U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

54–899 PDF 2008

H.R. 5632, A BILL TO PROHIBIT THE 

IMPORTATION OF CERTAIN LOWLEVEL 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 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan, Chairman 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

BART GORDON, Tennessee 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

BART STUPAK, Michigan 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

Vice Chairman 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANE HARMAN, California 

TOM ALLEN, Maine 

JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

HILDA L. SOLIS, California 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

BARON P. HILL, Indiana 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Ranking Member 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

CHARLES W. ‘‘CHIP’’ PICKERING, 

Mississippi 

VITO FOSSELLA, New York 

STEVE BUYER, Indiana 

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARY BONO MACK, California 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

PROFESSIONAL STAFF

DENNIS B. FITZGIBBONS, Chief of Staff 

GREGG A. ROTHSCHILD, Chief Counsel 

SHARON E. DAVIS, Chief Clerk 

BUD ALBRIGHT, Minority Staff Director 

(II) 

(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND AIR QUALITY

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia, Chairman 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina, 

Vice Chairman 

CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland 

MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANE HARMAN, California 

TOM ALLEN, Maine 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan (ex officio) 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

Ranking Member 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

CHARLES W. ‘‘CHIP’’ PICKERING, 

Mississippi 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri 

STEVE BUYER, Indiana 

MARY BONO MACK, California 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

JOE BARTON, Texas (ex officio) 

PROFESSIONAL STAFF

SUE D. SHERIDAN, Chief Counsel 

JOHN W. JIMISON, Counsel 

RACHEL BLESHMAN, Legislative Clerk 

DAVID MCCARTHY, Minority Counsel 

(V) 

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 

(1) 

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 

2 

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. 

3 

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. Lowlevel 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 lowlevel 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 

4 

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 

5 

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 

6 

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 

7 

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 foreigngenerated 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 welVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:33 Mar 26, 2010 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\CWELLS1\HEARINGS\110-119 SCOM1 PsN: JIMC
8 

come 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. 

9 

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. 

10 

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 

11 

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. 

12 

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. 

13 

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 

14 

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:] 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

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 ReguVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:33 Mar 26, 2010 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\CWELLS1\HEARINGS\110-119 SCOM1 PsN: JIMC
27 

latory 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:] 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

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 difVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:33 Mar 26, 2010 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\CWELLS1\HEARINGS\110-119 SCOM1 PsN: JIMC
43 

ferent 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 pubVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:33 Mar 26, 2010 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\CWELLS1\HEARINGS\110-119 SCOM1 PsN: JIMC
44 

lic 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. 

45 

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 

46 

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 

47 

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 lowlevel 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? 

48 

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 

49 

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. 

50 

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. 

51 

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. 

52 

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 

53 

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? 

54 

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. 

55 

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. 

56 

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 

57 

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 comVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:33 Mar 26, 2010 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\CWELLS1\HEARINGS\110-119 SCOM1 PsN: JIMC
58 

pact 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 

59 

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. 

60 

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:] 

61 

62 

63 

64 

65 

66 

67 

68 

69 

70 

71 

72 

73 

74 

75 

76 

77 

78 

79 

80 

81 

82 

83 

84 

85 

86 

87 

88 

89 

90 

91 

92 

93 

94 

95 

96 

97 

98 

99 

100 

101 

102 

103 

104 

105 

106 

107 

108 

109 

110 

111 

112 

113 

114 

115 

116 

117 

118 

119 

120 

121 

122 

123 

124 

125 

126 

127 

128 

129 

130 

131 

132 

133 

134 

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 lowlevel 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 lowlevel 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 

135 

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:] 

136 

137 

138 

139 

140 

141 

142 

143 

144 

145 

146 

147 

148 

149 

150 

151 

152 

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 

153 

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 

154 

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—— 

155 

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. 

156 

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 

157 

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. 

158 

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. 

159 

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 

160 

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 inVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:33 Mar 26, 2010 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00166 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\CWELLS1\HEARINGS\110-119 SCOM1 PsN: JIMC
161 

dustry 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. 

162 

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. 

163 

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 

164 

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:] 

165 

166 

167 

168 

169 

170 

171 

172 

173 

174 

175 

176 

177 

178 

179 

180 

181 

182 

183 

184 

185 

186 

187 

188 

189 

190 

191 

192 

193 

194 

195 

196 

197 

Æ