Sept. 18, 1995 sees Congressional Record publish “TEXAS LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL COMPACT CONSENT ACT”

Friday, Sep 24, 2021 @ 7:29pm By EP News Wire Reports

Volume 141, No. 145 covering the 1st Session of the 104th Congress (1995 - 1996) was published by the Congressional Record.

The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.

“TEXAS LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL COMPACT CONSENT ACT” mentioning the Environmental Protection Agency was published in the House of Representatives section on pages H9104-H9115 on Sept. 18, 1995.

The publication is reproduced in full below:

TEXAS LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL COMPACT CONSENT ACT

Mr. SCHAEFER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 558) to grant the consent of the Congress to the Texas Low-

Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact.

The Clerk read as follows:

H.R. 558

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact Consent Act''.

SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL FINDING.

The Congress finds that the compact set forth in section 5 is in furtherance of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 2021b et seq.).

SEC. 3. CONDITIONS OF CONSENT TO COMPACT.

The consent of the Congress to the compact set forth in section 5--

(1) shall become effective on the date of the enactment of this Act;

(2) is granted subject to the provisions of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 2021b et seq.); and

(3) is granted only for so long as the regional commission established in the compact complies with all of the provisions of such Act.

SEC. 4. CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW.

The Congress may alter, amend, or repeal this Act with respect to the compact set forth in section 5 after the expiration of the 10-year period following the date of the enactment of this Act, and at such intervals thereafter as may be provided in such compact.

SEC. 5. TEXAS LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL COMPACT.

In accordance with section 4(a)(2) of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 2021d(a)(2)), the consent of the Congress is given to the States of Texas, Maine, and Vermont to enter into the Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact. Such compact is substantially as follows:

``TEXAS LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL COMPACT

``ARTICLE I. POLICY AND PURPOSE

``Sec. 1.01. The party states recognize a responsibility for each state to seek to manage low-level radioactive waste generated within its boundaries, pursuant to the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act, as amended by the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (42 U.S.C. 2021b-2021j). They also recognize that the United States Congress, by enacting the Act, has authorized and encouraged states to enter into compacts for the efficient management and disposal of low-level radioactive waste. It is the policy of the party states to cooperate in the protection of the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens and the environment and to provide for and encourage the economical management and disposal of low-level radioactive waste. It is the purpose of this compact to provide the framework for such a cooperative effort; to promote the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens and the environment of the party states; to limit the number of facilities needed to effectively, efficiently, and economically manage low-level radioactive waste and to encourage the reduction of the generation thereof; and to distribute the costs, benefits, and obligations among the party states; all in accordance with the terms of this compact.

``ARTICLE II. DEFINITIONS

``Sec. 2.01. As used in this compact, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise, the following definitions apply:

``(1) `Act' means the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act, as amended by the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (42 U.S.C. 2021b-2021j).

``(2) `Commission' means the Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact Commission established in Article III of this compact.

``(3) `Compact facility' or `facility' means any site, location, structure, or property located in and provided by the host state for the purpose of management or disposal of low-level radioactive waste for which the party states are responsible.

``(4) `Disposal' means the permanent isolation of low-level radioactive waste pursuant to requirements established by the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the United States Environmental Protection Agency under applicable laws, or by the host state.

``(5) `Generate,' when used in relation to low-level radioactive waste, means to produce low-level radioactive waste.

``(6) `Generator' means a person who produces or processes low-level radioactive waste in the course of its activities, excluding persons who arrange for the collection, transportation, management, treatment, storage, or disposal of waste generated outside the party states, unless approved by the commission.

``(7) `Host county' means a county in the host state in which a disposal facility is located or is being developed.

``(8) `Host state' means a party state in which a compact facility is located or is being developed. The State of Texas is the host state under this compact.

``(9) `Institutional control period' means that period of time following closure of the facility and transfer of the facility license from the operator to the custodial agency in compliance with the appropriate regulations for long-term observation and maintenance.

``(10) `Low-level radioactive waste' has the same meaning as that term is defined in Section 2(9) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 2021b(9)), or in the host state statute so long as the waste is not incompatible with management and disposal at the compact facility.

``(11) `Management' means collection, consolidation, storage, packaging, or treatment.

``(12) `Operator' means a person who operates a disposal facility.

``(13) `Party state' means any state that has become a party in accordance with Article VII of this compact. Texas, Maine, and Vermont are initial party states under this compact.

``(14) `Person' means an individual, corporation, partnership or other legal entity, whether public or private.

``(15) `Transporter' means a person who transports low-level radioactive waste.

``ARTICLE III. THE COMMISSION

``Sec. 3.01. There is hereby established the Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact Commission. The commission shall consist of one voting member from each party state except that the host state shall be entitled to six voting members. Commission members shall be appointed by the party state governors, as provided by the laws of each party state. Each party state may provide alternates for each appointed member.

``Sec. 3.02. A quorum of the commission consists of a majority of the members. Except as otherwise provided in this compact, an official act of the commission must receive the affirmative vote of a majority of its members.

``Sec. 3.03. The commission is a legal entity separate and distinct from the party states and has governmental immunity to the same extent as an entity created under the authority of Article XVI, Section 59, of the Texas Constitution. Members of the commission shall not be personally liable for actions taken in their official capacity. The liabilities of the commission shall not be deemed liabilities of the party states.

``Sec. 3.04. The commission shall:

``(1) Compensate its members according to the host state's law.

``(2) Conduct its business, hold meetings, and maintain public records pursuant to laws of the host state, except that notice of public meetings shall be given in the non-host party states in accordance with their respective statutes.

``(3) Be located in the capital city of the host state.

``(4) Meet at least once a year and upon the call of the chair, or any member. The governor of the host state shall appoint a chair and vice-chair.

``(5) Keep an accurate account of all receipts and disbursements. An annual audit of the books of the commission shall be conducted by an independent certified public accountant, and the audit report shall be made a part of the annual report of the commission.

``(6) Approve a budget each year and establish a fiscal year that conforms to the fiscal year of the host state.

``(7) Prepare, adopt, and implement contingency plans for the disposal and management of low-level radioactive waste in the event that the compact facility should be closed. Any plan which requires the host state to store or otherwise manage the low-level radioactive waste from all the party states must be approved by at least four host state members of the commission. The commission, in a contingency plan or otherwise, may not require a non-host party state to store low-level radioactive waste generated outside of the state.

