89–006 

111TH CONGRESS REPT. 111–348 " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session Part 1 

RADIOACTIVE IMPORT DETERRENCE ACT 

DECEMBER 2, 2009.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State 

of the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. WAXMAN, from the Committee on Energy and Commerce, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 515] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Energy and Commerce, to whom was referred 

the bill (H.R. 515) to prohibit the importation of certain low-level 

radioactive waste into the United States, having considered the 

same, report favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill as amended do pass. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Amendment .............................................................................................................. 2 

Purpose and Summary ............................................................................................ 2 

Background and Need for Legislation .................................................................... 2 

Legislative History .................................................................................................. 4 

Committee Consideration ........................................................................................ 5 

Committee Votes ...................................................................................................... 5 

Statement of Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations ................. 8 

New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority, and Tax Expenditures ............. 8 

Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives .................................... 8 

Constitutional Authority Statement ...................................................................... 8 

Earmarks and Tax and Tariff Benefits .................................................................. 8 

Federal Advisory Committee Statement ................................................................ 8 

Applicability of Law to Legislative Branch ........................................................... 8 

Federal Mandates Statement ................................................................................. 8 

Committee Cost Estimate ....................................................................................... 8 

Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate .......................................................... 9 

Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation ...................................................... 9 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
2 

Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ..................................... 10 

Exchange of Letters ................................................................................................. 12 

Dissenting Views ..................................................................................................... 15 

AMENDMENT

The amendment is as follows: 

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following: 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Radioactive Import Deterrence Act’’. 

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION OF IMPORTATION. 

(a) AMENDMENT.—Chapter 19 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2015 

et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 276 the following new section: 

‘‘SEC. 277. IMPORTATION OF LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE.— 

‘‘a. Except as provided in subsection b. or c., the Commission shall not issue a 

license authorizing the importation into the United States of— 

‘‘(1) low-level radioactive waste (as defined in section 2 of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 2021b)); or 

‘‘(2) specific radioactive waste streams exempted from regulation by the Commission under section 10 of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act (42 

U.S.C. 2021j). 

‘‘b. Subsection a. shall not apply to— 

‘‘(1) low-level radioactive waste being returned to a United States Government or military facility which is authorized to possess the material; or 

‘‘(2) low-level radioactive waste resulting from the use in a foreign country of 

nuclear material obtained by the foreign user from an entity in the United 

States that is being returned to the United States for management and disposal. 

‘‘c. The President may waive the prohibition under this section and authorize the 

grant of a specific license to import materials prohibited under subsection a., under 

the rules of the Commission, only after a finding that such importation would meet 

an important national or international policy goal, such as the use of waste for research purposes. Such a waiver must specify the policy goal to be achieved, how it 

is to be achieved, and the amount of material to be imported. 

‘‘d. A license not permitted under this section that was issued before the date of 

enactment of this section may continue in effect according to its terms, but may not 

be extended or amended with respect to the amount of material permitted to be imported.’’. 

(b) TABLE OF CONTENTS AMENDMENT.—The table of contents for the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 276 the 

following new item: 

‘‘Sec. 277. Importation of low-level radioactive waste.’’. 

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

H.R. 515, the ‘‘Radioactive Import Deterrence Act’’, was introduced by Reps. Bart Gordon, Lee Terry, and Jim Matheson on January 14, 2009. The purpose of H.R. 515 is to prohibit the importation of certain low-level radioactive waste into the United States. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

Under the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980 (P.L. 

96–573), ‘‘low-level radioactive waste’’ is defined as radioactive material that is not high-level radioactive waste, spent nuclear fuel, 

or byproduct material. It is classified according to its potential hazard as either A, B, or C under regulations issued by the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission (NRC). Class A waste generally contains 

lower concentrations of long half-lived radioactive material than 

Class B, and Class B waste contains lower concentrations than 

Class C waste. The NRC indicates that Class A waste accounts for 

about 90% of the total volume of low-level waste. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
3 

1Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality hearing, Testimony of Gene Aloise, Government 

Accountability Office (May 20, 2008). 2 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Fact Sheet, ‘‘Energy Solutions’ Proposal to Import LowLevel Radioactive Waste from Italy.’’ 

