-. .' I .

WARREN A. BSHOPChair

K) 0

STATE OF WASHINGTON

NUCLEAR WASTE BOARDMail Stop PV-71 * Olympia, Washington 98504 * (2%) 459-6670

NUCLEAR WASTE BOARD

Regular Meeting

October 16, 19871:30 p.m.

EFSEC Hearings RoomLacey, Washington

AGENDA

1. Introductory Remarks

2. Approval of September 18, 1987 Minutes

3. Correspondence/Recent Developments

4. Report on National Conference of State Legislators (NCSL)Working Group: European Waste Management Tour

5. GAO Report--Information on Growth inSite Characterization Cost Estimates

6. Discussion of Proposed Amendments toHazardous Materials Transportation Act!

7. Upcoming State Legislative Events

8. Legislative Status

9. Litigation Status

10. Richland USDOE Report

11. Committee Reports

12. Washington Institute for Public Policy

13. Other Business

14. Public Comment

15. Adjourn

Warren Bishop

Terry Husseman

Legislative Members

Max PowerJohn Ridgway

Pat Tangora

Legislative Members

Narda Pierce

Max Powell

Committee Chairs

Dan Silver

The Nuclear Waste Board 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 theBoard reaches that agenda item.

8712030394 871016 '1PDR WASTE- -

- 3r- tu. 3

K) LPDI ta;4-/6699

WM DOCKET CO�ITROLCENTER

87 aQI 13 P1:44

WM Record Fif�

Distribution:V

C�M.625�)Return

Docket No. _____________

x LPDR�L�L

.L2L�L�2IALL�,�4I

F

I-

c22�t¾�

�T.LJE OF \\ �$Hr�OTC�\

DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY

CONTACT: Tcrry Husseman/Don ProvostOffice of Nucicar Wastc Management

(206) 459-6670

PRESS NOTICEF;

August 12, 1987

SUBJECTS Nuclear Waste Board and Nuclear Waste Advisory Council JointInformational Mccting.

AND August 20, 1987 - 1:30 p.m.

DATES: Nuclear Waste Advisory Council Rcgular MeetingAugust 21, 1987 - 9 a.m�

Nuclear Waste Board and Nucicar Waste Advisory Council Joint McetingAugust 21, 1987 - 1:30 p.m.

Nuclear Waste Board Regular MectingAugust 21, 1987 - 3 p.m.

PLACE: EFSEC Hearings Room4224 - 6th Avenue S.E.Building •1Lacey, Washington

Key congressional staff members will brief the state's Nuclear Waste Board and Nuclear

Waste Advisory Council on the progress of bills that would change the process by which

Hanford was selected as one of three candidate Sites for the nation's first high level

nuclear waste repository. Congressional action on the matter is expcctcd after Congress

returns from its August recess. The staff members work for Senators, Representatives and

Committees that will play a significant role.

The eongrcssional staff presentation will begin at 1:30 p.m. on Friday, August 21.

The previous day, August 20, U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE) representatives will

present plans for hydrology testing at the Hanford repository site. These tests for

groundwater movement must be completed before a shaft several feet in diameter is

drilled 3200 feet into the basalt rock where the repository may be located. Drilling such a

largc shaft will disrupt thc groundwatcr systcm and make it inipossiblc to prcdict long-

tcrm patterns.

The USDOE spokespcople will also discuss thc status of the 10,000-page Site charactcriza-

tion plan for Hanford, scheduled for release late this year. This mecting '�'i1l begin at

1:30 p.m., Thursday, August 20, in the EFSEC Hearings Room, Rowesix, Lacey.

The Nuclear Waste Advisory Council will meet at 9 a.m. on August 21 to discuss the serics

of town meetings and the status of other public involvement projects.

Contact the Office of Nuclear Waste Managemcnt for more information.

�.L .�S .�7? 7? 7?

K)

ANDREA I3EATTY RIMKERDiredor

STATE OF WASHINGTON

DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGYMail Stop PV-1 1 . Olympia, Washington 98504-8717 * (206) 459-6(X)0

MINUTES OF JOINT NUCLEAR WASTE BOARD/ADVISORY COUNCIL MEETINGJuly 17, 1987

1:30 p.m.EFSEC Hearings RoomRowesix, Building #1

4224 Sixth Avenue S.E.Lacey, Washington 98504

Board Members Present:

Warren A. Bishop, ChairSenator Max Benitz

Curtis EschelsDr. William Funk, Water Research Center

Representative Shirley HankinsRepresentative Dick Nelson

Senator Irving NewhouseSenator Lois 3. Stratton

Richard Watson, State Energy OfficeSenator Al Williams

-IBoard Designees/Alternate Designees Present:

Ray Lasmanis, DNR DesigneeRoger Stanley, Department of Ecology Designee

Terry Strong, DSHS Alternate Designee

Council Members Present:

Pam BebringPhyllis Clausen

Nancy HovisRussell JimSam Reed

Jim Worthington

The meeting was called to oi�der byWarren A. Bishop, Chair.

Introductory Remarks

Mr. Bishop announced the July 17meeting would be a joint sessionbetween the Nuclear 'WasteBoard/Advisory Council 'to discussrecent developments and view apresentation given to the NationalAcademy of Sciences. The regular,monthly Board meeting would follow.

Approval of Minutes

A motion for the approval' of the June19, 1987 Nuclear ,Waste Board minutes

'was entertained. The* motion wasmoved, seconded, and carried. Theminutes were approved as written.