``(8) Submit communications to the governors and to the presiding officers of the legislatures of the party states regarding the activities of the commission, including an annual report to be submitted on or before January 31 of each year.

``(9) Assemble and make available to the party states, and to the public, information concerning low-level radioactive waste management needs, technologies, and problems.

``(10) Keep a current inventory of all generators within the party states, based upon information provided by the party states.

``(11) By no later than 180 days after all members of the commission are appointed under Section 3.01 of this article, establish by rule the total volume of low-level radioactive waste that the host state will dispose of in the compact facility in the years 1995-2045, including decommissioning waste. The shipments of low-level radioactive waste from all non-host party states shall not exceed 20 percent of the volume estimated to be disposed of by the host state during the 50-year period. When averaged over such 50-year period, the total of all shipments from non-host party states shall not exceed 20,000 cubic feet a year. The commission shall coordinate the volumes, timing, and frequency of shipments from generators in the non-host party states in order to assure that over the life of this agreement shipments from the non-host party states do not exceed 20 percent of the volume projected by the commission under this paragraph.

``Sec. 3.05. The commission may:

``(1) Employ staff necessary to carry out its duties and functions. The commission is authorized to use to the extent practicable the services of existing employees of the party states. Compensation shall be as determined by the commission.

``(2) Accept any grants, equipment, supplies, materials, or services, conditional or otherwise, from the federal or state government. The nature, amount and condition, if any, of any donation, grant or other resources accepted pursuant to this paragraph and the identity of the donor or grantor shall be detailed in the annual report of the commission.

``(3) Enter into contracts to carry out its duties and authority, subject to projected resources. No contract made by the commission shall bind a party state.

``(4) Adopt, by a majority vote, bylaws and rules necessary to carry out the terms of this compact. Any rules promulgated by the commission shall be adopted in accordance with the Administrative Procedure and Texas Register Act (Article 6252-13a, Vernon's Texas Civil Statutes).

``(5) Sue and be sued and, when authorized by a majority vote of the members, seek to intervene in administrative or judicial proceedings related to this compact.

``(6) Enter into an agreement with any person, state, regional body, or group of states for the importation of low-level radioactive waste into the compact for management or disposal, provided that the agreement receives a majority vote of the commission. The commission may adopt such conditions and restrictions in the agreement as it deems advisable.

``(7) Upon petition, allow an individual generator, a group of generators, or the host state of the compact, to export low-level waste to a low-level radioactive waste disposal facility located outside the party states. The commission may approve the petition only by a majority vote of its members. The permission to export low-level radioactive waste shall be effective for that period of time and for the specified amount of low-level radioactive waste, and subject to any other term or condition, as is determined by the commission.

``(8) Monitor the exportation outside of the party states of material, which otherwise meets the criteria of low-level radioactive waste, where the sole purpose of the exportation is to manage or process the material for recycling or waste reduction and return it to the party states for disposal in the compact facility.

``Sec. 3.06. Jurisdiction and venue of any action contesting any action of the commission shall be in the United States District Court in the district where the commission maintains its office.

``ARTICLE IV. RIGHTS, RESPONSIBILITIES, AND OBLIGATIONS OF PARTY STATES

``Sec. 4.01. The host state shall develop and have full administrative control over the development, management and operation of a facility for the disposal of low-level radioactive waste generated within the party states. The host state shall be entitled to unlimited use of the facility over its operating life. Use of the facility by the non-host party states for disposal of low-level radioactive waste, including such waste resulting from decommissioning of any nuclear electric generation facilities located in the party states, is limited to the volume requirements of Section 3.04(11) of Article III.

``Sec. 4.02. Low-level radioactive waste generated within the party states shall be disposed of only at the compact facility, except as provided in Section 3.05(7) of Article III.

``Sec. 4.03. The initial states of this compact cannot be members of another low-level radioactive waste compact entered into pursuant to the Act.

``Sec. 4.04. The host state shall do the following:

``(1) Cause a facility to be developed in a timely manner and operated and maintained through the institutional control period.

``(2) Ensure, consistent with any applicable federal and host state laws, the protection and preservation of the environment and the public health and safety in the siting, design, development, licensing, regulation, operation, closure, decommissioning, and long-term care of the disposal facilities within the host state.

``(3) Close the facility when reasonably necessary to protect the public health and safety of its citizens or to protect its natural resources from harm. However, the host state shall notify the commission of the closure within three days of its action and shall, within 30 working days of its action, provide a written explanation to the commission of the closure, and implement any adopted contingency plan.

``(4) Establish reasonable fees for disposal at the facility of low-level radioactive waste generated in the party states based on disposal fee criteria set out in Sections 402.272 and 402.273, Texas Health and Safety Code. The same fees shall be charged for the disposal of low-level radioactive waste that was generated in the host state and in the non-host party states. Fees shall also be sufficient to reasonably support the activities of the Commission.

``(5) Submit an annual report to the commission on the status of the facility, including projections of the facility's anticipated future capacity, and on the related funds.

``(6) Notify the Commission immediately upon the occurrence of any event which could cause a possible temporary or permanent closure of the facility and identify all reasonable options for the disposal of low-level radioactive waste at alternate compact facilities or, by arrangement and Commission vote, at noncompact facilities.

``(7) Promptly notify the other party states of any legal action involving the facility.

``(8) Identify and regulate, in accordance with federal and host state law, the means and routes of transportation of low-level radioactive waste in the host state.

``Sec. 4.05. Each party state shall do the following:

``(1) Develop and enforce procedures requiring low-level radioactive waste shipments originating within its borders and destined for the facility to conform to packaging, processing, and waste from specifications of the host state.

``(2) Maintain a registry of all generators within the state that may have low-level radioactive waste to be disposed of at a facility, including, but not limited to, the amount of low-level radioactive waste and the class of low-level radioactive waste generated by each generator.

``(3) Develop and enforce procedures requiring generators within its borders to minimize the volume of low-level radioactive waste requiring disposal. Nothing in this compact shall prohibit the storage, treatment, or management of waste by a generator.

``(4) Provide the commission with any data and information necessary for the implementation of the commission's responsibilities, including taking those actions necessary to obtain this data or information.

``(5) Pay for community assistance projects designated by the host county in an amount for each non-host party state equal to 10 percent of the payment provided for in Article V for each such state. One-half of the payment shall be due and payable to the host county on the first day of the month following ratification of this compact agreement by Congress and one-half of the payment shall be due and payable on the first day of the month following the approval of a facility operating license by the host state's regulatory body.

