1

           1

           2

           3

           4

           5

           6

           7

           8

           9

          10
                 DRAFT SITE-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR
          11   CONTINUED OPERATION OF LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY,
                                LOS ALAMOS NEW MEXICO
          12
                                   Public Hearing
          13                       August 8, 2006
                                      6:30 p.m.
          14                        Fuller Lodge
                                 2132 Central Avenue
          15                Los Alamos, New Mexico  87544

          16

          17

          18

          19

          20

          21

          22   REPORTED BY:  Jan A. Williams, RPR, CCR 14
                             Bean & Associates, Inc.
          23                 Professional Court Reporting Service
                             500 Marquette, Northwest, Suite 280
          24                 Albuquerque, New Mexico  87102

          25   (1561A)  JAW


                                                                     2

           1                    P R O C E E D I N G S

           2            (Comments given to court reporter.)

           3            MR. BRUCE:  My name is William Bruce.  And I

           4   came over here tonight to just to express my concern

           5   for the continuation of the building of nuclear

           6   weapons and supporting those efforts and that

           7   continues to threaten the whole planet and my children

           8   and my children's children and so on.

           9            I recently saw a movie called Why We Fight.

          10   And it highlighted what Dwight D. Eisenhower said way

          11   back in 1959 or '60.  He said "Beware of the military

          12   industrial complex.  It will take over this country,

          13   it will rob you of your liberties, it is something

          14   that has to be resisted at every level, especially the

          15   citizens have to keep an eye on Congress, on their

          16   government officials, otherwise this thing could get

          17   out of hand."

          18            And obviously it has gotten out of hand.  And

          19   that's why I'm here.  I want to dismantle this

          20   military industrial complex, I want to be a force in

          21   that direction.  And any continuation of the nuclear

          22   arms facilities here in Los Alamos I think should be

          23   converted to all the necessary technologies that this

          24   planet really needs.

          25            For instance, fighting global warming.


                                                                     3

           1   Obviously, you know, new energy technologies that

           2   won't threaten the planet, you know, that will reduce

           3   the greenhouse gas effect and the global warming

           4   effect and pull us out of this downward spiral that

           5   threatens everyone on the planet, you know.

           6            And we here in the West and especially the

           7   United States are for sure the most responsible since

           8   we're using most of the energy.  That's what I'd like

           9   to see, Los Alamos, the labs, used for, all those

          10   beautiful minds, those great minds put to the

          11   preservation of life on this planet and not threaten

          12   it.  That's pretty much it.

          13            (The hearing commences.)

          14            MS. WITHERS:  If you want to stand, please

          15   find yourself a place along the wall to stand so that

          16   you don't block the emergency exits, though, the fire

          17   marshall is a bit picky about that.  We do have

          18   emergency exits on the east side of the room, on the

          19   west side of the building, and there's an emergency

          20   exit all the way at the end of the building as well.

          21            The first order of tonight's business is

          22   going to be to determine the need for any

          23   English-Spanish interpretation needed.  We do have an

          24   interpreter here tonight with us, Mr. Jose Palomino.

          25   And I'm going to ask him to go ahead and determine the


                                                                     4

           1   need for his services.

           2            MR. PALOMINO:  (Speaking in Spanish).

           3            MS. WITHERS:  My name is Elizabeth Withers

           4   and I work for the Department of Energy.  I'm the

           5   National Nuclear Security Administration document

           6   manager for the preparation of the draft site-wide

           7   environmental impact statement for continued operation

           8   of Los Alamos National Laboratories, Los Alamos, New

           9   Mexico.

          10            This document is the subject of tonight's

          11   hearing.  Before we proceed any further with the

          12   hearing, I first want to introduce Mr. Ed Wilmot.  Ed

          13   is the manager of the Los Alamos Site Office for the

          14   National Nuclear Security Administration here in Los

          15   Alamos.  Ed.

          16            MR. WILMOT:  Thank you, Elizabeth.  I have a

          17   short message for this evening because we want to make

          18   sure to dedicate the time to your comments.  But I did

          19   want to thank you, thank you all for coming out

          20   tonight.  It's time away from your families and we do

          21   appreciate that.

          22            This is a NEPA process, one that we value.

          23   And we are anticipating good comments from you.  This

          24   is a draft document that is in progress.  And we're

          25   hoping to use your comments to make the final document


                                                                     5

           1   as accurate and as reflective of the concerns of the

           2   community and to get the right information to

           3   Ambassador Brooks who is the director of the National

           4   Nuclear Security Administration so that he can make

           5   good decisions based on this document.

           6            So really my message is I want to thank you,

           7   thank you very much for your time and effort this

           8   evening already in advance, and we'll turn it back to

           9   Elizabeth.  Thank you.

          10            MS. WITHERS:  I would like to take just a few

          11   moments to very, very briefly to describe the

          12   site-wide environmental impact statement and also our

          13   compliance process with the National Environmental

          14   Policy Act before I turn the floor over to our

          15   moderator for tonight's meeting.

          16            The act effectively became law in 1970.  And

          17   the act implementing regulations for the act require

          18   government agencies to hold public comment and review

          19   periods for the environmental impact statement and

          20   also to hold a hearing for the draft document.

          21            So the purpose of tonight's meeting is to

          22   provide you, the stakeholder for Los Alamos National

          23   Laboratory, with the opportunity to learn more about

          24   the ongoing operations of the facility, about the

          25   proposed projects for the facility over the next


                                                                     6

           1   five-year horizon, and also to provide you with an

           2   additional venue or forum for making comments on the

           3   draft environmental impact statement.

           4            The draft site-wide EIS that we have here

           5   today is the third in a line of site-wide

           6   environmental impact statements prepared for the

           7   operation of Los Alamos National Laboratory.  The

           8   first site-wide environmental impact statement was

           9   issued in 1979.  The second one was issued more

          10   recently in 1999.  And we hope to have this third

          11   site-wide environmental impact statement issued as a

          12   final document in early to mid 2007.

          13            This site-wide environmental impact statement

          14   like its 1999 predecessor considers three alternatives

          15   for meeting the Department of Energy National Nuclear

          16   Security Administration's need to continue operating

          17   Los Alamos National Laboratory in furtherance of its

          18   congressionally assigned missions.  These three

          19   alternatives are no action alternative, the reduced

          20   operations alternative, and the expanded operations

          21   alternative.

          22            We have handouts out front on that front

          23   table as you came in the door that give you a summary

          24   of the different impacts of cost analyses and also

          25   gives the impacts by national and cultural resource


                                                                     7

           1   area of resources that we have in the Los Alamos

           2   Laboratory.

           3            These summary tables also include information

           4   by proposed project.  So you have both the information

           5   by project and also you have the total role of

           6   alternatives.  Please go ahead and help yourself to

           7   those copies.  These summary tables are directly out

           8   of the environmental impact statement.  They also

           9   appear in our summary of the draft document as well.

          10   So, if you've already got the document, then you have

          11   those summary tables.

          12            In a nutshell the impacts associated are

          13   projected for the reduced operations alternative are,

          14   as you would imagine, reduced operations alternative

          15   from those compared to the no action alternative.