Correspondence/Recent Developments

Previous action taken by the Board onJune 19 had resulted in the adoption ofResolutions '87-5 and 87-6. Copies ofthe final drafts and their respectivecover letters were contained in� thenotebooks as correspondence. AMinority Report signed 'by four leg-islativemembers of the Nuclear WasteBoard had also been included withResolution 87-6. It was reiterated thatResolution 87-5 called for .USDOE toextend the public review' and 'commentperiod on its draft Site 'CharacterizationPlan (SCP) from the proposed 90. dayplan to at least six months.' 'Resolution87-6 had urged Congressto est'ablish aforum and a process to review� the !high�level nuclear waste repository programin an effort to find a solution to thenation's nuclear waste disposal problem.

J ' -

In r�gard t6' the USDQE 'Mission PlanAmendment, a m�emo� from Max Power,dated July 6, 1987, to the Nuclear WasteBoard stated that USDOE hadtransmitted its final version of the draft

'amendment 'to Congress on June 9.Although the submittal contained a fewmodificati6ns in detail, the :major pointsremained. ' The' final version includedcomments received from Washington,

''dther states, tribes, and interestedparties. The memo concluded 'that' theU.S. Departrn�nt of Energy was mostresponsive in its amendment process tostate comments that dealt with

'consultation and cooperation with thestates and affected tribes; '' theDepartment was' 'less' responsive 'to theissues that dealt with scheduling, siteselection and technical approach.

Senate Bill 405 was the next' 'item ofcorrespondence. The bill, enacted bythe state of Oregon, dealt with the fed-eral selection process for a' high-levelnuclear �waste repository. It had beenlegislatively referred to th'e voters ofOregon and had passed 'through bothhouses of the Legislative Assemblywithout a' dissenting vote on May 19,1987. Its purpose directed Oregon state

-' officials and agencies' to': continueactivities to challenge' the site selectionprocess for high-level nuclear wasterepositories and seek status 'that 'wouldallow the state ofOregon a greater rolein the site selection process of a high-level radioactive waste rep6sitory.

The annual Western' Governor'sAssociation meeting was held on July 7,1987. During the 'meeting; GovernorGardner proposed� a course of actionthat would best lead to a solution of thenuclear waste disposal problem. TheGovernor's prop'osal was adopted by thewestern governors in the form of aresolution that' 'was supportive of theNuclear Waste Policy Commission Act,H.R. 2888. (See attached Western Gover-nors' Association Resolution' 87-013) Ina letter to Congressmen Swift andUdall, dated July 17, 1987, GovernorGardner expressed his appreciation tothe Congressmen for their continued

support and leadership on the issue ofnuclear waste disposal and enclosed acopy of the recently adopted resolution.

National Academy of SciencesPresentation

The National Academy of Sciencesrecently, invited, the three nominatedstates and affected tribes to make pre-sentations' to the: Board on RadioactiveWaste Management. The presentationswere to be in observance of each respec-tive state/tribe's specific technicalconcerns on site characterization. It wasnoted that the states of Texas andNevada were unable to attend the July14 presentation. The state ofWashington's presentation focused onthree issues determined to be the mostcritical elements 'of the 'sitecharacterization program at Hanford.They. were (I) natural resourcepotential; (2) geotechnology; and (3) sitecontamination.

The Board and Council �membersproceeded to "' view the, slide

�presentations that had been given beforethe National Academy of Sciences. Thefirst presentation dealt withgeotechnology. It contained the sixlocal geotechnical issues at. Hanford.These issues, were directly ' related todisqualifiers and identified as:

* Groundwater travel time

* Methane - resources

* Mining conditions - cost

* Mine safety - environment

A slide presentation on sitecontamination followed. It containedinformation from a recent report issuedby the U.S. Department of Energy. Thereport identified the environmentalproblems and areas of environmentalrisk of the controlled 'area study zone.The. 200 East Area contains 101 wastesites that were investigated by theUSDOE. as superfund sites; continuingstudies are being performed orf 26 sites.The 200 West Area contains 87, liquidwaste sites that are u'nder considerationas superfund sites; 27 of those sites are Icontinuing to bestudied.

There are currently 28 liquid dischargeswithin the 200 Area and a summary ofthe findings is as follows:

* Of the 95 cribs in. the 200 Area, 16were active in 1985;

* Of the 16 ponds in the 200 Area,only 2 remained active at thc endof 1985;

* Of the 18 ditches in the separationarea, 7 were active in 1985;

* Of .37 . French drains and reversewells (pipes or rock-filledencasements inserted into the'ground) in' the separation areas, 6french drains were active, in 1985;and '

* 7 Solid waste disposal sites ,wereactive in.1985.

* Waste package definitionlOCFR6O

* *1'''

In closure 'of. its presentation, to theNational Academy 1 of'S�iences the stateot' Washington concluded:

* On. May28, 1986, USDOE ignoredthe results ', of its rankingmethodology and selected Hanfordfor characterization, even though ithad been �determined to be th� least

* ' . Retrievability

-2-

K)

-safe and most expensive of all 'thesites under consideration;

* - Information obtained and analysisperformed since the May 28thdecision had further confirmed thetechnical concerns at Hanford;

* The cumulative effect* - of *theserious technical concerns - shouldhave eliminated the Hanford sitefrom further consideration;

* USDOE's flawed implementation* had destroyed the credibility of thesite selection process;

* If the site selection process 'is to be* successful, it must be' halted,

restructured and restarted, withinvolvement by nationally respectedscientific groups such as theNational Association' of Sciences;and

* The state of Washington urged theNAS to support a� 'sitecharacterization process whichwould require early identificationand investigation of potential fatalflaws.

