Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "1515901",
    "label": "Nuclear Safety",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1515901"
}

{
    "id": "1515901",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1515901",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Nuclear Safety",
    "description": "This file includes material relating to a California ballot proposal for a nuclear moratorium.",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1515901",
    "collections": [
        "James M. Cannon Files (Ford Administration)",
        "James Cannon's Issues Files"
    ],
    "subjects": [
        "California",
        "Nuclear energy",
        "Safety"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0039/635863/1515901.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0039/635863/1515901.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0039/635863/1515901.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1515901",
    "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"
}

{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0039/635863/1515901.pdf",
    "mediaId": "08aadbbb41ee2d9b",
    "ocrText": "The original documents are located in Box 25, folder \"Nuclear Safety\" of the James M.\nCannon Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.\nCopyright Notice\nThe copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of\nphotocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald Ford donated to the United\nStates of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.\nWorks prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public\ndomain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to\nremain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid\ncopyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.\nDigitized from Box 25 of the James M. Cannon Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library\nMEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT\nON NUCLEAR SAFETY\nThursday, March 25, 1976\n11:00 a.m.\n*\nGluin is tax when T antoinum\nIf\nal washington start level, March 8, 1976\nCALIFORNIA CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION\nMARCH UNOFFICIAL POLL ON ATTITUDE TOWARDS MORATORIUM\nPUBLICLY\nPUBLICALY\nNO PUBLIC\nLEANING\nLEANING\nMEMBER\nFOR\nAGAINST\nPOSITION\nFOR\nAGAINST\nCranston\nX\nX\nTunney\nX\nJohnson\nX\nX\nDon Clausen\nX\nX\nMoss\nX\nLeggett\nX\nX\nJohn Burton\nX\nX\nPhil Burton\nX\nX\nMiller\nX\nDellums\nX\nX\nStark\nX\nX\nEdwards\nX\nRyan\nX\nMcCloskey\nX\nMineta\nX\nMcFall\nX\nSisk\nX\nTalcott\nX\nX\nKrebs\nX\nKetchum\nX\nX\nLagomarsino\nX\nX\nGoldwater\nX\nCorman\nX\nMoorhead\nX\nRees\nX\nWaxman\nX\nX\nRoybal\nX\nRousselot\nX\nX\nBell\nX\nBurke\nX\nHawkins\nX\nDanielson\nX\nCharles Wilson\nX\nGlenn Aderson\nX\nDel Clawson\nX\nX\nHannaford\nX\nLloyd\nX\nX\nBrown\nX\nX\nPettis\nX\nX\nPatterson\nX\nX\nWiggins\nX\nX\nHinshaw\nX\nX\nBob Wilson\nX\nX\nVan Deerlin\nX\nX\nBurgener\nX\nCALIFORNIA CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION\nMARCH UNOFFICIAL POLL ON ATTITUDE TOWARDS MORATORIUM\nPUBLICLY\nPUBLICLY\nNO PUBLIC\nLEANING\nLEANING\nMEMBER\nFOR\nAGAINST\nPOSITION\nFOR\nAGAINST\nCranston\nX\nX\nTunney\nX\nJohnson\nX\nX\nDen Clausen\nX\nX\nMoss\nX\nLeggett\nX\nX\nJohn Burton\nX\nX\nPhil Burton\nX\nX\nMiller\nX\nDellums\nX\nX\nStark\nX\nX\nEdwards\nX\nRyan\nX\nMcCloskey\nX\nMineta\nX\nMcFall\nX\nSisk\nX\nTalcott\nX\nX\nKrebs\nX\nKetchum\nX\nX\nLagomarsino\nX\nX\nGoldwater\nX\nCorman\nX\nMoorhead\nX\nRees\nX\nWaxman\nX\nX\nRoybal\nX\nPousselot\nX\nX\nBell\nX\nBurke\nX\nHawkins\nX\nDanielson\nX\nCharles Wilson\nX\nGlenn Anderson\nX\nDel Clawson\nX\nX\nHannaford\nX\nLloyd\nX\nX\nBrown\nX\nX\nPettis\nX\nX\nPatterson\nX\nX\nWiggins\nX\nHinshaw\nX\nX\nBob Wilson\nX\nX\nVan Deerlin\nX\nX\nBurgener\nX\n* Poll conducted at Washington staff level, March 8, 1976\ndile\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nMarch 23, 1976\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nJIM CANNON\nFROM:\nGLENN SCHLEEDE\nSUBJECT:\nCOMMENTS ON OUR DRAFT Q&A ON\nNUCLEAR POWER MORATORIUM\nAttached at Tab A are the comments received on the draft\nQ&A circulated last Friday. Comments were received from\nEPA, CEQ, Seidman, OMB, FEA, ERDA, NSC, Commerce and NRC.\nNo comments received from Hartmann or Morton. Marsh,\nFriedersdorf, Buchen and Scowcroft indicated draft was OK.\nA revised draft is attached at Tab B. I propose that we\nattach this to the briefing paper for the meeting on\nThursday.\nDRAFT\nNUCLEAR MORATORIUM\noun\nQ. The people of this state will soon be voting on the question\nof whether or not to slow down or stop the development of\nnuclear powerplants. What is your position on this question?\nA. I don't believe it would be proper for me to attempt to tell\nthe people of this state how to vote on a specific issue\nthat will be before you in a state election.\nI will share with you my thoughts on the general subject of\nnuclear power.\nFirst, we are now in the 18th year of commercial nuclear\npower production in the United States. In total the\nNation's commercial nuclear plants represent several\nhundred years of operating experience --- without a\nsingle death from a nuclear accident. That's a good\nrecord. The 57 plants now operating are supplying about\n9 percent of our electrical power.\nSecond, even though we have an excellent safety record, I\nbelieve we must continue our efforts to assure it remains\nso in the years ahead. As one step, I have asked for more\nfunds in 1977 for both the Nuclear Regulatory Commission\n(NRC) and ERDA for reactor safety R&D.\nThird, we are now safely storing nuclear fuel wastes at\nnuclear power plant sites. We must accelerate our efforts\nto provide for safe, secure, environmentally acceptable nuclear\nwastes. I have also requested funds for a major expansion\ntransportation and long-term storage of these\nof programs to do this.\nFourth, in January 1975, I activated NRC as an independent\nregulatory agency for commercial nuclear power. Ensuring\nthe safety of nuclear powerplants is the primary respon-\nsibility of that agency. I have increased both the funding\nand manpower for the NRC so that it has the resources it\nneeds to carry out this and its other important assignments\nin the nuclear area.