U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

74–844 2012

H.R. 515, THE RADIOACTIVE IMPORT DETERRENCE 

ACT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

OCTOBER 16, 2009 

Serial No. 111–73 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California, Chairman 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

Chairman Emeritus 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

BART GORDON, Tennessee 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

BART STUPAK, Michigan 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

Vice Chairman 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANE HARMAN, California 

TOM ALLEN, Maine 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

BARON P. HILL, Indiana 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

BETTY SUTTON, Ohio 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Ranking Member 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri 

STEVE BUYER, Indiana 

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARY BONO MACK, California 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

(II) 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts, Chairman 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana 

BARON P. HILL, Indiana 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

JANE HARMAN, California 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

STEVE BUYER, Indiana 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hon. Edward J. Markey, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth of Massachussetts, opening statement ................................................... 1 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 7 

Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 10 

Hon. Jim Matheson, a Representative in Congress from the State of Utah, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 12 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 14 

Hon. Bart Gordon, a Representative in Congress from the State of Tennessee, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 18 

Hon. Ed Whitfield, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth 

of Kentucky, opening statement ......................................................................... 131 

WITNESSES

Margaret M. Doane, Director, Office of International Programs, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission ....................................................................................... 19 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 22 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 133 

Leonard C. Slosky, Executive Director, Rocky Mountain Low-Level Waste 

Board ..................................................................................................................... 35 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 37 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 145 

Val Christensen, President, EnergySolutions ....................................................... 47 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 49 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 147 

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Discussion Draft H.R. 515 ....................................................................................... 2 

Nuclear agreements between the United States and Italy, submitted by Mr. 

Upton ..................................................................................................................... 88 

Court ruling of EnergySolutions LLC, submitted by Mr. Upton ......................... 100 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(1) 

H.R. 515, THE RADIOACTIVE IMPORT 

DETERRENCE ACT 

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 16, 2009 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:35 a.m., in Room 

2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Edward J. Markey 

[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Markey, Matheson, and Upton. 

Also Present: Representative Gordon. 

Staff Present: Jeff Baran, Counsel; Melissa Bez, Professional 

Staff Member; Caitlin Haberman, Special Assistant; David Kohn, 

Press Secretary; Earley Green, Chief Clerk; Matt Eisenberg, Staff 

Assistant; Mary Neumayr, Minority Counsel; Aaron Cutler, Minority Counsel; Andrea Spring, Minority Professional Staff Member; 

and Sam Costello, Minority Legislative Analyst. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD J. MARKEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH 

OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Mr. MARKEY. The Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment 

will come to order. 

There are many Italian imports that I would welcome to U.S. 

soil: Lasagna, great. Ferrari, absolutely. Prosciutto, delicious. And 

let’s not forget Prada, Versace, and Giorgio Armani. But Italian nuclear waste makes me say, Mama mia. 

H.R. 515, the Radioactive Import Deterrence Act, was drafted in 

response to the proposed importation of 20,000 tons of Italian lowlevel radioactive waste into the United States to be processed in 

Tennessee and disposed of in Utah. 

[The discussion draft follows:] 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
2 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 6 here 74844A.001
3 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 7 here 74844A.002
4 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 8 here 74844A.003
5 

Mr. MARKEY. Introduced by Congressmen Gordon, Terry, and 

Matheson, along with many other members of the Energy and 

Commerce Committee, this bipartisan bill would prevent the importation of low-level radioactive waste into this country. 

The State of Utah, along with the Northwest Compact of which 

Utah is a member, said, no, we won’t take the Italian waste. 

Today, a case is making its way through the courts to determine 

whether the States and the compacts have the right to say ‘‘no’’ to 

other countries’ radioactive waste. 

I have worked on low-level radioactive waste issues for many 

years. I was on the committee in 1980 when we established the 

compact system to deal with the issue. And in 1985, when I chaired 

the Subcommittee on Energy, long ago and far away, we passed the 

amendments to the Act to both consent to a number of compacts 

and to ensure that States without disposal sites would be able to 

access those critical facilities. 

Let me state very clearly that when we established the compact 

system we did so to ensure that low-level waste in this country 

would be able to be safely disposed of. In order to encourage new 

disposal facilities to be established, we allowed the States to enter 

into compacts to dispose of their waste regionally, and we further 

granted them authority to exclude waste from places outside of 

their respective compacts. The purpose of the compact system was 

to empower the States and not the compacts. But today some argue 

that the compacts do not have the authority to say ‘‘no’’ to waste 

from other countries. 

To me, from a plain-language reading of the statute and the legislative history, this position is obviously incorrect. We did not intend for foreign waste to be allowed special privileges to be disposed of within the compacts even against the wishes of the compacts and the States. 

The compact system, the result of a painstaking compromise, has 

provided access for critical low-level radioactive waste disposal for 

almost three decades. Today, I am very concerned that the compact 

system itself is under assault. I disagree with those who argue that 

this bill is antinuclear. In fact, this bill would actually preserve 

waste disposal capacity for domestic use. 

Careful stewardship of our U.S. nuclear waste disposal capacity 

is more important than ever. In this context, it is important to examine the current state of low-level waste disposal in other countries. Do other countries allow importation and disposal of waste 

from, say, the United States? The answer, no. Not Germany, not 

Canada, not Switzerland, and, no, not Italy either. Not a one. No 

other nuclear waste-generating country allows low-level waste importation for disposal. In fact, many countries with nuclear programs do not even have disposal facilities for their own low-level 

waste. That includes Italy. 

If the U.S. remains the one country that allows for the disposal 

of foreign waste, then nothing stops those other countries from 

using us as their nuclear dumping grounds. If we do not protect the 

low-level waste compact system, what were supposed to be the disposal sites for U.S. waste could be turned into global nuclear waste 

dumps. We could end up in a position where many States are unable or unwilling to participate in these compacts at all and compaVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:53 Aug 25, 2012 Jkt 074844 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A844.XXX A844

rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
6 

nies could have nowhere to go to dispose of their radioactive waste. 

That would not be a good development for the nuclear industry or 

for the Nation. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Markey follows:] 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
7 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 11 here 74844A.004
8 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 12 here 74844A.005
9 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 13 here 74844A.006
10 

Mr. MARKEY. Now I would like to turn and recognize my good 

friend, the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Upton, for an opening 

statement. 

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

Mr. UPTON. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Before I begin, I would like to put into the record two statements, the nuclear agreements that were signed just this month 

between Department of Energy Secretary Chu and the Italian Minister for Economic Development. 

Mr. MARKEY. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. UPTON. It seems to me that any movement on the bill that 

we are looking at today would violate the spirit of those agreements, and I would like to submit that court ruling from the case 

EnergySolutions for Northwest Interstate Compact, and I thank 

you for allowing that to be entered into the record. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. UPTON. As a strong supporter of nuclear power, I hope today’s hearing on importing low-level nuclear waste will lead to discussing the larger issues of long-term storage of spent nuclear fuel 

or nuclear fuel recycling as a whole. The issue of waste disposal 

and the new nuclear power plants are, in fact, directly related. 

I see the bill that we are looking at today is anti nuclear power. 

This bill some would view as a political NIMBY issue. 

Direct from the NRC’s written testimony: ‘‘The regulatory authorities in both Tennessee and Utah have informed the NRC that 

the material can safely go to EnergySolutions’ facilities in their respective States. The Southeast Compact Commission expressed no 

objection to this application. The executive branch expressed no objection to the application and provided the NRC with the Italian 

Government’s views that the application is consistent with the joint 

convention obligations.’’ 

Also from the NRC: ‘‘There appears to be ample available disposal capacity for the foreseeable future, particularly at the 

EnergySolutions facility in Utah.’’ 