          16            Primarily the impact reduction for that

          17   alternative is in the area of air emissions.  Under

          18   that alternative we are proposing to eliminate

          19   operations at the Los Alamos Neutron Science Center or

          20   LANSCE facility that's located at the Technical Area

          21   53.

          22            Additionally we're also proposing to reduce

          23   by about 20 percent the high explosive testing that

          24   currently takes place outdoors.  So those two actions

          25   would be responsible for an overall reduction in air


                                                                     8

           1   emissions.

           2            The Los Alamos Neutron Science Center was

           3   identified in the 1999 site-wide environmental impact

           4   statement as being the facility that is responsible

           5   for most of the radioactive air emissions at the

           6   laboratory.

           7            There would also be a correspondingly

           8   potential reduction in overall human health impacts

           9   under the reduced operations alternative again

          10   primarily in the closure of that Los Alamos Neutron

          11   Science Center closure.  And there would also be a

          12   reduction in electric and natural gas and potable

          13   water use as well.

          14            Implementing the expanded operations

          15   alternative as you imagine would also result in a

          16   greater level of impact over the no action

          17   alternative.  Primarily this area of elevated impacts

          18   would be in the area of waste production.

          19            There are several different proposals under

          20   the expanded operations alternative that would result

          21   in a greater level of waste reduction.  We are

          22   proposing a number of different projects for building

          23   new buildings to replace old buildings and excess

          24   buildings that would generate a great deal of waste.

          25   Also we are proposing to clean up the site.


                                                                     9

           1            We have entered into a consent agreement with

           2   the State of New Mexico for the cleanup of Los Alamos

           3   National Laboratory.  Under the provisions of that

           4   consent order, the State of New Mexico is a

           5   decision-maker as to how most of the areas at the site

           6   would be remediated.

           7            In order to know the impacts of that

           8   analysis -- or, I'm sorry, that consent order, we

           9   basically did a bounding analysis.  We considered two

          10   different options for remediation.  On the one end of

          11   the spectrum, we considered the option of complete

          12   removal of all buried waste, putting that waste into

          13   containers, and then putting the waste onto trucks and

          14   either shipping the waste on-site or off-site for

          15   alternate disposition.

          16            On the other end of the spectrum, we

          17   considered an option that would consider capping all

          18   of the waste and leaving it in place and instituting

          19   long-term monitoring at the facility.

          20            Now, we anticipate that this kind of bounding

          21   and impact analysis actually will overestimate the

          22   level of impacts that will result when the site

          23   actually gets cleaned up.  But it will allow you, the

          24   stakeholders, to understand the type of impacts that

          25   would result in site cleanup and also the types of


                                                                    10

           1   issues that are associated with such a cleanup.

           2            Under this alternative additionally we are

           3   proposing to increase the number of nuclear weapon

           4   pits or triggers as they're also called that would be

           5   produced at Los Alamos National Laboratory.  Currently

           6   we are able to manufacture about up to 20 pits per

           7   year.  We are proposing to manufacture up to a total

           8   of 80 pits per year at Los Alamos National Laboratory.

           9            This pit production would increase the amount

          10   of overall waste produced at the facility.  We would

          11   also under this alternative expect a correspondingly

          12   increase in transportation impacts primarily related

          13   again to the site cleanup activities.

          14            Material and equipment would have to be

          15   brought onto the laboratory.  Also, if we had to

          16   evacuate the waste from the ground, we would be then

          17   creating waste that would be shipped off-site.  We

          18   would have to bring in large quantities of film

          19   material to fill up the giant holes that would be

          20   left.  So there would be a great amount of impact

          21   increase to the transportation picture for Los Alamos

          22   County.

          23            We would also expect to have a slight

          24   increase in human health effects primarily associated

          25   with the workers again primarily from the workers who


                                                                    11

           1   would be doing the cleanup and also the workers who

           2   would be doing the pit manufacturing.

           3            We also would expect to use more electricity,

           4   natural gas, and potable water this time primarily

           5   associated with the proposal for increased computation

           6   at the super computer facility, the Metropolis center

           7   for computations.

           8            The draft site-wide environmental impact

           9   statement review comment period has been expanded to

          10   75 days in total.  It will end on September 20.  Our

          11   original announcements identified this comment period

          12   as ending on September 5 and that is no longer

          13   correct.

          14            We will be making announcements in the

          15   Federal Register and send out postcards and other

          16   general media announcements in the next few days to

          17   come.  That decision was only made today.

          18            During this period for comment and review, we

          19   will be holding three hearings.  This is the first

          20   hearing for the site-wide environmental impact

          21   statement.  We'll also hold an identical hearing

          22   tomorrow night in Espanola and one on Thursday night

          23   in Santa Fe.

          24            We encourage people to make oral comments at

          25   these hearings.  These comments are going to be


                                                                    12

           1   recorded verbatim by our court reporter for our

           2   record.  If you would like to submit written comments,

           3   we also have some comment forms available for you up

           4   at the front desk if you wish to use them.

           5            You may also write me letters, you may email

           6   me, you may fax me.  If you think of a comment that

           7   you would like to give later orally, we do have a

           8   1-800 toll free number set up and you can call that

           9   number and leave a comment.  Those comments will also

          10   be recorded verbatim and entered into the record.

          11            This document that we have as Ed mentioned is

          12   a draft document.  As such we know it's imperfect.  We

          13   need your help to help us make this document the best

          14   possible impact analysis so that we can ultimately try

          15   to focus the impact analysis for the decision-maker so

          16   that he can make the best possible decision.

          17            That is the heart of the NEPA process.  It is

          18   better decisions, not better paperwork, but one

          19   follows with the other one quite often.  So we do need

          20   your help, we do hope that you will comment on the

          21   document and help us with the impact analysis.

          22            We may have forgotten to include certain

          23   aspects of the environment that you as residents of

          24   the area know better than we do.  We would appreciate

          25   you giving us the information that we have missed for


                                                                    13

           1   this draft document.  There may be typos in the

           2   document, there may be incomplete data.  Please help

           3   us fill in those data gaps, if possible.

           4            All of the comments whether provided orally

           5   or in writing will be included in the final

           6   environmental impact statement.  So, if you want to

           7   know exactly how we use your comments, you'll need to

           8   get a draft -- or excuse me, a copy of the final

           9   environmental impact statement.

          10            We will be reproducing all of the comments in

          11   total and we will provide information as to exactly

          12   where in the document we included additional

          13   information, how we changed information based on your

          14   comments; if you ask questions in your comment letters

          15   we'll try to answer the questions, and so forth.

          16            The document will be probably a separate

          17   volume for the final environmental impact statement so

          18   we'll include all of the comments in one appendix of

          19   the final environmental impact statement.

          20            The final site-wide environmental impact

          21   statement that is issued by NNSA -- or excuse me, the

          22   National Nuclear Security Administration -- I told

          23   myself I wasn't going to use any acronyms and there I

          24   go, I apologize -- will be used to make final

          25   decisions.


