    [House Hearing, 110 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                       H.R. 5632, A BILL TO PROHIBIT THE
                          IMPORTATION OF CERTAIN LOW-
                 LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE INTO THE UNITED STATES

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                     SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND AIR QUALITY

                                     OF THE

                        COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                  MAY 20, 2008

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 110-119

          Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce

                            energycommerce.house.gov

                      U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    54-899                    WASHINGTON : 2008
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
    Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov  Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
    Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001

                        COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

                      JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan, Chairman

    HENRY A. WAXMAN, California          JOE BARTON, Texas
    EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts          Ranking Member
    RICK BOUCHER, Virginia               RALPH M. HALL, Texas
    EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York             J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois
    FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey       FRED UPTON, Michigan
    BART GORDON, Tennessee               CLIFF STEARNS, Florida
    BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois              NATHAN DEAL, Georgia
    ANNA G. ESHOO, California            ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky
    BART STUPAK, Michigan                BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming
    ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York             JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
    ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland             HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico
    GENE GREEN, Texas                    JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona
    DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado              CHARLES W. ``CHIP'' PICKERING,
        Vice Chairman                    Mississippi
    LOIS CAPPS, California               VITO FOSSELLA, New York
    MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania             STEVE BUYER, Indiana
    JANE HARMAN, California              GEORGE RADANOVICH, California
    TOM ALLEN, Maine                     JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania
    JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois             MARY BONO MACK, California
    HILDA L. SOLIS, California           GREG WALDEN, Oregon
    CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas           LEE TERRY, Nebraska
    JAY INSLEE, Washington               MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey
    TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin             MIKE ROGERS, Michigan
    MIKE ROSS, Arkansas                  SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina
    DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon               JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma
    ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York          TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania
    JIM MATHESON, Utah                   MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
    G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina     MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
    CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana
    JOHN BARROW, Georgia
    BARON P. HILL, Indiana

                                     ______

                               Professional Staff

                     Dennis B. Fitzgibbons, Chief of Staff

                       Gregg A. Rothschild, Chief Counsel

                          Sharon E. Davis, Chief Clerk

                     Bud Albright, Minority Staff Director

                                      (ii)
                     Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality

                        RICK BOUCHER, Virginia, Chairman
    G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina,    FRED UPTON, Michigan
        Vice Chairman                         Ranking Member
    CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana          RALPH M. HALL, Texas
    JOHN BARROW, Georgia                 ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky
    HENRY A. WAXMAN, California          JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
    EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts      JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona
    ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland             CHARLES W. ``CHIP'' PICKERING,
    MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania                 Mississippi
    JANE HARMAN, California              ROY BLUNT, Missouri
    TOM ALLEN, Maine                     STEVE BUYER, Indiana
    CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas           MARY BONO MACK, California
    JAY INSLEE, Washington               GREG WALDEN, Oregon
    TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin             MIKE ROGERS, Michigan
    MIKE ROSS, Arkansas                  SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina
    DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon               JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma
    ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York          MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
    JIM MATHESON, Utah                   JOE BARTON, Texas (ex officio)
    JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan (ex
        officio)
                                     ------

                               Professional Staff

                         Sue D. Sheridan, Chief Counsel
                            John W. Jimison, Counsel
                       Rachel Bleshman, Legislative Clerk
                        David McCarthy, Minority Counsel

                                 C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Hon. Rick Boucher, a Representative in Congress from the
      Commonwealth of Virginia, opening statement....................     1
    Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Michigan, opening statement....................................     2
    Hon. Jim Matheson, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Utah, opening statement........................................     4
    Hon. Ed Whitfield, a Representative in Congress from the
      Commonwealth of Kentucky, opening statement....................     5
    Hon. Marsha Blackburn, a Representative in Congress from the
      State of Tennessee, opening statement..........................     6
    Hon. John D. Dingell, a Representative in Congress from the State
      of Michigan, opening statement.................................     7
    Hon. John Shimkus, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Illinois, opening statement....................................     9
    Hon. Bart Gordon, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Tennessee, opening statement...................................    10
    Hon. Joe Barton, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Texas, prepared statement......................................    11
    Hon. Jay Inslee, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Washington, opening statement..................................    12
    Hon. G.K. Butterfield, a Representative in Congress from the
      State of North Carolina, opening statement.....................    12

                                   Witnesses

    Margaret M. Doane, Director, Office of International Programs,
      U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.............................    13
        Prepared statement...........................................    15
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   186
    Kent J. Bradford, chairman, Utah Radiation Control Board.........    26
        Prepared statement...........................................    28
    R. Steve Creamer, chairman and chief executive officer,
      EnergySolutions................................................    58
        Prepared statement...........................................    61
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   191
    Gene Aloise, Director, Natural Resources and Environment, U.S.
      Government Accountability Office...............................   134
        Prepared statement...........................................   136

                               Submitted Material

    Northwest Interstate Compact, letter of March 16, 2008, submitted
      by Mr. Matheson................................................   165
    Committee on Science and Technology, letter of February 12, 2008,
      to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, submitted by Mr. Gordon
      through Mr. Matheson...........................................   173

      H.R. 5632, A BILL TO PROHIBIT THE IMPORTATION OF CERTAIN LOW-LEVEL
                    RADIOACTIVE WASTE INTO THE UNITED STATES

                                  ----------

                             TUESDAY, MAY 20, 2008

                      House of Representatives,
                Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality,
                              Committee on Energy and Commerce,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in
    room 2123 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Rick
    Boucher (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Members present: Representatives Boucher, Butterfield,
    Melancon, Barrow, Inslee, Matheson, Gordon, Dingell (ex
    officio), Upton, Hall, Whitfield, Shimkus, Walden, and
    Blackburn.
        Staff present: Sue Sheridan, John Jimison, Laura Vaught,
    Bruce Harris, Chris Treanor, Rachel Bleshman, Alex Haurek,
    David McCarthy, and Garrett Golding.

      OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICK BOUCHER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
               CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

        Mr. Boucher. The Committee will come to order.
        Today the subcommittee holds a hearing on a bipartisan
    measure which has been introduced by three of our colleagues on
    this committee: the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Gordon; the
    gentleman from Utah, Mr. Matheson; and the gentleman from
    Kentucky, Mr. Whitfield. The legislation they have introduced
    would prohibit the importation of low-level radioactive waste
    into the United States from other countries unless the
    President determines that the importation is necessary to
    national security or for international policy reasons.
        The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980 and the
    successor amendments adopted to that law in 1985 established
    the definition of low-level radioactive waste and set the
    national policy that each state take responsibility for
    disposing of the waste that is generated within its borders.
    The 1985 Act also encouraged States to enter into interstate
    compacts under which a group of States would agree to develop a
    common site for the disposal of the waste generated within
    their borders. The Act further authorizes the compact to
    exclude from that common site waste that is produced from
    outside the member States.
        Currently, there are three active licensed facilities for
    disposing of low-level radioactive waste: one in Barnwell,
    South Carolina; one in Richland, Washington; and a commercial
    facility in Clive, Utah, which is operated by EnergySolutions.
    The Clive, Utah, facility is licensed by the State of Utah in
    that State's capacity as a Nuclear Regulatory Commission
    agreement State. There is ongoing controversy as to whether the
    Utah facility may be subject to authority of the Northwest
    Compact as well.
        EnergySolutions has filed a license application with the
    NRC to import up to 20,000 tons of various types of materials
    from decommissioned nuclear facilities in Italy. The company
    proposes to process and recycle the material at its Bear Creek
    facility in the State of Tennessee, and after treatment in
    Tennessee, the company proposes to send the remaining waste to
    its Utah facility for permanent disposal.
        The pending application before the NRC is currently the
    subject of an open comment period, which closes on June 10 of
    this year. That pending application has been the source of
    considerable controversy. The State of Utah has expressed its
    opposition to the application. The Northwest Compact has
    recently taken action also in opposition to the application,
    and EnergySolutions has filed suit in U.S. District Court in
    Utah requesting a declaratory judgment.
        While the legislation that is the subject of today's
    hearing is not limited to the application that EnergySolutions
    has filed to import from Italy low-level waste for processing
    in Tennessee and ultimate disposal in Utah, the legislation
    does bear upon the matters in controversy, which have been
    raised with regard to that pending application.
        In addition, there have been concerns expressed by some
    with regard to the current capacity of low-level radioactive
    waste disposal facilities within the United States, the
    sufficiency of those sites for both current and future domestic
    disposal needs and how the importation of waste from other
    nations could affect the capacity of disposal facilities in the
    United States.
        Today's hearing will provide valuable information on the
    process under current law for the potential importation of low-
    level radioactive waste and will inform the subcommittee as to
    the appropriateness or necessity of any further congressional
    action.
        That concludes my opening statement.
        Mr. Boucher. I now recognize for 5 minutes the ranking
    member of this subcommittee, the gentleman from Michigan, Mr.
    Upton.

       OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

        Mr. Upton. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and as a strong
    supporter of nuclear power, I would hope that today's hearing
    on importing low-level waste is just a first step towards
    discussing the larger issue of long-term storage of spent
    nuclear fuel or the nuclear fuel cycle. I see the bill at the
    center of this hearing as a NIMBY, not in my backyard, issue
    that could serve as a distraction from the coming nuclear
    renaissance many of us are fighting for. I look forward to
    upcoming hearings on building new nuclear power plants,
    recycling spent fuel, and certainly the successful completion
    of Yucca Mountain.
        While I have great respect for my friends on the other side
    who introduced this legislation, I am concerned that it could
    be used by the opponents of nuclear power to delay new plants
    from coming online and cause perhaps further roadblocks to the
    recycling and safe disposal of spent fuel and low-level waste.
    Despite what the proponents of this legislation may claim
    today, this isn't necessarily about importing waste from Italy,
    which happens to be identical to the domestic waste safely
    being processed and disposed of today. This is about shutting
    down all of our domestic processing and disposal capabilities
    and eventually the mothballing of all our zero-emissions
    nuclear power plants.
        In a statement last November, Mr. Gordon said, ``I don't
    want Tennessee to become the Nation's and now the world's
    nuclear dumping ground.'' Waste is not being dumped in
    Tennessee, it is being processed and recycled there before it
    is safely disposed of at a privately owned site in Utah. If the
    opponents of nuclear energy were successful in shutting down
    the recycling facility in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, it would have a
    devastating impact on the 104 nuclear reactors that are
    operating right now in this country. Low-level radioactive
    material from nearly all 104 domestic nuclear plants is sent to
    Bear Creek for processing and Clive, Utah, for safe storage. We
    cannot compete on a global scale if we shut down our domestic
    facilities.
        Members of this very subcommittee represent 18 different
    States that send waste to be processed and stored by
    EnergySolutions at their facilities. For myself, I have two
    nuclear plants in my district that send their low-level waste
    across State lines for processing and storage. These services
    are essential to the success of nuclear power.
        We know that nuclear power is safe, clean, and affordable,
    and by enhancing our use of nuclear, we can reduce greenhouse
    gas emissions, protect the environment, and achieve more energy
    independence. Nuclear power produces only 20 percent of our
    electricity but represents a staggering 70 percent of the
    Nation's zero-emissions power, and by blocking the safe
    disposal and recycling of waste, we are taking our eye off the
    ball and distracting ourselves from one of the most effective
    domestic energy sources to fight climate change.
        Unfortunately, at issue today is low-level waste, while the
    real issue for us to address should be fulfilling our
    commitment to permanently and safely storing spent nuclear fuel
    deep inside Yucca Mountain in the Nevada desert. Spent nuclear
    fuel as well as low-level waste should be located at one site
    deep within the bedrock of the Nevada desert for tens of
    thousands of years rather than in temporary stockpiles
    scattered through 31 different States.
        An issue I would like to see the subcommittee address is
    the great capability of reprocessing spent nuclear fuel.
    Through advanced technologies that reduce the volume, heat, and
    toxicity of used nuclear fuel, it is possible to separate the
    uranium from the spent fuel to once again power commercial
    nuclear reactors. With our current once-through fuel cycle, an
    individual's lifetime footprint of spent fuel is about the size
    of a soda pop can. Using proven recycling technology, we would
    be able to reduce the volume of our spent nuclear fuel
    footprint 95 percent to that of a Kennedy half dollar. It is my
    hope that we can take advantage of these exciting technologies
    that will allow us to not only extract more power from nuclear
    fuel but also dramatically reduce the amount of spent fuel
    across the Nation, and I look forward to working with my
    friends on both sides of the aisle and in the House and the
    Senate on this committee to produce legislation that we
    hopefully can get to the President's desk yet this year.
        It is imperative that clean nuclear power is at the
    forefront as we seek to solidify our Nation's energy supply and
    foster a new era of energy independence and reduced emissions.
    As applications for 32 nuclear plants are expected over the
    next couple of years, we are on our way to fulfilling our
    commitment to safe, clean nuclear power. Not only will our
    environment be better for it, our national security will also
    be bolstered. Millions of households will be powered by clean,
    zero-emission nuclear power and our Nation's economy will be
    powered by nuclear as well. Nuclear energy is the right course
    and we will all be better for it.
        I yield back the balance of my time.
        Mr. Boucher. Thank you very much, Mr. Upton.
        The gentleman from Utah, Mr. Matheson, is one of the lead
    sponsors of H.R. 5632, and I am pleased to recognize him now
    for 3 minutes.

      OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JIM MATHESON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                    CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH

        Mr. Matheson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
    holding this hearing. I would like to thank our committee
    colleagues, Bart Gordon of Tennessee and Ed Whitfield of
    Kentucky, for their leadership on this issue.
        Mr. Chairman, as you described in your opening statement,
    it was in 1980 when Congress started to address the problem of
    finding adequate disposal space for low-level radioactive waste
    generated in the United States. Now, let us be clear. This is
    waste that is generated as a byproduct of nuclear power
    generation and it includes debris and contaminated soils also
    from decommissioning of power plants. When Congress enacted
    legislation that allowed States greater freedom to determine
    and control access to the disposal sites, they did so through a
    regional compact system. In this way, States could pull
    together to limit access to a disposal site to membership in a
    compact or they could choose to grant wider access as needed.
        Why are we here today? Because the problem we face now was
    not anticipated during the 1980s. The question is, does the
    current system provide the Federal Government or the States
    with the authority to oversee the importation of foreign-
    generated radioactive waste? It sounds like a strictly academic
    question because it is difficult for most of us to see why we
    would want to ever take radioactive waste from other countries,
    but right now the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has a pending
    application before it to allow 20,000 tons of low-level nuclear
    waste from Italy to be imported into this country.
        We have two challenges to deal with here. We have the
    question of the disposal capacity in this country to deal with
    domestic-produced waste and we also have an unclear regulatory
    process for overseeing disposal of international waste. First
    of all, there are only three places in the United States where
    low-level waste can be disposed of. Although there have been
    efforts to site more storage locations, the process is
    complicated and requires a long lead time and a willing local
    community. Furthermore, as Congress looks to develop new
    carbon-free emissions sources, it is clear that new nuclear
    power plants will be built in the United States. Therefore, it
    is critical for Congress to look at our national capacity to
    deal with our own low-level waste disposal needs instead of
    encouraging large-scale waste importation from Europe.
        The real problem we face today is also on the regulatory
    front. Everyone seems to be pointing their finger at someone
    else saying who is in charge. The NRC says it does not have the
    authority to prohibit the importation of waste into the United
    States. The State of Utah opposes this but it doesn't have the
    authority on its own to do so. The Northwest Compact has voted
    against bringing it here but the company trying to bring the
    waste in has already sued the Northwest Compact saying that the
    Northwest Compact does not have the authority to bring this
    waste in. So we have, in my opinion, a regulatory mess not
    anticipated in the 1980s and that is why it is important we
    consider this legislation today.
        What is going on here? It seems to me at first glance the
    answer to the question should be obvious. The Federal
    Government has control over items being imported into this
    country. However, when it comes to radioactive waste, as I have
    stated, there appears to be uncertainty about who is in charge,
    who has the role to regulate whether this is a good decision or
    not. I hope this hearing can shed some light on this issue. The
    record clearly indicates that the establishment of the compact
    system was to find a way to dispose of domestic low-level
    radioactive waste. However, along the way, foreign waste was
    also allowed into the country for disposal in small amounts. We
    are here now because it seems as though the lack of clear
    policy has provided opportunities for importation of larger
    quantities of international waste. This is an opportunity to
    figure out what is really going on and to see if there are
    really any good reasons to encourage the importation of large
    amounts of low-level nuclear waste into the United States.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing, and I
    look forward to the question period later.
        Mr. Boucher. Thank you very much, Mr. Matheson.
        Another author of H.R. 5632 is the gentleman from Kentucky,
    Mr. Whitfield, who is now recognized for 3 minutes.

      OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ED WHITFIELD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
               CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY

        Mr. Whitfield. Chairman, thank you very much for holding
    this important hearing and, as you say, I am one of the
    cosponsors of this legislation with Mr. Matheson and Mr.
    Gordon, and I think it is imperative that we hold this hearing
    to get the viewpoints of all the relevant parties to this
    important issue. I for one, the last thing that I want to be
    involved in is to do anything that would discourage the
    promotion of nuclear energy in this country, and I do have
    concerns that Mr. Matheson pointed out though, and that relates
    to capacity and the seeming confusion about who has authority
    to allow low-level waste in and the precise process that must
    be involved in reaching a decision on some of those issues.
        I also want to commend EnergySolutions for the great job
    that they have been doing at Paducah, Kentucky, at the site of
    the Paducah gaseous diffusion plant and the coordination of the
    DUF-6 plant that is being built there. I think they have done a
    tremendous job there, and I do appreciate Mr. Creamer coming in
    and talking to me also about this issue.
        So I think this will be an important hearing. It will shed
    a lot of light on this issue, Mr. Chairman, and with that, I
    will yield back the balance of my time.
        Mr. Boucher. Thank you very much, Mr. Whitfield.
        The gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Melancon, is recognized
    for 3 minutes.
        Mr. Melancon. I waive.
        Mr. Boucher. The gentleman waives his opening statement.
        Any member who chooses to waive the opening statement will
    have 3 minutes of questioning time added to that Member's time
    for questioning the first panel of witnesses.
        The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Barrow, is recognized for 3
    minutes.
        Mr. Barrow. I thank the Chair, and I will also waive.
        Mr. Boucher. The gentleman waives his opening statement.
        I will recognize Mr. Gordon as soon as possible. Under the
    rules of the subcommittee, since he is not a member, we need to
    have all of the members have the opportunity to make opening
    statements first, but we will come to you and we welcome you
    here this morning.
        The Chair is pleased to recognize, if he is ready, the
    gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Dingell, who is chairman of the
    full committee, and we would welcome his opening statement of 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Dingell. I would like to defer for just a second,
    because I have a very distinguished group here from Tubingen,
    Germany, that I would like to introduce to the Committee. I
    want to make sure they are all in the room before I mention
    them.
        Mr. Boucher. OK. If you like, we will have another member
    offer a statement before we----
        Mr. Dingell. If you please, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Boucher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Hall, is recognized for 3
    minutes.
        Mr. Hall. If Mr. Barton, we are on different sides to this,
    but if he is hurt for time, I would yield to him. All right, I
    will waive then and take the same deal you made Mr. Melancon.
        Mr. Boucher. Mr. Hall waives his opening statement.
        The gentlelady from Tennessee, Ms. Blackburn, is recognized
    for 3 minutes.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARSHA BLACKBURN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE

        Ms. Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will be very
    brief. I do want to thank you for the hearing and I want to
    thank our witnesses for taking the time to come and testify
    before the Committee, and the issue that we are going to
    discuss today is very important to my home State of Tennessee
    and I know that Congressman Gordon will probably speak more
    eloquently to some of those issues, and some of my colleagues
    are very concerned about the importation of low-level
    radioactive waste from foreign countries and how that can be
    processed within the United States and they believe that it may
    set a precedent where our Nation becomes a depository of this
    waste, and I think the real question before us today is going
    to be whether the processing and disposal of foreign-generated
    radioactive waste will significantly impact the disposal of
    U.S.-generated waste.
        So we will have some questions for you. We are looking
    forward to a robust discussion. We are looking forward to
    addressing some of the myths, the facts and the circumstances
    and how this affects our constituents in Tennessee.
        I thank you for your time, and Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Boucher. Thank you, Ms. Blackburn.
        The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Dingell, chairman of the
    full committee, is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Dingell. Mr. Chairman, I will be speaking out of order
    and I ask your permission there to do.
        Mr. Boucher. Without objection.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN D. DINGELL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

        Mr. Dingell. Mr. Chairman, we are honored this morning to
    welcome Ms. Caroline Melchers and Mr. Jacob Lerman. Ms.
    Melchers and Mr. Lerman are both American citizens but they are
    here with a very distinguished group of citizens of the Federal
    Republic of Germany from the city of Tubingen, a great
    university town and a wonderful part of that great country. As
    everyone knows, Germany is a great friend of the United States
    and we have not just a historic and a great friendship with our
    German friends but also a wonderfully cooperative relationship
    with that wonderful country.
        I would like to observe that our guests this morning are
    from an organization--my German is not very good but I hope all
    will forgive me--Freunderstatz Partnershoft Tubingen. Tubingen
    is a sister city of Ann Arbor, which is a very important
    community in the district that I happen to have the honor to
    serve. They are here to learn about the United States. I told
    them our culture isn't quite as good as that which we would
    find in Germany, but I observed also that they are certainly
    very, very welcome here and we are honored that they would come
    over here. They wanted to see a committee at work and I have
    not had a chance to tell them that this is the greatest of the
    committees in the Congress. It is also, as we all know, not
    only the greatest but also the oldest and it is one that has
    been chaired by men like Sam Rayburn and some of the giants of
    this institution.
        Having said that, I would like to thank you for your
    courtesy in welcoming them and in making it possible for me to
    do so. I would like to also thank my colleagues for their
    courtesy to me in permitting me to use this time and I would
    like also to express our welcome to our friends from Tubingen
    and Ms. Melchers and Mr. Lerman.
        So ladies and gentleman, I hope you feel welcome, and thank
    you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Boucher. Thank you very much, Mr. Dingell, and I also
    would like to extend the subcommittee's welcome to our
    distinguished guests from the Federal Republic of Germany this
    morning.
        The gentleman from Illinois--Mr. Dingell, did you have
    something else you wanted to say? No, apparently not. Mr.
    Dingell?
        Mr. Dingell. Mr. Chairman, I guess that I will address the
    business that I was going to address this morning. I want to
    thank you for this hearing, and I also want to observe less
    with regard to the business of the committee today than the
    comments that I think we would all want to make about a very
    distinguished member of our staff. All of us know of the
    extraordinary work that Sue Sheridan has done for this
    committee and for this country during her service here as our
    chief counsel for Energy and Air Quality. Sue announced last
    week she is retiring after 28 years of Federal service, this in
    spite of my best efforts to see to it that she did not carry
    forward on that threat. Sue leaves behind an extraordinary
    record of government service beginning in the General Counsel's
    Office at the Department of Energy to the Domestic Policy
    Council in the White House, and finally to this committee. She
    served here from 1983 to 1994 as attorney for the Subcommittee
    on Energy and Power chaired by our distinguished friend, Phil
    Sharp, and later joined the full committee staff where for the
    last 14 years she served both in the Minority and the Majority,
    and she has been a senior counsel and chief counsel for energy
    where she has guided us well and served the country, the
    Congress and the Committee with distinction.
        She is, as we all know, a consummate professional. She is
    always ready with the facts, with sage advice, and respectful
    of the committee and its members regardless of party
    affiliation. All of us know her as a superb lawyer whose
    analytic capabilities and whose advice have served all of us
    well every time we had had the opportunity to call upon her.
    There are few energy statutes that she hasn't worked on and
    that haven't benefited from her very careful, thorough,
    thoughtful, and decent approach to legislation and to her
    respect for the law.
        I know that I speak for all of our members who have worked
    with Sue over the years, and when I say that she will be
    missed, it is indeed an understatement. On behalf of myself,
    Sue, and on behalf of the Committee and on behalf of the
    Subcommittee and on behalf of the people here with whom you
    have worked and for whom you have worked, I want you to know
    that you have served well with distinction, with ability, with
    decency, with dedication, and we are proud of the work that you
    have done. Stand up, Sue, so we can give you a round of
    applause.
        I will make two observations. One is, it is not too late
    for you to reconsider, and two, if you want to come back, the
    door will be open.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Boucher. Thank you very much, Mr. Dingell, and I want
    to add my voice to that eloquent tribute to the work of Sue
    Sheridan over the many years that she has served this
    subcommittee and the full Committee on Energy and Commerce. We
    have all benefited tremendously from the advice that she has
    offered to members on both sides of the aisle. I don't think
    anyone surpasses Sue's expertise on matters of energy policy,
    and as Chairman Dingell indicated, she has her fingerprints on
    all of the energy policy that has been approved by this
    committee and by the Congress in recent years. We are going to
    miss that advice and counsel and we look forward to continuing
    our consultation with Sue in whatever career path she chooses.
    So best wishes to you, Sue, and thank you for your many years
    of service.
        The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Shimkus, is recognized for
    3 minutes.
        Mr. Hall. I ask unanimous consent just to say a word about
    Sue.
        Mr. Boucher. Without objection, the gentleman from Texas,
    Mr. Hall, is recognized.
        Mr. Hall. You mentioned both sides of the aisle, and I have
    been on both sides of the aisle. I too worked with Sue probably
    longer than more than anyone other than Mr. Dingell. She is a
    professional. She is not only of great service to this
    committee, to this Congress, to this Nation, but she is capable
    of friendship, and when I heard, Mr. Chairman, you say that she
    was going to go home, I just have one question about that. Why
    didn't I think of that?
        I yield back my time. Sue, God bless you.
        Mr. Boucher. Thank you, Mr. Hall.
        The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Shimkus, is recognized for
    3 minutes.

      OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SHIMKUS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

        Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to be the
    first Republican to speak, but of course, Mr. Hall beat me to
    the punch. I too just want to concur. Sue has been a good
    friend and someone I could rely upon, and I will personally
    miss her friendship and her support. So I thank you for doing
    that, Chairman Dingell, and raising our awareness of that.
        And our German friends are leaving now, but I wanted to
    tell them, I lived in Bamberg for 3 years, so we are headed to
    the NATO parliamentary assembly with Melancon, I hope, in
    Berlin to talk about our relationships in NATO, so I also want
    to welcome you here.
        And Mr. Chairman, I will just end. I understand the
    importance of this legislation, this bill. I would more hope
    that we talk about a more pressing level, which would be high-
    level nuclear waste and the storage. If we want to increase
    electricity supply in this country, one of the best ways we can
    do that is move high-level nuclear waste offsite and to a long-
    term storage facility. My preference would be Yucca Mountain.
    But this is a pattern of nipping around the edges where we
    really need to expand electricity generation and low-cost power
    in this country, and some would say in an environmentally sound
    way, which would be without a carbon footprint. That is what we
    really need to do and send a signal.
        I support this hearing and I want to welcome those who will
    testify. I hope to learn a lot on that behalf. With that, I
    yield back my time.
        Mr. Boucher. Thank you very much, Mr. Shimkus.
        Mr. Inslee was here and is no longer here. The gentleman
    from Tennessee, Mr. Gordon, not a member of the subcommittee
    but a valuable member of our full committee and chairman of the
    Committee on Science and Technology and a coauthor of the
    legislation pending before the subcommittee, is recognized for
    3 minutes.

      OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BART GORDON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE

        Mr. Gordon. Thank you very much, and let me first thank
    you, Chairman Boucher, for calling this hearing and Ranking
    Member Upton for allowing us to have this today.
        Let me also concur with Chairman Dingell and the others
    that have given accolades to Sue Sheridan. Sue clearly is an
    exemplary example of a public servant. I remember when she--I
    have been with her most of those 28 years and I remember when
    she gracefully with twins would walk up and back, still giving
    us good advice, and now to think they are on their way to
    college, it makes all of us feel like we are getting older
    here. But thank you, Sue, for what you have done.
        Nuclear waste disposal is a challenging but important issue
    for Congress to address. As we discuss the issues of low-level
    waste management today, I want to make clear that my concern is
    about importing radioactive waste into this country. I am not
    antinuclear. Nuclear power has a role to play as we search for
    ways to meet our Nation's growing electricity demand and at the
    same time reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and ensuring we
    have somewhere to dispose of our domestic radioactive waste is
    critical.
        And to my friend from Michigan, Mr. Upton, who raised me in
    his opening comments, let me make it perfectly clear, I don't
    want there to be any misunderstanding: I have no interest in
    closing down Bear Creek. This bill has nothing to do with
    shutting down any type of waste facility within this country.
    This bill is about helping your nuclear power plants in
    Michigan be sure there is a place for their low-level
    radioactive waste to go so that they are not shut down. This is
    what this bill is about. This bill is to help you help Michigan
    and to help our domestic facilities.
        So here are the facts. Domestic use of radioactive
    materials produces a continuous stream of low-level radioactive
    waste. This stream is going to inevitably grow. The United
    States has only limited space for disposal of nuclear waste.
    There is an international shortage of disposal space. Many
    countries including Germany, Canada, Belgium, Switzerland,
    Mexico, the Netherlands, Italy, and Denmark do not have any
    disposal facilities for their waste. What is more, none of the
    nuclear waste-generating countries allow foreign waste to be
    imported to dispose of except the United States. If we welcome
    the importation of foreign radioactive waste for disposal, it
    is only natural that all of these countries will be happy to
    send their waste and let us deal with it for over 100 years.
        EnergySolutions has made it clear that it intends to
    solicit this international business. The following are taken
    from the company's recent SEC filings, and I quote: ``Our
    business is dependent upon the success of our international
    operations. We expect that our international operations will
    continue to account for a significant portion of our total
    revenues. We believe there are substantial near-term
    opportunities for us to market our nuclear services to
    international commercial and government customers including the
    provisions of specialized decommissioning and disposal
    services.''
        This may make sense for the company's bottom line but it
    isn't smart public policy for the United States. The argument
    that the United States must take everyone else's nuclear waste
    to protect the earth from global warming and to be a good
    steward of the earth just doesn't wash. All countries including
    Italy have those same responsibilities.
        That is why I have joined with Mr. Matheson and Mr.
    Whitfield, two of my colleagues on this committee, in this
    bipartisan legislation to prohibit the importation of low-level
    radioactive waste. This bill brings us in line with the rest of
    the world. EnergySolutions' attempt to import 2,000 tons of
    waste from Italy showcases a serious gap in our national policy
    and a serious need for this bill because this is only the
    beginning of what could be a massive commercial business.
        Some might argue the Nuclear Regulatory Commission should
    decide whether importing waste is appropriate, but the NRC has
    made it clear that it doesn't have the authority to make policy
    decisions about importing nuclear waste. Others might suggest
    that we should leave the decision to the interstate compacts
    but EnergySolutions has filed a lawsuit arguing that the
    compacts don't have authority over importing nuclear waste. The
    fact of the matter is, nuclear waste management is a national
    issue and we need a national policy.
        Here is the bottom line. Importing foreign radioactive
    waste reduces our finite domestic storage capacity, creates a
    100-year-plus obligation for storage and protection, which
    could fall upon the American taxpayer since few companies are
    in existence for that long, and is a bad idea. Congress needs
    to act to stop it and our bipartisan bill helps do just that.
        I yield back the balance of my time.
        Mr. Boucher. Thank you very much, Mr. Gordon.
        The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Upton, is recognized for a
    unanimous-consent request.
        Mr. Upton. Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent that
    this opening statement by our ranking member, Joe Barton, be
    put into the record at this time.
        Mr. Boucher. Without objection, and all opening statements
    that members may desire to make and submit for the record will
    be received and printed in the record of the hearing.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Barton follows:]

                          Statement of Hon. Joe Barton

        Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this important hearing
    today. Along with other members of this Committee and this
    Congress, I've had questions about importing low-level
    radioactive waste. I hope that this hearing will help us
    separate the wheat from the chaff, and I look forward to
    hearing the testimony from our witnesses.
        We need to keep three important points in mind as we
    consider low-level radioactive imports: safety, security, and
    capacity.
        The first and most important question is whether the the
    process of importing, recycling, and storing this stuff is
    safe. The answer we'll hear from a company in the industry is
    ``yes.'' The answer we'll hear from the Nuclear Regulatory
    Commission (``NRC'') is ``yes, or we won't grant the license.''
        On the issue of security, the question is whether there is
    any increased risk from terrorism or other factors. I hope the
    NRC's response will be that ``if there were such a risk we
    wouldn't have granted the import licenses we've already granted
    and if any future application poses this risk we won't grant
    that license.''
        And regarding capacity, the question is whether imports
    might crowd out domestic requirements. I understand that both
    the NRC and GAO will say that capacity for this type of waste
    is not a problem in the near term or long term.
        Mr. Chairman, the rhetoric of prohibiting imports of low-
    level radioactive waste for recycling and storage has
    undeniable political appeal. But, as Members of the Committee
    with jurisdiction over this issue, we are obligated to consider
    more than just the politics. Ultimately, good policy makes good
    politics, so we need to know the facts, too.
        Radioactive leftovers, whether they come from a nuclear
    power plant or a dentist's office, are a federal matter. As
    such, I think it would be ill-conceived to allow state or local
    governments or, for that matter-regional compacts-to dictate
    U.S. trade policy. If any of these entities has a safety,
    security, or capacity concern, we need to fully understand it.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my
    time.
                                  ----------

        Mr. Boucher. The gentleman from Washington State, Mr.
    Inslee, is recognized for 3 minutes.

       OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAY INSLEE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                 CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

        Mr. Inslee. Thank you. I just want to express a concern
    about current proposals that would really eviscerate the
    interstate compact system, and it is of great concern because
    we could have anarchy on this issue without these compacts. We
    have had a compact. It has been honored by the States and now
    it is being attempted to be dishonored, and that is very
    disappointing both because of the sovereign interests of the
    States but on a national level. These compacts have served well
    to bring some sense of rationality to these decisions, and when
    one party here attempts to essentially ignore them, I don't
    think it is helpful and I look forward to this hearing to
    expose the real problem of one entity trying to overcome and
    essentially bully these interstate compacts.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Boucher. Thank you, Mr. Inslee.
        The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Butterfield, is
    recognized for 3 minutes.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. G.K. BUTTERFIELD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
               CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

        Mr. Butterfield. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for
    convening this hearing and I want to thank the gentlemen for
    offering this bill. I have read it. I have read the material
    associated with it. I think it is certainly very timely. I look
    forward to the hearing today. I cannot imagine, but maybe there
    is something that I have not read that would help me understand
    this issue. I thank you, Mr. Gordon.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Boucher. Thank you, Mr. Butterfield.
        We now turn to our first panel of witnesses, and we welcome
    the testimony of both of them this morning. Ms. Margaret Doane
    is the Director of the International Program at the United
    States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and Mr. Kent Bradford is
    chairman of the Utah Radiation Control Board. Without
    objection, your prepared written statements will be made a part
    of the record. We welcome your oral summary and ask that you
    keep that to approximately 5 minutes.
        Ms. Doane, we will be pleased to begin with you.

          STATEMENT OF MARGARET M. DOANE, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF
       INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS, U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

        Ms. Doane. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and members of the
    subcommittee. As stated, my name is Margaret Doane and I am the
    Director of the Office of International Programs at the U.S.
    Nuclear Regulatory Commission. My office is responsible for
    reviewing the import and export license applications and
    issuing licenses pursuant to NRC's import and export licensing
    regulations.
        My focus today will be on the NRC's regulatory framework
    for licensing the import of low-level radioactive waste. I
    would like to thank you in advance for providing the NRC with
    the opportunity today to discuss our import licensing process.
    As requested, we provided the prepared testimony for the record
    that describes in detail NRC's regulatory framework for
    licensing the import of low-level radioactive waste. At this
    time I will highlight key elements of that testimony.
        The NRC reviews import and export license applications
    against the criteria defined in its regulations. Specifically,
    the NRC bases its licensing decisions on the following three
    criteria. First, the proposed import will not be inimical to
    the common defense and security, second, the proposed import
    will not constitute an unreasonable risk to public health and
    safety, and third, an appropriate facility has agreed to accept
    the waste for management or disposal
        The NRC determines whether or not to issue an import
    license for radioactive waste based on its own health and
    safety and common defense and security evaluation. The NRC's
    evaluation is formed only after consulting with the Executive
    Branch through the Department of State, the applicable host
    State and the applicable low-level radioactive waste compact
    and consideration of public comments. The NRC has exclusive
    jurisdiction within the United States for granting or denying
    licenses to import radioactive waste. The NRC, however,
    recognizes the legal authority of the relevant host State and
    low-level radioactive waste compact to accept or reject low-
    level radioactive waste for disposal or management in the
    compact region.
        Accordingly, the NRC consults with the applicable host
    State and regulatory officials for their health and safety
    views on the proposed import and to confirm that the proposed
    import of radioactive waste is consistent with the State-issued
    possession license for the disposal facility. Likewise, the NRC
    consults the applicable low-level radioactive waste compact
    commission to determine whether the compact will accept out-of-
    compact waste for disposal in a regional facility. To ensure
    that no radioactive waste imported into the United States
    becomes orphaned waste, the NRC will not grant an import
    license for waste intended for disposal unless it is clear from
    these consultations that the waste will be accepted by the
    applicable host State and, where applicable, the low-level
    radioactive waste compact.
        As requested by the Subcommittee, I would like to turn to
    questions regarding disposal capacity for low-level waste in
    the United States. In the short term, the NRC has not
    identified capacity issues with regard to Class A disposal at
    EnergySolutions' Clive, Utah, facility. In reviewing waste
    import applications, the agency as a regulator would not
    address future domestic disposal capacity in the absence of a
    public health and safety or common defense and security
    concern. The NRC's review focuses on whether there is disposal
    space available for the material specified in the particular
    import application. It is conceivable, however, that a
    particular import application could raise questions regarding
    future domestic disposal capacity that the NRC would address in
    its regulatory role. For example, such questions could arise in
    the context of the third criterion for NRC review, whether
    there is an appropriate facility that has agreed to accept the
    waste for management or disposal. For these reasons, in making
    its determination, the NRC obtains the views of the affected
    low-level waste compacts and States and the Executive Branch.
        The pure policy question of whether as a general matter
    foreign waste should be permitted to take up space in U.S.
    disposal facilities would necessarily involve interests that
    are beyond the traditional role of a regulator to consider.
    These may include foreign and interstate commerce,
    entrepreneurial interests, States' concerns and expectations in
    light of their substantial responsibility under the regional
    compact system and Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act.
    However, the NRC would be pleased to share its views on the
    effect of the proposed H.R. 5632 on import and export licensing
    and contribute its technical expertise to those decision makers
    better situated to decide the questions the draft legislation
    involves.
        Mr. Chairman, as you mentioned, the NRC has under
    consideration the EnergySolutions import and export application
    to accept material from Italy for disposal. The public comment
    period and time within which to request a hearing on this
    application are still open. Therefore, as it relates to the
    application, my testimony should be limited to allow for
    unbiased consideration after the comment period closes of all
    views expressed to the NRC on whether to grant or deny the
    application.
        In conclusion, the NRC's role in evaluating low-level waste
    import applications is a regulatory one, limited to ensuring
    that the proposed import can be accomplished safely and
    securely in accordance with all applicable legal requirements.
        Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, this
    concludes my statement. I would now be happy to answer any
    questions that the Subcommittee may have for me.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Doane follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.001

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.002

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.003

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.004

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.005

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.006

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.007

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.008

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.009

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.010

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.011

        Mr. Boucher. Thank you very much, Ms. Doane.
        Mr. Bradford.

    STATEMENT OF KENT J. BRADFORD, CHAIRMAN, UTAH RADIATION CONTROL
                                 BOARD

        Mr. Bradford. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee,
    thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to
    provide testimony concerning actions of the Utah Radiation
    Control Board with respect to the importation of foreign
    radioactive waste.
        The Utah Radiation Control Board is charged with regulating
    radioactive materials and radiation sources in Utah to ensure
    the protection of the general public. The Utah Radiation
    Control Board is established by statute and consists of 13
    members appointed by the Governor of Utah and confirmed by the
    Utah Senate. The members have a broad range of experience
    representing regulated industry, academia, local government,
    medical, and dental professions and the general public. Twelve
    of the 13 members including myself are volunteers. I am the
    current chair of the Utah Radiation Control Board and my
    profession is as an environmental and safety manager and I work
    for a company that is regulated by the Board.
        I would now like to turn to the questions that you asked in
    your May 12th invitation letter. Question 1: What is the role,
    authority, and responsibilities of the Utah Radiation Control
    Board in regulating low-level radioactive waste?
        Utah is an agreement State for low-level radioactive waste
    under the Atomic Energy Act and the Board therefore regulates
    radioactive waste facilities including disposal facilities in
    the place of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The Board makes
    rules and enforces rules and statutes that govern radioactive
    waste facilities. Among the Board's duties are two that are
    pertinent to the importation of radioactive waste from foreign
    countries. The Board is charged with regulatory oversight of
    low-level radioactive waste disposal facilities including
    EnergySolutions. It also has statutory authority to promote the
    planning and application of pollution prevention and
    radioactive waste minimization measures to prevent the
    unnecessary waste and depletion of natural resources.
        Question Number 2: Please address any past actions by the
    Board with respect to foreign low-level radioactive waste
    imports to Utah.
        When issues such as this importation question arise that
    are of interest or concern to the citizens of Utah, the Board
    may issue rules or may elect to issue position statements to
    guide the development of State and national policy.
        When the matter of disposal of low-level radioactive waste
    from foreign countries arose, the Board discussed this and
    first considered issuing a rule prohibiting the disposal.
    However, we received legal counsel that suggested that the rule
    could be challenged as a violation of the commerce clause of
    the Constitution and so the Board elected then to issue a
    position statement in the form of a letter to the Chairman of
    the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. A copy of that letter is
    included in my written testimony. The letter expresses the
    Board's opposition to license amendments currently under review
    by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for importation of foreign
    waste from Italy. In the letter to the Nuclear Regulatory
    Commission, the Board expressed what it heard: the citizens of
    Utah strongly oppose the importation of foreign waste. The
    Board believes that the State of Utah has done its fair share
    and more in providing appropriate disposal capacity for the
    Nation's low-level waste by permitting a low-level facility in
    our State. Providing disposal capacity for foreign waste was
    never discussed or contemplated at the time the State issued a
    license to the predecessor of EnergySolutions.
        The Utah Radiation Control Board has not taken any previous
    action or position with respect to foreign low-level
    radioactive waste imports into Utah.
        Question 3: Please address the Board's views on the
    adequacy of disposal capacity for low-level waste in the United
    States and whether there is a policy reason related to capacity
    to consider limiting importation of foreign waste for disposal
    in Utah.
        As noted in the letter to the Nuclear Regulatory
    Commission, the Board has not taken a position with respect to
    domestic capacity for low-level waste except to note that the
    Nation's capacity is finite and that we must ensure that the
    Nation provides and retains domestic capacity for our own
    radioactive waste. In the letter to the NRC, we also state that
    the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the United States
    Congress should work together to adopt a workable low-level
    radioactive waste plan.
        The current system has not been successful in locating low-
    level disposal sites within the various State compacts. As a
    result, the large majority of radioactive waste, over 90
    percent, is disposed at EnergySolutions in Utah. The majority
    of that waste has been from Federal generators. Congress should
    evaluate the current system and encourage other States and
    compacts to establish low-level disposal facilities
        Question 4: Please address any position or observations the
    Board may have with respect to H.R. 5632.
        We want to let you know that the Utah Radiation Control
    Board has not taken a position with respect to this
    legislation.
        Thank you for your time and attention to this matter, and I
    would be happy to answer any questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Bradford follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.012

