LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE COMPACTS 

JOINT HEARING 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMI'ITEE ON 

ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES 

OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

AND THE 

SUBCOMMI'ITEE ON ENERGY AND POWER 

OF THE 

COlVIMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AND COl\11\tiERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

ON 

H.R. 4800 To grant the consent of the Congress to the Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact 

AND 

H.R. 4814 To grant the consent of the Congress to amendments to the Central Midwest Interstste Low-Level Radioactive 

Waste Compact 

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC 

SEPTEMBER 13, 1994 

Serial No. 103-115 

(Committee on Natural Resources) 

Serial No. 103-128 

(Committee on Energy and Commerce) 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources and the Committee 

on Energy and Commerce 

84--087 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

WASHINGTON : 1994 

For sale by tbe U.S. Government Printing Office 

Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402 

ISBN 0-16-046255-X 
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

GEORGE MILLER, California, Chairman 

PHILIP R. SHARP, Indiana 

EDWARDJ.MARKEY,M~~u~tts 

AUSTIN J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

NICK JOE RAHALL II, West Virginia 

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota 

PAT WILLIAMS, Montana 

RON DE LUGO, Virgin Islands 

SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut 

RICHARD H. LEHMAN, California 

BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA. American 

Samoa 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

LARRY LAROCCO, Idaho 

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii 

CALVIN M. DOOLEY, Califot;nia 

CARLOS ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto Rico 

KARAN ENGLISH, Arizona 

KAREN SHEPHERD, Utah 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam 

SAM F ARR, California 

LANE EVANS, Illinois 

PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii 

THOMAS J. BARLOW III, Kentucky 

THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin 

DON YOUNG, Alaska, 

Ranking Republican Member 

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah 

BARBARA F. VUCANOVICH, Nevada 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

ROBERT F. (BOB) SMITH, Oregon 

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennes~ 

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado 

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California 

WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado 

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana 

KEN CALVERT, California 

SCOTT MciNNIS, Colorado 

RICHARD W. POMBO, California 

JAY DICKEY, Arkansas 

JOHN LAWRENCE, Staff Director 

STANLEY SCOVILLE, General Counsel 

DANIEL VAL KlSH, Republican Staff Director 

SUBCOMMI'ITEE ON ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES 

RICHARD H. LEHMAN, California, Chairman 

PHILIP R SHARP, Indiana BARBARA F. VUCANOVICH, Nevada, 

AUSTIN J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania Ranking Republican Member 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massa~usett& CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming 

NICK JOE RAHALL II, West Virginia JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California 

LARRY LAROCCO, Idaho WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia SCOTT MciNNIS, Colorado 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon RICHARD POMBO, California 

SAM F ARR, California 

THOMAS J. BARLOW III, Kentucky 

DEBORAH VON HOFFMANN LANZONE, Staff Director 

DEAN R. TousLEY, Counsel 

CANDICE BROWN, Clerk 

CHRISTOPHER B. KEARNEY, Republican Consultant on Energy 

(II) 
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan, Chairman 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

PHILIP R. SHARP, Indiana 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

AL SWIFT, Washington 

CARDISS COLLINS, Illinois 

MIKE SYNAR, Oklahoma 

W.J. "BILLY" TAUZIN, Louisiana 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico 

JIM SLA'ITERY, Kansas 

JOHN BRYANT, Texas 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

J. ROY ROWLAND, Georgia 

THOMAS J. MANTON, New York 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York 

GERRY E. STUDDS, Massachusetts 

RICHARD H. LEHMAN, California 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

CRAIG A. WASHINGTON, Texas 

LYNN SCHENK, California 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

MIKE KREIDLER, Washington 

MARJORIE MARGOLIES..MEZVINSKY, 

Pennsylvania 

BLANCHE M. LAMBERT, Arkansas 

CARLOS J. MOORHEAD, California 

THOMAS J. BLILEY, JR., Virginia 

JACK FIELDS, Texas 

MICHAEL G. OXLEY, Ohio 

MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida 

DAN SCHAEFER, Colorado 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

ALEX McMILLAN, North Carolina 

J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

BILL PAXON, New York 

PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio 

SCO'IT KLUG, Wisconsin 

GARY A. FRANKS, Connecticut 

JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho 

ALAN J. ROTH, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

DENNIS B. FITZGIBBONS, Deputy Staff Director 

MARGARET A. DURBIN, Minority Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITIEE ON ENERGY AND POWER 

PHILIP R. SHARP, Indiana, Chairman 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida 

RICHARD H. LEHMAN, California J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois 

CRAIG A. WASHINGTON, Texas CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

MIKE KREIDLER, Washington PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio 

BLANCHE M. LAMBERT, Arkansas SCO'IT KLUG, Wisconsin 

AL SWIFT, Washington GARY A. FRANKS, Connecticut 

MIKE SYNAR, Oklahoma MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho 

W.J. "BILLY" TAUZIN, Louisiana CARLOS J. MOORHEAD, California 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas (Ex Officio) 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

(Ex Officio) 

SHELLEY N. FIDLER, Staff Director 

SUE D. SHERIDAN, Counsel 

KAREN K. HUNSICKER, Minority Counsel 

(Ill} 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Hearing held: September 13, 1994 ......................................................................... 1 

Text of the bills: 

H.R. 4800 ........................................................................................................... 3 

H.R. 4814 ........................................................................................................... 29 

Member statement: 

Hon. Philip R. Sharp ... ......... ............. .......... ........................ .................. ........... 1 

Witness statements: 

Hon. Olympia Snowe, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Maine............................................................................................................. 48 

Hon. Ronald D. Coleman, a Representative in Congress from the State 

ofTexas .......................................................................................................... 54 

Panel consisting of: 

Hon. Clyde Alexander, Member, Texas House of Representatives ....... 73 

Diane L. Conrad, State geologist, State of Vermont .......... ......... ........... 77 

Stephen G. Ward, public advocate, State of Maine ................................ 82 

Linda Lynch, Alert Citizens for Environmental Safety, State of 

Texas, accompanied by Hugh Kaufman, technical advisor ................ 87 

Panel consisting of: 

Dr. Clark W. Bullard, chair, Central Midwest Interstate Low-Level 

Radioactive Waste Commission, accompanied by Eric M. Schwing, 

counsel .. ... .......... ................. ...................... .................................... ... ... .... 100 

Stephen J. England, chief legal counsel, Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety ............................................................................................. 114 

APPENDIX 

SEPTEMBER 13, 1994 

Additional material submitted for the hearing record from: 

Hon. Richard Lehman, chair, Subcommittee on Energy and Natural Re- sources: 1. Prepared statement ............................................................................. .. 2. Amendment to H.R. 4814 .................................................................... . Hon. Ronald D. Coleman: Amendment to H.R. 4800 .................................. .. Hon. Henry Bonilla, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Texas: Prepared statement ......................................................................... . Hon. Carlos J. Moorhead, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California: Prepared statement .............................................................. . Hon. Michael Bilirakis, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Florida: Prepared statement ................................................................... . Hon. J. Dennis Hastert, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Illinois: Prepared statement ................................................................... . Hon. Sam Johnson, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas: 

Letter to Chairman Lehman dated September 21, 1994 .......................... . Hon. Jack Fields, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas: 

Letter to Chairman Lehman dated September 12, 1994 ......................... .. H.W. "Bud" Arrowsmith, president, Scientific Ecology Group, Inc.: Prepared statement and additional comments ............................................... .. The University of Texas System: Prepared statement ................................ .. Nuclear Energy Institute: Letter to Chairmen Lehman and Sharp dated 

September 22, 1994, from Phillip Bayne, president and chief executive 

officer ............................................................................................................ . 

United Methodist Church, U.S. Public Interest Research Group, Southwest Network for Environmental and Economic Justice, Sierra Club 

Legal Defense Fund, et al.: Letter to Chairman Lehman dated Septem- ber 12, 1994 .................................................................................................. . 

(V) 

127 

130 

131 

136 

138 

142 

146 

149 

150 

151 

160 

162 

165 

H.R. 4800, GRANTING THE CONSENT OF THE 

CONGRESS TO THE TEXAS LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL COMPACT; 

AND H.R. 4814, GRANTING THE CONSENT OF 

CONGRESS TO AMENDMENTS TO THE 

CENTRAL MIDWEST INTERSTATE LOWLEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE COMPACT 

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 1994 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY 

AND MINERAL RESOURCES, OF THE COMMITTEE ON 

NATURAL RESOURCES; JOINTLY WITH COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AND COMMERCE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY 

AND POWER, 

Washington, DC. 

The joint subcommittees met, pursuant to call, at 2:05 p.m., in 

room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Philip R. Sharp 

(chairman of the subcommittee on Energy and Power) presiding. 

STATEMENT OF BON. PHILIP R. SHARP 

Mr. SHARP [presiding]. The subcommittees will please come to 

order. 

Congressman Lehman has to be on the House Floor at this point in its proceedings and will be with us in just a few moments. I ap- preciate my colleague holding these hearings. 

We will make these joint hearings with the Natural Resources 

Committee and the Energy and Commerce Committee, and I want 

to indicate that when States have fulfilled their responsibilities 

under the Low-Level Waste Policy Act, it is important that Congress act promptly to approve the resulting compact agreements. I 

am glad we were able to work together to make that process more 

efficient for all the witnesses and the interested parties. 

While progress under the Low-Level Waste Policy Act has been 

slower than we had hoped, it is nonetheless notable that nine compacts have been approved by Congress, one compact has received 

a license, and several more expect to submit licenses or applications soon. Without exception, the controversies that have delayed 

progress in developing new disposal facilities fall within the authorities reserved under the Act to the States. 

Thus, while I appreciate that there are many important questions about where to site any new disposal facility and how to 

make it economical, I start from the premise that these are matters 

for the various States and/or compacts to resolve. However, it is 

(1) 
2 

our responsibility in Congress to ensure that the compact agreements satisfy the underlying Act's requirements and that we take 

seriously our job of reviewing and acting on compact legislation. 

It is important, I think, to understand constitutionally that the 

power over interstate compacts was given to the Congress out of 

concern that other States that are not a party to a compact might 

find their interests damaged by interstate compacts and/or the Federal interests to protect. For example, interstate commerce might 

be damaged by an interstate compact. 

But in general, the general proposition has been, since I have 

been in Congress, certainly that after we review the fundamental 

compacts to see that they comport with the underlying Federal law 

from which they derive that we reserve the controversies that may 

be local in nature to the local authorities. 

Today, of course, we are going to examine two interstate compacts: H.R. 4800 which would approve the Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact, and H.R. 4814 which would approve the Central Midwest Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste 

Compact. 

[Text of the bills, H.R. 4800 and H.R. 4814, follows:] 
3 

103D CONGRESS H R 4800 2D SESSION • • 

To grant the consent of the Congress to the Texas Low-Level Radioactive 

Waste Disposal Compact. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 20, 1994 

Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Mr. M'DREWS of Maine) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred jointly to the Committees on Energy and Commerce and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To grant the consent of the Congress to the Texas LowLevel Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact. 

1 Be it enacted by t"M Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the. United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the "Texas Low-Level Ra5 dioactive Waste Disposal Compact Consent Act". 

6 SEC. 2.. CONGRESSIONAL FINDING. 

7 The Congress finds that the compact set forth in seeS tion 5 is in furtherance of the Low-Level Radioactive 

9 Waste Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 2021b et seq.). 
4 

2 

1 SEC. 8. CONDmONS OF CONSENT TO COMPACT. 

2 The consent of the Congress to the compact set forth 

3 in section 5-

4 (1) shall become effective on the date of the en5 actment of this Act; 

6 (2) is granted subject to the provisions of the 

7 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 

8 2021b et seq.); and 

9 (3) is granted only for so long as the regional 

10 commission established in the compact complies with 

11 all of the provisions of such Act. 

12 SEC. 4. CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW. 

13 The Congress may alter, amend, or repeal this Act 

14 with respect to the compact set forth in section 5 after 

15 the expiration of the 10-year period following the date of 

16 the enactment of this Act, and at such intervals thereafter 

17 as may be provided in such compact. 

18 SEC. S. TEXAS LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL 

19 COMPACT. 

20 In accordance with section 4(a)(2) of the Low-Level 

21 Radioactive Waste Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 2021d(a)(2)), 

22 the consent of the Congress is given to the States of 

23 Texas, Maine, and Vermont to enter into the Texas Low24 Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact. Such compact 

25 is substantially as follows: 
5 

3 

1 "TEXAS LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL 

2 COMPACT 

3 "ARTICLE I. POLICY AND PURPOSE 

4 "SEC. 1.01. The party states recognize a responsibil5 ity for each state to seek to manage low-level radioactive 

6 waste generated within its boundaries, pursuant to the 

7 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act, as amended by 

8 the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act 

9 of 1985 (42 U.S.C. 202lb-2021j). They also recognize 

10 that the United States Congress, by enacting the Act, has 

11 authorized and encouraged states to enter into compacts 

12 for the efficient management and disposal of low-level ra13 dioactive waste. It is the policy of the party states to co14 operate in the protection of the health, safety, and welfare 

15 of their citizens and the environment and to provide for 

16 and encourage the economical management and disposal 

17 of low-level radioactive waste. It is the purpose of this 

18 compact to provide the framework for such a cooperative 

19 effort; to promote the health, safety, and welfare of the 

20 citizens and the environment of the party states; to limit 

21 the number of facilities needed to effectively, efficiently, 

22 and economically manage low-level radioactive waste and 

23 to encourage the reduction of the generation thereof; and 

24 to distribute the costs, benefits, and obligations among the 

25 party states; all in accordance with the terms of this com26 pact. 
6 

4 

1 "ARTICLE ll. DEFINITIONS 

2 "SEC. 2.01. ABused in this compact, unless the con3 text clearly indicates otherwise, the following definitions 

4 apply: 

5 "(1) 'Act' means the Low-Level Radioactive 

6 Waste Policy Act, as amended by the Low-Level Ra7 dioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 ( 42 

8 u.s.c. 2021lr-2021j). 

9 "(2) 'Commission' means the Texas Low-Level 

10 Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact Commission 

11 established in Article III of this compact. 

12 "(3) 'Compact facility' or 'facility' means any 

13 site, location, structure, or propercy located in and 

14 provided by the host state for the purpose of man15 agement or disposal of low-level raUioactive waste for 

16 which the party states are responsible. 

17 "(4) 'Disposal' means the permanent isolation 

18 of low-level radioactive waste pursuant to require19 ments established by the United States Nuclear !Wg20 ulatory Commission and the United States Environ21 mental Protection Agency under applicable laws, or 

22 by the host state. 

23 "(5) 'Generate,' when used in relation to low24 level radioactive waste, means to produce low-level 

25 radioactive waste. 
7 

5 

1 "(6) 'Generator' means a person who produces 

2 or processes low~level radioactive waste in the course 

3 of its activities, excluding persons who arrange for 

4 the collection, transportation, management, treat5 ment, storage, or disposal of waste generated outside 

6 the party states, unless approved by the commission. 

7 "(7) 'Host county' means a ~ounty in the host 

8 state in which a disposal facility is located or is 

9 being developed. 

10 "(8) 'Host state' means a party state in which 

11 a compact facility is located or is being developed. 

12 The State of Texas is the host state under this com13 pact. 

14 "(9) 'Institutional control' period' means that 

15 period of time following closure of the facility and 

16 transfer of the facility license from the operator to 

17 the custodial agency in compliance with the appro18 priate regulations for long-term observation and 

19 maintenance. 

20 "(10) 'Low-level radioactive waste' has the 

21 same meaning as that term is defined in Section 

22 2(9) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 2021b(9)), or in the host 

23 state statute so long as the waste is not incompatible 

24 with management and disposal at the compact facil25 ity. 
8 

6 

1 "(11) 'Management' means collection, consoli2 dation, storage, packaging; or treatment. 

3 "(12) 'Operator' means a person who operates 

4 a disposal facility. 

5 "(13) 'Party state' means any state that has 

6 become a party in accordance with Article VII of 

7 this compact. Texas, Maine, and Vermont are initial 

8 party states under this compact. 

9 "(14) 'Person' means an individual, corporatO tion, partnership or other legal entity, whether pub11 lie or private. 

12 "(15) 'Transporter' means a person who trans13 ports low-level radioactive waste.· 

14 "ARTICLE m. THE COMMISSION 

15 "SEC. 3.01. There is hereby established the Texas 

16 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact Commis17 sion. The commission shall consist of one voting member 

18 from each party state except that the host state shall be 

19 entitled to six voting members. Commission members shall 

20 be appointed by the party state governors, as provided by 

21 the laws of each party state. Each party state may provide 

22 alternates for each appointed member. 

23 "SEC. 3.02. A quorum of the commission consists of 

24 a majority of the members. Except as otherwise provided 

25 in this compact, an official act of the commission must 

26 receive th~ affirmative vot.e..d a. maioritv at its members. 
9 

7 

1 "SEC. 3.03. The commission is a legal entity separate 

2 and distinct from the party states and has governmental 

3 immunity to the same extent as an entity created under 

4 the authority of Article XVI, Section 59, of the Texas 

5 Constitution. Members of the commission shall not be per6 sonally liable for actions taken in their official capacity. 

7 The liab~lities of the commission shall not be deemed li8 abilities of the party states. 

9 "SEC. 3.04. The commission shall: 

10 "(1) Compensate its members according to the 

11 host state's law. 

12 "(2) Conduct its business, hold meetings, and 

13 maintain public reeords pursuant to laws of the host 

14 state, except that notice of public meetings shall be 

15 given in the non-host party states in accordance with 

16 their respective statutes. 

17 "(3) Be located in the capital city of the host 

18 state. 

19 "(4) Meet at least once a year and upon the 

20 call of the chair, or any member. The governor of 

21 the host state shall appoint a chair and vice-chair. 

22 "(5) Keep an accurate account of all receipts 

23 and disbursements. An annual audit of the books of 

24 the commission shall be conducted by an independ25 ent certified public accountant, and the audit report 
10 

8 

l shall be made a part of the annual report of the 

2 commission. 

3 "(6) Approve a budget each year and establish 

4 a fiscal year that conforms to the fiscal year of the 

5 host state. 

6 "(7) Prepare, adopt, and implement contin7 geney plans for the disposal and management of low8 level radioactive waste in the event that the compact 

9 facility should be closed. Any plan which requires 

lO the host state to store or otherwise manage the low11 level radioactive waste from all the party states must 

12 be approved by at least four host state members of 

13 the commission. The commission, in a contingency 

14 plan or otherwise, may not require a non-host party 

15 state to store low-level radioactive waste generated 

16 outside of the state. 

17 "(8) Submit communications to the governors 

18 and to the presiding officers of the legislatures of 

19 the party states regarding the activities of the com20 mission, including an annual report to be submitted 

21 on or before January 31 of each year. 

22 "(9) Assemble and make available to the party 

23 states, and to the public, information concerning 

24 low-level radioactive waste management needs, tech· 

25 nologies, and problems. 
11 

9 

1 "(10) Keep a current inventory of all genera2 tors within the party states, based upon infonnation 

3 provided by the party states. 

4 "(11) By no later than 180 days after all mem5 bers of the commission are appointed under Section 

6 3.01 of this article, establish by role the total vol7 ume of low-level radioactive waste that the host state 

8 will dispose of in the compact ,facility in the years 

9 1995-2045, including decommissioning waste. The 

10 shipments of low-level radioactive waste from all 

11 non-host party states shall not exceed 20 percent of 

12 the volume estimated to be disposed of by the host 

13 state during the 50-year period. When averaged over 

14 such 50-year period, the total of all shipments from 

15 non-host party states shall not exceed 20,000 cubic 

16 feet a year. The commission shall coordinate the vol17 umes, timing, and frequency of shipments from gen18 erators in the non-host party states in order to as19 sure that over the life of this agreement shipments 

20 from the non-host party states do not exceed 20 per21 cent of the volume projected by the commission 

22 under this paragraph. 

23 "SEC. 3.05. The commission may: 

24 "(1) Employ staff necesSary to carry out its du25 ties and functions. The commission is authorized to 
12 

10 

1 use to the extent practicable the services of existing 

2 employees of the party states. Compensation shall be 

3 as determined by the commission. 

4 "(2) Accept any grants, equipment, supplies, 

5 materials, or services, conditional or otherwise, from 

6 the federal or state government. The nature, amount 

7 and condition, if any, of any donation, grant or 

8 other resources accepted pursuant to this paragraph 

9 and the identity of the donor or grantor shall be de10 tailed in the annual report of the commission. 

11 "(3) Enter into contracts to carry out its duties 

12 and authority, subject to projected resources. No 

13 contract made by the commission shall bind a party 

14 state. 

15 "(4) Adopt, by a majority vote, bylaws and 

16 rules necessary to carry out the terms of this com17 pact. Any rules promulgated by the commission shall 

18 be adopted in accordance with the Administrative 

19 Procedure and Texas Register Act (Article 6252-

20 13a, Vernon's Texas Civil Statutes). 

21 "(5) Sue and be sued and, when authorized by 

22 a majority vote of the members, seek to intervene in 

23 administrative or judicial proceedings related to this 

24 compact. 
13 

11 

1 "(6) Enter into an agreement with any person, 

2 state, regional body, or group of states for the im3 portation of low-level radioactive waste into the com4 pact for management or disposal, provided that the 

5 agreement receives a maJority vote of the commis6 sion. The commission may adopt such conditions 

7 and restrictions in the agreement as it deems advis8 able. 

9 "(7) Upon petition, allow an individual generatO tor, a group of generators, or the host state of the 

11 compact, to export low-level waste to a low-level ra12 dioactive waste disposal facility located outside the 

13 party states. The commission may approve the peti14 tion only by a ml\]ority vote of its members. The 

15 permission to export low-level radioactive waste shall 

16 be effective for that period of time and for the speci17 tied amount of low-level radioactive waste, and sub18 ject to any other term or condition, as is determined 

19 by the commission. 

20 "(8) Monitor the exportation outside of the 

21 party states of material, which otherwise meets the 

22 criteria of low-level radioactive waste, where the sole 

23 purpose of the exportation is to manage or process 

24 the material for recycling or waste reduction and re-
14 

12 

1 turn it to the party states for disposal in the com2 pact facility. 

3 "SEc. 3.06. Jurisdiction and venue of any action con4 testing any action of the commission shall be in the United 

5 States District Court in the district where the commission 

6 maintains its office. 

7 "ARTICLE IV. RIGHTS, RESPONSffiiLITIES, AND 

8 OBLIGATIONS OF PARTY STATES 

9 "SEC. 4.01. The host state shall develop and have 

10 full administrative control over the development, manage11 ment and operation of a facility for the disposal of low12 level radioactive waste generated ·within the party states. 

13 The host state shall be entitled to unlimited use of the 

14 facility over its operating life. Use of the facility by the 

15 non-host party states for disposal of low-level radioactive 

16 waste, including such waste resulting from decommission17 ing of any nuclear electric generation facilities located in 

18 the party states, is limited to the volume requirements of 

19 Section 3.04(11) of Article III. 

20 "SEC. 4.02. I.JOw-level radioactive waste generated 

21 within the party states shall be disposed of only at the 

22 compact facility, except as provided in Section 3.05(7) of 

23 Article III. 

24 "SEC. 4.03. The initial states of this compact cannot 

25 be members of another low-level radioactive waste compact 

26 entered into pursuant to the Act. 
15 

13 

1 "SEc. 4.04. The host state shall do the following: 

2 "(1) Cause a facility to be developed in a timely 

3 manner and operated and maintained through the 

4 institutional control period. 

5 "(2) Ensure, consistent with any applicable fed6 eral and host state laws, the protection and preser7 vation of the environment and the public health and 

8 safety in the siting, design, development, licensing, 

9 regulation, operation, closure, decommissioning, and 

10 long-term care of the disposal facilities within the 

11 host state. 

12 "(3) Close the facility when reasonably nec13 essary to protect the public health and safety of its 

14 citizens or to protect its natural resources from 

15 harm. However, the host state shall notify the com16 mission of the closure within three days of its action 

17 and shall, within 30 working days of its action, pro18 vide a written explanation to the commission of the 

19 closure, and implement any adopted contingency 

20 plan. 

21 "(4) Establish reasonable fees for disposal at 

22 the facility of low-level radioactive waste generated 

23 in the party. states based on disposal fee criteria set 

24 out in Sections 402.272 and 402.273, Texas Health 

25 and Safety Code. The same fees shall be charged for 
16 

14 

1 the disposal of low-level radioactive waste that was 

2 generated in the host state and in the non-host 

3 party states. Fees shall also be sufficient to reason4 ably support the activities of the Commission. 

5 " ( 5) Submit an annual report to the commis6 sion on the status of the facility, including projec7 tions of the facility's anticipated future capacity, and 

8 on the related funds. 

9 "(6) Notify the Commission immediately upon 

10 the occurrence of any event which could cause a pos11 sible temporary or permanent closure of the facility 

12 and identify all reasonable options for the disposal 

13 of low-level radioactive waste at alternate compact 

14 facilities or, by arrangement and Commission vote, 

15 at noncompact facilities. 

16 "(7) Promptly notify the other party states of 

17 any legal action involving the facility. 

18 "(8) Identify and regulate, in accordance with 

19 federal and host state law, the means and routes of 

20 transportation of low-level radioactive waste in the 

21 host state. 

22 "SEC. 4.05. Each party state shall do the following: 

23 "(1) Develop and enforce procedures requiring 

24 low-level radioactive waste shipments originating 

25 within its borders and destined for the facility to 
17 

15 

1 conform to packaging, processing, and waste from 

2 specifications of the host state. 

3 "(2) Maintain a registry of all generators with4 in the state that may have low-level radioactive 

5 waste to be disposed of at a facility, including, but 

6 not limited to, the amount of low-level radioactive 

7 waste and the class of low-level radioactive waste 

8 generated by each generator. 

9 "(3) Develop and enforce procedures requiring 

10 generators within its borders to minimize the volume 

11 of low-level radioactive waste requiring disposal. 

12 Nothing in this compact shall prohibit the storage, 

13 treatment, or management of waste by a generator. 

14 "(4) Provide the commission with any data and 

15 information necessary for the implementation of the 

16 commission's responsibilities, including taking those 

17 actions necessary to obtain this data or information. 

18 "(5) Pay for community assistance projects des19 ignated by the host county in an amount for each 

20 non-host party state equal to 10 percent of the pay21 ment provided for in Article V for each such state. 

22 One-half of the payment shall be due and payable to 

23 the host county on the first day of the month follow24 ing ratification of this compact agreement by Con· 

2S gress and one-half of the payment shall be due and 
18 

16 

l payable on the first day of the month following the 

2 approval of a facility operating license by the host 

3 state's regulatory body. 

4 "(6) Provide financial support for the commis5 sion's activities prior to the date of facility operation 

6 and subsequent to the date of congressional ratifica7 tion of this compact under Section 7.07 of Article 

8 VII. Each party state will be responsible for annual 

9 payments equalling its pro-rata share of the commis10 sion's expenses, incurred for administrative, legal, 

11 and other purposes of the commission. 

12 "(7) If agreed by all parties to a dispute, sub13 mit the dispute to arbitration or other alternate dis14 pute resolution process. If arbitration is agreed 

15 upon, the governor of each party state shall appoint 

16 an arbitrator. If the number of party states is an 

17 even number, the arbitrators so chosen shall appoint 

18 an additional arbitrator. The determination of a ma19 jority of the arbitrators shall be binding on the party 

20 states. Arbitration proceedings shall be conducted in 

21 accordance with the provisions of 9 U.S.C. Sections 

22 1 to 16. If all parties to a dispute do not agree to 

23 arbitration or alternate dispute resolution process, 

24 the United States District Court in the district 

25 where the commission maintains its office shall have 
19 

17 

1 original jurisdiction over any action between or 

2 among parties to this compact. 

3 "(8) Provide on a regular basis to the commis4 sion and host state--

5 "(A) an accounting of waste shipped and 

6 proposed to be shipped to the compact facility, 

7 by volume and curies; 

8 "(B) proposed transportation methods and 

9 routes; and 

10 "(C) proposed shipment schedules. 

11 "(9) Seek to join in any legal action by or 

12 against the host state to prevent nonparty states or 

13 generators from disposing of low-level radioactive 

14 waste at the facility. 

15 "SEC. 4.06. Each party state shall act in good faith 

16 and may r~ly on the good faith performance of the other 

17 party states regarding requirements of this compact. 

18 "ARTICLE V. PARTY STATE CONTRIBUTIONS 

19 "SEC. 5.01. Each party state, except the host state, 

20 shall contribute a total of $25 million to the host state. 

21 Payments shall be deposited in the host state treasury to 

22 the credit of the low-level waste fund in the following man23 ner except as otherwise provided. Not later than the 60th 

24 day after the date of congressional ratification of this com25 pact, each non-host party state shall pay to the host state 

26 $12.5 million. Not later than the 60th day after the date 
20 

18 

1 of the opening of the compact facility, each non-host party 

2 state shall pay to the host state an additional $12.5 mil3 lion. 

4 "SEC. 5.02 . .As an alternative, the host state and the 

5 non-host states may provide for payments in the same 

6 total amount as stated above to be made to meet the prin7 cipal and interest expense associated with the bond indebt8 edness or other form of indebtedness issued by the appro9 priate agency of the host state for purposes associated 

10 with the development, operation, and post-closure monitor11 ing of the compact facility. In the event the member states 

12 proceed in this manner, the payment schedule shall be de13 termined in accordance with the sehedule of debt repay14 ment. This schedule shall replace the payment schedule 

15 described in Section 5.01 of this article. 

16 "ARTICLE VI. PROHIDITED ACTS AND PENALTIES 

17 "SEC. 6.01. No person shall dispose of low-level ra18 dioactive waste generated within the party states unless 

19 the disposal is at the compact facility, except as otherwise 

20 provided in Section 3.05(7) of Article III. 

21 "SEC. 6.02. No person shall manage or dispose of any 

22 low-level radioactive waste ·within the party states unless 

23 the low-level radioactive waste was generated within the 

24 party states, except as provided in Section 3.05(6) of Arti25 cle III. Nothing herein shall be construed to prohibit the 

26 storage or management of low-level radioactive waste by 
21 

19 

1 a generator, nor its disposal pursuant to 10 C.F.R. Part 

2 20.302. 

3 "SEC. 6.03. Violations of this article may result in 

4 prohibiting the violator from disposing of low-level radioS active waste in the compact facility, or in the imposition 

6 of penalty surcharges on shipments to the facility, as de7 termined by the commission. 

8 "ARTICLE VII. ELIGIDILITY, ENTRY INTO EFFECT; 

9 CONGRESSIONAL CONSENT; WITHDRAWAL; EXCLUSION 

10 "SEC. 7.01. The states of Texas, Maine, and Vermont 

11 are party states to this compact. Any other state may be 

12 made eligible for party status by a majority vote of the 

13 commission and ratification by the legislature of the host 

14 state, subject to fulfillment of the rights of the initial non15 host party states under Section 3.04{11) of Article ill and 

16 Section 4.01 of Article IV, and upon compliance with 

17 those terms and conditions for eligibility that the host 

18 state may establish. The host state may establish all terms 

19 and conditions for the entry of any state, other than the 

20 states named in this section, as a member of this compact; 

21 provided, however, the specific provisions of this compact, 

22 except for those pertaining to the composition of the com23 mission and those pertaining to Section 7.09 of this arti24 cle, may not be changed except upon ratification by the 

25 legislatures of the party states. 
22 

20 

1 "SEC. 7.02. Upon compliance with the other provi2 sions of this compact, a state made eligible under Section 

3 7. 01 of this article may become a party state by legislative 

4 enactment of this compact or by executive order of the 

5 governor of the state adopting this compact. A state be6 coming a party state by executive order shall cease to be 

7 a party state upon adjournment of the first general session 

8 of its legislature convened after the executive order is is9 sued, unless before the adjournment, the legislature enacts 

10 this compact. 

11 "SEC. 7.03. Any party state may withdraw from this 

12 compact by repealing enactment of this compact subject 

13 to the provisions herein. In the event the host state allows 

14 an additional state or additional states to join the com15 pact, the host state's legislature, without the consent of 

16 the non-host party states, shall have the right to modify 

17 the composition of the commission so that the host state 

18 shall have a voting majority on the commission, provided, 

19 however, that any modification maintains the right of each 

20 initial party state to retain one voting member on the com21 mission. 

