The April 30, 1976, Ford Bacon and Davis engineering study has already provided DOE with sufficient information concerning the construction sites and other structures within a 10-mile radius to enable it to perform remedial action upon these sites without a further year's delay. Other studies currently underway, such as the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory study on the radon exposure problem, and the Grand Junction program experience will provide DOE with more refined knowledge of these issues. The pilot study authorized by the Marriott bill is unnecessary and will only serve to delay further the performance of remedial action on these sites. Another area of DOE concern involves the difference in the sites covered by both bills. Section 3 of the Administration's bill includes sites "on which uranium ore was processed", but excludes from its coverage sites: (a) where no uranium was produced for sale under contract to the United States, (b) which were issued a license by the NRC or "agreement States" in effect after January 1, 1978 for the production of uranium concentrates derived from ores other than on-site mill tailings, and (c) owned by the Federal Government. The coverage provided by the Marriott bill is similar to that of the Administration's bill with one exception: section 4(a) includes sites on Federal property, while section 12(d) (1) excludes sites owned by the Federal Government as of January 1, 1978. These sections should be reconciled to eliminate this contradiction in coverage. Section 5(c) of the Administration's bill provides that "unless otherwise determined by the Secretary, the remedial action shall be performed by DOE or its authorized contractor. . .". The purpose of this section is to provide the Secretary with the discretion to delegate to the State the responsibility for the remedial action if it is determined that the State has the necessary capabilities and is willing to perform the remedial action. If such a determination is not made, DOE will perform the remedial action. The role of the State in the remedial action process is further defined in section 5(a) of the Administration's bill which grants to the States consultation functions to determine the need for and selection of the remedial action, and section 5(b) which provides that, in the event the tailings are removed for long-term stabilization, the State shall designate and own the stabilization/ disposal site, and retain ownership of the tailings and the land upon which the tailings were originally situated. The standards and criteria established by EPA are expected to provide guidelines to be followed by the States for long-term maintenance of the mill tailings. The Marriott bill envisions a broad role for the States which is not inconsistent with section 5(a) of the Administration's bill in terms of granting the responsibility to the States to perform the remedial action, if competent and willing. Subsection (f) of section 4 of the Marriott bill, however, requires the State to "describe the manner in which the applicant during the fifteen-year period following [the] disposal shall monitor the radiation levels at the sites. . . Beyond this fifteen-year period responsibility for maintenance of the tailings will presumably belong to the Federal Government. The view of the DOE on this issue is that long-term maintenance of the tailings should be a State responsibility. In addition, the Marriott bill sets the stage for potential administrative difficulties, as it lays down detailed procedures to be followed by the States in section 4. This section should be rewritten to require States' applications to conform, not to detailed mandates in a public law, but to the standards and criteria promulgated by the authorized agency, which can tailor the regulations to suit site-specific needs. The Marriott bill sets up the following time-frame subsequent to enactment: Disposition of State application by the Initiation of remedial action, thus, may conceivably not begin EPA establishment of regulations 180 days Judicial review - 90 days. Under this schedule, DOE would be free to begin remedial action within 270 days of enactment. In light of our common goal to protect the public health and safety and the environment, a streamlined time-frame is an asset which is provided by the Administration's bill. Question 2. H. R. 12535 authorizes $3 million for the DOE in fiscal year 1979 and then provides an open-ended authorization thereafter. (a) The Subcommittee, as a matter of policy, does not favor legislation with an open-ended authorization. Studies performed by an ERDA contractor clearly indicate that, depending on the options adopted, this program could cost the Federal government as much as $200 million. We request: (i) your estimate of the total Federal and state costs of this program, and (ii) your estimate of the amount required in FY 1980 and 1981 for this program. Answer. Our estimate of the total Federal and State costs is For FY 1980, the anticipated Federal contribution would be about $24 million and for FY 1981 it is estimated at $34.5 million, based upon a 75 per cent Federal-25 per cent State ratio. It is noted that engineering work for Canonsburg, Pennsylvania, is still underway and costs for this site are not included in the foregoing figures. Question 2(b). Both the EPA and the NRC have been assigned duties Answer. The duties assigned to EPA and the NRC under H.R. 12535 costs. Question 3. H.R. 12535 also is open-ended in two other respects. permanent program. Second, it apparently anticipates that (a) How long do you anticipate that it will take to perform necessary remedial action in the states named in the bill? (b) Why is there no termination date? (c) What is the basis for providing broad discretion for the DOE to provide financial aid to other states, and what information does the DOE possess now to indicate that this program may have to be extended to more states? Answer. (a) Based on the experience at Grand Junction, Colorado, and assuming timely funding by both Federal and state Governments for the states named in the bill, we consider that 8 years from the enactment of authorizing legislation will be required to perform the remedial action. (b) Because of the many uncertainties affecting time of performance, we did not feel it prudent to include a time limit. However, if the Committee so desires, we have no objection to a termination date. (c) We do not know of other states having inactive uranium mill tailings sites. However, DOE is currently surveying other sites and based upon the findings as to the need for remedial action and the determination of legal responsibility, DOE will have to determine which, if any, of these properties would qualify for inclusion under this legislation. Question 4. Please explain to us what specific sites are excluded by section 3(a) of H. R. 12535 and what sites are specifically included. Are any of the 22 sites recently studied by an ERDA contractor excluded by this definition? If so, please identify them and explain why they are excluded. Answer. Sites specifically excluded by Section 3(a) are: 1. Ray Point, Texas, owned by Exxon Corporation. Uranium recovery was low, and it is likely the 2. Monticello, Utah, owned by DOE 3. Edgemont, South Dakota, owned by TVA 4. All uranium ore processing mills licensed to *Canonsburg was added at a later time to the survey. |