``(6) Provide financial support for the commission's activities prior to the date of facility operation and subsequent to the date of congressional ratification of this compact under Section 7.07 of Article VII. Each party state will be responsible for annual payments equalling its pro-rata share of the commission's expenses, incurred for administrative, legal, and other purposes of the commission.

``(7) If agreed by all parties to a dispute, submit the dispute to arbitration or other alternate dispute resolution process. If arbitration is agreed upon, the governor of each party state shall appoint an arbitrator. If the number of party states is an even number, the arbitrators so chosen shall appoint an additional arbitrator. The determination of a majority of the arbitrators shall be binding on the party states. Arbitration proceedings shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of 9 U.S.C. Sections 1 to 16. If all parties to a dispute do not agree to arbitration or alternate dispute resolution process, the United States District Court in the district where the commission maintains its office shall have original jurisdiction over any action between or among parties to this compact.

``(8) Provide on a regular basis to the commission and host state--

``(A) an accounting of waste shipped and proposed to be shipped to the compact facility, by volume and curies;

``(B) proposed transportation methods and routes; and

``(C) proposed shipment schedules.

``(9) Seek to join in any legal action by or against the host state to prevent nonparty states or generators from disposing of low-level radioactive waste at the facility.

``Sec. 4.06. Each party state shall act in good faith and may rely on the good faith performance of the other party states regarding requirements of this compact.

``ARTICLE V. PARTY STATE CONTRIBUTIONS

``Sec. 5.01. Each party state, except the host state, shall contribute a total of $25 million to the host state. Payments shall be deposited in the host state treasury to the credit of the low-level waste fund in the following manner except as otherwise provided. Not later than the 60th day after the date of congressional ratification of this compact, each non-host party state shall pay to the host state $12.5 million. Not later than the 60th day after the date of the opening of the compact facility, each non-host party state shall pay to the host state an additional $12.5 million.

``Sec. 5.02. As an alternative, the host state and the non-host states may provide for payments in the same total amount as stated above to be made to meet the principal and interest expense associated with the bond indebtedness or other form of indebtedness issued by the appropriate agency of the host state for purposes associated with the development, operation, and post-closure monitoring of the compact facility. In the event the member states proceed in this manner, the payment schedule shall be determined in accordance with the schedule of debt repayment. This schedule shall replace the payment schedule described in Section 5.01 of this article.

``ARTICLE VI. PROHIBITED ACTS AND PENALTIES

``Sec. 6.01. No person shall dispose of low-level radioactive waste generated within the party states unless the disposal is at the compact facility, except as otherwise provided in Section 3.05(7) of Article III.

``Sec. 6.02. No person shall manage or dispose of any low-level radioactive waste within the party states unless the low-level radioactive waste was generated within the party states, except as provided in Section 3.05(6) of Article III. Nothing herein shall be construed to prohibit the storage or management of low-level radioactive waste by a generator, nor its disposal pursuant to 10 C.F.R. Part 20.302.

``Sec. 6.03. Violations of this article may result in prohibiting the violator from disposing of low-level radioactive waste in the compact facility, or in the imposition of penalty surcharges on shipments to the facility, as determined by the commission.

``ARTICLE VII. ELIGIBILITY, ENTRY INTO EFFECT; CONGRESSIONAL CONSENT;

WITHDRAWAL; EXCLUSION

``Sec. 7.01. The states of Texas, Maine, and Vermont are party states to this compact. Any other state may be made eligible for party status by a majority vote of the commission and ratification by the legislature of the host state, subject to fulfillment of the rights of the initial non-host party states under Section 3.04(11) of Article III and Section 4.01 of Article IV, and upon compliance with those terms and conditions for eligibility that the host state may establish. The host state may establish all terms and conditions for the entry of any state, other than the states named in this section, as a member of this compact; provided, however, the specific provisions of this compact, except for those pertaining to the composition of the commission and those pertaining to Section 7.09 of this article, may not be changed except upon ratification by the legislatures of the party states.

``Sec. 7.02. Upon compliance with the other provisions of this compact, a state made eligible under Section 7.01 of this article may become a party state by legislative enactment of this compact or by executive order of the governor of the state adopting this compact. A state becoming a party state by executive order shall cease to be a party state upon adjournment of the first general session of its legislature convened after the executive order is issued, unless before the adjournment, the legislature enacts this compact.

``Sec. 7.03. Any party state may withdraw from this compact by repealing enactment of this compact subject to the provisions herein. In the event the host state allows an additional state or additional states to join the compact, the host state's legislature, without the consent of the non-host party states, shall have the right to modify the composition of the commission so that the host state shall have a voting majority on the commission, provided, however, that any modification maintains the right of each initial party state to retain one voting member on the commission.

``Sec. 7.04. If the host state withdraws from the compact, the withdrawal shall not become effective until five years after enactment of the repealing legislation and the non-host party states may continue to use the facility during that time. The financial obligation of the non-host party states under Article V shall cease immediately upon enactment of the repealing legislation. If the host state withdraws from the compact or abandons plans to operate a facility prior to the date of any non-host party state payment under Sections 4.05(5) and (6) of Article IV or Article V, the non-host party states are relieved of any obligations to make the contributions. This section sets out the exclusive remedies for the non-host party states if the host state withdraws from the compact or is unable to develop and operate a compact facility.

``Sec. 7.05. A party state, other than the host state, may withdraw from the compact by repealing the enactment of this compact, but this withdrawal shall not become effective until two years after the effective date of the repealing legislation. During this two-year period the party state will continue to have access to the facility. The withdrawing party shall remain liable for any payments under Sections 4.05(5) and (6) of Article IV that were due during the two-year period, and shall not be entitled to any refund of payments previously made.

``Sec. 7.06. Any party state that substantially fails to comply with the terms of the compact or to fulfill its obligations hereunder may have its membership in the compact revoked by a seven-eighths vote of the commission following notice that a hearing will be scheduled not less than six months from the date of the notice. In all other respects, revocation proceedings undertaken by the commission will be subject to the Administrative Procedure and Texas Register Act (Article 6252-13a, Vernon's Texas Civil Statutes), except that a party state may appeal the commission's revocation decision to the United States District Court in accordance with Section 3.06 of Article III. Revocation shall take effect one year from the date such party state receives written notice from the commission of a final action. Written notice of revocation shall be transmitted immediately following the vote of the commission, by the chair, to the governor of the affected party state, all other governors of party states, and to the United States Congress.