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.013

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.014

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.015

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.016

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.017

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.018

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.019

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.020

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.021

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.022

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.023

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.024

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.025

        Mr. Boucher. Thank you, Mr. Bradford, and I want to thank
    both witnesses for taking time to share their views with us
    this morning.
        Ms. Doane, I have several questions for you clarifying
    various authorities of agreement States and also of compacts,
    and I would like for you to provide a little bit of background
    about our history with this issue. Have we ever received
    imported low-level waste into the United States previously?
        Ms. Doane. Yes, the NRC has granted 13 applications for the
    import of radioactive waste, and I can give you more specific
    information about those 13.
        Mr. Boucher. Let me ask that you submit that to the
    subcommittee as a written submission, if that is not in your
    opening statement.
        Ms. Doane. It is in our opening statement.
        Mr. Boucher. It is in your opening statement?
        Ms. Doane. Yes, and if you would like further details, we
    would be glad to provide that.
        Mr. Boucher. That is helpful. Thank you. Can you describe
    the locations into which that low-level waste imported from
    other countries has been shipped for disposal?
        Ms. Doane. Yes, they are Waste Control Specialists, U.S.
    Ecology, and the EnergySolutions facility in Clive, Utah.
        Mr. Boucher. Have they all gone to Clive or have they gone
    to other places?
        Ms. Doane. It depends on what we are talking about but they
    have gone to all facilities.
        Mr. Boucher. To all facilities?
        Ms. Doane. Yes.
        Mr. Boucher. So the Barnwell, South Carolina, site has
    received foreign waste previously?
        Ms. Doane. No.
        Mr. Boucher. It has not?
        Ms. Doane. The Barnwell site has not, no.
        Mr. Boucher. So the Clive, Utah, site has. How many other
    sites have received waste from other countries?
        Ms. Doane. U.S. Ecology has received waste----
        Mr. Boucher. Now, where is that site situated?
        Ms. Doane. U.S. Ecology--Richland.
        Mr. Boucher. That is Richland, Washington?
        Ms. Doane. Yes.
        Mr. Boucher. Well, just identify, if you would, the sites
    in terms of location within the United States that have
    received waste that has been imported from other countries.
        Ms. Doane. OK. Let me refer to our table so that I am
    specific here.
        Mr. Boucher. All right. You have indicated that the
    Richland, Washington, site has received waste from other
    countries. What other sites?
        Ms. Doane. Waste Control Specialists in Texas has the
    ability to receive waste from foreign countries and then the
    Clive, Utah, site has received waste from other countries. The
    reason why I am hesitating here is that when waste is imported
    into the country, and as you will see from our testimony, it is
    handled in several different ways. There is some waste that is
    imported directly for disposal. But some waste may first be
    processed and then takes on a different attribution. For
    example, waste that is generated in processing may be
    determined to be domestic waste. So while it came from the
    processing of a foreign import, it actually became domestic
    waste when it was disposed of in the facility. I don't know if
    that helps.
        Mr. Boucher. Well, it is helpful.
        Ms. Doane. And we have three sites that can receive this
    kind of waste and we have received applications and granted
    them for disposal in the Clive, Utah, facility.
        Mr. Boucher. Is the Texas site open at the present time?
        Ms. Doane. Yes.
        Mr. Boucher. It is?
        Ms. Doane. The RCRA site is, but I am not sure what kind of
    waste we are discussing.
        Mr. Boucher. Well, the subject is waste imported from other
    countries.
        Ms. Doane. No, no, it is not.
        Mr. Boucher. So the Texas site is not open at the present
    time for waste imported from other countries?
        Ms. Doane. No, not for low-level radioactive waste from
    other countries. That is right.
        Mr. Boucher. Is it open at the present time for other
    disposal purposes for waste from domestic sites?
        Ms. Doane. Yes, for RCRA disposal.
        Mr. Boucher. OK. Do you believe that there are any valid
    concerns about the effect that the importation of waste from
    other countries could have on the capacity of the low-level
    waste sites to accommodate domestically produced low-level
    waste? And the reason I ask that question is that it would seem
    that capacity for general national application is shrinking
    rather than expanding. The Barnwell, South Carolina, site very
    shortly will only be accepting low-level waste from the
    Southeastern Compact, and at the present time the Richland,
    Washington, site accepts waste from its compact and the
    adjoining compact but no other waste.
        Ms. Doane. Right.
        Mr. Boucher. Leaving, as I understand it, for States that
    are in compacts are unaffiliated States that do not have their
    own waste disposal sites, only the Clive, Utah, disposal site
    available. And so it would appear that for those States, there
    will be even less domestic capacity over time rather than more.
    Is that an accurate statement?
        Ms. Doane. That is an accurate statement.
        Mr. Boucher. Are you concerned then about the effect that
    waste imports from other countries might have on the
    availability of disposal capacity for waste generated within
    the United States generally?
        Ms. Doane. Well, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, as you
    know, has said that with respect to capacity, its focus has
    been on whether we could ensure public health and safety and
    common defense and security so to the extent that we look at
    capacity diminishing, we look at it in terms of whether it can
    be stored safely where it is. And so our focus is on adequate
    storage. So from a public health and safety perspective, we
    believe that in the short term we have sufficient regulations
    in place to ensure the adequate health and safety and we
    continue to look at these imports on a case-by-case basis.
        Mr. Boucher. All right. Just briefly, and my time is
    expired so try to keep this answer relatively short, could you
    describe the authorities exercised by agreement States on the
    one hand and by compacts themselves on the other with regard to
    the permissibility of siting low-level waste disposal sites
    within that individual State for an agreement State or within
    the compact States generally? What is the authority of the
    compact on the one hand and the agreement State on the other
    with regard to the siting of those facilities?
        Ms. Doane. I apologize. I am with the Office of
    International Programs so I can tell you with respect to
    imports how both of those----
        Mr. Boucher. OK. You are not prepared to discuss the
    authorities more generally with regard to that?
        Ms. Doane. I would prefer--I could----
        Mr. Boucher. OK. I understand. It is not in your particular
    discipline. All right. That is fine. Thank you.
        The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Hall, is recognized for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Hall. Ms. Doane, you stated, I think, in your testimony
    that this bill would amend Chapter 8 of the Atomic Energy Act
    to bar the NRC from issuing license authorizing the importation
    in the United States of certain low-level radioactive waste and
    went on to say with exceptions for government or military use
    or return of certain U.S.-origin material unless the President
    waives the prohibition for a specific license application upon
    a finding that the importation would make ``an important
    national or international goal,'' and that is still your
    feeling, is it not?
        Ms. Doane. Yes, it is.
        Mr. Hall. And you have stated that the NRC, the criteria of
    the NRC bases its decision to grant an import license, and we
    understand that. Let me ask you this question. Do you have any
    concern or is there any concern with your associates,
    colleagues at NRC that Congress ought to have any right to take
    away its current authority to grant or deny an import license?
    Does that give you any concern, heartburn at all? It must give
    you a little.
        Ms. Doane. There would be views on both sides, I would
    assume. I think that on the one hand we would look at the
    impact on export/import licensing of course. We would no longer
    be doing these, so from a resource burden, that would have that
    effect. However, on the other side, we do look at these from a
    public health and safety perspective and have allowed them in
    the past.
        Mr. Hall. Absolutely, and you all look at that yourselves,
    don't you?
        Ms. Doane. Yes.
        Mr. Hall. Mr. Bradford, I think you have already stated
    that Utah Radiation Control Board has not taken a position with
    respect to this bill. That is correct still, is it not?
        Mr. Bradford. Yes, that is correct.
        Mr. Hall. Does the Utah Department of Environmental Quality
    do a good job, in your opinion, regulating the--is that Clive
    facility? Cleve or Clive?
        Mr. Bradford. Clive. Yes, I believe that the Division of
    Radiation Control, which is a part of the Utah Department of
    Environmental Quality, does a good job of overseeing the
    operations of EnergySolutions.
        Mr. Hall. And you don't think the Utah DEQ then would ever
    allow anything disposed at Clive that it thought was a health
    or safety risk, would it?
        Mr. Bradford. No.
        Mr. Hall. All right. And is the EnergySolutions at Clive,
    Utah, facility adequately regulated, in your opinion?
        Mr. Bradford. Yes.
        Mr. Hall. And since Utah DEQ has never expressed concern
    over the disposal of international material at Clive in the
    past and in fact has sent a note to the NRC on EnergySolutions'
    pending import application stating that, and I quote, ``The
    Utah Radiation Control rules do not prohibit the disposal of
    low-level radioactive waste from foreign generators.'' Why all
    the fuss if that is the situation?
        Mr. Bradford. Yes. You are correct in the statement and I
    believe it is contained in the NRC facts sheet as well that
    Utah has no technical arguments against the disposal because it
    would fit into the same type of radiological materials that are
    currently disposed. The question is really a policy question as
    to bringing in waste from a foreign entity. It was not
    envisioned originally when the facility was sited, and because
    the Board has a policy role to hear from the citizens of Utah
    and to incorporate the desires of the citizens into the
    policies of the State, that is why we have taken the position
    we have that we don't believe that this import is a good thing
    for the State of Utah.
        Mr. Hall. And you work for Westinghouse?
        Mr. Bradford. Yes, that is correct, my employment.
        Mr. Hall. You are aware, are you not, that Westinghouse was
    granted a license by the NRC in June of 2007 to import low-
    level radioactive waste from Canada and dispose of the residual
    waste at--is that still Clive or Cleve? Clive.
        Mr. Bradford. Yes. Yes, with respect to that, my
    understanding, and I have not been personally involved in that,
    is that that is U.S.-generated waste. It was simply sent to
    Canada for processing and cleaning of some of the material to
    be recycled and then returned so it was not an import so much
    as it was using a facility there to provide a service and then
    returning the material.
        Mr. Hall. I thank both of you, and I yield back any time I
    may have.
        Mr. Boucher. Thank you very much, Mr. Hall.
        The gentleman from Utah, Mr. Matheson, is recognized for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Matheson. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank both
    the witnesses.
        Mr. Bradford, in the Board's March 10th letter to the NRC,
    you stated that you did not find any, and I quote, ``legitimate
    reasons why Italy's radioactive material should cross
    international borders to be disposed of in the United States''
    and also, and I will quote, ``that any country that has the
    technological capability of producing nuclear power within its
    borders should not seek to dispose of waste outside of them.''
    Is that the Board's position today?
        Mr. Bradford. Yes, it is.
        Mr. Matheson. When the Northwest Interstate Compact on Low-
    Level Waste Management met on May 8 to consider this import
    license, all eight member States voted against the acceptance
    of foreign waste into Utah and the compact. Upon instructions
    from the governor, Utah also voted against it. Is that correct?
        Mr. Bradford. Yes.
        Mr. Matheson. And Mr. Chairman, if I could ask, the
    representative of the Northwest Compact was unable to attend
    the hearing but did send a letter explaining the position that
    the Northwest Compact took, and if I could ask for unanimous
    consent, I would like to have that letter and its attachments
    included for the record.
        Mr. Boucher. Without objection.
        [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
        Mr. Matheson. I would also like to ask, since I am doing my
    housekeeping, I have a letter from Mr. Gordon to Mr. Klein at
    the NRC and a series of attachments associated with that and I
    would also like that inserted for the record. I ask unanimous
    consent----
        Mr. Boucher. Without objection.
        [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
        Mr. Matheson. Thank you.
        Mr. Bradford, Utah raised the same policy questions the
    Board raised on its March 10 letter to the NRC that countries
    which generated radioactive waste should take care of their
    radioactive waste. Is that correct?
        Mr. Bradford. Yes.
        Mr. Matheson. In your testimony, you stated that your
    board, the Radiation Control Board in Utah, considered adopting
    a rule with regard to foreign waste. You considered adopting a
    rule to prohibit disposal of foreign low-level waste in Utah,
    and then you said you were advised that it would be a
    constitutional violation. Where did you get that advice?
        Mr. Bradford. From the Utah Attorney General's office.
        Mr. Matheson. Is it a correct statement that as a radiation
    control board, you do not have the ability or regulatory
    authority to deny an application for low-level waste to come to
    your site based on whether it is domestic or whether it is
    imported?
        Mr. Bradford. Yes, that is correct.
        Mr. Matheson. That is helpful. OK.
        Ms. Doane, I appreciate your testimony as well. In the
    brief time I have left, I want to ask a couple of questions. In
    your testimony, you noted that the NRC does not take into
    account storage capacity. You focus on public health, safety,
    common defense and security when evaluating an import license.
    Is that accurate, what I am saying?
        Ms. Doane. Well, we would take into consideration storage
    capacity with respect to that particular import but not the
    national policy question.
        Mr. Matheson. OK. That is helpful. In terms of when you are
    looking at public health, safety, common defense, and security,
    is that how you would evaluate whether it is imported waste or
    whether it is domestic waste? Is that a consideration either
    way?
        Ms. Doane. That is a consideration.
        Mr. Matheson. So the fact that it is imported waste does
    not necessarily create a new level of consideration for you?
        Ms. Doane. No, it would be a new level of consideration if
    by some reason of its foreignness it raised a different kind of
    question.
        Mr. Matheson. But not the fact that it is being imported?
        Ms. Doane. No.
        Mr. Matheson. So it is the NRC's position that from a
    regulatory standpoint, your statutory authority, that you do
    not have the ability to deny an application based solely on the
    fact of whether it is domestic or whether it is imported?
        Ms. Doane. Yes, that is our position.
        Mr. Matheson. You noted that the Commission does not take a
    position on the bill we are discussing today and that, and I
    will quote from your testimony, ``The pure policy question of
    whether as a general matter foreign waste should be permitted
    to take up space in U.S. disposal facilities is best addressed
    by Congress.'' Is that still your position?
        Ms. Doane. Yes. I think we said Congress working with other
    agencies.
        Mr. Matheson. Right.
        Ms. Doane. Yes, that is our position.
        Mr. Matheson. Well, I would just say, I think Mr. Gordon
    and Mr. Whitfield agree, I think that you have helped. I
    appreciate that argument because I think it makes the case that
    this legislation is relevant for us to be considering today.
        One more question because I have about 40 seconds left.
    There seems to be some confusion about what is classified as
    low-level radioactive waste. Is it accurate to say that metals
    intended for recycling or beneficial reuse in sealed sources
    are not classified as low-level waste and a processor doesn't
    need a specific waste import license to bring them in?
        Ms. Doane. With respect to some of the applications for
    reuse, they did need a specific license, but there is some
    material that is used for recycling that is exempted from our
    specific import licensing regulations but it should be clear
    that they are not exempt from our domestic possession license
    criteria. So it would have to be consistent with the possession
    license that a facility would have within the United States. So
    I just want to make that clear, that some things can come in as
    an exemption to our waste import regulations but not our
    domestic regulations.
        Mr. Matheson. Thank you.
        Mr. Chairman, I will yield back.
        Mr. Boucher. Thank you very much, Mr. Matheson.
        The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Upton, is recognized for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Upton. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am sorry that I
    had to step away for a few minutes but I am told that these
    questions have not been asked.
        Mr. Bradford, do you know what percentage of the
    EnergySolutions Utah storage capacity would the Italian waste
    make up?
        Mr. Bradford. I am not sure I can speak to that directly
    but I believe it is a very small percentage.
        Mr. Upton. Ten percent, 5 percent, 20 percent?
        Mr. Bradford. Five percent or less.
        Mr. Upton. It is my--well, has international material been
    disposed of at Clive before this time or not?
        Mr. Bradford. I believe there is testimony to the fact that
    small amounts of foreign waste have been disposed at Clive.
        Mr. Upton. And Ms. Doane, H.R. 5632, does that impact
    Canadian recycling services?
        Ms. Doane. It would depend on how the law would be
    implemented, but as Mr. Matheson was asking me questions about
    the exemptions to our waste prohibitions, it would also depend
    on how the material is classified.
        Mr. Upton. Is that----
        Ms. Doane. Is that the question that you are asking?
        Mr. Upton. Well, I just want to know whether Canadian waste
    had been accepted there.
        Ms. Doane. We have granted an application. We granted an
    application for reuse, and I believe that EnergySolutions has
    stated that it has disposed of some of that material in the
    Clive, Utah, site. That was a specific application which may
    when you implement, if you were to implement this legislation,
    would be prohibited but that it is difficult to say with
    specificity because some things would be exempt from the
    definition of waste and therefore could come into the country.
        Mr. Upton. And has the NRC ever denied a low-level import
    license up to this point?
        Ms. Doane. We have returned applications without action.
    For example, once the NRC heard from South Carolina that they
    would not accept the waste it was clear that there was not an
    appropriate facility for disposal, so it was returned without
    action.
        Mr. Upton. And that was where?
        Ms. Doane. It was coming in from Mexico. It was material
    coming in from Mexico.
        Mr. Upton. OK. Thank you.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Boucher. Thank you, Mr. Upton.
        The gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Melancon, is recognized
    for 8 minutes.
        Mr. Melancon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Let me see if I can figure out where this all started, the
    origin of importation. Is that just something that department
    itself established? Was it some agreements with other
    countries, i.e., trade agreement, WTO? How did we get to where
    people are wanting to send low-level nuclear waste to the
    United States for disposal?
        Ms. Doane. This is not something new. This has been going
    on for decades where material has been coming in; however, not
    in this volume. So the need really created the opportunity for
    the United States or, I guess, maybe the disposal activities in
    the United States were solicited from other countries that
    didn't have disposal facilities or for other reasons we were
    better capable of handling certain waste because of our
    technical expertise. So that is where the origin is. So the
    impetus was behind a need to take care of waste, and more
    recently there has been a greater focus on ensuring adequate
    treatment of waste and so I would imagine that is what spurring
    the interest now.
        Mr. Melancon. There was mention of several countries that
    don't have any waste disposal.
        Ms. Doane. That is right.
        Mr. Melancon. Is that because they choose not to, their
    people don't want them to, or they figure it is easier to send
    it to somebody else?
        Ms. Doane. I think you will probably find there are many
    reasons why a country would not have a disposal facility. Some
    of it would be technical expertise within the country to
    adequately open and operate a facility of that type. Some
    countries even with the expertise may not have the physical
    capacity and also the financial aspects of trying to open a
    facility.
        Mr. Melancon. So you are talking about sites. How many
    States allow for low-level waste disposal at this time?
        Ms. Doane. Right now we know that for direct disposal, the
    Clive, Utah, site is available for Class A----
        Mr. Melancon. Is that the only one in the country?
        Ms. Doane. For Class A low-level waste that would come
    directly in for disposal.
        Mr. Melancon. OK. And----
        Ms. Doane. I want to be clear about this.
        Mr. Melancon. How many disposal sites----
        Ms. Doane. There are three disposal sites altogether but
    there is--I am sorry. Let me let you finish.
        Mr. Melancon. There are three sites altogether in Utah or
    all together in the United States?
        Ms. Doane. No. In the United States--we have submitted a
    table into the testimony so I think there is some confusion and
    I apologize. I might be creating that.
        Mr. Melancon. Do you know what that number is?
        Ms. Doane. There are three sites. You will see the Clive,
    Utah site; the U.S. Ecology in Richland, Washington; and Waste
    Control Specialists in Texas.
        Mr. Melancon. OK. So there are three sites that take this
    type of material presently. I can remember a number of years
    back, I went to Makilladora in Tijuana and they were so proud
    that they were bringing in distilled water that they purchased
    in the United States and then after they used it in the
    process, it was wastewater so they were sending it back to us
    to take care of instead of--they were making the money and we
    were taking care of their byproducts. So Louisiana has none to
    your knowledge?
        Ms. Doane. No.
        Mr. Melancon. I just wanted to make sure that we are not on
    the list because a number of years ago there was what
    affectionately known as the poo-poo choo-choo that showed up
    with waste from all over the United States, mostly medical
    waste, and they wanted to dispose of it all in Louisiana. So I
    understand what is going on with the folks in Utah.
        So the people that are looking at disposal, this is a
    commercial business venture that is making the request? Is that
    correct?
        Ms. Doane. Yes.
        Mr. Melancon. OK. And if granted, this license could be
    followed by other requests for other imports from other
    countries?
        Ms. Doane. Yes.
        Mr. Melancon. Ad infinitum?
        Ms. Doane. Yes.
        Mr. Melancon. If someone agrees to take it, it would be.
    You mentioned Mexico as sending in. What type of material is
    that we are getting in from Mexico?
        Ms. Doane. I can tell you offhand that there was laundry
    from their power plant. Laundry that was used by their workers
    was sent in for washing, and sometimes through that process
    there is waste resulting from the processing. So that is an
    example.
        Mr. Melancon. That is interesting. I thought I only had the
    nuclear laundry. My clothes come back all busted up.
        When the NRC established its licensing system for imports,
    it said it did not anticipate frequent or large imports. It
    said the imports might be for research purposes or to bring
    back waste from use of U.S. materials. But that isn't what the
    EnergySolutions is proposing or what the NRC is anticipating,
    is it?
        Ms. Doane. You state correctly what was in the statement of
    consideration. That was an example. But this is different than
    what we were anticipating at that time.
        Mr. Melancon. That is all I have got at this time. I would
    reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Mr. Boucher. Thank you, Mr. Melancon.
