LC 12%. 1:8/(Z ; 1 Issue Brief E .5 1',‘ K E -2*‘t‘*I3§-.--- . f"z"\-1’: '=~ . . ,. ’/‘§J/gf4;:~>.§",";’5"»,'§.“.,-' 3 -‘~x-.;-_-‘»:q_"fi ,. < -~~'» 5,H-1J1 ,*.*£:':--i::~: NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS: STATE/FEDERAL CONTROL ISSUE BRIEF NUMBER IB77035i AUTHOR: Parker, Larry B. Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE MAJOR ISSUES SYSTEM DATE ORIGINATED 04/ll/77 DATE UPDATED ll;O578l FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CALL 287-5700 1106 CRS- l IB77035 UPDATE=ll/O5/81 SSUE DEFINITION With the commercial use of nuclear power expanding in the United States, some State governments are showing interest in further control over siting, construction, and operation of nuclear power plants and related nuclear facilities. Some of this interest is in response to pub1ic interest groups» who oppose nuclear power because they judge its risks to the public and the environment to be unacceptable. However, the States are now preempted from .regulating radiological health and safety aspects of nuclear power plants; these are regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. At issue is whether and in what ways Congress should change the present Federal preemption. BACKGROUND AND POLICY ANALYSIS Present State Control of Atomic Energy. State governments now exercise controls over siting of both nuclear and conventional power plants. A utility must obtain various State and local authorization permits, certificates of necessity, and zoning or land use approvals for electric power plants. At present, State governments cannot regulate the design, construction, or operation of nuclear power reactors. They also cannot set standards for emission of radioactive wastes from such reactors. They do not license aactor operators or regulate radiological hazards of storage, transportation, and ultimate disposal of the intensely radioactive spent 5 fuels or wastes from reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel. History of Federal Legislation With Regard to States in the Atomic Energy Field. Before the discovery of nuclear energy State governments exercised full control over hazards of radiation, radioactive materials, and radiation machines. Following military uses of atomic bombs in 1945, Congress enacted the Atomic Energy Act of 1946 to provide for Federal control of the utilization of atomic energy and assigned this function to the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). Congress amended the Act in 1954 to end the Federal monopoly over development and utilization of non-military atomic energy. This Act authorized the AEC (l) to license construction and operation of nuclear facilities, possession of nuclear fuels material and (2) to ~promulgate rules and regulations governing such licenses. In 1974 the Energy Reorganization Act transferred this licensing and regulation to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). An Experiment in State Regulation. In 1959, Congress established a limited role for States in regulation of radioactive materials when it added Section 274 to the Atomic Energy Act. Section 274(b) of the Atomic Energy Act now provides for a cooperative program between the States and the NRC under which the Commission and a Governor can enter into an agreement :oviding for discontinuance of NRC regulatory authority over any of the following materials within a State: (1) byproduct materials; (2) source materials; and (3) special nuclear materials in quantities not sufficient to form a critical mass. Through such an agreement, a State can have authority CRS- 2 A IB77035 UPDATE-ll/05/81 to regulate these materials for the protection of the public health and to ensure safety from radiation hazards. However, the Act prohibits agreement for discontinuance of NRC authority concerning the construction and operatic of any nuclear production or utilization facility; the export or import of byproduct, source, or special nuclear materials, or any production or utilization facility; disposal into the ocean or sea of byproduct, source, or special nuclear waste materials; or the disposal of such other" byproduct,i source, or special nuclear materials as the Commission may determine should cnotibecsoidisposediofibecauseiof the_hazardscorlpotentialihazardscinvolyedwg,ti. The Act requires the Commission to enter into a Section 274 agreement with any State if two conditions are met: (1) the Governor certifies (a) that the State has a program for the control of radiation hazards adequate to protect the public health and safety with respect to materials covered by the proposed agreement and (b) that qthe State desires to assume regulatory responsibility for such materials; and (2) The Commission finds (a) that the State program is compatible with the Commission's program for the regulation of such materials and (b) that the State program is adequate to protect the public health and safety for materials covered by the proposed agreement. The Atomic Energy Act defines a production facility as follows: -- equipment or device capable of the production of special nuclear material in such quantity as to T be significant to the common defense and security ] or in such manner as to affect the health and safety / of the public; or ’ -- any important component part especially designed for such equipment or devices. A - A utilization facility is defined as: -- any equipment or device (except an atomic weapon) capable of making use