So why are we debating the bill? Well, a court has made a ruling, 

and the Appeals Court is reviewing the case. EnergySolutions has 

voluntarily agreed to limit the disposal of foreign-generated waste 

to no more than 5 percent of its licensed capacity or 10 years, 

whichever comes first. This is just 4.3 acres on a 640-acre site. And 

EnergySolutions has offered to make this a legally binding condition of its license. 

Congress should not be interfering here. We should, instead, 

have hearings on building new nuclear power plants, recycling 

spent fuel, and what happens now that the administration has 

scrapped Yucca Mountain. 

While I have great respect for my friends on the other side who 

introduced this legislation, I am concerned that it will be used by 

the opponents of nuclear power to delay new plants from coming 

online, causing further roadblocks to the recycling and safe disposal 

of spent fuel and low-level waste. 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
11 

The bill is a continuation of the attacks on the nuclear industry. 

The first attack was on the disposal of spent fuel at Yucca. This 

bill is attacking the safe disposal of a small amount of low-level 

waste and is being used by those who would like to stop nuclear 

energy to attack the disposal of domestic-generated depleted uranium, or DU. 

NRC has stated that the disposal of DU is safe. If we can’t dispose of DU, then we can’t enrich uranium for fuel. If we don’t have 

the fuel, then we are unable to power the source of 70 percent of 

our Nation’s zero-emission electricity generation. 

Sponsors of the bill may not believe that it is antinuclear, but the 

antinuclear groups attempt to stop nuclear energy by attacking the 

waste, not the generation. Despite what the proponents of the legislation may claim, this isn’t just about importing waste from Italy, 

what happens to be identical to the domestic waste safely being 

processed and disposed of today. This is the camel’s nose under the 

tent, and that is shutting down all of our domestic processing and 

disposal capabilities and eventually mothballing all of our zeroemissions nuclear power plants. 

Low-level radioactive material from nearly 104 domestic nuclear 

sites is sent to the Bear Creek facility for processing and on to the 

Clive facility in Utah for its safe disposal. We cannot compete on 

a global scale if we shut down our domestic facilities. 

Members of this very subcommittee represent 18 different States 

that send waste to be processed and disposed of by EnergySolutions 

at their facilities. I have two nuclear power plants in my district, 

literally miles from my doorstep, that send their low-level nuclear 

waste across State lines for processing and disposal. These services 

are essential to the success of nuclear power. 

Now I know that there are some concerns about importing 

Italian waste to the Clive, Utah, site and how it will impact the 

compact system. I don’t believe that it will. The compact system remains unaffected. The court has already unequivocally ruled on the 

issue, and I expect that the Appeals Court will affirm the ruling. 

We should let the process move forward. 

The judge’s ruling in EnergySolutions v. Northwest stated that 

the Clive facility is not a regional disposal facility and not part of 

the Northwest Compact. Two quotes are important. Under the 1980 

Act, Northwest would have no authority to exclude out-of-region 

waste from the Clive facility; and the second quote, the Clive facility is not a regional disposal facility as defined by the ’85 Act. 

It is imperative that clean, safe nuclear power is at the forefront 

as we seek to solidify our Nation’s energy supply and foster a new 

era of energy independence and reduced emissions. As applications 

for nearly 30 new nuclear plants are expected over the next couple 

of years, we are on our way to fulfilling our commitment to safe, 

clean nuclear power. Not only will our environment be better off for 

it, our national security will also be bolstered. Millions of households are powered by clean, zero-emission nuclear power, and our 

Nation’s economy will be powered by nuclear as well. This is the 

right course, and we will be better for it. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah, Mr. Matheson. 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
12 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JIM MATHESON, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH 

Mr. MATHESON. Well, thank you, Chairman Markey, for holding 

this hearing. 

As the committee knows, I have been working on this bipartisan 

legislation with my friends, Bart Gordon of Tennessee and Lee 

Terry of Nebraska, for the past 2 years. The subcommittee held a 

similar legislative hearing last year, and it was clear to those of us 

who attended that hearing that the policy for low-level radioactive 

waste in this country, as created by the Federal Government in the 

legislation in 1980 and 1985, has some gaps, and there are some 

questions, and Congress ought to relook at this policy, and that is 

why we are here today. 

I would say that it is hard to see why the U.S. would ever want 

to import radioactive waste from other countries. Simply put, we 

have very few locations in this country where this waste can go. 

Given the fact—and I agree with Mr. Upton—that we are facing 

a future with an additional amount of nuclear power in this country—and I support the creation of new nuclear power plants—it 

seems to me as we focus on carbon-free energy sources and nuclear 

power seems to grow in the U.S. over the next few years that we 

would want to preserve the U.S. capacity for low-level radioactive 

waste. 

Some have said this is an antinuclear bill, and nothing could be 

further from the truth, that this is a pro-domestic nuclear power 

bill. I challenge anyone to show me in this legislation what is going 

to inhibit the development of domestic nuclear power. So I want to 

get that on the record right away in this opening statement, because that just isn’t the case. 

Now, as we said, the compact system, which oversees the lowlevel radioactive waste, Utah’s part of what is called the Northwest 

Compact, the compact says that while the Clive facility is authorized to take waste from outside compact States, the compact also 

said it had never considered or viewed the issue of adopting an arrangement that would provide low-level radioactive waste generated in foreign countries access to the region for disposal at the 

EnergySolutions facility in Clive, Utah. 

As illustrated in the testimony of Mr. Slosky from the Rocky 

Mountain Compact, when EnergySolutions applied to the NRC for 

an import license for waste from Canada—because we have had 

some waste come into this country, some small amounts in the 

past—it was listed as only needing to be processed at the Bear 

Creek facility. In fact, the waste was processed, then it was redesignated as U.S. waste, and it was openly stored in Utah without 

the knowledge of the Northwest Compact or without the knowledge 

of the State of Utah. 

So we can talk about some foreign waste that has come in and 

stayed here. The compact and the State didn’t even know it happened, and those were all pretty small amounts. Now we are talking about a lot and greater volume of radioactive waste. 

You will hear some discussion in the hearing today about do we 

have enough capacity in this country. You will hear reference to a 

GAO study from 2004. We talked about this in the hearing last 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
13 

year. They took one data point and projected it out from there. It 

happened to be a low year. 

You know, when I was a first-year MBA student, a professor 

tricked all of us with a case where he had us take some data, and 

we projected it out. Then he pointed out the other data, and we all 

learned a good lesson. The GAO made that same first-year MBA 

mistake. I hope we don’t when we look at the amount of capacity 

that we have got. 

Again, I don’t see a lot of other States lining up to create new 

sites to take this waste. In last year’s hearing, EnergySolutions 

just randomly came to the agreement to self-limit foreign waste to 

a storage capacity of 5 percent. But, at the same time, in the testimony from the company today, they are suggesting they want to 

increase the license capacity of the site when just 2 years ago they 

voluntarily said to our Governor, we won’t apply for an application 

to increase our site. So these voluntary commitments may not have 

a lot of meaning. 

Mr. Chairman, I know my time has expired. I have a written 

statement that I would like to submit for the record. I do thank you 

for the hearing, and I look forward to the questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Matheson follows:] 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
14 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 62 here 74844A.050
15 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 63 here 74844A.051
16 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 64 here 74844A.052
17 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 65 here 74844A.053
18 

Mr. MARKEY. We thank the gentleman very much. His time has 

expired, and perhaps he could give the name of that professor so 

that we could send him over to the Congressional Budget Office so 

that they could have his insight as to how long-term projections are 

made. 

By unanimous consent, I would request that the gentleman from 

Tennessee, who is cosponsor of the legislation with Mr. Matheson, 

Mr. Gordon, be allowed to participate in this hearing and to be recognized for making an opening statement. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

The gentleman is recognized for an opening statement. 