                                                                    14

           1            The administrator as Ed mentioned, Linton

           2   Brooks, will be the final decision-maker.  And he will

           3   decide on what level of operation we should be

           4   operating Los Alamos National Laboratory at and he

           5   will also be able to decide on each individual

           6   proposed action.

           7            The administrator does not have to choose all

           8   of the proposed actions under a particular

           9   alternative.  We expect at the very least that the

          10   administrator will issue several RODs or records of

          11   decision for the draft -- or excuse me, for the final

          12   document.

          13            And we expect in that first record of

          14   decision that at a minimum we will include the

          15   decision to go ahead and implement all of the

          16   activities that we are proposing in order to meet our

          17   consent order requirements.  We do have a real

          18   commitment to clean up Los Alamos National Laboratory.

          19   And we do expect that decision in the first record of

          20   decision.

          21            I'm trying to emphasize this on purpose

          22   because I don't want people to go away thinking that,

          23   just because the cleanup is listed under one of the

          24   alternatives, that should be the administrator decide

          25   to pick one of the other alternatives, that we won't


                                                                    15

           1   include site cleanup.

           2            This is sort of like when you go to vote, and

           3   hopefully everybody in here knows what I'm talking

           4   about because you all go to vote every chance you get.

           5   When you go into the poll, you have the choice of

           6   voting a straight party ticket or you can split your

           7   ticket and you can vote across the different party

           8   lines and choose the candidate of your choice.  So

           9   that's the same type of activity that the

          10   administrator can employ in making his decisions.

          11            I hope that everybody is taking the

          12   opportunity to go into the side room and the front

          13   room and look at the various different posters.  We do

          14   have subject matter experts available here tonight to

          15   answer questions.  You may recognize the folks by

          16   their badge, their name tag.

          17            These folks basically are going to be

          18   responsible for answering your questions.  We are not

          19   going to have a panel of experts and a formal question

          20   and answer period.  We do have a number of folks who

          21   have signed up to give their oral comments tonight.

          22   So we want to allow those folks to have as much time

          23   as they need to make their comments.

          24            Now, to our moderator for the evening.  Her

          25   name is Robin Brandin.  And I just want to again


                                                                    16

           1   repeat Ed's thank you for coming tonight.  I also want

           2   to encourage you to get with the subject matter

           3   experts with your questions.  If you ask a question in

           4   the comments itself, it won't get answered until we

           5   issue the final environmental impact statement.

           6            If you think of a question later that you

           7   would like to ask, you can email me and I will get you

           8   connected with a subject matter expert or you can

           9   leave a message at the toll free number and we'll get

          10   back with you.

          11            And one last thing.  I would like to ask you

          12   to please be considerate of the folks who come before

          13   you to give their oral comments.  It takes a lot of

          14   guts for some people to stand up and make

          15   presentations in front of a large group of strangers.

          16   So I hope that you'll be considerate of these folks.

          17   Thank you.  Robin.

          18            MS. BRANDIN:  I know it may sound strange to

          19   be using a microphone in such a small room, but my

          20   voice doesn't carry very well.  And so I encourage you

          21   all to use the microphone so we can make sure that

          22   everybody hears your comments including the court

          23   reporter.

          24            As Ms. Withers said, we've come to that part

          25   of the meeting.  On the site-wide my role as a


                                                                    17

           1   facilitator in this process is to ensure that

           2   everybody who wants to comment has a fair opportunity

           3   and a full opportunity to comment and also to make

           4   sure that we get a complete and accurate record of

           5   your comments.

           6            And in this regard my partner here, Jan

           7   Williams, who is our court reporter will be taking a

           8   verbatim record of your comments.  So, if you come up

           9   and she can't hear you or can't understand you, she

          10   will wave her hand and I'll interrupt you to ensure

          11   that we can get that.

          12            Before I talk about how we're going to

          13   proceed, I'm going to ask Mr. Palomino, I know he said

          14   something earlier and nobody spoke up.  But I'm going

          15   to ask him to ask whether anybody would like to have

          16   my instructions translated into Spanish.

          17            MR. PALOMINO:  (Speaking in Spanish).

          18            MS. BRANDIN:  Here is how we will proceed.  I

          19   have cards for those of you who indicated when you

          20   signed in that you would like to speak.  I will extend

          21   the courtesy to elected officials.  I don't have

          22   anybody who is identified him or herself as an elected

          23   official.  Is there anybody here?  Okay.

          24            Then we'll go on to call on people in the

          25   order that you registered.  When you registered, a


                                                                    18

           1   number was given you and that's the order that I will

           2   call people.  If you did not check when you came in

           3   that you wanted to speak but have decided that you

           4   would like to comment, please go to the registration

           5   table so that we can add your card to the list.

           6            If after everybody has been called on and

           7   spoken here there is some extra time, we will give

           8   opportunity to anybody who has not spoken and did not

           9   register to speak; and perhaps, if we still have time,

          10   for people who would like to speak some more.  Don't

          11   count on it, though, we have quite a number of

          12   speakers.

          13            I currently have 17 people who have

          14   registered to speak.  And so, in order to make sure

          15   that everybody has an opportunity, I'm going to ask

          16   you to please limit your comments to five minutes

          17   each.  We have Ms. Farrell Hale over there who will be

          18   keeping the time.  And she has two cards, a yellow

          19   card, hold up the yellow card, which she will wave if

          20   you are 30 seconds from the end of your time allotment

          21   and a blue card if your time is up.

          22            And at that point, if you're still talking,

          23   I'll probably interrupt you and ask you to finish up.

          24   Again, if we have time at the end, you may have

          25   another opportunity.  But there are two other hearings


                                                                    19

           1   as Ms. Withers said.  And, as that poster indicates,

           2   there are a lot of other ways that you can make your

           3   comments if you feel that five minutes isn't enough.

           4            I have to write everything down because my

           5   mind is like a steel sieve.  So I want to make sure

           6   that I get everything in here.

           7            When I call your name, please step up to this

           8   microphone and that way, if you face the audience,

           9   it's facing me so it won't be a problem, you'll be

          10   able to see Ms. Hale over there with her card.

          11            As I said before, if Ms. Williams has trouble

          12   hearing you or understanding you, she'll interrupt and

          13   try to make sure that she can hear you.

          14            As Ms. Withers said, all comments today will

          15   be part of the record and they will be published in

          16   the final site-wide EIS.  So in that regard, if you

          17   have personal information that you would not like to

          18   see published in the final EIS, please don't include

          19   it in your comments.

          20            If you brought a written copy of your

          21   comments, please hand it to Ms. Williams, the court

          22   reporter.  That will help her make sure she's got an

          23   accurate recording of what you said.  And I gather

          24   there is nobody here who would like to speak in

          25   Spanish.  If you would, please let me know when I call


                                                                    20

           1   your name.

           2            As Ms. Withers said, the purpose of this part

           3   of the hearing is to get your comments.  So I hope

           4   that, if you have questions, you had an opportunity to

           5   ask them of the subject matter experts at the posters

           6   before this.  If you didn't, if we have time, they

           7   will be there after the comment period and you can ask

           8   questions.  You may ask questions as part of your

           9   comments, but be aware that we probably won't answer

          10   them.  You may see the answer in the final site-wide

          11   EIS.

          12            And I think that's it.  The other thing I

          13   want to mention is that, if you do have comments, as

          14   Ms. Withers says, you can contact her in many ways.

          15   And she will try to get an answer to you or get you in

          16   touch with the right subject matter expert.

