[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 20 (Tuesday, March 1, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: March 1, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
INTRODUCTION OF THE FEDERAL NUCLEAR FACILITIES LICENSING AND REGULATION 
                                  ACT

                                 ______


                           HON. GEORGE MILLER

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, March 1, 1994

  Mr. MILLER of Calfornia. Mr. Speaker, 20 years ago, Congress brought 
to an end the bizarre situation that had one agency--the Atomic Energy 
Commission--both promoting nuclear energy and building nuclear weapons, 
and also regulating the commercial nuclear industry. The Energy 
Reorganization Act of 1974 disbanded the AEC, created the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission to take over the regulatory functions, and 
created what is now the Department of Energy to take over the nuclear 
weapons production activities and energy policy issues, including 
nuclear energy research and development.
  Unfortunately, Congress did not do the whole job in 1974. It remedied 
the distortions that resulted from having a single agency both 
promoting and regulating the nuclear industry. It did not remedy the 
fact that the DOE would continue to be self-regulating with respect to 
its nuclear weapons production and nuclear energy R&D activities.
  In part as a legacy of the fact that DOE has had nobody else to 
answer to for its nuclear safety practices, the diverse DOE nuclear 
complex today is almost universally regarded as the biggest collection 
of serious environmental messes in the country. The Hanford site in 
Washington State is widely believed to be one of the most polluted 
places in the world. Rocky Flats in Colorado, Savannah River Plant in 
South Carolina, Oak Ridge in Tennessee, and Fernald in Ohio are close 
behind. Soils and ground and surface waters have been seriously 
contaminated with radioactivity.
  Estimates of the ultimate cost to clean up the DOE nuclear complex 
have ranged up to $500 billion.
  In recent years, DOE's activities have increasingly become subject to 
outside regulation. Radionuclides have long been regulated as hazardous 
air pollutants under the Clean Air Act. The Federal Facilities 
Compliance Act made DOE facilities subject to regulation by the EPA and 
the States under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. At the 
beginning of the Clinton administration, Energy Secretary O'Leary 
announced that the Department would voluntarily submit to outside 
regulation by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. The 
WIPP Land Withdrawal Act that was passed by the 102d Congress made the 
WIPP facility for disposal of defense transuranic wastes in New Mexico 
subject to regulation by the EPA. And the Energy Policy Act of 1992 
made the uranium enrichment plants now run by the new U.S. Enrichment 
Corporation subject to regulation by the NRC.
  The Superfund law currently governs the cleanup of closed Federal 
nuclear facilities, but it does not cover facilities that are still in 
operation, and it does not provide clear standards and procedures to 
govern cleanups. Those cleanups are now being governed by a series of 
disjointed agreements among DOE, States, and EPA. Cleanup priorities 
are being determined largely by Federal judges based on the relative 
aggressiveness in litigation of various States and other participants, 
rather than on the basis of any rational prioritization of risks. There 
is, as yet, no established standard for how clean is clean enough.
  With the few exceptions just noted, nuclear safety issues under the 
Atomic Energy Act are the only major area in which DOE continues to be 
answerable only to itself. We do not need to decide whether this self-
regulation was ever a good idea. But we should decide--soon--that it is 
not a good idea today and in the future. If the cold war justified what 
was done in the past, it cannot justify what we do any more. The 
production of plutonium for nuclear weapons has been completely 
discontinued in this country, and we hope it will never have to be 
restarted. These facilities that just a few years ago were engaged in a 
massive buildup of nuclear weapons, today are engaged primarily in 
cleaning up.