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

Mr. GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for that request and 

also thank you for having this hearing today. 

When the Nuclear Power Waste Policy Act and the low-level 

waste policy amendments were passed in the 1980s, the United 

States was facing a critical problem: Where were we going to put 

low-level radioactive waste generated by our own nuclear power 

plants? 

We established a compact system under which the States in each 

compact would be responsible for establishing disposal sites and 

taking care of their own waste. As the legislative history clearly 

shows, a witness from the NRC testified in a hearing before this 

subcommittee last year, no one anticipated that other countries 

would try to dump their radioactive waste in the United States. 

The NRC stated when it drafted regulations allowing the importation of nuclear waste that it did not anticipate—and I quote—appreciable U.S. import or export traffic in low-level radioactive 

waste. And that was true for more than a decade until 

EnergySolutions applied for the NRC license in 2007 to import 

20,000 tons of low-level radioactive waste from Italy for treatment 

in Tennessee and disposal at the site in Utah. Italy does not have 

a disposal site, nor has it been successful in obtaining public approval for a future site. 

Italy is not the only country that doesn’t have a waste site or 

enough capacity for its waste. Britain is running out of room and 

looking for places to put its waste. Germany, Canada, Belgium, 

Switzerland, Mexico, and Denmark don’t have sites either. 

If I were a public official in Italy or Britain, I would jump at the 

chance to send my low-level waste to the United States and be rid 

of the responsibility. But no one can claim that this is in the best 

interest of the United States to take on decades of responsibility for 

another country’s nuclear waste and also taking away the incentive 

for those countries to do the responsible thing by providing storage 

for their own waste. So we should ask why the United States needs 

Italy’s waste, which has been safely stored on site for over 20 years 

and can safely be stored for another 20 years or more or the waste 

of any other country when EnergySolutions plans overseas disposal 

sites. 

As it now stands, the NRC is powerless to prevent foreign import 

of waste even as space for our domestic waste dwindles. It is clear 

that only a legislative prohibition will stop the wholesale importaVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:53 Aug 25, 2012 Jkt 074844 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A844.XXX A844

rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
19 

tion of foreign nuclear waste into the United States. The RID Act 

provides the prohibition, while allowing the President to make exceptions if it is in the national interest. 

The United States is the only country in the world that allows 

imports and disposals of low-level radioactive waste from other 

countries. The fact is, we have limited space for this kind of waste; 

and it should be reserved for domestic industries that generate it— 

medical facilities, universities, research labs, and utilities. 

There are 36 States with no other alternative but to ship their 

waste to Utah. Michigan, Texas, and 34 other States have no other 

place. That is what the RID Act will do. 

By banning the importation of radioactive waste for disposal, we 

also send the world the right message. If you are going to produce 

low-level radioactive waste, you are going to have to build the necessary facility to dispose of it. 

And, finally, with all due respect to my friend from Michigan, 

this is not an anti-nuclear waste bill by any means. It is a pro-domestic nuclear industry. Michigan, as you pointed out, those two 

facilities near you, if the facility in Utah runs out of capacity, there 

will be no place for them to send their waste. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman. 

The gentleman’s time has expired. 

We will now turn to our witnesses. 

STATEMENTS OF MARGARET M. DOANE, DIRECTOR, OFFICE 

OF INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS, U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION; LEONARD C. SLOSKY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ROCKY MOUNTAIN LOW-LEVEL WASTE BOARD; 

AND VAL CHRISTENSEN, PRESIDENT, ENERGYSOLUTIONS 

Mr. MARKEY. Our first witness is Margaret Doane, the Director 

of the Office of International Programs at the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. This office provides overall coordination for the NRC’s 

international activities. 

Ms. Doane, whenever you are ready, please begin. 

STATEMENT OF MARGARET M. DOANE 

Ms. DOANE. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

subcommittee. 

My office is responsible for reviewing import and export license 

applications and issuing licenses pursuant to the NRC’s import and 

export licensing regulations. My focus today will be on the NRC’s 

regulatory framework for licensing the import of low-level radioactive waste. I would like to thank you for providing the NRC with 

the opportunity today to discuss our import licensing process. 

As requested, we provide prepared testimony for the record that 

describes in detail the NRC’s regulatory framework for licensing 

the import of low-level radioactive waste. At this time, I will highlight key elements of that testimony. 

The NRC reviews import and export license applications against 

the criteria defined in its regulations. Specifically, the NRC bases 

its licensing actions on the following three criteria: One, the proposed import will not be inimical to common defense and security; 

the import will not constitute an unreasonable risk to public health 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
20 

and safety; and an appropriate facility has agreed to accept the 

waste for management and disposal. 

The NRC has exclusive jurisdiction within the United States for 

granting or denying licenses to import foreign radioactive waste. 

The NRC determines whether to issue an import license for radioactive waste based on its own health and safety and common defense and security evaluation. 

The NRC’s evaluation is formed after consulting with the executive branch through the Department of State, the applicable host 

State, and the applicable low-level radioactive waste compact and 

consideration of public comments. The NRC consults with the applicable host State regulatory officials for their health and safety 

views on the proposed import and to confirm that the proposed import of radioactive waste is consistent with the State-issued possession license for the disposal facility. 

Likewise, the NRC consults with the applicable low-level radioactive waste compact commission to determine whether the compact will accept out-of-compact waste for disposal in a regional facility. To ensure that no radioactive waste imported into the United 

States becomes orphaned waste, the NRC will not grant an import 

license for waste intended for disposal unless it is clear from these 

consultations that the waste will be accepted at an applicable host 

agreement State and, where applicable, the low-level radioactive 

waste compact. 

As requested by the subcommittee, I would like to turn to questions regarding disposal capacity for low-level waste in the United 

States. 

In the short term, the NRC has not identified any capacity issues 

with regard to Class A disposal at EnergySolutions’ Clive, Utah, facility. The agency as a regulator would have the authority to address future domestic disposal capacity issues if there were a public 

health and safety or common defense and security concern. There 

do not appear to be any such concerns about capacity for disposal 

of Class A material, which has been the classification for all waste 

import cases today. 

In reviewing import licensing applications, our review focuses on 

whether there is an appropriate facility that has agreed to accept 

the waste for management or disposal. In making its determination, we obtain the views of the affected low-level waste compact 

States and the executive branch. 

The pure policy question of whether, as a general matter, foreign 

waste should be permitted to take up space in U.S. disposal facilities would necessarily involve interests that are beyond the traditional role of a regulator to consider. These would include foreign 

and interstate commerce, entrepreneurial interests, the State’s concerns and expectations under the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act. However, the NRC would be pleased to share its views on 

the effect of the proposed H.R. 515 on import and export licensing 

and contribute its technical expertise to those decision makers that 

are situated to decide the questions the draft legislation involves. 

In conclusion, the NRC’s role in evaluating a low-level waste import application is a regulatory one, limited to ensuring that the 

proposed import can be accomplished safely and securely and in accordance with all applicable legal requirements. 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
21 

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, this concludes 

my statement; and I would be happy to answer your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Doane follows:] 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
22 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 70 here 74844A.054
23 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 71 here 74844A.055
24 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 72 here 74844A.056
25 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 73 here 74844A.057
26 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 74 here 74844A.058
27 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 75 here 74844A.059
28 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 76 here 74844A.060
29 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 77 here 74844A.061
30 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 78 here 74844A.062
31 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 79 here 74844A.063
32 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 80 here 74844A.064
33 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 81 here 74844A.065
34 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 82 here 74844A.066
35 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Ms. Doane, very much. 

Our second witness is Leonard Slosky, the Executive Director of 

the Rocky Mountain Low-Level Radioactive Waste Board. This 

board is responsible for implementing the Rocky Mountain LowLevel Radioactive Waste Compact. 