        The gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Whitfield, is recognized
    for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Whitfield. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Ms. Doane, I notice in your testimony that you indicate
    that in 1954, at least my understanding was, that was the first
    law adopted in the United States regulating imported waste. Is
    that correct?
        Ms. Doane. Yes.
        Mr. Whitfield. So prior to that, any waste that came in, it
    was not regulated in any way. Is that correct?
        Ms. Doane. I don't really know about what happened before
    1954 because----
        Mr. Whitfield. OK.
        Ms. Doane [continuing]. There probably wasn't any.
        Mr. Whitfield. OK, but----
        Ms. Doane. It could have been imported through the weapons
    program or something like that but not a civilian program, no.
        Mr. Whitfield. OK. And you mentioned earlier that
    applications to bring in low-level waste from another country,
    that this application is the application for the largest amount
    that has been requested. Is that correct?
        Ms. Doane. Yes, that is correct.
        Mr. Whitfield. And what is the total amount that is being
    requested?
        Ms. Doane. We put in our testimony that approximately
    20,000 tons would come into the United States, but, and let me
    be very precise here, it would be--and you have U.S. Ecology
    where you can ask more specific questions on the second panel--
    but one-third of it would be recycled, two-thirds of it would
    then be processed, and of that, I believe 1,600 tons to be
    disposed of in Clive, Utah.
        Mr. Whitfield. Now, in the document that was submitted with
    your testimony, it talks about maximum volume that would be
    authorized for importation and then it says ft3. It says 1
    million there but----
        Ms. Doane. Cubic feet, yes, sir.
        Mr. Whitfield. It actually is 20,000 pounds. Is that
    correct?
        Ms. Doane. No, 20,000 tons.
        Mr. Whitfield. Twenty thousand tons?
        Ms. Doane. That is right, so I think the 1 million refers
    to cubic feet. That is why----
        Mr. Whitfield. So it is 1 million cubic feet. OK.
        Ms. Doane. There are a lot of numbers floating around here.
        Mr. Whitfield. So normally when it comes in, the real
    measurement is in tons?
        Ms. Doane. Yes. When it----
        Mr. Whitfield. OK. And this is the largest amount that has
    ever come in?
        Ms. Doane. Yes, that we know of, yes.
        Mr. Whitfield. Now, I think under the EnergySolutions
    application they want to process this material in Tennessee. Is
    that correct?
        Ms. Doane. Yes, that is correct.
        Mr. Whitfield. Now, you have to look at where it is going
    to be processed before you issue a license as well? That is
    part of your review process?
        Ms. Doane. Yes.
        Mr. Whitfield. OK. And you have indicated that the
    regulatory commission has denied some importation requests. Is
    that correct?
        Ms. Doane. Yes, we have returned them without action, yes.
        Mr. Whitfield. And the last one that you did, what was the
    reason that it was returned without action? Tell me again.
        Ms. Doane. Well, there have been several, and I am not sure
    of the exact dates, which one came first, but I can tell you
    that the one that I was referring to as an example was where
    the State of South Carolina said that it would not allow the
    residual waste to go into its facility and so the NRC returned
    the import application without action.
        Mr. Whitfield. Now, just as a layman, if you were talking
    to a rotary club in some small town, how would you describe the
    difference between high-level nuclear waste and low-level
    nuclear waste?
        Ms. Doane. Well, I think there could be a lot of
    definitions but I think for the layperson, it is most easily
    understood to think about spent fuel from power plants as high-
    level waste and just about everything else as low-level, but
    there are lots of distinctions to that, but from a layperson's
    perspective, I think that is the easiest way to understand it.
        Mr. Whitfield. And we are talking only about low-level
    waste here, correct?
        Ms. Doane. We are talking about low-level waste, and of
    that, we are talking about Class A, which is the lowest level
    of low-level waste.
        Mr. Whitfield. Are there three different classes?
        Ms. Doane. Three plus greater than Class C.
        Mr. Whitfield. Now, Mr. Bradford, I read somewhere, or
    maybe it was in Ms. Doane's testimony, that a letter that was
    written by the Northwest Compact alleged that this waste would
    be disposed of in an illegal site or at a place where they did
    not have the legal authority to do it. Is my memory wrong about
    this or----
        Mr. Bradford. I am not familiar with the statement that you
    are referring to.
        Mr. Whitfield. Let me just find this letter here. OK. It
    says on May 8, the Northwest Compact notified the NRC by
    letter, actually on May 15, that should it choose to issue the
    import license, it is doing so with the understanding there is
    no facility within the Northwest Compact region that is
    authorized to legally accept this waste for disposal. So Ms.
    Doane, is that correct?
        Ms. Doane. I am sorry, sir. Could you----
        Mr. Whitfield. On page 8 of your testimony, it says the
    Northwest Compact notified the NRC by letter that should it
    choose to issue the import license, it is doing so with the
    understanding there is no facility within the Northwest Compact
    region that is authorized to legally accept this waste for
    disposal. The Clive, Utah, plant is legally authorized to
    accept it, isn't it, for disposal, or am I missing something?
        Ms. Doane. No. The compact is asserting jurisdiction over
    the Clive, Utah, facility, and in its opinion it is stating
    that before it would allow waste to come in, that the matter
    would have to come before the compact, and since it has not, if
    we were to allow it, we are doing so without----
        Mr. Whitfield. So they are making a legal assertion that it
    cannot be disposed of in this instance without their approval
    as well? Is that correct?
        Ms. Doane. Yes, that is what they are saying.
        Mr. Whitfield. And do you have an opinion on that?
        Ms. Doane. Well, there has been a lawsuit filed by--you are
    probably well aware of this. There has been a lawsuit filed by
    EnergySolutions and that lawsuit asserts that they don't have
    jurisdiction over their facility. So now there is that open
    issue with the courts, and the Department of Justice speaks on
    behalf of the Federal government in district court cases such
    as this so we have been coordinating with the Department of
    Justice on this matter.
        Mr. Whitfield. My time is expired, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Boucher. Thank you very much, Mr. Whitfield.
        The gentleman from Washington State, Mr. Inslee, is
    recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Inslee. Thank you. I want to ask a question. I was
    reading a newspaper article about this issue that was talking
    about some NRC comments about potential licensing. It's a
    Seattle PI article dated May 8 and it said a spokesman for the
    U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission which is reviewing the
    import license doubts that the unanimous vote of the compact
    will kill the application. ``They could say we would still like
    to bring the material for processing in Tennessee and dispose
    of it in some other way, presumably exporting the rest of it
    back to Italy, NRC spokesman Dave McIntyre said in a phone
    interview.'' From that, are we to take it that the NRC has
    essentially said if the waste in fact was going to Utah
    ultimately, then it would not be licensed for import, but that
    if it was headed for processing in Tennessee and then eventual
    disposition somewhere else, then it may be? Can anybody give me
    any insight on that?
        Ms. Doane. At this point in time, it wouldn't be
    appropriate for us to resolve this one way or another, as I
    have said, because the comment period is still open. Whether we
    are going to grant or deny the license, of course, is still
    open until the end of the comment period and then a
    decisionmaking time period after that. So I am not free to
    discuss that issue, the denial or granting. What the question
    is referring to are different processes that are requested
    under the application. So it is for ultimate disposal but there
    are aspects of the license such as processing that are being
    parsed in the application. However, right now the only
    application that we have before us is to bring the waste in,
    process it and dispose of it in the Clive facility. That is how
    the application reads.
        Mr. Inslee. So I guess the question is, why isn't the
    agency taking the position that would not be allowed? The
    Northwest Compact is authorized by statute. Article IV, section
    2, specifically says that no facility located in any party
    state may accept low-level waste generated outside the region
    comprised of the party States except as provided in Article V.
    Article V specifically says you can't do it with their
    approval. They didn't approve. Why is this an issue?
        Ms. Doane. The case is still open. As part of its process
    the NRC gives an opportunity to request a hearing and also a
    time period for public comment, and we don't make a decision
    until that time would run to give ample opportunity. And in
    this case, we even extended it at the request of the public to
    hold our decision open until a longer period of time. That time
    period is not up until June 10 so we have not made a decision
    one way or another.
        Mr. Inslee. Can you tell us whether you respect the law or
    not? That is kind of a basic question. It shouldn't take a lot
    of public comment. I mean, what is the NRC's position on this
    issue, whether the compacts exist and they have jurisdiction or
    somehow they are some figment of somebody's imagination?
        Ms. Doane. OK. Well, yes, I understand your question. The
    compact has asserted its jurisdiction and we are aware of that,
    and we are aware of every--all the, quote, statements made by
    the compact and their position. It is very clear. We understand
    it. At the same time, EnergySolutions has filed a lawsuit
    questioning their jurisdiction. The NRC is monitoring this.
        Mr. Inslee. Well, monitoring is one thing, but it is a
    Federal agency that should be able to take a position what
    Federal law is, and I don't quite understand the agency's
    reluctance to take a position of whether the interstate compact
    law is a law that is authorized by Congress and deserves to be
    respected or whether it should not be. It seems to me you have
    a few attorneys to make that decision and the agency should
    make a decision and it doesn't take 100 letters or e-mails from
    Tukwila, Washington, to advise you about that. It is on the
    statute. It is on the books. Why can't the agency take a
    position and say that the compact is the law, you got to follow
    it, and we don't allow licenses that violate the compact? Why
    can't you do that without 100,000 comments?
        Ms. Doane. I guess I have to say, it could be one outcome
    but it wouldn't be appropriate for me to resolve this today
    because the comment period hasn't closed yet.
        Mr. Inslee. Well, if someone had a proposal for licensing
    that would import killers from Brazil that would--their import
    license requested they come and commit homicide in the United
    States, would you wait for the public comment period to take a
    position? I don't understand this.
        Ms. Doane. Well, it is well within our authority to take
    immediate action----
        Mr. Inslee. Then why don't you take an immediate position
    that the compact authorized by the Congress is law of the
    United States and ought to be followed? Why can't the agency
    tell us today, we are here to listen to your position? Your
    position as far as I can tell is like hey, whatever.
        Ms. Doane. Well, then I am not getting my position across
    clearly enough so let me try again. Our position is that our
    decision will be made based on common defense and security and
    public health and safety and no material will enter the United
    States unless we can clearly decide that issue. At this time
    there is no material entering the United States nor is there
    any immediacy----
        Mr. Inslee. Well, what you left out of your criteria, you
    mentioned the common defense, you forgot to mention the law, I
    think. Now, is that implicit? Because the law, as I read it,
    says the compact should be followed. Congress gave them the
    authority. They quite clearly, there is no ambiguity about
    this, decided not to allow it pending at least some further
    action. I mean, do I implicitly say you left out the law but
    you do intend to respect it or----
        Ms. Doane. We absolutely intend to respect the law.
        Mr. Inslee. That is progress.
        Ms. Doane. And there is a lawsuit filed right now and very
    able judges will decide this matter, and the NRC will
    absolutely follow the law as it is decided in that matter.
        Mr. Inslee. I will just tell you, speaking as one
    Congressman, I am not satisfied with that. The agency has
    responsibility to follow the law and it has an obligation to
    follow the law the best it understands it and then you're just
    punting to people writing letters to it eventually is not
    satisfactory. Thank you.
        Mr. Boucher. Thank you very much, Mr. Inslee.
        The gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Gordon, is recognized for
    5 minutes.
        Mr. Gordon. First of all, I want to thank you for being
    here today. I know that you are getting questions from left and
    right and you are doing a good job trying to answer them. Let
    me see if I can summarize some things. You correct me if I am
    wrong somewhere. I am trying to use both your testimony as well
    as some statements that the agency has made. First of all, you
    stated that there have been 13 prior applications for foreign
    radioactive waste but I understand that only four of those
    really have actually been disposed of here. Also that the
    Italian waste, the 20,000 tons, is approximately 25 times
    bigger than the largest one in the past.
        Ms. Doane. I haven't worked out how many times larger it
    is.
        Mr. Gordon. I will just remind you, it is 770,000 pounds,
    and this is 20,000 tons, so it is much larger than anything in
    the past.
        Now, also, correct me if I am wrong, when South Carolina
    this summer stops accepting radioactive waste from outside its
    compact area, then there will be 36 States in the United
    States, 36 States including Louisiana, Virginia, Michigan,
    Texas, Tennessee that will have no other place in the world to
    take their low-level radioactive waste. Is that correct?
        Ms. Doane. At this time. I mean, we know of countries that
    don't have laws that prohibit but whether those facilities
    would take it is, I can't----
        Mr. Gordon. So----
        Ms. Doane. As far as in the United States, that would be
    correct, yes.
        Mr. Gordon. So there is no other place in the world that
    can take it? OK. And, you know, there are implications about
    how is your domestic industry going to be able to continue if
    there is no place to put their low level.
        Now, and here is the other dilemma that we have got into,
    and again, I am going to try to summarize, so if I am
    inaccurate, you let me know. In your testimony, you say that
    whether or not we should accept general foreign waste is really
    a public policy decision that ought to be made by Congress, not
    NRC, and that you have to do your basic safety tests, and it
    really is up to the compacts to decide whether at the end of
    the day they want to take the waste or not. Is that correct? I
    mean, I can be more specific but that is the general concept.
        Ms. Doane. That is the general concept but the national
    policy decision could be decided by many factors. The compacts
    have responsibility for determining whether or not they are
    going to take waste outside the compact.
        Mr. Gordon. Yes, but where we are now when it comes to
    foreign waste coming in, you don't make a policy decision about
    that?
        Ms. Doane. That is right.
        Mr. Gordon. But you say, and again, I can read it to you
    here. You say the NRC, however, recognizes the legal authority
    of the relevant host State and low-level radioactive waste
    compact to accept or reject low-level radioactive waste for
    disposal or management in the compact region. Is that correct?
        Ms. Doane. That is correct.
        Mr. Gordon. OK. So once again, concerning foreign waste,
    you are saying NRC, they can't say anything about whether it
    should come in or not, it is only on that safety issue, and
    that it is up then to the local compact to decide?
        Ms. Doane. With regard to the health and safety decision,
    States that license the facilities can make a determination.
        Mr. Gordon. I am talking about foreign waste coming in.
        Ms. Doane. Yes.
        Mr. Gordon. So you are saying----
        Ms. Doane. Even with the--because it is an Agreement State,
    the State of Utah could make a decision about whether the
    facility is appropriate for disposal, even though it is foreign
    waste, they don't abdicate their responsibility.
        Mr. Gordon. Exactly. What I am saying is, you are saying
    you can't make a judgment about the foreign waste.
        Ms. Doane. That is right.
        Mr. Gordon. OK. But that the local compacts can, and that
    is where it has to be determined?
        Ms. Doane. What we say is--I want to be very precise here
    because----
        Mr. Gordon. OK, let us be precise.
        Ms. Doane [continuing]. There is a lawsuit. So what we are
    saying is that we absolutely consult with the compacts and we
    have a very open public process. We actually issued letters to
    the States in the compacts so that all of these views can come
    into the agency, and in this case, there is a controversy----
        Mr. Gordon. I don't want to talk about this case. I am
    talking about the general. Now, please let me, just tell me----
        Ms. Doane. I am sorry.
        Mr. Gordon. I am going to say it and then you explain how I
    am not right----
        Ms. Doane. OK. I am sorry.
        Mr. Gordon [continuing]. If that is the case. NRC once
    again when it comes to foreign waste coming in, you only look
    at the safety issue of it, you don't look at the public policy
    of whether we should accept foreign waste and what impact it
    will have on storage. OK. Then so it is up to the local
    compacts, really just those three, to determine whether or not
    they are going to take that waste. All right. So that is the
    only safety valve that we have, stopping the foreign waste
    coming in, is whether you say for whatever reason it wouldn't
    be safe and the local compacts, yet EnergySolutions is suing--
    the local compact said we don't want it, don't bring it in, and
    now they are being sued. So, where are we?
        Ms. Doane. So you want me to tell you how that is right,
    right?
        Mr. Gordon. No, just tell me if that is wrong.
        Ms. Doane. I think it is a very complicated area and I
    think you have recognized where the frustrations are on our
    part, not frustration but----
        Mr. Gordon. Let me move on. We are really--it is pretty
    simple. You are saying it is up to the States. The States are
    saying we don't want it and EnergySolutions is then saying we
    are suing the States because we don't think you have the
    authority. In other words, nobody has that authority.
        So let us go, and Mr. Bradford, in a very masterpiece of
    American literature here, you state very clearly concerning
    radioactive waste that any country that has the technological
    capability of producing nuclear power within its borders should
    not seek to dispose of its waste outside of them.
        Mr. Bradford. Yes, that is the position of the Board.
        Mr. Gordon. And the Board has voted not to accept it?
        Mr. Bradford. Yes.
        Mr. Gordon. And now you are being sued by the
    EnergySolutions saying you have got to take it, it is our
    property, we are going to do with it what we want.
        Mr. Bradford. Well, I believe the lawsuit is against the
    compact.
        Mr. Gordon. The compact, yes.
        Mr. Bradford. The Utah----
        Mr. Gordon. So again, here is where we are. NRC can't do
    anything. Those folks that can do something now are being sued
    to stop them from doing anything, and I yield back the balance
    of my time.
        Mr. Boucher. Thank you very much, Mr. Gordon.
        That concludes the--oh, Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman from
    Illinois is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't think I will
    take that long. I want to appreciate the thoughtfulness of Mr.
    Whitfield, Mr. Matheson, and Mr. Gordon. They are all sincere
    public policy guys that get in the weeds and try to address
    concerns, so my hat is off.
        Mr. Bradford, does Utah have any nuclear power plants?
        Mr. Bradford. No.
        Mr. Shimkus. And you are in the Northwest Compact, right?
        Mr. Bradford. Yes.
        Mr. Shimkus. The ruling--I think that my concern, the
    interstate commerce clause is kind of a sacrosanct issue of
    this committee and this new constitution that we have had that
    lasted about 219 years. I tell students that the interstate
    commerce clause has really helped two States from going to war
    and established the principle that is further jurisdiction. Is
    there a concern--your comment, which is somewhat troubling, and
    I understand this is from Italy but countries that generate
    low-level nuclear waste should manage their own waste is kind
    of--I am paraphrasing. I just scribbled that down. Is that the
    same thing for States?
        Mr. Bradford. Well, it is certainly not the case today.
        Mr. Shimkus. Should it be?
        Mr. Bradford. Well, the Board hasn't taken a position on
    that except to say that we do say in our letter that we
    encourage the NRC and Congress to look at our current system
    because the current system today sends a vast majority to the
    State of Utah and we would like to see others bear some of the
    burden.
        Mr. Shimkus. So you are hinting that it probably wouldn't
    be bad policy for States that generate would be States that
    dispose?
        Mr. Bradford. Yes.
        Mr. Shimkus. I think that is where you are going to have
    problems because we fought this battle here numerous times on
    just regular waste, and you have--I am from downstate Illinois,
    30 rural counties. People don't like Chicago waste. People
    don't like St. Louis waste. There is an interstate commerce
    clause. I know this is low-level nuclear waste but it is the
    interstate commerce clause that is of concern and that is why I
    throw it out.
        Mr. Matheson. Would you yield just a second, Mr. Shimkus?
        Mr. Shimkus. Yes, I would be happy to.
        Mr. Matheson. And I am sure, Mr. Gordon and Mr. Whitfield
    agree with me, we in no way are trying to raise questions about
    limiting it to a State. I just want to make you clear as to the
    authors of the bill, that we are not trying to question the
    interstate commerce clause at all. This strictly has to do with
    imports from overseas. It wouldn't----
        Mr. Shimkus. But it probably segues into----
        Mr. Matheson. I just wanted to share that with you.
        Mr. Shimkus. Yes, no, and I am not--I am just thinking this
    through after listening to the hearing, and it is addressing
    the compact and the compact does allow you to cross over State
    lines. I am not trying to cause trouble. I am just----
        Mr. Gordon. Mr. Shimkus, I think you have really hit upon
    the real threshold issue here, once again, on the interstate
    commerce issue. Once again, the NRC is saying they really don't
    have the authority to regulate foreign waste coming in, it
    should be done by the local authorities. The local authorities
    now are saying they don't want it, but EnergySolutions is suing
    them saying by virtue of interstate commerce, you have to take
    it. And so you are making the argument that their case is right
    and it may very well succeed, and that is why there needs to be
    a national law to stop foreign waste coming into this country
    and taking up finite capacity because in all likelihood
    EnergySolutions might very well win their lawsuit on interstate
    commerce issue. There is no other way to deal with this.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Shimkus. I do appreciate it. I will just tell you,
    Illinois, not in my area, but it is a big nuclear power State.
    We have great research facilities. Our low-level nuclear waste
    is going somewhere. I bet a lot of it is going to Clive. It is
    OK, but I think there is a concern that we ought to--maybe the
    legislation is clear and precise but you know how it is here,
    the camel's nose under the tent. I know communities that would
    like to prohibit anything coming in to their community and I
    have heard the arguments that, if you generate it, you should
    be able to store it, and I would just raise that as a concern,
    and with that, my time is expired, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
        Mr. Boucher. Thank you very much, Mr. Shimkus.
        There are no further questions for this panel of witnesses,
    and with the subcommittee's thanks, we will excuse you at this
    time.
        We now turn to our second panel of witnesses: Mr. Steve
    Creamer, the chairman and chief executive officer of
    EnergySolutions and Mr. Gene Aloise, the Director of Natural
    Resources and Environment for the United States Government
    Accountability Office. Mr. Aloise is being joined at the
    witness table by Mr. Feehan, who is the Assistant Director for
    Natural Resources and the Environment at the Government
    Accountability Office.
        Without objection, the prepared written statements of the
    witnesses will be made a part of the record. We would welcome
    your oral summary and ask that that be kept to approximately 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Creamer, we will be happy to hear from you.

