MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS Sixty-eighth Session April 25, 1995 The Committee on Government Affairs was called to order at 8:00 a.m., on Tuesday, April 25, 1995, Chairman Douglas A. Bache presiding in Room 330 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Douglas A. Bache, Chairman Mrs. Joan A. Lambert, Chairman Mrs. Deanna Braunlin, Vice Chairman Mr. P.M. Roy Neighbors, Vice Chairman Mr. Max Bennett Mrs. Marcia de Braga Mr. Pete Ernaut Mr. William Z. (Bill) Harrington Ms. Saundra (Sandi) Krenzer Mr. Dennis Nolan Mrs. Gene Wines Segerblom Ms. Patricia A. Tripple Mr. Wendell P. Williams COMMITTEE MEMBERS EXCUSED: Mrs. Vivian L. Freeman GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Assemblyman Joseph E. Dini, Jr., District 38 STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Ms. Denice Miller, Senior Research Analyst OTHERS PRESENT: Assemblyman Joseph E. Dini, Jr., District 38, Speaker of the Nevada Assembly; Ms. Marlene Lockard, State Director for United States Senator Richard H. Bryan; Ms. Michon Mackedon, Vice Chairman, Nevada Commission on Nuclear Projects; Ms. Frankie Sue Del Pappa, Attorney General, State of Nevada; Mr. Bob Fulkerson; Ms. Marjorie Sill testified; Ms. M. Lee Dazey, Citizen Alert; Ms. Paula Berkley, Reno-Sparks Indian Colony; Mr. Joseph Johnson, The Sierra Club; Mr. Harold Rogers, Co-Chairman for Northern Nevada, Nevada Nuclear Waste Study Committee; Mr. Steven Alstuey (See also Exhibit B attached hereto). ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 26 - Expresses vehement opposition to storage of radioactive waste in Nevada. Assemblyman Joseph E. Dini, Jr., District 38, Speaker of the Nevada Assembly, testified by reading from prepared text (Exhibit C). Mr. Dini declared the majority of Nevadans were vehemently opposed to the storage or disposal of high-level radioactive waste or spent nuclear reactor fuel in Nevada. He advised, in the 1989 legislative session, the legislature and the Governor took firm action to oppose such storage or disposal. He contended there were those who wished to believe Nevada's position on these matters was softening and suggested the legislature's recent debate, concerning the reactions of the Governor and Nevada's attorney general to resolutions adopted by Lincoln County and the city of Caliente, which might encourage disposal of nuclear waste in Nevada, had provided some basis for such a belief. He asserted the legislature must now make a clear and unanimous statement to reaffirm its opposition to the storage and disposal of high-level nuclear waste products in Nevada. He urged the committee to support the adoption of A.J.R. 26. Assemblyman Bennett disclosed he was a contractor for the nuclear test site in Nevada but said he was not involved with the Yucca Mountain project and had no conflict of interest with respect to A.J.R. 26. Ms. Marlene Lockard, State Director for United States Senator Richard H. Bryan, testified on behalf of Senator Bryan by reading a written statement by Senator Bryan (Exhibit D). In his written statement, Senator Bryan expressed strong support for A.J.R. 26. He said Nevada's opposition to efforts to bury poisonous waste in Nevada was paying off and stated not even the nuclear power industry could claim, plausibly, that a high-level nuclear waste repository would be built at Yucca Mountain. He contended the Yucca Mountain project had been badly mismanaged and was not based on sound, objective, scientific principles. He advised Nevada was chosen as the site for a high-level nuclear waste repository because Nevada was viewed as politically weak and the citizens of Nevada were perceived as "...willing to sacrifice the health and safety of future generations for a few dollars in what the industry calls `benefits.'" He asserted there were no benefits which would entice Nevadans to risk the health and safety of future generations. Senator Bryan, in his written statement, said the nuclear power industry had identified Nevada as its chosen site for an interim storage facility. He explained an interim storage facility would be licensed for 100 years, with the possibility of its license being renewed, and suggested such a facility could not be viewed as a temporary facility. He advised, in 1980, Senator Bennett Johnston claimed, if away-from-reactor storage facilities were not constructed, the shutting down of civilian nuclear reactors could commence by 1983. He pointed out no nuclear reactors had ever been shut down because of the lack of such storage facilities. He suggested the fact some nuclear power plants had built on-site dry storage facilities made it clear there were solutions to the nuclear power industry's waste problems which did not include Nevada. In his written statement, Senator Bryan advised Nevada's congressional delegation was united in opposing interim storage of nuclear waste in Nevada and both President Clinton and Governor Miller had gone on record as being opposed