Low-level waste is generated from a variety of sources, including 

commercial activities at nuclear reactors, manufacturing, and other 

industrial uses, as well as government sources, academic users, 

and medical facilities. 

The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 

1985 established the policy that each state is responsible for disposing of low-level radioactive waste generated within its borders. 

The Act encouraged states to enter into interstate compacts under 

which a group of states would agree to develop a common site to 

dispose of their waste. In return, the Act authorizes a compact to 

exclude waste produced outside the member states from its regional disposal facilities (an action which otherwise would be prohibited by the interstate commerce clause). Ten regional compacts 

have been formed and received the required approval of Congress. 

Eight states, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia remain unaffiliated. 

Progress toward siting and opening new facilities to serve the 

various compacts has been slow. At present, there are only three 

active licensed facilities: Barnwell, South Carolina, which accepts 

waste only from the Atlantic Compact states of Connecticut, New 

Jersey, and South Carolina; Richland, Washington, which accepts 

waste only from the eight members of the Northwest Compact 

(and, by special agreement, the Rocky Mountain Compact); and a 

commercial facility located in Clive, Utah (a member state of the 

Northwest Compact) and operated by EnergySolutions, a company 

based in Salt Lake City, Utah. 

The Clive facility is licensed by the State of Utah for safety purposes in the state’s capacity as an NRC agreement state, and is 

permitted to accept Class A low-level radioactive waste from all regions of the United States. According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), based on projected Class A disposal volumes, 

this facility is expected to reach its capacity in approximately 32 

years.1 A company called Waste Control Specialists has obtained a 

license from the State of Texas to dispose of low-level radioactive 

waste at a fourth facility in Andrews County, Texas. Construction 

of the new disposal facility is expected to take about a year, with 

disposal operations scheduled to begin in late 2010. 

EnergySolutions has filed a license application with the NRC to 

import up to approximately 20,000 tons of various types of materials from decommissioned nuclear facilities in Italy (including metals, wood, paper, plastic, liquids and certain resins). According to 

the NRC,2 EnergySolutions proposes to process and recycle the material in facilities it operates at its Bear Creek facility in Tennessee 

in accordance with licenses issued by that state. After treatment, 

the company proposes to send the remaining waste to its facility 

in Clive, Utah for disposal and states that the volume would be reduced so the ultimate amount of material disposed at Clive would 

be a small fraction of what is disposed of annually at the facility. 

The company has also applied for an export license to return any 

waste that does not qualify for disposal at its Utah facility to Italy. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
4 

3Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality (House Committee on Energy and Commerce) 

hearing, Testimony of Margaret M. Doane, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (May 20, 2008). 4Federal Register 29614 (June 23, 2009). 

NRC regulations require any company wishing to import lowlevel radioactive waste to apply for a license from the Commission 

to import material to a specified destination in accordance with all 

existing domestic laws and regulations applicable to the material. 

NRC has said that it ‘‘will not grant an import license for waste 

intended for disposal unless it is clear from these consultations 

[with the relevant state and compact] that the waste will be accepted by the applicable host Agreement State and where applicable, 

Low-Level Radioactive Waste Compact.’’ 3 On June 23, 2009, NRC 

proposed to amend its regulations governing the export and import 

of radioactive waste to include this consultation concept in the import licensing criteria.4

On May 12, 2008, the Northwest Compact took the position that 

EnergySolutions does not have a necessary ‘‘arrangement’’ with the 

compact to import the Italian waste into Utah; that the Compact 

Committee has never considered or reviewed the issue of adopting 

an arrangement that would provide low-level radioactive wastes 

generated in foreign countries access to the region for disposal at 

the EnergySolutions facility in Clive, Utah; and that such an arrangement would need to be adopted by the compact prior to such 

waste being afforded access to the region for disposal. On May 15, 

2008, Mike Garner, the Executive Director of the Northwest Compact, notified the NRC that ‘‘should it choose to issue the import 

license (IW023) it is doing so with the understanding there is no 

facility within the Northwest Compact region that is authorized to 

legally accept this waste for disposal.’’ 