\nF,fth\nSixth, there are many other important aspects of nuclear power\nwhich should be considered when making such important\ndeterminations about nuclear power's future. For example,\nI understand that electricity produced by nuclear power in\nCalifornia, as elsewhere, would be a good deal cheaper than\nany other available alternative and could reduce California's\nneeds for imported oil or other high cost fossil fuel supplies.\nFinally, I recognize that there are still a number of\nresponsible people in the, country that have legitimate\nconcerns and questions about nuclear power. This is quite\nunderstandable. We should expect questions about\ntechnology. It's important that we respond to these questions.\nI can assure you that the energy and environmental agencies\nreporting to me will do everything they can to answer\nquestions that come to them. I have every confidence that\nthe independent NRC will also address fully any questions\nthat come to its attention.\ntechnologies that are just achieving wide-scale application.\nEROA- Sedindus\nPER RAY WALTERS\nQ&A ON NUCLEAR MORATORIUM\nFORD is LIBRARY GERALD\nPARA. #1\nRef the President saying he will not tell the people\nhow to vote\nWalters and company seem to remember that the President\nin a speech in Sacramento last October said that he\nwas opposed to the moratorium issue and people should\nnot vote for it\ntherefore he may have gone on record\nas opposing it.\nREF NUCLEAR WASTE\nThis is a growing issue in California NOTE: Storage facilities\nfor large scale nuclear wates are not needed until the 1980s\nand ERDA has mounted a major program of development and\ndemonstration for such storage facilities\nTHIS HAS BEEN COORDINATED WITH ROBERTS' AREA\nNUCLEAR MORATORIUM\nNSC\nQ. The people of this state will soon be voting on the question\nof whether or not to slow down or stop the development of\nnuclear powerplants. What is your position on this question?\nA. I don't believe it would be proper for me to attempt to tell\nthe people of this state how to vote on a specific issue\nthat will be before you in a state election.\nI will share with you my thoughts on the general subject of\nnuclear power.\nFirst, we are now in the 18th year of commercial nuclear\npower production in the United States. In total the\nNation's commercial nuclear plants represent several\nhundred years of operating experience -- without a\nsingle death from a nuclear accident. That's a good\nrecord. The 57 plants now operating are supplying about\n9 percent of our electrical power.\nSecond, even though we have an excellent safety record, I\nbelieve we must continue our efforts to assure it remains\nso in the years ahead. As one step, I have asked for more\nfunds in 1977 for both the Nuclear Regulatory Commission\n(NRC) and ERDA for reactor safety R&D. I have also\nrequested funds for a major expansion of programs to provide\nsafe, secure, and environmentally acceptable transportation\nand storage for nuclear wastes. I believe that the matter of waste\ndisposal leas been much exaggerated as a potential problem and that\nThird, in January 1975, I activated NRC as an independent\nregulatory agency for commercial nuclear power. Ensuring\nthe safety of nuclear powerplants is the primary respon-\nsibility of that agency. I have increased both the funding\nand manpower for the NRC so that it has the resources it\nneeds to carry out its important assignments.\nFourth, the question of nuclear safety has been looked at\nin detail by a number of very competent, objective, and\nexpert people who have expressed great confidence in its\nsafety. Also, my enýironmental advisers have also told me\nthat they find nuclear energy very acceptable from an\nenvironmental point of view.\nFinally, I recognize that there are still a number of\nresponsible people in the country that have legitimate\nconcerns and questions about nuclear power. This is quite\nunderstandable. We should expect questions about any new\ntechnology. It's important that we respond to these questions.\nI can assure you that the energy and environmental agencies\nreporting to me will do everything they can to answer\nquestions that come to them. = have every confidence that\nthe independent NRC will also address fully any questions\nthat come to its attention.\nthere are several approaches which, when\nimplamented, will be found to be satisfactory\nin dealing with long term waite storage,\nGlen: as requested\nDRAFT\nNUCLEAR MORATORIUM\nSter Jellink\nCER\nQ. The people of this state will soon be voting on the question\nof whether or not to slow down or stop the development of\nnuclear powerplants. What is your position on this question?\nA. I don't believe it would be proper for me to attempt to tell\nthe people of this state how to vote on a specific issue\nthat will be before you in a state election.\nI will share with you my thoughts on the general subject of\nnuclear power.\nFirst, we are now in the 18th year of commercial nuclear\npower production in the United States. In total the\nNation's commercial nuclear plants represent several\nhundred years of operating experience -- without a\nsingle death from a nuclear accident. That's a good\nrecord. The 57 plants now operating are supplying about\n9 percent of our electrical power.\nSecond, even though we have an excellent safety record, I\nbelieve we must continue our efforts to assure it remains\nso in the years ahead. As one step, I have asked for more\nfunds in 1977 for both the Nuclear Regulatory Commission\nGive Are\n(NRC) and ERDA for reactor safety R&D. I have also\nrequested funds for a major expansion of programs to provide\namount d\nsafe, secure, and environmentally acceptable transportation\nfor the research near\nand storage for nuclear wastes.