``Sec. 7.07. This compact shall take effect following its enactment under the laws of the host state and any other party state and thereafter upon the consent of the United States Congress and shall remain in effect until otherwise provided by federal law. If Texas and either Maine or Vermont ratify this compact, the compact shall be in full force and effect as to Texas and the other ratifying state, and this compact shall be interpreted as follows:

``(1) Texas and the other ratifying state are the initial party states.

``(2) The commission shall consist of two voting members from the other ratifying state and six from Texas.

``(3) Each party state is responsible for its pro-rata share of the commission's expenses.

``Sec. 7.08. This compact is subject to review by the United States Congress and the withdrawal of the consent of Congress every five years after its effective date, pursuant to federal law.

``Sec. 7.09. The host state legislature, with the approval of the governor, shall have the right and authority, without the consent of the non-host party states, to modify the provisions contained in Section 3.04(11) of Article III to comply with Section 402.219(c)(1), Texas Health & Safety Code, as long as the modification does not impair the rights of the initial non-host party states.

``ARTICLE VIII. CONSTRUCTION AND SEVERABILITY

``Sec. 8.01. The provisions of this compact shall be broadly construed to carry out the purposes of the compact, but the sovereign powers of a party shall not be infringed upon unnecessarily.

``Sec. 8.02. This compact does not affect any judicial proceeding pending on the effective date of this compact.

``Sec. 8.03. No party state acquires any liability, by joining this compact, resulting from the siting, operation, maintenance, long-term care or any other activity relating to the compact facility. No non-host party state shall be liable for any harm or damage from the siting, operation, maintenance, or long-term care relating to the compact facility. Except as otherwise expressly provided in this compact, nothing in this compact shall be construed to alter the incidence of liability of any kind for any act or failure to act. Generators, transporters, owners and operators of facility shall be liable for their acts, omissions, conduct or relationships in accordance with applicable law. By entering into this compact and securing the ratification by Congress of its terms, no party state acquires a potential liability under section 5(d)(2)(C) of the Act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 2021e(d)(2)(C)) that did not exist prior to entering into this compact.

``Sec. 8.04. If a party state withdraws from the compact pursuant to Section 7.03 of Article VII or has its membership in this compact revoked pursuant to section 7.06 of Article VII, the withdrawal or revocation shall not affect any liability already incurred by or chargeable to the affected state under Section 8.03 of this article.

``Sec. 8.05. The provisions of this compact shall be severable and if any phrase, clause, sentence, or provision of this compact is declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be contrary to the constitution of any participating state or of the United States or the applicability thereof to any government, agency, person or circumstances is held invalid, the validity of the remainder of this compact and the applicability thereof to any government, agency, person, or circumstance shall not be affected thereby to the extent the remainder can in all fairness be given effect. If any provision of this compact shall be held contrary to the constitution of any state participating therein, the compact shall remain in full force and effect as to the state affected as to all severable matters.

``Sec. 8.06. Nothing in this compact diminishes or otherwise impairs the jurisdiction, authority, or discretion of either of the following:

``(1) The United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. Sec. 2011 et seq.).

``(2) An agreement state under section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. Sec. 2021).

``Sec. 8.07. Nothing in this compact confers any new authority on the states or commission to do any of the following:

``(1) Regulate the packaging or transportation of low-level radioactive waste in a manner inconsistent with the regulations of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission or the United States Department of Transportation.

``(2) Regulate health, safety, or environmental hazards from source, by-product, or special nuclear material.

``(3) Inspect the activities of licensees of the agreement states or of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.''.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Schaefer] will be recognized for 20 minutes, and the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone] will be recognized for 20 minutes.

Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Speaker, might I ask if the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone] is opposed to the bill?

Mr. PALLONE. No, Mr. Speaker, I am in favor of the bill.

Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Inasmuch as that is the case, Mr. Speaker, I request I be permitted to manage the time on this side in opposition to the bill.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant] will be recognized for 20 minutes in opposition to the bill.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Schaefer].

Mr. SCHAEFER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. SCHAEFER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SCHAEFER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 558, introduced by our colleague from Texas [Mr. Fields], which would grant congressional consent to the Texas, Maine, Vermont Low-level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact. In 1980, Congress made the policy decision that we at the Federal level would divide responsibility for radioactive waste disposal within the States. The Federal Government would be responsible for the disposal of high-level waste while the States would handle the low-level wastes. These low-level wastes emit a less intensity of radioactivity. In fact, the vast majority of low-

level waste, 97 percent, do not require any special shielding to protect workers or the surrounding community. Currently, 42 States are already involved in 9 compact arrangements for the disposal of low-

level waste.

Mr. Speaker, the legislation before the House today will finally allow the States of Texas, Maine, and Vermont to begin their efforts to fully comply with the Low-level Radioactive Waste Act of 1980.

The responsibility of Congress in approving the compact is fairly simply. If the Texas compact complies with underlying requirements of the Low-level Radioactive Waste Act, Congress must grant approval to the compact. In our consideration of this measure before the Subcommittee on Energy and Power, we found that the Texas compact does meet this test. Congressional consent with allow the affected States to move ahead with their compact to fulfill the requirements of the Federal Low-level Waste Act.

Mr. SCHAEFER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bonilla].

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time. As the chairman knows, this particular project is in my congressional district and I cannot emphasize strongly enough, after Members look into the people's eyes and listen to their message in Hudspeth County and the west Texas area and surrounding communities of the Hudspeth County area, this is strongly going to impact their property rights and their lives and disrupt their communities to the degree that I think it is difficult for Members here to understand unless they can actually hear it from them firsthand. Therefore, I strongly am opposed to this bill, and I believe that this act should be amended, actually to include the input from local constituents like that when their lives can be disrupted. My constituents should never be forced to accept the low-

level radioactive waste generated outside of Texas without first having their wishes considered at the Federal level, nor should any American community, for that matter.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to think of this vote as if it was their constituents being affected and whose voices were being silenced. All of our constituents have a right to be heard on such matters.

In 1986, 7 years before I was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives, Congress passed legislation granting each individual State the authority to make a disposal agreement with other States.

This measure is in keeping with the interstate commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution.

It was designed to be fair and mutually beneficial to all participants; and it is, for the most part, except for the one party which is directly impacted--the people who live at the selected disposal sites. This fact makes all the difference as to why H.R. 558 is not good legislation.

