Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Source Description
This file includes material relating to a California ballot proposal for a nuclear moratorium.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
1515901
label
Nuclear Safety
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
1515901
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Nuclear Safety
description
This file includes material relating to a California ballot proposal for a nuclear moratorium.
citationUrl
collections
James M. Cannon Files (Ford Administration)
James Cannon's Issues Files
subjects
California
Nuclear energy
Safety
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
1515901
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1976-06-30
month
6
year
1976
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1976-03-01
month
3
year
1976
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
08aadbbb41ee2d9b
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 25, folder "Nuclear Safety" of the James M.
Cannon Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald Ford donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Digitized from Box 25 of the James M. Cannon Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT
ON NUCLEAR SAFETY
Thursday, March 25, 1976
11:00 a.m.
*
Gluin is tax when T antoinum
If
al washington start level, March 8, 1976
CALIFORNIA CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION
MARCH UNOFFICIAL POLL ON ATTITUDE TOWARDS MORATORIUM
PUBLICLY
PUBLICALY
NO PUBLIC
LEANING
LEANING
MEMBER
FOR
AGAINST
POSITION
FOR
AGAINST
Cranston
X
X
Tunney
X
Johnson
X
X
Don Clausen
X
X
Moss
X
Leggett
X
X
John Burton
X
X
Phil Burton
X
X
Miller
X
Dellums
X
X
Stark
X
X
Edwards
X
Ryan
X
McCloskey
X
Mineta
X
McFall
X
Sisk
X
Talcott
X
X
Krebs
X
Ketchum
X
X
Lagomarsino
X
X
Goldwater
X
Corman
X
Moorhead
X
Rees
X
Waxman
X
X
Roybal
X
Rousselot
X
X
Bell
X
Burke
X
Hawkins
X
Danielson
X
Charles Wilson
X
Glenn Aderson
X
Del Clawson
X
X
Hannaford
X
Lloyd
X
X
Brown
X
X
Pettis
X
X
Patterson
X
X
Wiggins
X
X
Hinshaw
X
X
Bob Wilson
X
X
Van Deerlin
X
X
Burgener
X
CALIFORNIA CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION
MARCH UNOFFICIAL POLL ON ATTITUDE TOWARDS MORATORIUM
PUBLICLY
PUBLICLY
NO PUBLIC
LEANING
LEANING
MEMBER
FOR
AGAINST
POSITION
FOR
AGAINST
Cranston
X
X
Tunney
X
Johnson
X
X
Den Clausen
X
X
Moss
X
Leggett
X
X
John Burton
X
X
Phil Burton
X
X
Miller
X
Dellums
X
X
Stark
X
X
Edwards
X
Ryan
X
McCloskey
X
Mineta
X
McFall
X
Sisk
X
Talcott
X
X
Krebs
X
Ketchum
X
X
Lagomarsino
X
X
Goldwater
X
Corman
X
Moorhead
X
Rees
X
Waxman
X
X
Roybal
X
Pousselot
X
X
Bell
X
Burke
X
Hawkins
X
Danielson
X
Charles Wilson
X
Glenn Anderson
X
Del Clawson
X
X
Hannaford
X
Lloyd
X
X
Brown
X
X
Pettis
X
X
Patterson
X
X
Wiggins
X
Hinshaw
X
X
Bob Wilson
X
X
Van Deerlin
X
X
Burgener
X
* Poll conducted at Washington staff level, March 8, 1976
dile
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 23, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JIM CANNON
FROM:
GLENN SCHLEEDE
SUBJECT:
COMMENTS ON OUR DRAFT Q&A ON
NUCLEAR POWER MORATORIUM
Attached at Tab A are the comments received on the draft
Q&A circulated last Friday. Comments were received from
EPA, CEQ, Seidman, OMB, FEA, ERDA, NSC, Commerce and NRC.
No comments received from Hartmann or Morton. Marsh,
Friedersdorf, Buchen and Scowcroft indicated draft was OK.
A revised draft is attached at Tab B. I propose that we
attach this to the briefing paper for the meeting on
Thursday.
DRAFT
NUCLEAR MORATORIUM
oun
Q. The people of this state will soon be voting on the question
of whether or not to slow down or stop the development of
nuclear powerplants. What is your position on this question?
A. I don't believe it would be proper for me to attempt to tell
the people of this state how to vote on a specific issue
that will be before you in a state election.
I will share with you my thoughts on the general subject of
nuclear power.
First, we are now in the 18th year of commercial nuclear
power production in the United States. In total the
Nation's commercial nuclear plants represent several
hundred years of operating experience --- without a
single death from a nuclear accident. That's a good
record. The 57 plants now operating are supplying about
9 percent of our electrical power.
Second, even though we have an excellent safety record, I
believe we must continue our efforts to assure it remains
so in the years ahead. As one step, I have asked for more
funds in 1977 for both the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC) and ERDA for reactor safety R&D.