to such storage. He suggested, by adopting A.J.R. 26, the legislature would send the unambiguous message to Washington and to the nuclear power industry that "...Nevada wants no part of any solution to the nuclear power industry's high level waste problem." He urged the committee to approve A.J.R. 26. Mr. Bennett advised he did not believe the first two paragraphs of A.J.R. 26 should be included in the resolution and asked whether Ms. Lockard would object to those paragraphs being deleted. Ms. Lockard replied Senator Bryan believed strongly that the legislature needed to reaffirm its opposition to the locating of a nuclear waste repository in Nevada and indicated, as long as language to that effect was contained in A.J.R. 26, both she and Senator Bryan would be pleased with the resolution. Assemblyman Nolan said he supported A.J.R. 26 but suggested there was also a need to address the possibility of attempts to store hazardous and toxic materials other than nuclear waste in Nevada. Assemblyman Lambert suggested some of the language in A.J.R. 26 was more flowery than it was professional and asked if Ms. Lockard would object or believed Senator Bryan would object to A.J.R. 26 being amended to include more facts and more professional language. Ms. Lockard indicated neither she nor Senator Bryan would object and said they would be happy to work with the committee on any language changes it proposed. Chairman Bache observed, over the years, Senator Bryan had supported "...many of the positive nuclear activities of the test site..." and said he assumed Senator Bryan still did. Ms. Lockard replied affirmatively. Mr. Bennett asked if Senator Bryan had taken any position with respect to the tritium accelerator. Ms. Lockard indicated Senator Bryan would make a statement with respect to tritium soon. Assemblyman Dini gave further testimony. He referred to Mr. Bennett's question concerning the possible deletion of the first two paragraphs of A.J.R. 26 and suggested, although the first paragraph might be superfluous, he felt strongly the statement of principal contained in the second paragraph, that the majority of Nevadans opposed a nuclear waste repository being located in Nevada, needed to be expressed. He declared there was great beauty in Nevada, which should be protected, and it was desirable to make it known that Nevada was not a barren, waste area but, rather, a beautiful state. Assemblyman Ernaut said he echoed Mr. Dini's sentiments and believed the second paragraph of A.J.R. 26 to be integral to the resolution. Assemblyman Segerblom said she agreed with Mr. Dini and advised 90 percent of her constituents were opposed to a nuclear waste repository being located in Nevada. Assemblyman de Braga commented the second paragraph of A.J.R. 26 was the strongest part of the resolution but suggested the first paragraph could be either reworded or eliminated. Ms. Michon Mackedon, Vice Chairman, Nevada Commission on Nuclear Projects, testified. She urged the committee to act expeditiously to recommend to the full assembly that A.J.R. 26 be adopted. She declared she could not emphasize sufficiently the importance, at this time, of sending a clear and unambiguous message to congress and to the national administration reaffirming Nevada's policy of unified opposition to the storage or disposal of high-level radioactive waste in Nevada. She suggested the recent debate held in both houses of the legislature about Lincoln County's invitation to locate an interim storage facility for spent nuclear fuel in Nevada and over Nevada's attorney general's response to that action could be misinterpreted as a weakening of the legislature's opposition to storage of nuclear waste in Nevada. Ms. Mackedon said, in 1987, the legislature passed a measure which created Bullfrog County out of certain areas around Yucca Mountain. She said, although that measure was not intended to indicate support for the project to create a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, it was used as evidence that Nevada's opposition to the locating of a repository for nuclear waste in Nevada was not as great as it might appear to be. She contended, at the present time, any indication that Nevada was softening its opposition to the storage of nuclear waste in Nevada would be seized upon and misrepresented in order to serve the special interests of the nuclear industry. Ms. Mackedon advised recent revelations about "...possible explosive criticality of the Yucca Mountain repository..." combined with an increasing recognition of "...the massive national scope of waste transportation to any national facility..." had created a basis for concern by the public and by the media. She indicated, over the past four months, there had been scores of editorials in newspapers throughout the United States calling for a change in federal policy and for "rethinking" of the concept of nuclear waste being stored in Nevada. She provided a group of copies of newspaper