\nthe to in\nover o past year,\nThird, in January 1975, I activated NRC as an independent\nregulatory agency for commercial nuclear power. Ensuring\nthe safety of nuclear powerplants is the primary respon-\nTell How much\nsibility of that agency. I have increased both the funding\nand manpower for the NRC so that it has the resources it\nr man paie.\nneeds to carry out its important assignments.\nFourth, the question of nuclear safety has been looked at\nin detail by a number of very competent, objective, and\nexpert people who have expressed great confidence in its\nsafety. Also, my environmental advisers have also told me\nall smithing\nthat they find nuclear energy very acceptable, from an\nlike: All\nenvironmental point of view muclear power 15 for less polluting that\nresponsible studie\nThe only realistic alternative over the next coal.\nFinally, I recognize that there are still a number of\nneeds - including\nof future energy\nresponsible people in the country that have legitimate\nconcerns and questions about nuclear power. This is quite\nFord Endo conclude\nunderstandable. We should expect questions about any new\nthat we need to\ntechnology. It's important that we respond to these questions.\nfissin in a mign.\nrely on muclear\nI can assure you that the energy and environmental agencies\nreporting to me will do everything they can to answer\neven assuming ue\nquestions that come to them. I have every confidence that\nthe independent NRC will also address fully any questions\nwe to conserve-enus\nway, do everything\nthat come to its attention.\ncan develop wear, goo-\nIf we don't use werdear proor we are going to have to bun more coal. That means\nmember, tuen itc.\natupmins, air pollution, etc.\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nMarch 19, 1976\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nFROM:\nGLENN Q&A DICK DARMAN ACHLEEDE 2\nSUBJECT:\nON NUCLEAR MORATORIUM\nCould we please have your comments\nand recommendations on the attached\nQ&A by Noon on Monday, March 22.\nAttachment\nCommerce\nDRAFT\nNUCLEAR MORATORIUM\nQ. The people of this state will soon be voting on the question\nof whether or not to slow down or stop the development of\nnuclear powerplants. What is your position on this question?\nA. I don't believe it would be proper for me to attempt to tell\nthe people of this state how to vote on a specific issue\nthat will be before you in a state election.\nI will share with you my thoughts on the general subject of\nnuclear power.\nFirst, we are now in the 18th year of commercial nuclear\npower production in the United States. In total the\nNation's commercial nuclear plants represent several\nhundred years of operating experience -- without a\nsingle death from a nuclear accident. That's a good\nrecord. The 57 plants now operating are supplying about\n9 percent of our electrical power.\n\\\nSecond, even though we have an excellent safety record, I\nbelieve we must continue our efforts to assure it remains\nFaith\nso in the years ahead. As one step, I have asked for more\nfunds in 1977 for both the Nuclear Regulatory Commission\n(NRC) and ERDA for reactor safety R&D. I have also\nrequested funds for a major expansion of programs to provide\nsafe, secure, and environmentally acceptable transportation\nand storage for nuclear wastes.\nThink\nThird, in January 1975, I activated NRC as an independent\nregulatory agency for commercial nuclear power. Ensuring\nthe safety of nuclear powerplants is the primary respon-\nsibility of that agency. I have increased both the funding\nand manpower for the NRC so that it has the resources it\nneeds to carry out its important assignments.\nFourth, the question of nuclear safety has been looked at\nin detail by a number of very competent, objective, and\nexpert people who have expressed great confidence in its\nsafety. Also, my environmental advisers have also told me\nthat they find nuclear energy ver acceptable from an\n?\nenvironmental point of view.\nFinally, I recognize that there are still a number of\nresponsible people in the country that who have legitimate\nconcerns and questions about nuclear power. This is quite\nunderstandable. We should expect questions about any new\ntechnology. It's important that we respond to these questions.\nI can assure you that the energy and environmental agencies\nreporting to me will, do everything they can to answer\nquestions that come to them. I have every confidence that\nthe independent NRC will also address fully any questions\nthat come to its attention. what is essential, given\nthe impor twice 5 the\ncontinue to\nissues at stake, is that policy\ncontinue to be made not on\nthe basis of\nbut on the basis n responsible info...\nMarch 22, 1976\nGlenn:\nFEA\nThe attached memo has appended to it your\noriginal Q&A and my mark-up of it. Rosenberg's\npeople gave me an extensive rewrite, but I had\nno time to try to compare the Rosenberg version\nwith mine. Zausner felt my mark-up was OK.\nHave not heard from Zarb or Hill.\nIf you can call me on this before 4:30, I\nwould be grateful. I am catching a plane\nand have to leave at 4:30.\nPaul Dragoumis\nX see memo attached\nFEDERAL ENERGY ADMINISTRATION\nMarch 18, 1976\nMEMORANDUM FOR FRANK G. ZARB\nJOHN A. HILL\nERIC R. ZAUSNER\nWILLIAM G. ROSENBERG\nORIGINAL SIGNED\nFROM:\nPAUL DRAGOUMIS BY P. DRAGOUMIS\nSUBJECT:\nQ&A FOR THE PRESIDENT ON THE CALIFORNIA\nINITIATIVE\nGlenn Schleede has asked me specifically to distribute\nto you for comment the attached draft Q&A intended for the\nPresident's briefing book.\nI have taken the liberty of marking my comments on a\nduplicate copy also attached. Would you please let me know\nwhether my mark-up is satisfactory.\nAttachments\nPDragoumis/mep/3-18-76/X 6241\nCC: Subject File\nReading File\nGERALD FORD LIBRARY\nCONCURRENCES\nSYMBOL\nSURNAME\nDATE\nFEA-F-47\nGPO 1975 0 - 588-400\nOFFICIAL FILE COPY\nNUCLEAR MORATORIUM\nDRAFT\nQ. The people of this state will soon be voting on the question\nof whether or not to slow down or stop the development of\nnuclear powerplants. What is your position on this question?\nA. I don't believe it would be proper for me to attempt to tell\nthe people of this state how to vote on a specific issue\nthat will be before you in a state election.