of special nuclear material in such quantity as to be significant to the common defense and security or in such manner as to affect the health and safety of the public; or -- any equipment or device (except an atomic weapon) peculiarly adapted for making use of atomic energy in such quantity as to be significant to the common defense and security or in such manner as to affect the health and safety of the public; -- any important component part especially designed for equipment or device by the Commission. Court Decisions Affecting State-Federal Relations As to Nuclear Power Regulations. when Federal preemption of a particular State regulation is questioned, Federal courts tend to uphold it if, among other reasons, the State regulation stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment of the purpose and objectives of the Federal statute in question. An obstacle is likely to be deemed too burdensome if the conflict between State and Federal regulatic is irreconcilible or if it appears that Congress had intended to preempt. Ir compliance with both State and Federal regulations is impossible or if the nature of the regulated authority suggests that exclusive Federal regulation is necessary, the courts have supported Federal preemption. If Congress, CRS- 3 IB77035 UPDATE-ll/O5/81 however, legislates in a field traditionally occupied by the States, only the clear and manifest purpose of Congress to preempt will supersede the States’ *onstitutional powers. The landmark test case of Federal preemption for regulation of nuclear power plants is the Northern States Power Co. v. Minnesota, 447 F.2d ll43 (8th Cir. 1971). In 1970, the Federal Government'si assertion of exclusive» authority was challenged by the State of Minnesota, whose Pollution Control Agency sought to impose radiation pollution control standards upon the liquid discharges of the Monticello nuclear power plant that were stricter than those set by the Atomic Energy Commission. The Northern States Power Company, owner of the plant, initiated litigation seeking to have the Minnesota regulations declared invalid as preempted by the Atomic Energy Act. The U.S. District Court did exactly that [320 F. Supp. 172 (D. Minn. 1970)] and, on appeal, the decision of the lower court was affirmed by a divided Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. The appellate court found preemption of the Federal Government in Section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act, which expressly declares that the regulation of radiation hazards from ’ byproduct sources and special nuclear power materials are within NRC jurisdiction. On Apr. 4, l972, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Appeals Court [405 U.S. 1035 (l972)]. 4 After the Northern States case, the States focussed their attention on non-radiological health and safety issues associated with nuclear power, plants. Thus many States began to regulate the siting rather than the actual operation of nuclear plants. In doing so, States turned to one of the oldest subjects of State regulation of land use. Although future conflicts over the regulation of nuclear power plants may emerge from a State's exercise of its and use authority, the Federal government has proposed legislation that would amend the Atomic Energy Act to give the NRC blanket siting powers over nuclear plants and specifically to preempt State siting authority. Such legislation contemplates predetermination of sites with NRC approval so that - applicants for Federal construction permits could select from a list of approved locations. History of State Interest in Nuclear Energy. The first major developments by States to promote and regulate the peaceful uses of atomic energy occurred in 1954 with the creation of a Committee on Atomic Energy by the New England Governor's Conference. In 1955, the Conference published a report that recommended a model State bill to provide for a State coordinator and surveys by State agencies of the adequacy of existing State laws and regulations in light of atomic energy developments. This bill was adopted by several of the New England States. 4 Since many and important State programs and interests were affected by the passage of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, in 1956 a Committee on Suggested State Legislation considered those atomic energy proposals that might be recommended to States and agreed upon one that was a proposed Coordination of Atomic Development Act. This Act became the basis for several State laws and has been recommended by various authorities including the AEC, Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, and the 1957 Conference of the States and Atomic Energy Development. The suggested Coordination of Atomic Development Act rovided for the creation of a coordinator of atomic development activities in the office of the Governor to coordinate studies and recommendations of State agencies concerned with atomic development and to advise the Governor. All proposals for changes in administrative regulations affecting atomic —excuse‘for StateLavoidance.eeThis isanodlonger the case. at CRS- 4 IB77035 UPDATE-ll/05/81 energy would be reviewed by the coordinator before taking effect to ensure review of the impact of the proposed regulations by the various departments and agencies concerned. The States have slowly become involved in energy policy. Not until 1974, at the height of the energy crisis, did States begin to