Third, we are now safely storing nuclear fuel wastes at
nuclear power plant sites. We must accelerate our efforts
to provide for safe, secure, environmentally acceptable nuclear
wastes. I have also requested funds for a major expansion
transportation and long-term storage of these
of programs to do this.
Fourth, in January 1975, I activated NRC as an independent
regulatory agency for commercial nuclear power. Ensuring
the safety of nuclear powerplants is the primary respon-
sibility of that agency. I have increased both the funding
and manpower for the NRC so that it has the resources it
needs to carry out this and its other important assignments
in the nuclear area.
F,fth
Sixth, there are many other important aspects of nuclear power
which should be considered when making such important
determinations about nuclear power's future. For example,
I understand that electricity produced by nuclear power in
California, as elsewhere, would be a good deal cheaper than
any other available alternative and could reduce California's
needs for imported oil or other high cost fossil fuel supplies.
Finally, I recognize that there are still a number of
responsible people in the, country that have legitimate
concerns and questions about nuclear power. This is quite
understandable. We should expect questions about
technology. It's important that we respond to these questions.
I can assure you that the energy and environmental agencies
reporting to me will do everything they can to answer
questions that come to them. I have every confidence that
the independent NRC will also address fully any questions
that come to its attention.
technologies that are just achieving wide-scale application.
EROA- Sedindus
PER RAY WALTERS
Q&A ON NUCLEAR MORATORIUM
FORD is LIBRARY GERALD
PARA. #1
Ref the President saying he will not tell the people
how to vote
Walters and company seem to remember that the President
in a speech in Sacramento last October said that he
was opposed to the moratorium issue and people should
not vote for it
therefore he may have gone on record
as opposing it.
REF NUCLEAR WASTE
This is a growing issue in California NOTE: Storage facilities
for large scale nuclear wates are not needed until the 1980s
and ERDA has mounted a major program of development and
demonstration for such storage facilities
THIS HAS BEEN COORDINATED WITH ROBERTS' AREA
NUCLEAR MORATORIUM
NSC
Q. The people of this state will soon be voting on the question
of whether or not to slow down or stop the development of
nuclear powerplants. What is your position on this question?
A. I don't believe it would be proper for me to attempt to tell
the people of this state how to vote on a specific issue
that will be before you in a state election.
I will share with you my thoughts on the general subject of
nuclear power.
First, we are now in the 18th year of commercial nuclear
power production in the United States. In total the
Nation's commercial nuclear plants represent several
hundred years of operating experience -- without a
single death from a nuclear accident. That's a good
record. The 57 plants now operating are supplying about
9 percent of our electrical power.
Second, even though we have an excellent safety record, I
believe we must continue our efforts to assure it remains
so in the years ahead. As one step, I have asked for more
funds in 1977 for both the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC) and ERDA for reactor safety R&D. I have also
requested funds for a major expansion of programs to provide
safe, secure, and environmentally acceptable transportation
and storage for nuclear wastes. I believe that the matter of waste
disposal leas been much exaggerated as a potential problem and that
Third, in January 1975, I activated NRC as an independent
regulatory agency for commercial nuclear power. Ensuring
the safety of nuclear powerplants is the primary respon-
sibility of that agency. I have increased both the funding
and manpower for the NRC so that it has the resources it
needs to carry out its important assignments.
Fourth, the question of nuclear safety has been looked at
in detail by a number of very competent, objective, and
expert people who have expressed great confidence in its
safety. Also, my enýironmental advisers have also told me
that they find nuclear energy very acceptable from an
environmental point of view.
Finally, I recognize that there are still a number of
responsible people in the country that have legitimate
concerns and questions about nuclear power. This is quite
understandable. We should expect questions about any new
technology. It's important that we respond to these questions.
I can assure you that the energy and environmental agencies
reporting to me will do everything they can to answer
questions that come to them. = have every confidence that
the independent NRC will also address fully any questions
that come to its attention.
there are several approaches which, when
implamented, will be found to be satisfactory
in dealing with long term waite storage,
Glen: as requested
DRAFT
NUCLEAR MORATORIUM
Ster Jellink
CER
Q. The people of this state will soon be voting on the question
of whether or not to slow down or stop the development of
nuclear powerplants. What is your position on this question?
A. I don't believe it would be proper for me to attempt to tell
the people of this state how to vote on a specific issue
that will be before you in a state election.
I will share with you my thoughts on the general subject of
nuclear power.
First, we are now in the 18th year of commercial nuclear
power production in the United States. In total the
Nation's commercial nuclear plants represent several
hundred years of operating experience -- without a
single death from a nuclear accident. That's a good
record. The 57 plants now operating are supplying about
9 percent of our electrical power.
Second, even though we have an excellent safety record, I
believe we must continue our efforts to assure it remains
so in the years ahead. As one step, I have asked for more
funds in 1977 for both the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Give Are
(NRC) and ERDA for reactor safety R&D. I have also
requested funds for a major expansion of programs to provide
amount d
safe, secure, and environmentally acceptable transportation
for the research near
and storage for nuclear wastes.
the to in
over o past year,
Third, in January 1975, I activated NRC as an independent
regulatory agency for commercial nuclear power. Ensuring
the safety of nuclear powerplants is the primary respon-
Tell How much
sibility of that agency. I have increased both the funding
and manpower for the NRC so that it has the resources it
r man paie.
needs to carry out its important assignments.