22 "SEC. 7.04. If the host state withdraws from the 

23 compact, the withdrawal shall not become effective until 

24 five years after enactment of the repealing legislation and 

25 the non-host party states may continue to .use the facility 
23 

21 

1 during that time. The financial obligation of the non-host 

2 party states under Article V shall cease immediately upon 

3 enactment of the repealing legislation. If the host state 

4 withdraws from the compact or abandons plans to operate 

5 a facility prior to the date of any non-host party state pay6 ment under Sections 4.05(5) and (6) of Article IV or Arti7 cle V, the non-host party states are relieved of any obliga8 tions to make the contributions. This section sets out the 

9 exclusive remedies for the non-host party states if the host 

10 state withdraws from the compact or is unable to develop 

11 and operate a compact facility. 

12 "SEC. 7.05. A party state, other than the host state, 

13 may withdraw from the compact by repealing the enact14 ment of this compact, but this withdrawal shall not be15 come effective until two years after the effective date of 

16 the repealing legislation. During this two-year period the 

17 party state will continue to have access to the facility. The 

18 withdrawing party shall remain liable ·for any payments 

19 under Sections 4.05(5) and (6) of Article IV that were 

20 due during the two-year period, and shall not be entitled 

21 to any refund of payments previously made. 

22 "SEC. 7.06. Any party state that substantially fails 

23 to comply with the terms of the compact or to fulfill its 

' 

24 obligations hereunder may have its membership in the 

25 compact revoked by a seven-eighths vote of the commis-
24 

22 

1 sion following notice that a hearing will be scheduled not 

2 less than six months from the date of the notice. In all 

3 other respects, revocation proceedings undertaken by the 

4 commission will be subject to the Administrative Proce5 dure and Texas Register Act (Article 6252-13a, Vernon's 

6 Texas Civil Statutes), except that a party state may ap7 peal the commission's revocation decision to the United 

8 States District Court in accordance with Section 3.06 of 

9 Article III. Revocation shall take effect one year from the 

10 date such party state receives written notice from the com11 mission of a final action. Written notice of revocation shall 

12 be transmitted immediately following the vote of the com13 mission, by the chair, to the governor of the affected party 

14 state, all other governors of party states, and to the Unit15 ed States Congress. 

16 "SEC. 7.07. This compact shall take effect following 

17 its enactment under the laws of the host state and any 

18 other party state and thereafter upon the consent of the 

19 United States Congress and shall remain in effect until 

20 otherwise provided by federal law. If Texas and either 

21 Maine or Vermont ratify this compact, the compact shall 

22 be in full force and effect as to Texas and the other ratify23 ing state, and this compact shall be interpreted as follows: 

24 "(1) Texas and the other ratifying state are the 

25 · initial party states. 
25 

23 

1 "(2) The commission shall consist of two voting 

2 members from the other ratifying state and six from 

3 Texas. 

4 " ( 3) Each party state is responsibl~ for its pro5 rata share of the commission's expensefil. 

6 "SEc. 7.08. This compact is subject to review by the 

7 United. States Congress and the withdrawal of the consent 

8 of Congress every five years after its effective date, pursu9 ant to federal law. 

10 "SEc. 7.09. The host state legislature, with the ap11 proval of the governor, shall have the right and authority, 

12 without the consent of the non-host party states, to modify 

13 the provisions contained in Section 3.04(11) of Article III 

14 to comply with Section 402.219(c)(l), Texas Health & 

15 Safety Code, as long as the modification does not impair 

16 the rights of the initial non-host party states. 

·17 "ARTICLE VIII. CONSTRUCTION AND SEVERABILITY 

18 "SEC. 8.01. The provisions of this compact shall be 

19 broadly construed to carry out the purposes of the com20 pact, but the sovereign powers of a party shall not be in21 fringed upon unnecessarily. 

22 "SEC. 8.02. This compact does not affect any judicial 

23 proceeding pending on the effective date of this compact. 

24 "SEC. 8.03. No party state acquires any liability, by 

' 25 joining this compact, resulting from the siting, operation, 

26 maiatenan~,~tl:rm ca~ or any other activity relating 
26 

24 

1 to the compact facility. No non-host party state shall be 

2 liable for any harm or damage from the siting, operation, 

3 maintenance, or long-term care relating to the compact 

4 facility. Except as otherwise expressly provided in this 

5 compact, nothing in thi~ compact shall be construed to 

6 alter the incidence of !~ability of any kind for any act or 

7 failure to act. Generators, transporters, owners and operaS tors of facility shall be liable for their acts, omissions, con9 duct or relationships in accordance with applicable law. 

10 By entering into this compact and securing the ratification 

11 by Congress of its terms, no party state acquires a poten12 tialliabilityunder section 5(d)(2)(C) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 

13 See. 2021e(d)(2)(C)) that did not exist prior to entering 

14 into this compact. 

15 "SEc. 8.04. If a party state withdraws from the eom16 pact pursuant to Section 7.03 of Article VII or has its 

17 membership in this compact revoked pursuant to section 

18 7.06 of Article VII, the withdrawal or revocation shall not 

19 affect any liability already incurred by or chargeable to 

20 the affected state under Section 8.03 of this article. 

21 "SEC. 8.05. The provisions of this compact shall be 

22 severable and if any phrase, clause, sentence, or provision 

23 of this compact is declared by a court of competent juris24 diction to be contrary to the constitution of any participat25 ing state or of the United States or the applicability there-
27 

25 

1 of to any government, agency, person or circumstances is 

2 held invalid, the validity of the remainder of this compact 

3 and the applicability thereof to any government, agency, 

4 person, or circumstance shall not be affected thereby to 

5 the extent the remainder can in all fairness be given effect. 

6 If any provision of this compact shall be held contrary to 

7 the constitution of any state participating therein, the 

8 compact shall remain in full force and effect as to the state 

9 affected as to all severable matters. 

10 "SEc. 8.06. Nothing in this compact diminishes or 

11 otherwise impairs the jurisdiction, authority, or discretion 

12 of either of the following: 

13 "(1) The United States Nuclear Regulatory 

14 Commission pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 

15 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. Sec. 2011 et seq.). 

16 "(2) An agreement state under section 274 of 

17 the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 

18 u.s.c. Sec. 2021). 

19 "SEC. 8.07. Nothing in this compact confers any new 

20 authority on the states or commission to do any of the 

21 following: 

22 "(1) Regulate the packaging or transportation 

23 of low-level radioactive waste in a manner inconsist24 ent with the regulations of the United States Nu-

·-4&1181H 
28 

26 

1 clear Regulatory Commission or the United States 

2 Department of Transportation. 

3 "(2) Regulate health, safety, or environmental 

4 hazards from source, by-product, or special nuclear 

5 material. 

6 " ( 3) Inspect the activities of licensees of the 

7 agreement states or of the United States Nuclear 

8 Regulatory Commission.". 

0 
103D CONGRESS 

2D SESSION 

29 

H.R.4814 

To grant the consent of the Congress to amendments to the Central Midwest 

Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Compact. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATfiTES 

JULY 22, 1994 

Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. BAESLER, Mr. YATES, Mr. BARLOW, Mr. 

liAsTERT, Mr. COSTELLO, Mr. EWING, Mr. S.ANGMEISTER, Mr. HYDE, 

Mr. PORTER, Mr. FAWELL, Mr. MICHEL, and Mr. MANZULLO) introduced the following bill; which was referred jointly to the Committees on 

Energy and Commerce and Natural ~rces 

A BILL 

To grant the consent of the Congress to amendments to 

the Central Midwest Interstate Low-Level Radioactive 

Waste Compact. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the "Central Midwest Inter5 state Low-Level Radioactive Waste Compact Amendments 

6 Consent Act of 1993". 
30 

2 

1 SEC. 2. CONSENT OF CONGRESS TO COMPACT AMEND2 MENTS. 

3 The consent of the Congress is hereby given to 

4 amendments made by the States of Illinois and Kentucky 

5 to the Central Midwest Interstate Low-Level Radioactive 

6 Waste Compact, which compact was consented to by the 

7 Congress in section 224 of the Omnibus Low-Level RadioS active Waste Interstate Compact Consent Act (Pub. L. 

9 99-240; 42 U.S.C. 2021 note). The amendments to which 

10 such consent is given are substantially as follows: 

11 (1) The 2d undesignated paragraph of article I 

12 of the compact is amended to read as follows: 

13 "The states party to this compact recognize that the 

14 Congress of the United States, by enacting the Low-Level 

15 Radioactive Waste Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 2021), has pro16 vided for and encouraged the development of low-level ra17 dioactive waste compacts as a tool for managing such 

18 waste. The party states also recognize that the manage19 ment of low-level radioactive waste is handled most effi20 ciently on a regional basis; and, that the safe and efficient 

21 management of low-level radioactive waste generated with22 in the region requires that sufficient capacity to manage 

23 such waste be properly provided.". 

24 (2) Section (k) of article II of the compact is 

25 amended to read as follows: 

•HR 4814 lit 
31 

3 

1 "k) 'Low-level radioactive waste' or 'waste' means ra2 dioactive waste not classified as (1) high-level radioactive 

3 waste, (2) transuranic waste, (3) spent nuclear fuel, or 

4 (4) by-product material as defined in Section lle. (2) of 

5 the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. This definition shall apply 

6 notwithstanding any declaration by the federal govern7 ment, a state or any regulatory agency that any radio8 active material is exempt from any regulatory control.". 

9 (3) Section (q) of article II of the compact is 

10 amended to read as follows: 

11 "q) 'Regional facility' means any facility as defined 

12 in Article II(f) that is (1} located within the region, and 

13 (2) established by a party state pursuant to designation 

14 of that state as a host state by the Commission.''. 

15 (4) Sections (a) and (b) of article III of the 

16 compact are amended to read as follows: 

17 "a) There is created the Central Midwest Interstate 

18 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Commission. Upon the eligi19 ble states becoming party states, the Commission shall 

20 consist of two voting Commissioners from each state eligi21 ble to be designated a host state under Article VI(b), one 

22 voting Commissioner from any other party state, and for 

23 each regional facility, one non-voting Commissioner who 

24 is an elected official of local government and a resident 

25 of the county where that regional facility is located. The 

•HR 4814 IH 
32 

4 

1 Governor of each party state shall notify the Commission 

2 in writing of its Commissioners and any alternates. 

3 "b) Each voting Commissioner is entitled to one vote. 

4 No action of the Commission is binding unless a majority 

5 of the voting membership casts its vote in the affirmative. 

6 In addition, no agreement by the Commission under Arti~ 

7 cle III(i)(l), Article III(i)(2), or Article III(i)(3) is valid 

8 unless all voting Commissioners from the party state in 

9 which the facility where waste would be sent is located 

10 cast their votes in the affirmative.". 

11 (5) Sections (d) and (e) of article III of the 

12 compact are amended to read as follows: 

13 "d) The Commission shall meet at least once annually 

14 and shall also meet upon the call of any voting Commis15 sioner. 

16 "e) All meetings of the Commission and its des17 ignated committees shall be open to the public with rea18 sonable advance notice. The Commission may, by majority 

19 vote, close a meeting to the public for the purpose of con20 sidering sensitive personnel or legal strategy matters. 

21 However, all Commission actions and decisions shall be 

22 made in open meetings and appropriately recorded. A roll 

23 call may be required upon request of any voting Commis~ 

24 sioner." 

•HR 41114 m 
33 

5 

1 (6) Section (g) of article III of the compact is 

2 amended to read as follows: 

3 "g) The Office of the Commission shall be in Illinois. 

4 The Commission may appoint or contract for and com5 pensate such staff necessary to carry out its duties and 

6 functions. The staff shall serve at the Commission's pleas7 ure with the exception that staff hired as the result of 

8 securing federal funds shall be hired and governed under 

9 applicable federal statutes and regulations. In selecting 

10 any staff, the Commission shall assure that the staff has 

11 adequate experience and formal training to carry out the 

12 functions assigned to it by the Commission.". 

13 (7) Sections (i) and (j) of article III of the com14 pact are amended to read as follows: 

15 "i) The Commission may: 

16 "1) Enter into an agreement with any person 

17 to allow waste from outside the region to be disposed 

18 of at facilities in the region. However, no such 

19 agreement shall be effective unless and until ratified 

20 by a law enacted by the party state to which the 

21 waste would be sent for disposal. 

22 "2) Enter into an agreement with any person 

23 to allow waste described in Article VII(a)(6) to be 

24 treated, stored, or disposed of at regional facilities. 

25 However, no such agreement shall be effective unless 

•BB .at4111 
34 

6 

1 and until ratified by a law enacted by the host state 

2 of the regional facility to which the waste would be 

3 sent for treatment, storage, or disposal. 

4 "3) Enter into an agreement with any person 

5 to allow waste from outside the region to be treated 

6 or stored at facilities in the region. However, any 

7 such agreement shall be revoked as a matter of law 

8 if, within one year of the effective date of the agree9 ment, a law is enacted ordering such revocation by 

10 the party state to which the waste would be sent for 

11 treatment or storage. 

12 "4) Approve, or enter into an agreement with 

13 any person for, the export of waste from the region. 

14 "5) Approve the disposal of waste generated 

15 within the region at a facility in the region other 

16 than a regional facility, subject to the limitations of 

17 Articles V(f) and VII(a)(6). 

18 "6) Require that waste generated within there19 gion be treated or stored at available regional facili20 ties, subject to the limitations of Articles V(f), 

21 VII(a)(3) and VII(a)(6). 

22 "7) Appear as an intervenor or party in interest 

23 before any court of law or any federal, state or local 

24 agency, board or commission in any matter related 

25 to waste management. In order to represent its 

•HR 4111' m 
35 

7 

1 views, the Commission may arrange for any expert 

2 testimony, reports, evidence or other participation. 

3 "8) Review the emergency closure of a regional 

4 facility, determine the appropriateness of that clo5 sure, and take whatever actions are necessary to en6 sure that the interests of the region are protected, 

7 provided that a party state with a total volume of 

8 waste recorded on low-level radioactive waste mani9 fests for any year that is less than 10 percent of the 

10 total volume recorded on such manifests for the re11 gion during the same year shall not be designated a 

12 host state or be required to store the region's waste. 

13 In determining the 10 percent exclusion, there shall 

14 not be included waste recorded on low-level radio15 active waste manifests by a person whose principal 

16 business is providing a service by arranging for the 

17 collection, transportation, treatment, storage or dis18 posal of such waste. 

19 "9) Take any action which is appropriate and 

20 ~ecessary to perform its duties and functions as pro21 vided in this compact. 

22 "10) Suspend the privileges or revoke the mem23 bership of a party state. 

24 "j) The Commission shall: 

•DR 48WDl" 
86 

8 

1 "1) Submit within 10 days of its execution to 

2 the governor and the appropriate officers of the leg3 islative body of the party state in which any affected 

4 facility is located a copy of any agreement entered 

5 into by the Commission under Article III(i)(l), Arti6 cle IIT(i)(2) or Article III(i)(3). 

7 "2) Submit an annual report to, and otherwise 

8 communicate with, the governors and the appro9 priate officers of the legislative bodies of the party 

10 states regarding the activities of the Commission. 

11 The annual report shall include a description of the 

12 status of the activities taken pursuant to any agree13 ment entered into by the Commission under Article 

14 III(i)(l), Article III(i)(2) or Article III(i)(3) and any 

15 violation of any provision thereof, and a description 

16 of the source, volume, activity, and current status of 

17 any waste from outside the region or waste described 

18 under Article VII(a)(6) that was treated, stored, or 

19 disposed of in the region in the previous year. 

20 "3) Hear, negotiate, and, as necessary, resolve 

21 by final decision disputes which may arise between 

22 the party states regarding this compact. 

23 "4) Adopt and amend, as appropriate, a re24 gional management plan that plans for the establish25 ment of needed regional facilities. 
37 

9 

1 "5) Adopt an annual budget.". 

2 {8) Sections (o) and (p) of article III of the 

3 compact are amended to read as follows: 

4 "o) The Commission is a legal entity separate and 

5 distinct from the party states and is liable for its actions 

6 as a separate and distinct legal entity. Commissioners are 

7 not personally liable for actions taken by them in their 

8 official capacity. 

9 "p) Except as provided under Article III(n), Article 

10 ill(o), Article VI(p) and Article Vl(q), nothing in this 

11 compact alters liability for any action, omission, course of 

12 conduct or liability resulting from any causal or other rela13 tionships. ". 

14 (9) Sections (b) and (c) of article V of the com15 pact are amended to read as follows: 

16 "b) Other than the provisions of Article V(f) and 

17 VII(a)(6), each party state has the right to have all wastes 

18 generated within borders managed at regional facilities. 

19 This right shall be subject to the provisions of this Com20 pact. All party states have an equal right of access to any 

21 facility outside the region made available to the region by 

22 any agreement entered into by the Commission pursuant 

23 to Article III(i)(4). 

24 ''c) Party states or generators may negotiate for the 

25 right of access to a facility outside the region and may 

HR 4814 IH--2 
38 

10 

1 export waste outside the region subject to Commission ap2 proval under Article III(i)(4).". 

3 (10) Section (f) of article V of the compact is 

4 amended to read as follows: 

5 "f) Waste originating from the Maxey Flats nuclear 

6 waste disposal site in Fleming County, Kentucky shall not 

7 be shipped to any facility in Illinois for storage, treatment 

8 or disposal. Disposition of these wastes shall be the sole 

9 responsibility of the Commonwealth of Kentucky and such 

10 waste shall not be subject to the provisions of Articles 

11 IX(b)(3) and (4) of this compact.". 

12 (11) Section (b) of article Vl of the compact is 

13 amended to read as follows: 

14 "b) If all regional facilities required by the regional 

15 management plan are not developed pursuant to Article 

16 VI(a), or upon notification that an existing regional facil17 ity will be closed, the Commission may designate a party 

18 state as a host state. A party state shall not be designated 

19 as a host state for any regional facility under this Article 

20 VI(b) unless that state's total volume of waste recorded 

21 on low-level radioactive waste manifests for any year is 

22 more than 10% of the total volume recorded on such mani23 fests for the region during the same year. In determining 

24 the 10% exclusion, there shall not be included waste re25 corded on low-level radioactive waste manifests by a per-
39 

11 

1 son whose principal business is providing a service by ar2 ranging for the collection, transportation, treatment, stor3 age or disposal of such waste, or waste described in Article 

4 VII(a)(6).". 

S (12) Section (c) of article VI of the compact is 

6 repealed. 

7 (13) Section (e) of article VI of the compact is 

8 amended to read as follows: 

9 "e) Any party state designated as a host state may 

10 request the Commission to relieve that state of the respon11 sibility to serve as a host state. The Commission may re12 lieve a party state of this responsibility upon a showing 

13 by the requesting party state that no feasible potential re14 gional facility site of the type it is designated to host exists 

15 within its borders or for other good cause shown and con16 sistent with the purposes of this Compact.". 

17 (14) Sections (I) and (m) of article VI of the 

18 compact are amended to read as follows: 

19 "I) A host state intending to close a regional facility 

20 located within its borders shall notify the Commission in 

21 writing of its intention and the reasons. Notification shall 

22 be given to the Commission at least five years prior to 

23 the intended date of closure. This Section shall not pre24 vent an emergency closing of a regional facility by a host 

25 state to protect its air, land and water resources and the 

•HR 4814 IH 
40 

12 

l health and safety of its citizens. However, a host state 

2 which has an emergency closing of a regional facility shall 

3 notify the Commission in writing within 3 working days 

4 of its action and shall, within 30 working daJ--s of its ac5 tion, demonstrate justification for the closing. 

6 "m) If a regional facility closes before an additional 

7 or new facility becomes operational, waste generated with8 in the region may be shipped temporarily to any location 

9 agreed on by the Commission until a regional facility is 

10 operational, provided that the region's waste shall not be 

11 stored in a party state with a total volume of waste re12 corded on low-level radioactive waste manifests for any 

13 year which is less than 10% of the total volume recorded 

14 on the manifests for the region during the same year. In 

15 determining the 10% exclusion, there shall not be included 

16 waste recorded on low-level radioactive waste manifests by 

17 a person whose principal business is providing a service 

18 by arranging for the collection, transportation, treatment, 

19 storage or disposal of such waste, or waste described in 

20 Article VII(a)(6).". 

21 (15) Sections (o) through (q) of article VI of 

22 the compact are amended to read as follows: 

23 "o) The host state shall create an 'Extended Care 

24 and Long-Term Liability Fund' and shall allocate suffi-

•HR 4814 IH 
41 

13 

1 cient fee revenues, received pursuant to Article VI(i), to 

2 provide for the costs of: 

3 "1) decommissioning and other procedures re4 quired for the proper closure of a regional facility; 

5 "2) monitoring, inspection and other procedures 

6 required for the proper extended care of -a regional 

7 facility; 

8 "3) undertaking any corrective action or clean9 up necessary to protect human health and the envi1 0 ronment from radioactive releases from a regional 

11 facility; and 

12 "4) compensating any person for medical and 

13 other expenses incurred from damages to human 

14 health, personal injuries suffered from damages to 

15 human health and damages or losses to real or per16 sonal property, and accomplishing any necessary cor17 rective action or clean-up on real or personal prop18 erty caused by radioactive releases from a regional 

19 facility; the host state may allocate monies in this 

20 Fund in amounts as it deems appropriate to pur21 chase insurance or to make other similar financial 

22 protection arrangements consistent with the pur23 poses of this Fund; this Article VI(n) shall in no 

24 manner limit the financial responsibilities of the site 

25 operator under Article VI(o), the party states under 

•BR 4814 Ill! 
42 

14 

1 Article Vl(p), or any person who sends waste to a 

2 regional facility, under Article Vl(q). 

3 "p) The operator of a regional facility shall purchase 

4 an amount of property and third-party liability insurance 

5 deemed appropriate by the host state, pay the necessary 

6 periodic premiums at all times and make periodic pay7 ments to the Extended Care and Long-Term Liability 

8 Fund as set forth in Article VI(n) for such amounts as 

9 the host state reasonably determines is necessary to pro10 vide for future premiums to continue such insurance cov11 erage, in order to pay the costs of compensating any per12 son for medical and other expenses incurred from damages 

13 to human health, personal if\iuries suffered from damages 

14 to human health and damages or losses to real or personal 

15 property, and accomplishing any necessary corrective ac16 tion or clean-up on real or personal property caused by 

17 radioactive releases from a regional facility. In the event 

18 of such costs resulting from radioactive releases from a 

19 regional facility, the host state should, to the maximum 

20 extent possible, seek to obtain monies from such--insurance 

21 prior to using monies from the Extended Care and Long22 Term Liability Fund. 

23 "q) .All party states shall be liable for the cost of ex24 tended care and long-term liability in excess of monies 

25 available from the Extended Care and Long-Term Liabil-

•BR-'814 m 
43 

15 

1 ity Fund, as set forth in Article VI(n) and from the prop2 erty and third-party liability insurance as set forth in Arti3 ele VI(o). A party state may meet such liability for costs 

4 by levying surcharges upon generators located in the party 

5 state. The extent of such liability shall be based on the 

6 proportionate share of the total volume of waste placed 

7 in the regional facility by generators located in each such 

8 party state. Such liability shall be joint and several among 

9 the party states with a right of contribution between the 

10 party states. However, this Section shall not apply to a 

11 party state with a total volume of waste recorded on low12 level radioactive waste manifests for any year that is less 

13 than 10% of the total volume recorded on such manifests 

14 for the region during the same year.". 

15 (16) Sections (d) through (q) of article VI of 

16 the compact are redesignated as sections (c) through 

17 (p), respectively. 

18 (17) Article VI of the compact is amended by 

19 adding at the end the following new section: 

20 "q) Any person who sends waste from outside the re21 gion or waste described in Article VII(a)(6) for treatment, 

22 storage or disposal at a regional facility shall be liable for 

23 the cost of extended care and long-term liability of that 

24 regional facility in excess of the monies available from the 

25 Extended Care and Long-Term Liability Fund as set forth 

•HR 4814IH 
44 

16 

1 in Article VI(n) and from the property and third-party li2 ability insurance as set forth in Article VI(o). The extent 

3 of the liability for the person shall be based on the propor4 tionate share of the total volume of waste sent by that 

5 person to the regional facility.". 

6 (18) Section {a)(6) of article VII of the com7 pact is amended to read as follows: 

8 "6) establishes any right to the treatment, stor9 age or disposal at any facility in the region or pro10 vides any authority to prohibit export from the re11 gion of waste that is owned or generated by the 

12 United States Department of Energy, owned or gen13 erated by the United States Navy as a result of the 

14 decommissioning of vessels of the United States 

15 Navy, or owned or generated as the result of any re16 search, development, testing or production of any 

17 atomic weapon; or". 

18 {19) Section {d) of article VII of the compact 

19 is amended to read as follows: 

20 "d) No person who provides a service by arranging 

21 for collection, transportation, treatment, storage or dis22 posal of waste from outside the region shall be allowed 

23 to dispose of any waste, regardless of origin, in the region 

24 unless specifically permitted under an agreement entered 

•BK4814 m 
45 

17 

1 into by the Commission in accordance with the require2 ments of Article III(i)(1).". 

3 (20) Section (c) of article VIII of the compact 

4 is amended to read as follows: 

5 "c) The Commission is formed upon the appointment 

6 of the Commissioners and the tender of the membership 

7 fee payable to the Commission by the eligible states. The 

8 Governor of Illinois shall convene the initial meeting of 

9 the Commission. The Commission shall cause legislation 

10 to be introduced in the Congress which grants the consent 

11 of the Congress to this compact, and shall take action nec12 essary to. organize the Commission and implement the pro13 visions of this compact.". 

14 (21) Section (e) of article VIII of the compact 

15 is amended to read as follows: 

16 "e) This compact becomes effective July 1, 1984, or 

17 at any date subsequent to July 1, 1984, upon enactment 

18 by the eligible states. However, Article IX(b) shall not 

19 take effect until the Congress has by law consented to this 

20 compact. The Congress shall have an opportunity to with21 draw such consent every 5 years. Failure of the Congress 

22 affirmatively to withdraw its consent has the effect of re23 newing consent for an additional 5 year period. The con24 sent given to this compact by the Congress shall extend 

25 to the power of the region to ban the shipment of waste 

•HR 4814 IH 
46 

18 

1 into the region pursuant to Article TII(i)(1) and to pro2 hibit exportation of waste generated within the region 

3 under Article lll(i)(4).". 

4 (22) Section (b) of article IX of the compact is 

5 amended to read as follows: 

6 "b) Unless authorized by the Commission pursuant 

7 to Article lll(i), or otherwise provided in this compact, 

8 after January 1, 1986 it is a violation of this compact: 

9 "1) for any person to deposit at a facility in the 

10 region waste from outside the region; 

11 "2) for any facility in the region to accept 

12 waste from outside the region; 

13 "3) for any person to export from the region 

14 waste that is generated within the region; 

15 "4) for any person to dispose of waste at a fa16 cility other than a regional facility; 

17 "5) for any person to deposit at a regional fa18 cility waste described in Article VII(a)(6); or 

19 "6) for any regional facility to accept waste de20 scribed in Article VII(a)(6).". 

21 (23) Article IX of the compact is amended by 

22 redesignating sections (c) and (d) as sections (d) 

23 and (e), respectively, and by inserting after section 

24 (b) the following new section: 

•HR 4814 m 
47 

19 

1 "c) It is a violation of this compact for any person 

2 to treat or store waste at a facility other than a regional 

3 facility if such treatment or storage is prohibited by the 

4 Commission under Article III(i)(6).". 

0 

-1m 41114 m 
48 

Mr. SHARP. Are there further opening statements? 

Mr. ALLARD. 1 want to be able to protect the right of the Mem-

>ers on this side to be able to submit comments for the records if 

.hey may. 

Mr. SHARP. Without objection, we will do that. 

We are pleased to have with us two Member witnesses on the 

iifferent compacts to speak to them today. Actually, they are on 

;he same one but opposite parts of the country. One does not often 

>ut Maine and Texas in the same context. But perhaps one of them ~an explain to us how they got here. 

We are very pleased to have with us Ms. Olympia Snowe from 

Maine and Mr. Ron Coleman from Texas. 

STATEMENT OF HON. OLYMPIA SNOWE, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MAINE 

Ms. SNOWE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 1 am certainly pleased to 

have the opportunity to address your subcommittee and the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources on my legislation, on 

H.R. 4800, which would provide the consent of Congress to the 

Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact that was 

agreed to by Texas and Maine and Vermont. 

1 am pleased to be here with my colleague. I wish we were on 

the same side of this issue, but 1 am pleased to be able to give my 

perspective and the perspective of my State of Maine. 

These compacts were negotiated by the States in response to 

Federal legislation that was passed in Congress in 1980. We recognized that we had to establish a low-level radioactive waste policy 

and did so by passing the Act that essentially placed the respon- sibility within the States for the disposal of this low-level radioactive waste. 

As an incentive, the Act included the ability of those States that 

were included in the compact area to exclude wastes from outside 

that compact area. In fact, in 1985, amendments were passed in 

Congress reinforcing this policy and the incentives to form the compacts. 

Maine and Vermont, as well as Texas of course, have overwhelmingly supported this policy and this compact. It was passed in both 

the Maine and Vermont Legislatures as well as the Texas Legislature with overwhelming votes of approval. All three Governors 

have supported this compact. In Maine we had a referendum statewide in 1993 which endorsed this compact by more than 2-1. 

It is essential that States are rewarded for moving ahead and 

fulfilling their responsibilities under the Act, and their faithfulness 

to congressional intent should be rewarded with timely congressional approval of the compact. 

The Texas Low-Level Waste Compact includes Maine, Vermont, 

and Texas. Maine and Vermont would be allowed to dispose of 

their waste up to a level that is no more than 20 percent of the 

total waste generated in the State of Texas over a period of 50 

years between 1995 and 2045. In return, Maine and Vermont 

would each have to pay the State of Texas $25 million. In addition, 

each State would have to pay the county in which the disposal facility is located $2.5 million. 
49 

We remain neutral in terms of this legislation with respect to the 

site location in the State of Texas. The site location is to be determined by that State and its environmental agency, so that is not 

anything that is addressed in this legislation. In addition, the compact includes an eight-member commission, 

six of whom are appointed by the State of Texas. The other two 

members represent the State of Maine and the State of Vermont. 

As far as the facility itself, of course, wherever it is established, 

it would have to meet the State and Federal environmental health 

and safety standards consistent with applicable Federal and State 

laws. This legislation is very important to our State and to the 

States that are involved so that we can move forward in a timely 

manner to be assured that we have a long-term disposal for our 

low-level radioactive waste. 

This is something that is strongly supported by my State by indications of the votes that we had in the State legislature and by the 

other States as well. I would hope that this committee would recog- nize that and move forward as expeditiously as possible so that the 

three affected States can grapple with this low-level waste question 

now rather than perpetuating this issue for years to come. I think 

we need to fmally remove the cloud of uncertainty regarding longterm disposal and to focus on executing the States' painstakingly 

crafted plans, so I would urge expeditious support of this legisla- tion. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SHARP. Thank you very much. If you don't mind waiting, we 

would like to hear from Mr. Coleman. 

[Prepared statement of Ms. Snowe follows:] 
TESTIMONY ON K.R. 4800, A BILL TO GRANT THE CONSENT OF THE 

CONGRESS TO TKE TEXAS LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE 

DISPOSAL COMPACT 

BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER AND THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

Tbe Honorable Olympia J. Snowe 

Member ot Congress, 2nd District, Maine 

september 13, 1994 
51 

Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee on Energy and 

Power and the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources, thank 

you for giving me the opportunity to testify on behalf of the 

bill that I have introduced, H.R. 4800. 

H.R. 4800 will provide the consent of the Congress to the 

Texas LOw-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact agreed to by 

Texas, Maine, and Vermont. The compact negotiated by these 

states is a response to federal law. They are doing what 

Congress intended for them to do. All three states believe that 

the compact serves their interests, and it received strong 

support in the three state legislatures. H.R. 4800 has nothing 

whatsoever to do with the site location of the waste disposal 

facility. The compact only provides for the orderly disposal of 

low-level waste generated in these three states. 

For these reasons, I am urging the members of the 

subcommittees to support H.R. 4800, and to make every effort to 

enact the bill before the current congress adjourns. 

In 1789, Ben Franklin said that nothing in his world was certain but death and taxes. Sadly, death and taxes are still 

with us today, but we can add at least one other item to Mr. 

Franklin's list, and that is low-level radioactive waste. 

Whether we like it or not, low-level waste is with us. It 

exists. And we cannot avoid dealing with it. 

