Page images
PDF
EPUB

1

objection to the inclusion of one if the Committee so desires. We suggest 8 years from enactment of authorizing legislation as a

reasonable target date.

The Marriott bill specifies that the States must perform the remedial action. However, if any State fails to act within 3 years, then site restoration becomes a DOE responsibility. The Administration's bill leaves to the discretion of the Secretary whether to contract with the State or a well qualified contractor to carry out the work. Where the States are qualified and interested in carrying out the work, they may well be requested to do so.

The Marriott bill calls for a pilot study in Salt Lake City to determine the contamination of structures within 10 miles of the mill site and to determine the health hazard and types of remedial action that might be used. A report on the findings of this study are required to be submitted to the President and appropriate committees of the Congress within 1 year of enactment.

We can appreciate the concern that generated this provision. However, based on our experience in the Grand Junction, Colorado, remedial action program, and the studies already completed in Salt Lake City, we do not feel another study is warranted. We need only to make such further measurements of the radiation levels in structures built with tailings as are required to determine whether or not they exceed the guidelines established by the Surgeon General. If the structures

qualify and the owners desire, we believe that the remedial action should be undertaken as soon as possible rather than delaying action until the conclusion of another study. This can be done under the Administration's bill. Since structures built with tailings result in the highest radiation levels to individuals likely to be encountered in the program, these will receive the highest priority under the Administration's bill.

With respect to funding of the remedial program, the committee has our estimate of $80 to $126 million in 1977 dollars as the range of probable cost depending on the particular alternative selected for each site. For the first year, we suggested $3,000,000, as the remedial work is likely to be small that year.

Mr. Chairman, as you know, we have received from the Committee an extensive list of questions concerning the legislation. The questions and answers to them are attached to this statement.

If you have other questions I will try to answer them, or provide

written answers later if necessary.

Thank you.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
POSED BY

JOHN D. DINGELL

CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE

Question 1. (a) Please provide the statement required by the Act of July 25, 1956 (70 Stat. 652).

Answer. The following is an estimate of maximum additional resources to administer and carry out a remedial action program for inactive uranium tailings sites for the first five fiscal years:

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

Question 1 (b). Please provide the Administration's
views on H. R. 12938 and H. R. 11698, setting forth your
reasons therefor.

Answer. The Department of Energy (DOE) has recently submitted to the Congress legislation to provide DOE with authority to undertake remedial action on inactive mill tailings sites. This legislation, H. R. 12535, was introduced at DOE's request by Congressman Udall and is cited as the "Remedial Radioactive Materials Act of 1978" (the Administration's bill).

The provisions of the Administration's bill and the Marriott bill are similar in many respects. On a number of key issues, however, the bills differ significantly. While DOE supports the basic purposes of the Marriott bill, based on an analysis of these key issues we consider the Administration's bill to be the safest and most effective means by which to achieve the cleanup of these inactive mill tailings sites..

One of the more significant areas of divergence between the two bills involves the funding formulas. The Marriott bill requires the Federal Government to pay 100 per cent of the estimated "direct costs" (engineering, removal, stabilization, and monitoring) and 75 per cent of the costs of off-site restoration; the State is required to pay 100 percent of "indirect costs" (administrative, planning and property acquisition). The Administration's bill, on the other hand, requires the Federal Government to provide up to 75 per cent and the State at least 25 per cent of the costs to assess radiation levels and perform remedial action in and around inactive sites.

Since each State has received certain advantages arising out of the presence of the mills within the State, such as tax and employment benefits, it is felt that a State contribution of 25 per cent of the costs of program is not an excessive requirement. The affected States will also benefit from the program because in many cases, once the remedial action is completed, the land will be available for unrestricted use. Additionally, Congress itself set the precedent for a cooperative Federal/State program when it enacted Title II of P.L. 92-314, which recognized and assumed "the compassionate responsibility of the United States" to assist in the remedial action effort at Grand Junction, Colorado. The 75/25 sharing ratio established by that legislation is being implemented successfully in the Grand Junction program. Although the facts of the present situation differ somewhat from those in the Grand Junction program in that the mill tailings at the twenty-two sites covered by this legislation were not used for construction purposes, in view of the other policy reasons for the 75/25 ratio, DOE considers P.L. 92-314 to be sound precedent.

Section 4(g) of the Marriott bill places the financial burden for the assessment of radiation levels and performance of remedial action upon the Federal Government by requiring it to make grants of 100 per cent for direct costs and of 75 per cent for off-site restoration. As mentioned previously, because the cleanup of the uranium mill tailings sites does not reflect a purely Federal interest, but benefits the States as well, DOE considers 100 per cent Federal funding to be unjustifiable. Furthermore, since section 3(c) of the Marriott bill provides that awards of the grants are "subject to the availability of funds", it is possible that program funds could be depleted by those States whose applications for large dollar amounts are approved first. This subsection should be redrafted to ensure Federal ability to reconcile the award of State cost estimates with total program dollars.

Another important distinction between the DOE bill and the Marriott bill is the proposed regulatory structures.

Under the Administration's bill, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for prescribing standards and criteria to ensure the adequate protection of the public health and safety and the environment in connection with the remedial actions; the responsibility for the implementation and enforcement of these standards and criteria belongs to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). This proposed regulatory scheme is consistent with Congressional intent as expressed in the Clean Air Act of 1970, as amended, which grants EPA the authority to set standards for the emission of radioactive materials into the air, and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 which authorizes EPA to regulate the management of hazardous waste.

Section 10 of the Marriott bill requires the NRC to establish regulations and standards to protect the public health and safety and the environment, and waives the applicability of any other Federal law. Aside from conflicting with expressed Congressional intent to grant EPA the authority to regulate windblown radioactive particles and gaseous emissions, this section creates a potential conflict in the regulation of naturally-occurring radioactive wastes in general. While uranium mill tailings would be subject to NRC regulation, all other naturally-occurring radioactive wastes such as phosphate tailings, would remain under the authority of EPA..

In addition, section 4(b) of the Marriott bill sets standards for restoration of the background radiation level of any site to "no more than twice the background level which existed before milling operations began". This sets a standard for performance which may conflict with the regulations and standards to be established by the NRC in section 10.

Section 11 of the Marriott bill requires the Secretary to conduct a pilot study in Salt Lake City, Utah, to ascertain the level of contamination of structures within a 10-mile radius of the site, if any, and to determine whether such radiation poses a health hazard to individuals.

« PreviousContinue »