Fourth, the question of nuclear safety has been looked at
in detail by a number of very competent, objective, and
expert people who have expressed great confidence in its
safety. Also, my environmental advisers have also told me
all smithing
that they find nuclear energy very acceptable, from an
like: All
environmental point of view muclear power 15 for less polluting that
responsible studie
The only realistic alternative over the next coal.
Finally, I recognize that there are still a number of
needs - including
of future energy
responsible people in the country that have legitimate
concerns and questions about nuclear power. This is quite
Ford Endo conclude
understandable. We should expect questions about any new
that we need to
technology. It's important that we respond to these questions.
fissin in a mign.
rely on muclear
I can assure you that the energy and environmental agencies
reporting to me will do everything they can to answer
even assuming ue
questions that come to them. I have every confidence that
the independent NRC will also address fully any questions
we to conserve-enus
way, do everything
that come to its attention.
can develop wear, goo-
If we don't use werdear proor we are going to have to bun more coal. That means
member, tuen itc.
atupmins, air pollution, etc.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 19, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
FROM:
GLENN Q&A DICK DARMAN ACHLEEDE 2
SUBJECT:
ON NUCLEAR MORATORIUM
Could we please have your comments
and recommendations on the attached
Q&A by Noon on Monday, March 22.
Attachment
Commerce
DRAFT
NUCLEAR MORATORIUM
Q. The people of this state will soon be voting on the question
of whether or not to slow down or stop the development of
nuclear powerplants. What is your position on this question?
A. I don't believe it would be proper for me to attempt to tell
the people of this state how to vote on a specific issue
that will be before you in a state election.
I will share with you my thoughts on the general subject of
nuclear power.
First, we are now in the 18th year of commercial nuclear
power production in the United States. In total the
Nation's commercial nuclear plants represent several
hundred years of operating experience -- without a
single death from a nuclear accident. That's a good
record. The 57 plants now operating are supplying about
9 percent of our electrical power.
\
Second, even though we have an excellent safety record, I
believe we must continue our efforts to assure it remains
Faith
so in the years ahead. As one step, I have asked for more
funds in 1977 for both the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC) and ERDA for reactor safety R&D. I have also
requested funds for a major expansion of programs to provide
safe, secure, and environmentally acceptable transportation
and storage for nuclear wastes.
Think
Third, in January 1975, I activated NRC as an independent
regulatory agency for commercial nuclear power. Ensuring
the safety of nuclear powerplants is the primary respon-
sibility of that agency. I have increased both the funding
and manpower for the NRC so that it has the resources it
needs to carry out its important assignments.
Fourth, the question of nuclear safety has been looked at
in detail by a number of very competent, objective, and
expert people who have expressed great confidence in its
safety. Also, my environmental advisers have also told me
that they find nuclear energy ver acceptable from an
?
environmental point of view.
Finally, I recognize that there are still a number of
responsible people in the country that who have legitimate
concerns and questions about nuclear power. This is quite
understandable. We should expect questions about any new
technology. It's important that we respond to these questions.
I can assure you that the energy and environmental agencies
reporting to me will, do everything they can to answer
questions that come to them. I have every confidence that
the independent NRC will also address fully any questions
that come to its attention. what is essential, given
the impor twice 5 the
continue to
issues at stake, is that policy
continue to be made not on
the basis of
but on the basis n responsible info...
March 22, 1976
Glenn:
FEA
The attached memo has appended to it your
original Q&A and my mark-up of it. Rosenberg's
people gave me an extensive rewrite, but I had
no time to try to compare the Rosenberg version
with mine. Zausner felt my mark-up was OK.
Have not heard from Zarb or Hill.
If you can call me on this before 4:30, I
would be grateful. I am catching a plane
and have to leave at 4:30.
Paul Dragoumis
X see memo attached
FEDERAL ENERGY ADMINISTRATION
March 18, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR FRANK G. ZARB
JOHN A. HILL
ERIC R. ZAUSNER
WILLIAM G. ROSENBERG
ORIGINAL SIGNED
FROM:
PAUL DRAGOUMIS BY P. DRAGOUMIS
SUBJECT:
Q&A FOR THE PRESIDENT ON THE CALIFORNIA
INITIATIVE
Glenn Schleede has asked me specifically to distribute
to you for comment the attached draft Q&A intended for the
President's briefing book.
I have taken the liberty of marking my comments on a
duplicate copy also attached. Would you please let me know
whether my mark-up is satisfactory.
