they intend it to have that broad applicability, and if so, did they advise this committee of that, which I am not aware they had. Mr. CHAIRMAN. No; this is sloppy draftsmanship. The staff tells me they are already drafting an amendment limited to mill tailings. That is the way it should be. You win on the amendment. Mr. GLEASON. I do not have to read the rest of that paragraph, then. Finally, with respect to stabilization of mill tailings, NRC in the past has set out general regulatory guidelines for acceptable procedures and programs which are not necessarily regulatory requirements. However, during the licensing process, these guidelines are applied as if they were regulations. Therefore, we recommend that the Commission be required to formally codify such regulations so that the regulations would be subject to appropriate public review and congressional oversight. Mr. CHAIRMAN. All right, we will take a look at that one, also. I think this is very helpful, the material you have given us this morning. Clearly some of the points you made ought to be and will be reflected in any legislation that we move out of this subcommittee. Mr. GLEASON. Mr. Chairman, just in conclusion, I would like to suggest that again I know you do not want to go about this in haste, and I think that in the couple of days that we have looked at this bill, we have discovered some fundamental problems with it, and I would not feel comfortable trying to give you suggestions between now and your markup on Thursday, in terms of how to straighten all these things out, but I would feel that you had my best thoughts on how that ought to be done. What I would suggest is that you go forward with the bill on the remedial problem, and take a little bit more time with this, because I think that we all agree that something needs to be done here, but it is pretty clear that the haste with which this bill was drafted was a little unseemly, I think, and we are just creating a lot of problems for ourselves. Mr. CHAIRMAN. We have a dilemma, and you are obviously aware of it. The clock is running in this Congress, and is going to run out in 90 days or less. We have to at least start the ball rolling at the subcommittee stage fairly quickly. It does not mean that we cannot take it up in the full committee and that the Senate will not want to take a look at all the problems as we go along, but the fundamental decision has to be made, whether we do something this year or not. If we agree we are going to try to, then we have to move fairly quickly, but it ought to be a deliberate kind of speed, and it ought to encompass full consideration of the kind of points that you have made, because your members are directly involved in this, and have a very great stake in what we do, and I want to be careful. Let me ask you a related question. One of the tactical decisions we have to make fairly soon is whether to marry the two bills, the remedial bill that Mr. Marriott has been showing some leadership on, and this bill. I think there is confusion. Do you have any objection in trying to blend the two together? Do you think there are advantages one way or the other? Mr. GLEASON. I do not really have any strong opinions on that. I know you folks are considering it. I do not see any reason why it cannot be done if it is done properly, but I do not know what the strategic, tactical considerations are involved in terms of what this means to the fate of the bill on the floor. I just have not thought that through. On the matter of drafting, I do not see any reason why it cannot be done, but there may be good, strong policies or political reasons for not doing it. Mr. CHAIRMAN. So far as your members are concerned, they do not object to us addressing both of these this year, as long as we do it in a sound, responsible, careful workmanlike way, if that is possible? Mr. GLEASON. Personally I cannot speak for our members, because we have not asked them that. As a matter of drafting, I do not see any reason why it cannot be done, but I would want to have a much better feel for the lay of the land in terms of what that meant down the road before I gave you a definitive answer. I just cannot do it. Mr. CHAIRMAN. I suppose this bill is undoubtedly of far greater concern to your group than the remedial bill. Mr. GLEASON. Yes, that is true. I think that we would like to see the remedial bill go forward definitely, and we would not like to see this bill go forward in its present form. Mr. CHAIRMAN. Mr. Marriott, do you have anything? Mr. MARRIOTT. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman. I would like to just say I apologize for being late, and that I agree with the chairman that we have an urgent problem in both of these respects, and I would like to assist in any way I could and ask for your assistance in moving this problem to the forefront and getting it solved, whether it is one bill, a combined bill, two bills, or whatever, because I think that if you read the Post on Sunday and other papers around the country, people are now concerned about this, so I am anxious to get something moving as quickly as possible, and I appreciate your testimony. Mr. CHAIRMAN. My staff suggests that under my supervision we are going to go to work trying to draft amendments and clean it up and refine the provisions here, and we would be glad to furnish you with a copy of our new draft for criticism before we actually take it to the subcommittee, and you could give us some priority and focus on it, and we will be glad to listen to your suggestions. Mr. GLEASON. I appreciate that. Mr. CHAIRMAN. I guess we have established a new record for subcommittee hearings this morning. You have been very helpful. Thank you very much. We stand in recess. [Whereupon, at 10:07 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned, to reconvene upon the call of the Chair.] [Additional information and prepared statements submitted for the hearing record follow:] APPENDIX I H.R. 12535, H.R. 12938, H.R. 13049 Additional Material Submitted for the Hearing Record OPENING STATEMENT OF HONORABLE MORRIS K. UDALL Monday, June 26, 1978 The legislation before the Subcommittee this morning mandates the Department of Energy to go to the Western States and Pennsylvania and move, shift, cover up or otherwise stow away more than 25 million tons of radioactive materials covering more than a thousand acres of now unuseable territory. The hazards represented by these tailings from the uranium ore milling process are great, when considered over the hundreds of thousands of years they will continue to be active. But the hazards of such a mammoth Federal undertaking - - estimated - to cost in total up to $200 million are also great. And so, it is with congratulations to the Department for its responsible and moral action in requesting this job and with much concern that we put together a tight, effective program that I welcome you to this hearing. - Department; by Mr. Evans of Colorado and by Mr. Marriott of Utah, respectively. Each bill offers a slightly different approach for a proposed clean-up of uranium mill tailings. The mill tailings covered by these measures were created in the production of uranium under contract to the Federal government for our nuclear defense programs. Some of the At the time the contracts were in effect, adequate regulatory control over the tailings hazard did not exist, and tons of the sandy material accumulated in ponds and piles without protection from leaching, wind and erosion. tailings have been used in construction of homes and buildings. There, the concentrated effect of the radioactive gas emitted by the material has created such a threat to public health that foundations and walls have had to be removed, at great expense to the state of Colorado and the Federal government. It is the opinion of myself and the Department of Energy that the Federal government now has a responsibility to assume the burden of cleaning up these sites. I have several concerns, however, regarding the implementation of such a program. |