          17            So does anybody have any questions about how

          18   we're going to proceed here?  Yes, sir.

          19            SPEAKER:  I just have a procedural question.

          20   When one testifies orally without a written statement,

          21   there is often I have discovered a lot of blanks where

          22   what was said was unintelligible.  Will there be some

          23   opportunity to -- before this gets printed up in the

          24   final EIS to at least clean up blank spaces so that,

          25   when the public reads this, the essence of what was


                                                                    21

           1   said will come across?

           2            MS. WITHERS:  Thank you for mentioning that.

           3   Actually we will go ahead, once we get the court

           4   reporter's record, we will post that information up on

           5   the LASO Internet web site.  And, if you would please

           6   contact me with any corrections, we'll make sure that

           7   those get made to the final record.  Thank you.  Other

           8   questions?  Okay.

           9            Then I'll call on our first speaker which

          10   is Eric Kuerschner.

          11            ERICH KUERSCHNER:  Let's see here.  Okay.

          12   First of all I want to thank everybody for coming and

          13   everybody that worked on the EIS and will continue to

          14   work on that.  I mean it sounds like there's a lot of

          15   good information in there.

          16            And hopefully we'll do this in an honest,

          17   open way and really get the science involved.  And at

          18   least through the EIS, past EIS I can't say, but

          19   hopefully the EIS statement will reflect good science

          20   and result in the best possible decision.

          21            Basically normally I do have written

          22   statements.  But the problem is I was out of the

          23   country for three and a half weeks and returned to

          24   Denver on July 7, spent the night, and didn't get back

          25   into Taos until July 8.


                                                                    22

           1            It wasn't until 1:30 this afternoon that I

           2   saw my first hard copy of the EIS at the Outreach

           3   program.  And I understand that they received their

           4   copy just today.  There were copies in town at the DOE

           5   but not at the site that was listed.

           6            As far as Taos is concerned, I have a letter

           7   with me from the librarian that EIS in Taos, contrary

           8   to what was published in the paper, it will not be

           9   available until this evening.

          10            Espanola, as far as I'm able to ascertain,

          11   they're closed for re-inventory, removing books.  And

          12   the librarian there doesn't even believe they received

          13   a copy.  Now, these were hand-delivered to the various

          14   libraries.

          15            The point I'm trying to make is that this is

          16   a huge, huge decision.  And, from the looks of the

          17   document, perhaps it's all in there, perhaps it's all

          18   real great.  But, in the two hours that I spent with

          19   that document, I was -- I'm a little nervous.

          20            And, just as a background, my father retired

          21   from the Air Force in 1978.  And he worked on national

          22   intelligence estimates.  So I have some idea of what

          23   that's about.  I originally started with -- was

          24   accepted at Cal Tech at nuclear physics but after my

          25   sophomore year switched to economics.


                                                                    23

           1            I did my first EIS in 1972 so I know what a

           2   good EIS looks like and I know what a good EIS

           3   produces.  I mean we're talking here -- let me

           4   backtrack a little bit.  And I'm sorry for my

           5   disorganized comments.

           6            But my main concern is over the pit

           7   production.  I want to limit my comments and

           8   discussion to that.  I know there's a lot of air

           9   quality, water quality, and so on and so forth issues.

          10            But my concern mainly has to do with the big

          11   overall picture, what does pit production do to the

          12   security and safety and the economy of my family, my

          13   children, my community, and my nation.  I mean this is

          14   a nationwide issue.  We spent $8 trillion on nuclear

          15   weapons since World War II.

          16            And we have stated publicly that we have the

          17   right to drop a nuclear bunker buster bomb in Estefan

          18   and Iran because maybe -- maybe, while there's no

          19   evidence of any breach of the nuclear proliferation

          20   treaty, we think that they might be moving in that

          21   direction.  And we have the right to take it out with

          22   a nuclear weapon.

          23            Well, if we're playing the game fairly, what

          24   that implies to me is they have the right to take Los

          25   Alamos out by the same reckoning unless we have a


                                                                    24

           1   double standard.  So I know that my house in Taos is

           2   not insured for an act of war and I'm counting on it

           3   for retirement hopefully for my children.

           4            So you need to know what will happen if a

           5   nuclear weapon of the size that we are proposing

           6   dropping on Estefan gets dropped in Los Alamos.  Can

           7   we get out, will the government compensate me for my

           8   house is not there, how will I be impacted.

           9            The other thing I really need to know is now

          10   that so much has changed and a lot of the needs

          11   assessment is still based on the 1999 EIS.  Well, I

          12   mean as people say September 11 changed everything.

          13   Now we have a different threat and a different

          14   proliferation treaty.

          15            So I'm really concerned that, if we increase

          16   pit production here, what does that imply for the

          17   security and safety in the future of our children and

          18   our nation as a whole.  And so -- explain to me what

          19   that means.

          20            MS. FARRELL HALE:  Thirty seconds.

          21            ERICH KUERSCHNER:  So really what I'm asking

          22   for is that, if we want to do this right, I mean it's

          23   impossible to start -- it's not fair to start the

          24   clock running on June 6.  The clock should start

          25   running by today, when a reasonable person who is


                                                                    25

           1   working in the field has access to it.

           2            So I'm asking for an extension.  And I'll put

           3   this specific comment that I was able to gather today

           4   and what I see as major flaws in the EIS.  I'll put

           5   that in my written statement.  Anyway, thank you all,

           6   folks, for coming.  And thanks to everybody that's

           7   worked so hard.  Let's do the right thing.

           8            MS. BRANDIN:  William Bruce.

           9            WILLIAM BRUCE:  First of all, whoever decided

          10   to have the meeting here at the Fuller Lodge, I would

          11   like to thank you for that.  I always wanted to visit

          12   this lodge.  I've never been in here.

          13            I've been in New Mexico about 33 years.  I

          14   have two kids and three stepkids, five boys.  So like

          15   the previous speaker I'm concerned about the pit

          16   production increasing instead of decreasing.

          17            What I would like to see is all the nuclear

          18   weapons facilities closed down and turned into some

          19   sort of technology research centers where things that

          20   the planet really needs could be developed, things

          21   that really threaten this planet, you know, like

          22   global warming and things like that.  I think that

          23   would be a good use of the Los Alamos Labs.

          24            I think that Dwight D. Eisenhower, he tried

          25   to warn the people of this country back in 1959 or


                                                                    26

           1   1960, when he was leaving his presidency.  And he put

           2   it right in our hands, he said "We have to keep an eye

           3   on the military industrial complex or it will take

           4   over this country and it will rob us all of our

           5   freedoms and liberties and we won't even realize it."