Attachments
PDragoumis/mep/3-18-76/X 6241
CC: Subject File
Reading File
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
CONCURRENCES
SYMBOL
SURNAME
DATE
FEA-F-47
GPO 1975 0 - 588-400
OFFICIAL FILE COPY
NUCLEAR MORATORIUM
DRAFT
Q. The people of this state will soon be voting on the question
of whether or not to slow down or stop the development of
nuclear powerplants. What is your position on this question?
A. I don't believe it would be proper for me to attempt to tell
the people of this state how to vote on a specific issue
that will be before you in a state election.
I will share with you my thoughts on the general subject of
nuclear power.
First, we are now in the 18th year of commercial nuclear
power production in the United States. In total the
Nation's commercial nuclear plants represent several
hundred years of operating experience -- without a
single death from a nuclear accident. That's a good
record The 57 plants now operating are supplying about
9 percent of our electrical power.
Second, even though we have an excellent safety record, I
believe we must continue our efforts to assure it remains
so in the years ahead. As one step, I have asked for more
funds in 1977 for both the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC) and ERDA for reactor safety R&D. I have also
requested funds for a major expansion of programs to provide
safe, secure, and environmentally acceptable transportation
and storage for nuclear wastes.
Third, in January 1975, I activated NRC as an independent
regulatory agency for commercial nuclear power. Ensuring
the safety of nuclear powerplants is the primary respon-
sibility of that agency. I. have increased both the funding
and manpower for the NRC so that it has the resources it
needs to carry out its important assignments.
Fourth, the question of nuclear safety has been looked at
in detail by a number of very competent, objective, and
expert people who have expressed great confidence in its
safety. Also, my environmental advisers have also told me
that they find nuclear energy very acceptable from an
environmental point of view.
Finally, I recognize that there are still a number of
responsible people in the country that have legitimate
concerns and questions about nuclear power. This is quite
understandable. We should expect questions about any new
technology. It's important that we respond to these questions.
I can assure you that the energy and environmental agencies
reporting to me will do everything they can to answer
questions that come to them. I have every confidence that
the independent NRC will also address fully any questions
that come to its attention.
NUCLEAR MORATORIUM
DRAFT
Q. The people of this state will soon be voting on the question
of whether or not to slow down or stop the development of
nuclear powerplants. What is your position on this question?
appropriate
take a position
A. I don't believe it would be proper for me to attempt to tell
the people of this state how to vote on a specific issue such
that will this be before you in a state election.
I will share with you my thoughts on the general subject of
nuclear power.
First, we are now in the 18th year of commercial nuclear
power production in the United States. In total the this
Nation' safe nuclear ear plants represents several
hundred years of Aoperating experience -- without a
single death from a nuclear accident. That's an good unexcelled
record The 57 plants now operating are supplying about
9 percent of our electrical power.
that this
Second even though we have an excellent safety record
GI I believe we must continue our efforts to assurelit remains continued
so in the years ahead. As one step, I have asked for more
funds in 1977 for both the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC) and ERDA, for reactor safety R&D. I have also
requested funds for a major expansion of programs to provide
safe, secure, and environmentally acceptable transportation
and storage for nuclear wastes.
Third, in January 1975, I activated NRC as an independent
regulatory agency for commercial nuclear power. Ensuring
the safety of nuclear powerplants is the primary respon-
sibility of that agency. I have increased both the funding
and manpower for the NRC so that it has the resources it
needs, to carry out its important assignments.
tinized by
Fourth, the question of nuclear safety has been looked at
many in detail by a number of very competent, objective, and
expert people who have expressed great confidence in in its ther
development
safety nucled. Also, my environmental advisers have also told me
that they find nuclear energy very acceptable from an
environmental point of view.
Note:
relatively
Fifth point
Finally, I recognize that there are still a number of
added. Shownon
responsible people in the country that have legitimate
concerns and questions about nuclear power. This is quite
attached sheet
understandable. We should expect questions about any new
technology. It's important that we respond to these questions.
I can assure you that the energy and environmental agencies
reporting to me will do everything they can to answer
questions that come to them. I have every confidence that
the independent NRC will also address fully any questions
that come to its attention.
2
Fifth, our studies of the national energy outlook
over the next ten years show the need for rapid
growth in nuclear energy as well as each of our
other domestic fuels if we are to make needed
strides toward energy independence.
FEDERAL ENERGY ADMINISTRATION
Date:
eftenn
Reply to
William G. Rosenberg
Attn of:
Assistant Administrator
Subject:
ERD Comments on Q&A for the President -
on the California Initiative
this are Aven just from
To:
Paul Dragoumis
Office of Policy and Analysis
florehers
se
Attached is a proposed review of the subject Q&A for the
President's briefing book.
ERD's suggested revisions would accomplish three principle
changes in the proposed Q&A as follows:
1. Have the President make note of the
favorable economics of nuclear power and its
current and projected role in the sense of
consumer savings, jobs and domestic energy
resources.
2. Have the President admit that answers
to all questions are not yet in hand and that
additional work to answer valid questions is
needed and is underway.
3. On the other hand, have the President
note that we cannot expect a totally risk free
future and that perfect answers to all
postulated questions is not possible before
proceeding.
