Enclosed please find our response to the additional questions Please let me know if further comment would be helpful. Sincerely, Anthony Robb Anthony Robbins, M.D. AR: j enc. QUESTIONS FOR DR. ROBBINS from the ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT SUBCOMMITTEE 1. What constraints would moderate a state's opinion regarding appropriate actions for disposal of tailings if the state were not bearing part of the burden of stabilization costs? Would your states rather have 100 percent Federal funding, or concurrence in disposal alternatives, if given that choice? 2. 3. Are there sites in your states where tailings have been dumped that are not covered by this legislation? 4. How much of the tailings in your states is considered to contain economically recoverable minerals? Should provision be made to delay permanent stabilization of certain piles pending recovery of valuable minerals? 5. At what point in remedial action costs, if any, would your state refuse to participate in the program? Would your state participate under the 75/25 split? What are the costs to your state expected to be under that formula? 6. Do you see any problems for the state in procedures and financing requirements for taking title to tailings and tailings sites? If so, what could be done to mitigate them? 7. If the Federal government pays 75 to 100 per cent of the 8. The way the Administration bill is drafted, what would be a) If the state performed remedial work for b) If the state subsequent to stabilization July 13, 1978 1) 2) 3) The State of Colorado has taken the position that the tailings disposal projects must be accomplished by the federal government at federal expense with state concurrence in any action proposed. We are adamant on the 100% federal funding and would, as a last resort, relinquish the state's official concurrence on the federal proposal, relying, therefore, on the EIS process to correct any inappropriate action proposed by the federal government. One hundred percent funding by the federal government is an essential element of the program. The state would not accept title to stablized tailings piles. NRC's experience in the regulation of radioactive waste is that the federal government must regulate and own radioactive waste disposal sites because of requirements for long-term maintenance and surveillance. We agree that oversight of the situation has always been performed better on a state level, and to that end the federal government can contract with the states to accomplish such oversight functions. In There are two uranium mill sites which are currently adding tailings to the impoundment area. Approximately 60% of the more than 10 million tons at these two sites were generated as a result of the federal uranium procurement program. There are approximately two hundred off-site deposits at mill site towns in Colorado exclusive of Grand Junction. Grand Junction, there are thousands of off-site tailings deposits not involved with constructed buildings that must be returned to a central repository and properly disposed of. Currently, there are records of over 500 building sites in Grand Junction where tailings have been removed at the owner's expense prior to construction. The owners should be reimbursed for the cost of the removal and transport to the repository since the source of the contamination was misadministration of the federal regulatory program. 4) Currently, there are two sites under active investigation for recoverable minerals extraction. These are Naturita and Durango. Inquiry has been made regarding Grand Junction and Gunnison. Should the price of uranium continue to escalate, the piles at Rifle may have economically recoverable mineral a few years hence. Should a new mill be constructed in 5 years by Pioneer Uravan Corporation for the Slick Rock area, the Slick Rock piles could possibly be processed through that mill and deposited in an impoundment situation far more acceptable than the current circumstance. 5) The state is extremely unlikely to be able to contribute at any funding level to the clean-up of a health hazard originally created by a federal program. Based on the Ford, Bacon and Davis Utah reports for Colorado and at the 75/25 ratio, the state costs would be $20 million. However, current NRC mill tailings impoundment and stabilization goals were not addressed in the above referenced reports and these estimates should be inflated by at least a factor of 2. 6) Yes, we do see problems in acquiring title to tailings and tailings sites. Condemnation authorization must be specifically addressed in state statute for a specific purpose. Also, funds would have to be authorized by the state legislature for the acquisition of the properties involved. It is questionable whether the legislature would provide such authorizations. The federal law should provide for federal property acquisition for this purpose. 7) We agree that if the federal government pays 100% of the costs of remedial action, any increased valuation should be used to mitigate the cost of the federal program to the taxpayer. 8) a. If the program is 100% federally funded, the state would be a prime contractor to the federal government and as such could not be held liable except for gross negligence similar to the DOE/Rockwell-Dow situation at Rocky Flats. In the extremely unlikely situation that the state would provide some of the remedial program costs, the state in its authorization or enabling legislation could release itself from liabilities and claims thereof as was done by the federal government and the State of Colorado in the Grand Junction Remedial Action Program for construction-related uranium tailings use. b. We prefer a totally federal program in which the State would not incur any liability. Past experience with radioactive waste disposal sites has demonstrated that federal regulation and federal repositories are the preferred situation, according to the NRC and GAO. 32-331 - 78 - 16 Mr. Chairman, I am Lyman J. Olsen, M.D., Director of Utah State Division of Health. I am here today to testify in favor of H.R. 11698 which would authorize the Department of Energy (DOE) to contract with the State of Utah to remove the potential health hazard created by a uranium tailings pile. It is my opinion that a final solution of the health hazard resulting from the tailings pile, located in Salt Lake Valley, must be made, and that the solution is to move the pile to a remote location where it can be stabilized. This tailings pile is located in a residential-industrial area, and is adjacent to a much larger population center than any other pile in the country. Thousands of people work and live in close proximity to the pile and are exposed to radioactive dust, radon gas, decay products of radon gas and gamma radiation. This is not the only pile of this type in the country, but it most certainly constitutes the greatest threat of any because of its location in the center of a rapidly growing urban-industrial complex of over 1/2 million population. From 1951 to 1964 the Vitro Minerals and Chemical Company processed 1.7 million tons of uranium ore on its 128 acre site in South Salt Lake. In 1965 the mill was converted to vanadium production and was in operation until 1968, milling 106,000 tons of vanadium-bearing material. The total amount of tailings deposited at this site is estimated at 2.3 million tons, excluding the contaminated subsoil. The tailings, which were under the regulatory control of the Atomic Energy Commission, (AEC), now Nuclear Regulatory Commission, (NRC), have never been under control of the State of Utah. Division of Health Lyman J. Olsen, M.D., M.P.H. 150 West North Temple, Suite 474 P.O. Box 2500, Salt Lake City, Utah 84110 801-533-6111 An Equal Opportunity Employer |