Page images
PDF
EPUB

With this knowledge, we can now move-and I hope very quickly to clean up these sites and thus remove the serious problem of radiation exposure.

Because of the very current data available, we have not only been able to determine the sites, but we also have a very real indication of the costs associated with the necessary remedial action. I understand that tomorrow DOE will have available for questioning a technical representative of the architectural-engineering firm of Ford, Bacon & Davis, which, under contract with ERDA, conducted the individual site assessments.

With the need clearly established and recognized, the sites identified, and the cost estimates available, we need to act fast. Our people have already been exposed to these hazardous conditions for over 30 years.

Just last week the State of Utah's Bureau of Radiation and Occupational Health announced two very important findings: One, that they had developed in cooperation with EPA's Radiation Laboratory at Las Vegas, a new technique which significantly reduces the time needed to measure the level of radiation; and two, that by using this new measurement, a 1.5 working level of radiation was detected at firehouse No. 1, which was built on tailings from the Vitro Chemical site in Salt Lake City. They detected the highest reading in the sleeping quarters of the firehouse.

It is my understanding that this 1.5 working level measurement is one of the highest ever taken. This means that the hazard these tailings are creating is at least as great, and possibly greater, than that existing anywhere in Grand Junction, Colo., which has generally been thought to have posed the very highest danger.

It was that high degree of exposure that prompted Congress to take action in 1972 to address the most immediate concern in Grand Junction. By way of comparison, the radon gas exposure at firehouse No. 1 is seven times that found in an average uranium mine.

You have scheduled an impressive list of witnesses over the next 2 days who can better comment on the very technical aspects of the uranium tailings problem. However, I would like to direct my comments now to what I consider to be the real issue to be resolved; what should be the role of the Federal Government?

I feel very strongly that the Federal Government must bear the responsibility to pay for the cleanup of these sites. After all, this problem is due to the past neglect of the Federal Government.

These tailings are the waste material resulting from contracts between the Federal Government and private firms under the uranium procurement program which began in the late forties and continued until the midsixties. Here the Federal Government, acting through the Atomic Energy Commission and in the national interest, encouraged the production of uranium ore, was the sole purchaser, established the purchase price, chose the contractors, approved the processing sites, and provided the necessary technology. In short, they had exclusive control of this program.

In fact, let me quote briefly from the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, subsection 161B and I(3), which authorized the AEC to:

B. Establish by rule, regulation or order such standards and instruction to govern the possession and use of special nuclear material, source material and byproduct

material as the Commission may deem necessary or desirable to promote the common defense and security or to protect health or to minimize danger to life or property.

I. Prescribe such regulation or orders as it may deem necessary. (3) to govern any activity authorized pursuant to this act, including standards and restrictions governing the design, location, and operational facilities used in the conduct of such activity in order to protect health and to minimize danger to life or property. From this it is very clear that the Congress, in authorizing the Atomic Energy Commission, intended that they should have exclusive jurisdiction in this area.

The entire country benefited from the procurement program and likewise should now assume its proper responsibility to pay for the remedial action, which is already overdue.

At the time the AEC entered into this program, they didn't profess to know all the answers, but in fact recognized that they were acting in an area that posed a lot of unknowns.

I would like to submit for the hearing record the following document prepared in January of 1950, entitled "Waste Materials in the United States Atomic Energy Program," by Abel Wolman and Arthur E. Gorman. [See p. 96.]

May I submit that, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. OTTINGER. Without objection, it will be included in the record.

Mr. MARRIOTT. Let me quote from that document:

By congressional act the Atomic Energy Commission has virtually sole power over this important development. In this respect it is unlike any other industry with which the public has hitherto been confronted. Normally the activities of an industry, which potentially may have some public health influence upon the surrounding populations, has the continued scrutiny of official public health agencies on Federal, State, and local levels. In the case of nuclear fission operators, however, the normal processes of supervision and regulation generally available through Federal, State, and local health departments and health officials are missing, and their initiation is handicapped by security policies.

* *

Other levels of government, particularly State and local, were not consulted. This was in the very purest form strictly a Federal program.

Now, many years later, we have the advanced technology to clearly establish the serious health hazard that these uranium tailings have created, yet the very legislative proposal submitted by the Department of Energy, H.R. 12535, calls for the States to pay one-fourth of the cost of Uncle Sam's shortcomings.

