lations under those standards are being developed now to meet existing standards.

Mr. HENDRIE. I wanted to comment with regard to nonradiological hazards, I certainly have no objection to the kind of language that appears in here about EPA setting standards, but I was going to comment if there were no such language it would be the Commission's intent to regulate the hazardous nonradiological, but hazardous aspects of these tailings under our NEPA authorities and in a way that would be compatible with the EPA standards, so I think we are fully in agreement on those things, that whether the statute specifically says do it that way or not, that would be the NRC's intent.

Mr. FINNEGAN. I point out to you, Mr. Rowe, that in section 107, the inactive, you always refer to outside the boundaries of the processing site and disposal site so if your objection is to the inactive, that seems to apply here too.

Mr. GALPIN. Yes, sir, it does.

Mr. FINNEGAN. Why does NRC believe it will take 3 years to implement the regulatory provisions of the bill? Do all the Commissioners agree on that point?

Mr. HENDRIE. I should note Commissioner Gilinsky thinks 2 years is enough time. A good part of the time is connected with allowing our agreement States a reasonable chance to work with us in fixing up their agreements, first, and, second, I think it may require some-it could even require some legislation in some States to allow them to meet what this legislation would require in agreement with NRC before it could apply to the mill. A certain amount of time is necessary for that.

Let me look over my shoulder and make sure that is correct. Counsel suggests new legislation in the States might not be necessary because he thinks that most States would have these things fall under the general police powers of the State. We also need a little time to get our own regulations in shape.

Mr. FINNEGAN. Does NRC or the States now license under the Atomic Energy Act all uranium mill operations that are in existence today?

Mr. HENDRIE. That are active now. I think we do.

Mr. FINNEGAN. Either you or the States.

Mr. HENDRIE. Let me make sure about the States. Certainly anything not in an agreement State we regulate. That is the law of the land, the Atomic Energy Act.

Let me make sure an agreement State couldn't let slide. OK. The agreement States also have to, I guess under the comparability requirement, have to conform.

Mr. FINNEGAN. What is the term of those licenses?

Mr. HENDRIE. I am told 5 years.

Mr. FINNEGAN. Is it intended this legislation would apply to those licensed operations?

Mr. HENDRIE. Surely.

Mr. FINNEGAN. When would it apply to those people? Would it apply at the end of the license term or in midterm?

Mr. HENDRIE. I think as the bill is drafted we would start getting ready to make license amendments to conform to the intent of the

legislation here and the requirements, to be effective at the 3-year point, I assume.

Mr. FINNEGAN. That gets us back to the 3-year issue then. Shouldn't the bill require that the person seeking the license, or the person who needs to comply with this, have to file an application for it, say within 18 months after enactment? I see several problems. One problem is when EPA sets standards.

Second, in the 3-year time you could take up a large part of the time waiting for EPA and at the same time develop your own rule. In the meantime, the potential licensees, both existing and new ones, would only have a few months left to finally file an application. Doesn't there have to be some deadline?

Last, if it is a 5-year license, why would you require them to do it now and not wait until the license renewal?

Mr. HENDRIE. I suppose in fact the legislation could be written so you would pick up these requirements on facilities as their current license expired and what that would do would depend on the way you write it, but I suppose that means you might be implementing the requirements over some period like 3 years from enactment, maybe out to about 5, which would correspond to a license that had been issued just before the enactment, for instance, and I expect that wouldn't be unreasonable either.

We have been thinking in terms of going ahead at the 3-year mark, going ahead and getting the licenses amended to meet requirements here. It obviously means we have to begin talking to licensees some time ahead.

Actually I would think fairly soon after enactment of the bill, so people know what is coming and what is going to be required and licensees could think about what they want to do about these requirements.

Mr. FINNEGAN. We have received some testimony from Mr. Gleason of the American Nuclear Energy Council who has suggested retroactive application of NRC criteria could place an economic hardship on mill operators and could possibly disrupt production. The uncertainty could be removed from the legislation by grandfathering existing mills. Do you agree with that?