We hope these suggestions are responsive to the input requested
by OMB. If there is need for further input from ERD, please
contact Bob Hanfling directly.
This specific OMB request for input to the President's briefing
book would suggest the preparation of other similar Q&A's
relative to the California Initiative. For example, (1) plans
for FEA testimony before the California assembly; (2) the
University of Texas Study of the possible effects of this
initiative; (3) the role FEA or the Administration expects to
play relative to the public debate on nuclear power, or (4) a
more general statement on State/Federal cooperation on the
resolution of domestic energy resource development decisions.
FEA-F-42 (6/74)
2
If such additional Q&A's are desired by OMB, we are
most willing to participate in their preparation.
Attachment
CC:
Frank Zarb
John Hill
Eric Zausner
NUCLEAR MORATORIUM
ERD PROPOSED REVISION
Q. The people of this state will soon be voting on the question
of whether or not to slow down or stop the development of
nuclear powerplants. What is your position on this question?
A. I don't believe it would be appropriate for me to take a
position on a specific issue such as this in a State election.
I will share with you my general thoughts on nuclear power.
First, we are now in the 18th year of commercial nuclear
power production in the United States. In total this Nation
has recorded several hundred plant years of safe and economic
operating experience. The 57 plants now operating are supply-
ing about 9 percent of our electrical power. In 1975 these
plants saved consumers more than $
in their electricity
bills. These savings are expected to improve as more plants
come into operation.
Second, to date the safety record of the nuclear industry has
been better than any other industry in history. While we can
take pride in this unparalleled achievement, we must not rest on
our current successes. We must extend these efforts to assure
continuance of this safety record. Accordingly, in January 1975
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) was established as an
independent agency responsible for assuring the future safety of
commercial nuclear power plants.
Third, to support this effort, I have increased both the funding and
manpower for the NRC so that it has the resources it needs to
carry out its important assignment. In addition, I have requested
funds for a major expansion of programs by the Energy Research
and Development Administration in nuclear reactor safety and to
provide safe, secure and environmentally acceptable transporta-
tion and storage for nuclear wastes.
Fourth, nuclear safety has been scrutinized by many competent,
objective and expert people. They strongly support the safety
aspects of nuclear power and recommend expanded use of this
valuable domestic energy resource. In addition my environmental
advisors note that nuclear power is one of the least environ-
mentally damaging major current energy resources.
Fifth, our studies of the national energy outlook show the need
for growth in nuclear energy as well as our other domestic fuels
if we are to make needed strides toward energy independence and
provide adequate energy resources at the low prices needed to
maintain the Nation's employment levels.
2
Finally, I recognize that there are a significant number
of responsible and sincere people in the country that
have concerns and questions about nuclear power. We
should expect questions about any relatively new technology.
It is important that we both respond to these questions
to the best of our capability and undertake those further
steps needed to assure that satisfactory responses to
valid questions are forthcoming. On the other hand, I do
not believe it is in our Nation's best interest to wait
for the perfect or ultimate answers to all postulated ques-
tions before proceeding. Such an approach could bring our
society and economy to a standstill. I can assure you that
this Administration's energy and environmental agencies will
continue to do everything they can to answer questions that
come to them in an open and candid manner.
EYES ONLY
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDIENTIAL
THE WHITE HOUSE
Gleun March WASHINGTON 18, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
WILLIAM ANDERS
FROM:
GLENN SCHLEEDE
SUBJECT:
Q&A ON NUCLEAR MORATORIUM
May we please have your comments and recommendations
for improvement on the attached Q&A by COB, Friday,
March 19.
A telephone response will be fine. Thanks.
Attachment
Guat
Sill
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL
EYES ONLY
FORD is LIBRARY GENALD
DRAFT
NUCLEAR MORATORIUM
Q. The people of this state will soon be voting on the question
of whether or not to slow down or stop the development of
nuclear powerplants. What is your position on this question?
A. I don't believe it would be proper for me to attempt to tell
the people of this state how to vote on a specific issue
that will be before you in a state election.
I will share with you my thoughts on the general subject of
nuclear power.
First, we are now in the 18th year of commercial nuclear
power production in the United States. In total the
Nation's commercial nuclear plants represent several
hundred years of operating experience -- without a
single death from a nuclear accident. That's a good
record. The 57 plants now operating are supplying about
9 percent of our electrical power.
Second, even though we have an excellent safety record, I
believe we must continue our efforts to assure it remains
so in the years ahead. As one step, I have asked for more
funds in 1977 for both the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC) and ERDA for reactor safety R&D. I have also
requested funds for a major expansion of programs to provide
safe, secure, and environmentally acceptable transportation
and storage for nuclear wastes.
Third, in January 1975, I activated NRC as an independent
regulatory agency for commercial nuclear power. Ensuring
the safety of nuclear powerplants is the primary respon-
sibility of that agency. I have increased both the funding
and manpower for the NRC so that it has the resources it
needs to carry out its important assignments.