In 1980, Congress recognized that we could not avoid dealing 

with low-level radioactive waste when it passed the Low-Level 

Radioactive Waste Policy Act. By passing the Act, Congress placed the responsibility for disposing of low-level radioactive 

waste with the states. To help states meet their 

responsibilities, it authorized states to enter into regional 

disposal compacts. As an incentive to forming these compacts, the Act allowed the compact members to exclude waste from outside 

the compact area. The 1985 Amendments to the Act reinforced this 

policy and the incentives to form compacts. 

In response to these federal statutes, nine compacts 

involving 42 states have been proposed, and nine have been 

ratified. Texas, Maine, and Vermont propose the tenth. They are following the lead established by congress. I believe that their 

faithfulness to Congressional intent deserves to be rewarded with 

timely Congressional approval of the compact. 

The Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact allows Maine and. Vermont to dispose of the low-level radioactive 

waste generated within their borders at a disposal facility in 

Texas over a period of fifty years, from 1995 to 2045. In 

return, Maine and Vermont must pay $25 million each to Texas for use of a facility that Texas had already decided to build on its own in 1981. Maine and Vermont will also have to pay $2.5 

million each to the county in which the disposal facility will be 
52 

located. 

Ratification of the compact will allow Texas to exclude 

waste from any state besides Maine and Vermont. The compact 

caps the amount of waste that Maine and Vermont can send to Texas 

at 20\ of the projected total waste produced in Texas. An amember Compact Commission established by the compact will oversee implementation of the agreement and will determine policies such as the timing and frequency of waste shipments. With 6 members, 

Texas will have a controlling interest in the Compact Commission. 

One thing that neither H.R. 4800 nor the compact itself 

provide for, however, is the site location of the disposal 

facility. Both are neutral on this question. The compact 

requires only that Texas shall develop and have full 

administrative control over the development, management, and 

operation of the disposal facility. And in the development and 

management of the facility, the pompact requires the protection 

and preservation of the environment, public health, and safety, 

consistent with all applicable federal and state laws. 

Concerns about the particular site chosen for the disposal 

facility in Texas are extraneous to the subject of this hearing. The compact implicitly defers questions on those matters to the 

Texas Legislature, the Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Authority, the Texas Water commission, and other state agencies. 

H.R. 4800 only provides the consent of Congress to an agreement freely negotiated among the states, and negotiated in response to 

federal encouragement. 

The Texas compact was approved in the legislatures of each 

of the party states by large majorities. The Maine House 

approved the compact by a vote of 131 to 6, and the Maine Senate 

approved the agreement by 26 to 3 vote. In a 1993 state 

Referendum, Maine voters approved the compact by a vote of over 2 

to 1. 

The Texas House approved the compact by a voice vote, with 

only 5 members registering opposition; the Texas Senate approved the compact by a vote of 26 to 2. In Vermont, the House voted 

104 to 36 in favor of the compact, and the Senate approved it by voice vote. The governors of all three states have approved the 

compact. 

Most citizens in the three states clearly believe that the 

compact serves their interests. The Texas compact follows ample precedent established in other parts of the country. It 

represents the desired response to federal low-level radioactive 

waste policy, as established by the Low-Level Radioactive Waste 

Policy Act. And it will ensure the orderly disposal of lowlevel radioactive waste generated in these three states in a manner that is consistent with all applicable federal and state 

environmental, public health, and public safety laws. 
Maine, Texas, and Vermont have found a constructive and 

responsible way to deal with a problem that cannot be ignored in 

contemporary society -- low-level waste. I think that they deserve the support of the Congress, and I hope that they will 

receive the support of your subcommittees when you consider H.R. 

4800. 

I would also like to request that you make every effort to move the bill to the House floor as expeditiously as possible. 

The three affected states have been grappling with the low-level 

waste question for years. They need to finally remove the cloud 

of uncertainty regarding long-term disposal for their low-level 

waste, and to focus on executing their painstakingly crafted 

plans. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify before you 

today. 
54 

STATEMENT OF HON. RONALD D. COLEMAN, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Mr. COLEMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thank both subcommittees for holding a hearing on such an important issue. I am 

grateful for the opportunity to be able to share with you the concerns that I have about the Texas, Vermont and Maine Low-Level 

Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact. 

My colleague is right. We are on opposite sides of the issue in 

terms of supporting it or not supporting it. Most Members from the 

Texas delegation would support a compact like this because it is 

not in their part of the State. It is also not in my congressional district although it is an area that I used to represent before redistricting. 

I will tell you, however, that my concern is not as a person that 

says not in my back yard only. My concern has been for a long pe- riod of time that we do the right thing in terms of geology. I will 

not argue that issue here because that is not the issue before these 

two subcommittees. I will tell you, however, that we should be concerned nonetheless about environmental protection. 

For us in Congress to give up any rights or authority about the 

public health and welfare of the American people regardless of 

compacts done by States is wrong. We have an obligation to see to 

it that we honor our international agreements, and we have one 

with Mexico. And this particular location of this particular dump 

site is in clear violation of several of those agreements with Mexico. 

I am concerned about the siting of dump sites in minority communities. The committees may have been made aware by recent articles that have been published concerning the location of hazardous waste dump sites in areas where we have not paid attention 

to those who are defenseless in terms of being able to carry on a 

fight. We can ensure that inferior sites are protected and international agreements followed. 

My concern is that adequate protection is not given to the host 

State, Texas, in the event that hazardous waste stored at the disposal site contaminates the surrounding area. Let me say that is 

not just somebody's idea of something that could happen. 

There have been six underground facilities similar to the one 

Texas has proposed. Of those six, five have been closed due to contamination. The probability that the site in Texas will leak, I believe, is great given the industry's history. 

This is certainly not the first time I have testified before a congressional committee in opposition to waste being dumped in 

Hudspeth County, Texas. In 1992, I testified before the Merchant 

Marine and Fisheries Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Navigation on a proposal to dump New York City's municipal waste at a 

site outside the community of Sierra Blanca which is the county 

seat. I expressed then similar concerns about the lack of evidence 

that the current methods of disposing of waste do not pose a threat 

either to human health or the environment. 

In July of this year, the Texas Natural Resource Conservation 

Commission fined a New York company for not properly treating 

180 tons of sludge. I call 180 tons of untreated sludge a hazard. 

Hudspeth County is the waste site selected by Texas. The citizens 
55 

of Hudspeth County have already been put at risk by unsafe technology. This compact exposes Texans to significant risk again and 

then asks them to pay for it. 

I noted the chairman suggested that Maine and Texas are not 

geographically close. Let me point out that if we are attempting to 

bury nuclear waste or indeed entire facilities that may be moved 

from either Vermont or Maine in West Texas, they may come 

through your district, Mr. Chairman, and then you will know the 

connection. 

I know there are two groups that will be most concerned about 

whether or not there is an accident in the transport of that radioactive material. It would be your citizens and my taxpayers, because under this compact, Texas has to bear the liabilities. I submit so will the United States Government. This compact exposes 

Texans to significant risks again and asks for them to pay for it. 

This goes too far. 

As you know, these wastes can be dangerous for many thousands 

of years. I submit to you that this compact provides no protection 

to the citizens of the host State and host county who will be most 

affected by the leakage of this waste. Remember, the mountain 

ranges of West Texas, Northern Mexico and the Chihuahua Desert 

are areas of seismic activities. In fact, a lot of people don't think 

of earthquakes as occurring in Texas, but the largest one that ever 

occurred in Texas occurred in 1931. The epicenter was at the site 

that has been selected by the State of Texas. 

My second objection is the compact does not protect Texas by 

limiting the volume of waste it must accept from party States and 

contracting States. Under this agreement, Texas accepts responsibility for both management and disposal. It is also unclear if 

waste imported from other States but incinerated in Texas is 

counted under the Texas portion or the non-host allotment. That 

should be corrected. 

The shipment volumes are tied exclusively to disposal estimates. 

The compact is silent on how much volume can be shipped for management. 

These technical flaws could result in the State legislatures 

amending the compact, and Congress will have to revisit this issue 

again as soon as next year. Texas officials have indicated their willingness to propose legislation next year to tighten the contracting 

clause. 

Money, not the best science, is driving this compact process. This 

compact gives Texas the authority to unilaterally allow other 

States to dump in Texas, allowing the State to earn even more 

money at the expense, again, of the residents of a minority community out in the desert. As recently as July, representatives from 

Connecticut were in Hudspeth County exploring the financial benefits of Connecticut's ability to participate. Connecticut? I thought 

this was Texas, Maine and Vermont. You know what I know. 

Although almost all the other States are involved in similar compacts, all but three will open after the Texas site. Once the 

Hudspeth County site opens, other States will look to it to hold 

their waste. One has to wonder why other compacts are moving 

more carefully and deliberately than this compact in opening a site. 
56 

A third objection that I have relates to respecting our binational 

agreements. As I mentioned, in selecting Sierra Blanca 20 miles 

from the Rio Grande River which is the international boundary between the U.S. and Mexico, selection of this site in my view is a 

clear violation of the 1983 Agreement for Cooperation on the Environment between the United States and Mexico commonly referred 

to as the La Paz Agreement. I request the communications from 

the Government of Mexico to the State Department outlining its 

objections be inserted in the record as a part of the record of this 

hearing. 

Mr. SHARP. We will make it part of the record. 

[The information follows:] 
57 

UNOFFICIAL TRANSLATION 

001138 

The Embassy of Mexico presents its compliments to the State 

Department and has the honor of referring to the plans for the 

residual waste deposit sites that are supposed to be built near the 

U.S.·Mexican border: In Texas, Low level in Sierra Blanca in Hudspeth 

County, Dryden in Terel! County, and Spofford in Kinney County; in 

New Mexico, the Waste Isolation Pilot Plan in Eddy County; in 

California, La Posta and Campo In San Diego and Ward Valley In San 

Bernadino County. 

As the State Department is aware, the plans for these 

hazardous waste deposit sites in the border zone, tor which the 

Mexican Chancellory has appropriately given warning, have provoked 

strong reactions from the border communities, envlronment:ll 

organizations and both Mexican and United States Congressmen. 

The Embassy would like to reiterate that the technical 

considerations shown by the Mexican Government, by the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency itself and by various non· 

governmental organizations of both countries, demonstrate that the 

plans and precautions of the companies promoting the above 

mentioned waste deposit projects cannot avoid the risk factor of 

transboundary pollution. In a context of greater environmental 

awareness and cooperation In the international community, neither 

one of our governments can Ignore these types of concerns. 

In accordance with the principles of cooperation and goodneighbors, the Embassy wishes to reiterate to the State Department 

the duty of all countries to prevent, inform and negotiate any action 

In their territory that could cause harm to a third state. In addition, 

we would like to remind you that during the High Level Meeting· on 

Proposals for Radioactive and Hazardous Waste Deposits in th& 

Border Zone, held on April 22, 1992, in Washington, the Stata 

Department committed Itself to "be the means through which the 

corresponding authorities of the United States would be made awara 

of any Information or concern of the Mexican Government in this 

regard." 
58 

001138 

As such, Mexico hopes that the United States takes all the 

preventative measures at its disposal to avoid the possibility of any 

risk of transboundary damage, or that the U.S might cause said 

damage, in compliance with what was agreed upon by both 

governments In Article 2 of the La Paz Convention In the following 

terms: "The Parties commit themselves as far as it Is possible, to 

adopt the appropriate measures to prevent, reduce and eliminate 

sources of pollution in their respective territories that affect the 

border zone of the oltler.• Based on the cited article, the hazardous 

waste deposit sites represent important sources of transboundary 

pollution. 

At the same time, the second part of ltle article Indicates that 

"the Parties will cooperate In the resolution of environmental 

problems In the border zone for the common good, in accordance with 

the provisions of this Convention. • As such, the fact that the United 

States Government sets a limit on its responsibility In regard to the 

actions taking place In its territory, whether by federal, state, local 

authorities or even individuals, demonstrates an unwillingness to 

cooperate in finding a solution to environmental problems, to which 

it agreed in the Convention of La Paz. 

As it has already been expressed by the Maxican Government, 

to contemeplate building such a large number of waste deposits near 

the international boundary or near international rivers implies that 

the border location was selected, and this is an outrage against the 

legitimate right of the people In the regional communities not to 

have their natural birthright and health affected. 

In view of the above, and the fact that the United Stales has 

allowed local or state courts to approve such waste deposit projects 

without taking into account the agreements between our two 

countries, the Government of Mexico wishes to reiterate lts 

particular concern because the United States Federal Government 

still has not taken an active role in this regard and it still has not 

responded to diplomatic note 1214 of October 29, 1993, ln regard to 

the waste deposit site at Ward Valley. 
59 

In thle oomext, the Embaeay of Mexico would 111«1 to propose to 

the State Department that a High Level Meeting be held so soon as 

poesible, that wiU allow our Governments to exchange viewpoints on 

the plana for the hazardous waste· deposits In the bor~r area. 

The Embuay avails Itself of this opportunity to renew to the 

State Department the assurances of Its highest and most 

distinguished consideration. 

To the Oepertment of State 

of the United States of Amerfca 

Washtlglon, D.O 

Washington, D.C., August 1. 1994 

001138 
60 

Mr. COLEMAN. While Congress may have no authority over the 

site selection process, we are responsible for guaranteeing our binational agreements are respected by our own citizens as well as our 

State governments. 

My final concern is waste sites in minority communities. Under 

this compact, the site county will receive a total of $5 million from 

Vermont and Maine. It is a 64 percent Latino community; 2,915 

people live there with a per capita income of only $1,329. It is a 

rural community whose residents are generally poor and don't have 

the means to hire lobbyists or the population to influence State policy. It is an area not unlike the many other poor and minority communities across the country which have been forced to cohabitate 

with other radioactive waste. 

On February 11, 1994, President Clinton signed an Executive 

order on Federal actions to address environmental justice in minority and low-income populations. This Executive order was in response to the overwhelming evidence that minorities and low-income populations are disproportionately burdened with environmental hazards. Hudspeth County is a fine example of that. 

The President directed all Federal agencies to ensure that the 

practice did not continue. It is left to Congress to address its responsibilities in the same spirit as that Act. We have a responsibility to protect those without the means to protect themselves, a responsibility to abide by our binational agreements. We can fulfill 

our responsibilities by disallowing this compact until a more suitable site is located. 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you and all Members for your patience 

and your consideration today. [Prepared statement of Mr. Coleman follows:) 
61 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE RONALD D. COLEMAN 

BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES 

AND THE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER 

Opposition to the Texas Low-Level 

Radioactive waste Disposal Compact 

September 13, 1994 

I thank the Chairmen for holding this hearing on this very 

important issue and am grateful for the opportunity to share with 

the committees my concerns about the Texas, Vermont, Maine-.LowLevel Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact. I oppose the Compact 

for several reasons, including environmental protection, 

proliferation of dumping, international agreements with Mexico, 

and my concern about waste sites in minority communities. I 

understand that Congress has no oversight with respect to siting 

within a state. However, we can help ensure that inferior sites 

are protected and international agreements followed. 

My greatest concern is that adequate protection is not given 

to the host state, Texas, in the event the hazardous waste stored 

at the disposal site contaminates the surrounding area. There 

have been six underground low-level radioactive waste storage 

sites opened across the country. Of those six, five have been 

closed due to contamination. The area surrounding the sixth site 

has been shown to be contaminated. However, this site in 

Hanford, Washington is surrounded by weapons disposal facilities 

and the exact source of the contamination has not been 

determined. The probability that the site in Texas will leak is 

1 
62 

great given the industry's history. 

Under Article VIII, Section 8.03 of the Compact, the states 

of Vermont and Maine will not be held liable for damage incurred 

due to the "siting, operation, maintenance, long-term care, or 

any other activity relating to the compact facility." Who does 

this leave liable? Generators, transporters, owners, and 

operators of the facility. However, these companies have limited 

financial resources. Ultimately, the taxpayers of Texas and the 

Federal government will bear the liability. When the water 

supply for an entire region of the state is contaminated, who 

will pay for water to be brought in? The taxpayers of Texas and 

the Federal government. 

This is not the first time I have testified before a 

Congressional Committee in opposition to waste being dumped in 

Hudspeth County, Texas. In 1992, I testified before the Merchant 

Marine and Fisheries Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Navigation 

on a proposal to dump New York City's municipal waste at a site 

outside the community of Sierra Blanca, which is in Hudspeth 

County, Texas. I expressed then similar concerns about the lack 

of evidence that the current methods of disposing of waste does 

not pose a threat either to human health or the environment. I 

was assured then by experts that the practice of land application 

of municipal waste, in the form of sludge, did not pose a hazard. 

In July of this year, the Texas Natural Resource Conservation 

Commission fined a New York company for not properly treating 180 

tons of sludge. I call 180 tons of untreated sludge a hazard. 

2 
Hudspeth county is the waste site selected by Texas. The 

citizens of Hudspeth County have already been put at risk by 

unsafe waste technology. This compact exposes Texans to 

significant risk again and then asks them to pay for it. 

As you know, these wastes can be dangerous for many 

thousands of years. The Environmental Protection Agency has 

insisted on guarantees that such material stay isolated from "the 

accessible environment" for 10,000 years--held secure in 

canisters for 100 or more of those years and then, as the 

containers begin to degrade, by the geological formations in 

which they are entombed. I submit to you that this compact 

provides no protection to the citizens of the host state and host 

county who will be most effected by the leakage of this waste. 

Vermont and Maine will not be held liable. Studies done to 

ascertain the suitability of the areas for this type of dumping 

are not accurate. Remember, the mountain ranges of West Texas, 

Northern Mexico and the Chihuahua desert are areas of seismic 

activity. The site is near the epicenter of the earthquake that 

occurred in 1931, the strongest recorded earthquake in Texas. 

The very people who have endangered their lives by accepting the 

wastes of other states, the people of Texas, will have to pay for 

the cleanup. It is they who could very well have to abandon 

their homes. Under this compact, Texas citizens will be left to 

pick up the tab, even though they, unlike Maine citizens, were 

never given the opportunity to vote on whether they approve of a 

compact or not. 

3 
64 

My second objection to this Compact is that it does not 

protect Texas by limiting the volume of waste it must accept from 

Party States and contracting States. Under this agreement, Texas 

accepts responsibility for both management and disposal as 

described in Article I, Section 1.01. Management is defined as 

"collection, consolidation, storage, packaging, or treatment." 

Treatment is not defined in the agreement. However, it is 

generally accepted as including incineration. Incineration 

reduces the volume of the waste, but not the level of 

radioactivity. Thus, less volume of waste will be disposed of at 

the site, but at a greater level of radioactivity. 

It is also unclear if waste imported from other states, but 

incinerated in Texas, is counted under the Texas portion or the 

non-host allotment. Article III, Section 3.04(11) says: 

The shipments of low-level radioactive waste from all non 

host party states shall not exceed 20 percent of the volume 

estimated to be disposed of by the host state during the 50-

year period. 

Shipment volumes are tied exclusively to disposal estimates. The 

Compact is silent on how much volume can be shipped for 

management. A substantially larger amount of waste can be 

shipped in and incinerated than the disposal estimates allow. 

Incineration of waste will allow more states to contract to 

dispose of their waste in Texas. 

These technical flaws could result in the state legislatures 

amending the Compact and Congress having to revisit this issue as 

4 
65 

soon as next year. Texas officials have indicated their 

willingness to propose legislation next year to tighten the 

contracting clause. However, once the Texas site is open there 

will be incredible outside pressure not to change the contract 

clause and it probably will not happen. 

Money not the best science -- is driving the compact 

process. Texas chose to be the host site for other states so 

that it could earn additional revenue. Texas could have entered 

into a reciprocal compact like Connecticut and New Jersey whereby 

each state agrees to manage and dispose of its own waste, but 

remains protected under the 1985 Low Level Radioactive Waste 

Disposal Policy Act Amendments. Instead, Texas chose to enter 

into a compact with Vermont and Maine. Each of these states have 

aging nuclear plants which will eventually be buried lock, stock, 

and barrel in Texas. 

This Compact gives Texas the authority to unilaterally allow 

other states to dump in Texas, allowing the state to earn even 

more money at the expense of the residents of West Texas. 

Connecticut, which I mentioned before is protected from having to 

house other states' waste, has shown a strong desire to be in the 

compact. As recently as July, representatives from Connecticut 

were in Hudspeth county exploring the financial benefits of 

Connecticut's ability to participate. 

Although almost all other states are involved in similar 

compacts, all but three will open after the Texas site. The 

other states are having to house their waste until a site opens. 

5 
66 

Once the Hudspeth county site opens, other states will look to it 

to hold their waste. One has to wonder why other compacts are 

moving more carefully, and deliberately than this compact in 

opening a site. 

A third objection relates to respecting our bi-national 

agreements. Texas is selecting Sierra Blanca, Hudspeth County, 

also the county seat, as the waste site. The town of Sierra 

Blanca is 20 miles from the Rio Grande River which is the 

international boundary between the u.s. and Mexico. Selection of 

this site is in clear violation of the 1983 Agreement for 

Cooperation on the Environment between the u.s. and Mexico, 

commonly referred to as the La Paz Agreement. Under Article 2 of 

the La Paz Agreement the u.s. and Mexican governments are 

directed "to the fullest extent practical . . . adopt the 

appropriate measures to prevent, reduce, and eliminate sources of 

pollution in their respective territory which affect the border 

area of the other." Article 7 of the Agreement states that the 

two governments shall assess, as appropriate, " projects that 

may have significant impacts on the border area, so that 

appropriate measures may be considered to avoid or mitigate 

adverse environmental effects." The border region is defined as 

properties within 100 kilometers on either side of the Rio 

Grande. 

I request that a communication from the Government of Mexico 

to the State Departme~t'outlining the its objection be inserted 

into the record immediately following my statement. While 

6 
67 

Congress may have no authority over the site selection process, 

we are responsible for guaranteeing that our bi-national 

agreements are respected by our own citizens, as well as, our 

state governments. 

A final issue concerns waste sites in minority communities. 

Under this Compact the site county will receive a total of $5 

million from Vermont and Maine. Hudspeth County is 64% Latino. 

2,915 people live there and the per capita income is only 

$13,029. It is a rural community whose residents are generally 

poor and do not have the means to hire lobbyists or the 

population to influence state policy. It is an area not unlike 

the many other poor, minority communities across the country 

which have been forced to co-habitate with other's radioactive 

waste. Five million dollars is a lot of money to anyone, but 

especially to these poor citiz 

I would like to point out -~~~t action by our President 

which speaks to the issue of poor, minority communities such as 

Sierra Blanca who are targeted under agreements sanctioned by 

this Compact. On February 11, 1994, President Clinton signed the 

Executive Order on Federal Actions to address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations. This 

executive order was in response to the overwhelming evidence that 

minorities and low-income populations are disproportionately 

burdened with environmental hazards. Hudspeth County is a prime 

example of this. The President directed all Federal agencies to 

ensure that the practice did not continue. I~ is left to 

7 
68 

Congress to address its responsibility in the same spirit of this 

Act. 

We have a responsibility to protect those without the means 

to protect themselves. We have a responsibility to abide by our 

bi-national agreements. we can fulfill our responsibility by 

disallowing this compact until a more suitable site is located. 

In addition, there is a recognition by the State of Texas 

that its contract with Maine and Vermont should also do the 

following: 

a. prohibit the entering into of agreements with entities 

other than state governments for the importation of lowlevel radioactive waste; 

b. define the volume of low-level radioactive waste to be 

accepted from contract entities. 

The fact that the Compact would have to be changed by an'act of 

the Texas Legislature between January and May of next year (1995) 

means that Congressional approval of the Compact subject to such 

a change is premature. we may have to approve an amended 

contract next year. 

Thank you for your consideration of these arguments. 

8 
69 

Mr. SHARP. Thank you very much, Mr. Coleman. Certainly you 

have been a vigorous, intense and thoughtful advocate for the folks 

in your area who are no longer part of your congressional district 

because I know you have been talking to me about this for several 

years. 

I know you have fought hard within the State of Texas as they 

were making decisions, as the Governor and the State legislature 

decided to go this route, and I respect the vigor with which you 

have pursued most of us on these committees in hopes of pursuing 

your point of view. We want to take seriously the issues you raise. 

As I indicated in my opening statement, at least I and some others I have talked with feel it is important to note that this is a regulated activity, either by the NRC or by an agreement with the 

State government. In this case, the State of Texas has an agreement with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and therefore will 

have to regulate hazards that come with low-level nuclear waste, 

though they are not nearly the kind of hazards that come with 

high-level nuclear waste, that there is a built-in system of protection that is to be exercised in this process. Certainly I would be terribly concerned if that did not e,Pst and if the decisions we were 

to make here disposed of that central issue. 

I personally have noted that we have great difficulty getting the 

States to take responsibility for this just as we have great difficulty 

at the Federal level taking responsibility for the high-level nuclear 

waste and getting those decisions made. I am inclined to keep people's feet to the fire-we are trying on high-level to keep our own 

feet to the fire-but also on low-level. So certainly I will try to respect and take seriously what you have indicated here and the 

international ramifications of it as well with our important neighbors to the south. 

But my own view is the burden of rejection must be on the folks 

that ask us to reject because, legally, we have set up a structure 

in which that power and authority has been left to the State with 

the collateral Federal power to regulate the environmental question 

of the nuclear waste, and that has yet to be exercised and will be 

exercised and should be exercised, and this and other committees 

should have oversight of that particular part of the activity. 

I don't particularly have any questions. You and I have discussed 

this on many occasions. I appreciate and respect that. 

Do my colleagues have questions? Mr. Allard, do you have any 

questions? 

Mr. Barlow. Mr. Mcinnis. 

Mr. MCINNIS. Congressman, could you tell me in more detail the 

provisions that you allege are in violation with the agreement with 

Mexico? 

Mr. COLEMAN. They are commonly referred to as the La Paz 

Agreement. And in that regard, President Reagan and President de 

Ia Madrid reached an accord that said that we would try to keep 

an environmentally free and safe zone within 100 kilometers of 

each side of our international borders. 
70 

The siting of this facility in my view is in total violation of that 

agreement. One only has to look at the geology of the area to recognize that any water flows that occur, any flooding, any seismic activity would cause the underground seepage to flow toward the Rio 

Grande. It flows from Texas south toward the Rio Grande River. 

The communication from Mexico states that it would hope that 

the United States would take all preventive measures to avoid the 

possibilities of any transboundary damage in compliance with article 2 of the La Paz Convention which state: 

The parties commit themselves as far as is possible to adopt the appropriate measures to prevent, reduce and eliminate sources of pollution in the respective territories that affect the border zone of the other. 

Hazardous waste deposit sites represent important sources of 

transboundary pollution. 

Mr. MciNNIS. Which authority makes the selection of the site? 

Mr. COLEMAN. In Texas, it was the Texas Low-Level Radioactive 

Waste Authority. That was done truthfully under the requirements 

set forth by the Texas Legislature. The Texas Legislature got together and said, well, we will see to it that it is sited on government-owned land. So right away, you eliminate a whole bunch of 

areas which might be more geologically sound, and essentially 

forced it out to west of a longitudinal line in Texas where most of 

our government-owned land is and where there is less resistance 

in terms of population and in terms of representation in the Texas 

Legislature. 

When that site was selected, the Commission itself was obligated 

under their charge to do what they have done. I don't question the 

Commission's decision, per se. I question the efficacy of the legislature having done what it did in terms of demanding that it be in 

only a certain region of the State when in fact early geological reports when this issue was first brought up were sent to then-Governor Mark White which suggested that indeed sites in North 

Texas were far more desirable geologically. Governor Mark White, 

Governor Bill Clements and Governor Richards have made a decision that they want to continue following the mandate set forth by 

the legislature. 

Mr. MciNNIS. It seems the proper forum for determining the 

merits of the compact is in this room, but the proper forum for determining the merits of the siting is in the form of the legislature 

and the siting authorities. 

Mr. COLEMAN. I have argued that with Chairman Dingell and 

others in the past, and I always seem to lose the argument when 

they say that is a State issue. We made a decision in 1982 that we 

would take high-level waste and States would take low-level so, 

therefore, we wash our hands of the health and welfare of all 

American citizens if it is only low-leveL 

I think they will both kill you, and I don't know where that line 

is. There will be a problem for families or children in certain areas, 

especially if there is contamination and leakage. So I question the 

validity of that argument. Nonetheless, I lose that argument. 

So you are right, I am not here arguing the siting issue unless 

it is a violation of an international agreement. Then I think the 

State erred and it can be set right by the Federal Government, and 

I think we ought to do it. That is certainly one of my arguments. 
71 

Mr. MciNNIS. One more question. Just for clarification, it seems 

to me that your entire argument is based on siting. 

Mr. CoLEMAN. To answer your question about who was responsible for siting, I was giving you my analysis of what happened in 

terms of the siting and my statements that I think that was wrong 

as well. 

I would repeat my view of some of the main problems with the 

compact itself, not dealing with the siting. One, the Texas Legislature will probably have to go forward with amendments themselves, because they realize the error in having accepted responsibility for management and disposal. 

Two, there are technical flaws, in the compact so that a substantially larger amount of waste could be shipped in and incinerated 

than the disposal estimates allow and incineration of waste will 

allow more States to contract to dispose of their waste in Texas. 

The compact is not tightly drawn. If Texas does have to amend the 

compact, it is my understanding of the Federal statute that we will 

be back here having to do this again. 

My question is: Why are we rushing to judgment on this compact 

when there are problems, in my view, and I am trying to raise 

those? 

Ms. SNOWE. I would like to add something. I think the legislatures in all three States have carefully examined this compact and 

they have approved it by overwhelming votes. Even in the State 

legislature of Texas, there were only four members opposed and 

only two opposed in the Senate. In Vermont, the House voted 104 

to 36 in favor of the compact, and the Senate approved it by voice 

vote. And in Maine, there were only six opposed in the Maine 

House and in the Senate, three opposed. So we are talking about 

very minimal opposition in any one of the States with respect to 

this compact. 

I understand the point that Ron is making, but on the other 

hand, there will be a process next year in which there will be hearings in the State of Texas regarding the site, regarding the issues, 

with respect to environmental issues, and that would be the appropriate forum in which to address those issues. 

Obviously, the States are involved and have been involved and 

have given this their strongest consideration and support. 

Mr. MciNNIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

It appears to me, and I respect the gentleman from Texas' tenacity, but it appears to me from what I understand reading this, and 

I have very little experience as compared to you in this area, that 

your position is strictly site driven and not overall concern about 

treaty obligations and minority considerations. I am trying to get 

over that and have not been able to do that. 

Mr. COLEMAN. Let me suggest that, yes, I am very worried about 

the site selection. It was a mistake driven by money, by political 

power, driven by a lot of reasons. You are right, I have a problem 

with the site selection. That is only one element, though, of what 

is wrong with this compact. 

The compact itself has a problem. The State legislature is going 

to need to redraw it. I was going to offer those to you for committee 

perusal. I have four or five amendments that I think are valid for 
72 

you to consider, ones that I think should correctly put conditions 

on the States. 

It is interesting to note that my colleague from Maine suggests 

that the legislatures all did it right. She should point out early on 

about how many members would sit on the commission. There were 

six from Texas and one each from Maine and Vermont. How many 

of them are from West Texas? We are almost like a separate State. 

We are the place where they are going to put it; we got one. So 

it is one to five to two. 

It sounds to me like the votes will wind up being seven to one. 

We can argue that this is fair except for a truly minority district. 

We have a county that is 64 percent Latino and you are once again 

doing exactly what we said we wouldn't do. I am suggesting that 

there are a lot of things wrong with the compact and siting is one 

of them. I continue to be concerned about the 10,000 years that is 

supposed to be there. 

We don't know when the next earthquake is going to be. I am 

not trying to argue siting here. I want you to get over that issue, 

that that is what drives me to the point of being worried about it. 

There are other problems with this compact and I have tried to 

voice those concerns and have amendments that I would hope you 

might consider. 

Mr. SHARP. As the gentleman realizes, the gentleman is trying 

to make his point as clear as he can that we have to accept or reject an interstate compact. The compact is an agreement among 

three States and they are petitioning us for approval or disapproval 

of that agreement and that is the way the legislative process works 

on this feature. I understand the gentleman with his amendments 

would try to demonstrate the issues that he feels very deeply 

about. 

Mr. COLEMAN. If I could in response say to you that, of course, 

all my amendments do is make approval contingent on those things 

occurring. Those would be the tenor of my amendments. 

Mr. SHARP. Does the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Hastert, have 

any questions? 

We appreciate very much your serious attention to this matter 

and trust that our subcommittees will take it very seriously. Thank 

you very much for being with us. 

Mr. COLEMAN. Thank you. 

Ms. SNOWE. Thank you. 