again become involved in matters that had been preempted by the: Federal Government. Previously: Federal preemption was regarded as an adequate and perhaps even compelling In addition to the traditional State regulation applicable to all types of power plants, a number of States have enacted or considered special statutes that regulate only nuclear power plants. This legislation falls into four categories: (1) absolute prohibition of nuclear power plants (Montana); (2) conditional prohibition of reactors (California): (3) comprehensive regulations of the construction and operation of nuclear power plants (Oregon); and (4) State legislative approval before construction of new reactors (Vermont). Absolute prohibitions of nuclear power plants: A bill in the Montana legislature prohibited the construction or operation of a nuclear power plant within the State. This moratorium would last indefinitely, but a vague termination was provided (Montana House Bill no. 443). On Nov. 7, 1978, the measure was approved by a 60-40 margin. This also amended the State's Major Facility Siting Act to make it far more difficult to license a nuclear plant in Montana. In February 1981, a prohibition against construction or operation of any facility within the State that processed nuclear fuels or produced nuclear power was introduced via the West Virginia legislature. Conditional prohibitions of nuclear power plants: The voters OL California rejected the Nuclear Safeguard Initiative in June of 1976 (Proposition 15), which would have prohibited the future siting of nuclear power plants. Five days prior to defeat of this initiative, three nuclear power plant safety bills cleared the State Senate Committee and became State law. This package was considered as a milder alternative to Proposition 15. The three bills were prepared by the Assembly's Committee on Resources, Land Use, and Energy after extensive hearings in the fall of 1975. The bills addressed the problems of nuclear fuel recycling, nuclear waste disposal, and the feasibility of building nuclear power plants underground. The first bill, Assembly Bill No. 2820, prohibited any nuclear fission thermal powerplant requiring the reprocessing of fuel rods, including such plants exempted from certification by the commission, from being permitted land use in the state or, where applicable from being certified by the commission until the commission finds that the United States through its authorized agency has identified and approved, and there exists a technology for the construction and operation of nuclear fuel reprocessing plants and until 100 legislative days have passed since such findings of the commission.have been filed with the Legislature and neither house of the Legislature has adopted a resolution disaffirming such findings.’ The second bill, Assembly Bill 2821, prohibits the approval of any nuclear fission thermal powerplant CRS- 5 IB77035 UPDATE-ll/O5/81 including those exempted from certification from the Commission from being permitted land use in this state or where applicable from being certified by the commission until the commission has undertaken and completed a study of necessity for and effectiveness and economic feasibility of undergrounding and berm containment of nuclear reactors and has determined after public hearings whether to require by rules and regulations that nuclear reactors be either undergrounded or berm contained. The third bill, Assembly Bill 2822, would prohibit any nuclear fission powerplant including those exempted from being permitted land use in the state or where applicable from being certified by the Commission until the commission finds that there has been developed and the United States through its authorized agency has approved and there exists a demonstrated technology or means for the disposal of high level nuclear waste and 100 legislative days have passed since such findings of the Commission have been filed with the Legislature and neither house of the Legislature has adopted a resolution dispproving such findings. (NOTE: The Commission mentioned is the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission.) This package went into effect Jan. 1, 1977, and does not affect existing nuclear plants at San Onofre, Rancho, and Humboldt Bay, or new units that are resently under construction at San Onofre and Diablo Canyon. One main reason for the passage of these bills was reportedly to give voters an alternative to the moratorium of Proposition 15. Proposition 15 was rejected at the polls on June 8, 1976, by a vote of 3,988,476-1,024,791 -- a more than 2-1 ratio. On January 25, 1978 the Commission, following a year's hearings and proceedings, made the findings required under the two nuclear fuel cycle bills (passed in June 1976) that were prerequisite to any California land being used for a nuclear power plant. The Commission concluded, by a 4-1 - majority, that the criterion for the approval by the authorized Federal agency of both reprocessing and waste disposal facilities was an NRC operating license and that in both cases the criterion had not been met. Unless this decision is overturned by the Legislature, or unless a legislative exemption is granted to specific nuclear projects, no additional nuclear power plants can be built in California until 1985, the earliest date that a Federal waste repository can be licensed. The most controversial case testing these three bills ended after a bitter debate