  Under the circumstances, it is difficult to sustain the argument that 
American citizens should continue to be subjected to much greater risks 
from Federal nuclear activities than they face from the commercial 
nuclear power industry. Yet that is precisely what they face today.
  Today, Rick Lehman, Phil Sharp, Peter DeFazio, and I are introducing 
a bill to begin to bring to an end DOE's self-regulation under the 
Atomic Energy Act. We have circulated a draft bill for comment for 
several months, and received virtually universal support for the major 
premise that DOE self-regulation should not continue. While there is 
certainly a wide range of views about how best to bring about 
independent regulation, we have heard nobody argue that the status quo 
should continue into the future.
  The Federal Nuclear Facilities Licensing and Regulation Act would 
address this issue in two phases. For any new Federal nuclear 
facilities that might be built, the bill would require that they be 
licensed and regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in much the 
same manner as commercial nuclear facilities have been for 40 years. 
This approach makes sense because the NRC already has 20 years of 
experience as a regulator under the Atomic Energy Act. They already 
possess extensive regulatory, licensing, and enforcement 
infrastructure, as well as knowledge about the management of 
radiological risks.
  As the committee with primary jurisdiction over the NRC, we have had 
our share of differences with the Commission over the years. 
Nonetheless, it is beyond question that the commercial nuclear industry 
that has been the Commission's charge has been managed with far less 
threat to public health and safety and the environment than has the 
Federal nuclear complex.
  Many of the facilities that would be affected by this change in the 
law are part of our national defense information. We cannot guarantee 
in this very uncertain world that there will never be a necessity to 
produce additional nuclear weapons materials in the future on an 
emergency basis. Therefore, the bill includes a provision for a 
Presidential waiver of any of its requirements if the President deems 
it necessary for reasons of national security.
  For the more difficult question of how to impose outside regulation 
on existing facilities--none of which have been licensed--we have 
concluded that we do not yet have all the answers. There are several 
major options. One is to make NRC the regulator under the Atomic Energy 
Act, as Congress did for the uranium enrichment facilities in 1992. 
Another is to have a single-purpose regulator, such as a strengthened 
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board. A third is to make EPA the 
regulator under the Atomic Energy Act, as was done for the WIPP 
facility.
  There are advantages and disadvantages to all of these options, to 
combinations of them, and no doubt to other options. Because it became 
clear in our discussions with others that there was no consensus on the 
best course to take, we have decided to approach the question of the 
existing facilities more cautiously.
  Accordingly, the bill we are introducing today creates a Presidential 
blue ribbon commission to study these issues and come back to the 
Congress with recommendations on the best approach to regulating 
existing Federal nuclear facilities after 18 months. The 13-member 
review commission would include representatives of five relevant 
Federal agencies, plus the other major stakeholders in this issue, 
including States, Indian tribes, DOE contractors, and environmental 
groups.

  As the committee with primary jurisdiction over the NRC, we recognize 
that the new responsibilities we would give that Agency in title I of 
this bill must be accomplished without diluting NRC's attention to its 
existing responsibilities for the safety of commercial nuclear 
facilities. Accordingly, we are committed to ensuring that these new 
responsibilities are accompanied by corresponding new resources.
  This is a big project. It will involve several committees on both 
sides of the Congress. Regulation in itself is no panacea, be we are 
convinced that in this context it will contribute important advantages 
to the management and cleanup of our Federal nuclear facilities. It 
will establish clear health and safety standards to be met, and a clear 
decisionmaking process for meeting operation and cleanup objectives. It 
will be clear for the first time who has the right to approve or reject 
nuclear safety proposals. It must be implemented in a manner that 
improves public participation in those activities. It will also help 
the Department to get the upper hand with respect to its contractors if 
the latter know that they will be answerable to an independent 
regulator.
  Most importantly, outside regulation of these Federal nuclear 
facilities will help make it possible to improve the public's 
acceptance of the way these facilities are being run. Secretary Hazel 
O'Leary deserves enormous credit for her efforts to open up the 
Department of Energy from its decades of excessive secrecy and come 
clean about its past mistakes. In the short term, the often disturbing 
revelations she is facilitating will probably not help the Department's 
standing in public opinion. But if the openness she has fostered is 
sustained over time, I believe that public trust and confidence in the 
activities of the Department can only be improved. Continued self-
regulation of these facilities under the Atomic Energy Act would be a 
serious hindrance to that improvement in DOE's public standing. If the 
public knows that some entity other than the Agency responsible for 
operating these facilities is solely responsible for their safety, it 
will help reduce the public's anxiety about them.
  We ask our colleagues to join us in this historic effort to modernize 
the Atomic Energy Act. It is time for self-regulation of Federal 
nuclear facilities to end.

                          ____________________