Fourth, the question of nuclear safety has been looked at
in detail by a number of very competent, objective, and
expert people who have expressed great confidence in its
safety. Also, my environmental advisers have also told me
that they find nuclear energy very acceptable from an
environmental point of view.
Finally, I recognize that there are still a number of
responsible people in the country that have legitimate
concerns and questions about nuclear power. This is quite
understandable. We should expect questions about any new
technology. It's important that we respond to these questions.
I can assure you that the energy and environmental agencies
reporting to me will do everything they can to answer
questions that come to them. I have every confidence that
the independent NRC will also address fully any questions
that come to its attention.
DRAFT
NUCLEAR MORATORIUM
Deehno. Itepn
E&A
The people of this state will soon be voting on the question
of whether or not to slow down or stop the development of
nuclear powerplants. What is your position on this question?
A. I don't believe it would be proper for me to attempt to tell
the people of this state how to vote on a specific issue
that will be before you in a state election.
I will share with you my thoughts on the general subject of
nuclear power.
First, we are now in the 18th year of commercial nuclear
power production in the United States. In total the
Nation's commercial nuclear plants represent several
hundred years of operating experience -- without a
my
single death from a nuclear accident. That's a good
record. The 57 plants now operating are supplying about
9 percent of our electrical power and for less
inform
pattition the an than combustion of fassel fuels
Second, even though we have an excellent safety record, I
believe we must continue our efforts to assure it remains
so in the years ahead. As one step, I have asked for more
funds in 1977 for both the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC) and ERDA for reactor safety R&D. I have also
requested funds for a major expansion of programs to provide
safe, secure, and environmentally acceptable transportation
and storage for nuclear wastes.
Third, in January 1975, I activated NRC as an independent
regulatory agency for commercial nuclear power. Ensuring
the safety of nuclear powerplants is the primary respon-
sibility of that agency. I have increased both the funding
and manpower for the NRC so that it has the resources it
needs to carry out its important assignments. NRC will
implement the enuuonaental stds uung developed by EPA
Fourth, the question of nuclear safety has been looked at
in detail by a number of very competent, objective, and
expert people who have expressed great confidence in its
safety. [Also, my environmental advisers have also told me
that they find nuclear energy very acceptable from an
environmental point of view
Finally, I recognize that there are still a number of
responsible people in the country that have legitimate
concerns and questions about nuclear power. This is quite
understandable. We should expect questions about any new
technology. It's important that we respond to these questions.
I can assure you that the energy and environmental agencies
reporting to me will do everything they can to answer
questions that come to them. I have every confidence that
the independent NRC will also address fully any questions
that come to its attention.
UNITED PROTECTION STATES. AGENCY
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
March 23, 1976
OFFICE OF THE
ADMINISTRATOR
MEMORANDUM FOR MR. GLENN SCHLEEDE
Domestic Council
SUBJECT: Draft Q & A
Attached is a written version of the suggested revision of
the Q&A on nuclear power. I phoned these to Karen this morning.
As we discussed, we do not believe that the Administrator
would be willing to stand behind the final sentence in paragraph 6
in your draft.
We believe he would be supportive of the additional clause
added at the end of paragraph 3.
Steffen WILL Plehn
Executive Assistant
to the Administrator
Attachment
NUCLEAR MORATORIUM
Q. The people of this state will soon be voting on the question of
whether or not to slow down or stop the development of nuclear
powerplants. What is your position on this question?
A. I don't believe it would be proper for me to attempt to tell the
people of this state how to vote on a specific issue that will
be before you in a State election.
I will share with you my thoughts on the general subject of nuclear
power.
First, we are now in the 18th year of commercial nuclear power
production in the United States. In total the Nation's commercial
nuclear plants represent several hundred years of operating
experience -- without a single death from a nuclear accident.
That's a good record. The 57 plants now operating are supplying
about 9 percent of our electrical power and, my environmental
advisors inform me, with far less pollution of the air than combustion
of fossil fuels.
Second, even though we have an excellent safety record, I believe
we must continue our efforts to assure it remains so in the years
ahead. As one step, I have asked for more funds in 1977 for both
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and ERDA for reactor
safety R&D. I have also requested funds for a major expansion of
programs to provide safe, secure, and environmentally acceptable
transportation and storage for nuclear wastes.
Third, in January 1975, I activated NRC as an independent regulatory
agency for commercial nuclear power. Ensuring the safety of nuclear
powerplants is the primary responsibility of that agency. I have
increased both the funding and manpower for the NRC so that it has
the resources it needs to carry out its important assignments. NRC
will implement the environmental standards being developed by EPA.
Fourth, the question of nuclear safety has been looked at in detail
by a number of (very) competent, objective, and expert people who
have expressed (great) confidence in its safety.
Finally, I recognize that there are still a number of responsible
people in the country that have legitimate concerns and questions
about nuclear power. This is quite understandable. We should expect
questions about any new technology. It's important that we respond
to these questions. I can assure you that the energy and environmental
agencies reporting to me will do everything they can to answer questions
that come to them. I have every confidence that the independent NRC will
also address fully any questions that come to its attention.