articles (Exhibit E). Ms. Mackedon emphasized the need to make it understood Nevada remained united in its opposition to "...the unfair, unscientific and dangerous federal approach to nuclear waste management..." and again urged that the legislature adopt A.J.R. 26. Mr. Bennett asked Ms. Mackedon why Richland, Washington, one of three sites originally considered as possible locations for a nuclear waste repository, was deemed unfit, scientifically, as a location for such a repository. Ms. Mackedon stated, in 1987, a member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said, originally, the only type of rock formation deemed suitable for the storage of high-level nuclear waste was granite. She advised, in general, the only parts of the United States where granite formations were located were in the northeastern portion of the United States. She contended those portions of the United States were exempted from consideration as possible locations for a nuclear waste repository because of the tremendous political influence of the senators from Maine, New Hampshire and Massachusetts. She asserted consideration of possible sites for nuclear waste repositories had never been based on geological suitability, rather, had been based on politics. She suggested Yucca Mountain was chosen as a site because of its proximity to the nuclear test site in Nevada, because of the perception Nevada was too weak to oppose storage of high level nuclear waste in Nevada, and because congress perceived the western part of the United States as a wasteland. Mr. Bennett asked Ms. Mackedon whether it was granite rock formations or volcanic rock formations which the Nuclear Regulatory Commission had said were the only rock formations suitable for the storage of high-level nuclear waste. Ms. Mackedon replied it was volcanic rock formations. Discussions were held between Mr. Bennett and Ms. Mackedon about the quality of the granite formations in Yucca Mountain. Mr. Bennett said "You mentioned the Los Alamos theory on criticality. That is based on the assumption...that the fuel is weapons-grade plutonium...but, also, to make a weapon and have criticality and have a nuclear explosion...you need a set geometric configuration, and the odds of this happening are very extreme." He asked, "So why the pseudo science and why the scare tactics on your side." Ms. Mackedon replied, "I suppose it's a question of semantics, but I would say it's not pseudo science." She said the power of explosives and the damage which could be created by criticality was known and data with respect to health radiation physics had been obtained as a result of the use of nuclear weapons. She maintained, until science had proven beyond a doubt that storage of high-level nuclear waste was safe, the risk involved in such storage was one which could not be taken. She said the present issue was not necessarily that of Yucca Mountain but, rather, was that of the temporary storage of high-level nuclear waste and contended the risk to southern Nevada and to the entire country involved in shipping nuclear waste for the purpose of such storage was unacceptable. Mr. Bennett asked whether Ms. Mackedon was aware of the natural uranium mine in west Africa. Ms. Mackedon responded affirmatively. Mr. Bennet advised a natural (nuclear) reaction had occurred in that mine 1.5 million years ago and indicated residual plutonium from that reaction had migrated only 10 feet since the reaction occurred. Ms. Mackedon suggested Yucca Mountain represented an entirely different scientific situation and discussed her concerns about storage of nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain. Mr. Bennett referred to Ms. Mackedon's testimony regarding newspaper editorials on the subject of storage of nuclear waste. Mr. Bennett said the media campaign he had observed was generated by those in Nevada who were given money by the federal government to "...host their own scientific oversight..." and who had used the money to hire a media consultant to "...scare the people." He asked Ms. Mackedon to respond to what he had said. Ms. Mackedon replied, "...your scare tactics are my risk factors." Ms. Frankie Sue Del Pappa, Attorney General, State of Nevada, testified. She advised Deputy Attorney General Harry Swainston was present with her. She urged that the legislature continue to vigorously oppose facilities for storage or disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste being located in Nevada. She advised events in recent months had reduced the likelihood Yucca Mountain could be licensed as a storage facility to less than 50 percent. She discussed recent scientific disclosures which she maintained strengthened the position that Yucca Mountain was not a suitable site for a nuclear waste storage facility. She declared Nevada must continue its adamant opposition to high-level radioactive waste storage in Nevada unless there were: absolute confidence such a facility could be safely operated; a