Board and Council discussion ensued theslide presentation. Representative'Shirley Hankins inquired if the 87* liquid waste sites contained in the 200West Area were calculated to be 'l�igh-level radioactive waste sites. DonProvost 'replied they were considered assuperfund sites that contained bothradionuclide and chemical contamina-tion.

Representative Dick Nelson commentedthat an early "� part of the sitecharacterization process should focus onthe' expenditures necessary for clean uparound the Hanford area. He asked ifspecific costs had been estimated for themost critical soil �column discharge

remedies. "Roger Stanley responded that'monies had already been 'appropriatedfor the two or three concentrated cribslocated at the N-Reactor, however hewas not certain of the amount. Thecurrent focus was� on remedial activitiesthat would take place 'at the historicdisposal 'sites; this would be' followed byassessments, prioritization and actualimplementation ' of alternativetechnologies for the operating facilities.

Ray Lasmanis asked if injection wcllshad been used to dispose' of waterwastes. Mr. Provost said that to the bestof his knowledge most were in theunconfined aquifers.

Terry Strong inquired to the question ofIodine-129 having been found in theconfined aquifer. Based on titles ofreports received, (and those that had notyet been received), Mr. Provost saidthere were indications' that Iodine-129had reached the confined aquifers onand off the, Hanford reservation. Henoted that an earlier presentation onIodine-129 had been given during theApril 1987 Board meeting. During thatpresentation, a request had been madefor copies of all documents used in thecompilation and study of the Iodine-129issue. To date, approximately 150known documents ' have not beenreceived. 'Based on informationobtained thus far, it was consideredappropriate and accurate to maintainthat 'Iodin�-l29 had indeed reached theconfined aquifers.

The Yakima Indian Nation, in itspresentation to the National Academyof Sciences, also alluded to the techno-logical studies that had been performed.However, the Yakimas went one stepfurther by addressing the cultural issuesin relation to the natural resources. Onbehalf of the Yakima Indian' Nation,Russell Jim stated appreciation to thestate of Washington for its specific

-3-

remarks to the NAS regarding the manytreaty issues not brought up innumerous studies already performed.He reiterated the treaty of 1855 and therights of the Yakima Indian Nation inthe Hanford area.

In conclusion of, the joint Board andCouncil meeting, a request for a futurepresentation with respect to thetechnical concerns by the states ofTexas, Nevada, and Tennessee on sitecharacterization was made. There beingno further business, the joint meetingwas adjourned and a recess of the Boardwas called.

BREAK

The Board resumed and the meeting was

called to order.

Mr. Bishop introduced Roger Stanley as.a new designee to the Nuclear WasteBoard.. Mr. Stanley was to representAndrea Beatty Riniker, Department ofEcology.

Payments Equal to Taxes (PETT)

The U.S. Department of Energy recentlyreleased its draft language for aguideline in administration of the PETTprovision of the NWPA. As a result, amajor hindrance stems from thelanguage contained in the NWPA: TheSecretary shall grant to each state andunit of general local government in whicha site for a repository is approved underSection 112(c) the recommendation ofthree sites an amount each fiscal yearequal to the anount such state and unit ofgeneral local government respectivelywould receive were they authorized to taxsite characterization activities at such siteas* such state and unit of general localgovernment tax the other real propertyand industrial dctivities occ'zThring withinsuch state and unit, of general localgovernment/'

The language 'eat such site'� had beenembodied in the House version of thebill as it went through Congress in 1982;neither the Interior Committee nor theEnergy Committee called attention tothe particular phrase. At the same time,however, they had commented oncertain other items contained in theparagraph as being restrictive in acertain way. A reasonableinterpretation of the phrase wasbelieved to be that the state and localjurisdictions would tax activities relatedto characterization of that particularsite, as opposed to generic activities.

USDOE's draft language defines therepository as the area encompassed by azone that extends 5 kilometers from theouter boundary of the undergroundfacility.. In addition USDOE's languagestates: *the only industrial activitiessubject to payments equal to taxes arethose that happen within the boundariesof that site, i.e., the 5 kilometer radius;the short term monitoring outside thecontrolled area, i.e., wells drilled foreither hydrologic or geologic testingpurposes or activities directly related torepository testing are not' subject topayments equal to taxes; and theliability to the tax begins only when theactual activity starts within the Site.The U.S. Department of Energy'sproposed guideline rule will apply bothto the potential host states and also thestate of Tennessee should the MRSfacility be authorized. It is anticipatedthat USDQE's draft language for itsproposed guideline will be. subject toconsiderable discussion and debate inthe near future.