\nI will share with you my thoughts on the general subject of\nnuclear power.\nFirst, we are now in the 18th year of commercial nuclear\npower production in the United States. In total the\nNation's commercial nuclear plants represent several\nhundred years of operating experience -- without a\nsingle death from a nuclear accident. That's a good\nrecord The 57 plants now operating are supplying about\n9 percent of our electrical power.\nSecond, even though we have an excellent safety record, I\nbelieve we must continue our efforts to assure it remains\nso in the years ahead. As one step, I have asked for more\nfunds in 1977 for both the Nuclear Regulatory Commission\n(NRC) and ERDA for reactor safety R&D. I have also\nrequested funds for a major expansion of programs to provide\nsafe, secure, and environmentally acceptable transportation\nand storage for nuclear wastes.\nThird, in January 1975, I activated NRC as an independent\nregulatory agency for commercial nuclear power. Ensuring\nthe safety of nuclear powerplants is the primary respon-\nsibility of that agency. I. have increased both the funding\nand manpower for the NRC so that it has the resources it\nneeds to carry out its important assignments.\nFourth, the question of nuclear safety has been looked at\nin detail by a number of very competent, objective, and\nexpert people who have expressed great confidence in its\nsafety. Also, my environmental advisers have also told me\nthat they find nuclear energy very acceptable from an\nenvironmental point of view.\nFinally, I recognize that there are still a number of\nresponsible people in the country that have legitimate\nconcerns and questions about nuclear power. This is quite\nunderstandable. We should expect questions about any new\ntechnology. It's important that we respond to these questions.\nI can assure you that the energy and environmental agencies\nreporting to me will do everything they can to answer\nquestions that come to them. I have every confidence that\nthe independent NRC will also address fully any questions\nthat come to its attention.\nNUCLEAR MORATORIUM\nDRAFT\nQ. The people of this state will soon be voting on the question\nof whether or not to slow down or stop the development of\nnuclear powerplants. What is your position on this question?\nappropriate\ntake a position\nA. I don't believe it would be proper for me to attempt to tell\nthe people of this state how to vote on a specific issue such\nthat will this be before you in a state election.\nI will share with you my thoughts on the general subject of\nnuclear power.\nFirst, we are now in the 18th year of commercial nuclear\npower production in the United States. In total the this\nNation' safe nuclear ear plants represents several\nhundred years of Aoperating experience -- without a\nsingle death from a nuclear accident. That's an good unexcelled\nrecord The 57 plants now operating are supplying about\n9 percent of our electrical power.\nthat this\nSecond even though we have an excellent safety record\nGI I believe we must continue our efforts to assurelit remains continued\nso in the years ahead. As one step, I have asked for more\nfunds in 1977 for both the Nuclear Regulatory Commission\n(NRC) and ERDA, for reactor safety R&D. I have also\nrequested funds for a major expansion of programs to provide\nsafe, secure, and environmentally acceptable transportation\nand storage for nuclear wastes.\nThird, in January 1975, I activated NRC as an independent\nregulatory agency for commercial nuclear power. Ensuring\nthe safety of nuclear powerplants is the primary respon-\nsibility of that agency. I have increased both the funding\nand manpower for the NRC so that it has the resources it\nneeds, to carry out its important assignments.\ntinized by\nFourth, the question of nuclear safety has been looked at\nmany in detail by a number of very competent, objective, and\nexpert people who have expressed great confidence in in its ther\ndevelopment\nsafety nucled. Also, my environmental advisers have also told me\nthat they find nuclear energy very acceptable from an\nenvironmental point of view.\nNote:\nrelatively\nFifth point\nFinally, I recognize that there are still a number of\nadded. Shownon\nresponsible people in the country that have legitimate\nconcerns and questions about nuclear power. This is quite\nattached sheet\nunderstandable. We should expect questions about any new\ntechnology. It's important that we respond to these questions.\nI can assure you that the energy and environmental agencies\nreporting to me will do everything they can to answer\nquestions that come to them. I have every confidence that\nthe independent NRC will also address fully any questions\nthat come to its attention.\n2\nFifth, our studies of the national energy outlook\nover the next ten years show the need for rapid\ngrowth in nuclear energy as well as each of our\nother domestic fuels if we are to make needed\nstrides toward energy independence.\nFEDERAL ENERGY ADMINISTRATION\nDate:\neftenn\nReply to\nWilliam G. Rosenberg\nAttn of:\nAssistant Administrator\nSubject:\nERD Comments on Q&A for the President -\non the California Initiative\nthis are Aven just from\nTo:\nPaul Dragoumis\nOffice of Policy and Analysis\nflorehers\nse\nAttached is a proposed review of the subject Q&A for the\nPresident's briefing book.\nERD's suggested revisions would accomplish three principle\nchanges in the proposed Q&A as follows:\n1. Have the President make note of the\nfavorable economics of nuclear power and its\ncurrent and projected role in the sense of\nconsumer savings, jobs and domestic energy\nresources.\n2. Have the President admit that answers\nto all questions are not yet in hand and that\nadditional work to answer valid questions is\nneeded and is underway.\n3. On the other hand, have the President\nnote that we cannot expect a totally risk free\nfuture and that perfect answers to all\npostulated questions is not possible before\nproceeding.\nWe hope these suggestions are responsive to the input requested\nby OMB. If there is need for further input from ERD, please\ncontact Bob Hanfling directly.