Although the States have control in determining site selection, today, we in Congress can give my constituents a voice by voting ``no'' on this measure and demanding that the process be amended to consider local rights.

I am aware of a Federal circuit court ruling, based on interstate commerce law, which requires States to accept the low-level waste of other States. However, radioactive waste commerce cannot be considered in the same light as other interstate commerce.

This was recognized by Congress when the House passed the 1986 legislation which provided a means for restricting this form of commerce between States.

The Texas-Vermont-Maine compact has the benefit of limiting waste shipments to those three States. However, there remain serious problems with this compact.

The language of the compact is not completely clear as to whether the Commission established under the compact could open the Hudspeth site to waste from even more. In addition, the people of Hudspeth County are compelled to accept this waste without recourse. It is vital that everyone understand the facts and what is involved.

Lastly, given the earthquake which recently struck the heart of rural west Texas, I had asked for a detailed geological study to be done on the effects that this and future earthquakes would have on the proposed site and just what consequences this would have on water quality and other health-threatening concerns.

This legislation has come to the floor today without a study and without knowledge of the potential harm caused by placing the compact in Hudspeth County. We are talking about private property rights here, real people, real lives.

Again, I ask that the Congress oppose the compact.

Mr. SCHAEFER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's concern from his own district down there.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the Constitution of the United States gives to Congress the right to approve compacts between the States, and when a compact is clearly not in the interest of the people of the United States of America, notwithstanding what may have been done between the two States, it is the duty of the Congress to reject that compact. We will offer today compelling arguments with regard to the national interest about why this compact should be rejected and would call upon the Members of the House to join with us in sending this compact back to be handled in a different fashion at the local level.

The fact of the matter is the States involved avoided the politically uncomfortable decisions and, therefore, made an irresponsible decision to locate this nuclear waste dump in a very unfortunate place, within 14 miles of an international border, in an active earthquake zone which is next to the Rio Grande river, thereby inviting Mexico to locate its unpleasant dump sites to the river in the future, also subjecting the United States to enormous liabilities to all the inhabitants of the Rio Grande valley should an earthquake come, as happened only last April within 100 miles of this site, and contaminate the entire lower Rio Grande valley.

{time} 1745

These compacts are supposed to be regional in nature. This is not a regional compact. This is a compact between Texas and the State of Maine. There could hardly be greater distances between the two locations.

This compact is not in the interest of the country. I urge the Members of the House to vote against it.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCHAEFER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone].

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the most important thing about the Texas low-

level waste compact is the progress it represents. This will be the 10th compact to receive congressional approval, and will bring to 45 the number of States moving forward together to meet their disposal needs. I am very happy to support its passage.

The compact system envisioned by the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act was developed with the strong support of the National Governors' Association. Under the law, the difficult task of selecting disposal sites is the States' responsibility. Congress' responsibility, on the other hand, is to act quickly on the compact's request and, if all is in order, to approve it promptly.

The Texas compact meets the law's requirements, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. BRYANT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from El Paso, TX [Mr. Coleman].

(Mr. COLEMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Dallas, TX, for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the statements by the gentleman adjoining my congressional district, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bonilla], who represents the district, the area in which the low-level radioactive waste dump site was to be located, or is to be located if we continue down this awkward path. I say awkward simply because I do not really care what the Congress said back in 1980 or 1982, that said low level, you do it; high level, we will do it. Low level, we will leave it to the States. So long as we care about the health and safety of any American citizen, I do not think we can wash our hands of that.

Mr. Speaker, I think the statements made by my colleague, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bonilla], are absolutely on target. I have represented that area during all of the time that the siting decisions were being made by the State of Texas, during all of the time that negotiations were ongoing between Vermont, Texas, and Maine.

We should not leave out Vermont in any of this discussion, by the way. They too, like Maine, have aging nuclear facilities that will all have to be dumped somewhere, some day. We know where that will be, provided the Congress of the United States does not stop going down this path believing that we can do anything we want. We do not care what the consequences are.

Let me tell you why it is especially difficult today I think for anyone to say that they support measures like this. It should be that the Federal Government should not be condoning another financial liability of massive proportions. After all, if in fact we have to do a cleanup, if there is an accident, and let me say we are putting it into an area of high earthquake and seismic activity. The largest earthquake by the way in the State of Texas occurred in 1931, it was right here where they are putting the dump site.

Guess what happened last month? Another earthquake, affecting west Texas as it had not since the 1930's. Well, I guess everybody is sure that nothing bad will ever happen. That is what we always say. Why, this earthquake, we can sustain these kinds of things if we do this thing right. That is what everybody always says.

Let me just tell you what. I can tell you that, however, all of those statements notwithstanding, it is the poor siting, coupled with the large loopholes in the very bill you are asking us to vote on in this compact, which exposed the Federal Government, and yes, all U.S. taxpayers, not just those in Texas, as the compact would have you believe, not just those in Texas. By the way, Maine and Vermont will get out of it pretty easy in the compact itself. But this compact exposes all taxpayers to an enormous and unreasonable amount of liability.

I can tell you that this epicenter of the earthquake that occurred last month is the strongest recorded in Texas. I ask why would anybody deliberately dispose of such volatile materials in an area known for its seismic activity? Those are the kinds of questions we ought to be asking.

Who will ultimately have to pay? Well, we know. Under article 8, section 8.03, of the compact, the States of Vermont and Maine will not be held liable for damage incurred due to the siting, operation, maintenance, long-term care, or any other activity relating to the compact facility.

I am citing it to you. It is right there in the bill. Who does this leave liable? Some of us might think, well, maybe it is going to be the generators of the waste. Maybe it is going to be the transporters, the owners, the operators of the facility. However, these companies have limited financial resources. If they run out, once again, who do we leave that to? The taxpayers of Texas certainly, but also the taxpayers of the rest of the United States in bearing the brunt of that liability.

I could get into the issue of balancing the budget and how it is that we want to reform Superfund and cleanup and all of the things we know that have not happened very economically in terms of time or efficiency. Again, all I would say is we should be very careful, I think, before we get the United States back into another problem of that kind.

I do not think anyone here that should think all Texans are in agreement on this compact. Unlike the citizens of Maine, the people of Texas were never provided the opportunity to vote on whether or not they approve of this compact.