rejecting the construction of the Sundesert nuclear plant. This plant was to be constructed in the southern California desert by San Diego Gas and Electric. This controversy brought into sharp focus not only the competing strategies for future energy development, but also the State agency that had ost to do with the demise of the Sundesert project (the California Energy Commission). The Commission was noted in the press for playing an active role in killing the Sundesert project. CRS- 6 IB77035 UPDATE*ll/O5/81 Two suits seeking to have the California nuclear laws declared unconstitutional have been filed -- one in Federal District Court in San Diego and one in Federal District Court in Sacramento. The California Energ Commission is the defendant in both suits. The suits claim that the laws represent an invasion of Federal authority that preempts that of the States on nuclear health and safety issues. ' The San Diego suit was filed by the Pacific Legal Foundation, a non-profit ~publie+interestsnawsfirwreslnlsthe%,Sacramentoa.suit,A+twol majorgutilities,,L« thei Pacific Gas and Electric and Southern California Edison, also asked that State laws be struck down. PG&E has filed a Notice of Intent to build a 2,400 megawatt nuclear plant in Stanislaus County near Stockton. Pacific Legal Foundation's complaint charges that the California laws and actions of the California Energy Commission have resulted in loss of jobs, environmental harm, the depletion of fossil fuels, and an increased possibility of blackouts and brownouts in California. nuclear over 1976‘ control On Apr. 25, 1980, Judge Manuel Real invalidated the ‘three laws on the ground that the Federal Government has exclusive nuclear energy. California laws, Real stated, are either in conflict with, or substantially impede, the regulation of nuclear energy reserved to the Federal Government by the Atomic Energy Act. Other States, according to members of the State Energy commission, are expected to join California in the appeal of the decision, which the commission would like to combine with the pending appeal of Pacific Gas and Electric and the Southern California Edison Company. ‘ Comprehensive Regulation of Nuclear Power Plants. A 1975 Oregon statute provides for comprehensive regulation of all power plants with some standards applicable only to nuclear power plants. The law gives a State Energy Facility Siting Council authority to regulate the siting and operation of all power plants as well as the transportation of radioactive materials to and from the nuclear facilities. The Council also is required to promulgate rules for (1) the lowest practicable radiation emission standards for nuclear_ power plants; (2) all necessary safety procedures and devices; and (3) proper management and monitoring of radioactive wastes. This Act contemplates the adoption of standards more stringent than those laready set by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in areas subject to Federal regulation.I Legislative Approval Before New Construction. Vermont enacted a law in April 1975 that requires special approval by both houses of the Vermont General Assembly before the State Public Service Board can issue a certificate for the construction of a nuclear power plant. The statute does not affect the only existing nuclear power plant. Since no utility has petitioned for this special approval, there has been no test of the legislation. In May 1977, a report entitled Improving Regulatory Effectiveness in Federal State Siting Action (Preliminary Staff Report) was released from the Office of State Programs of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. This report discusses the fact that during the past few years there has been a growin belief on the part of States, Federal agencies, utilities, regional groups, and the environmental community that the present regulatory system for siting nuclear facilities is far from effective. The States in particular, are not satisfied that their role in siting decisions is sufficiently understood or CRS- 7 IB77035 UPDATE-ll/O5/81 recognized. Many statements by public interest groups and individuals indicate that public confidence and understanding must be improved. Concern has been expressed that the public does not have opportunity to see or nderstand the long-term system plans of utilities and that the identification of specific sites takes place too late to avoid a clash of commitments. - This report) also ‘ezamines dthei matter) of) regulatory "(activity )°ind environmental decision-making and suggests what. steps could. be ~used«.to- improve it. The study team arrived at a list of seven items that it thought were the principal deficiencies in the present licensing process: (1) Under the present process, the long-term plans of utilities are often not initially exposed to public review and comment. (2) Issues regarding need for power are regularly litigated in Federal licensing proceedings long after heavy financial commitments have been made to individual projects by utilities and long after States have passed judgment on the need for power. (3) There is much unnecessary duplication and overlap in the present process. There is no system for establishing a timetable to coordinate Federal and State actions. (4) There is insufficient coordination between Federal agencies and States; the proper role of each is not precisely defined. (5) There is insufficient coordination among Federal agencies. (6) The