Page images
PDF
EPUB

30

1

2

(1) in the case of licenses issued by a State under section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, before the date 3 years after the date of the enactment of this Act such amendments shall apply only to the ex

3

4

5

tent practicable, and

6

7

8

(2) no license under section 81 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 shall be required for the transfer, receipt, production, manufacture, acquisition, ownership, possession, import or export of byproduct material as defined in section 11 e. (2) of such Act until

9

10

11

the date three years after the enactment of this Act.

12

CONSOLIDATION OF LICENSES AND PROCEDURES

13 SEC. 209. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission shall 14 consolidate, to the maximum extent practicable, licenses 15 and licensing procedures under amendments made by this

16 title with licenses and licensing procedures under other

17 authorities contained in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954.

18

RELATIONSHIP TO TITLE I AUTHORITIES

19

SEC. 210. Except as provided in sections 103 (c) (7) 20 and 104 (c) (4), no license shall be required under section

21

62 or 81 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 for any ac

22 tivity carried out under the authority of title I of this Act.

[ocr errors]
[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

This responds to your request for our views on Hate T2535 a bill "To authorize the Secretary of Energy to enter into cooperative arrangements to contain and to reduce potential radiation exposure from residual radioactive materials, and for other purposes.

11

We recommend enactment of the bill.

H.R. 12535 authorizes the Secretary of Energy to provide financial assistance to certain States to aid in the stabilization and control of vrani.um mill tailings located in and around former uraniim ore processing sites. Special provisions in sections 6 and 7 of the bill apply to uranium ore processing operations formerly conducted on the lands of Indian Tribes.

Section 7(a) provides that the Secretary of the Interior, as Trustee for Indians whose lands are affected, must concur with the Secretary of Energy's determination of need for ana selection of appropriate remedial action. Section 7(a) provides that, although the United States is released from liability related to remedial action performed pursuant to the bill, such a release does not affect the responsibilities of the Secretary of the Interior as Trustee for Indians on whose lands remedial action is performed.

We believe that. H.R. 12535 provides a sound solution to the problems caused by residual radioactive materials in and around uranium mill tailings sites.

The Office of Management and Budget has advised that there is no objection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the Administration's program.

sincerely,

[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

This responds to your request for our views on H.R. 13650 as reported
by the Subcommittee on Everyy and Power of the House Interstate and
Foreign Commerce Committee, the proposed "Uranium Mill Tailings
Radiation Control Act of 1978."

We do not object to enactment of H.R. 13650 as reported by the
Subcommittee on Energy and Power of the House Interstate and
Foreign Commerce Committee if the bill is amended as suggested
herein.

Title I of H.R. 13650 would authorize the Secretary of Energy to
enter into cooperative agreements with States to perform remedial
action at inactive uranium processing sites. Title II would amend
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to include uranium mill tailings
within the definition of "byproduct material" and would require that
Nuclear Regulatory Commission licenses and renewals require that
prior to termination of a license, the licensee comply with
NRC-established decontamination, decomissioning and reclamation
standards and requirements, and that ownership of the byproduct
material be transferred to the United States on termination.

We have the following comments on the provisions of H.R. 13650 as
reported by the Subcommittee on Energy and Power of the House
Interstate and Foreign commerce Committee. Section 104 (b) (2) provides
that State acquisition of a site for disposition and stabilization
of residual radioactive materials shall not be required if the
Secretary of Energy, with the concurrence of the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, designates a site owned by a Federal agency for such
disposition and stabilization. We believe that section 104 (b) (2)
should incorporate the provision in section 106(a), governing
acquisition of land by the Secretary of Energy, which permits the
Secretary of the Interior to make public lands available to the
Secretary of Energy for disposition of residual radioactive materials
in accordance with other applicable provisions of law. We also suggest
that section 106(a) (2) be amended to read: "the Secretary of the
Interior may make available public lands administered by him for
such purposes...."