\nThis specific OMB request for input to the President's briefing\nbook would suggest the preparation of other similar Q&A's\nrelative to the California Initiative. For example, (1) plans\nfor FEA testimony before the California assembly; (2) the\nUniversity of Texas Study of the possible effects of this\ninitiative; (3) the role FEA or the Administration expects to\nplay relative to the public debate on nuclear power, or (4) a\nmore general statement on State/Federal cooperation on the\nresolution of domestic energy resource development decisions.\nFEA-F-42 (6/74)\n2\nIf such additional Q&A's are desired by OMB, we are\nmost willing to participate in their preparation.\nAttachment\nCC:\nFrank Zarb\nJohn Hill\nEric Zausner\nNUCLEAR MORATORIUM\nERD PROPOSED REVISION\nQ. The people of this state will soon be voting on the question\nof whether or not to slow down or stop the development of\nnuclear powerplants. What is your position on this question?\nA. I don't believe it would be appropriate for me to take a\nposition on a specific issue such as this in a State election.\nI will share with you my general thoughts on nuclear power.\nFirst, we are now in the 18th year of commercial nuclear\npower production in the United States. In total this Nation\nhas recorded several hundred plant years of safe and economic\noperating experience. The 57 plants now operating are supply-\ning about 9 percent of our electrical power. In 1975 these\nplants saved consumers more than $\nin their electricity\nbills. These savings are expected to improve as more plants\ncome into operation.\nSecond, to date the safety record of the nuclear industry has\nbeen better than any other industry in history. While we can\ntake pride in this unparalleled achievement, we must not rest on\nour current successes. We must extend these efforts to assure\ncontinuance of this safety record. Accordingly, in January 1975\nthe Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) was established as an\nindependent agency responsible for assuring the future safety of\ncommercial nuclear power plants.\nThird, to support this effort, I have increased both the funding and\nmanpower for the NRC so that it has the resources it needs to\ncarry out its important assignment. In addition, I have requested\nfunds for a major expansion of programs by the Energy Research\nand Development Administration in nuclear reactor safety and to\nprovide safe, secure and environmentally acceptable transporta-\ntion and storage for nuclear wastes.\nFourth, nuclear safety has been scrutinized by many competent,\nobjective and expert people. They strongly support the safety\naspects of nuclear power and recommend expanded use of this\nvaluable domestic energy resource. In addition my environmental\nadvisors note that nuclear power is one of the least environ-\nmentally damaging major current energy resources.\nFifth, our studies of the national energy outlook show the need\nfor growth in nuclear energy as well as our other domestic fuels\nif we are to make needed strides toward energy independence and\nprovide adequate energy resources at the low prices needed to\nmaintain the Nation's employment levels.\n2\nFinally, I recognize that there are a significant number\nof responsible and sincere people in the country that\nhave concerns and questions about nuclear power. We\nshould expect questions about any relatively new technology.\nIt is important that we both respond to these questions\nto the best of our capability and undertake those further\nsteps needed to assure that satisfactory responses to\nvalid questions are forthcoming. On the other hand, I do\nnot believe it is in our Nation's best interest to wait\nfor the perfect or ultimate answers to all postulated ques-\ntions before proceeding. Such an approach could bring our\nsociety and economy to a standstill. I can assure you that\nthis Administration's energy and environmental agencies will\ncontinue to do everything they can to answer questions that\ncome to them in an open and candid manner.\nEYES ONLY\nADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDIENTIAL\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nGleun March WASHINGTON 18, 1976\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nWILLIAM ANDERS\nFROM:\nGLENN SCHLEEDE\nSUBJECT:\nQ&A ON NUCLEAR MORATORIUM\nMay we please have your comments and recommendations\nfor improvement on the attached Q&A by COB, Friday,\nMarch 19.\nA telephone response will be fine. Thanks.\nAttachment\nGuat\nSill\nADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL\nEYES ONLY\nFORD is LIBRARY GENALD\nDRAFT\nNUCLEAR MORATORIUM\nQ. The people of this state will soon be voting on the question\nof whether or not to slow down or stop the development of\nnuclear powerplants. What is your position on this question?\nA. I don't believe it would be proper for me to attempt to tell\nthe people of this state how to vote on a specific issue\nthat will be before you in a state election.\nI will share with you my thoughts on the general subject of\nnuclear power.\nFirst, we are now in the 18th year of commercial nuclear\npower production in the United States. In total the\nNation's commercial nuclear plants represent several\nhundred years of operating experience -- without a\nsingle death from a nuclear accident. That's a good\nrecord. The 57 plants now operating are supplying about\n9 percent of our electrical power.\nSecond, even though we have an excellent safety record, I\nbelieve we must continue our efforts to assure it remains\nso in the years ahead. As one step, I have asked for more\nfunds in 1977 for both the Nuclear Regulatory Commission\n(NRC) and ERDA for reactor safety R&D. I have also\nrequested funds for a major expansion of programs to provide\nsafe, secure, and environmentally acceptable transportation\nand storage for nuclear wastes.