level of coordination in many individual States is inadequate. (7) The general public -- the rate payers and taxpayers -- feels uncomfortable with the present process and tends to lack confidence .in it. The public seems to want the confidence that its interests are being served. Congressional Action A primary focus of State legislation recently has been high-level nuclear waste management. ,In particular, California, Maine, Wisconsin, Oregon, Indiana, and New York either have laws or bills pending to prohibit future nuclear facility construction until the Federal Government can demonstrate a waste disposal capability. This apprehension by some States makes building a nuclear water disposal facility more than a technical decision -- public confidence must be cultivated to make such a facility acceptable to the locality where it will be built. (For background on issues regarding nuclear waste managment, see IB750l2 -- Nuclear Waste Management.) To do this, bills introduced to authorize development of a nuclear waste disposal facility have included various mechanisms for including States in the siting and development process. These mechanisms fall into three general catagories: (1) State veto of siting decisions; (2) formalized means of State participation and petition; and, (3) more informal consultation and concurrence. The following briefly summarizes the State participation achanisms of the various bills introduced in the 97th Congress regarding nuclear waste management. h S. 95 -- would legislate formulation of the Nuclear Waste Management CRS- 8 IB77035 UPDATE-ll/O5/81 Planning Council first created by executive order in February 1980. The Council would have the following functions: (1) appoint representative tn the Nuclear Waste Coordinating Committee; (2) review the annual Nuclear Wast Management Plan to the President; (3) advise relevant Federal entities on nuclear waste management issues; and (4) comment on Federal actions on nuclear waste management issues. Also, the legislation provides for States to establish Nuclear Waste Repository Review Panels to participate pin ,the_., planning and development of any repository in their State. Formal objections to—the~Repository~Bevelopment«Report—are~subjeettocengressionalreview.by~. concurrent resolution. S. 637 -~ provides States with the right to participate in a process of consultation and concurrence, based on public health and safety concerns, in all stages of the planning, siting, development, construction, and operation of a repository. State objections to a construction permit will suspend site specific activities on the repository until the President makes a determination on the merits of the objections. Such a determination is subject to a one-house congressional veto. H.R. 1909 -- provides that the DOE Secretary shall consult and coordinate with affected States any plans or construction activities regarding potential demonstration facilities. No appeal process is provided. H.R. 1993 -- provides for an ll-member Independent Review and Arbitration Board to review objections made by State Review Board ‘concerning site designation for a nuclear waste management facility -- four members of which are chosen by the SPC. The Independent Review and Arbitration Board can require changes by the DOE Secretary to alleviate any objections by the State Review Board. It's determinations are final and not subject to judicia review. Also, the bill provides for a State Planning Council on Radioactive Waste Management to provide advice and recommendations on various aspects of developing a nuclear waste repository. H.R. 2881 -- provides for State Review Boards to review the activities of the NRC and to submit petitions of disapproval to the .Congress for action. The Congress can agree with the State's objection by one-house vote of agreement. H.R. 4106 -- provides for a joint Federal-State Commission to review activities of the DOE and to submit reports of nonconcurrence to the President, Secretary of Energy, and the Congress for action. Congress can overrule the Commission's objections by concurrent resolution. Effectiveness of Participation Mechanisms 1. Improving Public Information. A primary purpose in expanding the forum for making policy decisions is to improve dissemination of information about the issue under discussion. Presumably, dissemination of accurate information about the safety of nuclear waste management facilities will increase public confidence about building them. Although all the bills introduced require the Federal Government to release all relevant information about a proposed waste management facility, the strength of the States in demanding such information differs. A State veto of nuclear waste storag facilities, such as was proposed in the 96th Congress (S. 1443), would put the States in the most favorable bargaining position vis a vis the Federal Government. The State could simply refuse to discuss siting until they received the information. The category of bills provides for congressional CRS- 9 _ 1377035 UPDATE-ll/05/81 or independent agency review (5. 95, S. 637, H.R. 1993, H.R. 2881, and H.R. 4106) gives the States some leverage through their congressional delegations r State representation on the review panel. The bill requiring coordination iith States with no appeal process (H.R. 1909) provides States with the least amount of leverage. 