Mr. Slosky, welcome. Whenever you are ready, please begin. 

STATEMENT OF LEONARD C. SLOSKY 

Mr. SLOSKY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to present our views with 

you today. 

On a personal note, I would like to note that it is nice to be back 

here, as I appeared before the chairman’s subcommittee in 1985 

when the compacts were first going through Congress. So I have 

been rejuvenated since then and am glad to return. 

While I am officially representing the Rocky Mountain Board, I 

have discussed these issues with the Northwest Compact—— 

Mr. MARKEY. Were you a witness on this subject at that time? 

Mr. SLOSKY. I am afraid so. 

Mr. MARKEY. Unbelievable. So you and I—— 

Mr. SLOSKY. We go way back. 

Mr. MARKEY. We go way back. Wow, yes. I remember those hearings. 

Mr. SLOSKY. That won’t count against my time? 

Mr. MARKEY. No, it will not count. 

Mr. SLOSKY. While I am officially representing the Rocky Mountain Compact today, I have discussed these issues with the Northwest Compact and they are in agreement with this testimony. 

The primary message that I would like to leave with you is the 

importance of the compacts exclusionary authority. That is, the authority of the compacts to control what waste can be brought into 

and taken out of the compact. 

In 1979, the Governors of the three States of low-level waste disposal facilities stated that they no longer were willing to carry the 

entire burden of disposing of the Nation’s low-level waste. To resolve this crisis and to keep the existing facilities open, the States 

proposed to Congress that they be responsible for low-level waste 

within their regions in exchange for the authority to exclude waste 

from outside their regions. 

As you know, this led to the passage of the 1980 Act. The 1985 

Federal Act embodied a compromise that allowed Congress to consent to the original seven compacts in return for the three sited 

States and compacts agreeing to keep their disposal facilities open 

for another 7 years. The consent of Congress was necessary for the 

compacts’ authorities over interstate commerce to be effective. 

One of the primary purposes of the 1980 and 1985 Acts was to 

achieve greater equity in low-level waste disposal. When compacts 

were drafted and during congressional consent, there was no expectation that foreign low-level waste would be disposed of in these 

sites. However, 10 compacts have been enacted as Federal law, and 

all contain exclusionary authority over outer region waste. 

It is inconceivable to me that Congress intended to authorize the 

compacts to exclude waste from States outside their regions but not 

from foreign nations. It is the exclusionary authority of the comVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:53 Aug 25, 2012 Jkt 074844 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A844.XXX A844

rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
36 

pacts that allows the existing disposal facilities to continue to operate and enables new facilities such as the WCS facility in Texas, 

which has recently been licensed and will soon begin construction, 

to come about. 

As no State is willing to host a disposal facility unless it has authority through a compact to ensure that it does not become the 

dumping ground for the Nation’s or the world’s low-level waste, the 

States and compacts do not object to foreign waste being imported 

for treatment or recycling so long as the resulting waste has a viable disposal pathway and is not reattributed as domestic waste. 

However, the threat of foreign waste disposal places the entire 

compact system and the existing and planned low-level waste disposal sites in jeopardy. 

Utah would not have licensed the Clive facility if it did not believe that it had the ability through the compact to control out-ofregion waste. Under the Northwest Compact, no facility located in 

a member State may accept out-of-region waste without prior approval of an arrangement by the Compact Committee. The Compact Committee adopted a clarifying resolution that the existing arrangement does not provide access for foreign waste but does provide access for waste from throughout the United States. 

This is not a NIMBY issue. It is a matter of national importance. 

As stated by Utah in a hearing last year on similar legislation, the 

State of Utah has done its fair share and more in disposing of most 

of the Nation’s low-level waste. 

In terms of the litigation that is ongoing, the status has been 

briefly reported, I would note that the amicus briefs in support of 

the appellant’s position have been filed and that this extraordinary 

coalition of compacts and States is due to the far-reaching implications of the district court’s decision. While the litigation began over 

the import of Italian waste, the decision is much broader and will 

affect every low-level waste compact. If the district court’s decision 

stands, the compact system could be destroyed because of a very 

narrow interpretation of the compact. 

It is interesting to note that eight of the ten low-level waste compacts in the Nation are either defendants or amici in this litigation 

in addition to the councils, State governments, and the State of 

New Mexico. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Slosky follows:] 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
37 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 86 here 74844A.067
38 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 87 here 74844A.068
39 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 88 here 74844A.069
40 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 89 here 74844A.070
41 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 90 here 74844A.071
42 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 91 here 74844A.072
43 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 92 here 74844A.073
44 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 93 here 74844A.074
45 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 94 here 74844A.075
46 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 95 here 74844A.076
47 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you very much. 

Who did you represent in 1985, Mr. Slosky? 

Mr. SLOSKY. I represented the Rocky Mountain Compact, also. 

Mr. MARKEY. That is unbelievable. 

The third witness is Val Christensen. He is the President of 

EnergySolutions, a nuclear services company headquartered in Salt 

Lake City, Utah. 

Mr. Christensen, welcome. Please begin. 

STATEMENT OF VAL CHRISTENSEN 

Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am grateful 

for the opportunity to appear today to provide testimony on this 

very important issue. 

As has been mentioned, EnergySolutions is headquartered in 

Salt Lake City, Utah. We are a world leader in environmental 

cleanup and providing a wide range of technical support services 

to the nuclear industry. We also provide critical nonproliferation 

services under the Global Threat Reduction Initiative. 

I would like to address some of the concerns about safety, because that is the underlying concern when we talk about importing 

nuclear waste. 

We have been safely disposing of Class A low-level nuclear materials from within the U.S. and from abroad, internationally, for 

over 9 years. These materials include shoe covers, lab coats, cleaning cloths, paper towels, and other kinds of materials that are used 

in areas where radioactive materials are present. 

Class A low-level radioactive waste contains the lowest concentration of radiation in the low-level waste classification scheme. 

To put it in perspective, exit signs and smoke detectors that you 

find in your home have radioactive sources that are more radioactive than the Class A designation and are not allowed to be disposed of in our Clive facility. 

Both the State and Federal regulators have concluded that the 

processing and disposal of Class A low-level radioactive waste poses 

no health or safety issues. It is important to note for Congressman 

Gordon from Tennessee that no internationally generated waste 

would ever be disposed of or orphaned in Tennessee. We have 

never processed international material in Tennessee that was nonconforming and had to be returned to the generating country. 

We and others have been, as I mentioned, importing foreign 

waste for many years from countries such as Germany, the U.K., 

Mexico, Canada, and Taiwan. And I would note that the NRC has 

issued import licenses that specifically identify the Northwest Compact disposal site in Richland, Washington, as the final resting 

place for some of that international waste; and I can provide examples to you off the record. There really is no domestic disposal capacity issue in the United States. 

Reference was made to the GAO testimony. The GAO noted that 

Class A waste volumes have declined by two-thirds, principally because the DOE has completed several large cleanup projects. This 

wasn’t a 1-year event. The trends are going down. Both commercial 

and Federal disposal volumes are decreasing. Additionally, since 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
48 

May of 2008, a license was issued for the construction of another 

waste disposal site in Texas. 

Although the GAO and the NRC have testified that there is a domestic capacity issue with respect to Class B and Class C waste, 

they have concluded that there is no Class A disposal capacity 

issue. We need to remember that the Clive facility is licensed to 

take only Class A waste. 

The final point I wish to make with respect to the capacity issue 

is that the 5 percent volunteer license amendment that we have 

presented publicly relates to 150 million cubic feet of remaining licensed capacity, and we have also made the 10-year limit publicly 

a part of our license amendment. 

