGTON STATE NUCLEAR WVASTE BOARD

RESOLUTION 87-7

August 21, 1987

WHEREAS, subsection 116(c) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act provides for financialassistance to state and local governments; and

WHEREAS, paragraph (3) of subsection'116(c) directs that the Secretary of Energy 'shallalso grant to each State and unit of general local government in which a site for arepository is approved [for site characterization] an amount each fiscal year equal to theamount such State and unit of general local government, respectively, would receive werethey authorized to tax site characterization activities at such site, and the developmentand operation of such repository; as'such State and unit of general local government taxthe other real property and industrial activities occurring within such State and unit ofgeneral local government'; and

\'HEREAS, it is the responsibility of state and affected local governments to assure thatthey receive the full amounts in payments equivalent to taxes (PETT) to which they areentitled; and

WHEREAS, determination of the a-'mounts to which state and local governments areentitled under the PETT provision imposes unusual burdens on state and local officialsbecause:

1. Federal activities have never beientaxed and federal accounting systems arenot the same as those used by private enterprise;

2. Site characterization activities must be separated out from other Departmentof Energy activities for PETT purposes;

*- - 3. -Standard -real property assessment practices do not apply to land within theHanford reservation on 'which site characterization activities take plade; and'

4. Access to the Hanfo'rd reservation to appraise real and personal property, andaccess to financial records, are expected to encounter barriers not normallyexperienced in dealing with private enterprise; and

WHEREAS, the United States Department of Energy has interpreted key terms inparagraph 116(c)(3).of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act,.including the definitions of 'site',"activities at such site',and 'unit of general local government", and the actual starting dateof site characterization, in draft internal financial assistance guidelines; and

WHEREAS; these interpretations appear to contradict the clear intent of the NuclearWaste Policy Act, but have been maintained in spite of objections by state governmentsand without consultation with affected local governments; and

WHEREAS, the United States Department of Energy is apparently using these definitionsto determine which state and local activities relating to PETT are eligible for financialassistance under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act; and

A0

WHEREAS, several legislators have proposed that USDOE negotiate with state and localofficials over these issues; and

WHEREAS, the State of Washington has sought grant funds to support affected localgovernments' full participation in the payments equivalent to taxes program;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Washington State Nuclear Waste Board:

1. Respectfully requests the Secretary of Energy to provide grant funds to assistthe Washington Department of Revenue and affected local governments toparticipate in calculation of payments made pursuant to paragraph 116Cc)(3)and to assess whether they are fully equivalent to taxes that would be levied;and

2. Directs the Socioeconomic Committee to work with affected state and localentities to provide further analysis of such issues as the valuation of arepository, the definition of 'site', the implication of 'general localgovernment", and the beginning date for site characterization; and to developmutually supportive positions to present to the United States Department ofEnergy;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the State of Washington supports the efforts ofaffected local governments to collect the full amounts to which they are entitled underthe PETT provisions of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act; and

BE IT STILL FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Chair shall send copies of this resolutionthe Secretary of Energy and to members of the state's Congressional delegation.

Approved at Olympia, Washington, this g day of August 1987.

WANCEN A. BISHOP, CHAIRD/WASHINGTON STATE (

* . NUCLEAR WASTE BOARD

ANDREA BEATTY RNKERDirector

STATE OF WASHINGTON

DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGYMail Stop PV-11 * Olyrmpia, Washington 98504-8711 * (206) 459-60(X

MINUTES OF NUCLEAR WASTE ADVISORY COUNCIL MEETINGAUGUST 21, 1987

9:00 a.m.EFSEC Hcarings RoomRowcsix - Building #14224 Sixth Avcnuc S.E.

Lacey, Washington

Council Members Present:

WARREN A. BISHOP, CHAIRPAM BEHRING

PHYLLIS CLAUSENNANCY HOVISRUSSELL JIMKEN MILLER

SAM REEDROBERT ROSEGUS SIMPSON

MICHAEL SPRANGER

I

The meeting was called to order byWarren A. Bishop, Chair.

A motion for the adoption of'the July 17,1987,. Advisory ,Council.- minutes wasentertained. The motion was moved and

§ sccondcd. The i minutes were iapprovedwithout changes.

- INTRODUCTIONS .)i

Warren Bishop -,made introductions ofreappointed Council' members to. thenewly appointed Council members.'- Thenew members arc: Ken Miller, FranklinCounty Commissioner; Gus Simpson,Farm Credit Banks!, of Spokane;` andMichael Spranger, of Sea Grant at theUniversity of Washington. ShirleyTucker; Director of the Mid-ColumbiaLibrary System also is a new member, butshe was unable :to attend this meeting.

-The Council members -who. were notreturning included Valoria Loveland(Pasco), Terry Novak (Spokane), Phil

- Bereano' (Seattle),- Estella. -.-Leopold(Seattle), William Sebero .(Richland), andHarry Batson (Millwood).