Mr. HENDRIE. If you grandfather the existing mills-that is, everything up to enactment-then that means we are going to have something like 115 or 120 million tons of tailings out there on which the control is only through conditions which we in the last few years have been putting on mill licenses making the mill operator say, "Well, we promised to do thus and so with the pile when we were through" and we make that a condition on their getting a license.

I am not sure that all of the 115 or 120 million tons of tailings out there are subject to those kinds of conditions. I don't think they

are.

I think probably more than half of the existing milltailings stacks will not fall in situations where we already have conditions on the licensees.

What that means is, down the line you are going to be looking at another remedial tailings program. The present one is looking at about 25 million tons and you would be looking at one for 50 to 75 million tons.

Mr. FINNEGAN. In other words, you would think that is not a desirable approach, to grandfather?

Mr. HENDRIE. If we do, I think we have to recognize the remedial action program will sooner or later have to be very substantially larger than is now contemplated.

Mr. DINGELL. What you are saying is, the fact you grandfather them doesn't necessarily mean you make them safe and the perils persist.

Mr. HENDRIE. That is right, sir.

In this particular case I am not sure I want to see very many grandfathers.

Mr. DINGELL. I think we concur. I notice Dr. Rowe nods affirmatively also.

Mr. Rowe. I thought perhaps it might be well to put the problem in perspective a bit. The levels of radon at some of these piles are relatively high. When we bring them down to the level that we can no longer measure them above background, which is about this 0.005 working level, twice background, we are talking about relatively high risk. It is 100 times higher than the risk we get from the air pollutants vinyl chloride or benzene which are very carcinogenic and we are talking about a doubling of the lung cancer rate from about 40 out of 100,000 people to 80 out of 100,000 people. We have found out in the last few years that radon is a very carcinogenic material, and it presents a very serious problem. I think as we have learned more about it we become more and more concerned and I think that is why we feel that the milltailings problem is the biggest waste management problem we have in the radioactive field.

Mr. DINGELL. Thank you.

Mr. FINNEGAN. Are tailings considered waste, particularly since they may be reprocessed?

Mr. HENDRIE. I don't quite know how to answer. I guess they are fairly regarded as waste materials from the milling operation. What we are proposing to do here in the legislation before us is to designate them as byproduct material so that they will fall under an appropriate control and licensing regime, in the Atomic Energy Act.

Once we do that, then they will formally be byproducts rather than waste, if I can put both of those words in quotes.

Mr. FINNEGAN. Is it your intention to provide a one-license procedure covering both the processing of the source material and the disposition of the byproduct materials, or tailings? Counsel has raised concern that you might have two licensing procedures. That is not your intention, I guess?

Mr. HENDRIE. I would think we would want to lay down, when we first talk to a mill operator, or prospective mill operator, about a license for his forthcoming operation, that we would want to lay out for him the sort of stabilization procedures we want on the pile, in particular, because the way to get a well stabilized pile is to start before you have got one and make sure all conditions are correct in the beginning. I think he has to know about those things. They make up an important part of the initial license conditions before he is allowed to produce any tailings.

I would see no need for subsequent licensing proceedings, but let me ask my associates.

Mr. STOIBER. Carlton Stoiber, Assistant General Counsel of the Commission.

We have general authority under 161h of the Atomic Energy Act to consolidate. The language in H.R. 13650, section 209, would provide that we should consolidate to the maximum extent practicable licensing procedures and I would think that would be a suitable way to handle that problem.

Mr. HENDRIE. May I ask Cliff Smith of our Materials and Safeguards Office to speak

Mr. SMITH. The intent is to issue one license. At the time the operator comes in we will look at the total problem and it will be just one license.

Mr. FINNEGAN. Is the definition you proposed in the bill on byproducts one that includes uranium mine wastes and, if it does not, should it?

Mr. HENDRIE. A good comment. I see a shaking of heads. I think the experts say no.