Now, with respect to the compact litigation, the court’s ruling is 

very narrow. It simply concluded that the Clive facility, which was 

never constructed or intended to be a compact disposal facility outside of the compact scheme, but the court emphasized that compacts still have the authority to restrict waste coming domestically 

or internationally into their compact facility. The Clive facility is 

simply not a compact facility. It is privately owned, and there are 

no other facilities like it. So the precedent that people are concerned about from the court’s ruling simply has no application on 

any other facility. 

All compact facilities, according to the judge’s ruling, continue to 

be able to exclude waste and control waste within the compact system. Again, there is ample disposal capacity. The court’s ruling 

does not interfere with the compact system. It does not turn America into a dumping ground. It is hard to conceive that 4.3 acres in 

one location would turn the United States into the dumping ground 

for the world. 

We are also concerned that this bill would violate the spirit of 

the administration’s policy of nuclear cooperation as evidenced by 

the U.S.-Italian joint declaration referred to earlier, which was 

signed by Secretary Chu and his Italian counterpart, which advances cooperation in the nuclear sector, including advanced waste 

treatment and disposal technologies. We believe the proposed legislation would prevent American companies from playing an international role in the global nuclear industry largely based on perceptions rather than on facts and sound science. 

I am happy to take any questions. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Christensen follows:] 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
49 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 98 here 74844A.077
50 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 99 here 74844A.078
51 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 100 here 74844A.079
52 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 101 here 74844A.080
53 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 102 here 74844A.081
54 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 103 here 74844A.082
55 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 104 here 74844A.083
56 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 105 here 74844A.084
57 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 106 here 74844A.085
58 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 107 here 74844A.086
59 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 108 here 74844A.087
60 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 109 here 74844A.088
61 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 110 here 74844A.089
62 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 111 here 74844A.090
63 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 112 here 74844A.091
64 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 113 here 74844A.092
65 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 114 here 74844A.093
66 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 115 here 74844A.094
67 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 116 here 74844A.095
68 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 117 here 74844A.096
69 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 118 here 74844A.097
70 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 119 here 74844A.098
71 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 120 here 74844A.099
72 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 121 here 74844A.100
73 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 122 here 74844A.101
74 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 123 here 74844A.102
75 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 124 here 74844A.103
76 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 125 here 74844A.104
77 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Christensen, very much. 

Now we will turned to questions from the subcommittee. 

Mr. Slosky, you are an expert on the compact system. You have 

spent your life working on it. Are you concerned that if Utah and 

the Northwest Compact are forced to take the Italian waste that 

the compact system itself would be damaged? 

Mr. SLOSKY. Yes, I am very much so concerned. 

Mr. MARKEY. Could this lead to other States refusing to open 

low-level waste disposal sites? 

Mr. SLOSKY. Yes, I believe it could. The ruling from the court—— 

And let me first give you a disclaimer. I am not an attorney; and 

since it is ongoing litigation, I am not going to discuss the merits 

of the case, but I am happy to discuss its implications. The implication is that there could be a very detrimental effect on the development of any new facilities in the U.S. because it will be uncertain 

under this ruling whether the compacts in which those facilities 

would be located would have exclusionary authority or not. 

Mr. MARKEY. So this could send us back to 1980 before we 

passed the legislation out of this committee. 

Mr. SLOSKY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MARKEY. Let me turn to you, Ms. Doane. 

Has the NRC ever denied an import application for low-level 

waste because the importation would pose an unreasonable risk to 

the common defense and security? 

Ms. DOANE. No. I don’t believe we have ever denied an application because of common defense and security concerns. 

Mr. MARKEY. You were listing the reasons that you could reject. 

So you have never rejected? 

Ms. DOANE. We have not, no. 

Mr. MARKEY. Has the NRC ever denied an import application for 

low-level waste because it would pose an unreasonable risk to the 

public health and safety? 

Ms. DOANE. Yes. We have returned without action applications 

that have come in where they haven’t been able to satisfy us that 

public health and safety would be protected. 

Mr. MARKEY. Were those applications ultimately modified that 

made them acceptable? Or was it just a flat-out rejection? 

Ms. DOANE. Some were modified, but others were, no, didn’t submit them again. We raised a lot of questions, and they weren’t resubmitted. 

Mr. MARKEY. So how many applications have been denied over 

the years? 

Ms. DOANE. We have returned without action I would say maybe 

five or so. There might be more, but offhand that is what I would 

say. 

Mr. MARKEY. And how many actual denials have you ever 

issued? 

Ms. DOANE. I don’t believe we have actually denied them. Because, in those cases, that is the same effect. The return without 

action has the same effect. We return them with what they would 

have to do to put them back in, and they aren’t returned. So if they 

can’t meet the request that we had, we return them without action. 

So it has the exact same effect as a denial. 

Mr. MARKEY. So it is rarely used, though? 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
78 

Ms. DOANE. The return without action is rarely used? 

Mr. MARKEY. Yes. 

Ms. DOANE. It is more rare now. It was in the beginning. After 

the 1995 rule where we required licenses, it was more common. It 

is getting less common as people start to understand the regulations. They don’t come in where they know they are not going to 

meet them. 

Mr. MARKEY. So if the regional compacts do not have the ability 

to say no and the NRC very rarely says no, then it is unlikely that 

there would be many instances where low-level nuclear waste 

would be blocked from coming into our country. 

Ms. DOANE. The regional compacts can say no over the facilities 

that they have control. And, in fact, in one of the first cases that 

we had, the applicant was unable to show that Barnwell would accept the waste, and that was the reason for their return without 

action. 

Mr. MARKEY. Now let me go over to you, Mr. Slosky. Do you 

agree with her that it will have no impact on the compact States? 

Mr. SLOSKY. No, I do not agree with her. 

Mr. MARKEY. Could you expound on your answer, please? 

Mr. SLOSKY. Well, I think in looking at the NRC regs it is unclear to me what the role is of the States and compacts in the NRC 

decision making. It has a consultation provision, but it is not explicit in the regulations if the States and compacts, as in this case, 

comment back that the waste is not acceptable what the NRC does 

with that consultative information. 

Mr. MARKEY. The Chair’s time has expired. The gentleman from 

Michigan, Mr. Upton, is recognized. 

Mr. UPTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The question that quickly comes to mind is, Mr. Slosky, how does 

the storage of only 4 acres—in this particular case, the Clive, Utah, 

has what, 640 acres, is that right, Mr. Christensen? 

Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. UPTON. How does an agreement to limit it to only 4.3 acres 

undermine the compacts across the rest of the country? Knowing 

that that is it. The stop sign is up. Put it in the amendment. The 

courts have said it is OK up to this point and waiting for an appeal 

which—see what happens. 

Mr. SLOSKY. The reason it has large implications is the court’s 

ruling goes well beyond 4 acres. The court’s ruling undermines the 

fundamental authority of the compacts. 

Mr. UPTON. But this is a private—I mean, this is a private facility, right? 

Mr. Christensen, do you want to comment on that? 

Mr. CHRISTENSEN. As I mentioned, the court’s ruling is narrow. 

There aren’t any other facilities in the United States like the Clive 

facility, and the court went on to emphasize that compacts retain 

their authority under the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act 

to exclude waste from the compact facilities and to control the 

waste within the compact borders. 

Mr. SLOSKY. Can I respond? 

Mr. UPTON. Sure. 

Mr. SLOSKY. I would just point out that the WCS facility in 

Texas that recently received a license and is about to begin conVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:53 Aug 25, 2012 Jkt 074844 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A844.XXX A844

rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
79 

struction is also a privately owned and privately operated low-level 

waste site but is intended to serve the Texas compact. But, under 

the court’s ruling, the exclusionary authority of the Texas compact 

over that facility could also be brought into question. 

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Christensen, do you want to respond? 

Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Yes. I am a lawyer by training, so I don’t 

want to get into too much technicality on this. But the WCS facility 

is a compact facility and would be controlled by the compact board 

in the State of Texas, and the court ruling would have no impact 

whatsoever on the Texas compact authority over the WCS facility. 

There is no other facility like the Clive facility, which is outside of 

the compact system. 

Mr. UPTON. Thank you. 

Ms. Doane, how many waste import licenses has the NRC actually granted over the years? 

Ms. DOANE. Fourteen. 

Mr. MARKEY. And you have granted the import license to 

EnergySolutions, is that right? 

Ms. DOANE. Other import licenses, yes. 

Mr. UPTON. And are they currently importing waste pursuant to 

that license? Were you aware of any violations? 

Ms. DOANE. No, we are not aware of any violations. 

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Christensen, does the Clive facility have enough 

capacity to meet the disposal requirements in the domestic nuclear 

industry and other customers? 

Mr. CHRISTENSEN. We do. We have remaining about 140 million 

cubic feet, which for our operational purposes is adequate and projected to go out to about 30 years. That includes using 5 percent 

of that capacity for international waste. We certainly have—we 

have other capacity that is not yet licensed that is accessible 

through the licensing process if capacity ever became a national 

issue. 

Mr. UPTON. And there is no real difference, right, between Class 

A waste between different countries, right? It is, in essence, the 

same. 

Mr. CHRISTENSEN. No, sir, there isn’t. The NRC has concluded 

that there is no difference between Class A low-level waste coming 

from domestic sources and from international sources. 

Mr. UPTON. And, Mr. Slosky, at least in your opinion, we haven’t 

seen any violations, right, in the Clive facility. I mean, are you 

aware of any trouble that has been there at all? 

Mr. SLOSKY. Well, there are, on occasion, regulatory violations 

that are assessed against the company by the State of Utah. But, 

for the most part, the facility is in compliance with the agreement 

of State regulations. 

However, that is not the issue. The issue is a policy issue of 

whether it is appropriate to manage foreign nations’ waste in this 

country. We know we have the technical capability. We know the 

disposal facilities can accept the waste from a technical standpoint. 

The issue is really a policy issue. 

Mr. UPTON. I yield back. Thank you. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah, Mr. Matheson. 

Mr. MATHESON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
80 

I don’t know if there was ever a citing of a violation. But when 

waste went to Bear Creek and then went to the Utah facility and 

neither the State of Utah nor the Northwest Compact were ever 

made aware of it, I think that was a violation. Just for what that 

is worth. 

Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Could I respond to that? 

Mr. MATHESON. No, I have got only 5 minutes; and I am going 

to my questions. 

Mr. Slosky, when the compact system was being drafted and created in the 1980s, was there any discussion of foreign waste importation and storage at low-level radioactive waste facilities? 

Mr. SLOSKY. I can recall none, other than discussions with the 

Department of Defense in terms of returning to the U.S. U.S.-origin 

materials the Department of Defense utilized abroad. 

Mr. MATHESON. And I would note that the legislation as drafted 

allows for foreign waste created at U.S. Department of Defense facilities overseas to return to this country. It has an exception for 

that type of waste. 

Was there any expectation that foreign waste is considered outof-region waste during that discussion? 

Mr. SLOSKY. We always considered foreign waste to be out of region, yes. 

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Slosky, in your testimony, you said foreign 

waste disposal is one of the most serious threats to the compacts 

in its 25-year history. Can you explain that statement? 

Mr. SLOSKY. Yes. The whole history of the compact system, going 

back to 1980 and really to 1979, was the State’s desire to be able 

to control the flow of waste to their sites. So if you look at South 

Carolina, Washington State, Nevada at the time we had a disposal 

site there, and now Utah and Texas, the issue is being able to control the waste that goes to those sites. And if we lose control of foreign waste going to those sites, then the system is undermined, 

and it is very likely that all of those sites in time will close to all 

generators. 

Mr. MATHESON. We have heard about the issue of the nuclear cooperation agreement with Italy. What would happen if we start importing waste from all the countries we have nuclear cooperation 

agreements with? We have agreements with India, Japan, United 

Arab Emirates, Jordan, most of Europe, China. It seems to me that 

there is a significant volume out there if you start expanding it out 

there to all those states. Is that a threat to the compact system? 

Mr. SLOSKY. I believe it is. 

Mr. MATHESON. Since the compact system was intended to allow 

States to self-manage low-level radioactive, do you think any State 

or compact would have authorized the creation of a new low-level 

radioactive waste site if the State thought it did not have the authority to regulate its site? 

Mr. SLOSKY. No, they would not. In fact, Utah has stated that 

they would not have licensed Clive for low-level waste if they did 

not believe they had the authority through the compact to control 

the flow of all out-of-region waste, including foreign waste. 

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Slosky, EnergySolutions has told us that, as 

a result of the district court ruling in Utah earlier this year, the 

company is not regulated by the Northwest Compact because it is 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
81 

not a regional disposal facility. In your testimony you said the district court completely disregarded explicit language in the Northwest Compact that was approved by Congress as Federal law. Can 

you expand on this point? 

Mr. SLOSKY. Yes. The Northwest Compact does not use the term 

‘‘regional facility’’. The Northwest Compact bars any facility and 

any of their member States from receiving low-level waste without 

the approval of the compact. That language was disregarded, and 

the court reverted to the much more narrow definition of regional 

disposal facility. 

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Slosky, 2 years ago, the Utah State legislature moved to enact legislation. They were working on enacting legislation that would have removed local government legislative and 

gubernatorial approval for expansion of the Clive site. 

As was noted in the September, 2007, low-level radioactive waste 

management report, former Governor Huntsman threatened to notify the Northwest Compact to limit the volume of waste that can 

be disposed to the current levels. In response, Governor Huntsman 

and EnergySolutions reached an agreement that the company 

would withdraw its application for additional disposal capacity and 

the Governor agreed to refrain from seeking to limit disposal capacity at the facility. Two years later, it now seems, based on this 

court ruling, that EnergySolutions does not believe it is under the 

authority of the compact system. So what are your thoughts about 

this? 

Mr. SLOSKY. Well, this has been a little bit of a surprise. Because 

for, I believe, 15 or 17 years EnergySolutions has been operating 

under the compact system, appearing at the compact meeting, submitting reports, coming to the committee and requesting approval 

to accept waste. Then suddenly, when this dispute arose, 

EnergySolutions took the position that they are not actually regulated by the compact. 

Mr. MATHESON. Last question, Mr. Chairman. I know my time 

is running out. 

Is this a question that they are saying, the Northwest Compact 

has the authority to regulate the disposal capacity but not the material which is disposed there? Is there a distinction they are making in that sense? 

Mr. SLOSKY. Well, there is a distinction between what the agreement states the State of Utah regulates and what the compact regulates. The State of Utah regulates the health and safety and capacity of the site. The Northwest Compact regulates where waste 

can come from to the site. 

Mr. MATHESON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time has expired. 

Mr. MATHESON. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Gordon, is recognized. 

Mr. GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Christensen, going back to your statement, you started off by 

saying that the major issue here was safety. Yet I will point out 

that no one here has raised safety as an issue. One major issue, 

though, is the capacity. We might have different arguments about 

how long it can be there, but there can be no argument that capacity is finite. 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
82 

Now also in your testimony you said that allowing Italian waste 

to be dumped in the U.S. would violate the spirit of the U.S.-Italian 

joint declaration concerning industrial and commercial cooperation 

in the nuclear energy section. 

Let me point out that the United States has a similar agreement 

with 40 other States. So by inference then you are saying that we 

would break our agreement in the spirit with 39 other countries. 