TOWN MEETING REPORT

Marta Wilder reported that town meetings.were e held in :Bellingham .. and.: PortAngeles, on August 5 and August 6. SamRecd'hosted the .Bellingham meeting andWarren Bishop hosted the - Port Angelesmeeting.

Ms. Wilder reported that 50 peopleattended the Bellingham'meeting.- It was

' felt that people who attended this meet-ing were very knowledgeable on-nuclearwaste issues. '-The Port Angeles meetingwas attended by;30 people.

Susan Hall (Hall & Associates) reportedthat thc',.Bellingham, .meeting had verygood media coverage from the newspaper,

: --.... ,:

radio and television. Max Power andMarta Wilder were on a television pro-gram that aired after: the Sunday nightnews, August 16. Office staff also madea presentation to the Lions club...

-.. Ms. .Hall reported-. that the people whoattended this meeting seemed knowledge-able and asked very technical questions.Several elected officials 'attended themeeting, including Ray.Isaacson, who is aBenton County Commissioner and formerstate legislator.

'Warren Bishop suggested:that the Councilmembers who have used the slide showmay be. interested in participating inupdating the slide show used at the townmeetings.

.-Council member Sam Reed brought for-ward these suggestions for improving thetown meetings: . .

1. Communicate. more clearly the pur-pose of the town meetings.

2. Due to diverse levels of knowledge- of nuclear waste, issues among peo-

ple . attending the town meetings,there needs. to be -an analysis 'of thelevel of knowledge in:local areas so

-that -the needs of the 'people can bemet more effectively..: .

3. Perhaps the next round of meetingsshould explore issues with greaterdepth... - . :.

X 4. Clearly. define the state's positionon nuclear waste disposal. .

5.- The outcome .of: Referendum 40should be clearly defined.at these

n * meetings because there,. appears tobe confusion . as to what thereferendum does.

-I-

\.- .d . - -

Terry Husseman (Program Director-Office of Nuclear Waste Management)

suggested that part of the meetings bedivided into smaller, more informalgroups for discussion on differentsubjects.

Sam Reed proposed that Susan Hall ana-lyze the content, of. the town meetings,performance' of meeting participants, andbring the information back to the Coun-cil. He suggested that Ms. Hall couldcontact Council members individually oras a group.

Additional Town Meetings

Susan Hall said that two meetings will bescheduled in. Toppenish and Walla Wallaor early in October, and that the Pullmantown meeting will be on October 21.

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Status of Public Involvement Projects

Paul Korsmo, of the URS Corporation,reported that;'the- 12-page focus paperthat highlights! Washington State's sitecharacterization 'issues will be ready fordistribution soon. Mr. Korsmo stated thata number of boards for use at the townmeetings have'been made and are in usenow.

The Nuclear Waste Management schoolcurriculum project, which is based on amodel used by the staff of theWashington State Office of the Superin-tendent of Public Instruction, is in Phase[of completion. A list of candidates andtopics to be considered is being compiled.The project should. be ready for use inthe 1989-1990 school year.

Sam Reed requested that tentative datesfor the completion, be brought before theCouncil at the next meeting.

Alice Shorett and Ann Beller, of TriangleAssociates, reported on the NetworkingProject. Some. of the responsibilities ofthe network participants will be: to, dis-tribute written materials, provided by thestate, in their community. Network con-tacts also would participate in commu-nity meetings, place speakers provided bythe Office of Nuclear Waste Managementat community forums; place informationin local libraries and other communitycenters; and respond every three monthsto a questionnaire developed- to get asense of local, citizens' views. A scrap-book is also being made of the differentparticipants.

Phyllis Clausen suggested that- the net-work people be contacted before the' nextseries of town meetings to find what sub-jects the communities are most interestedin.

Alice Shorett reported that the first quar-terly'report from all the participants willbe sent in two months. She will' thenprepare a summary of the network'sactivities.

Mr. Reed suggested that an ongoingassessment be done of the level, of -inter-est, the focus of interest, and generalconcerns of the population in the net-work participant's area.

TOLL-FREE LINE

Approximately 50 calls were received lastmonth on the toll-free line. As the callsare received a tally and log of what peo-ple want is kept.' Callers are-also askedif they would like to receive thenewsletter.

'COMMITTEE REPORTS

Transnortation Committee: PhyllisClausen reported that two meetings have

2

K-I

been held since the last Council meeting.At the July 31 meeting the chairman,Dick Watson, appointed a working groupof three members to develop a'proposalfor! 'future 'discussions 'with ' the" USDepartment of -Energy regardingtransuranic waste shipments to the WasteIsolation Pilot Plant. " The committeedecided to focus the proposal 'on" 'emer-gency 'response and inspection, but itwould also cover notification, 'tracking,and public information. The target forthe preliminary draft of the proposal ismid-October.

The Department of Social'and HealthServices is conducting an' emergencyresponse' study under contract with theNuclear Waste Board. The purpose' is tohelp develop guidelines' for emergencyresponse to spent fuel transportationaccidents. The final report is expected inDecember, -with 'a' draft report 'due inSeptember.