That means that those States who bear the total burden of the environmental risks will be required, in addition, to come up with 25 percent of the cleanup costs. Using the State of Utah as an example, we will have to contribute roughly between $8 to $9 million. Yet we had no input into establishing any of the rules or regulations which governed this program.

In working with Utah State officials, they have advised me that it would be impossible for the State to come up with a figure anywhere near $8 million as their share for such a program.

Above all, we in Congress want to avoid a situation where we establish a mechanism for the completion of the remedial action and then never see it undertaken because of the inability of the States to raise their 25 percent of the total cost.

Utah, for example, is a public land State with over 66 percent of the land owned by the Federal Government. We simply do not have the tax base to fund this program on a 25-percent basis. This funding issue is a critical consideration to the people of my State and other States because of the immediate need to take action with respect to these tailings piles. May I point out that the Salt Lake Vitro site is on a 128-acre tract located only 30 city blocks southwest of our State capitol building. The tailings pile is largely uncovered and subject to continuing wind and water erosion. The most alarming thing is that the site is only partially fenced and is easily accessible to the public.

This represents the largest site in any metropolitan area. The Vitro site is adjacent to the major north-south interstate and is visible from practically any point in the Salt Lake Valley.

While the tailings cleanup should be a Federal responsibility and clearly a Federal program, I feel very strongly that now the States need to be actively involved. They are responsible for protecting the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens. They must determine what action is necessary to remove this continued risk. However, I don't for a minute envision each State operating within a vacuum. Any remedial action will have to have the concurrence of the Secretary of Energy.

I want to assure strong local input so we don't have the same problem down the road as we have now because of the lack of State involvement. By giving the State the responsibility for the development of the site restoration plan, you assure protection over the long and short terms to the public.

By way of conclusion, let me summarize the approach of my bill, H.R. 12938, in addressing this problem.

One: Grants 100-percent funding to the States for the direct costs of restoration of these inactive uranium millsites.

Two: State-developed site restoration plan with DOE approval. They will still have to pay anywhere from $1 to $2 million to come up with the site restoration plan.

Three: DOE to undertake remedial action on the sites if the States fail to act within 3 years.

Four: Sites on Indian lands to be handled by the Department of the Interior.

Five: State to assume same 75/25-percent shared cost of offsite remedial action as in the case of Grand Junction.

Six: Pilot study of health hazards associated with contamination in Salt Lake City.

Seven: Authorization of $140 million.

Eight: Comprehensive program for all affected sites.

We have done some research, Mr. Chairman and come up with the information that, taking into account the inflationary increases that $140 million would be adequate to solve the problem and we could give to the committee, if it so desires, a breakdown of each location and the projected cost to carry out the program for each location.

Mr. Chairman, I have taken long enough. There are other important witnesses to hear today.

Let me indicate in closing the sites and the problems of radiation exposure have now been identified, specific costs and technical data

are available, immediate action is now, more than ever, necessary, and the Federal Government must assume its rightful responsibility and bear the costs of cleaning up these inactive tailings.

Mr. Chairman, I thank you.

I would like to ask at this time that the record remain open for comments from the State of New Mexico and from the University of Utah Medical School. Apparently those testimonies have been delayed in the mail.

[Testimony resumes on p. 137.]

[The document earlier referred to and letters from State of New Mexico follow:]

WASTE MATERIALS

IN THE UNITED STATES

ATOMIC ENERGY PROGRAM

ABEL WOLMAN*

The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore

ARTHUR E. GORMAN
United States Atomic Energy Commission

DR. ALAN GREGG, Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission Advisory Committee on Biology and Medicine, gives the key to virtually all the problems of disposal of the waste materials in the Atomic Energy Commission program. In his foreword in the Sixth Semi-Annual Report of the Atomic Energy Commission of July, 1949, he states.

The Commission is charged by law with the exclusive control of materials, equipment, and processes which are unique, constantly dangerous, and certainly not yet sufficiently understood. To this

* Dr. Wolman is a Consultant to the United States Atomic Energy Commission.

+ Mr. Gorman is a Sanitary Engineer with the Commission.

« PreviousContinue »