Commissioner Ray Isaacson, BentonCounty, commented that there wereproblems with the current state laws.One such problem was the legislationpassed by Congress which referred toequivalent property taxes of. industrialcompanies. He stressed the need for

-4-

K> K)

changes in the 1egislation�and state lawsin support of the PETT issue regardingproperty and real tax categories�

Developments in Congress

On July 16, 1987; a hearing on nuclearwaste bills had been before the UnitedStates Senate Committee on Energy andNatural Resources. The bills before theCommittee embodied a wide range ofideas that would change the direction ofthe nuclear waste program laid out inthe 1982 Act. They were as follows:

* Senator Hatfield's bill: S. 1007(would allow for"' as many as 9additional states to* participate inthe siting of - a nuclear wasterepository)

* Senator Hecht's bills: S. 1141. �±

1211 and S. 1428 (5. 1141 wouldrestructure' the nuclear- wasteprogram 'to rely on ldng-termstorage of �spent� fuel for �5O yearsor more, prior to disposal in a

- geologic repository; S. 1211 and S.1428 would direct the Departmentof Energy to do further study ofthe benefits of reprocessing 'spentfuel prior to disposal and furtherstudy of the concept of subs�abeddisposal)

* Senator Evan's bill: S. 1266 (wouldestablish a system of regional moni-tored retrievable storage facilitiesand ' defer ' the search " for apermanent geologic repository) , -

* Furthermore, the Committee reccivedtestimony presented by 'the Departmentof Energy,; affected sta'tes/tribes, 'andpublic witnesses 'with 'respect to thepending legislation to amend ihe� 1982Nuclear Waste Policy Act. Testimonieswere presented by Terry Husseman, onbehalf of Governor Gardner andRepresentative Dick Nelson, on behalf

of the Washington State Legislature;statements were presented on behalf ofBen Rusehe, Office of �' CivilianRadioactive Waste Management(OCRWM)' and Governor NedMcWhcrter, state of Tennessee.

In summarization of Governor Gardner'stestimony, support had been conveyed inregard to the four bills' being co�nsideredby the Committee. However, it was thestate's opinion �that a piecemealapproach to amend the Nu�lear Waste'Policy Act (NWPA) would not beproductive. Given a proper forum,sufficient time, and good faith partici-pation amon'g� representatives of thevarious' interests, a consen�us could bereached andalso restore confidence thatthe goals of. the NWPA could beachieved.

"V

The Governor's testimony alsocomments on several of, thecontained in the four bills:

containedproposals

* Restructuring the Rep6sitory SiteSelection Process: The' proposed

'restructuring process, as containedin 5. 1266, calls for a restart of thesite selection process, a nationwidesearch for a suitable site, eliminatesunachievable statutory deadlines,and a study of the need for asecond repository. The state ofWashington supjorted this general*approach.

Study of the' Feasibility ofReprocessing Spent Nuclear Fuel:Washington State 'considered thisissue to be a national issue and hadnot taken a position on "this ques-tion. However, it would not opposea feasibility study on this issuewhich could be' done contempora-neously with the reWew of the siteselection process.

-5-

* Research on Alternatives to DeepGeologic Burial: The statesupported the national policy ofinvestigating the technicalfeasibility of deep geologic burial.It also supported the restoration offunding for research - into - thefeasibility of subseabed disposal asa potential backup to deep geologicburial.

* Participation By Adjoining States:Thestate of Washington supportedfull participation by the state ofOregon in the site selection process,so long as the. Hanford site is underconsideration. . Additionally, the

* issue of participation by adjoiningstates should be considered as partof the nuclear waste programconsensus-building process.

* Economic Incentives for PotentialHost State and Local Government:The stats of Washington. supportedthe concept that economicincentives should be provided tostate and local governments inwhich potential: sites have beenselected for site characterization.Once the search has been narrowedpursuant to a credible,scientifically-based process, fairand adequate economic incentivesshould begin.

* Solution to Nuclear Utilities' Short-Term Spent Fuel Storage Problem:The state of Washingtonrecommended that if Congresselected to adopt the moratoriumapproach, the Commission shouldbe instructed to compare andevaluate the 'relative merits andshortcoming� *of the severalproposed spent fuel storage options.The Commission should alsorecommend to Congress themethodology that will best solve thenuclear utilities' short-term spent

fuel storage problem. It is crucialthat Congress reach a consensus ofthe preferred course of action andestablish the preferred course asnational. policy.

Testimony presented on behalf of theWashington State Legislature dealtprimarily with. the issue of monitoredretrievable storage (MRS). It reflectedthatWashington State was willing to doits, part in the storage and disposal ofhigh-level wastes,: as long as decisionswere based, on the best scientific Yandtechnical analysis available. It alsosupported the state Nuclear WasteBoard's position that a' moratoriumapproach was the correct approach totake regarding the repository program.The legislature believed it'; necessarythat Congress,, together with the states,affected Indian tribes, and the federalexecutive branch use the next eighteenmonths to reexamine, the pros and consof deep geologic disposal, ,regionalmonitored retrievable storage, and at-reactor storage to gain' public trust forthe 'nation's nuclear waste policy. Inaddition, there was the need to free theprogram of its political overtones andcreate, a program administration thatwould be responsive to state and tribalconcerns.

In terms of a, regional MRS. thelegislature had previously written to theWashington State congressionaldelegation urging them to support astudy of a regional system-- including apossible MRS on the HanfordReservation. It was noted that anadvantage, of having a regional MRSsystem would be that it could promotean expeditious cleanup of the dcfensewastes already at the . HanfordReservation. (A precondition of' thestate's participation in a national MRSprogram. would be 'cleanwastes.) ' , up oC these

-6-

K)

* Next, Senator Max Benitz stated hisview of. the recent Committee hearing.The main issue' of the hearing waswhether th� 1982 NWPA would bereopened. Senator Bennett Johnston's'testimony' stated that" �his preferred

- course of action '�ould be to stick "withthe process laid out in th�e original 7Actand there was ,no technical reason tohalt the program 'at this point in 'time.Senator Johnston felt that 'it'would be amistake for the Act to be' repealed as itwould" send' the program 'back to whereit:was in' the xnid-1970's, 'thu� wasiingthe work, time and "financial' supjortthat had already gone into the program.Senator Beni tz stated that he felt itwould be appropriate for the 'NuclearWaste Board to consider returning toC&C Agreement� in the near futuje.