So, to me, that does two things: One, it opens a big door for those 

countries to ship their radioactive waste here; and, secondly, it 

sends a message to them that they don’t have to be responsible, 

that they can build whatever they want and not look at taking care 

of it. 

So here are my questions for you: Does EnergySolutions have an 

enforceable contract with the Italians to dispose of the waste or 

suffer damages regardless of whether it gets a license from the 

NRC? 

Mr. CHRISTENSEN. No. 

Mr. GORDON. Hmm. You say you are a lawyer, right? 

Mr. CHRISTENSEN. I am. 

Mr. GORDON. Are you a lawyer of the company? 

Mr. CHRISTENSEN. I was formerly general counsel of the company 

and am currently president of the company. 

Mr. GORDON. So were you general counsel on June 19? 

Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Yes. 

Mr. GORDON. All right. I am trying to understand this. 

In a formal submission to the NRC on June 19, 2009, in response 

to the NRC’s May 20, 2009, order for comment on how to proceed 

on your license application, EnergySolutions stated—and I assume 

this is what you wrote—EnergySolutions stated that a delay in 

issuing this license—and I quote—would cause EnergySolutions 

substantial economic harm because it is unable to perform work 

under its contracts for waste without the requested license. 

Now can you sort of help me on this? 

Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Well, your earlier question was whether we 

would be exposed to damages—— 

Mr. GORDON. No, my question was very specific. My question was 

this: Does EnergySolutions have an enforceable contract with the 

Italians to dispose of its waste or suffer damages regardless of 

whether it gets a license from the NRC? That was my question. 

Your answer was, as I recall, no. 

Mr. CHRISTENSEN. That is correct. We don’t have a contract concluded with the Italian Government or the Italian sources that 

would expose us to damages if it weren’t fulfilled. 

Mr. GORDON. Then why did you write to the NRC that if you did 

not get that license you would, and I quote, would cause 

EnergySolutions substantial economic harm because it is unable to 

perform under its contract for the waste without the requested license. Page 8 on June 19, 2009, submission to the NRC. 

Mr. CHRISTENSEN. I would have to go back and look at it, but we 

would suffer economic harm by not being able to fulfill contracts 

that we are in the process of negotiating. We don’t have signed 

final contracts—— 

Mr. GORDON. OK. So just help me here. Help me here. This is 

what you wrote to the NRC, a Federal agency, that if you did not 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
83 

get the license you would cause EnergySolutions substantial economic harm because it is unable to perform work under its contracts for this waste without the requested license. 

Mr. CHRISTENSEN. That is right. 

Mr. GORDON. So did you have any contracts on June the 19th? 

Mr. CHRISTENSEN. We didn’t have any final, binding contracts. 

Mr. GORDON. Then why would you tell a Federal agency—this is 

what he wrote to you. Where would you write to this lady in a Federal capacity that you did have contracts? 

Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Because contract negotiations were under 

way, and the contracts we are referring to are the potential contracts with the Italian Government which we would not be able to 

secure or perform without the license. 

Mr. GORDON. Well, I will let that go, but NRC may not. 

Now, Mr. Slosky, let me ask you something. Is it true that when 

EnergySolutions said they were going to bring this Italian waste 

into Utah that the Governor said no and then EnergySolutions 

sued the State? 

Mr. SLOSKY. Actually, what transpired is that the Governor of 

Utah instructed his member on the Northwest Compact to vote 

against bringing the waste in; and since Utah is the host State 

they have essentially a veto power over the compact’s agreement to 

bring any waste in. 

Mr. GORDON. So EnergySolutions sued them to be able to do 

this? 

Mr. SLOSKY. Yes. Actually, shortly before the meeting in the 

Northwest Compact, EnergySolutions filed suit in Federal District 

Court. 

Mr. GORDON. And, Ms. Doane, if I could, is it proper to summarize your testimony or portions of your testimony by saying that it 

really is a policy issue of whether radioactive waste should be 

brought into this country or not? 

This is not NRC. You don’t have the authority other than on the 

safety issues to say whether it can come in or not. So if we are 

going to allow the United States to be the only country in the world 

that would accept radioactive waste from other nations then a policy decision has to be made by the Congress. 

Ms. DOANE. That is right. 

Mr. GORDON. Thank you. 

Mr. MARKEY. That completes the first round of questions from 

the subcommittee. Are there members seeking recognition for the 

purpose of asking questions on a second round? 

The gentleman from Michigan. 

Mr. UPTON. Let me just ask unanimous consent. We were originally going to have votes today, and they cancelled them yesterday 

afternoon. So that is one of the reasons there are only four of us 

here. I might just ask that all members of the subcommittee may 

have the opportunity to submit written questions within the next 

week or so and if you could respond in a timely basis. I am not sure 

what the chairman—— 

Mr. MARKEY. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. UPTON. Thank you. 

Mr. MARKEY. Other questions? 

The gentleman from Utah is recognized. 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
84 

Mr. MATHESON. I have just got a couple more questions I didn’t 

get to ask. 

Ms. Doane, I wanted to ask—one of the arguments made by 

EnergySolutions is the NRC has already issued import licenses to 

other companies and materials have been imported for several 

years. Has the NRC ever previously approved a license to allow for 

anything close to 20,000 tons of waste from a foreign country? 

Ms. DOANE. No. Not this volume of ultimate disposal, no. 

Mr. MATHESON. I saw the table you included with your testimony 

at the end of your testimony which lays out the volumes of what 

have been allowed to come into this country. I see five where the 

waste was ultimately disposed in this country. All the rest have 

been processed here and then returned back to the originating 

country; and all of them are quite small, from my view, in terms 

of the volume. Is that a fair statement? 

Ms. DOANE. The ultimate disposal volume, right. 

Mr. MATHESON. Last year when you testified before this committee, I expressed a concern about the lack of regulatory accountability for foreign-generated waste. At the time, you indicated that 

the NRC does not currently have the authority to prohibit the importation of nuclear waste, as you just had the discussion with Mr. 

Gordon. Or you weren’t here. It was—— 

Ms. DOANE. Can I clarify that for the record? 

Mr. MATHESON. Sure. 

Ms. DOANE. We absolutely have the authority to reject waste 

that would pose a health and safety issue, a common defense and 

security issue. 

Mr. MATHESON. Yes, that is a correct statement. The criteria you 

use to evaluate it are not whether or not it is foreign waste or not; 

it is the issues you—— 

Ms. DOANE. That is right. 

Mr. MATHESON. Thank you. 

We have also heard that the company believes that neither the 

State of Utah nor the Northwest Compact has the right to prohibit 

this material from coming into the United States, and you still believe you lack the authority to prohibit the waste from coming into 

the United States based on simply where it comes from. 

Ms. DOANE. That is right. Just based on its foreignness, that is 

right. 

Mr. MATHESON. So it seems to me that no one has the authority 

to make the call on whether or not foreign waste should come from 

a regulatory standpoint. It is really—to reiterate what Mr. Gordon 

said, this is a policy issue about whether or not this country is 

going to allow this to happen. 

Ms. DOANE. Well, I won’t speak for Mr. Slosky. I think the compacts believe they do have the authority to keep waste out because 

of its foreignness. So I won’t speak to him. And if they have control 

of a facility, as happened with the Barnwell case, the very first 

case, and they say waste can’t come in, we would not have the 

third criterion met, which is that an appropriate facility has agreed 

to accept the waste. 

Mr. MATHESON. Has the NRC done any additional work to determine national disposal capacity for low-level radioactive waste? 

Ms. DOANE. Not the—we haven’t actually done the studies, no. 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
85 

Mr. MATHESON. Is that an agenda item that is being considered 

at NRC? Would it make sense to make a decision about what our 

capacity is in terms of approving applications for waste? 