Seidenan
do everying they can to answer questions that come to
them. I have every confidence that the independent
NRC will also fully address any questions that come to
its attention.
that
energy independence, we must
Jinally, of we are to goin
have the ovailability of mucher
power. One challenge is to
more that in abtaining this
Source, of develope This
source of power in and a
manner That protects lives
and environment.
NUCLEAR MORATORIUM
Q. The people of this State will soon be voting on the question
of whether or not to slow down or stop the development of nuclear
powerplants. What is your position on this question?
A. I don't believe it would be proper for me to attempt to tell
the people of this State how to vote on a specific issue that
will be before you in a State election.
I will share with you my thoughts on the general subject of
nuclear power.
First, we are now in the 18th year of commercial nuclear power
production in the United States. In total the Nation's
commercial nuclear plants represent several hundred plant years
of operating experience -- without a single death from a nuclear
accident. That's a good record.
Second, even though we have an excellent safety record, I
believe we must continue our efforts to assure it remains SO
in the years ahead. As one step, I have asked for more funds
in 1977 for both the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and
ERDA for reactor safety R&D. I have also requested funds for a
major expansion of programs to provide safe, secure, and
environmentally acceptable transportation and storage for nuclear
wastes.
Third, in January 1975, I activated NRC as an independent
regulatory agency for commercial nuclear power. Ensuring the
safety of nuclear powerplants is the primary responsibility
of that agency. I have increased both the funding and manpower
for the NRC so that it has the resources it needs.
Fourth, the question of safety has been looked at in detail by
a number of competent, objective, and expert people who have
expressed confidence in the safety of nuclear plants. Also,
my environmental advisers have also told me that nuclear
energy is preferable from an environmental point of view.
Fifth, the 57 plants now operating are supplying about 9
percent of our nation's electrical power. Generating this
amount of power with oil-fired plants would mean increasing
our oil imports by about 1 million barrels per day. Thus
nuclear power is already making a substantial contribution
to our energy needs. Also, the cost of electricity from
nuclear plants is much less than from oil-fired plants.
- -2-
Finally, I recognize that there are still a number of
responsible people in the country that have legitimate
concerns and questions about nuclear power. This is quite
understandable. We should expect questions about technologies
that are just achieving wide-scale application. It's important
that we respond to these questions. I can assure you that
the energy and environmental agencies reporting to me will
do everything they can to answer questions that come to them.
I have every confidence that the independent NRC will also
address fully any questions that come to its attention.
*
#
*
on
#
BICENTENNIAL
OFFICE OF THE VICE president
WASHINGTON
976
April 20, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR JIM CANNON
FROM:
JACK VENEMAN
R
Has anything ever been done to set up
a meeting with the California delegation?
fort,
Jack we And had with th but wi
n
oft worer The when the to in out California abut forma ihrs artection / nobody no givin
Haus
Hans Mark
AND
SPARE ADMINISTRATION TYNOMYN
REVOLUTION
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
AMES RESEARCH CENTER
MOFFETT FIELD, CALIFORNIA 94035
AMERICAN
BICENTENNIAL
U.S.A.
1776-1976
REPLY TO
ATTN OF:
D: 200-1
April 16, 1976
Mr. John G. Veneman
Couselor to the Vice President
Executive Office Building
Washington, D. C. 20501
FORD & LIBRARY 07V839
Dear Jack:
Many thanks for your note and for a copy of the enclosed remarks by the
President on the California Nuclear Safeguards Initiative. It is a good
statement, but as far as I know it has received no publicity at all in California.
Perhaps this is unavoidable given the President's schedule, but I really
believe that he should take some time out to help us in our fight to prevent
Proposition 15 from being passed.
I continue to believe that on a complex technical issue such as this one,
people will tend to follow the political leaders they trust. It is therefore
most important for us first to convince trusted political leaders that Proposition
15 is wrong, and second, to make certain that the political leaders then
get the message across to their constituents. What you have sent shows
me that in the case of the President we have achieved the first objective,
but not yet the second.
I still believe that it is most important for the President to work with the
California Congressional Delegation and get together with them as soon
as possible to discuss this very important issue. There is a real chance
that we will lose the game unless this happens, and happens soon.
I have a couple of public debates on TV lined up in the next few weeks,
so I should at some point have a better feeling for what people think.
I will let you know how things go.
With best personal regards,
Sincerely yours,
Haus
Hans Mark
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
5/3/16 the
May 21, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JIM CANNON
JIM CONNOR
FROM:
GLENN SCHLEEDE
Whether
SUBJECT:
EPA REVIEW OF THE RASMUSSEN
NUCLEAR SAFETY
Both of you have mentioned this subject over the last
few weeks SO I am taking the liberty of a single memo
to give you my understanding of where the matter stands.
Briefly, I think there is a potential that the EPA
activity could have an impact on the nuclear debate in
California.