           6            And it's up to us, the citizens, to do just

           7   that.  And that's why I came all the way out here from

           8   Pecos, New Mexico, to be here tonight.  I'm real

           9   concerned.  I have five young kids that just like the

          10   previous speaker said, you know, what kind of a world

          11   are we setting up if we're continuing these nuclear

          12   weapons, you know, what are we handing over to them

          13   and what kind of security is there going to be for

          14   them as they grow up in a world that's -- we're just

          15   increasing the competition of these nasty, nasty

          16   things.

          17            So that's my opinion.  The waste issue, you

          18   know, it's kind of a no-brainer.  We went through this

          19   in Pecos in the Terrero area, whether you cap it off

          20   or you dig it up and put it somewhere else.  It's a

          21   tough decision.  And it took years to figure out what

          22   to do, you know.

          23            But, if that's -- you know, if waste is a

          24   problem, why add to the waste, why not just stop

          25   producing waste first of all.  That's the first step


                                                                    27

           1   to the waste problem.  And then research on what's the

           2   best thing to do with it.  That's all.  Thank you.

           3            MS. BRANDIN:  Astrid Webster.

           4            ASTRID WEBSTER:  I sat down outside a few

           5   minutes ago and started writing because truthfully

           6   just being here makes me so angry that I can hardly

           7   think.  And so I had to write something.

           8            My birth was nine months to the day after the

           9   gadget was blown up in Southern New Mexico.  And I

          10   grew up there.  And I will never forget that the

          11   Department of Energy is really the Atomic Energy

          12   Commission.  And you guys are married to it.  In fact,

          13   by being citizens in this country, we're all married

          14   to it.  And that's almost the saddest thing I can

          15   think about.

          16            A few years ago I went into an auditorium and

          17   listened to Dennis Kucinich sing God bless America,

          18   land that I love.  Stand beside her and guide her

          19   through the night with the light he sent from above.

          20   But the light that you guys are lighting is not from

          21   above, it's from below.

          22            I've come here to talk to you from your

          23   future, from your children's hearts and inner knowing.

          24   Someday, unless they are blessed with the same moral

          25   myopia and historical amnesia that the people who work


                                                                    28

           1   here possess, they will come to rue the day that you

           2   gave them life.

           3            I too was born in the nuclear age nine months

           4   to the day after the Trinity explosion, when the Cold

           5   War was.  You could hear the baby cry from wherever to

           6   wherever farm.  I mean think of it.  Those are the

           7   words that Oppenheimer gave.  And the death of

           8   humanity was a birth of a baby.  And somehow the

           9   people who have done this have put themselves in

          10   the footprints of God.  And it's inconceivable to me.

          11            I say rue because your children will inherit

          12   the history that you live so imprudently.  When you

          13   lose the nuclear war for which you will soon begin to

          14   build pits, you will understand in a flash that the

          15   moment the first scientist understood the devastation

          16   you planned so carefully, that you threw each and

          17   every human being into the rubble.

          18            Born in Germany to a German rocket scientist,

          19   I have already lived your children's history and ask

          20   you to solemnly foreswear this new generation of

          21   nuclear weapons.

          22            It's not Linton Brooks but the people of this

          23   country which should be making this decision.  And

          24   there, you know, you can print a million pages.  But

          25   there's no truth in that.  No matter how many pages


                                                                    29

           1   you make, you need to understand that the people who

           2   stood there in the Tularosa Basin brought this pretty

           3   green glass home to their children to play with.

           4            That's how much understanding they really

           5   had.  Over a period of years, this stuff disappeared.

           6   But, you know, you can put that knowledge in a thimble

           7   compared to what we will eventually understand.

           8            And you guys all have to live with the

           9   knowledge.  But somehow you're not awake.  And I will

          10   work on this and think about it and plan it and talk

          11   to people until I and the rest of us who are working

          12   on this figure out a way to wake you up.  Thank you.

          13            MS. BRANDIN:  Thank you.  Greg Mello.

          14            GREG MELLO:  Good evening.  The first thing I

          15   wanted to say speaks to the formal aspect of the NEPA

          16   process in actually I think that this EIS is a formal

          17   continuation of the modern pit facility EIS.  It

          18   hasn't been couched that way, but actually this is a

          19   national decision.

          20            And the mission which is to be assigned to

          21   Los Alamos National Laboratory is the mission that was

          22   discussed in the -- was discussed in the draft MPF

          23   EIS.  And the facilities which are being assembled

          24   here in Los Alamos will have the potential or are

          25   being designed to have the potential to make pits in


                                                                    30

           1   the same range of production capacity as the MPF.

           2            So what's happened is that a national NEPA

           3   process has been stopped and a regional or local

           4   abridged NEPA process has replaced it.  And I think

           5   that's of very deep concern as to the integrity of

           6   NEPA.

           7            Now, this is a plan which, although it reads

           8   in plain vanilla, will dramatically change the nature

           9   of Los Alamos National Laboratory.  I don't think that

          10   most of the community is fully aware of the changes

          11   that will be -- that will follow as sequelae of the

          12   pit production mission.

          13            You have to consider how the budget is going

          14   down, how inflation is affecting the buying power of

          15   the money available.  You have to look at the

          16   management fee increase, the gross receipts tax

          17   increase, security costs increases due to pit

          18   production, increased construction costs for the CMRR

          19   building, and other pit production related facilities.

          20            And you have to consider that pit

          21   production -- as Edward Beckter said to me not too

          22   long ago, Los Alamos is now a pivotal site in the

          23   nuclear weapons complex.  Because, if we're going to

          24   make anything new for the next 15 years, we have to

          25   make it at Los Alamos.


                                                                    31

           1            This pit production mission is going to be

           2   front and center in both in the consciousness of the

           3   LANSCE contractors and how they are evaluated by the

           4   NNSA, by Linton Brooks and his team.  So science at

           5   Los Alamos is an endangered species because of these

           6   complex pressures which are pushing on science in a

           7   way from both ends.

           8            So a self-understanding of people who work at

           9   Los Alamos about the nature of the laboratory is now

          10   on the table in this 2,000 page document which we're

          11   rushing through a public comment period.  And people

          12   need to be quite aware of what's at stake here for the

          13   community of Los Alamos as well as the region as well

          14   as the nation.  I'm not sure that everybody in Los

          15   Alamos really understands that.

          16            Look at the numbers, go over it, think about

          17   it.  Try to see how these numbers work out and see how

          18   they affect -- they could affect your program.

          19            Everybody should be aware that the NNSA's

          20   approach to NEPA analysis is to create an envelope of

          21   impacts, not in the case of a SWEIS or a programmatic

          22   environmental impact statement, there's no attempt to

          23   constrain each and every activity that happens at the

          24   site.

          25            So, even though this document says surge


                                                                    32

           1   production or production at 80 pits per year or 50

           2   pits for the stockpile, that doesn't necessarily

           3   constrain pit production at Los Alamos to that number.

           4            If the reliable replacement warhead as

           5   advertised is able to be produced with less hazardous

           6   waste, with greater throughput, broader tolerances,

           7   more automation, greater efficiency per square foot of

           8   category two space, then as the CM advisory -- oh,

           9   God.

          10            As the CM advisory board said, the efficiency

          11   of pit production at Los Alamos ought to be increased

          12   20 fold from its present rate.  That was their number.