I'

Major Proposals In Congress

There are approximately 30 bills beforeCongress that deal with the "nuclearwaste program. Mr. Husseman brieflydescribed each major bill t1�at t,'hadrecently .been introduced. It was notedthat Charles Roe, Legal ;Staff, was

K...-' working '"on 'a memo 'that wouldsummarize each approach 'taken: ' Asynopsis of the proposals would be madeavai upon completion. ''"'

lableHistorical Documehts/He�Ith Effects

K. Study, 'A

An agreement between tI'e HHDR&and-: USDOE' to ' peiforni :a joint dose

reconstruction study and additionalhealth effect studies h�s been n�t�."�Theagreement en compassed three, points:

S Tl�e T Hanford 'Histoi�ica1'DociimentsReview:' Committee" and the U.S.

* Department of 'Energy will enterinto' aK joint' dose reconstructionproject; ''

Cohcurrent'� with the dosereconstructio'ri' study, the Hanford'Historical Documents" ReviewCommittee will initiate a feasibilityreview of health studies; and

* 'Studies rec6mmended as 'a result ofthe feasibility review and whichboth the Hanford Historical Docu-ments'R'eview 'Committee and U.S.Department of Energy believe, arereasonable will be funded.

Workplans have bee'n' devel6ped 'for thef�asibiliiy review' of health' studies andthe dose reconstruction effort. '� Inr'eference to the ddse 'reconstructionstudy, the 'forriiation of' a TechnicalSteering 'Paijel (TSP) �wil1"be 'the firstpriority. The' (TSP) will :cOnsiSj' 'of anih'd�pcndent group *of outside experts tooversee the entire dose' reconstructionstudy. (The�USDOE and HHDRC willhave input into the study thr6ugh the'Technical"' Steering Panel and theirstaff.) In' regard to the feasibility'review of health studies,' the Centers for

� Disease> Con�tr'ol (CDC) ' �nd" our'state/tribal resources will' pro�eed todevelop a sequence that.would allow forthe" best use' of monies. A monthlyprogress report concerning these issueswill be presented to the Board.

Litigation' Status

USDOE 'recently �filed ''a" brief inresponse to: 'the state''of Washington's

.opening brief�on the second repositorysuspension. ""'Washingtoii's' 'reply brief

'was due July 16 and filed on behalf ofall twelve' p�rties in the 'case. TheSecretary of ' Energy, �th'e twentyintervening utilities' and 'the easternstates made no attempt .to argue for thelegality of' die Secretary of 'Interior'ssecond-round suspension decision. TheSecretary responded with a declarationthat he would begin site activities againon September 30. The state of

-7-

Washington responded by saying theSecretary had admitted to the illegalityof his actions, however, he had asked theCourt to tolerate this in order t� satisfyhis own agenda. The state ofWashington has asked the Court to enteran immediate. declaration that theSecretary's action i� illegal, without oralargument, and proceed to decision of

.the case. .

Committee Reports

Transportation Committee: Thecommittee met on June 23 with the U.S.;Department of. Energy, , OregonDepartment of �,Energy. and"; Indiantribes., The purpose of the meeting, was

,to discuss. transuranic waste shipments(TRU) from, Hanf6id. to New Mexico.US DOE representative�prc�e�t�d a slideshow ,which examined the composition

* of TRU waste, ,the Joint IntegrationOffice (JIO) and the Waste 'IsolationPilot Plant (WIPP); a, videotape on

* testing of' the initial transportation* container design,' TRUPACT-1 was also

shown. The, starting date has beenestimated for October 1988� '�'ithshipments of contact-handled wastes tobe approximately 146 pert year.. .Up to

.105 remote-handl�d TRU .. wasteshipment's will leave Hanford per yearbeginning in 1999.

The issues of importance discussed atthe meeting included:�.

* Specific state/local, emergency andinspection proposals; .

* '0 Procedures for AotifyingWashington ,. of shipments (since

* Hanford is a point of, origin,satellite trackin gmay not, be

* appropriate);

* Route/risk analysis; and -

* State-input onspecifications for carriers.

USDOE's

The states .. will develop sjecificproposals 'on the above mcntioncd itemsand present them at future meetings.

The next sch�dul&1 meeti'ng. of "theTransportation Committee will 6& July

.31 in' Olympia, WA.

Environmental Monitoring Committee:The comniittee metjon July l0.� ' Abriefing was held oii the review of the

�USDOE. Richland's 'environmental mon-itoring' progr�im associated: with 'theDepartment of Social and Health

.Services.T

EMC had previously been requestedto review th'e Hanford Health EffectsPanel re'commend�itions #20 and #24(coordination and" mo'nitoring ' ofenvironmental * monitoring programs).The EMC turned the assignment over toa� task, force already. formed by DSHS,the Quality. Assurance Task For�e.. The

'task force hasp concluded' that allenvironmental monitoring programsshould be evaluated., A' simple, matrixwill be. developed to reflect, criteria ofthe evaluations in' the environmentalmonitoring programs.

