Senator JOHNSTON. Our final witness is Steven Sklar, chairman of the Nuclear Energy Subcommittee of the National Conference of State Legislatures. Mr. Sklar, I believe, is a State legislator from Maryland. Mr. Sklar, we are glad to have you. As a former State legislator. I particularly want to welcome you here. STATEMENT OF STEVEN V. SKLAR, CHAIRMAN, NUCLEAR ENERGY SUBCOMMITTEE, NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES, WASHINGTON, D.C., ACCOMPANIED BY ROBERT MacDOUGAL Mr. SKLAR. I have Robert MacDougal from our staff with me. We certainly enjoy the opportunity to be here today. I personally enjoy the opportunity to share State concerns with not only former State legislators, but also our colleagues who may not have served previously in State government. We do have, as I am sure you are aware, certain State perspectives on this issue of nuclear waste. I am the chairman of our nuclear energy subcommittee of our full energy committee. Just by way of background, the National Conference of State Legislatures is the umbrella organization for the country's 50 State legislatures comprising 7,600 members. Senator JOHNSTON. How are issues in State legislatures transmitted on issues such as this? Mr. SKLAR. We have a State-Federal assembly which has approximately 12 standing committees. Those have members from each of the 50 States on them. They conduct hearings and reach tentative policy positions for the entire national conference. Our energy committee thus has worked very hard and diligently in preparing its position recommendations to the full State general assembly, which have been adopted, by the way, and will become adopted in the next few weeks by the full national conference. As such, I am authorized to speak as spokesman for the policy adopted by the State-Federal assembly of the conference. Senator JOHNSTON. The Federal assembly adopted the resolution at the end of your statement-that is the guide to your statement? Mr. SKLAR. Yes, it is. Senator JOHNSTON. And that was adopted at this conference after debate and consideration? Mr. SKLAR. That is true. Our energy committee has centered since 1974 on nuclear energy problems. More recently we have followed the waste problem because we think it is the pivotal point in the discussion today on the nuclear energy option. Members of our committee have been briefed by officials from the Department of Energy, from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, from Members of Congress as well as members of their staffs, representatives of the industry, and from various public interest groups as well. Some of us have been fortunate enough to visit facilities at Los Alamos, Oak Ridge, as well as some of the sites in Nevada, Idaho. and Hanford centered on nuclear waste specifically. So you can see we have a background in this subject. We also represent a geographical diversity with all 50 States being involved and consequently divergent views. Sometimes it is difficult to dis till. But the attached policy resolution is our work product to date, and that is what I basically will be presenting to you this morning. I have my own personal observations as well, and I have been invited to share them with you, and I will try to make a special note when I am speaking as an individual. I believe that our energy committee has been very cognizant of the problems and of the potential of nuclear power, and we do not in my opinion take very simple views or easy solutions to heart. We have been able to accumulate, I think, a feeling that the nuclear waste problem is not so much a technical one as we feel a political one. We believe that technology has the ability to overcome some of the very serious and legitimate concerns voiced by technical people and by certain proponents to nuclear energy, but we feel as State legislators that the crucial point that needs to be recognized in legislation is the framework for decisionmaking between the Federal Government and the States for siting nuclear waste facilities. Senator JOHNSTON. Would you concur personally or would the State legislators, do you think, concur that the problem of waste disposal technologically is a nonproblem, as former witnesses have said? Mr. SKLAR. I think the general feeling is with my perception is that it is solvable, it is doable, that it is within our grasp today, and that what we need is a statement of purpose and direction by the Federal Government to proceed. On the other hand, we also recognize that at the State level, Mr. Chairman, that we have policies and legislation that can dramatically affect the course of nuclear energy and nuclear waste disposal, and implicit in my remarks today will be a plea to you and to members of your committee that some legislation be forthcoming as soon as possible from this committee to give us at the State level the ammunition and support we need to continue to make responsible State decisions with respect to nuclear waste. I will get to that in just a moment. My personal opinion is that the concern generated by Three Mile Island will eventually subside and that the focus of the American public and the State legislators and local officials will return to the question that was paramount before that incident, that is the question of nuclear waste. I personally feel that this will become as it was in the past a linchpin of the continued viability of nuclear power in this country. While we looked at S. 685 in this context, we were very happy to see that at least there is going to be a mandate to the Department of Energy to get on with it and to come up with the plans, to take a specific site within 1 year and present it to the Congress. What we do see lacking at this point and which could be perhaps addressed in amendments or other legislation through the committee is the concerns that are before us as State legislators, that is, the State-Federal process of decisionmaking and actually siting specific depositories within State jurisdictions. We believe that not only should the policy be expressed in statute form, but it must be perceived as written by a majority of the public. It must be fair, that is, being one that boasts public partici pation, yet one that arrives at a solution that is fair and in some way democratically arrived at. In other words, that process itself is extremely important to the decision that is derived from it, a certain aura of legitimacy as reflected by that decisionmaking process should be an essential ingredient. Now, the question we would like to focus on and which we have for quite a bit is the relationship between Federal and State governments in this allocation of decision, where to locate and how to locate the waste facility. One option is Federal preemption, that is, the Federal Government through an agency or through the President would decide where such a facility goes. Many of my colleagues believe that the Atomic Energy Agency already establishes this Federal preemption in the Federal Government, and don't feel that any legislation is necessary to further clarify or restate this position. Others of us, however, believe that this is not clear and that States have run to fill the vacuum in judicial or legislative interpretation. In any event, we have come to recognize that the so-called Federal preemption option would still be contested by States. It would lead to unnecessary delay in locating a facility, in fact, to spell the doom of a nuclear waste program when States choose not to challenge the Federal preemptive role. The other option that has been stated is giving the States an absolute State veto over decisions affecting the siting of a depository for waste within their borders. That means that the Department of Energy would say, "Do you want it?" and the State would have the ability to say yes or no, and that would be fine. That is an option that our energy committee also has discounted. Strangely enough, those of us who are protective of State rights feel that granting States the absolute veto in the end would mean an inevitable grab by the Federal Government for preemption. The scenario probably goes like this. Politically I think we are realists as politicians. If you gave States absolute authority to say yes or no, it would be unlikely for a State to say yes. If the Governor of that State said yes, there is a good prospect that legislature would override that. And if legislature didn't overturn the Governor's approval, our bet is somebody would petition the question to referendum. It would be extremely difficult to have State voters at a general election say they would prefer to have their State for a site within it become the dumping ground for the nuclear barge of the region. Senator JOHNSTON. Senator Domenici and I have both read your statement, and it is an excellent one, and I congratulate you on it, but we are both anxious to question you because we have a number of questions. [The prepared statement of Mr. Sklar follows:] National Office of 444 North Capitol 202/624-5400 President Jason Boe The Oregon Senate Executive Director STATEMENT BY DELEGATE STEVEN V. SKLAR CHAIRMAN, NCSL SUBCOMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR ENERGY MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE: As CHAIRMAN OF THE NUCLEAR ENERGY SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES, I WANT MY FIVE YEARS ON THE CSL ENERGY COMMITTEE AND IN AS YOU AND I ARE NOW TOO WELL AWARE, THE FATE OF NUCLEAR POWER DEPENDS ON THE PROCESS WE ARE SHAPING TODAY. I PERSONALLY FEEL THAT REACTOR SAFETY CONCERNS IN THE WAKE |