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 Section 108 (a) (1) authorizes the Secretary of Energy to select and perform remedial action. 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. 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. 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 pieces 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 cause the regulatory power was exclusively with the AEC, the Federal Government. It might be argued that the Federal Government's failure to include tailings disposal costs in the price it paid for the product resulted in the Government purchasing the product at a lesser price. Thus, the Federal Government should now make good on those costs which are part of what it should have paid under the original contracts. The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 further establishes the total degree of Federal control and regulation of nuclear material. I support the 100 percent Federal funding provisions contained in H.R. 12938 and H.R. 13049. As for disposal and stabilization of the tailings, I support the program outlined in H.R. 12938, which provides that each State in which the tailings piles are located should have the primary_decisionmaking authority, with the review and approval of the Secretary of Energy, as to which restoration alternative is most appropriate and which disposal site is most adequate. As I pointed out previously, the States and local governments had absolutely no part in the selection of the original milling sites. Now, because these tailings will remain within the States and the residents of the States must contend with the presence of the tailings wherever they are located, it is essential that the States and local governments play the primary role in determining which stabilization alternative is best and most viable and which disposal site, if disposal at a different location is necessary, is most appropriate and acceptable to all concerned. When the decision is made as to which restoration alternative is most appropriate in each case, the standards for handling of the tailings and the stabilization of the piles and subsequent monitoring must rest within the regulatory control and responsibility of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), as provided for in H.R. 12938 and H.R. 13049. The NRC is well versed in the knowledge of the historical background of the tailings material, the nature of the material and the proper handling of the wastes. It seems to me to be essential that the NRC, since it is now the licensing and regulatory body for active uranium millsites, should draft and implement the standards and criteria for all phases of handling and disposal of the waste material, and be ultimately responsible for the disposal sites. Last, I recommend and urge that language be included in the final version of the legislation reported out of this subcommittee, which incorporates a provision for allowing the participation of private industry in the tailings restoration process when reprocessing of the tailings may be a viable option. While it appears that none of the three bills would prohibit such industry involvement, I believe it is essential that language be included in the legislation to provide for such consideration in those cases where industry expresses an interest in reprocessing the tailings piles to recover, to the extent possible, the valuable minerals. In some cases, the amount of potentially recoverable uranium is substantial, according to the Ford, Bacon & Davis study of the tailings sites accomplished under contract with the Department of Energy (DOE). I am advised that at present prices for uranium, it is not economically viable in most cases for private industry to reprocess the tailings. However, in a couple cases, where the quality and quantity of the uranium is sufficient to make reprocessing economically feasible, private industry has, under strict State guidelines, become involved in reprocessing the tailings piles. However, in most cases transportation costs and other factors make such reprocessing financially unattractive. I should point out that according to the Ford, Bacon & Davis analysis, only a few of the sites may be viable for reprocessing at reasonable costs. It would be in the best interests of the Nation that where reprocessing costs are marginal at best, an effort should be made to extract the remaining mineral so the resource is not totally lost in the restoration process. Therefore, I recommend and urge the Subcommittee to include in the legislation, as part of the development of the restoration plan, a provision to allow private industry to express an interest in reprocessing those piles which may be appropriate. Such a provision should include Government assumption of transportation costs, stabilization costs or a combination of these and/or other costs, short of the specific industry costs required for planning and actual reprocessing of the tailings. Such assistance, the type and degree of which should be left to the determination of the State in consultation with the Secretary of Energy, would result in the recovery of substantial quantities of uranium which might otherwise be lost in the restoration program. To summarize, I believe the case has been made to justify full Federal financial responsibility to resolve the situation created by the presence of the tailings in inappropriate locations. Although the Federal Government should bear the full financial responsibility, the States, with the approval of the Secretary of Energy, should have the primary responsibility for determining the most acceptable and appropriate method of site restoration from among the several alternatives suggested at each location studied in the Ford, Bacon & Davis analysis of all the tailings sites. Whatever restoration alternative is selected and wherever the disposal site is to be located, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission should have the regulatory control over the standards and criteria for the handling, stabilization, and monitoring of the restored piles. And, finally, provisions should be included in the legislation to involve private industry in the tailings restoration process, to provide reasonable financial or other assistance necessary to make reprocessing, where marginal, a viable option resulting in the recovery of valuable minerals remaining in the tailings piles. Again, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to present my comments and views regarding these three pieces of legislation. I am confident that this committee and the House Interior Committee which also has jurisdiction, will develop a bill which is reasonable and responsible and which will resolve the issues regarding inactive uranium milltailings once and for all. Thank you. [The following letter and attachment were received for the record:] CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, DEAR JOHN: I appreciate your comments about the uranium mill tailings restoration legislation. In addition to my prepared statement which was inserted in the hearing record yesterday, I would appreciate it if you would include in the hearing record, the attached_Resolution adopted yesterday by the Local Advisory Committee of the Tailings Removal Remedial Action Program of Grand Junction, Colorado. The Resolution was adopted by the Committee yesterday and phoned to my office last night. chairman Ed Lamm asked that the Resolution be made part of the official hearing record. Sincerely yours, Enclosure. JAMES P. JOHNSON. RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE LOCAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE OF THE TAILINGS REMOVAL REMEDIAL ACTION Program of GRAND JUNCTION, COLO.; JUNE 19, 1978 Be it resolved, That any legislation enacted by the Congress of the United States addressing restoration of inactive uranium mill sites, must be clear and specific to include remedial action for removal of off-site tailings deposits, however such deposits may have occurred, and to include reimbursement of any reasonable expenses previously incurred by property owners to remove such tailings. ED LAMM, Chairman. STATEMENT OF HON. DAN MARRIOTT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH Mr. MARRIOTT. Mr. Chairman, I commend you and my distinguished colleagues of this subcommittee for holding these hearings to focus on the serious problem that exists in many of our States as a result of the presence of uranium tailings. I know the problem is not entirely new to you and that you are all familiar with it as a result of your consideration last year of S. 266, dealing with the offsite use of tailings in Grand Junction, Colo. Today we, as Members of Congress, are meeting to determine what action is necessary to resolve this serious problem. This issue was first addressed by the 92d Congress via Public Law 92-314. Through this legislation the Federal Government accepted compassionate responsibility to resolve this problem. Subsequently the Atomic Energy Commission-then later the Energy Research and Development Administration-ERDA—and the Department of Energy-undertook to identify 22 inactive uranium millsites in the western United States and most recently the site in Cannonsburg, Pa. Once completed, comprehensive legislation could be drafted to address this problem in total and not on an individual site basis. You have before you several bills proposing different methods to accomplish this. I feel that these will give a basis for healthy discussion and that a good, constructive, and comprehensive bill can emerge. I have introduced three bills. As a point of clarification, H.R. 11698 was my original bill. It was later revised and introduced with cosponsors as H.R. 12229, and again with additional cosponsors as H.R. 12938. To date I have been joined by 19 other cosponsors of the Uranium Mill Site Restoration Act of 1978. I hope that this will clarify that while there are three Marriott bills, H.R. 12229 and H.R. 12938 are identical and constitute my formal legislative proposal in this area. The Department of Energy has now identified approximately 20 sites in nine States where action needs to be taken to stabilize or neutralize uranium tailings. I say approximately 20 sites, because it is my understanding that two of the sites have multiple piles. 37-249 O-79-7 |