Mr. SHARP. We now welcome our first panel of outside witnesses, 

the Hon. Clyde Alexander from the Texas House of Representatives; Ms. Diane Conrad, the State geologist for the State of Vermont; Stephen G. Ward, public advocate for the State of Maine; 

and Linda Lynch with the Alert Citizens for Environmental Safety 

from the State of Texas. 

Ladies and gentlemen, I suspect you have been informed about 

our processes here. We will be happy to make your written statements a part of our printed record and would appreciate having 

your oral summary at this point. 

Mr. Alexander, we will be pleased to hear from you. Try to hold 

your oral summary to five minutes. 
73 

PANEL CONSISTING OF BON. CLYDE ALEXANDER, MEMBER, 

TEXAS BOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES; DIANE L. CONRAD, 

STATE GEOLOGIST, STATE OF VERMONT; STEPHEN G. WARD, 

PUBLIC ADVOCATE, STATE OF MAINE; AND, LINDA LYNCH, 

ALERT CITIZENS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY, STATE OF 

TEXAS, ACCOMPANIED BY HUGH KAUFMAN, TECHNICAL AD· 

VISOR 

Mr. ALEXANDER. Chairman Sharp and members of the subcommittee, my name is Clyde Alexander and I am a member of the 

Texas house. 

A brief history. In 1991, the legislature of Texas amended its 

laws to enable Texas to enter into this compact. Pursuant to passage of this Act, the legislature passed Senate Bill 1206 in 1993 

that authorized the State of Texas to enter into a compact with the 

States of Maine and Vermont. It was negotiated by the Governor 

of the State of Texas, and after committee hearings and debate in 

both houses of the legislature, it was overwhelmingly approved. Subsequently, it was approved by the people in Maine and Vermont. 

I would like to point out that the Texas Low-Level Radioactive 

Waste Compact is not site specific. It is simply an agreement between the States of Texas, Maine, and Vermont to enter into a 

compact for the safe and efficient disposal of low-level radioactive 

waste from the three States involved pursuant to the mandates 

that the Congress of the United States has previously passed. The 

compact is wise policy wherever the site may ultimately be located 

in Texas. 

I would like to state again that the compact was vigorously negotiated by Governor Ann Richards of Texas and underwent thorou(Jh 

open debate in both committee and on the floors of each house m 

the States of Maine and Vermont. It has subsequently been approved by all parties concerned and only awaits ratification of Congress. 

With due respect to Congressman Coleman, the La Paz Agreement with Mexico simply states that if a facility is to be located 

within 100 kilometers, we will communicate and be in contact with 

Mexico. The State of Texas has been in contact numerous times, 

and we do not have any official disagreement with Mexico about 

this. But then again, it is not about site. 

The reason this was so overwhelmingly accepted in the State of 

Texas is because this limits our risk. This is the best insurance pol- icy we could ever have because it limits it to 20 percent of what 

we produce. If we don't do this compact, if this is not ratified, we 

are open to many more States dumping their waste in Texas. At 

the same time, the site is in control of the Texas Natural Resource 

Conservation Commission, and they are the most aggressively 

green agency the State of Texas has ever had. And I have full confidence that they will protect the health and welfare of the citizens 

of Texas. 

Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Alexander follows:] 
74 

Testimony of the Honorable Clyde Alexander 

Before The 

subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources 

And 

Subcommittee on Energy and Power 

The United States Congress 

House of Representatives Washington, DC 

September 13, 1994 

Dear Chairman Lehman, Chairman Sharp and Members of the 

Subcommittees: 

My name is Clyde Alexander, and I am a member of the Texas House of 

Representatives. I was author of House Bill 2036, which was the 

companion bill of senate Bill 1206 that the Texas Legislature passed in 1993, pursuant to the requirements set forth by you in 

the 1985 amendments to the Low-level Radioactive Waste Policy Act 

(42 USCA §202ld). 

A brief history of the Texas Low-level Radioactive Waste Compact is as follows: 

In 1991, the Texas Legislature amended its laws to enable 

Texas to enter into a low-level radioactive waste disposal compact with other states setting certain guidelines and restrictions on such compact. 

Pursuant to the passage of this Act, the Texas Legislature 

passed senate Bill 1206 in 1993, that authorized the state of Texas 

to enter into a low-level compact with the states of Maine and 

Vermont. This Compact was negotiated by the Governor of the state 

of Texas and after committee hearings and debate in both houses of 

the legislature it was overwhelmingly approved. 

Subsequently it was approved by the State of Maine Legislature and then approved by the people of Maine in a statewide referendum. 

The State of Vermont's Legislature approved it earlier this 

year·and subsequently it has been introduced in both the senate and 

House and is before you now as H.R. 4800. 

I would like to point out that the Texas Low-level Radioactive 

Waste compact is not site specific. It is simply an agreement 

between the states of Texas, Maine and Vermont to enter into a compact for the safe and efficient disposal of low-level 

radioactive waste from the three states involved pursuant to the 

mandates that the Congress of the United states have previously passed. The Compact is wise policy wherever the site may 

ultimately be located in Texas. 
75 

The compact is set-out in detail before you in H.R. 4800 and rather 

than explaining each part of the compact, I would rather open it up 

for any questions you might have regarding any details of the 

compact at the end of my testimony. 

In closing I would like to again state, that this Compact was vigorously negotiated by Governor Richards of Texas and under went 

thorough and open debate both in committee and on the floors of 

each house of the Texas Legislature and in the legislatures of the 

states of Maine and Vermont. It has been subsequently approved by 

all the parties concerned and only awaits the ratification by 

congress. 

I respectfully request speedy ratification of the compact, so that 

the states of Texas, Maine and Vermont can move forward under the 

guidelines that you here in the congress have requested that we follow. 

Thank you very much for your courtesy in allowing me to be present 

today, and offer this testimony. I am ready to answer any 

questions any of you might have. 

2 
76 

supple•ental Sheet 

To Testi•ony 

The Honorable Clyde Alexander 

September 13, 1994 

Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Compact 

H.R. 4800 

I. History 

Ratification of the Texas Low-level Radioactive Waste Compact 

by the states of Texas, Maine, and Vermont. 

II. Purpose 

An agreement for the safe and efficient disposal of low-level 

radioactive waste as set forth by Congress in 1985 amendments to 

the Low-level Radioactive Waste Policy Act (42 USCA §2021d). 

III. Conclusion 

Requesting ratification by Congress of the Compact so that the 

states can move forward. 

The Honorable Clyde Alexander 

State Representative 

House of Representatives 

P.O. Box 2910 

Austin, TX 78768-2910 

512/463-0730 

Mr. Lance Lively 

Assistant 

512/463-0730 
77 

Mr. SHARP. Ms. Conrad. 

STATEMENT OF DIANE L. CONRAD 

Ms. CONRAD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Sharp and 

members of the subcommittees, thank you for inviting me to testify 

on behalf of the State of Vermont on H.R. 4800. As you know, my 

name is Diane Conrad. Since 1991, in my capacity as Vermont 

State geologist, I have represented Governor Howard Dean in negotiations with Texas and Maine to form the three-State disposal 

compact now before you for ratification. 

A brief history of Vermont's involvement in the process may be 

helpful. We began discussions with Texas and Maine in 1988 at the 

invitation of the State of Texas. In 1990, Vermont passed its own 

siting law in order to meet the Federal mandate that each State 

provide a disposal solution for its own low-level radioactive waste. 

Our law required that the State pursue two parallel paths looking 

for a disposal site in the State and at the same time vigorously 

pursuing compact opportunities with other States. 

In 1990, we contacted every compact and non-affiliated State in 

the Nation to determine interest in compacting with Vermont, and 

Texas indicated its willingness to go forward at that time. The 

Texas and Maine Legislatures approved the compact legislation in 

late spring 1993 followed by a Maine referendum in November 

1993. Vermont continued its in-state search for a disposal site until 

April 1994 when our legislature overwhelmingly approved our 

entry into the compact. As such, the compact arrangement was 

agreed upon after several years of painstaking research and deliberations. 

You should know that passage of the compact legislation inVermont was neither simple nor effortless. Vermont is known for its 

environmental record. Vermonters are independent people who believe very deeply in solving their own problems. Vennont's siting 

law provided that the State enter a compact only if that agreement 

would adequately protect the environment of the host State. 

As such, Vennont legislators were very concerned about the environment in Texas and that the site chosen would provide sufficient 

protection to human health and the environment. Before they 

would endorse the compact bill, our legislature needed to be certain 

that, in the event the site already selected wasn't sufficient, the 

siting process for selection of a new site would be scientifically 

based and would provide the protection our legislature required. 

After considerable discussion, their concerns were satisfied and 

the compact bill was passed by a substantial margin. That was 75 

percent in both chambers. 

As Vermont's State geologist, I manage the State's Geological 

Survey, as do State geologists in the other 49 States. These organizations are the repository for geologic information and research on 

the State level and employ people who are experts on their own 

States' geology. 

Much of the work to select a Texas site and then to characterize 

the selected site was conducted by the Texas Bureau of Economic 

Geology, which is the Texas Survey. The Bureau employs professional geologists who are experts in their field. While it is important to remember that this compact is independent of a specific 

site, it was important to us to look at the site and how it was selected. 
78 

I have inspected the site with Bureau geologists and I have per· 

sonally reviewed the plans for site disposal. I am confident that the 

site selected is technically one of the best in the country and that 

the site selection process was based on good science and a sound 

understanding of Texas climate and geology. 

I would urge passage of the Texas compact for the following rea· 

sons. If it were possible to disregard State boundaries, the best location for waste disposal would be a dry, geologically stable environment. Vermont and Maine, both humid States with harsh winters located in areas which are more earthquake prone than Texas 

can't provide that quality of disposal area. Thus the Texas disposal 

site provides an environmentally superior solution. 

Vermont and Maine together have spent nearly $13 million in 

their searches for environmentally protective sites within their own 

State boundaries. A disposal facility designed to accommodate the 

waste from the three States will provide savings due to economies 

of scale for all the States involved. 

Finally, if the Texas compact becomes the tenth compact in the 

Nation to receive congressional approval, Texas will benefit. By ac· 

cepting the small amounts of waste generated in and for disposal 

as specified by the agreement, congressional ratification ensures 

that Texas is protected from non-compact wastes and will avoid becoming the Nation's disposal area. 

Ratification of the Texas compact provides equally important 

benefits nationally. By forming the compact, the number of disposal 

sites in the Nation goes down by two because Maine and Vermont 

are no longer siting. 

Further, congressional intent in passing the 1985 amendments to 

the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act was clear. Incentives 

were granted encouraging States to form compacts and thereby decreasing the proliferation of disposal sites. Approval of the Texas 

compact meets the congressional mandates. 

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you this afternoon and 

I am available for any questions you may have. 

Mr. LEHMAN [presiding]. Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Ms. Conrad follows:] 
79 

U.S. HOUSB OF RBPRBSBBTATIVBB 

JOINT SUBCOHKITTBB BBARIRG 

BNERGY AND KIRBRAL RESOURCES SUBCOHKITTBB 

BNBRGY AND POWER SUBCOHKITTBB 

TESTIMORY OF DIANE L. COKRAD 

STATE GEOLOGIST, STATB OF VBRMOHT 

SBPTBMBBR 13, 1994 
80 

Chairman Lehman, Chairman Sharp and members of the Energy and 

Mineral Resources subcommittee and the Energy and Power 

Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify on behalf of the 

State of Vermont on H.R. 4800, the "Texas Low-level Radioactive 

waste Disposal Compact consent Act." My name is Diane Conrad. 

Since 1991, in my capacity as Vermont State Geologist, I have 

represented Governor Howard Dean in negotiations with Texas and 

Maine to form the three-state disposal compact now before you for 

ratification. 

A brief history of Vermont's involvement in the process may be 

helpful. We began discussions with Texas and Maine in 1988, at the 

invitation of the state of Texas. In 1990, Vermont passed its own 

siting law in order to meet the federal mandate that each state 

provide a disposal solution for its own low-level radioactive 

waste. our law required that the state pursue two parallel paths: 

looking for a disposal site in-state and, at the same time, 

"vigorously pursuing" compact opportunities with other states. In 

1990, we contacted every compact and non-affiliated state in the 

nation to determine interest in compacting with Vermont. Texas 

indicated its willingness to go forward with compact discussions. 

The Texas and Maine legislatures approved the compact legislationin late spring, 1993, followed by a Maine referendum in November, 

1993. vermont continued its in-state search for a disposal site 

until April, 1994, when Vermont's legislature overwhelmingly 

approved our entry into the compact. As .such, the compact 

arrangement was agreed upon after several years of painstaking 

research and deliberations. 

Passage of the compact legislation in Vermont was neither simple 

nor effortless. Vermont is known for its environmental record; 

Vermonters are independent people who believe deeply in solving 

their own problems. vermont's siting law provided that the state 

could enter a compact only if that the agreement would "adequately 

protect the environment of the host state." As such, Vermont 

legislators were very concerned that the site chosen would provide 

sufficient protection to human health and the environment in Texas. 

Before they would endorse the compact bill, our legislature needed 

to be certain that, in the event the site already selected was not 

sufficient, the siting process for selection of a new site would be 

scientifically based and would provide the protection our legislature required before they would endorse the compact bili. 

After considerable discussion, their concerns were satisfied and 

the compact bill passed by a substantial margin. 

As Vermont's State Geologist, I manage the state's Geological 

Survey, as do state geologists in the other 49 states. These 

organizations are the repository for geologic information and 

research on the state level, and employ people who are experts on 

their own state's geology. Much of the work to select a Texas 

site, and then to characterize the selected site, was conducted by 

the Texas Bureau of Economic Geology, which is the Texas Survey. 
81 

The Bureau employs professional geologists who are experts in their 

field. I have inspected the site, and I have personally reviewed 

the plans. I am confident that the site selected is technically one of the best in the country, and that the site selection process was based on good science and a sound understanding of Texas 

climate and geology. 

I urge passage of the Texas compact for the following reasons: 

* If it wer.e possible to disregard state boundaries, the best 

location for waste disposal would be a dry, geologically stable 

environment. Vermont and Maine, both humid states with harsh 

winters located in areas which are more earthquake prone than 

Texas, cannot provide the quality of disposal area that can be 

found in Texas. Thus, a Texas disposal site provides an environmentally superior solution. 

* Vermont and Maine together have spent nearly $13 million in 

their searches for environmentally protective sites within their 

state boundaries. A disposal facility designed to accommodate the 

wastes from the three states will provide savings due to economies 

of scale for all of the states involved. 

• Finally, If the Texas compact becomes the lOth compact in the 

nation to receive Congressional approval, Texas will benefit. By 

accepting the small amounts of waste generated in Vermont and Maine 

for disposal as specified by the compact agreement, Congressional 

ratification will ensure that Texas is protected from non-compact 

wastes and will avoid becoming the nation's disposal area. 

Ratification of the Texas compact provides equally important 

benefits nationally. By forming a compact, the number of disposal 

sites planned for the nation drops by two, since Vermont and Maine 

will no longer be designated host states under the agreement. 

Further, Congressional intent in passing the 1985 amendments to the 

Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act was clear - incentives were granted encouraging states to form compacts, thereby decreasing the 

proliferation of disposal sites. Approval of the Texas compact 

meets the Congressional mandate. 

Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you this afternoon. I am available to answer any questions you may have. 
82 

Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. Ward. 

STATEMENT OF STEPHEN G. WARD 

Mr. WARD. Mr. Chairman and members of the Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee and the Energy and Power Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity of providing this statement. My name is Stephen Ward and I serve as the advocate in 

Maine for the interests~ of utility customers and have represented 

Governor McKernan for many years in negotiations for Maine's entrance into a Low-Level Radioactive Waste Compact. 

These negotiations began in 1988 and since that date have actually involved three successive Governors in Vermont and two Governors in the State of Texas. I have represented the interests of the 

State of Maine at every stage of the process. The purpose of this 

testimony is to urge ratification in the U.S. House of the terms in 

the proposed compact as presented in H.R. 4800. 

As we have heard, there was overwhelming approval in the legislatures of Maine, Vermont, and Texas as well as a three to one vote 

by the people of the State of Maine in favor of this arrangement. 

There are three primary reasons why I urge action in this session of Congress to ratify the Texas compact. The first is that it 

will endorse the formal folicy choice of the Texas Legislature as 

well as the legislatures o Maine and Vermont in creating an interstate compact. 

The member States of the proposed compact have determined 

that a workable solution that is safe and predictable disposal of 

their radioactive waste is possible if and only if Texas, Maine, and 

Vermont are able to restrict access to any disposal facility built by 

Texas to those wastes streams that come from generators in the 

three States . . This is an issue which the U.S. Supreme Court addressed in 

1992 in a case called New York v. U.S. In that decision, the U.S. 

Supreme Court determined that member States of an interstate 

compact--of which there are nine currently across the country-acquire a right to exclude out-of-region radioactive waste by virtue of 

ratification of the compact by the U.S. Congress. In the absence of 

compact ratification, the necessary certainty in planning and in financing and in operating disposal facilities is simply not present. 

In short, Congress' intent in passing the 1980 and 1985 Federal 

Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act will be frustrated. States 

like Maine, Vermont, and Texas will lack certainty about their ability to restrict access to newly constructed facilities to an extent 

that could jeopardize new facilities from coming on-line. This is the 

key benefit. It is a legal protection which the State of Texas will 

receive under this arrangement. 

Secondly, in addition to fulfilling Congress' purpose and encouraging cooperation among the States in coming up with regional solutions to this problem, the State of Maine urges congressional ratification for a second reason. Maine's climate and geology are not 

suitable for the long-term isolation of radioactive waste in view of 

heavy amounts of rainfall in excess of 40 inches annually and 

depth to groundwater at levels as little as 8 feet. 

In contrast, rainfall amounts in West Texas, many parts of 

Texas, come to one-quarter of that total annually and depth 

groundwater can be 100 times greater than prevailing levels in 

northern New England. Maine's five-year effort to locate a suitable 
83 

site for a waste facility consumed $7 million, involved an extensive 

citizen-participation process and a great deal of effort, but ultimately did not identify any site with the potential advantages of 

the site proposed in Texas. 

Nothing in this compact agreement specifies any particular site 

or a particular location in Texas or anywhere else, but clearly a 

site which can safely isolate waste in Texas will be superior to sites 

identified so far in Maine and Vermont. The words Hudspeth 

County appear nowhere in the compact documents. Maine and Vermont are in no way involved in the licensing process. In fact, the 

compact gives all responsibilities for the siting and operation, management and decommissioning of the facility to the State of Texas. 

The last reason we urge ratification is to maintain and continue 

the progress which the States have been making on this issue since 

passage of the 1980 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act and 

its 1985 amendments. Today sites are undergoing the licensing 

process in North Carolina, California, Nebraska, and Texas. 

Furthermore, an existing site in Washington State will remain 

open to handle low-level waste generated in the Northwest compact 

and as well in the Rocky Mountain Compact. An active siting process is also going forward in Ohio and Illinois and in Pennsylvania 

in order to protect the progress which these efforts indicate it is essential for Congress to continue its record of compact ratification. 

Nine compacts have been proposed and nine have been ratified. 

A contrary result will slow the efforts now under way. 

Thank you for the opportunity of providing these comments, and 

I would be happy to respond to any questions. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Ward follows:] 
84 

U.S. BOOSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

SUB-COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

SOB-COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER 

JOINT SUB-COMMITTEE BEARING 

TESTIMONY OF STEPHEN G. WARD 

PUBLIC ADVOCATE, STATE OF MAINE 

SEPTEMBER 13, 1994 

Mr. Chairman, members of the Energy and Mineral SubCommittee and the Energy and Power Sub-Committee, thank you for 

providing this opportunity for a statement. My name is Stephen Ward and I serve as the advocate in Maine government for the 

interests of utility customers. I have represented Governor 

McKernan for many years in negotiations for Maine's entrance into a low-level radioactive waste compact. These negotiations began in 1988 and, since that date have involved three successive 

Governors in Vermont and two Governors in the State of Texas. I 

have represented the interests of the State of Maine at every 

stage of the process. 

The purpose of this testimony is to urge ratification in the 

u.s. Bouse of the terms of the proposed compact as presented in 

BR 4800. This result will fulfill the intent of the Maine 

Legislature which overwhelmingly approved the identical compact language in June 1993, as well as the intent of Governor McKernan 

who promptly signed this legislation into law. Additionally, it 

will fulfill the clear preference of the Maine electorate which 

voted by a 3 to 1 margin on November 2, 1993 to formally endorse 

the compact arrangement. 

There are three primary reasons why I urge action in this 

session of Congress to ratify the Texas compact. The first is 

that it will endorse the formal policy choice of the Texas 

Legislature, as well as the Legislatures of Maine and Vermont, in 

creating an interstate compact arrangement. The member states of 

the proposed Texas compact have determined that a workable 

solution for the safe and predictable disposal of their 

radioactive waste is only possible if Texas, Maine and Vermont are able to restrict access to any disposal facility built by Texas to waste generators in the three states. As the u.s. 

Supreme Court affirmed in the 1992 Hew Iork y. u.s. decision, 

(112 s.ct. 2408 (1992)), member states of an interstate compact (of which there are nine currently) acquire this right to exclude 

out-of-region radioactive waste by virtue of compact ratification 

by the u.s. Congress. In the absence of compact ratification, 

Page 1 
85 

necessary certainty in planning, financing and operating disposal facilities is simply not present. In short, Congress• intent in 

passing the 1985 amendments to the Low-Level Radioactive Waste 

Policy Act will be frustrated: states like Maine, Vermont and 

Texas will lack certainty about their ability to restrict access to newly-constructed disposal facilities to an extent that could 

jeopardize a new facility from coming on line. 

In addition to fulfilling Congress' purpose in encouraging 

states to cooperate in regional solutions for radioactive waste 

disposal, the State of Maine urges Congressional ratification for a second reason. In view of Maine's climate and geology, it is 

preferable by far for disposal of Maine's waste to occur in a dry desert locale such as exists in West Texas. In contrast to 40 

inches of rainfall annually in Maine, rainfall amounts in West 

Texas come to 1/4 of that total, or less, in most years. Depth 

to groundwater in West Texas is as much as 100 times greater than 

average 8 foot depths in Maine. Maine's five-year effort to 

locate a suitable size for a waste facility consumed $7 million, 

represented a considerable amount of effort but ultimately did 

not identify any site with these potential advantages. A key benefit of the Texas compact then is to enable waste generated in 

Maine to be disposed of in a setting whose geology and climate 

adds to, rather than subtracting from, longterm environmental 

security. 

Nothing in the compact agreement specifies a particular site or a particular location in Texas but clearly a site which can safely isolate waste in Texas will be superior to any sites 

identified in Maine or Vermont. 

The last reason we urge ratification is to maintain and 

continue the progress which the states have been making on this 

issue since passage of the 1980 Low-Level Radioactive Waste 

Policy Act and its 1985 amendments. Today sites are undergoing the licensing process in North Carolina, California, Nebraska and 

Texas. Furthermore, an existing site in Washington State will 

remain open to handle low-level waste generated in the Northwest 

Compact and the Rocky Mountain Compact. An active siting process is also going forward in Ohio, Illinois and Pennsylvania. In 

order to protect the progress which these siting efforts 

indicate, it is essential for Congress to continue its record of 

compact ratification: nine compacts proposed, nine compacts ratified. A contrary result will slow the efforts now underway in many states for safe disposal and facility licensing, or halt 

them altogether. 

Thank you for the opportunity of providing these comments. 

I am available in the event a committee member has questions, and 

urge Congressional action to ratify the Texas compact. 

Page 2 
86 

SUPPLEMENTAL Sl'lEE'.r: 

COmmittee on Natural Resources 

o.s. House of Representatives 

1. Name: Stephen G. Ward 

2. Address: Public Advocate Office 

State Bouse Station 112 

Augusta, ME 04333-0112 

3. Telephone Number: 207-287-2445 

4. OUtline of Statement: 

Mr. Ward urges Congressional approval of the agreement between Maine, Vermont and Texas for the fo~tion of an interstate compact for the disposal of low-level 

radioactive waste pursuant to the 1985 Low-Level 

Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act. 

Page 3 
87 

Mr. LEHMAN. Thank you very much. We have a vote on now, so 

before we get to Ms. Lynch, I will go and vote. And as soon as we 

get back here, we will take your testimony. 

We will be in recess for maybe 10 minutes. 

Mr. BARLOW [presiding]. The committee will reconvene. 

If the witnesses will please take their chairs, we will continue 

with Ms. Lynch. 

STA1'EMENT OF LINDA LYNCH 

Ms. LYNCH. Thank-you. I appreciate the opportunity to be here 

today. I am a native of West Texas, and it is a new experience to 

testify here. I would like to thank you and the subcommittee members for inviting me to present a statement and answer questions 

at today's joint hearing on the Texas Nuclear Waste Dump Compact which is being considered for your ratification today. 

I speak today not only as a representative of Alert Citizens for 

Environmental Safety which is based in West Texas and Save Sierra Blanca which is based in the community where this dump site 

is being located, but also for the hundreds of voiceless residents 

and taxpayers of the Texas-Mexico border communities. I am also 

accompanied by Hugh Kaufman of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, its most experienced official in the field of waste management. 

I had a couple of quick comments to make in terms of the earlier 

testimony. Ms. Conrad, being here on behalf of her geological perspective in the State of Vermont, you will see as I go through my 

5 minutes that primarily one thing I want you to focus on is the 

liability of what this compact presents to the State of Texas. 

I would like to offer for the record that, if the State of Vermont 

is so confident that the geology is sound and that the potential injury to the populations at the site is so assured to be safe, in that 

case, Maine and Vermont should be mandated by this compact to 

take full liability for the site for its full lifetime and into its decommissioning. 

Af3 you know, the compact which is the subject of this hearing 

is to be ratified under the provisions of the Federal 1980 Low-Level 

Radioactive Waste Policy Act and the 1985 amendments. As you 

are also aware, this Act and the amendments mandated that nuclear waste generated in certain geographic regions of the United 

States should be managed in the geographic region in which the 

wastes are generated. In other words, the basis for ratification 

under the Act and its amendments presumes that States within a 

geographic region agree to work together to manage the radioactive 

waste that region creates. 

Af3 I believe you mentioned earlier, I am sure you will agree that 

Texas, Maine, and Vermont at least to my knowledge don't appear 

to be in the same geographic region. Thus, this compact is not a 

regional compact as defined by the 1980 Act and its 1985 amendments. Therefore, the question arises to this subcommittee as to 

what Congress is actually being asked to ratify. 

After a thorough analysis of this compact, paying particular attention to the fine print, it has become clear to us, the Texas taxpayers, what you are truly being asked to consent to. You are being 

asked to sanction Governor Ann Richards and the Texas Legislature's decision to volunteer Texas taxpayers to become liable for 
88 

trillions of dollars of nuclear waste liabilities created worldwide by 

private industry and military and civilian governments. 

I point to section 3.01, paragraph 6 of the compact bill which 

opens the bill to any entity under any limit under any circumstances to dump in the State of Texas. This compact which 

needs your approval is different from every other compact you have 

previously ratified. This compact allows unelected officials unaccountable to taxpayers to set their own salaries and to negotiate for 

dumping of nuclear waste from anywhere in the world without the 

traditional checks and balances of accountability which normal government and business organizations must adhere to. 

In short, this compact is not as advertised, and it sets a dangerous precedent. It is a bad business deal for Texas, and it sends 

the wrong signal of environmental protection to Americans, especially poor and minority citizens who already bear a great burden 

of environmental injustice in our country. 

Unlike the other compacts you have ratified, the site for dumping 

has already been mandated and is in violation of President Clinton's 1994 Executive order on environmental justice and the civil 

rights of 1964. Over 70 percent of the residents of Hudspeth County, Texas, the mandated home of this compact dump, are Hispanic, 

and over 40 percent of the residents live below the poverty line. 

The compact commission which you will be creating if you ratify 

this document will be spending Federal dollars, setting its commissioners' own salaries, accepting money and gifts, contracting for 

services without following Federal Government procedures, and 

will be contracting worldwide for the services of this dump in 

Hudspeth County. In short, Congress will be allowing this commission to act in potentially unconstitutional ways under the ruse of 

managing nuclear waste generated in one region of the country. 

If Congress truly wants to ratify a compact for the Texas region, 

this compact must be repaired. I simply submit to you that the repairs take effect before ratification. The changes mandated must 

include but not be limited to the following: 

First, all contracts of the compact commission must follow Federal Government procedures which include competitive bidding and 

public scrutiny because Federal funds are involved. 

Second, compact commissioners must not be allowed to earn 

more money than Federal officials since they are managing Federal 

dollars and the compact commission for which they work was created by Congress. 

Third, the compact commission must be mandated to adhere to 

all laws which the Federal Government must comply with, including but not limited to the Freedom of Information Act and the Civil 

Rights Act. 

Four, the compact commission must not be allowed to enter into 

any agreements with any person or entity to accept waste not generated in the Texas geographic region. 

Five, the compact commission must not accept a nuclear waste 

dump mandated and designed by the host State which does not 

even comply with the standard guidelines of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for design of a household trash landfill, 

and I assure you this one does not. 
89 

In conclusion, we support congressional intent to ensure environmentally sound, economically protective and fair and equitable 

management of nuclear waste generated in the many regions of 

America. 

We want to be a part of the solution of the problems engendered 

with treatment, storage and management of nuclear waste. However, this compact without modifications, as I stated above, does 

not meet these requirements and must be modified to come into 

compliance with the spirit and letter of the Constitution and the 

laws of the United States. 

On behalf of ACES, Safe Sierra Blanca and the voiceless on the 

Texas-Mexico border, I can say with confidence that we want to 

work with you and the elected officials in Texas towards a nuclear 

waste management strategy which fully complies with the Constitution and the laws of the United States and is not an environmental and economic burden to the taxpayers of our region. 

Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Ms. Lynch follows:] 
90 

TESTIMONY OF LINDA LYNCH 

BEFO~ THE 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER (ENERGY AND COMMERCE COMMITTEE) 

AND 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES (NATURAL RESOURCES 

COMMITTEE) 

HEARING ON 

NUCLEAR WASTE DUMP COMPACT IN TEXAS 

SEPTEMBER 13, 1994 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Messrs. Chairmen and Members of the Subcommittees, thank you very 

much for inviting me'to present a statement and answer questions 

at today 1 s Joint Hearing on the Texas nuclear waste dump Compact, 

which is being considered for ratification by congress. I am speaking today not only as a representative of Alert Citizens for 

Environmental Safety (ACES) and Save Sierra Blanca, but also for 

the hundreds of "voiceless" residents and taxpayers of 

Texas/Mexico border communities. 

As you know the Compact, which is the subject of this hearing, is 

to be ratified under the provisions of the Federal 1980 Low Level 

Radioactive waste Policy Act and the 1985 Amendments. As you are also aware, this Act and the Amendments mandated that nuclear 

waste generated in certain geographic regions of the United 

States should be managed in the geographic region in which the 

wastes are generated. In other words, the basis for ratification 

under the Act and its Amendments, presumes that states within a geographic region agree to work together to manage the 

radioactive waste that region creates. I aa sure you will all 

agree with me, that Maine, Vermont and Texas are not in the same geographic region. Thus, this Compact is not a regional compact as defined by the 1980 Act and its 1985 Amendments. Therefore 

the question arises, as to what congress is actually being asked 

to ratify. 

After a thorough analysis of this Compact, paying particular 

attention to the fine print, it has become crystal clear to us, 

the taxpayers in Texas, what you are really being asked to 

consent to. YOU ARE BEING ASKED TO SANCTION GOVERNOR ANN 

RICHARDS 1 AND THE TEXAS LEGISlATURE 1 S DECISION TO VOWNTEER TEXAS 

TAXPAYERS TO BECOME LIABLE FOR TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF NUCLEAR 

WASTE LIABILITIES CREATED WORLDWIDE BY PRIVATE INDUSTRY AND 

MILITARY AND CIVILIAN GOVERNMENTS. 
91 

Joint Hearing on the Nuclear Waste Dump Compact in Texas 

September 13, 1994 

Page Two 

This Compact, which needs your approval, is different from every 

other compact you have previously ratified. This Compact allows 

unelected officials unaccountable to the taxpayers, to set their own salaries, and negotiate for dumping of nuclear waste from 

anywhere in the world without the traditional checks and balances 

of accountability which normal governmental and business 

organizations must adhere to. In short, this Compact is not as advertised, and sets a dangerous precedent. It is a bad business 

deal for Texas and it sends the wrong signal of environmental 

protection to Americans, especially poor and minority citizens 

who already bear a great burden of environmental injustice in our country. 

