Ch 17 Reports

Right and Fs. You'll get different opinions about why you know this field. My own judgment is that this was a poorly conceived enterprise from the very beginning. As a commercial. My friend Luca on channel 17 reports this week we conclude a two part series on the deadly dilemma here at West Valley. We'll examine the problems facing the massive cleanup of the nuclear garbage. We'll talk to townspeople concerning the economic impact should the facility be phased out prominently which leaves us with one haunting question what will happen to West Valley either with or without its

nuclear waste graveyard. Do we have the technology to solidify the high liquid waste in this tank. Well there are a whole bunch of questions concerning that whether you can actually remove the material from the tank in the first place. That's the first question whether you can get it out of the tank and this kind of tank which is sort of a one of a kind tank. We're not sure that one has the technology to do that. But then if you got it out of the tank is it possible to solidify the material as the technology exists and we feel that one should take the most promising technology available. We think it's absolutely essential that you remove the material as soon as possible from the time. And solidify with the best available technology. And we feel the best available technology is one that they've used in Idaho for some time

called council nation roasting material. The Department of Energy would like to make it into a glass. And we don't feel the technology is available to do that. We were concerned about that process it's a higher temperature process we're concerned that more material will be boiled off and get into the environment. We're also concerned that they are going to use the present reprocessing plant to do that operation. Worker exposures have been so high. We'd like them to build a separate building for the entire operation. Do we have the know how to do. The technology. For the source of creation of that high liquid waste. The problem is as you stated to render the liquid waste into a more manageable for highly radioactive material it is at its most unmanageable when it's liquid. So the problem Problem is the program must be to render those in just a more manageable form. In

this country. There are various programs operated by the federal government for solidifying high level liquid waste so I have personally traveled to Idaho into the state of Washington and personally examined the process is there for rich reviving or solidifying very very similar liquid waste from a liquid to a solid form. Once the liquid is in a solid form it is more easily transportable it is more easily isolated in a secure isolation kind of a facility. And in Europe as well there is reprocessing and solidification high level liquid waste so there are a number of ways to do it to do what has to be done to those liquid wastes. I believe the technology there is reasonable technology that can be applied to this litigation of the waste. A major point of the discussion that seems to go on is whether one has the technology to do it but should you develop improved technology.

At what point should you stop developing or looking for improvements and get on with actually doing the job. Other words this is more of an experimental. This is more or less an experimental process isn't it. Well it depends on how you define experimental If you talk about real basic experimental I would I would dispute that certain experimental from the standpoint it is not the type of thing that's being done on this scale on a day to day basis. However the principles that are involved are fairly well known so I don't put it into the what I would classify as developing brand new experimental technology that one has to wonder if it's really ever going to work work at all. Any question about that. This is a schematic of a solidification project that is going on in the western part of the country and it shows that the process of taking liquid chemical liquid through a callous anation process. And then a solidification

process is a relatively simple process. What complicates it for nuclear radioactive materials is that the boiling off and the reduction in volume of the materials requires some very elaborate what they call off gas system. So you simply can't boil this stuff and let the steam go into the environment so there's a lot of steps involved in protecting many of the materials. But what you write is you reduce the liquid to a form of glass. This is a the non radioactive version of that glass. And once you have it in the glasses form it's far more manageable far easier to use. These processes exist now there in laboratory settings. And the wastes at West Valley are not appreciably different from wastes now being solidified in fact as much waste as there is it West Valley has already been

solidified elsewhere in the country. It's questionable whether they can do that right now it's been done in a laboratory on a large scale. The Department of Energy primary option for doing the work here seems to be occasion they want to use as an experimental facility to see if that actually does work. So then they can go to the millions of gallons of high level ways they have of the weapon and classify them potentially. What about the sludge in the bottom of this tank do we know the chemical or physical make up of this sludge. No there hasn't been a test. There has been no test and they have to design equipment that can test the sludge that hasn't been done yet. They don't know whether it's. You know just sort of muddy or whether it's heart like cement you know the physical composition they don't even know that. In other words are experimenting and this so-called 10 year plan to clean up this area yesterday experimenting with this.