'I'

Funds from the surveillance fee revenuehave been generated to support Iadditional position for the activities ofth� Office of Radiation Pr'otec'ti6ii Thepriority for the 'additional position willbe for a full-time, ,on-site� inspector. Itwas' noted.' that the Advisory- ,Councilhad formerly 'prepared a' recommenda-tion on the loss of statewide radi�ilogicalmonitoring th�it had been adopted bythe Board. The recommendation

�directed� the. Chair, to. inform ,theGovernor and ''the' Se'cr�tary' of' theDepartment 'of Social and. HealthServices of' the. iiimediatc need for theresoluti6n of the funding issue. To

K)

-8-

K>

date, a response had not been received.The legislative members were requestedto inform the four legislative caucusesof the low-level radioactive wastesurveillance and environmentalmonitoring issue. It was suggested thatthc Institute for Public Policy convene ameeting of the legislative members tofurther explore possible solutions to thisproblem.

Defense Waste Committee: Thecommittee did not meet during themonth of June or July.

Hanford Historical Documents ReviewCommittee: Curtis Eschels wasintroduced as the newly appointedmember and Chairman of the HHDRC.The committee's latest meeting hadresulted in a compromise on the finallanguage for a dose reconstruction studyand related health studies between theIIIIDRC and USDOE. A letter ofagreement had been transmitted toMichael Lawrence, U.S. Department ofEnergy, for signature.

Socioeconomic Committee: A meeting ofthe committee has been scheduled forJuly 21 in Seattle. During that meeting,a summary of the working draftresearch design will be presented byJohn Petterson of Impact Assessment,Inc.. Don Taylor will also lead adiscussion of potential state and localresponses to the PETT guidelines issuedby USDOE.

A request for funding of the Mid-Columbia Consortium had been signedrecently. USDOE, however, has notapproved a request for funding of theMid-Columbia Consortium to give directassistance to the county assessors indetermining the applicability of taxes.There have been delays in USDOE'sapproval of contracts for the peerreview panel and document reviewpanel for the Socioeconomic Impact

Study. To prevent any majordisruptions in the study efforts, theOffice will issue a conditional taskorder for several remaining tasks inPhase I due to anticipation of fundingapproval.

Other Business

Nancy Hovis, Chair of the newlyappointed Advisory Council ProposalReview Committee reported the primaryfunction of the committee was to reviewunsolicited proposals made by non-profit groups or individuals. Allproposals or ideas will be submitted tothe Office of Nuclear WasteManagement; the designated Officestaff person will review the proposals inorder to ensure they meet the guidelinescreated by the committee. After theinitial Office screening process theproposals will be distributed to theProposal Review Committee and thecommittee would complete its review ofproposals within one month afterreceiving them (under mostcircumstances). The committee willthen determine which proposals meritfurther consideration and recommendthese proposals in its report to the fullAdvisory Council for review. The finalstep of the process will be the AdvisoryCouncil's recommendation of theproposals to the Board for its considera-tion.

Public Comment

None.

Adjourn

There being no further business, themeeting was adjourned.

-9-

* x�dI r

Western �QVe�flor5� AssociationResolution 87-013 >.

Q

Adopted: July 7, 1987*Snowbird, Utah

SPONSOR: Governor Gardner .. -

SUDJECT: High-Level Nuclear Waste Repository .

A.

.1. . The repository site selection process -as intended byCongress in -enacting: the: Nuclear Waste Policy Act of1982 is on: th&:verge of collapse< (reference WGAResolutions 8 5-003 -& 86-014).

2. There is widespread agreement thata. solution must befound to the nation's high-level. nuclear defense wasteand commercial reactor spent fuel disposal problem.

- 3; There >-.i� widespread: agreement that seriousconsideration must �be� given to. implementing a mid-course. correction.-tothe repository program.

4. Several proposed Courses of action have been offered in-' good -faith toc answer�the<question of �"where do we go

* rro� here",. .but there is no: consensus as to the* preferred cours� ofaction.

B. GOVNOR�t POLICY STATEMENT

1. The western governors urge CongrGBB to.. establish a.:�forum and process designed to make a fresh search forthe course *of acti6n which will. now. best lead to a

* . solution 'of ¶ the: nation's.- nuclear wast&" disposalproblem.

- . 4 4

2. The governors propose the<following- guidelines for:.consideratibn by Congress in "establishing the� nationalforum and process:

* The problem-solving forum and the process shouldallow for meaningful participation by all of themajor interests, including: federal. agencies,Indian tribes, states, local governments,environmental groups, nuclear utilities, utilityregulators, and public interest groupsi

* The forum and process should be directed by apanel or commission composed of nationally knownand respected policy-makers;

* The panel or commission should be required tosubmit a report to Congress by January 1989, with

a reco�r�ndation as to the pr&�red course ofaction that will 1) lead to a timely solution of

'th.>nuclear utilities'. short-ter�spant. fue3�.�.storage problem, 2) define the elements of 'anequitable site selection process that will, provideconfidence that the search will be for the best,scientifically appropriate high'level.. nuclear-waste repository site, :� -8.ndt .3) ensUre thatseiQotion decisions will be based on crediblescientific evidence:

* In seeking the preferred course of action to'solve .�

the nuclear utilities' short-term problem, thepanel. or . commission should compare and 'evaluate

the '�relative merits and shortcomings of .1) U.S.proposal, 2) a

nationwide system' of regional<monitoredretrievable storage facilities, 3) at-reactordry

- - cask storage, and 4) transportion to the preferredsites. - . .