      STATEMENT OF R. STEVE CREAMER, CHAIRMAN AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE
                        OFFICER, ENERGYSOLUTIONS

        Mr. Creamer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
    subcommittee. I am Steve Creamer, chairman and chief executive
    officer of EnergySolutions. It is an honor for me to appear
    before you today.
        I was going to acknowledge Congressman Matheson, who is my
    Congressman, and I appreciate him very much. He does a great
    job.
        EnergySolutions, headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah, is
    a nuclear services company with operations throughout the
    United States and around the world. EnergySolutions is
    committed to helping the United States achieve energy
    independence, reduce carbon emissions, and protect the
    environment. We are the world leader in the safe recycling,
    processing, transportation and disposal of nuclear materials.
    EnergySolutions believes in safety first: safety for our
    workers, safety for our environment, and safety for the
    communities in which we operate.
        We own and operate several state-of-the-art facilities. In
    Oak Ridge, Tennessee, we have the Bear Creek facility that has
    one of two metal melt facilities in the world. This facility
    has recycled metals, both domestic and international, for over
    12 years. The Bear Creek facility has recycled over 56,000 tons
    of metal. Of this amount, over 1,000 tons has come from
    international sources. The recycled metals are used to produce
    shield blocks for the reuse at nuclear and accelerator
    facilities throughout the world. Shield blocks made at our Bear
    Creek facility protect the neutron source at DOE's Oak Ridge
    National Laboratory in Tennessee. Many of the metals in these
    shield blocks came from international metals that were recycled
    in Tennessee. Low-level radioactive material from nearly all
    104 domestic nuclear power plants is sent to Bear Creek for
    processing with residual Class A waste disposed of at our
    Clive, Utah, facility. We also process material at Bear Creek
    from the Departments of Energy and Defense, the Tennessee
    Valley Authority, doctors, hospitals and research facilities.
        Our Clive facility has been in operation since 1988. It is
    a privately owned Class A low-level radioactive waste disposal
    site that has received waste from international generators for
    over 8 years. The Clive facility, which has over 30 years of
    capacity, has enough capacity to take all of the Class A waste
    from the 104 domestic nuclear power plants and still have
    approximately 50 million cubic feet of remaining capacity.
    According to the GAO, disposal of--and this is quoted out of
    their 2004 report--disposal availability of Class A waste is
    not a problem in the short or longer term. EnergySolutions is
    the leading U.S. company with experience and technology to
    recycle spent nuclear fuel. We are exploring opportunities to
    site low-level waste disposal facilities abroad to help those
    countries address their waste management issues.
        In order to meet the growing energy demand in the United
    States and around the world, a variety of energy sources must
    be utilized including solar, wind, biofuels, and nuclear.
    Nuclear is a clean, safe, reliable, non-carbon emitting energy
    source. I would like to address the quote from Mr. Gordon's
    remarks from the SEC document. EnergySolutions is pursuing
    opportunities overseas. Most of these opportunities are for
    work overseas. Over two-thirds of our revenue today comes from
    the United Kingdom from work that is done in the United
    Kingdom, not bringing waste back to the U.S. We try to do that
    around the world. The United States needs companies like
    EnergySolutions to safely and responsibly manage the recycling,
    processing and disposal of nuclear materials. We should stand
    ready to provide technical solutions to those countries that
    are in need. This does not mean that EnergySolutions or any
    other U.S. company should be responsible for disposing of the
    world's nuclear waste.
        EnergySolutions is committed to maintaining Clive's
    capacity for domestic customers. This is why we offered to
    self-impose a limit of disposal of international material to 5
    percent of our remaining capacity at Clive. We will not under
    any circumstance use Clive in a manner that would adversely
    affect our U.S. customers either now or in the future. You have
    my commitment on that.
        Our pending application with the NRC to import low-level
    nuclear material from Italy, process it at our Bear Creek
    facility in Tennessee, and dispose of a small amount of the
    residual Class A material at our Clive facility in Utah is
    consistent with all laws and regulations, consistent with past
    practices, consistent within limited situations utilizing our
    world-class facilities to solve these challenges.
        The Italian material--metals, paper, plastic, clothing--is
    exactly the same type of material we handle every day from the
    domestic nuclear industry at our U.S. facilities. Before any
    material would leave Italy, EnergySolutions personnel would
    subject it to extensive characterization to ensure that the
    imported material meets the processing and disposition
    requirements of the Bear Creek and Clive facilities. The
    residual waste from processing at Bear Creek would be Class A
    waste and would be disposed of at Clive. Approximately one-
    third of the Italian material is metal that would be recycled
    and formed into shield blocks. The remaining material would be
    incinerated or volume reduced. Only about 8 percent of the
    material would be disposed of at Clive. This is way, way less
    than 1 percent of what we take at Clive each year--way, way,
    less than 1 percent. No material would be disposed of in
    Tennessee. No material would be orphaned in the United States.
    No spent fuel would be imported into the United States. Ninety-
    nine point nine nine eight percent of the radioactivity would
    remain overseas.
        Mr. Chairman, I have spent my entire career cleaning up the
    environment, everything from the Oak Ridge National Laboratory
    in Tennessee to the mill tailings in Moab, Utah, to the
    enrichment facility in Paducah, Kentucky. EnergySolutions is
    committed to continuing to clean up the nuclear legacy of the
    past and help the United States achieve energy independence by
    ensuring a bright future for nuclear power. I am happy to
    answer your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Creamer follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.047

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.048

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.049

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.050

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.051

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.052

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.053

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.054

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.055

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.056

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.057

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.058

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.059

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.060

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.061

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.062

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.063

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.064

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.065

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.066

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.067

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.068

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.069

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.070

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.071

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.072

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.073

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.074

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.075

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.076

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.077

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.078

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.079

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.080

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.081

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.082

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.083

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.084

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.085

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.086

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.087

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.088

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.089

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.090

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.091

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.092

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.093

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.094

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.095

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.096

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.097

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.098

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.099

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.100

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.101

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.102

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.103

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.104

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.105

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.106

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.107

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.108

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.109

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.110

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.111

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.112

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.113

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.114

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.115

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.116

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.117

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.118

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.119

        Mr. Boucher. Thank you very much, Mr. Creamer.
        Mr. Aloise.

       STATEMENT OF GENE ALOISE, DIRECTOR, NATURAL RESOURCES AND
           ENVIRONMENT, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE

        Mr. Aloise. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am pleased
    to be here today to discuss our work on the management of low-
    level radioactive waste, a byproduct of nuclear power
    generation, industrial, medical, and other uses of
    radioisotopes. Low-level radioactive waste ranges from rags,
    paper, and clothing that have been exposed to radioactivity to
    building debris and contaminated soil. Management of this waste
    continues to be a concern despite the enactment of the Low-
    Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act almost 30 years ago. My
    remarks today are based on two of our issued reports including
    a June 2004 report that examined disposal availability in the
    United States for three of the four classes of low-level
    radioactive waste, Class A, B, and C waste, and a March 2007
    report that examined approaches used by foreign countries to
    manage their low-level radioactive waste.
        In June 2004, we noted that disposal capacity for low-level
    radioactive waste was generally adequate in the short term, but
    that pending constraints on Class B and C waste were
    problematic. As discussed earlier, Barnwell will prohibit waste
    generators in 36 States from accessing its facility by the end
    of June of this year. Barnwell currently accepts 99 percent of
    the Nation's Class B and C waste. If there are no new disposal
    options for this waste, users can continue to minimize waste
    generation, process waste in safer forms and store waste on
    site. We also reported that the Clive, Utah, disposal facility,
    which accepts 99 percent of the Nation's less hazardous Class A
    waste, could take this waste for 20 years. In updating our work
    for this hearing, we found that a two-thirds drop in disposal
    volume since 2005 as a result of the completion of several
    large DOE cleanup projects may extend the capacity for an
    additional 13 years, for a total remaining capacity of 33
    years. Mr. Chairman, I want to point out that this additional
    capacity figure is based on discussions and documentation we
    obtained from a DOE official and the disposal operator and is
    based on relatively low disposal rates for a number of years.
        Importantly, our analysis of disposal availability for
    Class A, B, and C waste was based on the generation of such
    waste only in the United States. We did not consider the impact
    on domestic capacity of importing foreign countries' low-level
    radioactive waste. Regarding other countries' management of
    low-level radioactive waste, 10 of the 18 countries we surveyed
    have disposal options for Class A, B and most of the C waste
    and six other countries have plans to build such facilities.
    Only Italy reported that it had no disposal or central storage
    facilities for low-level radioactive waste. However, Italy is
    one of the countries that indicated to us that it was planning
    to develop a disposal site for this waste, primarily for the
    decommissioning of its four nuclear plants and other nuclear
    facilities. The site was expected to be operational in 2010 but
    resistance to its location from local governments in Italy has
    delayed its opening.
        Our March 2007 report also identified a number of
    approaches used to manage low-level radioactive waste in other
    countries that provide lessons to improve the management of
    U.S. radioactive waste. However, NRC and DOE have considered
    these approaches and are satisfied with the current management
    of low-level radioactive waste.
        Mr. Chairman, that concludes my remarks. We would be happy
    to respond to any questions you or members of the subcommittee
    may have.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Aloise follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.120