And if the methods work then they'll use them at some of the government facilities. I understand there are about 100 20000 tons of sludge at the bottom of this tank. What happens when the liquid is removed from the sludge. Will it create any dangerous. Radiation or overheating of any kind. Well there is work underway now that's examining within the tank what the nature is of the liquid. And there is some concern that. The mixture has thickened at the bottom. However there is at least one place in this country where they've developed a successful technique for extracting the heavier sludge from a tank and bringing it over to a classification process. My examination. Of these matters and I'm trained as a lawyer not as a as a scientist or an engineer. Is that the mechanical

ability to remove these materials from the tank and put them into a glass or for cation or solidification processing facility. Does exist it's expensive. It's difficult. But it can be done. The federal government in fact does it now. Defense facilities. OK so we take out the liquid and we get out the sludge. Where do we bury it. That is a question for West Valley as it is for the entire country. There is now now operating anywhere in this country a repository program. One of our biggest fears is that what they're going to do is we're going to come on here with the food of the living not going to they're not going to be compatible with the repository to put them in you know which they're worth even if they do have a point repository maybe

worry about classified way. One of the reasons we're going to repository and are repositories is a primer but salt cracks cracked the roadway right. So if they do come up with a repository of their permit option and we have these big blocks here we have no place to put it. OK that's one of the reasons the group I work with a coalition with the nuclear waste site at the time. The townspeople have plenty of opinions on the NFF plant. Some folks don't like it and never have. Others have faith in the facility. Safety is a big concern but there is another side to the story. The economic factor and

FS now for it's a pretty big tax bill that helps keep the community going. All of that. Ends. If the company goes out. You're beat What is the general consensus of your parishioners over this. I think. There are some who are against anything there they want to clean up the commission. There are others who are in the middle don't care one way or the other. There are others who would like to see the thing operating and viable again. And I think at least from the feedback I get there is a consensus if you would say that our parishioners are aware of the other as a majority. Here. Economically if the plant stays closed. Well according to the contract if nuclear fuels. Abandon the site they use it in quotation marks. The tax base will

be very. Very seriously injured in the community and in the school district. To the point where there are various figures I can't recall them right offhand. So around 30 35 percent of our tax base will disappear. And of course this is going to make it very difficult for the remaining people unless somebody takes up the slack. What is your greatest worry here. Well I guess at the present time is the economic factor that might result in the economic burdens to the community should we. Be faced with the total loss of the facility. What is your greatest worry here at West Valley. I'm concerned about two things and my posture in the board's posture has been we're concerned with the safety of our students. Another concern that the board has and that is that I have been many of our people have asked to

do with the tax structure. Now last year we received seventy nine thousand four hundred eighty four dollars. From the nuclear fuels tax rate. They presently pay sixteen point four percent of our tax. If an FS leaves and when an FS leaves we're not clear as to whether the state of New York or the federal government is going to subsidize us to any degree. So beyond the safety issue we're also concerned with the dollars. Many feel there's a great danger here what is your feeling. Well the danger to me exist is. Great now I have never seen any. Evidence that the danger does exist these dangers are all around us. But if it's. Seems to be monitored properly it seems to have the proper supervision. And so far I

haven't seen personally any evidence of any danger that would excite me. But I don't think there's any question that there may be you know hazards or maybe a danger with the track record of the company seems to be relatively clear clean. I can see the plant from my bathroom window every morning. I haven't lost any sleep. Are you aware of any specific hazards out here. This is. The reason I don't know whether we're aware of the hazard. I mean we know if something should ever go wrong with it we would definitely have a health hazard. I mean we know enough about radiation that we realize it's going to affect us but we don't know who or when or how something is going to happen. Plant I mean we don't know what they would tell it if we

did complain. Do you have any kind of a contingency plan to get out of here. How do I mean by the time I mean the proximity of our operation with the plant is quote by a time something did happen. I doubt if we even have time to get out I mean within a mile I mean how would you buy a time you left you'd be contaminated anyway. You might better sit tight and not contaminate somebody else. Are you aware of any health hazards anyone being ill or any Herge been affected. Well there were times when some farmers felt maybe that they had breathing problems because of it. But there's no way that you can. Say that stock is affected by it because unlike dioxin you can't put your finger on anything you can't smell