Since October 6, 2008, NRC has held the EnergySolutions license 

application in abeyance pending resolution of a lawsuit by 

EnergySolutions challenging the Northwest Compact’s authority to 

block the proposed import. On May 15, 2009, the federal district 

court found in a declaratory judgment that the compact lacks authority to restrict the flow of waste from outside the region to the 

Clive facility. An appeal of this decision is currently pending before 

the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

H.R. 515, the ‘‘Radioactive Import Deterrence Act’’, was introduced by Reps. Bart Gordon, Lee Terry, and Jim Matheson on January 14, 2009, and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and also to the Committee on Ways and Means. H.R. 515 

was subsequently referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment on January 15, 2009. 

On October 16, 2009, the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment held a legislative hearing on H.R. 515. Testimony was received from the following witnesses: 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. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
5 

COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

On November 3, 2009, the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment met in open markup to consider H.R. 515. The Subcommittee agreed to favorably forward H.R. 515 to the full Committee, amended, by a voice vote. On November 19, 2009, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met in open markup session to 

consider H.R. 515, as amended by the Subcommittee on November 

3, 2009. The full Committee ordered H.R. 515 favorably reported to 

the House, as amended, by a roll call vote of 34 to 12. 

COMMITTEE VOTES

Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives requires the Committee to list the record votes on the motion 

to report legislation and amendments thereto. A motion by Mr. 

Waxman to order H.R. 515 favorably reported to the House, as 

amended, was agreed to by a roll call vote of 34 yeas and 12 nays. 

The following is a record of the recorded vote taken, including the 

names of those Members voting for and against: 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
6 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 8 HR348P1.001
7 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 9 HR348P1.002
8 

STATEMENT OF COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the findings and recommendations of the 

Committee are reflected in the descriptive portions of this report. 

NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY, ENTITLEMENT AUTHORITY, AND TAX

EXPENDITURES

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the Committee finds that H.R. 515 would result 

in no new budget authority, entitlement authority, or tax expenditures or revenues. 

STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives does not apply to H.R. 515 as the bill does not authorize 

funding. 

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the Committee finds that the constitutional authority for H.R. 515 is provided in Article I, section 8, clauses 3 and 

18. 

EARMARKS AND TAX AND TARIFF BENEFITS

H.R. 515 does not contain any congressional earmarks, limited 

tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in clause 9 of rule 

XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives. 

FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT

No advisory committees were created by H.R. 515 within the 

meaning of section 5 U.S.C. App., 5(b) of the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act. 

APPLICATION OF LAW TO THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

The Committee finds that H.R. 515 does not relate to the terms 

and conditions of employment or access to public services or accommodations within the meaning of section 102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act of 1985. 

FEDERAL MANDATES STATEMENT

The Committee adopts as its own the estimates of federal mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office 

pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act. 

COMMITTEE COST ESTIMATE

Pursuant to clause 3(d) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 

Representatives, the Committee adopts as its own the cost estimate 

on H.R. 515 prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 

Office pursuant to section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
9 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the following is the cost estimate for H.R. 515 

provided by the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 

402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974: 

DECEMBER 1, 2009. 

Hon. HENRY A. WAXMAN, 

Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 515, the Radioactive Import Deterrence Act. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Megan Carroll. 

Sincerely, 

DOUGLAS W. ELMENDORF. 

Enclosure. 