          13   And people in working for Congress have advised me to

          14   take that 20-fold increase very seriously.

          15            I just want to say I guess in the remaining

          16   seconds that we are working with a law passed 36 years

          17   ago that was designed primarily with unclassified

          18   activities in mind.  If we only blindly follow this

          19   law and don't engage in a profound debate around the

          20   policy -- policy decisions that are embodied in this

          21   poor environmental law that sort of feels like the

          22   dregs of democracy despite the best intentions of

          23   everybody involved, Elizabeth and all the other people

          24   who are working so hard, we have to make a special

          25   effort to open a debate so we can take the time.


                                                                    33

           1            I think possibly that people want to rush

           2   this through Bush's office.  But we should slow down.

           3   There's no rush to make pits.  Every year we learn --

           4   more than a decade, we get more than a decade more

           5   information about pit longevity.

           6            Let's take our time.  We've got 10,000

           7   nuclear weapons.  Why don't we have a democratic

           8   discussion instead of a pro forma discussion that's

           9   limited to just a tiny fraction of the issues.  Thank

          10   you very much.

          11            MS. BRANDIN:  Jody Benson.

          12            JODY BENSON:  Actually I echo a lot of what

          13   Greg Mello was talking about.  One of my concerns is

          14   that a site-wide EIS is as Greg said an umbrella for

          15   just about everything.  And I worry about that because

          16   just perhaps it's not going to put limits on what we

          17   can do but just wedge stuff into the specific

          18   categories.

          19            When I was planning on coming to this

          20   meeting, I didn't know -- realize that it was a

          21   site-wide EIS, I thought it was specifically speaking

          22   about pit production.  So I had looked at the old pit

          23   production EIS online.

          24            And I think that's a valuable thing to look

          25   at because the pit production on EIS online, it again


                                                                    34

           1   echoed what Greg was saying, that perhaps we don't

           2   need any new pits.  And, as someone else stated, this

           3   is going to specifically change the direction of Los

           4   Alamos, move it from science to production.  So we

           5   here at Los Alamos are going to be a little bit

           6   concerned with the change at the lab.

           7            Here is something weird.  I didn't know that

           8   LANSCE was on the block because of emissions.  LANSCE

           9   is one of our premier science spots.  I'm all for

          10   reducing emissions.  But I didn't know LANSCE was on

          11   its way out.  I'm concerned about that.

          12            I would also like to make a philosophical

          13   comment, not just a comment on the EIS, and that is

          14   perhaps as other people have said we don't need

          15   nuclear weapons for security because one of the -- our

          16   enemies now isn't necessarily other nations but other

          17   individuals using terrorism.  Hopefully we're not

          18   going to nuke another nation just because it has a few

          19   terrorists in it.

          20            So maybe nuclear weapons are essentially

          21   obsolete and we should, as someone else stated, again

          22   philosophical turn our science into solving real

          23   security issues like energy and global warming.

          24            MS. BRANDIN:  Ed Grothus.

          25            ED GROTHUS:  I'm Ed Grothus.  I've been in


                                                                    35

           1   Los Alamos over 57 years.  I worked for most -- for 20

           2   years in the laboratory.  And, for most of those 20

           3   years, I worked in a weapons development group.  I'm

           4   one of the ones who made better, in quotes, atomic

           5   bombs.  We reduced the size by 30 times while we

           6   increased the yield by 30 times.

           7            I held a singular position, I was a singular

           8   link in the chain for making better bombs, better

           9   again in quotes.  Vietnam was a turning point in my

          10   life as it was for so many other people.  Search and

          11   destroy ignoble duty said, free fire zone, carpet

          12   bombs, Agent Orange.

          13            At our site we did the preliminary tests for

          14   making new weapons of mass destruction.  We -- I had a

          15   ton of U-238 depleted uranium.  I passed 83 in June.

          16   I do not have the intense concern about radiation that

          17   many people do.

          18            I'm more concerned about chemicals.  I used

          19   gallons of trichloroethylene.  I don't know if it

          20   affected my hearing, but I am not as steady as I might

          21   or should be.  We scattered U-238 for a half a mile in

          22   every direction from the firing point, EF point at our

          23   site.  I have lost all my faith in the weapons

          24   business.  It's sheer madness.

          25            No rational person would ever use a weapon of


                                                                    36

           1   mass destruction.  I have a fear, a real fear that we

           2   will blow ourselves up.  I predict it will happen in

           3   2013, when an American with an American weapon of mass

           4   destruction destroys Washington, D.C., which starts a

           5   nuclear holocaust and everyone on earth dies.

           6            I know the laboratory hears my words because

           7   in recent press releases they are saying that, even if

           8   someone steals a bomb, he or she won't be able to set

           9   it off because they built in further safeguards so it

          10   can't happen.  We threaten the world with our weapons

          11   of mass destruction.  I have a number of tapes here, a

          12   former weapons division leader threatens the world

          13   with our bombs.

          14            We will make your country go away if you mess

          15   with the United States.  We will bring overwhelming

          16   force.  You will only make that mistake once.  It's a

          17   matter of record.  We threaten the world with our

          18   bombs.  People recognize this.  They responded, they

          19   hit the very heart of our military industrial complex,

          20   the Pentagon.  They hit the Twin Towers just to get

          21   our attention.

          22            I'm old enough to remember a man who beat his

          23   horse unmercifully.  Why did you do that?  Just to get

          24   its attention.  There isn't an airport in the world

          25   that hasn't been alerted.  Those people knew what they


                                                                    37

           1   were doing.  Violence is evil.  And the response is

           2   the golden rule.  Do unto others as you would have

           3   others do unto you.  Do good to that guy who might

           4   hurt you.  Give Iraq good things instead of bombs.

           5            We can only win the world by doing good.  The

           6   laboratory should become a world science center.

           7   Inscribed on two monuments of mine, each weighing 25

           8   tons which are now complete in China, monuments not to

           9   celebrate the bomb but to commemorate the most

          10   significant event in the history of the world.

          11            Unimagined fantastic good coming from a

          12   golden age of science here in Los Alamos.  But you

          13   have to abandon the nuclear business.  Thank you all

          14   very much.

          15            MS. BRANDING:  Sophia Ritchie.

          16            SOPHIA RITCHIE:  Good evening.  We are

          17   university students and recent graduates.  And we are

          18   representatives of the nationwide coalition for

          19   education.  Five of us hail from campuses in the

          20   University of California system which has managed the

          21   Los Alamos National Laboratory since its inception.

          22            One of us is a recent graduate of the

          23   University of Missouri-Kansas City.  Our presence here

          24   underscores our belief that what happens in Los

          25   Alamos, New Mexico, affects our lives and those of


                                                                    38

           1   people around the world.

           2            At a recent public forum in New York City,

           3   United Nations Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission

           4   Chairman Hans Blix noted he strongly supports the idea

           5   of international weapons inspectors closely monitoring

           6   the activities currently being conducted at the Los

           7   Alamos National Laboratory.  With Mr. Blix's

           8   assessment in mind, we have constituted a University

           9   of California weapons inspection team.