Unlike the other compacts you have ratified, the site for dumping 

has already been mandated and is in violation of President Bill 

Clinton's 1994 Executive Order on Environmental Justice and the 

Civil Rights Act of 1964. Over 70% of the residents of Hudspeth 

County, Texas - the mandated home of this dump - are Hispanic and over 40% of the residents live below the poverty line. 

The Compact Commission which you will be creating if you ratify 

this document, will be spending Federal dollars, setting its 

Commissioner's own salaries, accepting money and gifts, 

contracting for services without following Federal government 

procedures, and will be contracting worldwide for the services of 

this dump in Hudspeth County. In short, Congress will be 

allowing this Commission to act in potentially unconstitutional 

ways under the ruse of managing nuclear waste generated in one region of the country. 

If Congress truly wants to ratify a compact for the Texas region, 

this Compact must be repaired. The changes mandated must 

include, but are not limited to, the following: 

1. All contracts of the Compact Commission must follow 

Federal Government procedures, which include competitive 

bidding and public scrutiny because Federal funds are involved. 

2. Compact Commissioners must not be allowed to earn more money than Federal officials since they are managing 

Federal dollars and the Compact Commission for which 

they work was created by Congress. 

3. The Compact Commission must be mandated to adhere to all 

laws which the Federal Government must comply with 
92 

Joint Hearing on the Nuclear Waste Dump compact in Texas 

September 13, 1994 

Page Three 

including but not limited to, the Freedom of Information 

Act and the Civil Rights Act. 

4. The Compact Commission must not be allowed to enter into 

any aqreements with any person or entity to accept waste 

not generated in the Texas geoqraphic region. 

5. The Compact Commission must not accept a nuclear waste 

dump site mandated and designed by the host state which 

does not even comply with the guidelines of the u.s. Environmental Protection Agency, for design of a household trash landfill. 

In conclusion, we support Congressional intent to assure environmentally sound, economically protective, and fair and 

equitable management of nuclear waste generated in the many regions of America. We want to be a part of the solution of the 

problems engendered with treatment, storage and management of 

nuclear waste. However, this Compact does not meet these 

requirements and must be modified to come into compliance with 

the spirit and letter of the Constitution and Laws of the United 

States. 

On behalf of ACES, Save Sierra Blanca and our voiceless on the 

TexasjMexico border, I can say with confidence, that we want to 

work with you and the elected officials in Texas towards a nuclear waste management strategy which fully complies with the 

Constitution and the Laws of the United States and is not an environmental and economic burden to the taxpayers of our region. 
93 

,;A...;_;1_4,;_A_us_•_'"-Am_•_"c_c_n·_S_o.._r•_sm_a_n _____ ~·r.urs •_Y_· Au....;.IJ"-'-' -'"-· ·,~_· _ ____ ·._:lis sec.;,on IS t;<;.yclaiJte 'e~ 

Austin American-$tatesman 

COMMENTARY 

EDITORIALS 

Texas can do without 

low-level waste dump 

No matter how many economic 

carrots the state dangles. con· structing a low-level radioactive waste disposal site in Hudspeth Coun· ty is undesirable. Sadly. toe issue ap- pears to be driven by politics rather than a concern for the well-being of a oommunity and its envlrorutrent. It is a struggle. moreover. that is being played out nationally and inter· nationally. 

Dueling scientific data over the en· 

vlronmental hazards of such facilities is essentially obscuring a fundamen· tal question: If low-level waste can be 

safely stored (and therefore pose min· imal health threats to communities) 

why haul it from urban areas where it is generated to rural communities for dtsposal? 

lf it is simply a matter of storage space, as some dump proponents argue, why not invest in space near the sites- primarily hospitals and uni· 

versities? Right now, because of a shortage of.low-level wasre disposal fa· cillties, many hospitals and other 

waste generators already have to store the refuse on site. 

U.S. Reps. Henry Bonilla. R·San An· tonio, and Ron Coleman. !).El Paso. a range of activists and - acoording to a stare survey -a ~of residents oppose the Hudspeth County sire. Tha 

dump is supported by some county of. 

llclais who apparently find the allot· ment of state money for lnlhlstructure that comes with accepting the dump very attractive. Opponents of burying waste argue 

that companies could construct ade· quate storage facilities above ground at the sires where the waste Is gener· ated. There, they could be monitored more effectively, unlike dumps at 

which leaks are more dil!lcult to detect and more costly in human and !lnan· cia! rerms to clean up. , What no one can aJ:'IlU<', however, is that there bas been a pattern of plac· 

1ng dumps and other-sires In ml· norlty communities with llilllted po- litical power. Tha proposed Texas 

dump wlU be a few miles QUtside of Sierra Blarn:a, a community of700 peo- ple, 90 percent Latino. · Hudspeth County is already the home of New dump would take low-level waste from Vermont and sizable fee. including chunks or dt>-

commissioned nuclear power plants. 

~~:~~!¥.":a~:"t~. however. would 

The compact, as the arrangement is called, was necessitated by a 1000 fed- eral law requiring states to work to· 

gether to find ways to dispose oft he waste.'lbHaw result-ed in the creation of the Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Authority. Later, rather than waiting for the feds to tell 

Texas what to do. l~islators took the initiative in proposing and authoriz" ing a compact with the New Eng)and states. 

After almost 10 years ofunsuccess· 

1\ll attempts to locare the dump in other 

communities. Sierra Blanca was tar· geted by the authority. It is no ~urprise 

inat Hudspeth CoWlty, which has more 

I 

state-owned land than any county in Texas. was selecred only after preferred 

proposed sites in South Texas were roundly criticized by powerful elected officials. 

I off~; t:~~i~~~[~~ ':~t~~~~~:~ lluctantly) may haveended up in a sit· uation not or her making; But she is governor and certainly could be more forceful in ensuring that this bad idea carries adequare safeguards. If the compact proposal clears 

holes in legislation to ensure that Texas does not become the nation's 

:'!Win~=:~v:~~~::'I::O= I rate, however. Texas' site oould be the ! 

first to beoome operational. I 'lbe governor's environmental policy stali says it is possible that a loop- hole allowing ·emergency dumping 

1\'om states outside the compact will be addressed by the Legislature in its up- coming session. The license fur the fa: cllity also must be approvejl by the Texas Natural Resource Conllervat!on Commission. 

Beyond Texas and even the people of Sierra Blanca. a larger,lroubllng world issue exists: how to safely and effi· ciently disPose of radioactive waste. 

Like most issues of this type this one ~tmrs a cloak of science oVer a rorpus of costs and profits. 

While the issll<! is d<>bated, it should 

I ~i=~~~!~!:eu:~~andenvi·; 
. .... . ;..... 

Sund

Aug. 21, 

West Texas is haven for 

ByUnd8l.ynch 

Guest columnist 

For many years, those of us living on the U.S.-Mexico border and the Rio Grande benefited from living in a re- gion somewhat unexposed. Our isolation was 

our blessing. For a time. 

our environment and our communities were clean. 

Now our i~olation is our tragedy. 

The Rio Grande border 

has been discovered by 

L,nch virtul!'lly every major fi~ 

nanctal interest in our nation as an ideal place to exploit and dump 

toxic and radioactive wastes. 

Industries have purposely sought out com- munities that are economically depressed, 

rural. comprised of ethnic minorities. Catha~ 

lie and those in which English is not the first 

language spoken. They have sought communities, consequently, in which no audible po~ 

litical voice exists. 

These are the communities near the Rio Grande. These are the communities - like our own, more than 70 percent Hispanic -

for which we are seeking civil and human 

rights. 

Here is a short synopsis of a few of the 

environmental and public-health assaults 

along the Rio Grande: e Nuclear waste dump: A 16,DOO--

state-owned, shallow landfill dump, pro

ing to hold ext: ~·mely long-lived radioac

waste from nuclear-power plants, is plan

16 miles from the Rio Grande. The site r

within a 1()(}--year flood plain and near 

facehmhsurface ·::tter--drainage systems 

the river. 

A majority of the dump's waste will 

sist of dismantled nuclear-power plants. 

tially from the states of Maine and Verm

The dump will be the first of its kind 

censed in the United States assuring its 

as thE' future homf' of moAt dismantled nu

ar-power plants in the nation. Pluton

239. Cesium, Cobalt 60, Nickel 59 and m

more will be dumped there. They have a 

son life of upward of 240,000 years. 

e New York City sewage-sludge du

More than 30 percent of New York City s

age currently is being imported to a 128,0

acrE' :'>ite on Chihuahuan desert rangel

Thl• Rite is about 18 miles from the 

Grande and is a potential threat to the ri

groundwater and the air. Most recent 

ernment tests c ·ument. pathogen le

(germs and viruses) of the waste at m

than 30 times safe standards. This waste c

not he dumped in the Atlantic Ocean du

devastation of · 

1

1at ecosystem. 

e Westinghouse Nuclear Waste Dump: 

approximately 1,250-acre parcel of land 
liiues 

1111 ..... 

Sierra Blanca is our re

S ierra Blanca. Texao. is olowly. 

deliberately being turned into the nation't dumping ground. Reoidenta can oee it, the rest of uo can ...... it. Texas officiala- m011t notably Gov. Ann Richards - 8J'e allowing the small, rural community near the U.S.-Mexico border to become a waate receptacle. 

Today, New York City oewage sludge, 

containinl{ potentially dangero111 levels of metals. •• being spread acrooo Sierra Blanca's rangeland. A r~dioactive waste dump is alao planned. Barring public preooure, Sierra Blanca io likely to become the nuclear power indUitry'a favorite dumpint cround. The people of El P&BQ, Las Cruces. Juare: and all the towns in between have a stake in keepinr Sierra Blanca's people. land and ground water oafe from these threato. All of ua can atop the trend with 111Jljor acto of protest and minor acta of concern. Whatever it takes oo that officials ouch ao Richards, U.S. Seno. Phil Gramm and Kay Bailey Hutcbioon and U.S. Reps. Ron Coleman and Henry Bonilla protect West Texas. 

ed!'!tro~~tH~:O:.n.::!~o}"tC~:~, e More than 240,000 tons of oewage sludge from New York City will be spread over Hudopeth County ranceland over a six-year period. The aewap: sludge hao been traveling to West Teuo for two yean. Merco Joint Venture Co .. 

WHO TO CA~ 

For mont~ lbautSiem

Blanca campaJtlns apinst the 

radloec:tlve dump end the..,.... sludge proJect. call: 

• l.we ..,. ...... in Hudlpeth 

County. (915) 36&-2541. 

• ....,. aa-for EMonmental 

Safety In El Paso, (915) ~. 

which was bolTed by Oklahoma from makin1 a home there. tranoporto the llludce by r~il. 

Tbourh T- approved the projec

for aix yean - and did oo without public hearings~ the company 

understandably wanta to ltaf longer

Morro mainta111o the oludft ,. fertil

the r~ngolo.nd of Sierra Branca. but otheR in•iot the 1ludge contains unacceptably hich levelo of metal concentrations. Tbellludge wu once 

dum!M>d in the """""· but that pr~eti

wao banned in 1992. 

• The Sierra BlancA radioective waste dump is planned to open in 19

but a bill before the Coi\JNU would eatahliob what i• called a "compact 

agreement ... allowinR the statH of 
96 
97 

Mr. LEHMAN [presiding]. Let me thank each of the witnesses and 

apologize as the chairman for the legislative schedule this afternoon. I hope you will understand that we are very busy right now. 

I also want to thank Mr. Barlow for sitting in for me and Mr. 

Sharp, my fellow chairman, for beginning in my absence. 

Representative Alexander, prior to 1991, Texas had what we call 

a go-it-alone strategy dealing with their own waste. What changed 

your mind? 

Mr. ALEXANDER. We changed our mind because this limits our liability to 20 percent of what we, produce. It is just a much more 

sane approach. ', ~ 

Mr. LEHMAN. Did the State have second thoughts about its ability to exclude out-of-state waste without a compact? 

Mr. ALEXANDER. We have grave doubts about our ability to exclude. That is why it was so overwhelmingly passed by both 

houses. 

Mr. LEHMAN. Do you personally think the State would be able to 

exclude out-of-state waste without a compact? 

Mr. ALEXANDER. I don't think it is worth the risk. 

Mr. LEHMAN. Let me ask you this: Following up on what Mr. 

Coleman and Ms. Lynch have said, what effect would Congress' 

failure to give its consent to the compact have on the siting process 

in Texas? 

Mr. ALEXANDER. I think the siting process is an independent 

process all by itself and that is going to start next summer by the 

Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, and I imagine 

the siting process will continue regardless, but we are open to an 

unlimited amount of low-level waste if we don't go into the compact. 

Mr. LEHMAN. Congressman Coleman says there is a likelihood 

the legislature will want to amend the compact within the next 

year. What can you tell me about that? 

Mr. ALEXANDER. I know that this was thoroughly negotiated and 

studied by all three States and we are happy with it. I think Congress encouraged us to get this done and we have done so. The 

points that Ms. Lynch raised, I believe that the point she is concerned about, our compact mirrors most of what the other nine 

compacts--

Me. LYNCH. I wouldn't want to be in those either in that case. 

Mr. LEHMAN. Ms. Lynch, I will let you respond. You are saying 

that you don't think it is likely that the legislature will want to 

change it? 

Mr. ALEXANDER. I don't think it is in our best interest to delay 

this another two years at all and to lay us wide open. 

Ms. LYNCH. I wanted to clarify on the 20-percent issue. That 

amount is based on volume not curie level. When you start calculating the kind of waste-Maine and Vermont are both decommissioning very soon two of their power plants which have very potent levels of components that are called low-level waste. 

Twenty percent calculated in the Texas legislation is twenty percent by volume not twenty percent by curie level. You can have 

smaller volume and intense levels of radioactivity at the sites. 

I would submit to you to read section 3.01, paragraph 6. If Texas 

truly intends for this compact to be closed and to protect the State 
98 

from being forced to take waste, why is that section there and why 

must it remain for Congress to ratify it? 

Mr. KAUFMAN. Excuse me. I am Hugh Kaufman from the EPA 

here helping the citizens of the great State of Texas. 

Mr. LEHMAN. Are you in an official capacity with EPA here 

today? 

Mr. KAUFMAN. I am here in an unofficial capacity providing technical assistance. EPA has no official position either way on this 

compact. You asked Mr. Alexander the question, what difference 

would it make whether Congress ratified this compact or not? 

It would make absolutely no difference in the process. Texas purchased the land; they own the facility; they will be contracting. It 

will make no difference. They will be going about their business not 

with congressional ratification, and the process I believe violates 

the Civil Rights Act of the United States in site selection and Congress will not be ratifying that breaking of the Civil Rights Act if 

it doesn't ratify. 

Mr. LEHMAN. Ms. Conrad, as a geologist, do you think there is 

any likelihood that the Rio Grande River could be contaminated by 

the proposed facility? 

Ms. CONRAD. The Texas Bureau of Economic Geology has studied 

the problem. I will try to explain it in the least technical detaiL It 

is 800 feet to groundwater at that site so there is no hydrogeologic 

connection between groundwater and surface water at that site. In 

other words, if rain were to fall on that site, it doesn't go down. 

It evaporates faster than its goes down so it never reaches groundwater. 

The only way for contaminated groundwater-if there was such 

a thing at the site-to get to the Rio Grande would be to go 

through groundwater. They have estimated travel times to be on 

the safe side, and they have discovered that it would take 20,000 

to 40,000 years for any contamination from the site to get to the 

Rio Grande. That is assuming there was some, and the facility is 

designed not to have any. 

Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. Chairman--

Mr. LEHMAN. The gentleman is not a witness and has not been 

invited to testify. I am asking questions to Ms. Conrad and to Mr. 

Ward. 

Mr. Ward, how would you respond to the charge that political 

rather than geologic considerations were a key to selecting the site? 

Mr. WARD. From the perspective of the State of Maine, neither 

Maine nor Vermont were actively involved in the process of selecting the site. That was a Texas decision. We worked on a threeState agreement that would establish a sort of gatekeeper function 

for permitting waste to enter or leave a three-State region consisting of Maine, Vermont, and Texas. 

But all decisions about the politics of the sites, geology of the 

sites, et cetera, are decisions that were made by Texans and are 

being pursued by Texans independently. 

Mr. LEHMAN. Your testimony notes the difference in aridity between New England and West Texas as a major advantage of this 

compact. What is the implication I guess of that conclusion for 

other siting efforts in the humid East and Midwest? 
99 

Mr. WARD. It is clear that one of the pathways for the movement 

of contaminants off-site is by virtue of the movement of water. And 

as Diane Conrad has pointed out, a hypothesis about the movement 

of contaminants to the Rio Grande, for example, has to look at 

water. It made sense for those States which have the opportunity 

to enter into agreements for access to a disposal facility in an arid 

area to seek that as a high priority. For that reason, since 1988, 

that was a very high priority for the State of Maine. 

Ms. LYNCH. I would think that in that case following these two 

comments, it would not be unreasonable to write into the bill that 

Maine and Vermont take liability for the site if the confidence is 

there for its stability. 

Mr. WARD. There is a provision in the compact that essentially 

purports to remove the States of Maine and Vermont from liability 

associated with the operation of the site. It is true, in general, the 

structure of the compact is to delegate to Texas all the key decisions about locating, siting, operating, decommissioning the site. 

And therefore, during negotiations, it appeared fair for those States 

that weren't involved in those key decisions not to be burdened 

with liability. 

It is clear, though, that over time liability issues will be worked 

out should they arise in a manner that considers the language of 

the compact but also considers case law, actions in Federal court, 

any number of other things. So we don't regard that language as 

an absolute barrier to any potential liability. 

Ms. LYNCH. The risk is to Texas. 

Mr. LEHMAN. Ms. Conrad, you note that Vermont and Maine add 

relatively small increments to waste that Texas has to dispose of 

anyway. According to your projections, what percentages or portions of the total waste stream come from each State? 

Ms. CONRAD. The waste volumes are figured over the 50-year life 

of the contracts, and we are limited according to Texas law to 20 

percent of the Texas volume coming from Maine and Vermont. As 

it happens, Maine and Vermont each have one reactor. We have 

about the same waste volumes, and it comes to less than 10,000 

cubic feet a year. 

Mr. LEHMAN. Thank you. Ms. Lynch, is it your position that the 

Texas compact is the first which is not regional in nature? 

Ms. LYNCH. No, not at all. 

Mr. LEHMAN. Is it your position that Congress should not consent 

to compacts that are not strictly regional in character? 

Ms. LYNCH. I think that Congress should not consent to compacts 

that are clearly not meeting the law and the constitution of the 

United States and Federal regulation. 

Mr. LEHMAN. Would you still be opposed to this compact if Texas 

had not yet started its siting process? 

Ms. LYNCH. I would definitely have to reserve any judgment on 

the compact based on the modifications that I testified to today. 

Until those types of problems are addressed, I would not be able 

to judge the compact at all. I would like to say that if it did adhere 

to Federal civil rights and to other Federal regulations for contracting, it would definitely put into question the current site. 

Mr. WARD. Could I comment? Ms. Lynch has made frequent reference to a provision of the compact that enables by majority vote 
100 

the compact commission to enter into contracts for accepting waste 

from outside the region-Maine, Vermont, and Texas. 

That provision that is in the proposed Texas compact that is before you today is identical to provisions that exist in, I believe, 

eight out of the nine existing compacts that have already been approved by Congress. Congress has looked at this issue and decided 

it is reasonable to give a compact commission the authority to 

make year-to-year adjustments in terms of accepting waste from 

outside the region and in addition to permit a compact commission 

to look at the management of waste for processing, for treatment, 

rather than necessarily only for disposal. So this is an old issue 

that has been before Congress each time compacts have been submitted. 

Ms. LYNCH. The current Illinois bill coming up for you today does 

not have that provision in it. I think Mr. Kaufman has something 

to add. 

Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. Kaufman is not a witness. Mr. Ward, I want 

to follow up on what I asked Mr. Alexander. Can you shed any 

light on the likelihood for amendments to the compact within the 

next year? 

Mr. WARD. I have no knowledge about the prospect for any 

amendments to the compact in Texas or any other State. 

Mr. LEHMAN. We have a vote on, so I will stop the questioning 

there. I appreciate each of your involvement today. We will put 

your full statement in the record. 

I am going to vote and then we will come back and hear from 

panel two. 

Ms. LYNCH. Could I state for the record that no Texas official is 

here at the moment testifying on behalf of Texas? 

Mr. LEHMAN. That will be duly noted. 

Ms. LYNCH. Thank you. 

Mr. BARLOW. The committee will reconvene. 

Let's have the second panel, Clark W. Bullard, Chair, Central 

Midwest Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Compact; and 

Stephen J. England, chief legal counsel, Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety. 

Gentlemen, if you will, you may summarize your testimony for 

the record. There is a 5-minute time limit. We appreciate your 

being here and look forward to what you have to say. 

Dr. Bullard. 

PANEL CONSISTING OF DR. CLARK W. BULLARD, CHAIR. 

CENTRAL MIDWEST INTERSTATE LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE 

WASTE COMMISSION, ACCOMPANIED BY ERIC M. SCHWING, 

COUNSEL; AND, STEPHEN J. ENGLAND, CHIEF LEGAL COUN· 

~.ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF NUCLEAR SAFETY 

Dr. BULLARD. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to enlist 

your support for these amendments to the Central Midwest Compact. I am Clark Bullard, and I serve as chairman of the threemember commission that administers the compact. I have served 

as the chairman since the compact was formed nearly 10 years ago. 

I am here today not as a representative of the State of Illinois 

or the Commonwealth of Kentucky. I am here as a spokesman for 
101 

the cooperative effort by both States to effectively manage the 

Central Midwest Region's low-level radioactive waste. 

Initially, the Federal Government had responsibility for disposing of low-level waste produced by the private sector, but when the 

Atomic Energy Commission closed its facilities to commerciallygenerated waste, the task fell to the private sector. Six commercial 

disposal facilities were established, even though at the time no 

Federal regulations specifically directed to land disposal were in effect. 

For a number of reasons, this approach proved unsatisfactory, so 

in 1980, the Congress, with the concurrence of the States, shifted 

this responsibility to the States themselves. Congress refined and 

reaffirmed this shift in 1986. That law represents an agreement 

that the States will solve this problem. 

Why would any State voluntarily agree as members of our compacts have done to assume this burden? I assure you that establishing a safe radioactive waste disposal facility is an extremely difficult, controversial and expensive job. 

Why would a State subject itself voluntarily to the accusation 

that it has merely become a pawn of the nuclear industry? I assure 

you that such accusations are made. 

And which of us States needs yet another problem to solve? The 

answer is that no State wants to become the Nation's dumping 

ground and no State wants to see the mistakes of the past repeated. We are willing to bear our own burden in low-level radioactive waste management and our fair share of the national burden. 

We appreciate that Congress gave us the tools we need to do the 

job, the interstate radioactive waste compacts. Each compact is 

unique. The Central Midwest Compact reflects the unhappy experience of its member states, Illinois and Kentucky. Each of these 

States already contains one failed low-level radioactive waste disposal facility at Sheffield, Illinois, and Maxie Flats, Kentucky. 

Thus, the Central Midwest was among the first to prohibit land 

disposal. 

Reducing the amount of radioactive waste is also of concern to 

Illinois and Kentucky, and we have seen a two-thirds reduction in 

the volume of waste generated during the last 10 years. In large 

part, that success is due to the rapid growth of waste processing 

technologies and facilities. 

There are several facilities in the Central Midwest Region that 

treat or temporarily store radioactive waste for decay. We want 

them to continue to do so. They accept waste from all over the Nation, but Illinois passed a law to shut these facilities down in 1993 

unless the compact commission could control waste imports to and 

from them. 

We persuaded the Illinois Legislature to repeal that law at the 

same time it adopted the compact amendments that we bring before you today. These amendments to the compact will allow those 

facilities to continue to accept waste from outside Illinois and Kentucky. 

In addition, if a new storage facility is built in Illinois, the 

amended compact will allow us to make that facility available to 

others, but first we must assure ourselves that the waste will not 
102 

be orphaned in the Central Midwest Region. In addition, we must 

guard against future occurrences of an unfortunate event that occurred in 1992. 

The Department of Energy's contractors unilaterally declared radioactive waste to be below regulatory concern and sent that waste 

to treatment facilities in the Central Midwest Region that were not 

licensed to receive radioactive waste. 

The incineration of the Department of Energy's radioactive waste 

at a municipal garbage incinerator in the city of Chicago, to put it 

mildly, tended to undermine public trust and confidence in our 

commission's ability to control imports and exports of waste to and 

from storage treatment facilities. 

I am sure you are familiar with the kinds of problems that can 

be caused by poor planning and lax control in the area of municipal 

waste with train loads of waste traveling back and forth across the 

country and in barges in search of a home. The Central Midwest 

compact and the other compacts are intended to assure that plans 

are in place, facilities are available to manage our low-level waste. 

We examined the sources and characteristics of the waste. We 

set forth policies with respect to source and volume reduction. We 

describe the number and types of facilities needed. We developed 

a tracking system and we set forth our policies on import and export and our procedures in the event of an unplanned closure. We 

designated Illinois as the host State for the disposal facility and 

are examining the need for a temporary storage facility. 

We have reciprocal agreements with several interstate compacts 

regarding access to treatment storage facilities and we are presently negotiating additional access agreements. No other entity is 

making these plans; not the Federal Government, not the waste 

generators or even the waste management industry. No other entity is responsible for assuring that capacity is available to store 

and treat and dispose of this waste. 

Other interstate compacts already have the authority to control 

the import and export of waste. This is nothing new. While the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has expressed some concerns over 

these provisions of the Central Midwest compact, these are the 

same sorts of issues that NRC raised in 1985 when the interstate 

compacts were first approved by Congress. We believe that we have 

adequately addressed these issues in our written testimony. 

The interstate compacts are not and never were tools for implementing the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's policies. They are 

tools by which the States implement their responsibilities to their 

citizens and their responsibilities under Federal law. I firmly believe that this regional approach is the most effective way of proceeding. 

And in conclusion, I ask for your approval of these amendments 

to the Central Midwest compact. The amended compact reaffirms 

the commitment of the State of Illinois and the Commonwealth of 

Kentucky to the goals of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy 

Act, to each other and to the citizens of the Central Midwest Region that the low-level waste generated in the region will be safely 

and efficiently managed. 
103 

We respectfully request that you proceed quickly to markup so 

we can move forward to fully implement the compact before the 

end of this year. Thanks very much for your attention. 

I have our commission counsel, Mr. Eric Schwing, with me to 

help answer any questions you may have. 

[Prepared statement of Dr. Bullard follows:] 
104 

TESTIMONY OF 

DR. CLARK W. BULLARD 

CHAIRMA<"i 

CENTRAL MIDWEST INTERSTATE 

LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE COMMISSION 

BEFORE THE 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

SlJBCOMMITIEE ON ENERGY A<"iD MINERAL RESOURCES 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 13, 1994 

Chairman Lehman, Chairman Sharp, Members of the Subcommittees: 

My name is Clark W. Bullard. I am Chairman of the Central Midwest Interstate LowLevel Radioactive Waste Commission. I appreciate the opportunity to offer my views as you 

consider consenting to recent amendments to the Central Midwest Interstate Low-Level 

Radioactive Waste Compact. Of course, I urge you to grant your consent to these amendments. 

Let me tell you why both the Kentucky and Illinois legislatures enacted these amendments 

by overwhelming majorities and why we needed these changes to the Central Midwest Compact. 

First, it was over a decade ago, when in response to the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy 

Act of 1980, Illinois and Kentucky created the Central Midwest Interstate Low-Level Radioactive 

Waste Compact. Congress granted its consent to the Compact in 1986, but at the same.time, 

Congress made significant changes in the federal law. As a result, there were several 

inconsistences between the Central Midwest Compact as originally adopted by the party states 

and the federal law that consented to the Compact. The amended Compact that you are 

considering today changed the Compact in Illinois and Kentucky to conform with the Low-Level 

Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985. 
105 

Testimony of Dr. Clark W. Bullard in Support of H.R. 4814 Page2 

Second, and as might be expected, over time the party states have discovered that the 

Compact did not adequately address all the issues that have arisen in administering the two state 

agreement. I have been a Commissioner representing Illinois on the Central Midwest Compact 

and have served as the Commission's Chairman since the Commission's inception. During that 

time, I have been able to observe first hand the effects of the deficiencies in the original 

Compact. The Central Midwest Compact, as originally adopted by its party states and approved 

by Congress, did not clearly establish the authority of the Compact Commission regarding the 

use of low-level radioactive waste facilities in the region by persons from outside the region. 

In an attempt to correct that problem, the Illinois General Assembly made changes in Illinois 

State law. These changes should have been made to the two-State compact, with Kentucky's 

knowledge and approval. This "single state" solution was not satisfactory. In September 1992, 

after discussions between the Compact's party states, the Central Midwest Compact was 

amended· in Illinois and in May 1993 Kentucky made correlative changes. 

As I noted previously, the Central Midwest Compact was originally created in response 

to the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980. Illinois and Kentucky entered into the 

compact cautiously. Each state already contains one failed low-level radioactive waste disposal 

facility. In addition, as" Agreement States" under the Atomic Energy Act, Illinois and Kentucky 

have assumed responsibility for regulating treatment, storage, and disposal of low-level 

radioactive waste within these states. Illinois and Kentucky have learned, through hard 

experience, the complexity of the issues regarding radioactive waste management. They have 

attempted in the amended Compact to create an institutional framework capable of dealing with 

those issues. 

The changes to the Compact fall into three categories. First, the amended Compact 

makes clear that access to any low-level radioactive waste facility in Illinois or Kentucky by 

persons outside those two states requires the prior approval of the Compact Commission. This 

requirement is similar to the provisions included in some (but not all) of the other interstate 

compacts that have already been approved by Congress. To date, the Compact Commission has 

entered into agreements specifically approving the use of treatment and storage facilities within 

the Central Midwest Region by persons located in the Northeast, Rocky Mountain, and 

Southwestern States Compact Regions. We are discussing similar arrangements with other 

interstate compacts. These agreements contain provisions that assure that neither Illinois nor 

Kentucky will unknowingly become responsible for disposal of waste from other states by virtue 

of making their storage and treatment facilities available. The amendments to the Compact 

enable the Central Midwest Commission to open existing waste management facilities within the 

region to waste generators outside the region without expanding the responsibilities or liabilities 

of the party states. Further, these amendments will allow new waste management facilities to 

be built and made available to waste generators located outside the Central Midwest Region. 

I firmly believe that no new treatment or storage facilities will be established in either Illinois 

or Kentucky in the absence of the safeguards provided in the amended Compact. This would 

be unfortunate. Recent developments in sorting, storage, and treatment technologies have 

contributed to huge reductions in the volume of low-level radioactive waste needing disposal in 

the Central Midwest Region and the Nation. 
106 

Testimony of Dr. Clark W. Bullard in Support of H.R. 4814 Page3 

Second, the Compact has been amended to conform with the provisions of the Low-Level 

Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985, particularly with regard to the respective 

roles of the federal government and the states in low-level radioactive waste management. The 

Compact is now for the first time consistent with federal law. 

Third, minor technical amendments were made to clarify ambiguous language in the 

Compact and to correct internal inconsistencies in the Compact. 

In 1993, Senator Simon began considering introduction of a bill that would grant 

Congress' consent to these amendments (S.2369). The United States Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) had submitted comments to Senator Simon's staff regarding that bill. To 

my knowledge, no other entity has expressed any concern regarding the Central Midwest 

Compact. On August 11, 1994, the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously reported that bill 

out of Committee and sent it to the full Senate for consideration. 

The Compact Commission also considered the comments raised by NRC and believes 

NRC's comments are without merit and its concerns unfounded. The NRC indicated that, in its 

opinion, the revised Compact "goes beyond the purview of Public Law 96-573 (the Low-Level 

Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980) and Public Law 99-240 (the Low-Level Radioactive 

Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985) which we (the NRC) believe to be limited to disposal. • 

We note in response that many of the interstate compacts already approved by Congress in Title 

II of Public Law 99-240 provide comparable, if not greater, authority to their respective 

administrative bodies. For example, the Rocky Mountain Low-Level Radioactive Waste 

Compact, which was approved by Congress in 1986, provides that it is unlawful to "manage• 

(treat, store, or dispose of) in the Rocky Mountain Region !ow-level radioactive waste from 

outside the region without the approval of both the Rocky Mountain Board and the state in the 

Rocky Mountain Region where the management takes place (Article VII(c)). Similarly, the 

Southeast Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Compact forbids the 

management (treatment, storage or disposal) at any regional facility of waste from outside the 

region without the Southeast Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Commission's 

approval (Article 4(L)). In fact, the Texas Compact, which is also now before Congress for 

approval, would also place restrictions on waste management, including storage, treatment, 

brokering, etc. 