high level of trust and confidence in the entities charged with such operation; and a site for such a facility which was suitable beyond question. She contended stigmatization, negative imagery and perceptions of risk were inherent byproducts of nuclear waste and were incompatible with Nevada's need to maintain a good image. Ms. Del Pappa urged the committee to support A.J.R. 26. Mr. Bob Fulkerson testified. He advised he supported A.J.R. 26. He said congress was besieged with new proposals which would make it easier to "dump" nuclear waste in Nevada. He declared A.J.R. 26 addressed those new proposals in a manner in which none of the bills or resolutions passed by previous legislatures had done. He stated A.J.R. 26 was needed to prevent anyone receiving the wrong message from the debate held in the legislature (regarding the actions of Lincoln County and the city of Caliente). He contended Nevada was playing an historic role in the development of nuclear waste policy and the world looked to Nevada to develop programs for disposal of nuclear waste which were based upon science rather than politics. Ms. Marjorie Sill testified. She stated she was very much in favor of A.J.R. 26. She advised, in the 1970's, her husband, who was a professor of physics at the University of Nevada, addressed a legislative committee and expressed his opposition to bringing nuclear waste into Nevada. She said his opposition was based upon his knowledge as a physicist and upon his concern about transportation of nuclear waste. She pointed out those facilities which generated nuclear waste were neither in nor near Nevada and reiterated previous testimony that the choice of Nevada as the site for storage of nuclear waste was not based upon science but was a political decision. Ms. Sill declared the problem of transporting nuclear waste was a very serious one. She contended, at the present time, on-site, dry-cast storage of nuclear waste was the safest solution to the problem of storing nuclear waste and utilizing such storage would provide time to do the research needed to determine whether a permanent repository for nuclear waste was necessary and where and how to create such a repository. Ms. M. Lee Dazey, Citizen Alert, testified by reading from prepared text (Exhibit F). She advised the signatures of 270 Nevadans who supported A.J.R. 26 were attached to her written testimony (Exhibit F). She reiterated previous testimony regarding the need to correct any misconception about Nevada's position regarding locating a nuclear waste disposal facility in Nevada which the events surrounding Lincoln County's action might have created. She indicated she was glad to see a description of Nevada's treasures included in A.J.R. 26 and described the beauty she had recently witnessed near the Nevada Test Site. She stated Citizen Alert urged the swift adoption of A.J.R. 26. Ms. Paula Berkley, Reno-Sparks Indian Colony, testified. She stated the Reno- Sparks Indian Colony supported A.J.R. 26. She advised, during the past six years, she had attended inter-tribal council meetings and had seen numerous resolutions, which the councils had written to the federal government, expressing objection to Yucca Mountain. She said the Indian tribes objected to any vehicles carrying nuclear waste passing through Indian reservations. She stated most of the Indian colonies would wish her to express their support of A.J.R. 26. Mr. Joseph Johnson, The Sierra Club, testified. He said, "I'd like to go on record as supporting this resolution." Assemblyman Ernaut, District 37, testified. He expressed support for A.J.R. 26. He declared he had been opposed to the nuclear waste repository from the inception of his involvement in politics but indicated the basis for his opposition was different from that of many others. He suggested the debate about storage of nuclear waste centered primarily on the safety of such storage. He said, "To me, the bigger question is the precedent or legacy that we have...due to the fact that, I think, the D.O.E. has used...a strategy of scorched earth, saying that, basically, since we have the test site near the area and now Yucca Mountain...that land is good for nothing else, so that it would be scorched earth." He said, aside from the issue of the safety of storing nuclear waste, he opposed the proposed repository for nuclear waste because, if such a repository was permitted in Nevada, "...the precedent that we set for our grandchildren is an even more codified case for scorched earth." He suggested, in the future, there might be substances which would create even greater fear for the people of Nevada than that created by nuclear waste and said he did not wish to leave as his political epitaph "...that grandpa gave us the dump." Mr. Ernaut suggested lines 1 through 7 of A.J.R. 26 should be deleted in order to make A.J.R. 26 a stronger resolution. Mr. Bennett commented, after the Baneberry test was held at the Nevada Test Site, in December, 