2. Increasing Acceptability. A second purpose for expanding the yforum,g- for making policy decision is to increase the acceptability of decisions made on the parties affected. Presumably, the more say affected parties~ have ~inw,. the decision-making process, the more willing they will be to accept the result. Assuming this logic, the bills could be ranked in the same order as for ability to get necessary information from the Federal Government. A possible difference here would be between congressional review and independent agency review. With the congressional review procedure, the State affected would be guaranteed direct representation through its congressional delegation. In the case of the independent review format as suggested in H.R. 1993, their representation would be through the four State member delegation of the review panel, members which may not come from the affected State. 3. Expediting the Decision-making Process. A danger in widening the forum for making policy decisions is that it increases the ability of some interest groups to impede the decision-making process. The increased leverage a State veto would give States to get information and participate in the decision-making process could also be used to prevent a facility from ever being sited in a;State, regardless of the merits of the project. Given the emotionalism involved in the area of nuclear waste management, this is a likely result in some States. By taking some of the burden off of State governments for making a decision which may be politically unpopular, the ther two catagories of participation mechanisms increase the liklihood that a definiting decision about siting a facility will be made. A Although a congressional review or independent agency review could lengthen the process, there is at least a point at which the process would be final. H.R. 1909, »,with its provision for coordination with States and no appeal process would provide the most expedite decision. HEARINGS U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. Subcommittee on Communication and Power. Power plant siting and environmental protection. Parts l-3. Hearings, 92d Congress, lst session, on H.R. 5277, H.R. 6970, H.R. 6972, H.R. 3838, H.R. 7045, H.R. 1079, and H.R. 1468. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1971. 3 v. U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. Subcommittee on Energy and Power. Nuclear waste disposal; hearing on H.R. 5809, H.R. 6380, and H.R. 7418, July 25, 1980. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1980. U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Science and Technology. Subcommittee on Energy Research and Production. H.R. 7418: Nuclear Waste Research, Development and Demonstration Act of 1980. Hearing, May 29, 1980. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1980. U.S. U.S. REPORTS UOSO CRS-10 IB77035 UPDATE“ll/O5/81 Power plant on S. Committee on Commerce. siting. Hearings, 92d Congress, 2d session, 1684, S. 1915, and S. 3631. Apr. 18, May 15, and June 1, 1972. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1972. 1026 p. Congress. Senate. Congress. iSenate. Committee on Energy and Natural Resouree—. Subeemmittee,onsEnergy~Regu1atienT~ Nuc1ear»~== waste and facility siting policy. Hearing, July 19, 1979. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1979. Congress. Senate. Committee on Governmental Affairs. Nuclear Waste Management Reorganization Act of 1979 (S.742). Hearings, July 5, 1979; Oct. 19, 1979; Feb. 13, 1980. .- ' Joint Committee on Atomic Energy. Nuclear power plant siting and licensing. Hearings 93d Congress, 2d session, on H.R. 11957, H.R. 12823, H.R. 13484, and S. 3179. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1974. 2 v. M Congress. Congress. Joint Committee on Atomic Energy. Proposed nuclear power plant siting and licensing legislation. Hearings, 94th Congress, 1st session. "June 25 and Nov. 11, 1975. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1976. 770 p. ~ AND CONGRESSIONAL DOCUMENTS Congress. House. Committee on Armed.Services. Authorizing Appropriations for the Department of Energy for National Security Programs for FY79. Report to accompany H.R. 11686. May 3, 1978. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off. .(95th Congress, 2d session. House. Report no. 95-1108). Committee on Government Operations. Nuclear power costs. Report, together with additional, . minority and dissenting views.S Apr. 26, 1978. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off. (95th Congress, 2d session. House. Report no. 95-1090). - 3 Congress. House. Congress. House. Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. Authorizing appropriations for certain civilian programs of the Department of Energy for FY79. Report, to accompany H.R. 12163. May 19, 1978. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off. (95th Congress, 2d session. House. Report no- 95-1078, part 3). ' Congress. House. Committee on Science and Technology. Subcommittee on Fossil and Nuclear Energy Research, Development and Deomonstration. Authorizing appropriations for the Department of Energy for FY79. Report, together with additional views, to accompany H.R. 12163. Apr. 20, 1978. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off. (95th Congress, 2d session. Report CRS-ll IB77035 UPDATE-ll/05/81 no. 95-1078, part I). PHER CONGRESSIONAL ACTION N/A CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS O4/26/80 -- ll/07/78 -- Federal district judge, Manuel Real, invalidated all three of California's 1976 nuclear power laws on the ground that the Federal Government has exclusive power over nuclear energy. Montana initiative approved by a 60-40 margin to ban future nuclear power plants proposed in the State. 