Ms. DOANE. I probably shouldn’t just hypothesize about that, but 

where capacity issues could raise a health and safety concern, then, 

yes, we look into them. But we look to the proper authorities that 

also make those decisions. 

Mr. MATHESON. OK. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. UPTON. Can I ask one follow-up question? 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman is recognized for that purpose. 

Mr. UPTON. Since you all approved the import license—right? 

Ms. DOANE. What import license? 

Mr. UPTON. I mean, you all gave the license to the facility in 

Clive. Do you actually check with the State? 

Ms. DOANE. Well, we haven’t approved the Italian. I know that 

is not what you mean. But we haven’t approved the Italian import 

license. We have approved licenses in the past; and, yes, we do 

check—— 

Mr. UPTON. And you do check—that is part of the checklist—— 

Ms. DOANE. Absolutely. The host States, the compacts, yes. And 

our process is very public. We also publish all materials, and we 

do get comments from other compacts that might be also interested. We take all of that into consideration. 

Mr. UPTON. Thank you. 

Mr. MARKEY. Are there other questions? 

The gentleman from Tennessee. 

Mr. GORDON. Just one last quick question to Ms. Doane. 

Does EnergySolutions currently have pending import license applications to bring radioactive waste in from Brazil and Mexico? 

Ms. DOANE. There are two pending applications for Brazil and 

Mexico. I know that one is of them is energy. The material will ultimately go to the Clive, Utah, site. I am not sure they are their 

applications. 

Mr. GORDON. So that Mexico and Brazil have also asked to be 

able to export to us some radioactive waste. It would wind up in 

Utah; is that correct? 

Ms. DOANE. Applicants in the United States have applied to get 

waste from, yes, Brazil and Mexico to ultimately have some material disposed of in Clive, Utah. 

Mr. GORDON. Thank you. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Other questions from members? 

What we will do then is give each one of the witnesses 1 minute 

to summarize their position to the committee. In reverse order from 

the original statements, we will begin with you, Mr. Christensen. 

Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Just to set the record straight with respect to the contract issue, 

the company had signed memoranda of understanding, which I 

don’t—as a lawyer don’t consider to be the final definitive agreement on these—on the Italian arrangement. There is no license 

and there is no contract at this point in time, obviously; and I 

just—— 

Mr. GORDON. So are you going to amend your submission to the 

NRC? 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
86 

Mr. CHRISTENSEN. No. The submission to the NRC is accurate. 

The only other comment I want to make is that we have a legitimate business that is lawful, it is highly regulated. We deal with 

these materials safely, and it is critical to the nuclear industry in 

the United States. The opportunity to handle a small amount of 

international waste gives us an opportunity to play on a global 

stage. 

What is at stake here is not just Italian waste to be disposed of 

in Utah. Helping them solve a small part of their Class A low-level 

waste issues allows us to deal with site selection and development 

in Italy and a lot of other technical areas. We are competing with 

other foreign companies to participate as a leader from America in 

the nuclear renaissance. And we have as our secret sauce, in attempting to compete with other world competitors, the ability to 

dispose of a small amount of their waste, and it is limited. 

Now, the 4.3 acres in the private site doesn’t bar all of the other 

compact facilities from excluding waste from their facilities. So 

there is a finite amount that would come into the United States. 

All the other compacts can exclude foreign waste under the court’s 

ruling and under the compact law. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. Slosky. 

Mr. SLOSKY. Thank you. 

There is one issue that came up that I would like to clarify. The 

implication was brought up that the compacts believe that they 

have the authority to control waste coming into the United States. 

That is not correct. The decision of whether waste comes into the 

United States is a Federal decision currently resting with the NRC. 

The compacts have the authority to control whether it comes into 

their compact regions. That is, I think, a very important distinction. 

The other issue that we have touched on but may not have been 

adequately focused on, and that is that there has been foreign 

waste brought in in the past. It has been recycled or processed, 

which is just fine, but the States are very concerned, the compacts 

are concerned in cases where that foreign waste gets reattributed 

and disposed of as domestic waste and its foreign origin gets obscured. 

The last thing I would like to say is that eight of the ten lowlevel waste compacts representing 34 States are involved in the 

EnergySolutions litigation, and I think that is ample proof of the 

potential broad-reaching implications of that lawsuit. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Slosky. 

And Ms. Doane. 

Ms. DOANE. Thank you again for the opportunity to speak to you 

this morning. 

I think I just want to make sure that it is clear that the third 

criterion that we consider about whether an appropriate facility 

has agreed to take the waste considers the views of the compacts 

and where that decision is left to rest and there is not a facility— 

so not like the case here where there is review going on—we would 

take that into consideration and would not permit the waste to 

come in, and we have done so in the past. 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
87 

We do understand the roles and actually have a very good working relationship with both the States and the compacts. We depend 

on their advice on issues that they have—their responsibility—they 

are responsible for. We depend on their advice, and we do seek that 

out. 

And I also want to point out we have a very public process that 

takes a very deliberate and very considerate view of all the technical, safety, common defense, and security issues that would come 

up with these waste imports. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Ms. Doane. 

We thank each of our witnesses very much. 

I ask that the members be given 5 business days to submit any 

questions for the record. 

Without objection, that will be ordered. 

Again, we thank you. We welcome you back, Mr. Slosky. Good to 

see you again. See you in 25 more years, and I will still be here. 

This hearing is adjourned. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 10:45 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
88 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 16 here 74844A.007
89 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 17 here 74844A.008
90 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 18 here 74844A.009
91 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 19 here 74844A.010
92 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 20 here 74844A.011
93 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 21 here 74844A.012
94 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 22 here 74844A.013
95 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 23 here 74844A.014
96 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 24 here 74844A.015
97 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 25 here 74844A.016
98 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 26 here 74844A.017
99 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 27 here 74844A.018
100 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 28 here 74844A.019
101 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 29 here 74844A.020
102 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 30 here 74844A.021
103 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 31 here 74844A.022
104 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 32 here 74844A.023
105 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 33 here 74844A.024
106 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 34 here 74844A.025
107 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 35 here 74844A.026
108 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 36 here 74844A.027
109 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 37 here 74844A.028
110 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 38 here 74844A.029
111 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 39 here 74844A.030
112 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 40 here 74844A.031
113 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 41 here 74844A.032
114 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 42 here 74844A.033
115 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 43 here 74844A.034
116 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 44 here 74844A.035
117 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 45 here 74844A.036
118 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 46 here 74844A.037
119 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 47 here 74844A.038
120 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 48 here 74844A.039
121 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 49 here 74844A.040
122 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 50 here 74844A.041
123 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 51 here 74844A.042
124 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 52 here 74844A.043
125 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 53 here 74844A.044
126 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 54 here 74844A.045
127 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 55 here 74844A.046
128 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 56 here 74844A.047
129 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 57 here 74844A.048
130 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 58 here 74844A.049
131 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 138 here 74844A.105
132 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 139 here 74844A.106
133 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 140 here 74844A.107
134 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 141 here 74844A.108
135 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 142 here 74844A.109
136 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 143 here 74844A.110
137 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 144 here 74844A.111
138 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 145 here 74844A.112
139 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 146 here 74844A.113
140 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 147 here 74844A.114
141 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 148 here 74844A.115
142 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 149 here 74844A.116
143 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 150 here 74844A.117
144 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 151 here 74844A.118
145 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 152 here 74844A.119
146 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 153 here 74844A.120
147 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 154 here 74844A.121
148 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 155 here 74844A.122
149 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 156 here 74844A.123
150 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 157 here 74844A.124
151 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 158 here 74844A.125
152 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 159 here 74844A.126
153 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 160 here 74844A.127
154 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 161 here 74844A.128
155 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 162 here 74844A.129
156 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 163 here 74844A.130
157 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 164 here 74844A.131