Mr. Rowe. I think we would agree with that, but I think it is our intention to address those under RCRA.

Mr. HENDRIE. Let me make sure my experts agree with me. It says byproducts materials, means, among other things, under the language we have proposed, the tailings or wastes produced by the extraction or concentration of uranium from anything.

Mr. FINNEGAN. Your intention is not to include mine wastes, I gather?

Mr. HENDRIE. That is a question we should find out about. What was our intention?

I have been reminded of something I should have recalled in the beginning.

We don't regulate mines. The mining is regulated by the Department of Labor under other regulations so our definition was drawn to maintain that and to keep us out of the mine-regulating busi

ness.

The way we would read the language here in H.R. 13650, our intention would be not to include the mines.

Mr. Rowe. That was also our understanding, but we do intend to look at the mines under RCRA where radium would be a hazardous material under section 3001.

Mr. FINNEGAN. It is my understanding that Labor regulates mines under some statute, but not environmental effects, and that is what we are talking about. That also applies to Interior.

Dr. Rowe, when do you plan to come up with standards as to the mines?

Mr. Rowe. I have with me Mr. Allan Corson, our program manager in the Office of Solid Wastes. He will provide the schedule under which we will come out with our hazardous materials.

Mr. CORSON. We will define "mining wastes" as one of the special waste categories in the regulation package we expect to propose in November under RCRA. We will call for some special management practices for some of these large volume wastes, including mining wastes, under section 3004. Specific mining wastes will be listed as

a hazardous waste under section 3001. This will include the wastes from uranium mining.

Mr. FINNEGAN. Dr. Hendrie, what are your views on the Federal ownership of surface and subsurface of millsites at the termination of the license or at the completion of the operation?

Mr. HENDRIE. I think because we are talking about keeping an eye on those piles for a long time and would like to be sure that people aren't going to go in and dig up the pile and use the material for fill or basements or otherwise disturb them, either Federal or State ownership of the sites where the piles are is very desirable.

We have recommended that the legislation point in that direction and we have recommended some language.

Mr. DINGELL. As an additional safeguard, it might be prudent to see that the landlords contain an easement or notice to prospective purchasers or prospective users that this peril exists from the use of the pile. Wouldn't that be an additional safeguard that might be desirable?

Mr. HENDRIE. Well, Mr. Chairman, what we have recommended in the supplemental material, and I believe what is reflected, my understanding is, in H.R. 13650, would be a regime in which the land is either State or Federal owned, or if it is in private hands, the private owner has to have a license from the NRC.

Those are the only three ways under the legislation-I believe those are the only three conditions that the property on which the piles were could exist. So, having an NRC license, being an NRC licensee and have our inspectors come around and poke at you is maybe even better than having easements in the deeds.

Mr. FINNEGAN. You agree though that before there would be any transfer of the site to the Federal Government, or to the State, that the site would have to be stabilized under the license, is that correct?

Mr. HENDRIE. Yes. The intent is to make the entity that operates the mill and presumably derives the financial gain that is to be had there, do the stabilization and pay for it and what then passes on to the State or Federal ownership is an acceptably stabilized site.

Mr. FINNEGAN. The provision is on page 19 of the bill. It discusses ownership of the surface and subsurface. The question I have is, why would you want them to transfer to you the subsurface, particularly when there may be other minerals that somebody might want or could get from adjacent properties?

Mr. HENDRIE. I guess what one has in mind is that you would hate to have somebody have, for instance, strip mining rights on a coal seam beneath your tailings pile and come in and dig it up and cast the material to one side to get to the coal. That is perhaps a pretty farfetched example, but by transferring the subsurface rights, you then vest in the Government control over that whole column of material going down, I guess, theoretically to the center of the Earth, and if, for instance, there was oil under it that you wanted to get out, you could do that without disturbing the tailings pile stabilized near the surface and you could reasonably allow that under license, but you would control it because you would own that land.