In general, the sites included by this bill are locations where uranium ore has been processed to produce uranium to sell to the government for national defense but are not presently under the control of any government agency by means of ownership or under a license to produce uranium. To our knowledge there are three inactive uranium mill tailings sites not covered by this legislation that may pose a potential health hazard. However, there are present legislative authorities covering these three sites. The Ray Point, Texas, site, which has been excluded from consideration under this Act due to the fact that it did not sell uranium to the Federal Government, is under license to the State of Texas through an NRC agreement. We understand that Exxon, the present owner, has agreed to abide by the regulations, pursuant to the license issued by that State, including those that would deal with ultimate handling of the mill tailings. The site in Monticello, Utah, is not included in the bill because it is a U.S. government owned site. Although extensive environmental studies have not been conducted at this location, there is no reason to believe that there won't be similiar problems as at the other inactive uranium mill tailings sites. However, DOE has present authority to carry out remedial action at this site. An engineering assessment has been conducted by the DOE contractor for the Edgemont, South Dakota, site. As in other reviews of these Phase II type reports, EPA has noted environmental problems that will require remedial action. This site is not included in the bill because it is a Federal site and it also has a license from the NRC. The remedial action will be handled as any NRC active However, it is still unclear how the inactive tailings pile will be handled since NRC does not have legal authority over it. As long as the license is active, the NRC has been requiring the site owner to control the tailings pile. When the license is mill. terminated, there is still some question on who has the responsibility for the tailings pile. 5. If so, Is the need for this bill based solely on the public health hazard potential or are there other bases for the bill? please identify them. To our knowledge the public health hazard potential is the only reason for this bill. 6. (a) Why is such rulemaking necessary, since the bill requires the remedial action to be taken by the DOE or its contractor and the selection of such action to be made in consultation with the EPA? It appears that the standards and criteria are being issued to govern only DOE. Standards and criteria have to be established to provide a assure that the standards and criteria that are established and used in this situation will be consistent with the similar actions we take, such as RCRA, CAA and phosphate mined reclaimed lands. 6. (b) How would the NRC enforce these standards and criteria against the DOE? What sanctions exist? This question should be referred to NRC. It is assumed that the NRC will regulate the tailings pile remedial actions under some form of agreement with DOE to extend their present enforcement program. 6. (c) Why is EPA issuing standards and criteria regarding "safety"? We had understood safety issues to have been assigned only to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. We agree that the word safety is not necessary in the bill. Our responsibility of issuing standards and criteria only apply to general public health protection and environmental aspects and not operational safety. 6. (d) Why is judicial review of the rules necessary or desirable prior to their application to any remedial action? Is this intended to preclude challenge to the rules in future proceedings? If so, why? This section is not necessary to provide the necessary review of our standards and criteria. DOE requested the inclusion of this section in order to define a time span within which the standards could be challenged and they could be assured of working against a fixed set of criteria. 6. (e) Ought these rules apply to private organizations as well? In this regard, we note that the first remedial option recommended by the contractor in the case of the Phillips/United Nuclear Site at Ambrosia Lake, New Mexico, calls for diking, security fencing, and annual monitoring and It is not clear who would monitor and maintain maintenance. this site in years to come, but it could be the owner of the Should not the rules apply to that owner and, if so, property. what is the remedy if the owner fails to comply? As indicated in the bill the owner and custodian of the is now in the process of developing appropriate 7. The bill authorizes appropriations for FY 1979 and thereafter for DOE, but not for EPA or NRC. Is it anticipated that DOE will transfer funds to EPA and NRC and that the $3 EPA plans to fulfill its responsibilities under this bill with its own personnel resources; however, the 8. How long should it take to complete work under this bill at the sites identified by the contractor? Mr. HAWKINS. I would be pleased to answer any questions which you and the members of this subcommittee may have. Mr. DINGELL. The Chair recognizes now Mr. Canfield. STATEMENT OF MONTE CANFIELD, JR. Mr. CANFIELD. Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the opportunity to be here today to discuss the need for, and adequacy of the proposed Residual Radioactive Materials Act of 1978, H.R. 12535. We are releasing to you today a report entitled "The Uranium Mill Tailings Cleanup: Federal Leadership at Last?"EMD-78-90-dated today, June 20, 1978, and we would suggest, with your permission, that it be included as part of the record. Mr. DINGELL. Without objection, that will be incorporated into the record at the appropriate place. Mr. CANFIELD. My full statement of the testimony appears at the beginning of that report. BACKGROUND Uranium mills are an often overlooked, but vital part of the nuclear fuel cycle. These mills extract uranium from ore for eventual use in nuclear weapons or nuclear powerplants. Today we are concerned primarily with the 22 mills that have closed down since the 1940's, leaving about 25 million tons of radioactive sand-like waste-commonly called uranium milltailings-in unattended piles and ponds. These tailings, which, according to the Department of Energy, are a possible health hazard, were produced primarily as a result of the Federal Government's Manhattan Engineering District and Atomic Energy Commission programs from the early 1940's through the early 1970's. As a point of reference, there are 16 mills currently in operation throughout the United States, and, according to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 109 mills will be needed by the year 2000. Although the tailings from these current and future mills will eventually need to be taken care of, we are addressing only those sites which have already been closed down On April 27, 1978, the Department of Energy submitted proposed legislation to the Congress that, if enacted, would allow the Department to enter into cooperative agreements with a number of States to clean up these inactive milltailings sites. The proposed legislation, etitled "The Residual Radioactive Materials Act of 1978"-H.R. 12535-would primarily provide for a joint Federal/State remedial action program in which the Federal Government would pay up to 75 percent of the cost and the States would contribute the rest. Where the sites are located on Indian lands, however, the bill provides for Federal payment of 100 percent of the costs. Unless the Secretary of Energy otherwise determines, the remedial actions will be performed by the Department of Energy or its authorized contractors. On May 5, 1978, the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Power, House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, asked the General Accounting Office-GAO-for its views on the proposed legislation. In response to that request, we prepared a report that addresses: (1) The need for a Federal program to clean up the 22 inactive uranium milltailings sites; (2) the adequacy of the proposed legislation that would authorize such a program; (3) the progress and problems of an existing, but much smaller, cleanup program at Grand Junction, Colo.; and (4) several other questions asked by the subcommittee chairman. The report is entitled "The Uranium Mill Tailings Cleanup: Federal Leadership at Last?" (EMD-78-90, June 10, 1978). We have brought a number of copies with us today for your consideration and we are printing additional copies that will be available within the next few weeks. [See p. 247.] THE NEED FOR A FEDERAL URANIUM MILLTAILINGS CLEANUP PROGRAM A number of important factors need to be considered before the Congress decides to allow the Department of Energy to enter into cooperative agreements with various States to clean up radioactive tailings at inactive uranium mill sites. Our report identifies and addresses the following seven factors that we believe you should consider: To what extent do the milltailings constitute a hazard to the public's health and safety? Is the milltailings cleanup program necessary for nuclear power to become a substantial source of energy for the future? Can productive uses be made of the generally unproductive milltailings sites? To what extent is the Federal Government responsible for creating the milltailings situation? How much will the proposed program cost? |