* The panel or cQmmiss�on should recommend. methodsto provide ample funding *to ensure the timelycleanup� and permanent, safe disposal of defensewastes which - have- accumulatd� Auring the pastforty years at DOE sites throughout the West.

The'governors urge. Congress to� bring�epository site-specific activitiGs to::.a 'halt while preservinginformation now being gathered until a . consensus isreached in answer to the question "where do we go fromhere".

C * GOVERNORS' 'MANAG!1�ENT - DIRECTIVE

1. - The staff of the Western. Governors' Association isdirected to transmit-this resolution tothe Presidentof the United States, the United States Secretary ofEnergy, the Speaker of the United States flouse ofRepresentatives, the President of- the - United StatesSenate, and the-western congressional.delegation.

.9

r -- . -

ANDREA BEAlTY RW4KERDirector

STATE Of WASHINGTON

DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGYMail Stop PV-1 7 . Olympia, Washington 98504-8711 * (2L�) 459-6 (XX)

MINUTES OF NUCLEAR WASTE ADVISORY COUNCIL MEETINGJULY 17, 1987

9:00 A.M.EFSEC HEARINGS ROOMROWESIX - BUILDING #14224 SIXTH AVENUE S.E.

LACEY, WASHINGTON

Council Members Present:

WARREN A. BISHOP CHAIRPHILIP BEREANO

PAM BEIIRINGPHYLLIS CLAUSEN

NANCY HOVISRUSSELL JIM

DR. ESTELLA B. LEOPOLDSAM REED

ROBERT ROSEJIM WORTHINGTON

K>

The meeting was called to order by WarrenA. Bishop, Chair.

A motion for the adoption of the June 19,1987 Advisory Council minutes was enter-tained. The motion was moved andseconded. Phyllis Clausen noted that page4, paragraph 4 of the Council minutesshould have read: "Taking Nuclear Issuesto the Village Square." The motion foradoption was carried and the minutes wereapproved as corrected.

TOWN MEETING REPORT

Marta Wilder reported on the recent townmeetings. held on June 30 and July. 1 inAberdeen and Longview, respectively.Sam Reed hosted the meeting in Aberdeenand Phyllis Clausen hosted the Longviewmeeting. The comment forms and articlesfrom the meetings were distributed to theCouncil members.

Sandra Chan reported that 16 peopleattended the Aberdeen meeting, which SamReed moderated. A presentation was madeto the Kiwanis Club, which included 20people. Representatives from a local paperand two local* radio stations covered themeeting. Phyllis Clausen moderated theLongview meeting, where 32 peopleattended. There was representation by thelocal newspaper and a local cable televisionstation taped the meeting. A copy of thevideotape has been requested for thePublic Reference Library.

Sam Reed felt that people neededencouragement to pick up the materials. Itwas suggested that all materials be put infolders and distributed as people enter thefacility.. Different points about the slideshow and its effectiveness were broughtforward. Although there were favorablereports, it was felt that. it is a continualprocess to improve the slide shows.

Additional meetings are scheduled forBellingham on August 5 and Port Angeleson August 6. Brian Martin of 1-lall &Associatcs noted that there will be newsinterviews prior to� the meeting inBellingham on August 5. Sam Reed willbe moderating the Bellingham meeting.Warren Bishop will be moderatin� themeeting in Port Angeles on August 6. inaddition to the town meeting, a noonpresentation will be made t6 the LionsClub in Port Angeles.

Additional Town Meetings

Ms. �Vilder proposed that two additionaltown meetings be held during Septemberand October. She suggested that nomeetings be scheduled November throughFebruary. After several suggestions, WallaWalla and Toppenish were chosen for themeetings *in September, and Pullman wasscheduled for October.

Office of Radiation Protection Budget

Terry Strong, Chief of the' Office ofRadiation Protection, reviewed DSHS'funding situation. ' He said it appears thatDSHS may be able to provide funding foran on site inspector for� the low level site.If more resources become . available,funding for ' radon and generalenvironmental monitoring will be restored.At this point there is no new source offunding on the horizon.

'Dr. Estella Leopold" asked Councilmembers 'if something could be d6ne toassist with' this matter. The followingsuggestions were brought forward:

1. The Council acknowledges' 'that noaction has been taken to resolve thematter and that the 'Chair: shouldagain bring this 'situation 7 to theBoard's attention, urging that asolution be found and advising that

I -

the same persons contacted previ-ously be contacted again.

2. , Keep the issue in. the forefront, withthe public, media, and those who arein positions to resolve it.

3. . Address a statement to the Secretaryof the Department of Social andHealth Services, and the legislativeleaders, stating ,that the Council hasnoted that no significant. action hastaken piace' to resolve the issue andrequest again that.a resolution to theproblem be found.

It was moved and. seconded that because oflack of any positive action on DSHS'etwironmental monitoring program budgetthat the Chair review the current situationand take steps to bringthe situation to theattention of the Board. The motion wasapproved.

CONIMITTEE REPORTS

Environmental Monitoring Committee:Mr. Reed reported that the DSHS QualityAssurance Task Force has been asked toassist the committee with implementingone of the . two recommendations of theHanford Health Effects Panel. Therecommendation, Number 24, calls for anindependent assessment of RadiologicalMonitoring Programs in Washington andOregon. The Quality Assurance TaskForce has developed guidelines forassessment. The Quality Assurance TaskForce is also developing options to definethe scope of this�assessment.