          10            In doing so we acknowledge that, if we don't

          11   attempt to carry out an investigation of the Los

          12   Alamos Laboratory, unfortunately it's unlikely that

          13   anybody else will.

          14            As you all may know, the U.S. Government

          15   recently conducted an unsuccessful search for WMDs in

          16   Iraq.  They are now searching for WMDs in Iran.  Even

          17   fairly conservative estimates demonstrate that Iran is

          18   currently not in a position to acquire nuclear weapons

          19   at any time in the next ten years.

          20            There are enrichment activities for nuclear

          21   weapons currently taking place and they are not in

          22   Iraq, they are not in Iran, they are here in Los

          23   Alamos.  Intelligence reports note that the lab is

          24   pursuing a nuclear weapons activities that are illegal

          25   under international law, plutonium pit production.


                                                                    39

           1            The remaining parts of the statements are

           2   going to be read by one of my peers.

           3            CHRISTY ESCOBAR:  I'm Christy Escobar.

           4   Plutonium pits are integral for the manufacture of new

           5   nuclear weapons which violate the 1970 Nuclear

           6   Nonproliferation Treaty which the U.S. is a signatory

           7   of.

           8            These are weapons that kill women, children,

           9   and soldier alike.  They do not discern between

          10   elderly and infirm.  They are indiscriminate killers.

          11   The University of California was founded on the basis

          12   of truth and enlightenment.  And, because continued

          13   nuclear production is taking place, the future is only

          14   uncertain.

          15            As the UC weapons inspection team, we come

          16   here today to express our concern regarding the

          17   proposal to increase plutonium pit production at Los

          18   Alamos and to emphasize the need for the U.S. to

          19   uphold its moral and legal obligations under

          20   international law.  The expansion of plutonium pit

          21   production here poses a grave danger to environmental

          22   security and the health of American citizens.

          23            Because the University of California is a

          24   manager of the lab, we feel that we have a special

          25   obligation to speak out about what happens at Los


                                                                    40

           1   Alamos.  As stakeholders in this institution, we feel

           2   personally obligated to voice our opinions regarding

           3   the activities that take place at this facility.

           4            Our comments here reflect the feelings of

           5   thousands of our peers whose sentiments we have gauged

           6   through a variety of means, passing student government

           7   referendums, conducting student body opinion polls,

           8   and holding dialogue oriented educational events.

           9            The message of our peers has been clear.  UC

          10   should get out of the nuclear business.  Plutonium pit

          11   production at the Los Alamos Laboratory should not

          12   take place.  Thank you.

          13            MS. BRANDIN:  Thank you.  Andrew Culp.

          14            ANDREW CULP:  So I think we're all really

          15   aware that we live currently in the age of the

          16   information bomb.  It's where there is so much coming

          17   at us from every angle, we're not able to discern or

          18   even filter through all the information that we think

          19   is necessary.  We're getting violently reordered, our

          20   whole world is in confusion, and we only know certain

          21   things.  But hopefully we know those.

          22            But that leads to a social fragmentation.

          23   That means we only know the things that we really

          24   actively search out and everything else seems to be

          25   left for someone else to do.


                                                                    41

           1            Personally I think that is why Los Alamos is

           2   right here in the desert.  It's used to make it so the

           3   people who are concerned about this have to come to

           4   the desert.  And so the people who do that work are

           5   the only people who end up being here.

           6            That means I have to travel for hundreds, if

           7   not thousands, of miles to voice my concern.  That

           8   means there are thousands of people like me who are

           9   never going to be able to make it to this public

          10   forum.

          11            Now, what that means is that there are so

          12   many experts involved that we can never know the exact

          13   details of what's going on.  So that means we have to

          14   consider the consequences of our jobs.  Even people

          15   who are in the military, people who are serving are

          16   told yes, you have to follow your orders.  But, if you

          17   think that there's something wrong with it, you are

          18   allowed to not do that order.

          19            Well, I know that there are a lot of people

          20   here in Los Alamos that may be doing the job that they

          21   sometimes agree with it maybe sometimes they don't.

          22   But they're not given that option of not doing it if

          23   they really don't think it's going to happen.

          24            Maybe it's because of this social

          25   fragmentation, maybe because you think that it's other


                                                                    42

           1   people's decisions to make that happen.  But I think

           2   it's your choice and it's for you to understand that

           3   everything that you're involved in is for an end, it

           4   is going to be used for something.

           5            The new pit production is used to make the

           6   new flexible response for the United States nuclear

           7   arsenal.  That means it's more usable.  That means so

           8   people are going to take the weapons and deploy them

           9   in the battlefield.  They're going to have them there

          10   for use.

          11            And that means that every person who helps

          12   with that new program is ultimately going to be

          13   responsible for those weapons being there in the first

          14   place.  And, even if you're not working on those

          15   weapons programs, you are helping Los Alamos.

          16            For instance, the University of California

          17   puts a great name on Los Alamos Laboratories, right.

          18   It's an institution of enlightenment and thinking.

          19   But this is a weapons manufacturing laboratory.

          20            So the University of California is just as

          21   responsible.  And that's why we're here as University

          22   of California students, to say no, we do not want to

          23   give our good name to something that we don't support.

          24            So what does that mean?  That means that you

          25   can do something.  You know, people say that the genie


                                                                    43

           1   is out of the bottle, we can't do anything about it.

           2   Well, you can.  Nuclear weapons are made by lots of

           3   smart people with lots of smart resources; that, if

           4   those people don't exist, it's not going to happen.

           5            The reason why -- I mean it wasn't so amazing

           6   that the Russians were able to make the bomb.  It was

           7   amazing that they were able to make the navigation

           8   systems because the complex precision instruments were

           9   not possible we thought at all because they did not

          10   have any of the resources, the technology, any of the

          11   stuff from Germany, I mean there's a long history of

          12   the technology necessary for these sorts of operations

          13   from occurring that we can get rid of international

          14   law or anything to keep it from happening in the

          15   future.

          16            So that means that we as people have

          17   responsibilities to stand up for what we know is

          18   right.  You know, maybe sometimes we don't know if

          19   what we're doing is going to be used or going towards

          20   something that's good.

          21            But at least I know that I'm willing to speak

          22   out and take a stand and know that I'm trying to make

          23   a better world tomorrow.  And I don't want to just be

          24   making money, you know, I can do that if I wanted.

          25   But that's not what this is here for, you know.  We


                                                                    44

           1   are here to have a responsibility to future

           2   generations to make sure that we have a better

           3   tomorrow.

           4            MS. BRANDIN:  Will Parrish.

           5            WILL PARRISH:  Everyone, my name is Will

           6   Parrish and I'm a graduate of the University of

           7   California-Santa Cruz, class of 2004.  And this is my

           8   first visit to Los Alamos, but I've been involved with

           9   efforts to disarm this lab for the past several years

          10   as a University of California student.