1970, a containment evaluation panel was created to oversee each test conducted at the Nevada Test Site. He said he had acted as an advisor to that panel. He explained the amount of radiation to which he was exposed was measured, quarterly, and said, while he was working at the Nevada Test site, that measurement was lower than it had been with respect to any other job he had held. He declared, "I do resent the scorched earth policy statement." Mr. Ernaut asked if the statement Mr. Bennett said he resented was the statement made by the Department of Energy. Mr. Bennett replied affirmatively. Mr. Harold Rogers, Co-Chairman for Northern Nevada, Nevada Nuclear Waste Study Committee, testified by reading from prepared text (Exhibit G). He advised the Nevada Nuclear Waste Study Committee had approximately 15,000 members. He said he had worked for General Electric Company's nuclear energy divisions for approximately 26 years, which work included working as a nuclear licensing engineer. He explained, as a nuclear licensing engineer, he was responsible for preparing documentation required to relicense the operation of an independent spent fuel storage facility located approximately 50 miles southwest of Chicago. He advised that facility was an interim storage facility, was presently in operation and contained roughly 700 tons of spent fuel. He said the facility was a water storage facility, similar to those located in each of the nuclear power plants in the United States. He said he was also involved in licensing the IF 300 shipping cask, presently used to move spent fuel to various locations in the United States. He declared thousands of "...spent fuel assemblies..." had been moved throughout the world and contended there had never been a release of radiation from any of those spent fuel shipments. Mr. Rogers advised the Nevada Nuclear Waste Study Committee was formed to ensure citizens of Nevada had the opportunity to monitor and influence the Department of Energy's study of Yucca Mountain as a site for the disposal of high- level nuclear waste and spent nuclear fuel. He indicated the committee obtained funding for its activities from the nuclear power industry. He stated, as an organization, the committee neither advocated nor opposed the study of Yucca Mountain although some individual members of the committee opposed disposal of nuclear waste in Nevada and some welcomed it. He advised, personally, he was opposed to geologic disposal of spent nuclear fuel. He contended 98 percent of such spent fuel was reusable and was too valuable to be disposed of. He said all members of the committee wished to be sure the final decision (regarding disposal of nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain) was based on sound scientific study. He declared, "We share a strong consensus that Nevada should benefit from the study and from the final and interim facilities if those should be located here." He suggested the position taken by Nevada's government might have caused Nevada to lose those benefits. He asserted, for more than 10 years, Nevada's government had maintained "...a bull headed opposition to the program that was mandated by congress." He stated, during that time, Nevada had not raised a single issue which might seriously affect the outcome of the study of Yucca Mountain. He said Nevada had been successful in delaying the study and, thereby, in increasing its cost and contended Nevada's state government needed to recognize that 10 years of deliberate obstructionism would result in repercussions. He suggested Nevada could not prevent congress from imposing its will on the state of Nevada. He declared he opposed A.J.R. 26. Mr. Nolan said he understood the concept for the design of a nuclear waste repository was to design a facility in which spent nuclear fuel could be stored for 10,000 years. He advised he recently read an article which indicated technology had been developed, in Europe, to reuse spent nuclear fuel and asked whether Mr. Rogers had any knowledge of that technology. Mr. Rogers responded the technology used in Europe was originally developed in the United States and could be used in the United States. He said a facility for reprocessing nuclear fuel was established in South Carolina and was about to commence operation when the President made the decision "...we wouldn't reprocess fuel and, thereby, not segregating the plutonium that's in the fuel. Then other countries would follow suit and they wouldn't produce plutonium either." He indicated other countries failed to stop producing plutonium. Ms. de Braga asked what Mr. Rogers' opinion would be of locating a nuclear waste repository in Nevada if there was no hope of Nevada receiving any monetary benefit from such a repository being located in Nevada. Mr. Rogers said his opinion would remain the same. He declared he never said he wanted such a repository in Nevada but said he saw no reason, at the present time, why such a repository should