Section 105 (a) (1) of the bill provides that cooperative agreements entered into between the Secretary of Energy and Indian tribes shall require that Indian tribes execute a waiver releasing the United States from any liability concerning the remedial action performed by the Secretary of Energy or his designee. This provision should be amended to include the statement that the provision does not affect the responsibilities of the Secretary of the Interior as trustee for any Indian tribe.

In order to consolidate residual radioactive materials for storage
in a safe manner, section 106 of the bill authorizes the Secretary
of Energy to acquire land, and provides, in addition, that the
Secretary of the Interior may "make available public lands for such.
purposes in accordance with other applicable provisions of law."
We believe that section 106(a) (2) should apply to all managers of
federally owned land, not just the Secretary of the Interior.

Section 108(a) (1) authorizes the Secretary of Energy to select and perform remedial actiai. The selection and performance of remedial action is to be done with the concurrence of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and in consultation, as appropriate, with the Indian tribe and the Secretary of the Interior. The last sentence of section 108 (a) (1) provides that since a State "must share in the costs of such remedial action, the State shall participate fully in the selection thereof." The word "such" appears to imply that States pay part of the costs of remedial action pursuant to agreements between the Secretary of Energy and Indian tribes. Since this is not the case, we recommend that the last sentence of section 108 (a) (1) be amended to say, "Since a State must, pursuant to an agreement between the Secretary of Energy and the State, share in the costs of remedial action, the State shall participate fully in the selection of the type of remedial action to be performed.''

The Office of Management and Budget has advised that there is no objection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the Administration's program.

[blocks in formation]

Mr. OTTINGER. We have as our first witness this morning Congressman Dan Marriott. Also appearing will be the Honorable Bruce Babbitt, Governor of Arizona, representing the National Governors Association and Mr. Maxie Anderson, president of the Ranchers Exploration and Development Corp.

We will hear from our colleague, Dan Marriott, first.
We are pleased to have you here.

Without objection, the statement of Congressman James P. Johnson of Colorado will be included in the record as though read. STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES P. JOHNSON, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the three pịeces of legislation, H.R. 12535, H.R. 12938, and H.R. 13049, which have been introduced concerning the restoration of inactive uranium milltailings sites located in at least nine States across the country, including seven locations in Colorado, three of them in my congressional district. The subcommittee is to be commended for scheduling prompt and complete public hearings regarding this legislation.

The three bills pertaining to this situation seek the same basic goal of removing any potential danger which may be associated with the presence of these contaminated uranium milltailings in or near populated areas and/or at unstable locations. The bills differ in the amount of Federal financial responsibility; whether or not the States or Federal Government should be the primary agent in developing and executing the appropriate remedial action; and who should have final control over the tailings and disposal sites. I would like to address myself to four main issues: Federal financial responsibility; method of restoration; control over disposal and monitoring; and industry participation in the restoration program.

The matter of financial responsibility has been and probably always will be a matter of contention between States and the Federal Government in cases such as this. However, in this case, it seems abundantly clear to me that the history of the development of the uranium industry in this Nation and the degree of Federal involvement, indeed direction, provides a sound and justifiable basis for the Federal Government to be 100-percent financially responsible for correcting the situation which has developed by the presence of this contaminated nuclear waste material in or near populated areas or at otherwise inappropriate locations.

To be more specific, it is a fact that the uranium milltailings are the waste material which resulted from uranium production contracts between the Federal Government and private industry under the uranium development program which emerged in the late 1940's and ran its course through the mid-1960's. At that time the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) encouraged and promoted the production of uranium ore. The Federal Government bought the product, set the prices, chose the contractors, approved the processing sites, and provided the necessary technology. The States were not involved in the ownership of the land, the States did not participate in the milling operation or the sale of the product, the States were not a party to the contracts, and the States could not have regulated the tailings even if they had desired to do so be

« PreviousContinue »