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.121

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.122

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.123

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.124

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.125

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.126

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.127

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.128

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.129

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.130

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.131

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.132

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.133

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.134

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.135

        Mr. Boucher. Thank you very much, Mr. Aloise, Mr. Creamer.
        Mr. Creamer, I have several questions of you. Has your
    company imported low-level waste from abroad previously, and if
    so, could you identify the disposal sites into which that waste
    has been placed here in the United States?
        Mr. Creamer. Yes, we have. We have taken waste into Clive
    from Taiwan, the U.K., Germany, France, Canada, Mexico. We have
    taken those wastes in. Some of the wastes have come and gone
    through Bear Creek and have been incinerated or metal melted
    and so what we take is the residuals off of those. It is
    basically under the NRC and the State of Tennessee rules that
    once the shape, the whole form of the material has been
    changed, it is actually Tennessee waste rather than foreign
    waste, but we have taken materials from all of those countries
    into Clive.
        Mr. Boucher. And all of that has gone eventually to Clive?
        Mr. Creamer. All that has gone eventually to Clive.
        Mr. Boucher. Do you have current plans to file other
    applications for the importation of waste?
        Mr. Creamer. You know, we would in the future for certain
    types of situations. We firmly believe that what we are doing
    is trying to enhance an American company's position in the
    world.
        Mr. Boucher. But can you identify the countries from which
    you currently have plans to import waste?
        Mr. Creamer. We have none from any existing ones other than
    Italy right now. I mean, over the past 3 years since I've been
    the CEO of EnergySolutions, we have had requests from several
    countries to bring their waste to the United States and we have
    not even considered them because we did not see any reason to
    do that thing. With Italy, we felt like that there was a
    significant role that we could play in helping Italy and
    furthering an American company's position in the world and so
    we agreed to----
        Mr. Boucher. So to paraphrase that answer, you probably
    will file applications for the importation of waste from other
    countries but you are not prepared to identify them today?
        Mr. Creamer. That is correct. We have no plans today from
    anyone.
        Mr. Boucher. Let me ask the question in a slightly
    different way. Can you make an estimate today of the total
    amount of waste that it is your intention to import from
    overseas?
        Mr. Creamer. Well, as we have said, that we absolutely
    under no circumstance would go above 5 percent of the remaining
    capacity at the Clive facility.
        Mr. Boucher. That would be the upper limit?
        Mr. Creamer. That would be the very upper limit, and
    realistically, I don't think we would ever reach that limit.
        Mr. Boucher. That is a commitment which I understand you
    have made on behalf of EnergySolutions. Would you be willing to
    reduce that commitment into a legally binding obligation?
        Mr. Creamer. Absolutely. We would be more than happy to add
    that to our license with the State of Utah to voluntarily ask
    the State of Utah to add that to our license.
        Mr. Boucher. Mr. Aloise, let me simply ask one question of
    you. You have made an estimate that there is 33 years of
    additional capacity at the low-level disposal sites in the
    United States, and as I understand it, that estimate of
    capacity did not include the importation of waste from
    overseas. Is that correct?
        Mr. Aloise. That is correct.
        Mr. Boucher. If you include the importation of waste from
    overseas as you currently estimate that volume of imports to
    be, how many years of capacity would we have to dispose of low-
    level waste at our domestic sites?
        Mr. Aloise. Mr. Chairman, we don't have that information.
    We didn't look at the volumes overseas.
        Mr. Boucher. That concludes my questions, and at this time
    I recognize the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Upton, for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Upton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Aloise, just to expand on the chairman's question, did
    you focus also on the level of A, B, and C waste in terms of
    the capacity remaining or was it collectively just one number?
        Mr. Aloise. What we were talking about is the Clive
    facility Class A waste.
        Mr. Upton. Mr. Creamer, how many years do you think you
    have remaining at this site? I have been to Utah a good number
    of times. It is a great State. I don't think I have been in
    that area. I have stayed on the slopes versus to the west. It
    is to the west, right, of Salt Lake City?
        Mr. Creamer. That is correct.
        Mr. Upton. How many years do you think you have at this----
        Mr. Creamer. We have over 30 years of capacity. We would
    agree with the GAO report, and that is existing permitted
    capacity. That is not--I mean, just by simply going up to the
    height that geologically it could handle there, you could
    double the capacity if you wanted to, but we are not--I mean,
    we have an agreement with our governor and so the existing
    capacity is what we have there today to work with, and so we
    believe we have that same capacity.
        Mr. Upton. So what happens to your company in 30 years?
        Mr. Creamer. We are the Number 1 leading company in the
    world to reduce the amount of waste. For example, the B and C
    waste going to Barnwell, so you get an example, Clive last year
    and continuing will take 5 to 6 million cubic feet of waste a
    year. The B and C waste generated in America today is between
    10,000 and 12,000 cubic feet. So the difference between 6
    million cubic feet of A waste, 10,000 of B and C waste. About
    half of the B and C waste is water treatment plant resins in
    power plants. You can keep them from becoming B and C waste by
    simply changing the amount more often and so you don't create B
    and C waste and so it stays as Class A waste. So we are working
    with utilities to do that but also in everything that they do.
    We work with them on a daily basis and we are the leading
    driver down of the amount of waste that is generated, and that
    is part of our business. We have a very strong technology
    business, not just a waste business.
        Mr. Upton. And how did the discussions start with the
    Italians? Did they approach you? Did you approach them? How did
    this all come about, and how long has it been in the offing?
        Mr. Creamer. Well, Number 1, I should mention, we do not
    have a contract with Italy at this time. I mean, we don't have
    a contract with them for disposal of waste. We do at this time
    have a contract where we are cleaning a fuel pool in Italy.
    They approached us about a year ago when we started working in
    the U.K. actually operating and decommissioning plants. We
    operate four reactors that are generating power, 18 reactors
    that we are decommissioning that are identical to one of the
    three reactors that they have in Italy that they need some help
    with. One of the other ones is exactly like the Big Rock Point
    reactor that is in your State.
        Mr. Upton. Which is Michigan.
        Mr. Creamer. It is in Michigan.
        Mr. Upton. Not my district but it is----
        Mr. Creamer. It is in Michigan and it is the twin sister to
    that plant that EnergySolutions also decommissioned up in
    Michigan.
        Mr. Upton. Now, you take waste from literally all 104
    different operating plants in the United States?
        Mr. Creamer. A hundred and three. There is one that is
    located in the Northwest Compact but we have taken New Jersey,
    South Carolina, and Connecticut. All are in the Southeast
    Compact but we have taken waste, we continue to take waste from
    all of those.
        Mr. Upton. Are the contracts, are they done every 2 years,
    5 years? I mean--
        Mr. Creamer. We offered every power----
        Mr. Upton. For example, I have two plants, Palisades and
    Cook, so I don't know if you know offhand what the relationship
    is----
        Mr. Creamer. They are both under life-of-plant agreements.
    Well, no, Cook is not. Cook with AP is not under life-of-plant
    agreement. When I took over the industry, I felt the most
    important thing for the nuclear industry in this country was to
    bring stability, not just stability in high-level waste that
    was mentioned but also stability in low-level waste. So we
    offered every power plant in the Nation a life-of-plant
    agreement where we would reserve capacity at Clive for them for
    not only their ongoing waste through the life of the plant but
    also their decommissioning waste.
        Mr. Upton. So when they are relicensed, both Cook and
    Palisades were given additional years so you had space and you
    were----
        Mr. Creamer. We have space and----
        Mr. Upton. It was an addendum that you added to the
    contract and you have got space for them?
        Mr. Creamer. That is correct.
        Mr. Upton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Mr. Boucher. Thank you, Mr. Upton.
        The gentleman from Utah, Mr. Matheson, is recognized for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Matheson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Aloise, in your testimony we talked about this
    estimated capacity, and at one point it was 19 years, now we
    moved it up to 32, 33 years. That is sort of the range we are
    talking about. As you confirmed in answers to a couple of
    questions, your analysis did not assume imports of foreign
    waste. Did your analysis, as I understand it, was based on--the
    updated number was based on volumes for 2007?
        Mr. Aloise. Around those, yes.
        Mr. Matheson. You are aware 2007 was a lower year because
    of----
        Mr. Aloise. Yes.
        Mr. Matheson. OK. Do you think that that was an aberration?
    Did you take into consideration potential increases in the
    future compared to 2007?
        Mr. Aloise. That estimate--and again, we got that
    information from the disposal operator and DOE--was
    approximately 4.5 million cubic feet times 33 years equals----
        Mr. Matheson. So your analysis didn't include any expansion
    of waste from any future DOE cleanups or any increase in
    decommissioning waste from the United States or the fact we
    have got, I think it was mentioned in somebody else's opening
    statement, 32 applications for new nuclear power plants in this
    country pending before the NRC. Now, you didn't project growth
    of waste from those new plants?
        Mr. Aloise. That is correct.
        Mr. Matheson. OK. In the context of making radioactive
    waste policy over time, is there an assumption that 33 years is
    a long time, or did you not make that--I assume GAO doesn't
    necessarily make that judgment.
        Mr. Aloise. No, we didn't make that judgment, and we are
    aware, it is our understanding that there will be large volumes
    from DOE eventually being made available for disposal but we
    don't know where that will be disposed.
        Mr. Matheson. Would you suggest, when you say you are
    aware, that eventually that will happen? That will be within
    the next 30 years?
        Mr. Aloise. Some of it probably, yes.
        Mr. Matheson. OK. That is helpful. I would just say for the
    record, I think 30 years isn't that long amount of time,
    myself, but I think that this is a number that is moving around
    but whether it is 30 years or whether it is 20 years or whether
    it is 40 years, I think we have a certain amount of capacity in
    this country for our low-level waste and we ought to put that
    into consideration of this bill.
        Mr. Aloise, just for the record, let me ask some real quick
    questions. How many low-level waste storage facilities are
    there in the United States?
        Mr. Aloise. Excuse me?
        Mr. Matheson. How many low-level waste storage facilities
    are there in the United States? Low-level radioactive waste. I
    assume there are three. That is what I have assumed.
        Mr. Aloise. Oh, the three disposal facilities?
        Mr. Matheson. Three disposal sites.
        Mr. Aloise. Yes. I am sorry.
        Mr. Matheson. How many of these sites are designated
    storage sites for one of the compacts?
        Mr. Aloise. How many of them belong to compacts?
        Mr. Matheson. How many are designated as storage sites for
    one of the compacts?
        Mr. Aloise. Two, I believe.
        Mr. Matheson. OK. And how many of the three sites regularly
    accept commercial waste from other parts of the country?
        Mr. Aloise. I am not clear on that.
        Mr. Matheson. I assume it is just one. There is only one
    site that takes it outside their compact. It is the Clive site.
        Shifting to Europe, do you know how many low-level waste
    storage facilities are there?
        Mr. Aloise. In Europe?
        Mr. Matheson. In Europe.
        Mr. Aloise. No.
        Mr. Matheson. Do you know how many countries have nuclear
    facilities that produce low-level waste?
        Mr. Aloise. We surveyed 20 countries. We got responses from
    18 that have nuclear facilities.
        Mr. Matheson. Do you know how many of those 18 accept waste
    from other countries?
        Mr. Aloise. I do not.
        Mr. Matheson. Have you done an assessment of the total
    volume of European low-level waste that is in need of disposal?
        Mr. Aloise. No, we didn't look at the volumes.
        Mr. Matheson. Have you done an assessment of the capacity
    that exists in Europe for storing its waste?
        Mr. Aloise. No.
        Mr. Matheson. It is my understanding that GAO spent a lot
    of time looking in Europe at nuclear waste disposal sites.
        Mr. Aloise. Well, what we were looking at is basically how
    they manage their waste.
        Mr. Matheson. OK. That is helpful. You specifically looked
    at the situation in Italy. Is that correct?
        Mr. Aloise. Italy was one of the countries we surveyed.
        Mr. Matheson. Italy shut down its nuclear energy plants
    after the Chernobyl incident over 20 years ago and since that
    time, those last 20 years, I think your testimony indicates
    Italy has not implemented a low-level waste storage site in its
    borders. Do you have a sense if it is--I know you mentioned
    various countries have plans to do this. Is Italy even close to
    licensing a site?
        Mr. Aloise. They had plans, but whether they are close or
    not, we are not clear.
        Mr. Matheson. My understanding is, there is a lot of
    opposition in that country.
        Mr. Aloise. There is.
        Mr. Matheson. Is there any country when you surveyed, those
    18, who indicated that they wanted to take other countries'
    nuclear waste as well?
        Mr. Aloise. We didn't ask that question, sir.
        Mr. Matheson. All right, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back.
    Thank you.
        Mr. Boucher. Thank you, Mr. Matheson.
        The gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Whitfield, is recognized
    for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Whitfield. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Creamer, how many other countries accept low-level
    waste from other countries today?
        Mr. Creamer. There are countries who take it in for
    recycling. For example, Sweden is the other location that is
    just like Bear Creek that has an incinerator and a metal melt
    facility. They bring the waste into that country. They process
    it but they do send the residuals back to the country of origin
    rather than leave the waste there. But France and the U.K. both
    have a long history of accepting high-level waste for recycling
    and then they store it for quite a long period of time in the
    tens to hundred years, the waste that comes off of that, but
    ultimately it would also be shipped back to the country of
    origin. But both France and the U.K. have a long history of
    taking nuclear material, all the rest of the countries and the
    U.K.'s spent nuclear fuel, high-level waste and recycling it.
        Mr. Whitfield. Now, you had mentioned in your testimony
    that your company is doing a lot with other countries to help
    them develop the capability to----
        Mr. Creamer. It is not unlike the first project. The first
    time that the New York Port Authority wanted to clean up the
    port in the New York Harbor that had contaminated PCBs and
    dioxins, we did the first project there and it did not stay in
    New York or New Jersey. After we taught them how to it and
    showed them how reasonable it was to do it, we were able to
    establish facilities right there in the Port of New York, and
    if you go up to the big mall in Elizabeth, New Jersey, it is
    built on dredge spoils that I did in a previous life before I
    got in the radioactive business, when I was in the chemical
    waste business, where we pulled out dioxins and PCBs and taught
    New York and New Jersey how to be able to do that by teaching
    them by example, which is what we hope to be able to do here.
        Mr. Whitfield. And you are working with several other
    countries right now?
        Mr. Creamer. Several other countries around the world. That
    is correct.
        Mr. Whitfield. Now, obviously with a company like
    EnergySolutions, you are always looking out into the future,
    and I know you are already thinking about when the Clive
    facility reaches its capacity. How difficult is it to come up
    with additional storage space and the regulatory process? How
    difficult is that and complex is that?
        Mr. Creamer. I think it is important to note that the Clive
    facility is one square mile less 100 acres which has a DOE
    disposal site on it that the DOE sited for a major cleanup that
    was uranium mill tailings that was left in downtown Salt Lake
    City back in the middle 1980s, they created it, so it is
    actually 540 acres in size. That 540 acres will handle all of
    the radioactive material that is currently in the United States
    today. I mean, if you take everything that will not go to
    existing DOE sites, if you take that, you do that and you still
    have extra capacity. The one nice thing about low-level
    radioactive waste, it is not a large volume. I mean, you need
    to have regional facilities because it is hard--from a cost
    standpoint, it is hard to run little tiny sites and properly
    regulate small little sites and so that is why the other
    compacts haven't been able to site sites. They have had NIMBY
    problems. They have issues. But all of the radioactive waste in
    America that is currently here today and for many, many years
    into the future as the new designs that Westinghouse and GE
    have for new reactors, they create much less waste than the old
    plants do and so we have significant capacity just there in
    that one square mile. And we every day are creating less and
    less waste.
        Mr. Whitfield. I don't want to get into the lawsuit, but
    just out of curiosity, in this May 18th letter that the
    Northwest Compact wrote, what allegations or what facts do they
    base it on that there is no authorized legally acceptable
    facility to take care of this waste?
        Mr. Creamer. We have a disagreement with the Northwest
    Compact, and that is why when we talk about lawsuits, we are
    not suing for damages, we are not doing anything like that.
    This is a declaratory judgment which was set up by the founding
    fathers where when you have a disagreement over a Federal law,
    you go to a Federal court and you ask that Federal court to
    declare what the law says, and that is what we asked for a
    clarification from the court. Does the Northwest Compact have
    authority over Clive or does it not? We believe it does not. We
    believe the law specifically talks about facilities that were
    created for the compact. This is not a compact facility. This
    is a private facility that just happens to be inside the
    boundary of the Northwest Compact but it is not a compact
    facility, and we think that is what the law says. They have a
    differing opinion and we just plain asked the court. We are not
    suing anybody for money. We are not doing anything like that.
    We just basically asked the court to tell us in their opinion--
    to rule and say what the law says and that is all we have
    asked. It has got nothing to do with money. It is nothing to do