The NRC's concerns about the scope of the authorities provided in the various interstate 

compacts date back to the time of creation of these compacts. It has been almost nine years 

since Congress approved of the Compact system. While the NRC continues to press its 

interpretation the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 as being simply 

a federal mandate to the states to build disposal facilities, the Commission believes that Congress 

understood all along that the compacts were intended to address a number of problems associated 

with low-level radioactive waste ntanagement. I can safely assure you that neither Illinois nor 

Kentucky entered into the Central Midwest Compact simply because they wanted the opportunity 

to build yet a third disposal facility in. the Central Midwest Region. From the very beginning, 

the public and the legislators in Illinois and Kentucky resolved to establish a system for 
107 

Testimony of Dr. Clark W. Bullard in Support of H.R. 4814 Page 4 

managing waste from cradle to grave, and placed extraordinary emphasis on source and volume 

reduction. The system is working. In 1985 over 300,000 cubic feet of low-level radioactive 

waste was shipped for disposal from Illinois and Kentucky. We estimate that in 1995 the 

region will generate about one-third that volume of waste for disposal. 

Leaving to the individual compacts the task of addressing specific regional concerns 

(rather than the concerns of the federal government or its administrative agencies) is the very 

essence of the regional system now in place. The interstate compacts are not, and never were, 

strictly tools for implementing federal policies. To be sure, they were intended to stimulate 

construction of new disposal facilities. However, Congress recognized that States and regions 

would have to develop their own strategies for accomplishing this goal. Source and volume 

reduction is an integral part of that strategy in the Central Midwest Region, as is development 

of necessary storage, treatment and disposal facilities. In order to build such facilities, states 

must provide the public with assurances that import and export of waste can and will be 

controlled. In addition to providing disposal capacity, the Central Midwest Compact was created 

to provide these assurances. The Compact was also created to limit the number of facilities 

required to manage !he region's waste; promote reduction in the source and volumes of !he 

region's waste; and distribute the costs, benefits and obligations of waste management equitably. 

The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 does not even address these 

issues. No federal law addresses these issues. Thus, while ~ of !he purposes of the Compact 

is providing disposal capacity, the Compact was never limited, as the NRC claims, to that single 

purpose. 

The NRC believes that the Central Midwest Compact is required to 'conform to a 

uniform definition of low-level radioactive waste.' The NRC is wrong. The House Interior 

Committee Report on !he 1985 Act spoke directly to this very issue: 

State compact low-level radioactive waste definitions will be incorporated by 

Congressional ratification as valid for state compact commissions' activities and 

for state law, and may be changed by the states, or as provided for by the 

commissions. (House Interior Committee Report, HR 99-314, Part I, p. 17.) 

In fact, Congress has consented already to a number of interstate compacts with different 

definitions of low-level radioactive waste. None of these definitions affects !he scope of the 

States' responsibilities under federal law. 

The revision to the Central Midwest Compact's definition of low-level radioactive waste 

is primarily a response to the NRC's own unsuccessful attempt, a few years ago, to adopt a so 

called 'BRC" ('Below Regulatory Concern") rule. That attempt ultimately drew Congressional 

rebuke and the NRC was ordered by Congress to cease its effort to deregulate radioactive waste. 

This change in definition also addresses a practice of the contractors of the Department of 

Energy that came to the attention of the Illinois and Kentucky in 1992. ApP<ifently. the 

Department of Energy's contractors were unilaterally determining that radioactive wastes need 

not be handled as such. As a result, the Department of Energy's contractors sent radioactive 
108 

Testimony of Dr. Clark W. Bullard in Support of H.R. 4814 Page 5 

waste to treatment facilities within the Central Midwest Region that were not licensed to accept 

radioactive waste. The incineration of the Department of Energy's radioactive waste at a 

garbage incinerator in Chicago, to put it mildly. tended to undermine public trust and confidence 

in our Commission's ability to control imports of waste to and eJ>ports of waste from other 

storage, trearment, and disposal facilities. The Commission is concerned that the NRC, the 

Department of Energy or an Agreement State under the Atomic Energy Act may again attempt 

to adopt a "BRC" rule or policy and claim that such rule or policy is binding on the Compact. 

The Commission is also concerned that waste generators in the region may take advantage of 

the less stringent "BRC" regulations that may be adopted by other states, and claim that by 

virtue of such regulations their waste is no longer subject to the Commission's control. Either 

event could have serious consequences for the economic viability of the regional disposal 

facility, and must only be permitted after the Compact Commission has had a chance to evaluate 

the economic, health, and safety consequences. To be sure, the Compact defines low-level 

radioactive waste differently than that term is defined in the Low-Level Radioactive Waste 

Policy Amendments Act of 1985. We accept the definition contained in the Policy Amendments 

Act as establishing the scope of our responsibility to make disposal capacity available. 

However, the Commission cannot allow the NRC, the Department of Energy or any other 

regulatory agency to unilaterally re-define the scope of our Commission's responsibility to the 

citizens of Illinois and Kentucky or its authority to meet that responsibility. 

As we have learned, managing the low-level radioactive waste generated by the private 

sector and by government is a difficult and often a controversial task. First and foremost, we 

must assure our citizens that our waste management facilities are being built and operated safely. 

That task falls primarily to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the authorized 

agreement states. The Central Midwest Compact contains no provisions that would interfere 

with that important function. It is not the intent of the Central Midwest Commission to usurp 

any regulatory authority that has been delegated under the Atomic Energy Act or to interfere 

unreasonably with interstate commerce. However, we must provide assurance to our citizens that 

Congress' intent in creating a regional system for managing low-level radioactive waste will be 

implemented. We must assure that no state or region is unwillingly forced to become the 

Nation's dumping grounds. This is precisely the concern that led to the passage of the LowLevel Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980, and its 1985 successor. When our citizens ask for 

assurances that the rules will not be changed in the middle of the game, we must provide these 

assurances. Before we accept waste into Illinois or Kentucky for the treatment or temporary 

storage, we must assure our citizens and ourselves that the waste will not be orphaned here. We 

must assure that the federal administrative agencies will not. and cannot, change the rules by 

which we all operate. We need the support and commitment of Congress to assure our citizens 

that the scope of our responsibility will not be enlarged or diminished- without our approval. 

In conclusion, I would emphasize that the amendments to the Compact do not, and are 

not intended to, lessen in any way our commitment to provide for the. safe disposal of low-level 

radioactive waste generated within the Central Midwest Region. To the contrary, the 

amendments clarify the authority and responsibilities of the party states and of the Commission 

to enable them to forge abead and address the difficult problems associated with the management 
109 

Testimony of Dr. Clark W. Bullard in Support of H.R. 4814 Page6 

of low-level radioactive waste. The amendments set forth a system for making facilities that 

treat or store waste available to waste generators in other states. As amended, the Central 

Midwest Compact is absolutely consistent with the Congress' intent as expressed in the LowLevel Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985. 

Again, I thank you for allowing me to present my views concerning the importance of 

your consent to the amended Central Midwest Compact. I would be happy to try to answer any 

questions you may have. 
110 

Testimony of Dr. Clark W. Bullard in Support of H.R. 4814 Page 7 

DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE CENTRAL MIDWEST COMPACT 

ARTICLE I 

These changes respond to the Supreme Court's holding that the Congress cannot force 

a state to take tide to low-level radioactive waste and pay damages for failing tO do so. This 

language does not weaken our commitment to safely dispose of waste under the Compact. 

ARTICLE II 

These changes assure that the federal government or a state cannot deprive the Compact 

Commission of its authority over low-level radioactive waste by deciding not to regulate the 

radioactive waste. These changes also clarify the definition of "regional facility, • which is a 

facility that is established by a party state under the Compact. 

ARTICLE III 

Section III(a) was modified to make technical corrections and to add language that 

provides for a non-voting Commission member from the community where the regional disposal 

facility is located, who must be a local official, but not necessarily a county board member. 

Section III (b) was modified to make technical corrections. As modified, this section now 

specifies that no action of the Commission is binding unless a majority of the voting membership 

votes in the affirmative. This amended section also provides that no agreement of the 

Commission concerning import into the region of waste for disposal; treatment, storage or 

disposal of federal waste at a regional facility; or import into the region of waste for treatment 

or storage is valid unless all voting Commissioners representing the state in which the receiving 

facility would be located cast their vote in the affirmative. 

Section III(d) was amended to provide that any voting Commissioner may call for a 

meeting of the Commission. Section III(e) as amended provides that a roll call may be called 

upon the request of any voting Commissioner. Section III(g) was amended to specify that the 

Commission's offices are to be located in Illinois, as they have been since the Commission's 

creation. 

Subsection III(i) was amended to: 

(l) authorize the Commission to enter into agreements to allow waste from outside 

the region to be disposed of at facilities in the region, provided that such agreements are ratified 

in advance by a law enacted by the state in which the disposal facility is located; 

(2) add a new subsection III(i)(2) authorizing the Commission to enter into agreements 

to allow federal waste described in Article VII(a)(6) of the Compact (i.e., federal low-level 

radioactive waste that is not a state responsibility under the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy 
111 

Testimony of Dr. Clark W. Bullard in Support of H.R. 4814 PageS 

Amendments Act of 1985) to be treated, stored, or disposed of at regional facilities, provided 

that such agreements are ratified in advance by a law enacted by the state to which the waste 

would be sent for treatment, storage, or disposal. 

(3) modify subsection III(i)(3), formerly subsection Ill(i)(2), to authorize the 

Commission to enter into agreements to allow waste from outside the region to be treated or 

stored at facilities within the region. This amendment also provides for automatic revocation 

of such agreements if, within one year of the effective date of an agreement, a law is passed 

ordering such revocation. 

(4) add a new subsection III(i)(4), authorizing the Commission to approve or enter 

into an agreement for export of waste from the region. 

(5) add a new subsection III(i)(5), authorizing the Commission to approve the disposal 

of waste generated within the region at a facility in the region other than a regional facility, 

subject to limitations set out under Articles V(f) (concerning waste at the closed Maxey Flats 

disposal facility in Kentucky) and Article VU(a)(6) (concerning waste that is a federal 

responsibility under the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1986). 

(6) add a new subsection III(i)(6) authorizing the Commission to require that waste 

generated within the region be treated or stored at available regional facilities, subject to the 

limitations set out in Articles V(f) (concerning waste at the closed Maxey Flats disposal facility 

in Kentucky) and Article VII(a)(6) (concerning waste that is a federal responsibility under the 

Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985). 

Subsection III(j) was amended to: 

(l) add a new subsection (III)(j)(l) requiring the Commission to submit a copy of any 

agreement entered into the Commission under Article III(i)(l), (2), or (3), to the governor and 

legislative officers of the state in which any affected facility is located. 

(2) amend new subsection III(j)(2) (formally subsection III(j)(l)) to require that the 

Commission include in its annual report a discussion of the status activities pursuant to 

agreements entered into under Article III(i)(I), (2), or (3), as well as a description of the any 

waste from outside the region or any federal waste managed at a facility in the region. 

Subsection I!I(o) was amended to refer to members of the Commission as 

"Commissioners". Subsection III(p) was amended to correct cross-references. 

ARTICLE V 

Article V has been amended to revise cross-references and to clarify that waste the waste 

at the closed Maxey Flats, Kentucky facility is not the responsibility of Illinois. 
112 

Testimony of Dr. Clark W. Bullard in Support of H.R. 4814 Page 9 

ARTICLE VI 

(1) Subsection Vl(b) has been amended to combine subsections (b) and (c) and to 

clarify that the Commission may not designate a party state whose generators produce less than 

10 percent of the region's waste (excluding waste handled by brokers and federal waste) as a 

host state for a regional facility, although a party state may volunteer to be a host state for a 

regional facility. 

(2) Former subsection Vl(e), now subsection Vl(d), provides that the Commission 

may relieve a host state of its responsibilities upon good cause shown consistent with the 

purposes of the Compact, including a showing that no feasible potential regional facility site of 

the type it is designated to host exists within the host state's borders. 

(3) Former subsection VI(m), now subsection VI(I), has been amended to clarify that 

when determining whether a state generates 10 percent of the Region's waste federal waste for 

which the states are not responsible for providing disposal capacity shall not be included. 

(4) Cross-references in former subsections Vl(o) and Vl(p), now subsections Vl(n) 

and Vl(o), have been modified. 

(5) In former subsection VI(q), now subsection Vl(p), ambiguous language regarding 

the liability of persons who send waste into the region has been deleted. A new subsection VI(q) 

has been added to clarify the liability of persons who use regional facilities. Anyone who is 

allowed to use regional facilities for waste from outside the two-state region must share in any 

costs of liability or long-term care. 

ARTICLE VII 

To be consistent with federal law, subsection VII(a)(6) of the Compact was amended to 

clarify that federal defense waste is not a state responsibility. In addition, subsection VII(d) was 

amended to clarify that waste brokers must now enter into an agreement with the Compact 

Commission before disposing of any waste, regardless of origin, at a regional facility. This 

provides added assurances that waste from outside the region will not become a responsibility 

of the party states. 

ARTICLE VII 

No substantive changes were made to this Article. Cross references have been revised 

and the Article now refers to Commission members as 'Commissioners. • 
113 

Testimony of Dr. Clark W. Bullard in Support of H.R. 4814 Page 10 

ARTICLE IX 

Under the original Compact, the authority of the Compact Commission to keep waste 

from outside the two-state region from entering facilities in the region was not made clear. 

Subsection !X(b) has been amended to clarify that: 

a) waste from outside the region may not be sent to any facility in the region without 

the Compact Commission's approval; and 

b) no person may deposit at a regional facility, or accept at a regional facility, federal 

waste for which the states are not required to provide disposal capacity, without the approval 

of the Compact Commission. 

A new subsection IX(c) has been added which contains language to enforce the provisions 

of Article Ill(i)(6) requiring use of regional treatment and storage facilities. This language was 

added to ensure the economic viability of any regional treatment or storage facilities that may 

be built in the furure. 
114 

Mr. BARLOW. Thank you very much, Dr. Bullard. Let's move next 

to Stephen England. If we may have your statement, then we will 

have questions. 

STATEMENT OF STEPHEN J. ENGLAND 

Mr. ENGLAND. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, my 

name is Stephen England. I am the chief legal counsel for the Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety. Thomas Ortciger, the Director 

of the Department, had planned to address you today, but he was 

required to attend a legislative hearing back in Springfield. 

I would like to thank you for the opportunity to testify in support 

of H.R. 4814, which grants the consent of Congress to amendments 

to the Central Midwest Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste 

Compact. In my testimony, I would like to provide you a very brief 

background on activities in Illinois and then address one of the 

concerns that has been raised by staff at the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

Illinois supports the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act and 

the system of compacts authorized in that Act. The compact 

amendments are consistent with Federal law and will assist Illinois 

in fulfilling its responsibility to develop a new regional disposal facility. The compact amendments have been approved by law in both 

Illinois and Kentucky. In the State of Illinois there are 13 operating nuclear power reactors, a spent fuel storage facility, a uranium 

hexafluoride conversion facility and many academic and industrial 

and medical users of low-level radioactive materials. 

Illinois approved of the Central Midwest compact in 1984. In 

1987, Illinois was designated as the host State for a new regional 

disposal facility. From 1987 until 1992, the State spent approximately $90 million in an attempt to develop a new facility. That 

process was unsuccessful. Following the rejection of the proposed 

site in late 1992, the State created a new siting process which is 

currently under way. 

I would now address the concern that has been raised by NRC 

staff. Article 3 of the compact was amended to protect Illinois and 

Kentucky against orphaned waste from other regions. Specifically, 

the compact commission was granted the same approval authority 

over receipt of waste at facilities that are not, quote, "regional facilities," unquote, that it has always had with regard to regional facilities. Regional facility is a defined term which means a treatment, storage, or disposal facility established by a party State pursuant to a host State designation by the compact commission. 

While there are currently no regional facilities in Illinois, there 

are several treatment and storage facilities that are not, quote, "regional facilities." Those facilities were developed and are owned 

and operated by private companies, not the State of Illinois. The 

facilities do receive waste from outside the compact region. 

While NRC has recognized that most compacts contain provisions 

that provide some degree of control over import and export of lowlevel radioactive waste for treatment and storage, it has stated that 

the overall tone of the amendments to the Central Midwest compact go beyond any other compact and could present a substantial 

burden on interstate commerce. 

Finally, NRC encouraged agreements between compacts to ensure the return of waste to the region of origin. Illinois agrees with 
115 

NRC that regional access agreements between compacts are desirable. The Central Midwest Compact has entered into three such 

agreements and is negotiating several more. The opportunity to 

enter into such agreements itself does not provide adequate protection against orphaned waste. If another compact refuses to enter 

into an agreement and refuses to be responsible for waste generated within its borders, that waste should not be forced on the 

State of Illinois for disposal. 

We disagree with NRC that the change goes beyond any existing 

compact. The Rocky Mountain and Northwest compacts, which 

have been ratified by Congress, grant their governing bodies approval authority over imports for treatment and storage. So does 

the Texas compact that is before you today. 

The protection against orphaned waste is important to Illinois 

and will not impose a substantial burden on interstate commerce. 

Illinois and the Central Midwest compact have a clear record of 

supporting interstate commerce in waste for treatment and storage. 

The authority to exclude out-of-region waste would be exercised 

only to protect Illinois and Kentucky from being forced to dispose 

of waste from those States. This protection is at the heart of the 

Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of H.R. 4814. 

I would be happy to answer any questions. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. England follows:] 
116 

Testi.any in Support of HR 4814 

"Central HidWest Interstate Low-Level Radioactive 

.waste Compact Amendments Consent Act• 

by 

Stephen J. England 

Chief Legal Counsel, Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety 

before the Subco~ittee on Energy and Hineral Resources 

Cogqittee on Natural Resources 

Subco-.ittee on Energy and Power 

Co-.ittee on Energy and Co-.erce 

United States House of Representatives 

September 13, 1994 

Chairman Lehman, Chairman Sharp, Members of the Subcommittee, good afternoon. 

My name is Stephen England. I am the Chief Legal Counsel of the Illinois 

Department of Nuclear Safety. Thomas Ortciger, the Director of the 

Department, had planned to address you, but unfortunately he was required to 

attend a legislative hearing in Springfield. 

I would like to thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today in 

support of HR 4814, which would grant the consent of Congress to amendments to 

the Central Midwest Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Compact. 

I. INTRODUCTION 

The Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety, on behalf of the State of Illinois, 

supports HR 4814, which grants Congressional consent to amendments to the 

Central Midwest Interstate low-Level Radioactive Waste Compact. The 

amendments assist Illinois in the fulfillment of its responsibility to provide a new regional low-level radioactive waste disposal facility and are in the 

public interest. 

The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act (Public Law 96-573) authorized 

states to enter into interstate compacts to provide for the establishment and 

operation of regional disposal facilities of low-level radioactive waste. 

Illinois and Kentucky formed the Central Midwest Interstate Low-Level 

Radioactive Waste Compact (Central Midwest Compact or Compact). The Central 

Midwest Compact was ratified by law in Illinois effective September 7, 1984 

(Public Act No. 83-1340), by Executive Order in Kentucky effective September 

21, 1984 (Executive Order 84-803), and by law in Kentucky effective July 15, 

1986 (KRS 211.859). Congress consented to the Central Midwest Compact, along 

with several other similar compacts, in the Omnibus Low-Level Radioactive 

Waste Interstate Compact Consent Act, which was Title II of the Low-Level 

Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of !985 (Public Law 99-240), effective 

January 15, 1986. 
117 

In 1987, the Central Midwest Low-Level Radioactive Waste Commission (Compact Commission), the Compact's governing body made up of two Commissioners from 

Illinois and one from Kentucky, designated Illinois as the host state for a new regional disposal facility. From 1987 through 1992, Illinois spent approximately $90 million in a process to site and license a new disposal facility. That process was.unsuccessful. Following the rejection of the 

Martinsville site in late 1992, Illinois created a new siting process which is 

currently underway. 

In 1992, the Compact Commission proposed amendments to the Compact to 

facilitate fulfillment of the purposes of the Compact. The amendments were introduced in the Illinois General Assembly in the spring of 1992. They became effective in Illinois when Governor Jim Edgar signed Public Act 87-1166 on September 18, 1992. Governor Brereton C. Jones of Kentucky approved the 

amendments in an executive order effective May 26, 1993. Governor Jones' 

Executive Order was ratified by the Kentucky General Assembly in Senate Bill 

52 on April 8, 1994, and became law in Kentucky on July 15, 1994. 

This statement will address the substantive changes made by the Compact amendments and will focus on the concerns raised by staff of the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission (NRC). On November 9, 1993, Dennis K. Rathbun, Director 

of NRC's Office of Congressional Affairs, provided written comments on the 

amendments to Senator Paul Simon. Thomas W. Ortciger, Director of the 

Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety (Department or IONS) responded to Mr. 

Rathbun's comments on March 25, 1994. Martin G. Malsch, NRC's Deputy General 

Counsel for licensing and Regulation, replied to Mr. Ortciger on May 3, 1994. 

The Department understands that copies of the letters have been provided to 

the Subcommittees' staffs. 

II. DISCUSSION OF AMENDMENTS 

A. Policy and Purpose 

The amendments to the Compact deleted language in Article I, Policy and 

Purpose, that recognized Congress had declared that each state was responsible for providing disposal capacity for low-level radioactive waste generated 

within its borders. At the time the amendments were proposed in Illinois, the case brought by the State of New York that challenged the constitutionality of 

the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act was pending before the 

United States Supreme Court. The Congressional declaration referenced in 

Article I of the Compact was one of the provisions challenged in the New York case. New York v. United States, et al., __ u.s. __ , 112 S.Ct. 2408, 120 

L.Ed.2d 120 (1992). The Central Midwest Compact, Illinois, and Kentucky desired that the Central Midwest Compact stand on its own even if the federal 

law were declared unconstitutional. While the subject provision was not 

declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, the proposal to "decouple" the 

Compact from the cha 11 enged provision ·; ndicates the strong commitment of 

Illinois and Kentucky to handle their own low-level radioactive waste on a regional basis. In its letter to Senator Simon, NRC staff expressed concern ' 

about this chang~ to.the Compact. The Department understands that its 

explanation of the reason for the change was acceptable to NRC. 

2 
118 

B. Definition of Low-Level Radioactive Waste 

The amendments expand the definition of low-level radioactive waste by specifying that the definition applies regardless of a determination by the 

NRC or a state that waste is below regulatory concern. This change was made 

in reaction to the NRC's below regulatory concern (SRC) policy. There was a concern that this policy could have led to waste previously considered lowlevel radioactive waste being deregulated without any control at the Coapact or State level. This could have resulted in radioactive waste from outside 

the Compact region being declared BRC and shipped into the region for 

unregulated disposal. IONS and others opposed the BRC policy on the grounds that it was ill-conceived and would Interfere with the State's efforts to site a new disposal facility. NRC was forced to withdraw that policy by Congress in the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-486). Although the Compact amendment was proposed before Congress adopted the Energy Policy Act of 1992, 

there is no material inconsistency between the two. NRC staff expressed concern with this change in its letter to Senator Simon. The Department understands that its explanation of the reason for this change also was acceptable to NRC. 

C. Treat-ent and Storage Facilities 

The amendments eliminated ambiguities regarding acceptance of low-level 

radioactive waste from outside the Compact region at facilities within the 

region, c~nly referred to as "imports• of the waste. Article II of the 

original Compact defined "facility• and "regional facility.• It appeared that 

they were not the same, but the issue was unclear. The amendments clarified 

that a regional facility is a type of facility, but that there can be 

facilities that are not regional facilities. The distinction is significant because a party state designated as the host state for a regional facility is 

responsible under Article VI c) and e) [paragraphs d) and f) of the original Compact] for its siting, development and operation. Additionally, a host 

state has continuing responsibilities for fees, decommissioning, closure, 

extended care, and a liability fund for a regional facility under Article VI 

i), j), and n) [paragraphs j), k), and o) of the original Compact]. 

Illinois has several facilities that have for many years received, treated and 

stored low-level radioactive waste from throughout the nation. These 

facilities were sited and developed by private businesses, not the State of 

Illinois. There was uncertainty whether these facilities constituted regional facilities under the original Compact. There was also a significant concern that waste from outside the Compact region could be abandoned at these 

facilities and left for the State of Illinois to dispose of. It was feared 

that as Illinois made progress on developing a new disposal facility, and 

other states did not, waste from the other states would be sent to treatment 

and storage facilities in the State of Illinois and "orphaned" at the 

facilities. This would have had the effect of negating the protection given the State of Illinois under the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments 

Act. If waste could be sent from outside the Compact region and orphaned at 

treatment and storage facilities, those facilities would become de facto 

dis"posal facilities, notwithstanding the prohibition on waste from ·outside the 

Compact being disposed of within the region without the Compact's approval. 

3 
119 

Under the Article III i) of the original compact, imports to regional 

treatment, storage, and disposal facilities within the Central Midwest Compact region had to be approved by a majority of the Commission and all 

Commissioners from the effected party state. It was unclear to some persons what authority the Compact Commission had with regard to imports to treatment 

and storage facilities that were not regional facilities. The question was important to Illinois because Illinois has several treatment and storage facilities that are not regional facilities. The amendments to Article Ill i) 

clarify that the Compact Commission must approve imports to all treatment, 

storage, and disposal facilities in the region, regardless of whether those 

facilities meet the definition of "regional facility.• 

NRC expressed concern about the changes relating to treatment and storage 

facilities. NRC recognized that most compacts contain provisions that provide some degree of control over import and export of low-level radioactive waste 

for treatment and storage but felt that the "overall tone" of the amendments 

to the Central Midwest Compact went beyond any existing Compact. NRC stated 

that it believes a disparity in rules could present a substantial burden on national commerce in LLRW. Finally, NRC encouraged agreements between 

compacts and unaffiliated states to ensure the return of waste to the region or state of origin. 

Illinois supports the entry of agreements between compacts and unaffiliated 

states addressing the issue of shipments of waste between compacts for 

treatment, storage, and disposal. The Central Midwest Compact has entered 

into such agreements with three compacts and is negotiating several other 

agreements. These agreements have been sent to Governor Edgar and t~e 

legislative leaders in Illinois as provided in Article Ill j) 1) of the 

Compact. There has been no opposition whatsoever to the agreements. 

Ill i not s does not agree with NRC's imp 1 i ed pas it ion that the opportunity .to 

enter into the agreements with other compacts and unaffiliated states provides 

adequate protection against 'orphaned" waste. It is clear that there is not 

unanimous support throughout the country for the Low-Level Radioactive Waste 

Policy Amendments Act Some states, including Illinois, have made great 

efforts in the face of many obstacles to develop new disposal facilities 

within their borders. Other states have not. There have been efforts to 

reopen the Policy Amendments Act and revise the compact system. Illinois has never supported those efforts. 

Our concern about "orphaned" waste is not focused on the waste from compacts or states that have made efforts to develop their own disposal facilities and 

enter into agreements with the Central Midwest Compact agreeing that their 

waste wi 11 not be "orphaned" in Ill i not s. Our concern is with the waste from 

compacts or states that have not. If those compacts or states refuse to enter 

into agreements recognizing that they are responsible for their generators' 

waste that is sent to Illinois for treatment and storaga, what protection does 

Illinois have that the waste wi 11 not be "orphaned" in Illinois? Without the 

Compact amendments, essentially none. 

4 
For this reason, it is important to Illinois that the Compact Commission have 

the authority, as provided in the Compact amendments, to approve imports of 

low-level radioactive waste to treatment and storage facilities in the Compact region in order to ensure that appropriate arrangements are made to protect 

against the possibility of Illinois being left with the disposal responsibility for "orphaned" waste that should be the responsibility of 

another state or compact. We do not believe that this is an expansion of the 

Compact beyond the purview of federal law, or, even if it is assumed to be, 

that it is inconsistent with the federal law. Congress expressly allowed 

compact states that develop disposal facilities to discriminate against waste 

from outside the compact. This was a significant incentive for the sta~es to 

form compacts and to develop new disposal facilities. The reality is that 

this authorization from Congress could be rendered meaningless if a compact has no control over waste that is shipped into the region for storage and 

treatment. 

Illinois disagrees with NRC's position that the changes regarding imports for 

treatment and storage go beyond ~ existing Compact and pose a substantial 

threat of burdening national commerce in LLRW. Article !V.(2) of the 

Northwest Interstate Compact on Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management and 

Article VII.(c) of the Rocky Mountain Low-Level Radioactive Waste Compact, which have been ratified by Congress, grant the governing bodies of those 

compacts express approval authority over imports for treatment and storage. 

Section 6.02 of the Texas low-Level Radioactive Waste Compact also provides that waste from outside the compact may not be treated or stored in that 

compact region without approval of the compact's governing body. 

Illinois would also disagree with any argument that the Low-Level Radioactive 

Waste Policy Amendments Act and the compacts formed and approved under that 

Act focused entirely on disposal and recognized no compact authority over treatment and storage. As noted above, the Northwest and Rocky Mountain 

Compacts expressly recognize authority over treatment and storage. In 

addition, Article Ill i) of the original Central Midwest Compact authorized 

the Compact Commission to enter into agreements with other states and compacts 

for the use of regional facilities, which could be treatment or storage facilities as well as disposal facilities. Thus, Congress has already ratified the Compact Commission having the authority to approve imports to 

regional storage and treatment facilities. The change that the amendments 

made was to give the Compact Commission the same authority regarding "facilities" that it has always had regarding "regional facilities." 

Finally, Illinois disagrees that the changes pose a substantial threat of 

burdening interstate commerce, either because they are different from 

provisions in other compacts or because of the authority that they grant the 

Compact Comm1ssion. First, there are already numerous differences between the 

compacts. These differences have not caused significant burdens on interstate commerce. Second, two Congressionally-approved compacts and one compact pending Congressional approval already have the controls over treatment and 

storage that have been added to the Central Midwest Compact. Third, the 

records of both the Central Midwest Compact and the State of Illinois clearly 

show that they are not proponents of protectionist measures to impede 

interstate commerce in low-level radioactive waste sent for treatment and 

storage. 

5 
121 

The Compact has entered into reciprocal access agreements with the Rocky 

Mountain, Northeast, and Southwest Compacts and is negotiating several other 

agreements. In addition, it has passed a series of resolutions approving the 

continued imports to treatment and storage facilities in the Central Midwest 

region. It has never prohibited any person, state or compact from shipping 

waste to a facility in Illinois or Kentucky. · 

As mentioned above, the State of Illinois has made great effort to fulfil its 

responsibilities under the Policy Amendments Act. It has done nothing to 

impede the commerce in waste for treatment and storage. The State's record is 

highlighted by actions that IDNS has taken since the Barnwell facility closed 

to waste generators outside the Southeast Compact. The Department has 

convened two meetings of Illinois generators to facilitate solution of the 

storage problem they will face until a new disposal facility can be developed. This problem is particularly acute for medical and academic generators. The 

nuclear power plants have considerably more space available to them and are not facing a shortage of storage capacity within a few months as many of the 

smaller generators are. While many non-reactor generators in Illinois produce more waste than they can store on-site, they may not generate enough waste to 

make the development of a new facility to handl e that waste economically 

viable. IONS has taken the public position that one possible solution is the 

development of a new storage facility to be located within the State of 

Illinois that would receive waste from other compacts or states, provided that 

those compacts or states provide assurances that the waste will be returned to 

the compact or state of origin and will not be "orphaned" in Illinois. We are aware of no other State that has taken this initiative. 

D. Other Changes 

The amendments also revise language in Article VII of the Compact pertaining 

to low-level radioactive waste whose disposal is the responsibility of the 

federal government (e.g., waste generated as a result of development of atomic 

weapons) under 42 U.S.C sec. c (a)(l)(B). The amendments correct inaccurate 

references in the original Compact to this type of waste and clarify that the 

Compact Commission has neither responsibility for nor control over such waste 

(e.g., the Compact Commission cannot prohibit export of such waste from the 

Compact region as it can for other waste), except that the waste cannot be 

deposited at regional facilities without approval of the Compact Commission. 

Finally, the amendments make several procedural changes at the State level to 

improve implementation of the Compact. For instance, the amendment to Article 

III i) eliminates the requirement for advance State legislative approval of 

agreements with other compacts for reciprocal use of each other's treatment 

and storage facilities. Under the original Compact, agreements for the use of 

regional treatment and storage facilities in the Central Midwest Region were not valid unless approved in advance by the legislature of the affected state. 