it you can't taste it you can't feel it is there. Would you like to see the plant reopened in any particular capacity. That's a hard question to answer of course I'd like to economically I'd like to see the plant reopened do I think it would generate. The monies into areas that aren't here now or aren't available now of course it would affect everybody in the area. But the prime concern and I think it's on everybody's mind is the safety of it if it could be operated in a safe manner with the assurance that it is going to be safe. Yes I would really like to see it open up again. Would you like to see the plant reopened in any particular facet. I haven't my own personal feeling that. This country needs a nuclear power. I'm against nuclear waste. I'm for nuclear power but unfortunately you can't have it both ways. There's a tremendous investment and as a taxpayer I'm concerned with what goes on.

If it can be reopened if they can maintain safety we can maintain their tax base. That's the best of all possible worlds. What would your feeling be if a permanent nuclear garbage dump site was created here. If it were monitored and if there were no if there was no danger. I would have no objections. I think it would devastate the whole area as far as people would be. Just the opinions of people would be so that there'd be ill feelings in the community I think because there's so many people on both sides of the fence. And myself personally although we just can't pick up and move. It would scare me. Why do you stay here. Where else do we go. You can't just pick up and go purchase property someplace else everything so expensive now if you've got your house paid for you feel that that's where you've got

to stay. How would you feel if they made nuclear systems a national dumping ground for nuclear garbage. I feel that I would get out of here get the best that I could get when we were thinking now of even buying land somewhere else to get away from the Wizard duel between the state and federal government. We're by Uncle Sam would clean up this mess in return for having a West Valley as a permanent burial ground for this nuclear that. Well there was talk of that last year my thinking now is that there is no deal and there's no conversations going on between Albany and Washington that would that would. Push such an arrangement. But there were definite conversations a year ago between then secretary and our energy commissioner Jim Rocca that would have done just that. That would have said the federal government would pick up the tremendous cost some people say as much as a billion dollars. Of the decontamination. The nuclear waste at West Valley

a federal expense than if the federal government this was a trade off could use the already contaminated ground of West value as an am far and away from reactor storage site for nuclear waste for the whole northeast and through some negotiations and some hearings and some legislation. That was busted. So I think that the state has made great progress in the last year. Whatever happened to your earlier announced agreement in principle. Whereby the state. Would make a deal with the federal government the federal government would. Pay for the operation and in return. Allow them to bring in nuclear waste. To West Valley on a permanent basis. That was never a deal such as you just described. What there was was and agreement by the federal government

to assume a major responsibility for cleaning up West Valley and that responsibility is now being perfected and is the subject of an amendment in the in the Congress and so forth. That was the agreement. In making that agreement the federal government said. At the same time we would ask the state of New York to consider two possibilities run the use of the spent fuel storage pool and to have a low level burial ground. Since that time the federal government has expressed that it has very little or no interest in the spent fuel storage pool. It is too small and it is too complicated by these other problems out there. And with regard to the lower level burial the federal government continues to say the state of New York. You're producing our proud nuclear waste from nuclear power and other programs. The place you send in Barnwell South Carolina is going to be closing itself to you over the next couple years. That you the state of New York ought to be looking at West Valley as a possibility for

dealing with this problem of low level waste which is going to be there no matter what. That was not. The position of the federal government of coercion or of quid pro quo. The there are letters exchanges with Secretary Slesinger in the news. The new secretary Secretary Duncan in which they make it perfectly clear that their commitment to participate as the major responsible party for the clean up of the high level liquid waste is not conditioned upon our participation in any other program or our acceptance of any other waste. We are under no such obligation. How do you feel is responsible for the cleanup. Well we think there's a there's a shared responsibility. The state right now is asking the federal government to to handle the cleanup task and to pay the bill. The federal government is really all of us. So we're all going to have to pay for that cleanup. I mean