\nThird, in January 1975, I activated NRC as an independent\nregulatory agency for commercial nuclear power. Ensuring\nthe safety of nuclear powerplants is the primary respon-\nsibility of that agency. I have increased both the funding\nand manpower for the NRC so that it has the resources it\nneeds to carry out its important assignments.\nFourth, the question of nuclear safety has been looked at\nin detail by a number of very competent, objective, and\nexpert people who have expressed great confidence in its\nsafety. Also, my environmental advisers have also told me\nthat they find nuclear energy very acceptable from an\nenvironmental point of view.\nFinally, I recognize that there are still a number of\nresponsible people in the country that have legitimate\nconcerns and questions about nuclear power. This is quite\nunderstandable. We should expect questions about any new\ntechnology. It's important that we respond to these questions.\nI can assure you that the energy and environmental agencies\nreporting to me will do everything they can to answer\nquestions that come to them. I have every confidence that\nthe independent NRC will also address fully any questions\nthat come to its attention.\nDRAFT\nNUCLEAR MORATORIUM\nDeehno. Itepn\nE&A\nThe people of this state will soon be voting on the question\nof whether or not to slow down or stop the development of\nnuclear powerplants. What is your position on this question?\nA. I don't believe it would be proper for me to attempt to tell\nthe people of this state how to vote on a specific issue\nthat will be before you in a state election.\nI will share with you my thoughts on the general subject of\nnuclear power.\nFirst, we are now in the 18th year of commercial nuclear\npower production in the United States. In total the\nNation's commercial nuclear plants represent several\nhundred years of operating experience -- without a\nmy\nsingle death from a nuclear accident. That's a good\nrecord. The 57 plants now operating are supplying about\n9 percent of our electrical power and for less\ninform\npattition the an than combustion of fassel fuels\nSecond, even though we have an excellent safety record, I\nbelieve we must continue our efforts to assure it remains\nso in the years ahead. As one step, I have asked for more\nfunds in 1977 for both the Nuclear Regulatory Commission\n(NRC) and ERDA for reactor safety R&D. I have also\nrequested funds for a major expansion of programs to provide\nsafe, secure, and environmentally acceptable transportation\nand storage for nuclear wastes.\nThird, in January 1975, I activated NRC as an independent\nregulatory agency for commercial nuclear power. Ensuring\nthe safety of nuclear powerplants is the primary respon-\nsibility of that agency. I have increased both the funding\nand manpower for the NRC so that it has the resources it\nneeds to carry out its important assignments. NRC will\nimplement the enuuonaental stds uung developed by EPA\nFourth, the question of nuclear safety has been looked at\nin detail by a number of very competent, objective, and\nexpert people who have expressed great confidence in its\nsafety. [Also, my environmental advisers have also told me\nthat they find nuclear energy very acceptable from an\nenvironmental point of view\nFinally, I recognize that there are still a number of\nresponsible people in the country that have legitimate\nconcerns and questions about nuclear power. This is quite\nunderstandable. We should expect questions about any new\ntechnology. It's important that we respond to these questions.\nI can assure you that the energy and environmental agencies\nreporting to me will do everything they can to answer\nquestions that come to them. I have every confidence that\nthe independent NRC will also address fully any questions\nthat come to its attention.\nUNITED PROTECTION STATES. AGENCY\nUNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20460\nMarch 23, 1976\nOFFICE OF THE\nADMINISTRATOR\nMEMORANDUM FOR MR. GLENN SCHLEEDE\nDomestic Council\nSUBJECT: Draft Q & A\nAttached is a written version of the suggested revision of\nthe Q&A on nuclear power. I phoned these to Karen this morning.\nAs we discussed, we do not believe that the Administrator\nwould be willing to stand behind the final sentence in paragraph 6\nin your draft.\nWe believe he would be supportive of the additional clause\nadded at the end of paragraph 3.\nSteffen WILL Plehn\nExecutive Assistant\nto the Administrator\nAttachment\nNUCLEAR MORATORIUM\nQ. The people of this state will soon be voting on the question of\nwhether or not to slow down or stop the development of nuclear\npowerplants. What is your position on this question?\nA. I don't believe it would be proper for me to attempt to tell the\npeople of this state how to vote on a specific issue that will\nbe before you in a State election.\nI will share with you my thoughts on the general subject of nuclear\npower.\nFirst, we are now in the 18th year of commercial nuclear power\nproduction in the United States. In total the Nation's commercial\nnuclear plants represent several hundred years of operating\nexperience -- without a single death from a nuclear accident.\nThat's a good record. The 57 plants now operating are supplying\nabout 9 percent of our electrical power and, my environmental\nadvisors inform me, with far less pollution of the air than combustion\nof fossil fuels.\nSecond, even though we have an excellent safety record, I believe\nwe must continue our efforts to assure it remains so in the years\nahead. As one step, I have asked for more funds in 1977 for both\nthe Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and ERDA for reactor\nsafety R&D. I have also requested funds for a major expansion of\nprograms to provide safe, secure, and environmentally acceptable\ntransportation and storage for nuclear wastes.\nThird, in January 1975, I activated NRC as an independent regulatory\nagency for commercial nuclear power. Ensuring the safety of nuclear\npowerplants is the primary responsibility of that agency. I have\nincreased both the funding and manpower for the NRC so that it has\nthe resources it needs to carry out its important assignments. NRC\nwill implement the environmental standards being developed by EPA.