bill. The companion bills provide at most a standard-setting role for the NRC. Neither bill provides for NRC concurrence in each specific remedial action plan. We view this omission as an important deficiency.

Because of the diversity of the abandoned tailings sites, an adequate remedial action program must deal with many site specific problems which cannot, as a practical matter, be addressed by general standards. We believe the individual remedial action plans should be subject to NRC review and concurrence as required by H.R. 12535.

Having made these general observations, I would now like to move to some specific comments about other aspects of this proposed legislation.

First, we believe the enforcement role set out for the NRC in H.R. 12535 needs clarification both as to its scope and with regard to the mechanism by which the NRC is expected to implement this enforcement.

Normally NRC exerts enforcement powers in a licensing context, where notice of violation, civil penalties, or license suspensions provide an ascending order of sanctions.

In the milltailings disposal program that would be set in motion by H.R. 12535, the parties would be the Department of Energy and the States rather than NRC licensees. In this situation conventional enforcement tools appear inappropriate. More congressional guidance is needed on this point.

Next, we note that section 5(g) of H.R. 12535 gives the NRC only a consulting role in the designation of disposal sites. In our view, the selection of the disposal site for the tailings is an integral element of the remedial action plan for each site and, therefore, should be subject to NRC review and concurrence.

Mr. DINGELL. You are giving us a very helpful and a well thought-out statement.

We would like you to give us specific comment with regard to the additional congressional guidance which you feel is of use to you at the Commission.

Mr. HENDRIE. I would be very pleased to.

H.R. 12535 provides for a 75-percent Federal contribution to the cost of assessment and remedial actions, with the States in which the inactive sites are located expected to contribute the remaining 25 percent.

It would certainly seem that the Federal role in the origin of the tailings and the local and State benefits of remedial actions could justify a Federal/State cost-sharing arrangement. We would note, however, that the State contributions requirement could prevent remedial action in a State that, due to financial stringency or other reasons, would rather forgo the 75-percent Federal share than contribute its 25 percent. This comment does not apply to Indian lands where the administration bill already provides for full Federal financing.

Commissioner Gilinsky has a brief additional statement he would like to make which you might want to hear at this time.

[The responses to questions in letter of June 5, 1978, follow:]

NRC RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS

IN THE SUBCOMMITTEE'S LETTER
OF JUNE 5, 1978

1.

Please give

Which bill does the NRC recommend for enactment?
reasons and provide such amendments as may be necessary.

A - The NRC believes that the Administration Bill H.R. 12535 comes
the closest to reflecting its views regarding corrective actions
at the inactive sites. Each of the sites presents a unique
problem with many site specific considerations. The NRC believes
that the best approach to assure a satisfactory solution requires
the participation of all interested parties, DOE, EPA, the states,
and NRC. The Administration Bill provides a role for each of the
parties. The bill or the legislative history should make clear
that DOE will be the lead agency for preparing the environmental
impact statement and that the NRC's review and concurrence function
does not constitute a major Federal action requiring an impact
statement. The NRC response to questions 9 and 10 below identifies
certain other clarifications that should be made in the bill as it

is presently written.

Since the legislation requires action by the NRC, please provide the statement required by the Act of July 25, 1956 (70 Stat. 652).

As indicated by the projected resource requirements in response

to question 3 below, no statement is required by the NRC in

accord with the provisions of the Act of July 25, 1956 (70 Stat. 652).

H.R. 12535 authorizes $3 million in FY 1979 for the DOE and
open-ended sum thereafter. No provision is made for funds for
the NRC. Clearly, it would seem improper for the DOE to obtain
appropriations for transfer to the NRC which is an independent
agency not related to the DOE. What sum will the NRC require
in appropriations for FY 1979, 1980, and 1981?

In the ongoing development of its FY 1980 budget, the NRC is
requesting resources of four man-years and $300,000 for contractual
technical assistance for evaluation of proposed DOE remedial
actions at former uranium ore processing sites in anticipation
of NRC involvement in this program. NRC projects a continuing
need for this level of effort through FY 1984, dependent upon
the progress of the DCE program. No NRC resources were allocated

37-249 79 15

for the DOE remedial action program in FY 1979 since NRC had no direct involvement in the program. To initiate its role of independently evaluating proposed remedial actions in FY 1979, NRC estimates that additional appropriations consisting of two man-years and $200,000 for contractual technical assistance will be needed.

4.

A

5.

(a) Has the NRC reviewed the studies conducted by an ERDA
contractor concerning 22 mill tailings sites?

(b) Please provide a table (i) identifying each site studies
by the contractor, (ii) setting forth the health and safety
impacts of the sites identified by the contractor, and
(iii) stating the NRC's views of the health and safety
impacts of these sites and the need in each case for
remedial action.

The studies of the inactive mill tailings were initiated as a
result of 1974 hearings held by the Subcommittee on Raw Materials
of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy. Through these hearings,
Congress assigned responsibility for the studies to the operating
arm of the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) and its successor ERDA,
now DOE, with a supporting role by EPA and involved states. NRC
has been only peripherally involved in the studies of the inactive
tailings sites and has concentrated its efforts on presently
operating uranium mills and proposed new mills that are subject
to NRC jurisdiction. NRC has provided to DOE the staff's interim
performance objectives it is using to evaluate mill tailings waste
management programs at operating and proposed new mills but has not
been asked to review the studies of the inactive sites. Although
the adequacy of these studies has been criticized, it is the
NRC's impression that they have served the initial purpose of
scoping some of the problems associated with each site and
estimating costs for certain remedial actions. However, most
of these studies were completed before the NRC interim

performance objectives were made available. More detailed

evaluations will be required before a remedial action plan can be developed for each site.

(a) Please explain why the NRC believes that the United States
should assume "compassionate responsibility" for paying a
share of the remedial action costs of this program.

(b) What is the legal responsibility under current law and/or
under contract of these former AEC contractors to make
these sites safe with no adverse health or environmental
impacts?

A

(c) When this problem was first realized, what steps were taken
by the NRC's predecessor agency and the NRC to require
corrective action by these contractors?

(d) Please provide to us a copy of all letters, memorandum,
notes, reports, etc. in the AEC (now NRC) files concerning
these sites, including any legal opinions relative to the
responsibilities of these contractors.

(e) Since these sites are privately owned, does not the NRC
agree that these owners, who will benefit from the remedial
action, should contribute to the remedial action?

(a) For the most part, the uranium mill tailings at these sites
were generated during the production of uranium under contracts
with the AEC for the U.S. nuclear weapons program. Thus, since
the nation was the primary beneficiary of these operations
with financial benefits also accrued by the states it appears
appropriate for the Federal Government to pay the major, if not
the entire, share of the remedial action costs with the states
contributing.

(b) We understand from discussions with DOE that there is no legal responsibility under current law for the former AEC contractors to take action at these sites and that no responsibility can be assigned to the contractors through the terms of the former contracts held with the AEC.

(c) The AEC evaluation of available data led to the conclusion
that, from a radiological safety standpoint, legal authority
to effect long-term controls was not warranted. Thus, no
steps were taken by the AEC to require corrective actions
by the former contractors. Through the provisions of NEPA
and with recognition of the environmental and public health
and safety aspects posed by mill tailings, the NRC is now
requiring reclamation plans, with financial surety arrange-
ments, at the time of licensing of the mills.

(d) The bulk of records pertinent to these inactive sites should
be in the possession of DOE. The retired license files for
these sites, some of which are in the possession of Agreement
States who have responsibility for mill licensing in their
respective states, would contain information on the operating
phase of the mills only and would not appear to be relevant
to the DOE studies and remedial action plans. The NRC does
not have any legal opinions in its record files relative to

6.

A

the contract responsibilities of the former contractors.

(e) The NRC does not have information on the number of sites

that are privately owned, the circumstances related to the ownership, or the value of the land involved. However, the provisions of the Administration Bill, which would require purchase of the site by the state before remedial action is undertaken, would seem to preclude windfall profits by the present owner.

Section 5(a) of H.R. 12535 requires that the DOE determine the
"selection of" the appropriate remedial action. Section 7(a)
requires that the DOE determine the "need for and selection of"
remedial action. In both cases, the NRC must review and concur;
but in the case of section 5(a), the NRC apparently will not
review and concur in the "need" for remedial action.

(a) Should not the NRC concur in the need for such action
in both cases?

(b) What procedures would the NRC follow in reviewing and
concurring in these determinations of the DOE and how
long will they take? How will the public participate?
(c) What is the nature of the NRC review and what staff
offices of the NRC will perform it?

The NRC agrees that its role should involve review and concurrence
in the need for remedial action at a site as well as in the
selection of the remedial action to be undertaken. Using the
same review procedures and objectives that are being applied
to presently active sites, the NRC would concurrently, yet
independently, review data and information developed by DOE
and its contractors for the environmental impact statement (EIS)
and for the remedial action plan that will be needed for each
site. It is through the EIS process that public participation
in the need for and selection of the remedial action alternatives
can be obtained. NRC's concurrent review during preparation of
the EIS by DOE will enable NRC to complete its work in reviewing
the remedial action plan at the time that DOE prepares the final
environmental impact statement reflecting public comments on the
plan. The NRC review by its Office of Nuclear Material Safety and
Safeguards will consist of a review of the scope of alternatives
(including no action alternative for each site), recommendations
on the selection of the remedial action alternative, and a radio-
logical assessment of the recommended alternative.