-- The Rasmussen Report is the product of an extensive
study initiated and sponsored by the AEC and then
continued by the NRC of the potential incidence
and consequence of nuclear reactor accidents.
(Rasmussen is a MIT professor hired as a consultant
to lead the study.) The study was issued in final
form several months ago after first being put out
in draft for comment.
-- My understanding of EPA's involvement and plans are
as follows:
EPA was either invited to or had volunteered
to testify at hearings scheduled for about
June 10 before Udall's Subcommittee of the
House Interior Committee. EPA -- at least
the lead man on radiation, Bill Rowe --
will testify.
2
EPA has been engaged in a review of the
Rasmussen Report. Apparently, Rowe and or
his staff take exception to some of the
conclusions in the report. More specifically
that the report:
- underestimates by a factor between 3 and 5
the number of people effected by an accident
by making optimistic assumptions regarding
evacuation rates;
- underestimates by a factor of 2 the long-term
health effects due to low level radiation
exposure; and
- does not address all of the issues previously
raised by EPA. (Not clear what these are.)
Apparently Rowe does not intend to surface the
EPA analysis prior to June 11, but Rowe expects
to have in his hands by about June 28 a draft
of the analysis.
It would not be unusual for the EPA draft analysis
to find its way into the press. The EPA draft analysis
could impact the June 8 moratorium vote.
OMB staff, under Jim Mitchell, apparently have
looked into this matter but may not have come
up with a solution. I understand they have
encouraged EPA to discuss their analysis with
the NRC prior to going public.
nuclear
I
THE WHITE HOUSE
Request
WASHINGTON
June 7, 1976
Hill
TO:
JIM CANNON
FROM:
GLENN Slon SCHLEEDE
The attached is in response to your
May 31 request.
FORD LIBRARY :-
are TI s 55 2 20
U
5/3/16
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
May 21, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JIM CANNON
When
JIM CONNOR
FROM:
GLENN SCHLEEDE
SUBJECT:
EPA REVIEW OF THE RASMUSSEN REPORT ON
NUCLEAR SAFETY
Both of you have mentioned this subject over the last
few weeks so I am taking the liberty of a single memo
to give you my understanding of where the matter stands.
Briefly, I think there is a potential that the EPA
activity could have an impact on the nuclear debate in
California.
-- The Rasmussen Report is the product of an extensive
study initiated and sponsored by the AEC and then
continued by the NRC of the potential incidence
and consequence of nuclear reactor accidents.
(Rasmussen is a MIT professor hired as a consultant
to lead the study.) The study was issued in final
form several months ago after first being put out
in draft for comment.
-- My understanding of EPA's involvement and plans are
as follows:
EPA was either invited to or had volunteered
to testify at hearings scheduled for about
June 10 before Udall's Subcommittee of the
House Interior Committee. EPA -- at least
the lead man on radiation, Bill Rowe --
will testify.
FORD & LIBRARY DERALD
EPA REVIEW OF RASMUSSEN REPORT
ON NUCLEAR SAFETY
Status as of 10:00 A.M., June 7
-- NRC Review. NRC staff members, lead by Mr. Saul Levine,
started late last week a review of the EPA critique of
the Rasmussen report. EPA would not allow NRC to take
the report away for a review, so the review was
occurring in EPA offices. Late Friday afternoon,
June 4, the NRC team was told that the review would
have to be discontinued until work resumed on Monday.
Apparently an appeal was made to the Office of the
Administrator at EPA and this condition was reversed,
allowing the review to continue over the weekend.
-- NRC Staff Views of EPA Report. Informally, I understand
that the NRC review group:
- believes the EPA report to be substantively deficient
and in error in some places;
- believes the conclusions would be incorrect;
- is concerned that the report, when made public,
will be perceived as a significant technical
contribution and used as an argument that nuclear
power plants are not as safe as the Rasmussen report
concluded;
- recognizes that the EPA radiation staff, lead by
Mr. Bill Rowe, is very unhappy about having the
NRC review the EPA report before it is made public;
- is concerned that the EPA staff may charge that
EPA has been subjected to pressure concerning the
report.
-- EPA's Plans for Next Steps.
- Place their report in the EPA public documents
room on Thursday, June 10.
- Rowe will testify on the review before the Udall
subcommittee of House Interior. (NRC will also
testify.)
-- OMB Plans.
- Anticipates reviewing draft EPA testimony tomorrow
and NRC testimony shortly thereafter.
2
-
Plans to hold a meeting with EPA and NRC staff to
review the testimony and probably to discuss
differences of opinion on the EPA report.
--
NRC Activities.
- NRC staff is preparing a written critique of the
EPA report.
- Saul Levine has offered to sit down with Bill Rowe
of EPA to discuss the draft EPA report.
--
Possible Next Steps
-
Promoting an early meeting between NRC Chairman
Rowden and Mr. Train on the report.
-
Suggest to NRC that they be prepared to make
public their criticism of the EPA report at the
same time the EPA report becomes public.