[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