ProDosal Review Committee: Nancy Hovisreported. that the proposed guidelines forunsolicited proposals has been finalized.Council members discussed . the need forperiodic - review, of.. the, contractors'projects. The committee - discussed andreviewed proposals received by the Board'sSocioeconomic Committee. The

symposium with' the League of WomenVoters has been postponed, �nd no newproposals were received. Ms. Hovis saidthat the Committee would meet as neces-sary when new proposals are received.�

Historical Documents Review Committee:Joe Stobr stated that a new*' chair, CurtEschels, was* elected at the last meeting.Mr. Stohr said that dose reconstructioneffort and thyroid morbidity' revie�v arethe two top committee priorities. Afternegotiating with the U.S. Department ofEnergy (USDOE) these three points wereagreed upon:

1. A joint dose reconstruction studywould be controlled '�by anindependent technical steerin g panelcomprised of members nominated bythe public, the committee, andUSDOE.

2. An analysis will be conducted on thefeasibility of various types 'of healthstudies.

3. Based on the analysis, a study typewill be chosen and the detailsnegotiated with USDOE.

Mr. Reed suggested that the Council bringbefore the Board a proposal t& communi-cate to the Centers for Disease 'Control(CDC) that their commitment would bewelcomed to design prospective studies totrack possible health effects associatedwith Hanford operations.

A joint consensus was reached 'by theCouncil that a recommendation be made tothe Hanford Historical Documents ReviewCommittee (HHDRC) to investigate currentepidemiology studies.

Transnortation Committee: Phyllis Clausenreported that transuranic waste shipmentsfrom Hanford to New 'Mexico were thetopic for the committee meeting bet�veen

-2-

-9

the states, tribes, and USDOE: A two waysatellite tracking system for trucks to be inoperation by 1988 was also discussed.Carrier specifications will be out for bidthis fall and states were encouraged toprovide some recommendations. USDOEhas agreed to have the Nuclear RegulatoryCommission independently certify casksfor shipping spent fuel and high levelwaste. Under existing law the USDOE cancertify its own casks.

A scoping session was requested by therepresentative from Oregon regarding theprocess and decision making methods oftransportation route selection.

Socioeconomic Committee: JimWorthington reported that the committeewill be meeting Tuesday. July 21.

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Approximately 30 calls were received onthe toll-free line since the last Councilmeeting. The calls have been dividedalmost equally between Eastern andWestern Washington. About one-third ofthe calls were from the Tn-Cities area.People have asked for general information,the newsletter, and the SiteCharacterization Focus Paper.

Several television and radio stations havebeen contacted regarding the broadcast ofthe public service announcement. Inaddition, a press release along with thenew Hanford poster have been distributedto the media.

Status of Public Involvement Projects

Paul Korsmo of the URS Corporationreported on the status of the various publicinvolvement projects. He said two revisedfact sheets and the focus paper on sitecharacterization are in camera ready form.Two other fact sheets are being reviewedby staff and should be ready soon.

The network participant notebook has beencompleted and is being given to thenetwork - participants. Some orientationshave been held .aiid the remainder will becompleted by next month. In addition, thenetwork notebook will go to the politicalliaisons. Participation statewide totalsaround 80-85 people. Several groups havebeen contacted and three of those groupshave agreed to participate in the network.

Mr. Reed asked what measures there are toascertain the 'degree, of activity of thenetwork members. Mr. Korsmo stated thatthe principal feed-back mechanism is a* monthly report form in the . notebookwhich the participants are asked to outline

* their activities. Philip Bereano suggestedthat a list be provided to Council members

* of the participants for further dis'cussion.

Terry Husseman stated the importance ofcommunicating with the participants tokeep them in the system. Mr. Korsmoreported that there will be a quarterly

- letter, ' regular' newsletter, and othercorrespondence �sent out .�regularly.Network members will also be able torequest multiple copies of information todistribute in their communities., it wasalso suggested that the Network membersbe asked to attend the Council meetings.

Mr. Korsmo reported on the schoolcurriculum project. Over the next fewweeks a wide variety of potentialparticipants for a workshop will becontacted. At the end of the workshop anoutline will be made of what the scope ofthe curriculum should be. The next phasewill be to work on a methodology andactual teaching materials with actualteachers.

Tom Putnam of North Pacific Film andTape reported on the status of the secondpublic service announcement (PSA). Hesaid the PSA should be completed in mid-August. He also reported on the issues

-3-

documentary. It will involve technicalissues of site characterization, 'with theidea that it will 'anticipate the publishing

* of the site characterization plan. The firstcomposite print of this documentary, willbe available December 1. In early 1988 itshould be available to the public.

* PUBLIC COMMENT

Marie Harris of Bacon & Hunt noted thatbecause of the change in agenda format itwas nice to be able to receive. a' statusreport on public, involvement projects.Ms. Harris stated' that she hopes �the statemakes it clear that' the' problem regardingthe lack of funding is not 'with' the low-level 'waste site fees' but with the stategeneral fund.' The' fees generated by thelow-level waste site are sufficient to coveran adequate' monitoring of' the Hanford siteand its radiation activities.

Ms. Harris also suggested contacting theWashington Waste Site Study Group, HealHanford Education Action League, and theAmerican Nuclear Society for the networkparticipant system.

There being no further comment, themeeting recessed to reconvene with theBoard at 1:30 p.m.

-4-