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. COLEMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, I think as the gentleman is speaking reminds me of a point made that perhaps no other Member in Congress can testify firsthand to the beauty and the pristine of the wide open spaces of the part of the country we are talking about, that are unspoiled and untouched by any outside influence or contamination or toxic substance. It would be a real tragedy to have this suddenly introduced into an area like that.

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the gentleman is correct. Let me just tell the gentleman, it is not just even the problems in the area that is going to be dumped upon. There is another issue, and that is that we do not limit the volume of waste it must accept from the party States as well as other contracting States which will occur.

Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to vote against this legislation, and I hope in the subsequent time we can make the other points that need to be made.

Today we are being asked to grant our approval of the Texas, Vermont, and Maine Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact. While this legislation does not directly determine the site of disposal, the State of Texas has already selected the site and is limited by State law to a 200-square-mile area in west Texas. I know that Congress left it to the States to determine the disposal site. However, this does not mean that we abrogated our responsibility to ensure that citizens' health and safety are not endangered. The Federal Government should not be condoning another financial liability of massive proportion and we should see that international agreements we make are lived up to.

Proponents of the compact ask that we turn our backs on the issue of siting and the flaws in the compact. They propose that Congress should rubber stamp the actions of the State, regardless of the ramifications. However, it is the poor siting, coupled with the large loopholes in the compact which expose the Federal Government to an enormous and unreasonable amount of liability.

As evident by the recent earthquake in west Texas, the mountain ranges of west Texas, northern Mexico and the Chihuahua Desert are areas of seismic activity. The site is near the epicenter of the earthquake that occurred last month and to the one that struck in 1931, the strongest recorded earthquake in Texas. The siting authority has stated that they planned for earthquakes and that the facility will be able to handle an earthquake of up to 7.0 on the richter scale. I ask you, why would anyone deliberately dispose of such volatile materials in an area known for its seismic activity? Who will ultimately have to pay for the cleanup of this site, because of poor siting? This American taxpayer, that's who.

Under article VIII, section 8.03 of the compact, the States of Vermont and Maine will not be held liable for damage incurred due to the siting, operation, maintenance, long-term care, or any other activity relating to the compact facility. Who does this leave liable? One might think the answer is the generators, transporters, owners, and operators of the facility. However, these companies have limited financial resources. So, of course, the taxpayers of Texas and the Federal Government will bear the brunt of that liability.

This Congress has made a commitment to balance the budget by the year 2002. To do so, we have made enormous cuts in the EPA and some say we will continue to cut its budget over the next 7 years. We've all seen the difficulty the EPA has had in cleaning up superfund sites. It is a long and slow process. Wouldn't it be better if we had prevented the oilspills or unregulated dump sites in the first place? This compact is the worst of both scenarios. Today, we have an opportunity to save the Federal Government millions of dollars in cleanup costs. We know that the State has chosen an active earthquake zone for the dump. Once the leakage occurs, each of you will know that you could have avoided it. When the large cleanup bills roll in, each of you will know that you could have saved the Federal Government millions of dollars.

Should you ratify this compact today, I hope you will pledge to adequately fund the superfund, the EPA and the necessary cleanup costs associated with doing what will one day be necessary.

Do not think that all Texans are in agreement on this compact. Unlike the citizens of Maine, the people of Texas were never provided the opportunity to vote on whether or not they approve of a compact. The very people who have endangered their lives by accepting the wastes of other States, the people of Texas, had no say in the decision. If it was good enough for the people of Maine, it should have been good enough for the people of Texas. The people of Texas are speaking out against the compact and the dump site. A statewide survey conducted in September 1994 showed that 82 percent of Texans don't want to accept out-of-State nuclear wastes. Yet they never got a vote. Each week another city council of county commission passes a resolution objecting to the disposal site. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to insert these resolutions into the Record.

My second objection to this compact is that it does not protect Texas by limiting the volume of waste it must accept from party States and contracting States. Under this agreement, Texas accepts responsibility for both management and disposal as described in article I, section 1.01. Management is defined as collection, consolidation, storage, packaging, or treatment. Treatment is not defined in the agreement. However, it is generally accepted as including incineration. Incineration reduces the volume of the waste, but not the level of radioactivity. Thus, less volume of waste will be disposed of at the site, but at a greater level of radioactivity.

It is also unclear if waste imported from other States, but incinerated in Texas, is counted under the Texas portion or the non host allotment. Article iii, section 3.04(11) says: ``the shipments of low-level radioactive waste from all non host party states shall not exceed 20 percent of the volume estimated to be disposed of by the host state during the 50-year period.'' Shipment volumes are tied exclusively to disposal estimates. The compact is silent on how much volume can be shipped for management. A substantially larger amount of waste can be shipped in and incinerated than the disposal estimates allow. Incineration of waste will allow more States to contract to dispose of their waste in Texas.

Unfortunately, the State legislature has failed to recognize the tenuous dilemma these technical flaws have placed upon us. Once the Texas site is open there will be incredible outside pressure not to change the contract clause and so it probably will not happen. Why do these obvious disparities exist? Because, money--not the best science--

is driving the compact process. Texas chose to be the host site for other States so that it could earn additional revenue. Texas could have entered into a reciprocal compact like Connecticut and New Jersey whereby each State agrees to manage and dispose of its own waste, but remains protected under the 1985 Low Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Policy Act amendments. It could have entered into a compact with a State more regional in nature. Instead, Texas chose to enter into a compact with the prosperous States of Vermont and Maine. Each of these States have aging nuclear plants which will eventually be buried lock, stock, and barrel in Texas.

A third objection relates to respecting our binational agreements. Texas has selected Sierra Blanca, the county seat of Hudspeth County, as the waste site. The town of Sierra Blanca is 20 miles from the Rio Grande River which is the international boundary between the United States and Mexico. Selection of this site is in clear violation of the 1983 agreement for cooperation on the environment between the United States and Mexico, commonly referred to as the La Paz agreement.

Under article 2 of the La Paz agreement the United States and Mexican Government are directed

To the fullest extent practical . . . Adopt the appropriate measures to prevent, reduce, and eliminate sources of pollution in their respective territory which affect the border area of the other.

Article 7 of the agreement states that the two governments shall assess, as appropriate,

Projects that may have significant impacts on the border area, so that appropriate measure may be considered to avoid or mitigate adverse environmental effects.