H.R. 515—Radioactive Import Deterrence Act 

H.R. 515 would prohibit the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

(NRC), with certain exceptions specified by the bill, from issuing licenses to import certain types of low-level radioactive waste. Based 

on information from the NRC, CBO estimates that the proposed 

prohibition would not significantly affect net spending by the agency; any such spending would be subject to appropriation and largely offset by certain fees that the NRC is authorized to collect from 

regulated entities. Enacting the bill would not affect direct spending or revenues. 

H.R. 515 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined in 

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) and would impose no 

cost on state, local, or tribal governments. 

The prohibition on issuing, extending, or amending licenses 

would be a private-sector mandate, as defined in UMRA, on importers of certain types of low-level radioactive waste. The cost of 

the mandate would be the loss in net income to importers. Information from industry sources suggests that the growth in gross revenues from the future import of low-level radioactive waste could be 

significant. However, those revenues would depend on the amount 

of waste authorized for import in licenses issued or amended by the 

NRC in the absence of the bill. Consequently, CBO cannot determine whether the cost of the mandate would exceed the annual 

threshold established in UMRA for private-sector mandates ($139 

million in 2009, adjusted annually for inflation). 

The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Megan Carroll (for 

federal costs) and Amy Petz (for the private-sector impact). This estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant Director 

for Budget Analysis. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF THE LEGISLATION

Section 1: Short title 

This section provides that the short title of the bill is the ‘‘Radioactive Import Deterrence Act’’. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
10 

Section 2: Prohibition of importation 

This section amends the Atomic Energy Act by creating a new 

section 277. Subsection a. of the new section 277 provides that the 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission shall not issue licenses authorizing the importation into the United States of low-level radioactive 

waste and radioactive waste below regulatory concern. 

Subsection b. provides exceptions to the prohibition in subsection 

a. for federal government or military use and for the return to the 

United States for management and disposal of low-level radioactive 

waste resulting from the use in a foreign country of certain United 

States origin nuclear material. 

Subsection c. authorizes the President to waive the prohibition in 

subsection a. for a specific license application upon a finding that 

the importation would meet an important national or international 

policy goal. The subsection includes an illustrative example of such 

a policy goal: the use of waste for research purposes by private, 

non-profit, or government entities. Such a waiver must specify the 

policy goal to be achieved, how it is to be achieved, and the amount 

of material to be imported. 

Subsection d. provides that licenses issued before the date of enactment of this section may continue in effect on their original 

terms, but may not be extended or amended with respect to the 

amount of material permitted to be imported. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as reported, are shown as follows (new matter is printed in italic 

and existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in 

roman): 

ATOMIC ENERGY ACT OF 1954 

TITLE I—ATOMIC ENERGY 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 19. MISCELLANEOUS

* * * * * * * 

Sec. 277. Importation of low-level radioactive waste. 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 19—MISCELLANEOUS 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 277. IMPORTATION OF LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE.— a. Except as provided in subsection b. or c., the Commission shall 

not issue a license authorizing the importation into the United 

States of— 

(1) low-level radioactive waste (as defined in section 2 of the 

Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 2021b)); or 

(2) specific radioactive waste streams exempted from regulation by the Commission under section 10 of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 2021j). 

b. Subsection a. shall not apply to— 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
11 

(1) low-level radioactive waste being returned to a United 

States Government or military facility which is authorized to 

possess the material; or 

(2) low-level radioactive waste resulting from the use in a foreign country of nuclear material obtained by the foreign user 

from an entity in the United States that is being returned to the 

United States for management and disposal. 

c. The President may waive the prohibition under this section and 

authorize the grant of a specific license to import materials prohibited under subsection a., under the rules of the Commission, only 

after a finding that such importation would meet an important national or international policy goal, such as the use of waste for research purposes. Such a waiver must specify the policy goal to be 

achieved, how it is to be achieved, and the amount of material to 

be imported. 

d. A license not permitted under this section that was issued before the date of enactment of this section may continue in effect according to its terms, but may not be extended or amended with respect to the amount of material permitted to be imported. 

