The third and eighth sections are intended to facilitate and authorize Government ownership of all mill tailings disposal areas. An amendment of section 161g. of the Atomic Energy Act would allow the Department of Energy to accept title to mill tailings disposal areas on behalf of the United States, without cost to the United States and with subsequent designation of the custodial agency by the President.

A final substantive requirement in section eight of the draft would require Agreement State programs for the regulation of mill tailings to be at least the equivalent of substantive regulations established by the Commission for the same purpose. To encourage Agreement State participation, section eleven would authorize appropriations of $500,000 to assist Agreement States in implementing the requirements of the new legislation as it applies to them. Funds would be made available to the affected Agreement States in the form of one time grants to enable them to develop mill tailings regulatory programs at least equivalent to the regulations of the Commission.

Other provisions are intended to permit the amendment of existing agreements and to allow time for the development of appropriate regulations. There is no requirement that

existing agreements with States be amended. Thus, Agreement States would have the opportunity to forego licensing of uranium mill tailings areas. A companion amendment will give the same option to States entering into new agreements.

37-249 O-79-24

Mr. DINGELL. Without objection, the additional matters you have referred to will be inserted in the record at this point and we do thank you for that.

The Chair should recognize now-and we do thank you very much for a very helpful statement-Dr. Rowe.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM D. ROWE, DEPUTY ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR RADIATION PROGRAMS, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, ACCOMPANIED BY FLOYD GALPIN, HEAD, DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, OFFICE OF RADIATION PROGRAMS; AND ALAN CORSON, PROGRAM MANAGER, OFFICE OF SOLID WASTES

Mr. Rowe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee.

I am Dr. William D. Rowe, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Radiation Programs, Environmental Protection Agency.

I am pleased to be here today to testify on H.R. 13382 which would specifically provide for NRC authority over uranium milltailings.

There are presently about 115 million tons of uranium milltailings at facilities that are licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission or its agreement States. At present the commission regulates the design and siting of uranium milltailings disposal areas 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.

Environmental 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 are currently being addressed in the source material licensing process. However, this has not always been the case.

Uranium mills which were licensed in the past have accumulated large volumes of tailings for which the authority to require the licensee to invoke surety and stabilization requirements is in question. If these facilities should cease their production of source material, the NRC may be without legal recourse as there would be no material over which they have authority handled at the sites. Also complicating the matter are questions of the basis of authority and the compatibility with Federal requirements in those cases where uranium mills are licensed by agreement States.

Two sections in the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 specifically address the question of jurisdiction over radioactive waste materials.

Section 1004(27) exempts from the coverage of RCRA materials which come within the coverage of "source, special nuclear or byproduct material" as defined by the AEA.

Section 1006(a) provides that RCRA may only apply to activities or substances subject to the AEA to the extent that the RCRA application is not inconsistent with the requirements of the AEA. Thus, if tailings were to be included in the definition of "source, special nuclear or byproduct material," they would not be covered by RCRA at all. If such a change in definition is not made, then we must examine whether RCRA coverage of tailings is inconsistent

with the requirements of the AEA. In that case, with concurrent coverage, the authority to implement would have to be allocated in a sensible way between NRC and EPA.

Although this is possible, it does present difficulties in that the most appropriate time to prescribe the requirements for long-term stabilization or disposal of milltailings is at the time of initial licensing. This provides a mechanism to assure that the tailings materials will be continuously handled in such a manner as to be properly laid to rest at the termination of the facilities' operation. Let me explain briefly how EPA would pursue its responsibilities under RCRA for these materials, in the absence of legislation such as that under consideration here.

The first step in the process is to define those materials which are hazardous wastes. Uranium tailings would clearly qualify under regulations now being developed by EPA for naturally occurring radioactive wastes, since they are not now in the definition of source, special nuclear or byproduct material.

Beyond this, the act calls for regulations concerning accounting of quantities, transportation, measures to prevent public access, methods of disposal, and financial bonding to assure that all of these requirements will be satisfied. Since RCRA regulations apply unless they conflict with AEA requirements, it would still be necessary to allocate implementation responsibility between the two agencies.

To the extent NRC control of milltailings through its license process may be insufficient to achieve the desired control, supplemental RCRA authority might be used to close the gaps. It seems to us that the best way to handle this matter would be through developing an interagency agreement on management criteria which would, in essence, convey mutual authorities to the two agencies.

After termination of the NRC license, RCRA applies unambiguously.

It should be noted here, however, that the taking into custody of land used for disposal of tailings by the Federal Government is not explicitly provided for by RCRA, as is envisioned by this legislation. We have not, at present, explored what authorization or new legislation would be required to accomplish this.

A considerable effort has already been completed by EPA that relates directly to the problem of establishing appropriate management criteria for these wastes.