Under the amendments, such agreements are effective unless revoked by the 

legislature of the affected State. This change facilitates the entry into 

agreements between the Central Midwest Compact and other compacts or states 

for use of treatment and storage facilities. 

6 
122 

£. Ratification Language From Public Law 99-240 

NRC recommended including in Congressional approval of the Compact amendments 

language used in Public Law 99-240, and subsequent compact ratification laws, 

which states that the consent of Congress is granted subject to the provisions of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act and is granted only for so long as the Compact Commission complies with all of the provision of that Act. 

Il linois has no objection to inclusion of this language. 

III. CONClUSIONS 

Illinois, Kentucky, and the Central Midwest Compact support the Low-Level 

Radioactive Waste Policy Act and the compact system authorized in that Act. 

They are committed to the development of a new regional disposal facility. Illinois was designated as the host state for that facility and made a determined, but unsuccessful, effort to site and license the facility. 

Following rejection of the Martinsville site, the Illinois General Assembly created a new process that is currently underway. 

The amendments to the Central Midwest Compact were proposed due to concerns about developments, and lack of developments, outside the Compact region. One 

particular concern was that waste generated outside the Compact region could 

be "orphaned" at treatment and storage facilities In Illinois. 

The Compact amendments regarding treatment and storage facilities will not 

endanger the national scheme under which the states are responsible for 

providing disposal capacity for low-level radioactive waste generated within 

their borders. To the contrary, the revisions are consistent with existing law and promote achievement of the goal of providing new disposal capacity. 

Two compacts already approved by Congress and one other compact presently 

before Congress have the same provision. 

The changes do not pose a substantial threat of burdening interstate commerce. It should be clearly understood that the amendments were not a protectionist measure to prevent all low-level radioactive waste generated outside the 

Compact region from being treated or stored within the region. The revisions were made to ensure that the protection against being effectively forced to 

dispose of waste from outside the region, a protection expressly approved by 

Congress, would not be eroded or even destroyed. 

The amendments to the Central Midwest Compact are in the public interest and 

should be approved by Congress. 

7 
123 

Mr. BARLOW. Thank you very much, Mr. England. We will suspend for a few moments. We have a vote on over on the Floor and 

then we will begin the questions for Dr. Bullard and Mr. England. 

It will be about 5 or 10 minutes. 

Mr. LEHMAN [presiding]. The hearing will come to order. The 

gentleman from Texas, Mr. Coleman, had some amendments he 

wanted to submit for the record and I will take those amendments 

for the record. 

Mr. COLEMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate 

that for your consideration prior to markup. 

Mr. LEHMAN. The Chair will note the presence of the representative from Texas. 

Next, we will hear from our panel two, Dr. Clark W. Bullard. We 

got them already. Okay. 

Gentlemen, most of my questions can be addressed to either one 

of you, so I will just ask them and maybe you can decide amongst 

yourselves or just jump in if you want to handle it. Your testimony 

notes that the other compacts, including the Southeast, forbid the 

treatment, storage, or disposal at any regional facility of waste 

from outside the region without the consent of the compact commission. 

SEG, Incorporated, the largest waste processors in the country 

and the company that has expressed concern about your amendments is located in the Southeast compact. To your knowledge, has 

any generator been denied access to the services of SEG because 

that compact has refused to give its consent. 

Mr. ENGLAND. I can answer that. To my knowledge, no, no generator has been denied access. My department has used the services 

of SEG, as have many generators in the State of Illinois. They attended a program that we sponsored a few weeks ago on the solution of current storage problems. We fully support the use of those 

services of companies like SEG. 

Mr. LEHMAN. To your knowledge have any wastes actually been 

orphaned at any treatment facility, for example, in States like 

Michigan whose generators have had access to disposal facilities for 

many years-rather, have lacked access there. Has that prevented 

their generators from accepting their own waste from out-of-State 

compacting facilities? 

Mr. ENGLAND. I can speak to one instance in the State of Illinois. 

Illinois has a storage facility in Tenley Park operated by ADCO 

services. At the time that Michigan was denied access to the Southeast compact, there was some Michigan waste that was orphaned 

for a period of time in the ADCO facility before access resumed to 

Barnewell. That has happened. It was resolved in the past. 

Mr. LEHMAN. Dr. Bullard. 

Dr. BULLARD. One concern that the people of our region have is 

that we need to know whether there is any orphaned waste in our 

region, potentially orphaned waste, and we need these compact 

amendments to go into effect so that we can exercise positive control over waste that is imported so we can be sure that it has a 

round-trip ticket before it comes. That is the whole purpose. 

We think the greatest success over the last few years is we reduced our volume of waste for disposal by a factor of three over the 
124 

last 10 years due to the availability of treatment and storage facilities like SEG outside of our region and like the many facilities 

within our region. And it is the interstate commerce among those 

facilities that has been the key to reducing waste volumes. What 

we need to do is operate those facilities under assurances. We need 

to provide assurances to our citizens so that they can continue to 

operate and we can continue to have the benefits of access to facilities all over the Nation and vice versa. No State wants to build one 

of every kind of treatment facility. 

Mr. LEHMAN. If the public in your compact expresses strong opposition to out-of-region waste being treated within the compact, 

would the compact commission consider banning the practice altogether? Would that be within your authority under the amended 

compact language? 

Dr. BULLARD. Even the existing compact language requires that 

there be approval before waste can be imported for treatment or 

storage to a regional facility. And as I said earlier, Illinois had 

passed a law to shut down all of the facilities in the State, all of 

the treatment facilities that were not classified as regional facilities 

and subject to that positive control. 

The reason we were able to persuade the Illinois Legislature to 

repeal that law was that we developed these compact amendments 

which provide this control and assurances so that interstate commerce can proceed. It was just bad law and bad practice to have 

an individual State do that. It is something that should have been 

done first under the compact umbrella. 

Mr. LEHMAN. My understanding is that all or most of the other 

existing compacts are addressing questions of transshipment of 

waste among the compacts for purposes of treatment and storage 

through a uniform interregional agreement. I believe that the 

Central Midwest compact has chosen not to sign on to an 

interregional agreement, but instead is going to enter bilateral 

agreements with individual compacts or States. Why? 

Dr. BULLARD. We have always had the provision in our compact 

that the host State has to consent to imports of waste and that the 

compact commission has to approve imports. 

The multilateral agreement that you are speaking of is something that many regions can agree upon. It is sort of a least-common-d(mominator agreement that addresses part of the issue. What 

it does is, a compact agrees not to exercise its exclusionary authority to. prevent the return of waste to its region of origin. It does 

nothing to provide the positive affirmative approval of acceptance 

of waste into a region. So we would need bilateral agreements anyway. So the issue is not bilateral versus multilateral; the issue is 

that many compacts, including ours, need this affirmative approval 

up front. The bilateral agreements we already have in place with 

three or four compact regions already and several others under negotiation, they are all virtually identical and they are much more 

flexible. 

They allow if one generator in one State abuses the privilege of 

access to facilities in other States, that one generator can be disciplined or excluded without the whole agreement coming unglued 

and there are also questions regarding some of the States and compacts, States that are signing on to this multilateral agreement, as 
125 

to whether or not they have even the authority to commit their 

State. So for a host of legal and other reasons, we have chosen to 

go to execute these bilateral agreements that we are aggressively 

seeking to do so. In fact, some of the regions who want to sign 

agreements with us will say we will sign just as soon as you get 

your amendments ratified because that will assure us that you can 

enforce your own compact. 

Mr. LEHMAN. My staff has provided you with an amendment that 

I hope to offer when the subcommittee marks up H.R. 4814. Substantively, the amendment would add to the implementing provisions of the bill prior to the compact amendments conditions of congressional consent to the amendments that are identical to those 

in the original compact consent bill and all others. These conditions 

provide that the consent of Congress becomes effective on the date 

the enactment is granted subject to the provisions of the Low-Level 

Waste Act; and comments granted only for so long as the compact 

commission complies with all of the provisions of the Act. 

I don't believe that the change is strictly necessary since the conditions of consent to the original compact should still apply to the 

amendments. However, in light of the controversy that has arisen 

over some of the provisions in the compact, explicit inclusion of this 

conditional consent seems to provide a useful comfort level to some 

of the more interested observers. 

Does either the compact commission or the State have any objection to the adoption of that amendment? 

Dr. BULLARD. The compact commission has no objection whatsoever. 

Mr. ENGLAND. The State of Illinois has no objection, either. 

Mr. LEHMAN. Okay. Thank you very much. I appreciate your 

waiting today patiently and the testimony you have given. The 

Chair will announce that the House has adjourned for the day and 

I, being the only Member here, we had planned to mark this bill 

up now, but I don't think we will. We will do that as quickly as 

possible and the Chair will have an announcement very soon as to 

what day we will mark it up. Thank you very much. 

[Whereupon, at 4:00p.m., the subcommittees were adjourned.] 

APPENDIX 

SEPI'EMBER 13, 1994 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD 

Opening Statement of Chairman Richard Lehman 

The Natural Resources Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral 

Resources and the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and 

Power meet jointly this afternoon to consider two bills which give 

Congressional consent to interstate low-level radioactive waste compacts. 

H.R. 4800 would give consent to a new compact among the states of 

Texas, Maine, and Vermont. H.R. 4814 would give consent to amendments to 

the existing Central Midwest Compact between the states of illinois and 

Kentucky. 

Progress in the federal program to develop new low level radioactive 

waste disposal facilities under the Low Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act 

has been disappointing. Under the Act, as amended in 1985, the states are 

given responsibility for developing new disposal facilities for low-level wastes 

generated by the nuclear power industry, other industries, and the medical 

and scientific research communities, within their borders. 

The Act encourages states to form interstate compacts and develop 

regional or other multi-state facilities rather than single-state facilities. A 

major incentive for the formation of interstate compacts is that Congressional 

consent to the compacts confers upon the compacts the authority to exclude 

from compact facilities waste that is generated outside the compact. Such 

exclusionary authority would otherwise generally not be available to the 

states due to the "commerce clause" of the Constitution. 

There are nine existing low-level waste compacts. None of them has 

succeeded in developing a new disposal facility by the January 1, 1993 

deadline established in the 1985 amendments to the Low Level Waste Act. 

Some of the compacts and their designated repository host states have been 

quite diligent in their pursuit of facility development, but the siting process 

has proved much more time consuming than had been anticipated. This 

would be true ofboth of the compacts that are before us today. 

There are also states that have defaulted on their responsibilities 

under the Act by failing to establish credible siting programs. They seem to 

hope that Congress will revisit the Act and get them off the hook. So far, 

Congress has been and continues to be unwilling to take that step. The 

consensus still seems to be that we should give the process more time to 

work, rather than punish the states that have been responsible by pulling 

the rug out from under them at this late date_ 

The new Texas compact would be the tenth; it is the first new compact 

to come before the Congress since 1988. The State of Texas had been 

1 

(127) 
128 

pursuing a "go-it-alone• strategy in the low-level waste program until a 

eouple years ago. The state was already well along in ita facility siting 

proceaa for ita own facility, and had tentatively identified a site in Hudspeth 

County in western Texas, when the eompact was proposed. 

Consequently, we have today the first instance of opposition to a 

eompact due to the fact that the "victims" of the siting process are already 

identified. Although facility siting is not a compact issue, but rather a host 

state iaaue, and Congressional eonsent to the compact implies no 

endorsement of the siting proeeaa, opponents of the Texas siting process will 

express their opposition to the eompact today. 

The Central Midwest Compact between the states oflllinois _and 

Kentucky was initially approved by Congreaa in 1985. H.R. 4814 would 

provide Congreaaional consent to a number of amendments to that~ 

The NRC and low-level waste generators and proeeaaors have expressed a 

number of concerns about certain provisions in the amendments. Those 

concerns focus primarily on provisions that purport to give the compact 

commission greater authority to regulate both imports to and exports from 

the compact region of wastes for purposes of treatment and storage, as 

opposed to disposal 

The waste generators and processors assert that Congress in the Low 

Level Waste Act never intended to permit states or compacts to impede 

interstate commerce for purposes other than waste disposal. We have 

received and will include in the reeord of this hearing the written statement 

of H. W. AITowsmith, the President of Scientific Ecology Group, Ine., of Oak 

Ridge, Tenneaaee, the nation's largest low-level waste processor, expressing 

these concerns. 

The compact, for its part, argues that keeping tabs on treatment and 

storage is an essential eomponent of managing a disposal system, and that 

the lack of such authority could result in out-of-compact wastes being 

"'orphaned" in the compact region. 

Time has proven what we should always have expected: that 

developing new disposal facilities is politically very difficult. In light of that, 

I believe it is crucial that Congress and federal agen~ea including the NRC 

aff'ord the states as much flexibility as possible in making arrangements for 

these facilities. 

At the same time, it is equally crucial that the compact system not be 

permitted to cause the balkanization of the eountry's waste treatment and 

storage industries. Waste treatment for purposes of volume reduction and 

waste form stabilization have become very important-particularly in light of 
129 

the fact that generatorS in 31 states will have to store their low-level wastes 

for several years due to lack of access to disposal facilities. New technologies 

for waste compaction and form stabilization continue to be developed; the 

compacts must not restrict interstate access to those technologies. 

Congress recognized from the beginning that the states might include 

in compacts provisions that go beyond the literal scope of the Low Level 

Waste Act. Indeed, there are provisions very similar to those in question 

here in several other compacts. 

Rather than tie up the already difficult compacting process with 

endless Congressional remands, Congress has opted to let the compact 

process go forward by always granting its consent "subject to the provisions 

of the Low Level Waste Act." Moreover, Congressional approval "is granted 

for only so long as the regional [commission] established in the.compad; __ 

complies with all of the provisions of such Act." 

These conditions of the Congressional consent were included in the 

original consent to the Central Midwest Compact, and would ordinarily have 

been construed to apply to the amendments being considered here. However, 

in light of the controversy that these provisions have engendered at this time, 

it would appear to be prudent to address them explicitly in a manner which 

does not unduly hinder the compact's flexibility. 

Accordingly, when the Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee 

marks up H.R. 4814 at the conclusion of this hearing, I intend to offer a short 

list of technical amendments including one that incorporates those conditions 

of consent explicitly in the enacting provisions of this consent bill. 

At this time I would like to recognize the distinguished and 

unfortunately departing Chairman of the Energy and Power Subcommittee, 

Mr. Sharp. 
130 

Amendment to H.R. 4814 

Offered by Mr. Lehman 

Page 1, line 6, strike "1993" and insert "1994". 

Page 1, after line 6, insert the following new section 

(and redesignate the subsequent section accordingly): 

1 SEC. 2. CONDITIONS OF CONSENT TO COMPACT AMEND2 MENTS. 

3 The consent of the Congress to the compact amend4 ments set forth in section 3-

5 (1) shall become effective on the date of the en6 actment of this Act; 

7 (2) is granted subject to the provisions of the 

8 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 

9 2021b et seq.); and 

lO (3) is granted only for so long as the regional 

11 commission established in the amended compact 

12 complies with all of the provisions of such Act. 

Page 2, line 3, strike "The" and insert the followmg: 

13 In accordance with section 4(a)(2) of the Low-Level Ra14 dioactive Waste Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 2021d(a)(2)), the 

September 9, 1994 
131 

Amendment to H.R. 4800 

Offered by _______ _ 

Page 2, after line 11, insert the following new subsection: 

1 (b) ADDITIONAL CoNDITIONS.-The consent of the 

2 Congress to the compact set forth in section 5 is granted 

3 subject to the additional conditions that--

4 (1) the compact commission shall not enter into 

5 an agreement with any person or entity (other than 

6 a State) that is not a party State for the importa7 tion of low-level radioactive waste into the compact 

8 for management or disposal; and 

9 (2) the shipments of low-level radioactive waste 

10 to the compact facility from all non-party States 

II shall not exceed 5 percent of the volume of such 

I2 waste estimated to be disposed of in such facility by 

13 all of the non-host party States during the 50-year 

14 period beginning in 1995. 

September 13, 11184 

Page 2, line 2, insert "(a) IN GENERAL.-" before 

"The consent". 
132 

Amendment to H.R. 4800 

Offered by _______ _ 

Page 2, after line 11, insert the following new subsection: 

1 (b) ADDITIONAL CONDITION.-The consent of t.lle 

2 Congress to the compact set forth in section 5 is granted 

3 subject to the additional condition that, in lieu of any total 

4 volume limitation, the total radioactivity (measured in cu5 ries) of all shipments of low-level radioactive waste to the 

6 compact facility from all non-host party States shall not 

7 exceed 20 percent of the total radioactivity of all such 

8 waste estimated to be disposed of in such facility by the 

9 host State during the 50-year period beginning in 1995. 

September 13, 1994 

Page 2, line 2, insert "(a) IN GENERAL.-" before 

"The consent". 
133 

Amendment to H.R. 4800 

Offered by _______ _ 

Page 2, after line 11, insert the following new subsection: 

1 (b) ADDITIONAL CONDITION.-The consent of th.e 

2 Congress to the compact set forth in section 5 is granted 

3 subject to the additional condition that the compact facil. 

4 ity sball not be located in any county in which minority 

5 group members a.eeount for more than 50 percent of the 

6 total population. 

September 13, 1994 

Page 2, line 2, insert "(a) IN GENERAL.-" before 

"The consent". 
134 

Amendment to H.R. 4800 

Offered by _______ _ 

Page 2, after line 11, insert the following new subsection: 

1 (b) .ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS.-The consent of the 

2 Congress to the compact set forth in section 5 is granted 

3 subject to the additional conditions that4 (1) in lieu of any total volume limitation, the 

5 total radioactivity (measured in curies) of all ship6 ments of low-level radioactive waste to the compact 

7 facility from all non-host party States shall not ex8 ceed 20 percent of the total radioactivity of all such 

9 waste estimated to be disposed of in such facility by 

10 the host State during the 50-year period beginning 

11 in 1995; and 

12 (2) the total radioactivity (measured in curies) 

13 of all shipments of low-level radioactive waste to the 

14 compact facility from all persons or entities that are 

15 not party States shall not exceed 5 percent of the 

16 total radioactivity of all such waste estimated to be 

17 disposed of in such facility by all of the non-host 

September 13, 1994 
135 

2 

1 party States during the 50-year period beginning in 

2 1995. 

.......... ,,,114 

Page 2, line 2, insert "(a) IN GENERAL.-" before 

"The CODSent" • 
136 

Testimony by the Honorable Henry Bonilla 

before the Natural Resources Committee 

Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources 

September 13, 1994 

Thank you Mr. Chairman and subcommittee members. In 1985, seven 

years before I was elected to the House of Representatives, 

Congress passed the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendment 

Act. This legislation granted individual states the authority to 

make disposal compacts with other states It was designed to be 

fair and mutually beneficial to all participants; and it is for 

the most part, except for one particular party involved - the 

people who live at the selected sites. This particular point 

makes all the difference as to why H.R. 4800 is not good 

legislation. 

As the Congressman for such an impacted area -- Hudspeth County, 

Texas -- I strongly believe that the original language of the 

Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendment Act is deficient, 

because site selection and local rights are not addressed. In 

fact, the most important factor -- the site itself -- is not even 

a bill consideration. The 1986 compact bill and the process it 

establishes for interstate waste compacts does not take into 

account local rights in site selection. 

The critical question I want raised here in Congress surrounds 

the consequences of approving the Texas-Maine-Vermont compact. 

At no point should my constituents in Hudspeth County be forced 

to accept low-level radioactive waste generated outside of Texas. 

Nor should any American community for that matter. My 

constituents and all Americans deserve to have their fears and concerns addressed. 

I am very aware of a federal circuit court ruling, based on 

interstate commerce law, which requires states to accept the lowlevel waste of other states. However, radioactive waste commerce 

cannot be considered in the same light as other interstate 

commerce. This was recognized by Congress when the House passed 

the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendment Act. That 

legislation provided a means of restricting this form of commerce 

between states. The Texas-Vermont-Maine compact has the benefit 

of limiting waste shipments to these three states. 
137 

However, there remain serious problems with this compact. The 

language of the compact is not clear as to whether the 

commission established under the compact could open the Hudspeth 

site to waste from other states. In addition, the people of 

Hudspeth County are forced to accept, this·waste without recourse. It is vital that everyone understand the facts and 

what is involved. My constituents' voice must be heard. 

I am requesting that the Natural Resources Committee mark up new legislation to replace the 1986 Low-Level Radioactive Policy 

Amendments Act. This new legislation should provide for greater 

community involvement and allow communities greater opportunity 

to keep out shipments of out of state waste. I further request 

that the Texas-Maine-Vermont compact and all other interstate 

compacts under the committee consideration be kept pending until 

passage of a new Low-Level Radioactive Policy Act which addresses 

local concerns. A new Low-Level Radioactive Policy Act will make 

this and any other compacts unnecessary. 

Thank you for your time and consideration and for allowing me to 

represent roy constituents before the committee. 
138 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CARLOS J. MOORHEAD 

BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER 

AND THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES 

SEPTEMBER 13, 1994 

HEARING ON H.R. 4800 AND H.R. 4814 

TEXAS AND CENTRAL MIDWEST 

LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE COMPACTS 

MR. CHAIRMAN, 

I WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE CHAIRMEN OF THESE 

TWO SUBCOMMITTEES FOR HOLDING THIS HEARING ON 

THE TEXAS LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE COMPACT 

CONSENT ACT AND THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE 
139 

CENTRAL MIDWEST COMPACT. ALTHOUGH IT IS LATE IN 

THE SESSION, IT IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT THAT WE 

CONSIDER THESE BILLS AND, IF WE FIND THAT THEY 

COMPLY ~TH THE LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE HASTE 

POLICY ACT, APPROVE THEM AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE. 

I WOULD LIKE TO COMMEND THE STATES INVOLVED 

IN BOTH THE TEXAS AND THE CENTRAL MIDWEST 

COMPACTS FOR WORKING CONSTRUCTIVELY TOGETHER TO 

PROVIDE FOR THE DISPOSAL OF LOW-LEVEL 

RADIOACTIVE HASTE GENERATED ~THIN THEIR 

BORDERS. 

2 
140 

ALTHOUGH I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE THOSE 

WITH QUESTIONS REGARDING THE SITING OF THE 

FACILITY, I WOULD LIKE TO EMPHASIZE THAT THE 

APPROVAL OF A COMPACT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN 

APPROVAL OF ANY SPECIFIC SITE. AT THE REQUEST 

OF THE STATES, THE ACT PLACES PRINCIPAL 

RESPONSIBILITY FOR MANY IMPORTANT ISSUES, 

INCLUDING SITE SELECTION, WITH THE STATES. 

OUR RESPONSIBILITY IS TO ADDRESS THE 

REQUIREMENTS OF THE ACT AND NOT INTERFERE WITH 

ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN PLACED WITHIN STATE 

AUTHORITY. I AM HOPEFUL THAT BOTH OF THESE 

3 
141 

COMMITTEES CAN APPROVE THESE BILLS WITH ALL DUE 

DISPATCH. 

THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN. 
142 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MICHAEL BILIRAKIS 

BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER 

AND 

THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES 

SEPTEMBER 13, 1994 

HEARING ON H.R. 4800 AND 4814 

TEXAS AND CENTRAL MIDWEST 

LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE COMPACTS 

MR. CHAIRMAN, 

I COMMEND THE CHAIRMEN FOR THE TIMELINESS OF THIS 

HEARING. THE TIME LEFT IN THE SESSION IS GROWING 

INCREASINGLY SHORT. HOWEVER, TEXAS, MAINE, VERMONT, 

ILLINOIS, AND KENTUCKY HAVE DONE THEIR PART TO BEGIN. TO 
143 

COMPLY WITH THE LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE POLICY ACT, 

AND IT IS NOW TIME FOR CONGRESS TO DO ITS PART. 

IF WE AND THAT THESE STATES HAVE COMPLIED WITH THE 

TERMS OF THE ACT. I HAVE FAITH THAT WE WILL REWARD THEM 

WITH PROMPT APPROVALS OF THE TEXAS .COMPACT AND THE 

CHANGES TO THE CENTRAL MIDWEST COMPACT. 

AS THE LAST NATIONAL LOW-LEVEL WASTE REPOSITORY IN 

BARNWELL, SOUTH CAROLINA, CLOSED ITS DOORS WASTE FROM 

OUTSIDE THE SOUTHEASTERN COMPACT, THE IMPORTANCE OF 

DEAUNG WITH THESE ISSUES HAS GROWN. UNTIL REGIONAL OR 

STATE DISPOSAL FACILITIES ARE CONSTRUCTED. LOW-LEVEL · 

2 
144 

WASTE WILL CONTINUE TO PILE UP AT THOUSANDS OF 

HOSPITALS, LABORATORIES, INDUSTRIAL SITES, AND NUCLEAR 

POWER PLANTS. THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE. 

THE STATES REQUESTED, AND HAVE RECEIVED, 

RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE DIFFICULT TASK OF SITING AND 

OVERSEEING LOW-LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES. OUR 

RESPONSIBILITY IS TO AVOID IMPEDING THIS PROCESS. THE BEST 

EVIDENCE THAT THE PROCESS SET FORTH IN THE LOW-LEVEL 

RADIOACTIVE WASTE POLICY ACT IS WORKING WILL BE THE· 

APPROVAL, BEFORE THE END OF THIS CONGRESS, OF THE TEXAS 

COMPACT AND THE AMENDMENTS TO THE CENTRAL MIDWEST 

COMPACT. 

3 
145 

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMEN. 

4 
Opening Statement 

Hon. J. Dennis Haste

Joint Hrg/Energy & Pow

Energy & Mineral Resources Su

September 13, 1994 

Chairmen Lehman and Sharp, thank you 

today on a topic of importance to my state of 

Kentucky and those states which comprise the 

As those present today are aware, under t

Waste Policy Act, states are responsible for th

radioactive waste that is generated within their 

authorized to satisfy this responsibility either i

through regional interstate compacts. 
In 1984, Illinois entered into an agreement

the Central Midwest Compact. Subsequently, 

consented to this compact. Since that time, Dl

sought and received approval from their legisla

amendments to their original compact. The st

Kentucky are now seeking Congressional appro

modifications and clarifications. The proposed 

with federal law and do not violate the Intersta

As a member from Illinois and a cosponso

provides for Congressional approval of these c

colleagues on the Energy and Power Subcomm

members of the Energy and Mineral Resources 
this legislation. It is important that we pass t

significance, H.R. 4814 would allow IDinois an

address concerns related to "orphan waste" th

responsibility of another state or compact. 

Likewise, we need to consent to the Texas 

enable those states to proceed with developing 

acceptable to their communities. 

Failure to pass these bills would be a disse

these states. Let's act responsibly and suppor

today. 
SAM JOHNSON )(II)CSTJW:T. TVWI 

U»>Ilc.GW'OifflttiOUII Offitl ..... DifoM.\ ~'tOM.DCJOI1.,_,.:103 

Q:f:rnUI-11201 

t41Xill{!t"""-\-.~$SWAY 

~,.:~.,. 

(l ~7D-OIU 

149 

Q':ongrt.rul of tht 'tinittd ~tatts 

!\OUC of 'RqiiUtntlltilltl 

UQJidngton, M lOfiHJOl 

September 21, 1994 

The Honorable Richard H. Lehman 

U.S. House of Representatives 

1226 Longworth 

Washington, DC 20515-0518 

Dear Representa~hman:~~ 

~mu: 

IAHKiNG,. FINN«:£ 

AHV URaAH AFFAIRS 

SMAU 8V$.1N£S$ 

SCJENCE, SPACE, .-No TECHNOLOGY 

I am writing to express my strong support for H.R. 4800, the 

Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact Consent Act. 

An important compromise has been reached between the states of 

Texas, vermont and Maine regarding the removal and shipment of 

low-level waste to Texas. This legislation represents that 

compromise and adequately protects Texas from having to accept 

unwanted low-level waste from other parte of the country. 

As you know, 1980 saw the congressional enactment of the LowLevel Radioactive Waste Policy Act which instructed each state to take responsibility for the disposal of low-level radioactive waste. Several years later, in the Low-Level Radioactive Waste 

Policy Amendments Act of 1985, Congress further encouraged the states to enter into compacts for the efficient management of all 

low-level radioactive waste disposal. 

After negotiating for a considerable amount of time, the Texas 

Legislature overwhelmingly approved the Texas compact to comply 

with this mandate. H.R. 4800 represents Texas policy towards the 

compact itself. It does not consider specific concerns about 

site selection -- nor should this be a federal concern. 

I respectfully ask that you favorably consider H.R. 4800 and 

support its prompt approval. Not only will the states involved 

benefit, but the disposal laws that Congress has already approved 

will continue to move forward. 

Sincerely, 

~ON Member of Congress 
JACK FIELDS 

lotO..ffiiCT.nu.t. 

150 

Congress of tbt 'llntttb 6tatts 

Jloldt of ~ • IIUII!nttn. IK 205\5-4306 

September 12, 1994 

The Honorable Richard H. Lehman 

United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Rick: 

"""""""'"" ............. 

""'*EOCE 

COMMfTT££ ON MERC>w<T ....... NfO RSHEftfH 

I would like to express my full support for H.R. 4SOO, the 

"Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact Consent Act." 

This bill is the subject of tomorrow's joint hearing before the 

Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power and the Natural 

Resources Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources. 

As you know, this compact between the states of Texas, Vermont, 

and Maine has been approved by all three states. It also bas the 

support of the University of Texas System which is the fourth largest 

generator of low-level radioactive waste in the state. 

I appreciate your consideration and hope you will support 

expeditious passage of this bill. Enactment of H.R. 4800 would 

clearly benefit all three states involved. 

With all best wishes, I am 

-- 0 zn•~--Hc~~.~M~ ... ...... .............. oc 101,, 10J/1H-4to1 

0 tl10f'MIHO~Wtff _, .. --....... tx »ftl.aft (71JtUI).4JOQO 

'-:f71Jt~JUJ 
151 

Testimony of 

H.W. "Bud" Arrowsmith, President 

Scientific Ecology Group, Inc. (SEG) 

before the 

United States House of Representatives 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Subcommittees on Energy and Mineral Resources, and 

Energy and Power 

September 13, 1994 
152 

Chainnan Lehman, Chairman Sharp, and Members of the Subcommittees on Energy and Natural 

Resources and Energy and Power. I am pleased to be here with you today to share some of our 

views on H.R. 4814. 

Approximately 85% of the commercial low-level waste in the nation is now being processed by 

SEG. This is in addition to an increasing amount of waste that SEG processes that originates 

from the U.S. Department of Energy and the U .S.Department of Defense. To put that waste 

volume in perspective, the large amount of waste that SEG processes every year would fill 

the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) WITHOUT processing, in just two and a half years. 

SEG has achieved the distinction of being the industry leader in the management and processing 

of low-level radioactive waste. The business basis of our company has been to develop and 

utilize new waste management technologies. We offer safe, economic solutions by providing 

advanced waste management services to commercial generators of low-level radioactive waste. 

Commercial nuclear utilities, research laboratories, and hospitals are all generators of this waste. 

More recently we began to use some of the same technologies to address DOE and DOD 

clean-up issues. 

Although there are many issues that I could talk about relative to our nation's current policies 

on the management of low-level waste. I would like to focus on three particular issues that 

arise in the context of the legislation you are considering today. These issues are "unrestricted 

transport of radioactive waste for treatment and processing at regional waste treatment 

centers"; "additional requirements for waste tracking," and "the orphan waste concept". This 

Committee is considering legislation that would ensure that compact regions and states can 

control and track waste transported for processing and to assure that only their waste is returned 

for disposal. While performing this task, Congress must not create legislation that conflicts with 

waste generators rights, by allowing local, state, and regional compacts to impose transportation 

restrictions or unreasonable waste tracking requirements. Unreasonable transportation or 

tracking restrictions could make it impossible for the generator to have the best and safest 

processing procedures applied to their waste because existing processing centers are located in 

other states. 

Over the past several years, at our facility in Oak Ridge, we have invested over $100 million 

to put into place several unique technologies that are now being used for the safe and cost 

effective treatment of low-level waste. These technologies include an Ultra-CompactorTM , 

which is the largest of its kind in the world, the only two commercially licensed incinerators for 

low-level waste, and the only metal recycling facility in the United States that is licensed to 

process radioactive scrap metal. -

In addition to our existing processing and treatment capabilities, SEG has developed or has 

obtained access to several new, unique technologies and processes designed to produce a safer, 

more durable environmentally compatible waste form. These technologies include vitrification, 

which is the encapsulation of waste in glass; steam reformation, a process for destroying the 
153 

organic components of waste that is both radioactive and hazardous; and Catalytic Extraction 

Processing, a proprietary technology developed by Molten Metal Technology, Inc., a 

commercial partner of SEG, which has been shown to be effective in significantly reducing the 

volume of certain types of radioactive and hazardous waste. SEG has invested millions of 

dollars in these technologies with the expectation that any customer in any location would be 

able to take advantage of having these technologies applied to the treatment and processing of 

their waste. 