    with hostilities. You know, it is just us asking a question.
        Mr. Whitfield. Mr. Chairman, I see my time is expired.
        Mr. Boucher. Thank you, Mr. Whitfield.
        The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Hall, is recognized for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Hall. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Creamer, have you read the GAO highlights Mr. Aloise
    put out--why the GAO did this study? Have you seen that?
        Mr. Creamer. Yes, I have.
        Mr. Hall. And he points out the Nuclear Regulatory
    Commission ranks low-level radioactive waste according to
    hazard exposure, Class A, B, and C and greater than Class C.
    What are we talking about here? Which of those levels do you
    have?
        Mr. Creamer. At Clive, we can only take Class A. I was
    hoping there would be an exit sign in this room and a smoke
    alarm, there is a small smoke detector over here on this side
    but I am not sure it is one of them, so you get an idea of what
    we take at Clive. We take the clothing that the people wear
    around power plants. We take debris that comes from a power
    plant.
        Mr. Hall. And that is Class A?
        Mr. Creamer. That is Class A. For example, the smoke alarm
    in your bedroom in your house, it has a little tiny source in
    it that if you pull that source out all by itself, it has too
    much radioactivity to come to Clive. The exit signs if you go
    to Europe, the exit signs, every exit sign that comes out of a
    building there has to be pulled out and kept separately from
    everything else because that exit sign has a radioactive
    isotope in it. That radioactive little source that is inside
    that is too hot to go to Clive. I mean, we take--Class A low-
    level waste is the lowest of low level.
        Mr. Hall. And that is the largest in volume of----
        Mr. Creamer. It is by far the largest, and so we handle
    large volumes but very, very small amounts of radioactivity.
        Mr. Hall. And what the GAO found, as I read it here, they
    state in contrast, disposal availability for domestic Class A
    waste is not a problem in the short or longer term, and that is
    your opinion too?
        Mr. Creamer. That is our opinion also.
        Mr. Hall. Well, how long have you been recycling
    international metals in Tennessee and disposing of the waste in
    Utah?
        Mr. Creamer. Recycling for 12 years, disposing for 8 years.
        Mr. Hall. And I think you stated that in 2006 you were
    granted a license to import up to 6,000 tons of the same type
    of material from Canada that you are seeking to import from
    Italy?
        Mr. Creamer. That is correct.
        Mr. Hall. Were the States of Utah and Tennessee and the
    Northwest Compact aware that the international material was
    being disposed of at the Clive, Utah, facility?
        Mr. Creamer. Yes.
        Mr. Hall. And do you want to expound on that?
        Mr. Creamer. Well, on several different occasions, in fact
    an interesting one in 1998, there was an import license
    approved to bring waste into the State of Washington and do
    some work on it, then dispose of it in the Richland facility up
    there, which is the compact facility. That Taiwanese waste got
    stranded, sat there for 10 years because a company didn't have
    the financial wherewithal to handle it, and so it was recently
    purchased by another company and the Northwest Compact asked us
    to take that Taiwanese waste to Clive because they didn't want
    to take it to their facility there but it was actually
    originally approved to go to that facility in Washington, so
    that is where we got the Taiwan waste from.
        Mr. Hall. And I am trying to lead up to the most important
    question I think I will ask. Did Tennessee or Utah or the
    Northwest Compact ever object to international material being
    processed in Tennessee or disposed of in Utah----
        Mr. Creamer. No.
        Mr. Hall [continuing]. To your knowledge ever?
        Mr. Creamer. No.
        Mr. Hall. And in fact, you know of several instances where
    the States and the compact wrote to the NRC and said they had
    no issues with this?
        Mr. Creamer. That is correct, and I think there are
    attachments to my testimony that indicate that.
        Mr. Hall. And I guess the main question, I think the one
    everybody is probably most interested in and the question that
    needs to be answered, what service do you give to the rest of
    this country, to the United States and does EnergySolutions
    have enough capacity at your disposal facility in Utah to
    handle the waste generated here in the United States and keep
    doing what you are doing?
        Mr. Creamer. I believe we provide a great service. The
    chief nuclear officer from Exelon, who has a lot of plants in
    the Congressman from Illinois's district, he called our
    governor about 3 years ago and he says Clive is a national
    asset, it is incredibly important to our--you know, it is easy
    to store Class B and C waste because of the very, very small
    volume. It is very hard to store onsite Class A waste because
    it is a much larger volume which you have to have. We are
    important to this industry. We have tried to bring great
    stability, and I think if you talk to all of our customers, you
    will find we have brought great stability in the last 3 years
    to this country's nuclear industry and thus the nuclear
    renaissance, which I personally firmly believe we need to do.
        Mr. Hall. And if we got to the position where you couldn't
    for some unforeseen situation take care of the foreign waste
    coming in and the domestic waste, where would your loyalty lie?
        Mr. Creamer. Maybe I should show you--my staff made this
    pretty picture. That is the Clive facility all the way to the
    top. This is how much we filled because we had some huge, big
    DOE projects in the past that filled up, that took a lot of it,
    but that is the remaining capacity. The Italy waste is about
    that much. That is what would go to Clive, I mean, just a
    pinch.
        Mr. Hall. Can you say ``that much'' to where we can get it
    in the record?
        Mr. Creamer. It is three ten-thousandths.
        Mr. Hall. And that is a conservative estimate?
        Mr. Creamer. That is a conservative estimate. We do not
    want to bring wholesale radioactive waste into this Nation. All
    we want to do is use it to try to position our company to have
    an American company build a strong position internationally and
    what I believe is one of the most important technologies and
    one of the most important industries.
        Mr. Hall. So a lot of the questions that you have been
    asked have indicated that you are bringing waste into this
    country, you are attracting waste but you are also taking care
    of it.
        Mr. Creamer. Well, no one does--I mean, we have the world's
    best facilities. There is no question about it.
        Mr. Hall. So instead of a problem, aren't you part of the
    solution?
        Mr. Creamer. Well, that is our tag line, EnergySolutions,
    we are part of the solution.
        Mr. Hall. I guess that might be a dang good one to quit on.
        Mr. Boucher. Thank you very much, Mr. Hall.
        The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Shimkus, is recognized for
    5 minutes.
        Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is an interesting
    note, we are talking about Italy. I read a story on the Floor
    debate. I have been really involved in the energy supply debate
    and Italy is moving to coal in the era of Kyoto because we need
    electricity and we need energy and maybe they ought to think
    about restarting of their nuclear power plants and getting back
    into that business. Congressman Hall kind of took some of the
    lines but the reason why we don't--since it is such a bulky
    material really from a business perspective, the cost-benefit
    analysis of a consolidated location is cheaper and safer. that
    is kind of my analysis.
        Let us assume, and I was going to ask, is that little thing
    behind that, is that anything----
        Mr. Creamer. That is a shield block. That is the recycled
    metals. In real life, they are a meter by a meter by a half a
    meter. Today we sell every one of them that we can make. Our
    metal melt facility only operates about 2 months a year. That
    is all the metal that we get to melt there is about 2 months a
    year worth. Every one of these today is going to Japan and
    going in their new big accelerator that is going over there as
    being reused in the nuclear industry for shielding sources of
    radioactivity, but that is a little shield block.
        Mr. Shimkus. Thanks. I was wondering what that big thing
    was for the whole hearing. I am glad Mr. Hall asked and you
    were able to use it in response. If that were to fill up and
    since you have international exposure and international
    expertise, I mean, assuming 30, 40 years from now, however
    long, and we eventually get there, and the NIMBY factor kicks
    in in the United States, with your international exposure,
    could you see peddling this ability to other countries for site
    location and storage?
        Mr. Creamer. We are working--we believe in regional sites
    and we are working both in Asia and in Europe trying to find
    willing hosts who would be willing to accept these types of
    things. We think that is the proper thing to be done and we are
    working very hard to do it. But today we have world-class
    facilities that we believe can better position ourselves to
    help other countries, to show other countries how safe this is
    and that it can be done by utilizing these world-class
    facilities.
        Mr. Shimkus. So in the future, that little, I don't know, a
    sugar packet or whatever----
        Mr. Creamer. It was a salt packet. The sugar packet was too
    big.
        Mr. Shimkus. That could be the United States to some
    foreign facility 40, 50 years from now?
        Mr. Creamer. Well, there has been stuff leaving the United
    States. Italy, for example, has accepted back in the 1980s,
    because they were going to build a reprocessing plant, they
    accepted 5 tons of spent nuclear fuel from a plant that was up
    in Minnesota; the Elk Creek plant. That 5 tons of fuel still
    sits in Italy. They still have it from the United States. And
    one gram of that spent nuclear fuel has more radioactivity than
    this 20,000 tons we are talking about, just so it is clear.
        Mr. Shimkus. And you have life-of-plant agreements with
    nuclear plants in Illinois. Is that correct?
        Mr. Creamer. Exelon was the first one that signed for all
    17 of their plants.
        Mr. Shimkus. And are the EnergySolutions U.S. processing--
    let me ask, people are trying to say don't bring this into the
    energy debate, it is not part of the energy debate. Would you
    disagree with that? Should this be part of, if we want to bring
    more supply on this country, is the ability to have this
    location critical?
        Mr. Creamer. I think Clive is critical to the U.S. nuclear
    utilities. I think they would tell you the same thing. We also
    believe that what we are talking about doing here, we think
    strong U.S. companies. America has kind of gone to sleep the
    last 30 years. EnergySolutions has brought together nine
    companies over the last 3 years to try to build a company large
    enough in the United States to be able to be a long-term player
    and a solid player that could play on the international market.
    Today the French, the Japanese----
        Mr. Shimkus. Let me ask a question because my time is
    running short. Are you involved in any negotiations with China?
        Mr. Creamer. China is looking at our vitrification
    technology. We have the Number 1 vitrification technology in
    the world.
        Mr. Shimkus. I have been quoting China as planning to build
    47 new nuclear power plants in the upcoming years, so this
    would segue into that debate, would it not?
        Mr. Creamer. We have been consulting with them on how to
    handle their high-level waste right now.
        Mr. Shimkus. OK, Mr. Chairman, thank you. I yield back.
        Mr. Boucher. Thank you, Mr. Shimkus.
        The gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Gordon, is recognized for
    5 minutes.
        Mr. Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have gone a long
    time, so let me just make a few summary statements here.
        First of all, I want to make it very clear that I am not
    antinuclear energy and I am certainly not anti-EnergySolutions.
    I think they serve a very valid, important function for our
    country. It was interesting, I just heard--Mr. Shimkus and Mr.
    Creamer were just talking about how important Clive is to
    really the nuclear industry in this country. It is absolutely
    important. It may just be very--the radioactivity that goes
    there may be very minor but there is no place else for it
    really to go. If it shuts down, it shuts down everything else.
    And so that is why this issue is very important and that is why
    I am concerned about losing that capacity and what impact it is
    going to have on the nuclear industry here. And again, I don't
    see why we would want to give up even 5 percent, but Mr.
    Creamer, you said you wanted to make this voluntary. Your
    successor may not agree with you. Your board of directors may
    say that they have a responsibility to their shareholders and
    not go along with this. So that is a little loosey goosey.
        Also just to point out, you did mention that there are
    other locations, a couple other locations in the world that
    reprocess. Yes, they reprocess but they send it back. We are
    the only country, the United States of America is the only
    country in the world that accepts foreign low-level radioactive
    waste. I think Mr. Hall had read some nice comment that the
    governor or Utah had made about your company a year ago. I will
    just remind everyone that that same governor has instructed his
    member on the board to vote against allowing foreign
    radioactive waste to come in here and you are suing him or you
    are suing them now, or you are asking for a declaratory
    judgment, which means you are going to court to do that. You
    say in the 1980s that Italy took some of our waste. Well, here
    in 2007, there is a major Italian protest with thousands of
    people coming out saying we don't want any low-level
    radioactive waste, send it somewhere else. So that is certainly
    not going to happen.
        And finally, Mr. Chairman, you were trying to get to the
    point and you couldn't really get to it, how much of that
    foreign waste is out there. Nobody really knows but let me give
    you some information. There are 197 operating generating
    facilities in Europe and there are 90 more that already shut
    down or will soon be shut down. That is only in Europe. It
    doesn't count Mexico, Canada, or elsewhere. You know, 30 years,
    if I was in as good shape as Mr. Hall, 30 years is a way down
    the road, but I am getting a little shorter in the tooth here,
    or longer in the tooth, and 30 years to me versus 30 years to
    my daughter is two different things. This amount we have got
    there, again, that is also very loosey goosey. Just last
    November, EnergySolutions in their prospective said that there
    was only 19 years left. Mr. Aloise in his testimony said that
    basically he is building that on information that he got from
    EnergySolutions and he is not taking into account foreign waste
    coming in, not taking into account an increase in the amount of
    waste produced in this country, only based on 1 year, an
    anomaly, I would say, of a year where there was a smaller
    amount. So we don't know how much it is, whether it is 10,
    whether it is 19, whether it is 30, but what we do know is,
    there is a finite amount of space and when that finite space is
    gone, our nuclear industry shuts down in this country.
        For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I would again say to you,
    NRC has said they can't do anything, it has to be the local
    compacts. The local compact says OK, we want to do something,
    stop it, and then EnergySolutions says we are going to sue you
    so you can't do that. That is why this legislation is needed.
        Thank you for providing us that opportunity in the hearing
    today, and I yield back the balance of my time.
        Mr. Boucher. Well, in fairness to Mr. Creamer, I know what
    he wants to say. Let me just give him an opportunity to
    reaffirm the commitment he has made, that EnergySolutions is
    willing to reduce to a binding legal obligation the 5 percent
    capacity limitation that he previously announced.
        Mr. Gordon. Subject to his board's approval.
        Mr. Creamer. No, I have my board approval. I have my board
    approval. We will put it in the license. There is no question
    about that.
        Mr. Gordon. And could that license be renegotiated later?
        Mr. Creamer. I guess it could but it would be very, very
    difficult to do. It would be very difficult to do. We all live
    a certain life and we die but I don't see that ever changing.
        Just a couple of other things. GE has shipped some blades
    from power plant waste that they take back in some of their
    stuff that has been shipped to Kazakhstan and the residuals
    from the recycling in Kazakhstan has stayed in Kazakhstan. So
    there is other--we are not the only one who has taken it. It
    was U.S. waste that went to Kazakhstan. This has happened in
    the last few years.
        Mr. Gordon. Any other Third World countries that you want
    to cite?
        Mr. Creamer. No, that is the only one I know.
        Mr. Gordon. OK.
        Mr. Creamer. You know, the 19 years versus the 30 years, we
    closed down the Rocky Flats facility and the Fernald facility.
    We took all the waste from those two DOE facilities and that is
    what made 2005 and 2006 big years. When you file an S-1, they
    want everything. The attorneys get on you to make sure
    everything is perfect, so if you take our remaining capacity
    and divide it by 2006, which is a bigger year caused by the
    final closure of Rocky Flats and Fernald in Ohio, that is what
    caused that year to come down, but on an ongoing basis, we have
    looked at it 20 times over because we have made specific
    contractual obligations to those 83 power plants that they do
    have capacity for their decommissioning, whether it be 30 years
    or 60 years from now. They have the capacity committed to them
    no matter how long it is when it comes out and so we have taken
    care of that and done that. So in our own way, we try very
    hard.
        Mr. Gordon. And what about those other 30 or so plants that
    appear to be coming up in the next few years?
        Mr. Creamer. We would hope that we would be able to handle
    those also.
        Mr. Boucher. At that point I think we can say we have heard
    this matter today. I want to express appreciation to our
    witnesses for sharing their views with us and answering our
    questions, and this hearing stands adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:32 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
        [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.026

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.027

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.028

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.029

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.030

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.031

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.032

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.033

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.034

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.035

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.036

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.037

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.038

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.039

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.040

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.041

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.042

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.043

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.044

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.045

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.046

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.136

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.137

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.138

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.139

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.140

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.141

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.142

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.143

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.144

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.145

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.146

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4899.147