The border region is defined as properties within 100 kilometers on either side of the Rio Grande. I do not agree, as the State contends, that they must merely inform the Government of Mexico of their actions. That is not an appropriate means by which to conduct our relations with other countries, and neither do they believe it is.

I request that a communication from the Government of Mexico to the State Department outlining its objection be inserted into the Record immediately following my statement. As evident by this communication and the recent demonstrations on the Mexican side of the border against the dump site, the citizens and Government of Mexico are concerned about the threat to their environment from this disposal site. While Congress claims it may have no authority over the site selection process, we are responsible for guaranteeing that our binational agreements are respected by our own citizens, as well as by our State governments.

A final issue concerns waste sites in minority communities. Under this compact the site county will receive a total of $5 million from Vermont and Maine. Hudspeth County is 64 percent Latino, 2,915 people live there and the per capita income is only $13,029. It is a rural community whose residents are generally poor and do not have the means to hire high-priced lobbyists or the population to influence state policy. It is an area not unlike the many other poor, minority communities across the country which have been forced to cohabitate with other's radioactive waste. Five million dollars is a lot of money to anyone, but especially to these poor citizens. I would like to point out action by our President which speaks to the issue of poor, minority communities such as Sierra Blanca who are targeted under agreements sanctioned by this compact. On February 11, 1994, President Clinton signed the Executive order on Federal actions to address environmental justice in minority populations and low-income populations. This executive order was in response to the overwhelming evidence that minorities and low-income populations are disproportionately burdened with environmental hazards. Hudspeth County is a prime example of this. The President directed all Federal agencies to ensure that the practice not continue. It is left to Congress to address its responsibility in the same spirit of this act.

While Congress can not watch over each action by the States, we do have certain responsibilities. We have a responsibility to taxpayers not to rubber stamp an agreement which is going to cost them millions of dollars down the road. We have a responsibility to be leaders not followers in matters of civil rights. We have a responsibility to protect those without the means to protect themselves. We have a responsibility to abide by our bi-national agreements. We can fulfill our responsibility by disallowing this compact until a more suitable site is found.

Mr. Speaker, I insert the following material for the Record.

Unofficial Translation

The Embassy of Mexico presents its compliments to the State Department and has the honor of referring to the plans for the residual waste deposit sites that are supposed to be built near the U.S.-Mexican border: in Texas, Low Level in Sierra Blanca in Hudspeth County, Dryden in Terell County, and Spofford in Kinney County; in New Mexico, the Waste Isolation Pilot Plan in Eddy County; in California, La Posta and Campo in San Diego and Ward Valley in San Bernadino County.

As the State Department is aware, the plans for these hazardous waste deposit sites in the border zone, for which the Mexican Chancellory has appropriately given warning, have provoked strong reactions from the border communities, environmental organizations and both Mexican and United States Congressmen.

The Embassy would like to reiterate that the technical considerations shown by the Mexican Government, by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency itself and by various non-governmental organizations of both countries, demonstrate that the plans and precautions of the companies promoting the above mentioned waste deposit projects cannot avoid the risk factor of transboundary pollution. In a context of greater environmental awareness and cooperation in the international community, neither one of our governments can ignore these types of concerns.

In accordance with the principles of cooperation and good-neighbors, the Embassy wishes to reiterate to the State Department the duty of all countries to prevent, inform and negotiate any action in their territory that could cause harm to a third state. In addition, we would like to remind you that during the High Level Meeting on Proposals for Radioactive and Hazardous Waste Deposits in the Border Zone, held on April 22, 1992, in Washington, the State Department committed itself to ``be the means through which the corresponding authorities of the United States would be made aware of any information or concern of the Mexican Government in this regard.''

As such, Mexico hopes that the United States takes all the preventive measures at its disposal to avoid the possibility of any risk of transboundary damage, or that the U.S. might cause said damage, in compliance with what was agreed upon by both governments in Article 2 of the La Paz Convention in the following terms: ``The Parties commit themselves as far as it is possible, to adopt the appropriate measures to prevent, reduce and eliminate sources of pollution in their respective territories that affect the border zone of the other.'' Based on the cited article, the hazardous waste deposit sites represents important sources of transboundary pollution.

At the same time, the second part of the article indicates that ``the Parties will cooperate in the resolution of environmental problems in the border zone for the common good, in accordance with the provisions of this Convention.'' As such, the fact that the United States Government sets a limit on its responsibility in regard to the actions taking place in its territory, whether by federal, state, local authorities or even individuals, demonstrates an unwillingness to cooperate in finding a solution to environmental problems, to which it agreed in the Convention of La Paz.

As it has already been expressed by the Mexican Government, to contemplate building such a large number of waste deposits near the international boundary or near international rivers implies that the border location was selected, and this is an outrage against the legitimate right of the people in the regional communities not to have their natural birthright and health affected.

In view of the above, and the fact that the United States has allowed local or state courts to approve such waste deposit projects without taking into account the agreements between our two countries, the Government of Mexico wishes to reiterate its particular concern because the United States Federal Government still has not taken an active role in this regard and it still has not responded to diplomatic note 1214 of October 29, 1993, in regard to the waste deposit site at Ward Valley.

In this context, the Embassy of Mexico would like to propose to the State Department that a High Level Meeting be held as soon as possible, that will allow our Governments to exchange viewpoints on the plans for the hazardous waste deposits in the border area.

The Embassy avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the State Department the assurances of its highest and most distinguished consideration.

____

Resolution

Whereas, the State of Texas has proposed Sierra Blanca, Hudspeth County for the site of a low-level radioactive waste dump which would receive wastes from Texas, Maine, Vermont, and possible other states and whereas the wastes would be toxic for thousands of years; and

Whereas, the proposed siting appears to be a result of environmental racism and may be geological unsound as it is in an active earthquake zone and only 16 miles from the Rio Grande, potentially endangering Mexican and U.S. residents who live nearby and downstream; and

Whereas, Sierra Blanca is an impoverished Mexican American community and studies have shown that toxic waste dumps are often sited in poor communities of color; and

Whereas, five of the six existing low-level nuclear waste dumps have reportedly leaked radiation into the surrounding environment; and

Whereas, the City of Austin is the partial owner of the South Texas Nuclear Project from which waste along with waste from Commanche Peak, and other nuclear power plants may comprise the majority of the proposed dump's contents by radioactivity; and

Whereas, the City of Austin desires to ensure the safe management of wastes it and its business ventures produce and to ensure that these wastes are not dumped on those with the least financial and physical resources to protect their communities from hazardous and radioactive waste dumping; and

Whereas, safer alternatives exist for the storage of nuclear waste such as above-ground, monitored, retrievable storage; now, therefore,

Be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Austin: That the Austin City Council opposes a nuclear waste dump in Sierra Blanca, Hudspeth County, Texas.