\nFourth, the question of nuclear safety has been looked at in detail\nby a number of (very) competent, objective, and expert people who\nhave expressed (great) confidence in its safety.\nFinally, I recognize that there are still a number of responsible\npeople in the country that have legitimate concerns and questions\nabout nuclear power. This is quite understandable. We should expect\nquestions about any new technology. It's important that we respond\nto these questions. I can assure you that the energy and environmental\nagencies reporting to me will do everything they can to answer questions\nthat come to them. I have every confidence that the independent NRC will\nalso address fully any questions that come to its attention.\nSeidenan\ndo everying they can to answer questions that come to\nthem. I have every confidence that the independent\nNRC will also fully address any questions that come to\nits attention.\nthat\nenergy independence, we must\nJinally, of we are to goin\nhave the ovailability of mucher\npower. One challenge is to\nmore that in abtaining this\nSource, of develope This\nsource of power in and a\nmanner That protects lives\nand environment.\nNUCLEAR MORATORIUM\nQ. The people of this State will soon be voting on the question\nof whether or not to slow down or stop the development of nuclear\npowerplants. What is your position on this question?\nA. I don't believe it would be proper for me to attempt to tell\nthe people of this State how to vote on a specific issue that\nwill be before you in a State election.\nI will share with you my thoughts on the general subject of\nnuclear power.\nFirst, we are now in the 18th year of commercial nuclear power\nproduction in the United States. In total the Nation's\ncommercial nuclear plants represent several hundred plant years\nof operating experience -- without a single death from a nuclear\naccident. That's a good record.\nSecond, even though we have an excellent safety record, I\nbelieve we must continue our efforts to assure it remains SO\nin the years ahead. As one step, I have asked for more funds\nin 1977 for both the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and\nERDA for reactor safety R&D. I have also requested funds for a\nmajor expansion of programs to provide safe, secure, and\nenvironmentally acceptable transportation and storage for nuclear\nwastes.\nThird, in January 1975, I activated NRC as an independent\nregulatory agency for commercial nuclear power. Ensuring the\nsafety of nuclear powerplants is the primary responsibility\nof that agency. I have increased both the funding and manpower\nfor the NRC so that it has the resources it needs.\nFourth, the question of safety has been looked at in detail by\na number of competent, objective, and expert people who have\nexpressed confidence in the safety of nuclear plants. Also,\nmy environmental advisers have also told me that nuclear\nenergy is preferable from an environmental point of view.\nFifth, the 57 plants now operating are supplying about 9\npercent of our nation's electrical power. Generating this\namount of power with oil-fired plants would mean increasing\nour oil imports by about 1 million barrels per day. Thus\nnuclear power is already making a substantial contribution\nto our energy needs. Also, the cost of electricity from\nnuclear plants is much less than from oil-fired plants.\n- -2-\nFinally, I recognize that there are still a number of\nresponsible people in the country that have legitimate\nconcerns and questions about nuclear power. This is quite\nunderstandable. We should expect questions about technologies\nthat are just achieving wide-scale application. It's important\nthat we respond to these questions. I can assure you that\nthe energy and environmental agencies reporting to me will\ndo everything they can to answer questions that come to them.\nI have every confidence that the independent NRC will also\naddress fully any questions that come to its attention.\n*\n#\n*\non\n#\nBICENTENNIAL\nOFFICE OF THE VICE president\nWASHINGTON\n976\nApril 20, 1976\nMEMORANDUM FOR JIM CANNON\nFROM:\nJACK VENEMAN\nR\nHas anything ever been done to set up\na meeting with the California delegation?\nfort,\nJack we And had with th but wi\nn\noft worer The when the to in out California abut forma ihrs artection / nobody no givin\nHaus\nHans Mark\nAND\nSPARE ADMINISTRATION TYNOMYN\nREVOLUTION\nNATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION\nAMES RESEARCH CENTER\nMOFFETT FIELD, CALIFORNIA 94035\nAMERICAN\nBICENTENNIAL\nU.S.A.\n1776-1976\nREPLY TO\nATTN OF:\nD: 200-1\nApril 16, 1976\nMr. John G. Veneman\nCouselor to the Vice President\nExecutive Office Building\nWashington, D. C. 20501\nFORD & LIBRARY 07V839\nDear Jack:\nMany thanks for your note and for a copy of the enclosed remarks by the\nPresident on the California Nuclear Safeguards Initiative. It is a good\nstatement, but as far as I know it has received no publicity at all in California.\nPerhaps this is unavoidable given the President's schedule, but I really\nbelieve that he should take some time out to help us in our fight to prevent\nProposition 15 from being passed.\nI continue to believe that on a complex technical issue such as this one,\npeople will tend to follow the political leaders they trust. It is therefore\nmost important for us first to convince trusted political leaders that Proposition\n15 is wrong, and second, to make certain that the political leaders then\nget the message across to their constituents. What you have sent shows\nme that in the case of the President we have achieved the first objective,\nbut not yet the second.\nI still believe that it is most important for the President to work with the\nCalifornia Congressional Delegation and get together with them as soon\nas possible to discuss this very important issue. There is a real chance\nthat we will lose the game unless this happens, and happens soon.\nI have a couple of public debates on TV lined up in the next few weeks,\nso I should at some point have a better feeling for what people think.\nI will let you know how things go.\nWith best personal regards,\nSincerely yours,\nHaus\nHans Mark\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\n5/3/16 the\nMay 21, 1976\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nJIM CANNON\nJIM CONNOR\nFROM:\nGLENN SCHLEEDE\nWhether\nSUBJECT:\nEPA REVIEW OF THE RASMUSSEN\nNUCLEAR SAFETY\nBoth of you have mentioned this subject over the last\nfew weeks SO I am taking the liberty of a single memo\nto give you my understanding of where the matter stands.\nBriefly, I think there is a potential that the EPA\nactivity could have an impact on the nuclear debate in\nCalifornia.\n-- The Rasmussen Report is the product of an extensive\nstudy initiated and sponsored by the AEC and then\ncontinued by the NRC of the potential incidence\nand consequence of nuclear reactor accidents.\n(Rasmussen is a MIT professor hired as a consultant\nto lead the study.) The study was issued in final\nform several months ago after first being put out\nin draft for comment.\n-- My understanding of EPA's involvement and plans are\nas follows:\nEPA was either invited to or had volunteered\nto testify at hearings scheduled for about\nJune 10 before Udall's Subcommittee of the\nHouse Interior Committee. EPA -- at least\nthe lead man on radiation, Bill Rowe --\nwill testify.\n2\nEPA has been engaged in a review of the\nRasmussen Report. Apparently, Rowe and or\nhis staff take exception to some of the\nconclusions in the report. More specifically\nthat the report:\n- underestimates by a factor between 3 and 5\nthe number of people effected by an accident\nby making optimistic assumptions regarding\nevacuation rates;\n- underestimates by a factor of 2 the long-term\nhealth effects due to low level radiation\nexposure; and\n- does not address all of the issues previously\nraised by EPA. (Not clear what these are.)\nApparently Rowe does not intend to surface the\nEPA analysis prior to June 11, but Rowe expects\nto have in his hands by about June 28 a draft\nof the analysis.\nIt would not be unusual for the EPA draft analysis\nto find its way into the press. The EPA draft analysis\ncould impact the June 8 moratorium vote.\nOMB staff, under Jim Mitchell, apparently have\nlooked into this matter but may not have come\nup with a solution. I understand they have\nencouraged EPA to discuss their analysis with\nthe NRC prior to going public.\nnuclear\nI\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nRequest\nWASHINGTON\nJune 7, 1976\nHill\nTO:\nJIM CANNON\nFROM:\nGLENN Slon SCHLEEDE\nThe attached is in response to your\nMay 31 request.\nFORD LIBRARY :-\nare TI s 55 2 20\nU\n5/3/16\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nMay 21, 1976\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nJIM CANNON\nWhen\nJIM CONNOR\nFROM:\nGLENN SCHLEEDE\nSUBJECT:\nEPA REVIEW OF THE RASMUSSEN REPORT ON\nNUCLEAR SAFETY\nBoth of you have mentioned this subject over the last\nfew weeks so I am taking the liberty of a single memo\nto give you my understanding of where the matter stands.\nBriefly, I think there is a potential that the EPA\nactivity could have an impact on the nuclear debate in\nCalifornia.\n-- The Rasmussen Report is the product of an extensive\nstudy initiated and sponsored by the AEC and then\ncontinued by the NRC of the potential incidence\nand consequence of nuclear reactor accidents.\n(Rasmussen is a MIT professor hired as a consultant\nto lead the study.) The study was issued in final\nform several months ago after first being put out\nin draft for comment.\n-- My understanding of EPA's involvement and plans are\nas follows:\nEPA was either invited to or had volunteered\nto testify at hearings scheduled for about\nJune 10 before Udall's Subcommittee of the\nHouse Interior Committee. EPA -- at least\nthe lead man on radiation, Bill Rowe --\nwill testify.\nFORD & LIBRARY DERALD\nEPA REVIEW OF RASMUSSEN REPORT\nON NUCLEAR SAFETY\nStatus as of 10:00 A.M., June 7\n-- NRC Review. NRC staff members, lead by Mr. Saul Levine,\nstarted late last week a review of the EPA critique of\nthe Rasmussen report. EPA would not allow NRC to take\nthe report away for a review, so the review was\noccurring in EPA offices. Late Friday afternoon,\nJune 4, the NRC team was told that the review would\nhave to be discontinued until work resumed on Monday.\nApparently an appeal was made to the Office of the\nAdministrator at EPA and this condition was reversed,\nallowing the review to continue over the weekend.\n-- NRC Staff Views of EPA Report. Informally, I understand\nthat the NRC review group:\n- believes the EPA report to be substantively deficient\nand in error in some places;\n- believes the conclusions would be incorrect;\n- is concerned that the report, when made public,\nwill be perceived as a significant technical\ncontribution and used as an argument that nuclear\npower plants are not as safe as the Rasmussen report\nconcluded;\n- recognizes that the EPA radiation staff, lead by\nMr. Bill Rowe, is very unhappy about having the\nNRC review the EPA report before it is made public;\n- is concerned that the EPA staff may charge that\nEPA has been subjected to pressure concerning the\nreport.\n-- EPA's Plans for Next Steps.\n- Place their report in the EPA public documents\nroom on Thursday, June 10.\n- Rowe will testify on the review before the Udall\nsubcommittee of House Interior. (NRC will also\ntestify.)\n-- OMB Plans.\n- Anticipates reviewing draft EPA testimony tomorrow\nand NRC testimony shortly thereafter.\n2\n-\nPlans to hold a meeting with EPA and NRC staff to\nreview the testimony and probably to discuss\ndifferences of opinion on the EPA report.\n--\nNRC Activities.\n- NRC staff is preparing a written critique of the\nEPA report.\n- Saul Levine has offered to sit down with Bill Rowe\nof EPA to discuss the draft EPA report.\n--\nPossible Next Steps\n-\nPromoting an early meeting between NRC Chairman\nRowden and Mr. Train on the report.\n-\nSuggest to NRC that they be prepared to make\npublic their criticism of the EPA report at the\nsame time the EPA report becomes public."
}