not be located in Nevada. Ms. de Braga suggested, if a reason why such a repository should not be located at Yucca Mountain was discovered after such a repository was placed there, it might be too late. Mr. Rogers said, "One of the things that we found in operating the interim storage facility out there is that it is a very benign operation. The fuel doesn't do anything. It just sits there." He indicated spent fuel, which had cooled for several years, was not as highly radioactive as it was, originally, and was a relatively benign substance with respect to its storage. Further discussions were held between Ms. de Braga and Mr. Rogers. Mr. Bennett asked whether the health risk posed by uranium was incurred through radiation or through ingestion. Mr. Rogers replied neither plutonium nor uranium posed a health hazard unless it was ingested. He advised 25 technicians and engineers had worked with plutonium in the early days of its use, when it was carried by hand. He said those technicians and engineers were contaminated and those who were still alive were "...carrying a heavy body burden of plutonium..." but none had contracted cancer. He contended the danger of plutonium was greatly exaggerated. He stated the Transuranium Registry kept records concerning all individuals contaminated by uranium and anyone interested in information about how those individuals were affected by that contamination could obtain information from the registry. Mr. Bennett asked whether the current design for a nuclear waste repository would allow spent fuel rods to be retrieved from the repository. Mr. Rogers replied the current design was in a state of flux. He said discussions were being held as to whether or not a repository should be backfilled. He explained, if a repository was backfilled, it would be very difficult to retrieve spent fuel but, if the repository was not backfilled, it would be much easier to retrieve spent fuel. Mrs. Segerblom asked whether Mr. Rogers thought allowing nuclear waste to be stored in Nevada would send the wrong message to Nevada's main industry, tourism. Mr. Rogers replied in the negative. He gave examples of the apparent attraction nuclear accidents, nuclear tests and spent fuel facilities had for tourists. Chairman Bache commented Mr. Rogers indicated he believed spent nuclear fuel to be relatively safe. Chairman Bache asked why, then, the other 49 states of the United States were not negotiating with the federal government to receive economic benefits by having a nuclear waste repository located in their state. Mr. Rogers replied other states did not want such a repository for the same reason Nevada did not want it, which he contended was because they did not understand it and were afraid of it. Mr. Steven Alstuey testified by reading from prepared text (Exhibit H). Mr. Alstuey said he supported A.J.R. 26 because it emphasized Nevada's ecologic and resource assets, which must be protected from toxic contamination. He pointed out Nevada's economy depended upon attracting visitors and said its residents must be assured of their health and safety. He declared the economic benefits to be derived from constructing a nuclear waste repository were of short duration when compared to the benefits to be derived from excluding nuclear waste. He suggested any possible refining of the process to recycle nuclear fuel must occur while existing nuclear waste was kept in above-ground, on-site, dry-cask storage rather than while it was stored underground, where it would be susceptible to the whims of nature. Chairman Bache closed the hearing on A.J.R. 26. Chairman Bache advised the subcommittee on A.J.R. 26 would hold a hearing on April 29, 1995, at 1:00 p.m., in the Grant Sawyer State Office Building in Las Vegas. Chairman Bache updated the committee on the situation concerning White Pine County School District. B.D.R. No. 48-2002 - Makes various changes relating to Colorado River Commission. ASSEMBLYMAN BRAUNLIN MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF B.D.R. 48-2002. ASSEMBLYMAN NOLAN SECONDED THE MOTION. Mrs. Segerblom asked whether the bill to be drafted was desired by the Colorado River Commission. Mr. Ernaut replied it was. Assemblyman Neighbors asked the purpose of the proposed bill. Mr. Ernaut replied, "It basically revises provisions where it takes, for lack of a better word, plumbing out of the Colorado River Commission and puts it under the purview of the Southern Nevada Water Authority." There being no further discussion on B.D.R. 48-2002, Chairman Bache called for a vote on the motion before the committee. THE MOTION CARRIED. There being no further business to come before the committee, Chairman Bache adjourned the meeting at 9:35 a.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Sara Kaufman, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Assemblyman Douglas A. Bache, Chairman Assemblyman Joan A. Lambert, Chairman Assembly Committee on Government Affairs April 25, 1995 Page