Our present plan of resources for the development of RCRA criteria for a broad class of wastes containing naturally occurring radioactive materials is 3 man-years and $100,000 in contract funds.

Uranium tailings is but one source of these wastes. An additional 11⁄2 man-years and $200,000 in contract funds is programed in our Office of Solid Waste for the general problem of difuse hazardous wastes from mining operations.

In summary, I believe, although this would be neither the most expeditious, nor the most clear-cut manner in which to proceed, in cooperation with NRC it would be possible to reach a satisfactory solution of this problem under present authorities possessed by EPA and NRC.

The disadvantages of such a course would be two: First, the ambiguous division of responsibilities between the two agencies, and the second, the lack of an explicit provision for Federal custodianship of disposal sites.

To better assure the control of uranium milltailings, we recommend that uranium milltailings themselves be named as licensable material under the Atomic Energy Act. This could be done by specifically naming residual radioactive materials from the production of source material as licensable, or by broadening the definition of byproduct material to include uranium milltailings.

However, any such legislative proposal should also provide for the EPA to promulgate general environmental standards for such material so that there will be consistency with the present authority of the Atomic Energy Act and Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970 which gives EPA such authority over present licensable material. Such authority for EPA standard setting and the NRC regulatory authority should extend both to the radioactive and nonradioactive aspects of hazardous materials so that the control of environmental impacts from these materials will be handled in a consistent manner with similar material from other extraction industries which EPA may control under the authorities of the RCRA and the Clean Air Act.

The proposed legislation, H.R. 13382, which is the subject of these hearings, attempts to address this problem. However, it falls short of resolving many of the problems we have noted.

Furthermore, the administration does not support this legislation since we have not had the opportunity to fully resolve the issues inherent in H.R. 13382. Let me point out some of the deficiencies in this bill.

First, the proposed legislation does not provide for the EPA to set standards for either radioactive material or nonradiation hazards associated with the tailings material. We are concerned about consistency of regulatory control relative to both of these types of materials.

At present EPA sets the generally applicable environmental radiation standard under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and Reorganization Plan 3 of 1970. These standards are implemented by the NRC in its licensing and regulation of source, special nuclear and byproduct material, as currently defined.

Furthermore, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 have given authority to EPA to establish air pollution standards for these same materials. It should be indicated in the proposed legislation that there is no intent to supersede or negate these authorities. This proposed legislation would have the effect of removing nonradioactive hazardous materials from the control of the RCRA and therefore create a potential inconsistency between the management of these materials from the source material milling industry and the management of other similar materials from other extraction industries.

The legislation should authorize EPA to both set standards relative to these hazardous materials and charge NRC with the authority and responsibility to prepare related waste management regulations compatible with RCRA.

Second, as currently written, the proposed legislation only covers tailings where there is extraction from "Source Material." It is known that there are several uranium mills which even today are extracting uranium from material lower in concentration than that sufficient to meet the definition of source material.

The extraction of uranium from such lower grade ores can be expected to increase as the Nation's reserves are depleted and as the price of uranium increases. Under the bill's scheme, NRC would continue to lack authority over the tailings extracted from these lower grade materials when the source material license is terminated.

Third, this bill provides for transfer to the Federal Government of land used for disposal of uranium milltailings. We believe that specific provision should be made in the legislation for continuing NRC regulatory control of such materials regardless of what agency in the Federal Government is given custody. Only through such continuing responsibility can an adequate control program be assured.

Now, I would like to turn my remarks to some statements indicating our perception of the EPA standards setting role and our interaction with other involved Federal agencies.

I would first note that it is my observation that Federal agency cooperation over the past few years in mutually addressing problems associated with uranium milltailings has been exemplary. It has been my privilege over the past several weeks to be involved in the Interagency Review Group on Radioactive Waste Management. That forum has further convinced me that a cooperative effort and work plan of standards development and regulation will be accomplished.

Over the last several years, we have worked with the Department of Energy and its predecessor agencies in evaluating the problem of inactive milltailings.

EPA developed the initial radiological criteria against which the engineering cost estimates were evaluated. We are now preparing to take on the job of developing final standards for the remedial actions regarding these materials.

We have already had extensive interactions with DOE exchanging ideas on this matter. This whole subject of remedial action for inactive uranium milltailings has involved a tremendous government effort at both Federal and State levels, but it is teaching us much that should be useful in the future.

Currently we in EPA are involved in the preparation of final guidance to the State of Florida on the radiological hazards of reclaimed phosphate mining lands. These mined areas which have been filled with residual material from phosphate processing are a very similar problem to that of the uranium milltailings we are discussing today.

Again we are primarily interested in the evolution of radon gas from high radium content material, which may permeate houses and which decays to its particulate daughter products so well identified as lung carcinogens.

With these experiences behind it, EPA feels confident that it can undertake the development of standards for uranium milltailings. The primary information we need before we can develop what