____

Resolution Opposing the Nuclear Waste Dump in Hudspeth County

* * * Sierra Blanca, Hudspeth County, for the site of low-level nuclear waste dump which would receive wastes from Texas, Maine, and Vermont and whereas the wastes will be toxic for thousands of years; and

Whereas, a radioactive release from the project could threaten the residents of West Texas; and

Whereas, West Texas highways would be used for the transportation of radioactive waste to Sierra Blanca, thus putting many residents along these routes at risk from a transportation accident; and

Whereas, precious underground water supplies for the region could be contaminated by this facility; and

Whereas, the proposed site is only 16 miles from the Rio Grande, thus endangering Mexican and U.S. residents who live downstream; and

Whereas, Sierra Blanca is a poor, 70% Hispanic community and studies have shown that toxic waste dumps are often sighted in poor minority communities; and

Whereas, four of the six existing low-level nuclear waste dumps have leaked radiation into the surrounding environment; and

Whereas, safer alternatives exist for the storage of nuclear waste such as above ground monitored retrievable storage.

Now therefore be it resolved, that the City of Brackettville, City Council oppose a nuclear waste dump in Sierra Blanca, Hudspeth County, Texas.

____

Resolution

Whereas, the state of Texas has chosen Sierra Blanca, Hudspeth County, for the site of a low-level nuclear waste dump which would receive wastes from Texas, Maine, and Vermont and whereas the wastes will be toxic for thousands of years; and,

Whereas, the site of the nuclear dump is only 37 miles from El Paso County; and,

Whereas, a radioactive release from the project could threaten the residents of El Paso; and,

Whereas, precious underground water supplies for the region could be contaminated by this facility; and,

Whereas, the proposed site is only 16 miles from the Rio Grande, thus endangering Mexican and U.S. residents who live downstream; and,

Whereas, the growth pattern of El Paso is in the direction of Hudspeth County and whereas a nuclear waste dump will lead to devaluation of surrounding land resulting in a loss of tax revenue; and,

Whereas, Sierra Blanca is a poor, 70% Hispanic community and studies have shown that toxic waste dumps are often sighted in poor minority communities; and,

Whereas, five of the six existing low-level nuclear waste dumps have leaked radiation into the surrounding environment; and,

Whereas, safer alternatives exist for the storage of nuclear waste such as above ground monitored retrievable storage.

Now therefore, be it resolved, that the El Paso County Judge and County Commissioners oppose a nuclear waste dump in Sierra Blanca, Hudspeth County, Texas.

____

City of Marfa: Resolution 95-11

Whereas, the state of Texas, by action of the previous Governor of the State, did mandate the establishment of a nuclear waste dump site in an area of Far West Texas for the sole purpose of storing nuclear waste from the state of Texas, with pending permits for nuclear waste dumps and storage from the state of Maine and Vermont, and,

Whereas, no citizen or body of citizens in any jurisdiction of Far West Texas has ever had the opportunity to vote for or against the establishing of such waste site by the legal voting process which is the right of all citizens; and, which violates their sovereign rights as citizens of this State and the United States, and,

Whereas, these toxic wastes could affect the health and welfare of the present generation and all future generations; and the radioactive release from this project, and others of a like kind, could also affect all of the citizens of this area; and,

Whereas, there are no restrictions or requirements as to marking, labeling or illuminating for transportation of such waste either by highway or by rail to the Far West Texas site; and there are not speed limits nor are there restrictions as to convoy type movement of these wastes in place in any jurisdiction which is without regard for safety of its citizens as it passes through urban and rural areas to the dump site, and,

Whereas, the extremely limited water resources and underground water supply known to exist throughout this semi-arid represents the most precious commodity known to man and could be endangered by radioactive leakage, spillage or negligence in the total process of handling these potential dangerous materials and; therefore, must be protected at all costs and above all other considerations, and,

Whereas, without regard to any minorities, race, ethnic background, economic, status, population or any other group of concerned people since this is a universal concern involving the sovereign rights of all citizens which is to be protected by their government from radioactive nuclear waste of a toxic nature, and,

Whereas, our government's agencies must provide protection from all dangers involved in storage and disposal of such materials be it underground or above ground.

Now, Therefore be it resolved by the City Commission of the City of Marfa in Presidio County, Texas hereby opposes:

All nuclear waste dumps and dump sites within any area of far west Texas.

____

Resolution: A Resolution of the Commissioner's Court of Jeff Davis County, Texas Opposing the Proposed Nuclear Waste Dump To Be Located in

Sierra Blanca, Hudspeth County, Texas

Whereas, the State of Texas has chosen Sierra Blanca, Hudspeth County, for the site of a low-level nuclear waste dump which would receive wastes from Texas, Maine, and Vermont; and

Whereas, the wastes will be toxic for thousands of years; and

Whereas, a radioactive release from the project could threaten the residents of West Texas; and

Whereas, West Texas highways could be used for the transportation of radioactive waste to Sierra Blanca, thus putting many residents along these routes at risk from a transportation accident; and

Whereas, precious underground water supplies for the region could be contaminated by this facility; and

Whereas, the proposed site is only 16 miles from the Rio Grande, thus endangering Mexican and U.S. residents who live downstream; and

Whereas, Sierra Blanca is a poor, 70-percent Hispanic community and studies have shown that toxic waste dumps are often sited in poor minority communities; and

Whereas, four of the six existing low-level nuclear waste dumps have leaked radiation into the surrounding environment; and

Whereas, safer alternatives exist for the storage of nuclear waste such as above ground monitored retrievable storage.

Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Commissioner's Court of the County of Jeff Davis, Texas that: It hereby opposes a nuclear waste dump in Sierra Blanca, Hudspeth County, Texas.

____

Resolution--No. R: 95-67; A Resolution of the Commissioners Court of Presidio County Opposing the Proposed Nuclear Waste Dump To Be Located in Sierra Blanca, Hudspeth County, Texas

Whereas, the State of Texas has chosen Sierra Blanca, Hudspeth County, for the site of a low-level nuclear waste dump which would receive wastes from Texas, Maine and Vermont; and