When you and I briefly discussed this bill about a week ago in my office, all I urged was that the Administration make it clear to the Senate, just as you have to the House, that it did not support the 100 percent funding proposed by that body. I advised you that I would not support this legislation at that funding level. That continues to be my position and I have seen little persuasive evidence that it should be otherwise. I have made a serious effort to obtain enactment of this bill because I believe it is meritorious, as currently drafted by the House. But the bill is not, in my judgment, so important that I will adopt any changes just to get a bill enacted. I am deeply concerned about its cost and any precedent it may establish and about the adequacy of the regulatory program. Unless I am fully satisfied that the costs are reasonable, that no undesirable precedents are being established, and that the regulatory program to be administered by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the States is adequate and even-handed, I will not support final passage of this bill or a companion version in the NRC authorization passed by the Senate. In regard to Attachment I, I do not agree with that suggestion. The legislative-type hearing you suggest is undesirable, and would set a precedent for other legislation which I find objectionable. As you correctly observe, no NRC license is now required for remedial action. The license requirement only applies after such action is completed and responsibility for the site has been transferred to the United States. No one in the Senate has thus far raised the hearing problem that you mention. The Senate concerns, as I understand them, are quite different. They do not want DOE to be ordered by the NRC to spend further money on these sites beyond normal maintenance and monitoring without a new authorization from Congress. I fully agree with that concern and hope to work out an amendment with the Senate to meet it, if necessary. In the case of Attachment II, I once again find it strange that the DOE is suggesting changes to amendments that relate to matters under the jurisdiction of the NRC and not the DOE. That independent agency must be allowed to formulate its own judgments. It does not need the DOE to speak for it. Even more serious is your support of an amendment that changes the House bill without consulting this Committee and the Interior Committee, particularly when it eliminates the NEPA language adopted by our Committee. That suggestion is clearly not welcomed by me. In any event, it is a provision that we will discuss with the Senate to see what, if any, accommodations can be made by all Members concerned. As to the merits, I fail to understand why a mill which is located in a non-agreement State should be faced with requirements emanating from the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 that are different than those required for a mill located in an agreement State. The accident of location should not be controlling from the standpoint of competition or public health and safety. I strongly suggest that you let the House and Senate work out this legislation within the few days left to us. I assure you that our Committee, working closely with Chairman Udall's Committee, will seek to get the best bill possible. I presume that the Senate shares the same objectives. Thank you for your October 10, 1978 letter advising me of Senator As you know, the bill was enacted without any "cap" or additional Our Subcommittee expects to maintain continuous oversight over this legislation. We are particularly concerned about the adequacy and effectiveness of the remedial action program from a long-term standpoint. We expect that the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will move with caution in order to ensure that the purposes of the Act are achieved at the least cost to the United States. We expect that the DOE will keep our Subcommittee continuously informed about the actions it takes, and plans to take, under the Act and about any problems encountered by the DOE. Sincerely, Chen John D. Dingell JDD/Fjh Mr. DINGELL. The Chair recognizes our first witness, Hon. Joseph M. Hendrie, Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and then Dr. William D. Rowe, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Radiation Programs, EPA. We will recognize first Chairman Hendrie. STATEMENT OF JOSEPH M. HENDRIE, CHAIRMAN, NUCLEAR Mr. HENDRIE. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to have this opportunity to appear again before the Subcommittee on Energy and Power to discuss regulation and disposal of uranium milltailings. I testified on June 20, 1978, regarding proposals to deal with the disposal of milltailings at inactive uranium ore processing sites. I have been asked to comment today on H.R. 13382, a legislative proposal to amend several sections of the Atomic Energy Act to strengthen NRC licensing and regulation over milltailings. This bill closely tracks a proposed bill originally drafted by the NRC to bring milltailings within the scope of the Commission's direct licensing authority over radioactive byproduct materials. It is evident that the remedial action proposals which I discussed at my previous appearance here, and the present proposal for clarifying regulatory authority are complementary items of legislation. They address separate but related aspects of the overall issue of how best to manage uranium milltailings, including tailings already generated and abandoned, tailings now being produced at active milling sites, and tailings to be generated during the extensive uranium milling activity which may be expected in the future. In my testimony of June 20, I discussed at some length the Commission's views on the potential health hazards associated with uranium milltailings piles. I will not, repeat that discussion here, but merely echo the observation I made then that there is a legitimate public concern about how the Federal Government intends to handle the health, safety, and environmental impacts of uranium milltailings. At present the Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulates the siting and operation of uranium milltailings disposal areas in nonagreement States as part of its licensing and regulation of source material milling under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. Safety and environmental issues, including issues regarding reclamation and stabilization of tailings disposal areas and the provision of some kind of surety to assure the completion of reclamation and stabilization work prior to termination of the source material license, have to date been resolved in the source material licensing process. However, tailings themselves are not source material or any other material licensable by the Commission. Thus, once the underlying source material license for the uranium mill is termi nated, there is no longer a clear legal basis for further Commission regulatory control of the milltailings. The Environmental Protection Agency can exert regulatory authority over uranium milltailings under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976. However, EPA has no authority over the generation of the tailings, the source material milling licensed by the Commission or an agreement State, and so far they have not developed any regulation to implement their authority over the disposal of tailings. I should perhaps point out that the RCRA does not give any authority whatever to the NRC and consequently the Commission has not been able to base any plans for tailings regulations on the provisions of that act. Finally, to complete the complicated regulatory picture, in agreement States it is the State in most cases, rather than the Commission, that exercises regulatory control over the uranium milling and tailings. Given this situation, the Commission began to develop legislation that would fill the gaps and avoid some of the duplication in this regulatory scheme. Such legislation should provide the clear statutory authority needed for the Commission to license directly and otherwise regulate uranium milltailings. Also, any legislation adopted should bring State regulation of uranium milltailings under the agreement State program established by section 274 of the act. Agreement States should be required to regulate uranium milltailings within their jurisdiction to at least the same substantive standards required by the Commission for its licensees. Because of the potential need for long-term care of milltailings disposal sites, another desirable objective to be sought would be governmental ownership, either State or Federal, of these areas. H.R. 13382 approaches these needs by framing a series of amendments to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. The first section would amend section 11e, defining byproduct material, so that uranium mill tailings could be directly licensed, regulated, and controlled as necessary to protect public health and safety in the long term. It would permit NRC to conduct a complete regulatory program to assure the public that mill tailings are safely contained in a manner that would reduce the likelihood that future remedial action programs will be needed for such regulated sites. The new authority would parallel that already exercised under the Atomic Energy Act over byproduct material as presently defined. The language of the amendment limits the added authority to uranium or thorium ore processing wastes. Thus other wastes, such as those from phosphate ore processing, would not be included. By defining the radioactive content of uranium milltailings as byproduct material, the proposal would also remove milltailings from the coverage of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 because that act excludes source, byproduct, and special nuclear material from its purview. This will minimize dual regulation of tailings by EPA and the NRC. In answer to the subcommittee's question whether this result is desirable, the Commission believes that it is generally desirable to |