Herein lies our major concern with H.R. 4814. It is our belief, as well as the belief of many 

in our industry, that by giving the State of lllinois, or any other state for that matter, the 

authority 10 approve whether treatment can occur outside its particular boundaries or outside the 

compact regions of which it is part, it could prevent waste generators and the public from 

receiving the benefit of treatment technologies that will produce a safer, more environmentally 

compatible waste form. The "Low-Level Radioactive Waste Amendments Act of 1985", 

enabled the states to organize themselves into compact districts, as a way of addressing their 

needs to dispose of waste. I do not believe that it was ever the intent of the designers of this 

• Act" that authority would be extended 10 states or compact regions to restrict the transportation 

of waste for treatment. 

It is our belief that by giving the states such broad authority, Congress may unintentionally be 

working against what all of us want to achieve; which is to establish radioactive burial sites 

that will safely store radioactive waste until it is no longer hazardous. The use of the advanced 

waste processing techniques discussed earlier provides waste forms that are 1000 times less 

likely to damage the environment during the controlled storage period. In addition, these 

advanced techniques can decontaminate or recycle some of the waste which totally eliminates 

these materials from the waste stream. 

We do not have a problem with the current law that restricts disposal within a Compact to that 

waste which originates from states within that Compact. We do, however, take issue with policy 

that could restrict the import and export of waste from a compact region for treatment. If other 

Compact Districts are able to adopt provisions similar to H.R. 4814 , you may very well create 

a condition where in all the waste processing would need to be done within the compact 

boundaries that would severely reduce the processing options for the waste from that region. 

In order for the safest and best technology to be applied to this waste, private industry, or the 

states, would have to establish treatment facilities that would duplicate and that which is already 

available at the present regional processing centers. But the economics of establishing new 

treatment facilities are such that private industry, waste generators, and the public simply cannot 

afford to build new, comprehensive treatment facilities in every compact district. I do not 

believe any of us want such a situation, because it will mean that waste will be disposed of in 

a form that does not have the highest environmental performance. 

We would also like to comment on the issue of waste tracking which we believe is driving the 

MidWest Compact to request the proposed changes. We understand and support the State of 

Illinois ' desire for the assurance that only their waste and the radioisotopes within their waste 

be returned to them after it is processed. In this regard, we currently maintain waste for 

processing in separate batches from each state or compact region and currently account for that 
154 

waste very accurately. The concept of waste tracking is not new, and has been required by 

the NRC in various forms for many years. We believe that the existing waste tracking system 

our company has developed will provide the necessary information for Illinois and other states 

to assure themselves that the waste it ships and receives will be exactly the same waste. 

Finally, with regard to the State of Illinois concern that they may become the permanent home 

for waste that was sent to the region for processing, we do not believe that Congress must take 

any action. The State of Tennessee currently has processing facilities which processes more than 

90% of the radioactive waste in the United States. The State has protected itself against 

becoming the permanent home for "orphan" waste that comes into Tennessee, for processing, 

by placing certain legal requirements in the Radioactive Material Licenses of its waste processing 

licensees. These legal requirements require companies like SEG to require each waste 

generator, compact region, and state to certify that they will allow the waste to be returned in 

a processed or unprocessed condition before SEG can accept any waste from that waste 

generator. This procedure has been in operation for three years and has worked perfectly. 

I would like to conclude my remarks by asking this committee to assure that H.R. 4814 will not 

modify the original intent of the 1985 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Amendments Act with 

regard to the unrestricted transportation of radioactive waste for the purposes of processing. I 

believe that the committee could accomplish this by approving Chairman Lehman's proposed 

amendment which assures that the original intent of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy 

Amendments Act is still the controlling legislation. I would also like to ask the committee to 

ensure that any new tracking requirements imposed by this legislation be reasonable and efficient 

and not be allowed to restrict the flow of waste out of the compact regions for processing. I 

have included in my written testimony, letters from other industrial segments that support the 

views I have presented here today. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present these views to you today. I would be happy to answer 

any questions members of the committee may have. 
155 

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS BY SEG ON H.R. 4814 

Congress currently has an opportunity to clarify its position on a significant question related to the powers of interstate 

compacts for low-level radioactive waste disposal. The issue 

concerns the extent of compact authorities to limit access to 

waste treatment and processing facilities. This issue has been 

raised in connection with the amendments to the Central-Midwest 

compact, which are now before Congress. Among other provisions, 

these amendments contain terms that attempt to make more explicit 

the authority claimed by the compact commission to limit access 

to waste management facilities, in the same manner that the 

compact will be able to limit access to its regional disposal 

facility. 

Basis for the Conflict 

The 1980 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act and the Low-Level 

Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 were enacted by 

Congress to address a growing problem in the availability and 

distribution of disposal capacity for low-level radioactive 

waste. The private sector had been unable in the decade prior to 

the enactment of these laws to establish any new disposal sites. 

Many at that time believed that direct state action was needed in 

order to ensure that new disposal sites would be developed within 

a reasonable time frame. This background is fairly well known 

and is undisputed. 

While congress was thinking in terms of waste "disposal" 

compacts, and taking testimony from states and other interested 

parties regarding the disposal issue, most of the compacts 

introduced for ratification contained authorities that went 

beyond the development of new disposal capacity. Many compact 

provisions encroached into areas traditionally addressed through 

the Atomic Energy Act and its Agreement State amendments, and 

into broader areas traditionally protected by laws guaranteeing 

the free flow of interstate commerce. One compact, the Rocky 

Mountain, even contains regulatory authorities over the 

management. of naturally-occurring radioactive materials, an issue 

distinct from the disposal of low-level radioactive waste. 

Recognizing the potential for confusion, congress added Section 4 

to the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act, which was supposed to settle any conflicts that might arise between the 

compact authorities and existing federal authorities in favor of 

the federal authorities. section 4d(b) (4), for example, states: 

Except as expressly provided in (this title), nothing 

contained in (this title) or any compact may be 

construed to limit the applicability of any Federal law 

1 
156 

or diminish or otherwise impair the jurisdiction of any Federal agency ••. " 

In addition, the terms of Congressional approval to each of the 

compacts grants Congressional consent "subject to the provisions 

of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act, as amended." 

Moreover, Congressional approval "is granted only for so long as the regional commission, committee, or board established in the 

compact complies with all of the provisions of such Act." 

Taken together, these caveats clearly express Congress' concern that interstate compact organizations constrain their activities 

tot he problem that had been the subject of controversy for the 

previous several years -- the lack of disposal capacity for, lowlevel radioactive waste. In crafting these disclaimers, congress was aware that each of the compacts contained anomalies that were potentially inconsistent with the federal policy and attempted to 

resolve the dilemma in a way that would allow the compact process 

to go forth without having to remand each and every issue back to 

the states. 

PUblic Policy considerations 

The Central-Midwest Compact, for one, has claimed that the power 

to limit access to waste treatment and processing facilities 

within its borders is a necessary adjunct to the development and 

operation of a disposal facility. They are concerned that waste 

treatment facilities in the region might accept waste from 

outside the region, then be unable to ship the contaminated 

treatment residue back to the customer. In this case, they would 

be stuck with responsibility to dispose of the waste. 

I believe that this problem can be more easily and effectively 

addressed through existing authorities granted through the Atomic 

Energy Act Agreement State program to state agencies that set 

license conditions for waste treatment facilities. Tennessee, 

for example, has avoided the problem of inheriting residue from 

its large waste treatment centers by requiring its treatment 

centers to enter contracts with its customers for the return of 

such waste residue. This is a more focussed and much less 

sweeping way to address the potential problem than dividing the 

nation into nine or ten waste management regions and authorizing 

interstate compact organizations wide-ranging powers to regulate 

the interstate movement of waste. 

With waste treatment and processing, there has been no history of 

capacity problems parallel to the problem with the number and 

distribution of disposal facilities. In fact, the success of the 

private sector in establishing and operating waste processing 

centers has stood in contrast to the lack of success of 

interstate compact organizations in establishing new disposal 

facilities. There is simply no compelling public policy reason 

2 
157 

for Congress now to subdivide the nation into tiny regions for 

the treatment and processing of low-level radioactive waste. 

conclusions 

The benefits, if any, of giving compact commissions broad 

authority to control access to waste treatment facilities (other 

than disposal facilities) are far outweighed by the unnecessary 

disruption this might cause to the waste processing industry and 

those who benefit from its services. 

In voting to approve the amendments to the Central-Midwest 

Compact, I reiterate my belief that congress did not intend to 

empower compact organizations to exercise authorities to regulate 

interstate commerce beyond access to regional disposal facilities 

for low-level radioactive waste, or to engage in regulatory 

activities that have traditionally been granted through the 

Agreement State amendments to the Atomic Energy Act. I vote to 

approve the amendments to the Central-Midwest Compact subject to 

the same caveats set forth in all the preceding legislation on 

compacts. 

3 
158 

acuftl.......a.N~~, 1M. 

""":'!:".;::-.:;..... 'September 9, 1994 LWI.,.,., 1t-. ,,. tiM1•tNI 

t14•III•U•er 

~UJUCJod411•l 

I'AX:t~ 

......,. ... ~ ... (:JJt 

....... ,.. ........ c.. 

...... - --- .......... topn .......,_ .. .....,. \.ft!MC.. 

J~~WJC . ...._,,. 

HCOIIMfUC• 

U...O.-..tlil.l'fl.O,.C.M#I 

~~ 

..... """ ...... ~dll..wmo..u.s~c ... ,., _.....,.,.~ 

~c~-

.... l'tL.Il*V 

UIW'Mf Ot 0.*'"" 

tMIIltf•- c:.....,.-..s.o 

--- .,~ 

t1.1'f;lftT. SIMI!, ,__g, 

lfiii.U¥1,.....,."""""~ 

fiby O. lmUf'. 'lf.O. 

--- .-...lt'VIN:e~tU 

aCUIIi C~• S.CI'Mal\0 

~M •.04 t'?:c::1 

Mr. H. W. Arrowsmith 

President 

~Ecology Group 

1560 Bear Creek Road 

Qak Ridge, TN 37830 

Dear Mr. Anowlmith: 

It has tteenlly come to our *lention !hat some I1IQUlllor groups are 

using tilt compriCting proct~~llltowed by the 1985 l.cw-LAI>vel 

Amenclments N:A to Hmit tilt lnlnlfer Into and out o1 thase compacts 

for not only dilpoeal, but most significantly for temp0n11y storage 

anGtor treatment. 

The 1985 amendments act requiiM the stales to form compac:ts or to 

go it alone in providing proper diapoaalfor Jow..'-1 I'IICioac:IMI 

waste (U.RW). PrHenlly, the Appalachian StaiN Compact LUI$ o1 

lll<f!OKtive materials and those who generate UAW are laced with 

an indefinite and extended period of interim Slorage. 

ACURI ill a trade association representing the interests of 1,200 

liCensees and permit·holdel$ within the Appalachian States 

(Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia). We supporl 

any methodology that can salely, effectively and etlicient!y manage 

and disposal of LLRW. 

ACURI, however, does take issue with the concept of ijmiting or 

restriCting in any manner the shipmem of waste for treatment or 

storage inlo or outside ot the respeclive Slate or compact. 

Services of national processors including specialized technologies 

such as incineration, vitrification, compaction, and other treatments of 

waste Slreams and forms can now be safely accomplished at 

centrali:zed high capitol !aciQties SUCh as SEG. Our members have 

reftected a need tor SUCil services. At our Filth Annual Meeting in 

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania on August 25--26, 1994, our members 

commented on some vital services such as: 

• lnc:ineration of biological and medical pathological waste 
Mr. W. H. Alrowsmith 

Page2 

September 9, 1994 

159 

• Incineration of oils and liquids to reduce future environmental 

pollution. 

• The storage treated waste managed by professionals versus local 

storage by generators that may be faced with inadequate space or 

monitoring equipment/personnel. 

• Treatment to neutralize of acids/basics, prevents leaching and 

ensures long term (hundreds of years) stability of waste which if 

untreated causes subsidence, early decay, rust, and presents 

hazards in untreated forms which affect our environment . 

Our list could be further expanded and explained, but in lieu of such 

for now, let us state that we emphatically oppose any restrictions to 

waste management treatment, processing or customer services that 

can pose national health hazard and jeopardizes future 

environmental pollution. 

We hope you will pass our comments on to the Congressional subcommittee considering this matter. 

cc: Technical Advisory Committee 

ACURI Board of Directors 
---

n.u-to•:r-................ "'~.,._.,..._ 

.,...~.r-• ...._...... ,...~.,1'-«0IIIMa 

t'k~lll't-•M,._ 

.,..~.,r .. ~.....,.._ 

.,...~_,_ nw~.,,.. • __ .,,.._.._ _ .,........,_,_.,'t_....__T_~_$.-_ 

l'tw~fllllout«.,.,... 

160 

• ---

.,...~-ra..~~c-... D.oiliou 

.,........__,.,,._....,..--c-.,.._ 

.,..~_1'_ .............. ~ 

l"M~T_,.,.,._c-flltS..­

..... u..--•T-.Wf,b.......,_C.C..~ 

nw~ .. :r-,..,...c-.. rw. 

THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SYSTEM 

Offiu ofGtmttral Couns<~l 

~01 WEST SEVENTH STREET AUSTIN. TEXAS 78701-2981 

TELEPHONE (512) 499-4462 

FAX (" 2) 499-4523 

Testimony Submitted by The University of Texas System to the 

House Ener:gy and Commette Subcommittee on Ener:gy and Power 

on Approval of the Inter-State Compact Among Texas, 

Maine and Vermont for Construction of the Texas 

Low-levcl Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility 

September 15, 1994 

Washington, D.C. 

The University of Texas System (UT) engages in important research and medical 

activities which depend on low-level radioactive materials at its fifteen academic and health 

institutions. Therefore, the UT System supports the effort by Texas to find a responsible 

long-term solution to low-level radioactive waste (LLW) by constructing a permanent 

disposal facility. Congressional ratification of the compact agreement among Texas, Maine, 

and Vermont would be an important step in the State's ability to accomplish that goal. 

UT generates LLW from the use of radioactive materials in research and in nuclear 

medicine. Radioactive materials are an essential part of biomedical research into illnesses 

such as AIDS, cancer and Alzheimer's disease and is used extensively in developing new 

drugs. [n addition, radioactive materials are used to diagnose illnesses, i.e., the use of 

tracers to detect coronary artery disease and lung and bone scans to detect blood clots or 

cancer. They are used to treat diseases such as cancer and thyroid conditions. 

According to the Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Authority, UT is the 

fourth largest generator of LLW in Texas, accounting for approximately 5% of the total 

volume. Approximately 23% of the LLW sent to the proposed disposal facility will be 

generated by UT and other medical research and health care facilities. The UT System 

currently generates about 250 55-gallon drums of dry, solid LLW annually based on 1993 

figures. The 1993 volume represents a decrease in the amount of waste produced in 

previous years due to successful waste minimization efforts. The amount of waste 

produced is expected to remain constant for the near term. Any further reductions from 
161 

waste minimization are likely to be offset by increased LLW from research and medical 

activities. 

1. Why should Texas build a LLW disposal facility? Under the 1985 Low-Level 

Radioactive Waste Policy Act Amendments, each state must provide for disposal of its own 

LLW. Texas should be praised for its leadership role in planning for the future. Under 

state legislation authorizing the disposal facility, 80% of the LLW will come from Texas 

with a maximum of 20% from other compact member states. The compact agreement with 

Vermont and Maine limits the amount of waste and number of other states that can send 

LLW to Texas. 

2. What type of LLW does The University of Texas produce? Laboratory research 

and medical diagnosis and treatment creates LLW when ordinary materials come in contact 

with radioactive materials. Typical laboratory waste includes contaminated test tubes, 

glass containers, clothing such as shoes or gloves, paper towels and other dry, solid trash. 

UT health institutions also generate contaminated syringes, linens, paper products, and 

protective clothing worn by hospital personnel and patients. 

3. Why does The University of Texas System need a waste disposal facility? Now 

that the disposal facility in Barnwell, South Carolina has closed its doors to Texas, UT has 

no place to dispose of its LLW. While UT is currently storing its wastes, this approach is 

not a long-term solution as it essentially turns storage facilities into disposal facilities. 

Disposal at a site that is carefully chosen, engineered for safety and protection, and 

operated by professionals solely dedicated to that purpose allows. LLW to be permanently, 

centrally and consistently managed better than if it were indefinitely stored at the point 

of generation, often in urban areas. 

[n conclusion, radioactive materials used in research and medicine produce valuable 

health benefits to the people of Texas and the country. The UT System relies on the State 

of Texas to provide generators a safe, secure and permanent LLW disposal facility. UT also 

relies on the expertise of the Texas LLW Disposal Authority to make the proper siting, 

construction and operational decisions. The goals of protecting human health and the 

environment are best served by a well planned, central disposal facility, not numerous 

storage areas all around the State. Therefore, The University of Texas System supports the 

compact among Texas, Maine and Vermont. 
162 

ry,F• 

NUClEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE 

September 22, 1994 

The Honorable Richard H. Lehman 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources 

Committee on Natural Resources 

The Honorable Philip R. Sharp 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and Power 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Chairmen Lehman and Sharp: 

Phillip...,... 

I am writing to express the views of the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) on lowlevel waste legislation addressed at the September 13 joint hearing of the 

Subcommittees on Energy and Power and Energy and Mineral Resources. 

HR 4800 would ratify a new interstate compact for the disposal oflow-level 

radioactive waste generated in Texas, Maine and Vermont. The legislatures and 

governors of all three states have approved the terms of this compact agreement, 

which calls for the development of a single disposal facility for waste generated in 

the three states. This mutually beneficial arrangement helps these states meet their 

obligations under the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act, 

which encourages the formation of such compacts. 

NEI strongly supports HR 4800. We believe that failure to ratify the Texas 

Compact would signal a lack of congressional commitment to federal low-level 

waste policy, and adversely impact disposal site development efforts of other 

compacts by creating the perception that Congress may revisit the Act in the future. 

The second bill on which your panels heard testimony, HR 4814, would amend the 

Central Midwest Low-Level Radioactive Waste Compact. The proposed 

amendments include language that explicitly defines the compact's authority to limit 

1776 I STREET. NW SUITE AOO WASHINGTON, DC 20006-3701 rHONE 202.739.8000 FAX 202.785.4019 

-· 
The Honorable Richard H. Lehman 

The Honorable Philip R. Sharp 

September 22, 1994 

Page2 

163 

access to commercial waste treatment facilities in much the same way that 

compacts can restrict access to regional disposal facilities. NEI believes that 

congressionally authorized restrictions on interstate access to waste treatment 

facilities would be contrary to the national interest and would exceed the powers 

that Congress originally gave interstate compacts in the Low-Level Radioactive 

Waste Policy Amendments Act. There is no credible evidence to suggest that 

expanded compact authority in this area would facilitate disposal site development 

efforts. 

Treatment facilities provide substantial environmental benefits. Low-level 

radioactive waste generators rely heavily on their services. For instance, 

supercompaction and incineration of waste drastically reduce its volume and, in 

many cases, result in an environmentally preferable waste form. Also, lower 

disposal volumes mean lower disposal costs, a savings ultimately passed on to 

consumers. Commercial decontamination and laundry facilities remove 

radioactivity from objects, such as piping and clothing, allowing these materials to 

be reused or recycled rather than discarded as low-level waste. Commercial 

processes also allow metallic radioactive wastes to be melted and formed into 

components for use in applications that might otherwise require use of new 

uncontaminated metals. And further advances in waste processing technology are 

on the horizon. 

The volume oflow-level radioactive waste generated for disposal nationally has 

declined by well over 50 percent since Congress passed the Low-Level 

Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act in 1985 largely due to the availability 

of a few centralized waste treatment facilities. The private sector waste treatment 

industry, operating without interstate commerce restrictions, has a record of 

success in serving the national interest. In most cases, these treatment services 

would not be practical or economically viable if they had to be performed within 

each of the 10 compacts. Continued interstate access to treatment facilities is 

essential especially since waste generators rely on these facilities to reduce the 

amount of waste they must store on-site until the compacts develop new disposal 

facilities. (Low-level waste is now being stored at generator sites in 31 states, 

awaiting the development of new disposal facilities.) 

NEI urges Congress to condition its approval of the Central Midwest Compact to 

ensure that the compact's authority to control the importation and exportation of 

low-level radioactive waste applies only to disposal, consistent with the Low-
The Honorable Richard H. Lehman 

The Honorable Philip R. Sharp 

September 22, 1994 

Page3 

164 

Levet·Waste Policy Amendments Act. We believe this will allow continued 

national success in waste processing and volmne reduetion, and permit the 

compacts to focus on their objective identified by Congress - establishing new 

disposal capacity for low-level waste. 

Sincerely, 

~ 

cc: Members, Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources 

Members, Subcommittee on Energy and Power 
165 

Uaited Metbodist Cbun:b 

U S Public Iaterest Raean:b Group 

Soutbwest Network for Eaviroameatal aad Ecoaomic Justice 

Siern Club Legal DeCease Fuad 

Siern Club 

Save Siern Blaac. 

Safe Eael"&)' Commaaic.tioa Coaacil 

Public Citizea Texas 

Public Citizea's Critic.! Mau Eael"&)' Project 

Pbysiciaas for Social RespoasibUity 

Nuclear lnformatioa aad Resource Service 

Iadigeaoua Eaviroameatal Network 

Greeapeace 

EDViroameatal ActioD 

Alert CitizeD.S for EaviroDmeatal Safety 

September 12, 1994 

We ask you to VOTE AGAINST 1LR. 4800/S. llll, the "Texas Low-Level Radi(l8Ctive Waste 

Disposal Compect Conxnt Act" becauJe it: 

•lloiiiCtioaa wbat appean to be eavtroDmeatal ndlm tbat n~llltecl Ia Hlectiq a poor1 

Mweu Amerka.a co-llllltr wbJch Ilea Dot waat die diUDp' aad II already the loeatioD 

or oDe or the larJett -aae •lacl&e projlctl Ia the eoutry.' It il oae of numerous proposed 

radioactive and hazardous facilities alona the Mexican border. . 

Althollllh the Compact does not expressly desipate Hudlpetb CoiDlty, the Faslcin RJmc:h 

near Sierra Blanca clearly has been chosen and a license has been submitted. The decision 

Congress now faces on Compact approval CllllDOt be !DIIde in a vacuum, iporing poiCDtially 

serious environmental justice questions that have been raiJed about the site selection process. 

Coqressional approval would make challenain& the environmentally Ull,just procedures that have 

been carried out mo~ difficult because lldditional out-of-state moaey, pressure and lepl 

commitments will come to bear. 

We caution Cor.gress not to be complicit in wbat has become, whether intentional or not, 

a repulsive trend in this c:ountry of siting the most hazardous and Ulldesirable facilitie. in poor 

communities with high perc:emages of people of color. Texas il secood only to California, 

another proposed radioactive dump state, in the number of commercial hazardous waste facilities 

located in communities with abovo-national-avcnge percent people of color.' 

• appean te violate Title VI of the 1964 ClvU RJpb Act passed by Congress to prevent 

discriminatory activitid and pro~ biting usc of federal money for programs that diJcriminatc .• 

V ate NO on H.R.4800/S.2222 pg.l · 
166 

• viola• dae 1983 La Pa: Apwmat with Mexico iD wbich both c:ouutries qreed to 

cooper11e to • ... prevent, redu&:c md elimiDale.sources ofpoDwon. .. wbich affcet the border 

area. .. • The Site, approximately 16 miles from the Rio GnDde, is weD within the "bonier area• 

(63 miles on each Side of the border). 

• potentially danateu dae Rio Grode by permittina burial of Iona-lastina (hundreds to 

milliODS of years hazardous'). biahly COIX:CIItrated wastes (aome can sive aletbal dole iD about S 

minutes') in soil trenches del1ined to leak' md requirina only 1 00 yean of iDstitutioDil control,10 

• deals with intealely l8dioKtive DWterials wbich, despite their c:lmifimion a "low-level." are 

DOl low risk md iDc:Jude all the - clcmeats ., biab-level Mite from DUclar power llld 

wapoDI. Natioaally, ................. _,...... ....... --.terilf ............... 

....,IJtud)...,....._..._ ... ....,..,.,......., ... nM••rtMiylu--w 

"a--lmll" ....._n For M.a. IDd Vcrmoal, 99.5% to 100% il from~ rac~or~l2ad lals 

for ceaiUria. lD coatn11t, IDICiiAl tn1tm1at IDd dilpolii....C. ~haw tiny 

IIIIOUIID of Nllliwly low-e c a lll&•iaas of radioll:tMty widl vu:y lbart lwaadowliwa. u 

OpcioDI Olhcr..., burial wida rae~«--- tedmiciUy viiiiM _. ._. aplanDoa. 

•wll ...... Ia .. ., •• ,.., .... ., • .......,.'7 trulpertatlea ofclaJerous 

rudioKtiw IDI1Crials iiM:Iucliq pluloaium, caNm. IDd suoatium fram IIIOIIIk: powu 

plats. Wastes will be truc:ked from Maine, Vcrmoot, eat Texas IDCI, very likcJy, other 

locltions. to tbe border urea. 

• epns tH ... r to wute Ina aD "er tiM coub'y, despite c:luims to tbe contrarY· The 

CODipiiCt bus ll1IIDCrOUS provisioDs14 for importina rudiOIIdivc was1e from more 

JCDC111t0rS 1buD those iD Mame, VermoaLEd Tcxus. The ComptiCt Comminioo (6 

appointees from Texu Ed 1 ad! from tbe party st.ta, DOt limited to Maine mel 

Vcrmoot). will have tbe powu, by majority vote, to cmcr into such qrecmc:ms." With a 

majority vote oftbe CompKt Commission and tbe Texas lqislatun:. other states may 

become party states. So, to claim that the Compact protects from other states dumpina is 

misleadina and false. It sets up the proc:edures for openina the dump to other states. 

• bu aameroas looplloles Ia tbe provlsioa1 tllat are toated to Umlt o•t-of-compact 

wute vol1me to 200.4 oftbe amount Texas dumps. This is misleadina because it il tbe 

amoaat of radJoactivity that il of coiiCtra. nere Is ao Omit oa tile amoaat of 

raclloacttvity that cau be Imported lato tile propoaed Tau damp. Wastes imported 

from DQDsputy states via qn:emcnts are not subject to the limit. The limit is only m 

estimlte based ooa SO-year projec:Ooo and it em be c:hmpd.16 lt doa DOt apply to wutcs 

brought in for "proc:essinJ." A major radioaCtive waste proc:essor bus eotcred into m 

option apeement17 to lease property neighboring tbe proposed dump, thus indicating 

VcN: NO oa H.R.41001S.2222 Jll.2 
167 

aDOCher possible avenue for Wllimitcd volumes out-of-state waste going to Hudspeth 

County. 

For tbae nuoaa, we up daat yoa lfve ILR. 4800/S. llll dote Knday aad a 

"No" \'Ote.. 

Thank you. 

Sincerely, 

Ric:Mrcl Moore 

South..._. Network for 

Euviroamentalllld Ec:ooomic Justice 

Vivien Li 

Sierra Club 

BillMapvem 

Public Citizen's Critical Mass EueriY Project 

Di.lllo D' Arriao 

Nuclem'lnfOI'DIItion ud Resource Service 

Sherry Mcddick 

Oreenpeace 

Sandra Griffin 

Alert Citizeoa for EDviroiVDCidal Safety 

Alma Aurilio 

US Public lnteresl Rac:arch Group 

Nathalie Walker 

Sierra Club LcpJ Defense Flllld, Inc. 

LouisW. Office 

Bill Addington 

Save Sierra Blanca 

Tom Smith 

Public Citizen Texas 

Robert Musil 

Physicians fur Social Responsibility 

Tom Goldtooth . 

Indigenous Euviroamental Networlt 

David Lapp 

El1viromnenta1Action 

Vote NO OD H.R.4800JS.2222 PS-3 
168 

1990 Census of Population and Housing, Hudspeth County, Texas, pg I. Per capita income 

$7,994. 

2 Neipbor, Howard D. "Low-Level R.adioilctive Dumpsiting in West Texas: Another Example of 

Texas Racism?" Univef$ity ofTexas 11 El Paso, delivery 11 WSSA/ABS Meeting, January 22, 1994, p.6: 

"65% offiudspcth County population is Mexican American. • 3 . Telephone survey prepared for Texas Low Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Authority by K 

Associates, El Paso, TX, January 1992. 

• Salopek, Paul and David Sheppard, El Paso TjmC$, "Desert-bound Waste: Poison or Promise?" 

June 14, 1992. "It will be the nation's largest effort to artificially fertilize desert rangeland with human 

waste.• MERCO Joint Venture, an Oklahoma based waste handler is land spreading NY City sewage 

sludge in the same area as the proposed atomic waste site. 

' · Goldman, Benjamin A. and Laura Fitton, "Toxic Wastes and Race Revisited, • Center for Policy 

Alternatives, NAACP and United Church of Christ Commission for Racial Justice, 1994, p.ll. 6 CII'DWI, Neil J ., Lone Star Chapter Sierra Club, "Civil RisJrts and Environmental Justice 

Executive Order applicability to proposed Low-Level Radioactive Waste Dump_. Sierra Blanca, 

Texas" letter, June 24, 1994. 1 The hazardous life of • Flldioactive material is generally I 0 to 20 half-lives, thousandth to 

millionth • The radio.ctive waste from atomic: power plants that would go to Sierra Blanca includes 

plutonium-239 hazardous for 240,000 to 480,000 years, iodine-129 hazardous for 170 to 340 million 

years, cesiuin-IJS hazardous for 20 to 40 million years, cesium-137 hazardous for 300 to 600 years, 

nickel 59 hazardous for 800,000 to 1.6 million yeus. 1 Cesium-137 can be present in "low-level" radioactive waste up to 4600 curies per cubic meter 

(NRC 10 CFR 61.55 "Waste Classification."), and thlt amount can deliver aletbal dose in approximMely 

S minutes. 9 Nuclear Regulatoiy Commission (NkC) regulations I 0 CFR 61.41 "Protection oi the General 

Public from releases of radioactivity" allows "[c]oncentrations of radioactive mMerial [tol?e] .. ~released 

to the general environment in gJOIUid water, surface water, air, soil, plants, or animals" thlt n:sults in 

doses up to 25 milliremslyear to whole body and any organ but the thyroid wbicb can receive 75 

milliremslyear. "Millirems are an expression of biological damage to tissue from ionizing nldiltion and 

not directly measurllble. Such a Slandard is Ullellforceable, relying upotlllliVerified computer modelinJ to 

predict, not guarantee, compliuce. · 10 NRC regulatioos 10 CFR 61.59(b) NRC "'nstitutional control .... insUtutional controls mpy not 

be relied IIJlOil for more than 100 years. .. • 11 DOE annual Stato-by-State Assessments ofLLRW Sbipped to and Received It Commercial 

Disposal Sites, 1985-1993. . 11 s ... by.State Asses1ment of Low-Level Radioactive Wastes Received 11 Commercial Disposal 

Sites, DOFJLLW-181 (1993), DOE/llW-152 (1992), DOE/llW-132 (1991). 13 Hamilton, Minard, "Radioactive Waste: The Medic:al Factor, • Nuclear Information and Resource 

Service, Jmul.ry 1993. · 

•• HR 4800/S 2222: Section 2.01(13) Texas, Maine and Vermont are only the "initial" pmy states; 

Section 3.05(6) Authority to "[e]nter into an agremnent with 1111)' person, stato re&iooaJ body, or group of 

states for the importation of low-level radiOIICtive waste into the com)*t for maugemeot or disposal ... ;• 

Section 7.0 I • Any other stato may be made eligible for party stilUS ... • 

IS HR 4100/S 2222: Section 3.05 (6). 16 HR 4800/S 2222: Section 7.09. compact expressly provides for~ and eompacting with 

more states. 11 "Option Apement, • The Scientific Ecology Group, Inc. and Cynthia. Hoover, Mardi 7, 1994. 

Vote NO on H.R.4800/S.2222 pg.4 

0 

ISBN 0-16-046255-X 

9 801