06/14, 15, 17/77 -- Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment O5/00/77 -- ll/02/76 -- 06/30/76 -- 06/08/76 -- 09/22/76 -- O8/25/76 -- O4/O3/72 -- O9/23/59 -- O0/O0/55 -- on Energy and the Environment held hearings on H.R. 18, H.R. 882, H.R. 2675, H.R. 5369 and related bills, relative to States’ rights and nuclear regulatory reform. Preliminary staff report, Improving Regulatory Effectiveness in Federal/State Siting Actions, released by the Office of State Programs of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Bills defeated that reflected anti-nuclear power iniatives on the election ballots in Oregon, Colorado, Arizona, Montana, Ohio, and Washington. Three nuclear safety bills passed by California State Senate. California Nuclear Safeguards Initiative defeated (Proposition 15). H.R. l5673 (Carr) introduced to amend the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 to require that ERDA* notify appropriate state legislatures of plans for radioactive waste facilities. H.R. 15274 (Udall) introduced. Amends the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to stipulate that licenses for construction or utilization facilities must be approved by affected States prior to application for Federal Power Commission approval. Authorizes States to adopt safety standards that are more stringent than Federal requirements. Northern States vs. Minnesota. of the 8th Court of Appeals. Supreme Court affirmation Section 274 added to the Atomic Energy Act. Publication of a model State bill at the New England CRS-12 IB77035 UPDATE-ll/O5/81 Governor's Conference. O0/O0/54 -- Creation of a Committee on Atomic Energy by the New England Governor's Conference. -- Congress amended the Atomic Energy Act to end complete Federal control of the development and utilization of peaceful atomic energy by allowing private f_..e_4.-. _1?i-ndust1:yyto1o.w.nnuc1.ear1pl.a,nJ;-s1. - - ; -1 1_ - -_.a._. «_ , ;, -. 02/30/46 -- The Atomic Energy Act was enacted to ensure Federal control of the utilization of atomic energy and to establish the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). This Act prompted control of nuclear power to the Federal government. ADDITIONAL REFERENCE SOURCES All California laws on A-plants voided. New York Times, Apr. 26, 1980: 14. Barton, John and others. The California nuclear initiative: analysis and discussion of the issues. Stanford, Calif. Institute for Energy Studies, Stanford University. 1976. 220 p. Chotas, Ellas N. Nuclear power plant siting: additional reductions in state authority? University of Florida law review, v. 28, winter 1976: 439-458. Green, Harold P. Nuclear power licensing and regulation in the government as a regulator. Philadelphia American Academy of Political and Social Science, 1972. (Its annals, v. 400, March 1972) p. 116-126. Gross, Vivien C. State regulation of power plant siting. Indiana law review, v. 47, summer 1972: 742-754. Hennessy, Joseph. The nuclear power plant licensing process, licensing of nuclear pwoer plants by the Atomic Energy Commission. William and Mary law review, v. 15, spring 1974: 487-566. Karpinski, Gene. Federal preemption of state laws controlling nuclear power. Georgetown law journal, v. 64, July 1976: 1323-1341. Kennedy, R.T. Mutual cooperation with state governments. Atomic energy law journal, summer 1975: 152-158. Mccutcheon, Kenneth 0. Environmental law implied federal preemption, states precluded from regulating radioactive emissions from nuclear power plants. Missouri law review, winter 1972: 106-119. Muntzing, Manning L. Siting and environment: Toward an effective nuclear siting policy. Energy policy, v. 4, March 1976: CRS*l3 IB77035 UPDATE-ll/O5/81 3-ll. Murphy, Arthur, W. LaPierre, B. Bruce. Nuclear moratorium legislation in the states and the supremacy clause; a case of express preemption. Columbia law review, v. 76, April l976: 392-456. Northern States vs. Minnesota. 320 F. Supp. 172 (Lower D. ,Minn.) (1970). Aff'd 8th Court of Appeals, 447_ _ F26 1143 (1971); 405 U.S. 1035 (I972). 7 iii U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Office of State Programs. Improving regulatory effectiveness in federal state siting actions. Preliminary staff report, (NUREG-0195) May l977: ll8 p. Wade, Nicholas. The nuclear debate; clashes in congress and California. Science, v. 191, Jan. 9, 1976: 47-50. LIBRARY OF WASHINGTON UMEVERSITY ST. LGUQS — MO. MU Libraries University of Missouri——Columbia Digitization Information for Congressional Research Service Digitization Project Local identifier CRSIB Source information Format Book Content type Text Notes Stamped with property stamp for Washington University including deaccession stamp Some have labels on front page Some have black out markings on front page SuDoc numbers handwritten on front page Some items have very light print Some front pages have colored backgrounds Items not added to University of Missouri collection Capture information Date captured 20l7 April Scanner manufacturer Ricoh Scanner model MP C4503 Scanning system software Optical resolution 600 dpi Color settings grayscale File types tiff Derivatives — Access copy Compression Group 4 Editing software Resolution 600 dpi Color bitonal File types tiff Notes