Ms. Clausen noted that reported trainaccidents in Washington have decreasedfrom 43 to '27 in the past three years.

The August 20i meeting was 'devotedlargely to listing comments on the"trans-portation component of the draft reportdesigned for socioeconomic studies. Thecommittee wants 'to have contractors con-duct studies of mode and route selectionpotentials.

A three-person Emergency ResponseCommission has been appointed to pro-vide policy planning to the Governor andto comply with the'. public's right toknow. An Emergency Response PlanningCommittee will advise the Commission.Local planning districts throughout thestate will identify hazardous waste gen-erators in their area. These generatorswill be notified of their requirements to

report to the commissionactivities on a regular basis.

about their

'Environmental' Monitoring Committee:-Mr. Reed reported the focus of the 'Envi-ronmental Monitoring Committee for thepast two "months has been on finding a

- way of evaluating all' monitoring pro-grams in this region, developing a formatfor that process,'and a cost estimate. The

'Quality Assuirance"Task Force has had a. major role in this process. : A' final pro-posal should be' ready 'for the 'Boardmeeting in September.

Defense 'Waste Committee: ' Terry7 Husseman reported that the' committee

did not meet this month.- He' said that anafternoon'public meeting will be held theThursday' before'-the Board ' meeting tohear the responses from the U.S. Depart-ment of Energy regarding state concernsabout- defense wastes. All Board andCouncil members will be invited toattend this-meeting.

'Hanford 'Historical '-Documents ReviewCommittee: ' Terry Husseman reportedthat the committee met for. the first timewith the Peer Review Panel in Portland.The process is' in motion to identify the'members of the Technical Steering Panel.Curt Eschels,. chair, is: acceptingnominations to the panel.

A request for proposals; for' the' feasibil-" ity study' on health ' studies "in the

-Hanford area 'is 'being developed, withthe -'assistance of 'Centers- for" DiseaseControl (CDC). Efforts to include bothpast *and futuie health "-effects in therequest for proposals will be made'

Socioeconomlc Committee: Marta Wilder-commented, that the SocioeconomicCommittee 'will -be involved':in'-planningsome public ni-etings in late October orNovember.

-3 -

- ! -

T , . .

I,7-: -- -

�1� ;-, . .

Terry Husseman reported there will beseveral information meetings, to get inputfrom the public,: discussing-, the SiteCharacterization Plan, and on Socio-economic Monitoring and MitigationPlan. He said that other. reports requir-ing public input in thefuture include theEnvironmental Monitoring and MitigationPlan, the Regulatory Compliance Plan,and. the final Environmental ImpactStatement on Defense Waste.

One meeting to decide what kind ofschedule, .where to have the hearings, andwhat kind of information U.S. Depart-ment; of Energy should be, prepared togive, has taken place with the states,tribes, and U.S. Department of Energy(USDOE). -

PUBLIC CONIMIENT.;

Gerald Pollet of,, Heart of AmericaNorthwest, stated that his organization'smembers would welcome the opportunityto work in advance-. with Nuclear WasteManagement staff to get notices out tothe members where town meetings aregoing to be held. Mr. Pollet hoped thatmore will be:done on letting participantsat.. these meetings know-, that there areinterest groupsto work-with. He statedthat he felt the public is not receiving acomplete picture; of, the State's position.Mr. Pollet stated, that, beyond a doubt,these town meetings are a success andthey really do make a difference.

Sarah. McCoy of Puget Sound "SANE",stated that the soliciting of. public com-ment is very much appreciated. She sug-gested that more effort go into workingwith different groups concerned with thenuclear waste issues and that the issuesbe dealt with more directly.--

Marie Harris of Bacon & Hunt suggestedthat during the town meetings sectional

groups be considered. Along with thesegroups more speakers with technicalbackgrounds should be brought in toanswer questions.

Jeanne Rensel of the Office of Nuclear-Waste Management suggested that schoolboard members be included on the list ofnetwork participants, and that we lookinto Oregon's nuclear issue curriculum toobserve what it has done.

Victor Overstreet, a network member,stated. that he would like to get, a net-work notebook for every school,and pub-lic library in Lewis County and to getlibrarians to put the material sent tothem in the network notebooks.

Commissioner, Ray Isaacson suggestedthat the U.S. Department of Energy berequested to present its side of the issueat the town meetings. CommissionerIsaacson feels that the people should hearboth sides. Council member Pam Behringsaid that she felt the U.S. Department ofEnergy has ample opportunity to state itsposition and that the state also wants tohear from citizens at the town meetings.

There- being no . further. comment, themeeting recessed to reconvene with theNuclear Waste Board at 1:30 p.m.

- 4 -

K-i

* WM DOCKET COCNTROL-CENTER

.'87 SEP 14 Al I :14

WM Record .Fil WM Project- /* .Docket No.

PDRIPOR ( )

K> . D'tbticn Die ~s

Return to WM, 62 SS)I I

-I