* * * * * * * 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
12 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 18 here HR348P1.003
13 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 19 here HR348P1.004
14 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 20 here HR348P1.005
(15) 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

We, the undersigned Members of the Committee on Energy and 

Commerce, oppose the passage of H.R. 515 and submit the following comments to express our concerns with this legislation. 

H.R. 515 would prohibit the importation of low-level radioactive 

waste into the United States subject to limited exceptions for federal or military facilities, or for U.S.-origin material that has been 

shipped abroad for use in a foreign country and is being returned 

to the United States for management and disposal. This legislative 

proposal is both unnecessary and could prevent U.S. companies 

from competing internationally in the global market for nuclear 

services. 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) currently has a wellestablished legal and regulatory framework for importing waste 

and it is not apparent that the existing regime needs to be 

changed. As the record before the Committee reflects, under that 

regime NRC reviews all import and export license applications 

against specific criteria, conducts full health and safety and national security evaluations of these applications, and coordinates 

with agencies within the Executive Branch and with the host State 

where the waste would be processed and/or disposed. The Commission also takes steps to ensure that no radioactive waste imported 

into the United States will become orphaned waste. The NRC will 

not grant an import license for waste intended for disposal unless 

it is clear that the waste will be accepted by the applicable host 

Agreement State and, where applicable, the Low-Level Radioactive 

Waste Compact. 

While proponents of H.R. 515 have contended that there is insufficient disposal capacity in the U.S. for the low-level waste that is 

the subject of the bill, in fact the importation of limited amounts 

of foreign low-level radioactive waste does not and will not in the 

coming decades raise significant disposal capacity issues in the 

United States. An amendment offered by Reps. Whitfield and Pitts 

that would have required the Commission to take into consideration domestic capacity before allowing importation of low-level radioactive waste and provide additional oversight authority by the 

Commission was rejected. As a practical matter, the low-level radioactive waste addressed in this bill is Class A waste. Based on 

the record before the Committee, there is currently more than sufficient capacity in the U.S. to accept limited quantities of imported 

Class A waste, consistent with existing strict NRC regulations and 

requirements. 

At the same time, the record before the Committee also reflects 

that H.R. 515, if enacted, would undermine the ability of U.S. nuclear companies to participate in the global nuclear services market. To compete in that market, it is currently important for U.S. 

companies to be able to manage and, as appropriate, dispose of lowVerDate Nov 24 2008 05:31 Dec 03, 2009 Jkt 089006 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\HR348P1.XXX HR348P1

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
16 

level radioactive waste incidental to their provision of services. 

This proposed legislation would effectively prevent U.S. companies 

from competing for certain foreign contracts that could create jobs 

in the U.S. and result in substantial revenues for the U.S. economy. In an era of record high unemployment and a struggling economy, we strongly oppose legislation that erects new trade barriers 

that put our own companies at a competitive disadvantage in the 

international nuclear arena. We believe the U.S. can and should 

seek to be a leader in the construction, operation, and ultimate decommissioning of new nuclear plants around the world. 

Further, at a time when the Majority and the Administration are 

supporting climate change legislation that assumes a significant 

expansion of nuclear power in the U.S., enacting legislation that 

places yet additional burdens on the U.S. nuclear industry may further discourage new nuclear development in the United States. 

This legislative proposal constitutes an unnecessary restriction and 

it appears will only make it more, not less difficult to promote the 

expansion of the nuclear industry in the United States. 

JOE BARTON. 

FRED UPTON. 

ROY BLUNT. 

RALPH M. HALL. 

CLIFF STEARNS. 

ED WHITFIELD. 

JOHN SHADEGG. 

JOHN SHIMKUS. 

JOSEPH R. PITTS. 

GEORGE RADANOVICH. 

SUE MYRICK. 

JOHN SULLIVAN. 

MARSHA BLACKBURN. 

TIM MURPHY. 

PHIL GINGREY. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS