U.S. Bureau of Mines (Incineration of combustible wastes, direct disposal in salt formations and deep wells).

These arrangements, wherein AEC funds are used to support specific operational and research and development projects of mutual interest also have included assignment of Agency personnel to AEC installations for training and direct assistance. As examples, USGS personnel have been or are assigned either on a full- or part-time basis to NRTS, Oak Ridge, BNL, Hanford, Savannah River, Los Alamos, KAPL, Washington and other AEC installations. A similar situation exists with the USWB and the USPHS. In the case of the USPHS arrangements were made for the training of personnel at AEC development projects being carried out at several universities.

The attached bibliography of special reports to the AEC by some of the other Federal agencies gives further indication of the nature and scope of these working relationships.

To further strengthen our attack on waste disposal problems, the AEC also initiated formal working relationships with specialized groups of the National Academy of Sciences National Research Council. For example, the Earth Sciences Division, at the request of AEC, established a Committee on Waste Disposal to assist in connection with problems of disposal of radioactive wastes on land. The NAS-NRC Committee on Oceanography was established at the request of several agencies of which the AEC is one. This group, as previously noted, has given or is in the process of giving, specific assistance (at the request of AEC) in connection with evaluation of possible inshore sea disposal areas for solid or packaged waste materials off the Atlantic, gulf, and Pacific coasts; and establishment of criteria for disposal of wastes from nuclear propelled ships.

In the same way that the advantages of and requirements for close working relationships with other Federal agencies were recognized early in the life of the AEC, was the concept and philosophy of relationships with the various States established in this field of waste disposal. In 1948 relations were established on a semiformal basis when a number of State officials, mainly State sanitary engineers and other State health department representatives, primarily in States in which there were AEC facilities, were "Q" cleared and were informed of those phases of operations of direct interest to their responsibilities within their respective States. These operations had to do mostly with gaseous and liquid effluent control at the various AEC plants. Information was transmitted by direct discussion, through issued reports, and through visits by these State officials to the plants. Although at this time practically all of the information and activities related to waste disposal are unclassified, nevertheless to assure that pertinent information could be discussed in specific situations 12 State sanitary engineers were "Q" cleared.

From the initiation of these contacts with the States and other Federal agencies liaison activities were increased and several more formal relationships were established in the form of special technical advisory groups which specifically included State representatives. This facilitated the transmission of information to the particular States involved in areas of interest and concern to them and also better enabled the AEC to seek advice of these groups in matters related to effluent and environmental control.

These groups involved are:

Columbia River Advisory Group-Washington, Oregon, USPHS. Mohawk River Advisory Group-New York, city of Schenectady. Savannah River Advisory Board-South Carolina, Georgia, USPHS, USGS, Corps of Engineers.

Idaho Environmental Advisory Board.

Since, for the most part the major interest-as indicated by the group of titles—is in the area of disposal of liquid wastes to waterways, advantages was also taken of the existence of other interstate groups concerned with stream sanitation and water pollution control in connection with specific AEC projects and operations. Included in this group are:

Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission-Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Virginia (interstate compact operating under a congressional charter). New England Interstate Water Pollution Control CommissionConnecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, New York, Vermont.

Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin-Maryland, Virginia, District of Columbia, West Virginia, Pennsylvania.

Interstate Commission on the Delaware River Basin-Pennsylvania, New York, Delaware, New Jersey.

Interstate Sanitation Commission-New York, Connecticut, New Jersey.

These relationships continue to the present time. In periodic meetings with these groups information is given regarding waste disposal operations that bear on the groups' functions. In turn, these groups have supplied useful environmental data and advice on numerous occasions in connection with existing or proposed waste operations. It should also be noted that other Federal agencies, particularly the USPHS, participate in the activities of these groups.

Following the passage of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, and the inception of the AEC's licensing and regulatory program, in addition to the continuance of the activities noted above, there have been numerous occasions where AEC staff has acted in a technical consultative capacity with various States in connection with the environmental aspects of licensed operations within the individual States.

A number of States have directly participated or otherwise cooperated in several AEC waste disposal development projects. Examples include investigation of dilution factors in the Mohawk River in New York, fundamental studies of fate of radioactivity streams in Massachusetts, stream investigations in the Chicago drainage canal in Illinois, waste investigations in the uranium milling industry on the Colorado Plateau, studies of disposal of high level wastes in salt formations in Kansas, studies of injection of certain wastes into the ground at the University of California, possible burial of low level solid or packaged wastes in New York and Pennsylvania and others. It is strongly believed that the technical relationships established in the field of waste disposal with other Federal agencies and many States has been an important part of our waste management program. We believe that these relationships and cooperative projects have been of mutual advantage and look forward to their continuance and expansion.

Although perhaps not specifically involved in the subject matter of these hearings the international aspects of waste disposal are closely enough related to warrant some mention. Our working relationships and exchange of information with other countries working in this field, particularly England, France, Canada, and Belgium, and with Euratom and the International Atomic Energy Agency are quite active. In recent months we have been particularly active with the IAEA on matters related to the disposal of radioactive wastes at sea and in assisting in the planning of an international conference on the subject of waste disposal scheduled for November of this year. Undoubtedly, as the nuclear energy industry expands our international activities in this area will increase.

That concludes my presentation, Mr. Chairman.

(Appendixes I and II to Dr. Lieberman's statement appear on p. 62.)

Representative ASPINALL. Mr. Chairman, I have one question. It has to do with the part that refers to uranium milling wastes. In the first paragraph it is suggested that individual spot mill effluent samples indicate that concentration of radioactive materials in excess of maximum allowable are being discharged. Not enough analytical results are yet available to permit a rational assessment of existing or potential environment contamination.

Has there been enough study given to this particular matter to be able to state accurately whether or not there is any danger to human life or plant life in those areas?

Dr. LIEBERMAN. Sir, I would say that here is an example where, in cooperation with the U.S. Public Health Service, we believe we are developing the kind of information that is required to answer your question in a definite quantitative way. The fact that individual samples right from the mill effluent may have concentrations in excess of the maximum allowable concentration, or whatever term you want to use for that, I think relates back to the question that Mr. Ramey asked. It might be that the concentration at the outfall is in excess, but because of paricular environment it does not necessarily follow that this is, or does represent a specific pollution problem.

Representative ASPINALL. This kind of statement without any explanation whatsoever might be rather serious in an area such as I represent. At the present time as I understand you, you don't know whether or not there is any danger of any importance or not.

Dr. LIEBERMAN. The Public Health Service in their operations with the States on the Animos River are now preparing a report on that particular location. We requested the Public Health Service to take a broader look at the Colorado Plateau, and to carry out what we would characterize as an industrial waste investigation to develop the sort of information needed to answer your question. They have been in the field and collected various samples, and we hope by the end of this summer we would have this kind of information available.

Representative ASPINALL. Perhaps the Animus River is the one river that should not be studied.

Dr. LIEBERMAN. Perhaps so, but I don't think so.

Chairman ANDERSON. Isn't it more than perhaps so? It is just so that it is not the one you should study if you are going to look for industrial wastes from the Colorado Plateau. What would make you pick the Animus River?

Dr. LIEBERMAN. I think perhaps the Public Health Service can answer this, but this was at the request of the States involved there. They came to the Public Health Service and asked that this particular river be studied.

Representative ASPINALL. For the simple reason that there is a city or small community along that area, but in an area where we have been mining radioactivity since 1910 or 1911, where there is a great deal of waste material at the present time, not only going from the mines, but going from the mills, we don't have any study going on that I know of. Do you know of any?

Dr. LIEBERMAN. Yes, sir. The Public Health Service was in the field last summer getting samples. They are now analyzing places other than the Animus, the Colorado, the Gunnison, and other areas on the plateau. This is a project that is being done cooperatively between the AEC and the Public Health Service.

Representative ASPINALL. I suggest that the Dolores River is perhaps the place you should go.

Dr. LIEBERMAN. I am sorry.

Representative ASPINALL. I suggest that perhaps the Dolores River is the place you should go.

Chairman ANDERSON. In western Colorado. Do you feel you have jurisdiction over the control of industrial waste or is that a problem for the Public Health Service? Millingwise, for example?

Dr. LIEBERMAN. I would like to let the lawyers answer that as far as jurisdiction is concerned, Senator Anderson. I think we do, but I would defer to them.

Mr. LOWENSTEIN. As I understand it, sir, as to the mills that are operating under AEC licenses, their discharge of radioactive wastes from the licensed milling operations are within our jurisdiction.

Chairman ANDERSON. It raises a nice point. Not necessarily. Doesn't the Public Health Service have a little different view?

Mr. LOWENSTEIN. I did not mean to suggest that other agencies did not have an interest in it also. You asked me whether or not we have jurisdiction.

Chairman ANDERSON. I asked you whether the Public Health Service had a litle different view, on whether or not you had jurisdiction or control.

Mr.LOWENSTEIN. I don't know what their view is.

Dr. LIEBERMAN. If I could add this, Senator Anderson, and this is not speaking from the jurisdictional point of view, but certainly as far as the views of the Public Health Service in setting up this cooperative field project, maybe we did not stop to think about who had jurisdic

tion

Chairman ANDERSON. That is one of the purposes of the hearing. We are trying to find out about it. In my particular State where we have a few mills, I think we would all agree, would not the State mining inspector, if he felt like it, exercise some jurisdiction? Dr. LIEBERMAN. I would certainly think so, sir.

Chairman ANDERSON. That is why I asked you if you had jurisdiction. By what law do you have jurisdiction over the milling wastes?

Dr. LIEBERMAN. As far as I know, it is under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. I would defer to the lawyers.

42561-59 -5

Chairman ANDERSON. Give us the section.

Mr. LOWENSTEIN. Sir, I wonder if there may be some misunderstanding, perhaps? With respect to mining as such, the Commission has taken the position, I believe, in an earlier hearing, and an opinion was furnished by the general counsel, that the Commission under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 does not regulate mining.

Chairman ANDERSON. Maybe I can preface my question by saying to you, as you undoubtedly know, some 85 to 90 percent of all the potash mined in the United States is mined in one county in New Mexico. The mining of the potash led to the discharge of salt brine into the river which discharged on some land. Who has the responsibility for the care of those salt brines-the mining inspector, the health department, the agricultural commissioner, if we had one, and so forth and so forth. I assume the same question might arise in connection with the uranium milling. We don't say that the State of New Mexico can sign a contract for the mills to supply their product to the Atomic Energy Commission. No. That is a function of the Atomic Energy Commission. But who has jurisdiction over the waste product of that mill and by what law?

Mr. LOWENSTEIN. The uranium mills are operating under AEC license.

Mr. RAMEY. The mines are not operating under AEC license. Mr. LOWENSTEIN. The mines are not operating under AEC license, but the mills are.

Mr. RAMEY. But they do have radioactive wastes nevertheless in the mines.

Mr. LOWENSTEIN. The mines do, and they are not regulated by the Commission.

Chairman ANDERSON. Do I understand then that your contention is that as long as something operates under a license from the AEC, all its functions, health, welfare, and everything else, fall to the AEC?

Mr. LOWENSTEIN. No, sir, I did not mean to say that.

Chairman ANDERSON. How far down do you slice it? You gave a license to a mill and you retain jurisdiction over the safety features of that mill?

Mr. LOWENSTEIN. Under our regulations and the license we exercise jurisdiction with respect to the radiation hazards from the licensed activity, be those in plant radiation hazards or radiation hazards from effluent from the mill or other radiation activities associated with the licensed activity.

Chairman ANDERSON. I see the language that the counsel refers to where it says that the Commission is authorized to issue or no person may transfer or receive in interstate commerce, transfer, deliver, or receive possession or title to or import into the United States any source material after removal from its place of deposit in nature, except, and so forth. I don't believe that quite satisfies me. I want to know if you do feel that you have jurisdiction over wastes that come from milling operations when the law of the State has not given that to you. The Federal Government only gets its jurisdiction because the State abandons the field, does it not?

Mr. LOWENSTEIN. Perhaps I could refer to a number of other sections-section 62 and section 161.