we're either going to pay for the state or we're going to pay if we're the federal government we think getting oil has a responsibility too. We don't think the site has been left in good condition and it's required by their contract. What is the responsibility of New York State for cleaning up. And Fs. The responsibility becomes New York State's. Under a contract which was signed in the early 60s because between then Governor Rockefeller. And nuclear fuel services means that in the end the last day of this year it all accrues to the state buildings and the. And the residue meaning the nuclear waste and all of that and I my own personal opinion is that that will never happen the contract will go into effect. But the recent decision by the Department of Energy and the appropriation which is working itself through Congress means to me that the federal government is finally realizing that and that if ever there was a

role for federal policy it's with nuclear waste and it's with radioactive problems and so on. So I think they will come in and be responsible for a certain portion of this waste and I think that the contract again has some language in it. For instance it says that the state can refuse to accept it. It's there unless it is in good condition. As I so I think that Commissioner Rocca has some good arguing legal argument points. If it is turned over it's not in good condition and there's some some evidence that that's the case. What happens to the good condition clause signed by an FS will they be held responsible for leaving the facility the way it was when they got there. Well the nature of the agreements between the state and FS is very very complex and the nature of their determination of any lease or obligations are very complex. They are there under a lease which

expires at the end of 1980. And by operation of the lease at the end of their term they they are entitled to turn the facility over to the state of New York or to the youth Research Authority. Never before they can do that. They must conform with very detailed defined conditions that amount to good condition of the facility. In my view they are not able to do that. Because they have not performed all of their tasks under the agreements. For example the level of contamination of radioactivity within the facility has not been brought down to the level that the agreements require before they can depart. They are obliged under the agreements to decontaminate decommissioning the reprocessing plant to a condition consistent with industrial practice. They have not done this nor are they prepared to do it. So there are a number

of things that have not yet performed which will prevent their. Meeting the good condition requirement. As a landlord. What happens to the lease. At the end of the year. We're not going to permit this operator to leave. Without informing and complying with every one of their obligations under the law and under the agreements and. I think we will have the support of the federal government that regard as well. Our government expects that these operators will perform as they have been obliged to for the lease can be extended carried over or so long as they are in tenancy while they attempt to meet their obligations. What do you feel is a solution to the problem here. Close it up and do everything possible. Who could pad decontaminate or

decommission the plant in the area regardless of cost. Well I would like to see the liquid waste solidified removed and disposed of and I would like to see my personal being opened as a medical medical dumping site for medical waste in the NE part of United States. I would say get rid of the high level waste. By whatever technical means they come to. I think it needs a great deal of study is aware of the role of the planet ever operates reprocessing again. I have a fear in some of the things I read that regardless of what the emotions are I think we're going to have to go with nuclear power in your future as a stopgap. Not for the long haul but in the near future. I think the immediate solution to the problem because most people are concerned about the liquid waste that was valid is to solidify the waste and that eliminates or

apparently eliminates their concern about the fact that the material can get out although in Xscape into the environment there's been a lot of studies that indicate that that's not true and the fact that the liquid waste being there is quite safe in people who are knowledgeable in this area and have really spent a taken the time to really evaluate what the hazards are. If I would have no problem pitching a tent alongside the high level waste tanks in an accepting them as is. However to to to be in conformity with current regulations I don't think there's any question that the material should be solidified and neutralise lit a fire then it would be a separate determination as to where that material would be stored. I didn't deny it. I think it hasn't been handled well in the past. Promises have been made that haven't been fulfilled. You know levels of radiation that got into the environment never should have happened were exposures never should have happened and now a mess has been left on the site. You know for six years operation a mess

has been left on the side that will last forever. And. I don't know if you know that's what nuclear power has in store for us but I think that problem has to be that the situation has to be cleaned up. And our two part series on West Valley. We've tried to outline a clear picture of the nuclear waste facility and the problems it's facing. But the story is far from over. Some very important decisions will have to be made as to the future of the site. Decisions that affect the lives of countless western New Yorkers. A public hearing is to be held in West Valley tomorrow. It's part of the effort by the state to everyone's opinion. Whatever the outcome we hope it will lead to a solid solution. The West Valley the deadly dilemma.