          11            I learned toward the end of my undergraduate

          12   career that the University of California was the

          13   manager of this facility at the time of the Manhattan

          14   Project and continued to manage the lab as the sole

          15   manager up until June 1st of this year and now

          16   co-manages the lab with Bechtel Corporation under a

          17   limited liability corporation called Los Alamos

          18   Security, LLC.

          19            And so I've always had a real strong

          20   connection with opposing the work that takes place

          21   here.  And so it's really great, I'm very excited to

          22   be able to speak at this forum and appreciate the

          23   opportunity.

          24            I have heard it said that the first rule of

          25   propaganda is that, if you can slide your premises by


                                                                    45

           1   people, then you've got them.  And I heard a lot of

           2   statements that I considered highly propagandistic in

           3   the initial presentations that preceded this public

           4   comment period.  Perhaps unintentionally so.

           5            But, to give you a couple of examples, I

           6   heard it said that we have a commitment to clean up

           7   Los Alamos Laboratory.  Now, the premise there that I

           8   take issue with is that it's impossible to clean up

           9   Los Alamos National Laboratory particularly if new

          10   plutonium pit production is pursued at this facility.

          11            I think we all know that it's pretty much

          12   impossible to clean up nuclear waste.  That's why

          13   there are hundreds of 55 gallon drums of waste sitting

          14   at the Los Alamos National Laboratory right now.

          15   That's why the federal government of the United States

          16   is attempting to store 70,000 tons of high level

          17   nuclear waste at the Yucca Mountain.

          18            We have no way to safely clean up nuclear

          19   waste.  And especially if new plutonium pits are

          20   created here.  I fail to see how we're going to go

          21   down the path to clean up Los Alamos.

          22            And, as evidence of that, I studied what

          23   happened at the Rocky Flats nuclear weapons plant in

          24   Colorado during its over 40 years of plutonium pit

          25   production.  According to some studies, the amount of


                                                                    46

           1   radioactive waste that is present at some communities

           2   downwind from that facility is equivalent to that

           3   that's currently found in Hiroshima.

           4            Plutonium pit production, if it's allowed to

           5   take place, will prevent the Los Alamos Lab from ever

           6   being cleaned up, even if such a thing is possible.

           7            Another premise that I heard was that we need

           8   your help to make this the best possible impact

           9   analysis.  And I'm sure that statement is true.  But

          10   the premise that underlies that statement is that this

          11   public comment process and the environmental impact

          12   statement process is set up in a way that makes it

          13   possible for us to help come up with the best decision

          14   as to the future of this facility.

          15            I think it's pretty clear that, as Greg Mello

          16   alluded to in his comments, that this is an extremely

          17   rushed process and that there is not going to be time

          18   for the public to adequately provide commentary and

          19   direction over what happens with Los Alamos

          20   Laboratory.

          21            First of all it was said that Linton Brooks

          22   is going to ultimately be the person who decides what

          23   happens with the environmental impact statement, he's

          24   going to create it.  And to think that one person can

          25   ultimately dictate what's going to happen with the


                                                                    47

           1   environmental impact statement that's being created

           2   here without any oversight from the public is I think

           3   delusional.  So thank you for listening.

           4            MS. BRANDIN:  Kamara O'Connor.

           5            KAMARA O'CONNOR:  Hi.  Thank you for having

           6   me here.  My name is Kamara O'Connor.  And I'm a peace

           7   and social justice activist.  And I'm also here as

           8   part of the Real World Oversight Committee on the

           9   environmental impact statement.

          10            And, because I'm addressing a group of what I

          11   assume are largely scientists, I just really want to

          12   put forth that any action that we take, of course, is

          13   going to stimulate a consequence.  And I just really

          14   believe that it is folly to think that consequences of

          15   continued nuclear weapons development can be managed

          16   or controlled or kept safe in some sphere.

          17            The first thing I want to bring up is that

          18   the continued production of nuclear weapons stimulates

          19   the production of conventional biological chemical

          20   weapons internationally.  I feel like there is a

          21   strong disconnect between what's happening here at Los

          22   Alamos and what's going on in our global community.

          23   And I feel like the environment here is not being

          24   stretched to the full capacity of what the global

          25   environment means.


                                                                    48

           1            I also find that there is a strong emphasis

           2   on a scientific sort of language, where it's like

           3   acceptable risk and slight increase in health effects,

           4   which I feel is using a sort of scientific authority

           5   to separate out disenfranchised indigenous communities

           6   that have been suffering under the weight of the

           7   nuclear industry as well as basically devaluing the

           8   opinions and experiences of nonscientists such as

           9   myself.

          10            So again another consequence that I want to

          11   stress is that my environment, while it includes this

          12   whole earth and it also includes things like

          13   education, things like healthcare, the nuclear

          14   industry is draining money from all of those things

          15   that would be contributing to a healthy environment,

          16   what I believe would be to the best advantage of local

          17   citizens and global citizens.

          18            So I just basically want to ask people at Los

          19   Alamos to take some responsibility and to take some

          20   accountability for the work that you're doing and the

          21   global ramifications, the global consequences.  And I

          22   think that the only way to ensure safety in a nuclear

          23   weapons program is to stop it.

          24            I think the only way to talk about helping

          25   our environment is really to disarm and move towards


                                                                    49

           1   safety in the real sense of the word.  So thank you

           2   very much.  I appreciate you listening to me.

           3            MS. BRANDIN:  I'm afraid I can't read this,

           4   it's Mr. or Ms. Boyce.  Thank you.  Could you please

           5   state your first name so we can get it for the record.

           6            HERON BOYCE:  Heron Boyce.  So I'm going to

           7   do this in a nontraditional way, some poetry.

           8            Invest energy and it will grow.  Patience and

           9   focus are the catalysts for growth.  The existence is

          10   simple.  And we will to be whatever we desire.

          11            A quick poem by Barry Oliver.

          12            Tell me what else I should have done.

          13   Doesn't everything die at last and too soon?  Tell me

          14   what is your plan, what is it you plan to do with your

          15   one wild and precious life.

          16            Fear, the externalization of our own

          17   inabilities to accept and be tolerant of others.  In

          18   the desire to protect ourselves, we put drama and our

          19   insecurities above the betterment of our fellowman let

          20   alone other life forms.

          21            Calm and patience are what is necessitated in

          22   this day and age.  Understanding and acceptance of

          23   others.  There are differences in their ways of life.

          24   No longer can we accept propaganda convincing a

          25   majority to cow down to divide and conquer


                                                                    50

           1   mentalities.

           2            We must be communal in our communities, we

           3   must be civil in our civility, we must be humane in

           4   our humanity and recall we are all symbiotic, one

           5   love.  The remaining time will be given to Greg Mello.

           6            MS. BRANDIN:  I have a sense there may be

           7   others.  Can you wait.

           8            GREG MELLO:  I'll wait until the end.

           9            MS. BRANDIN:  Yes, if you don't mind.

          10            Ann Sensenig.

          11            ANN SENSENIG:  Good evening.  My name is Ann

          12   Sensenig, I'm here from Albuquerque, New Mexico.  I'm

          13   an educational assistant at Bandolier Elementary

          14   School in Albuquerque and part of the Albuquerque

          15   Mennonite Church.

          16            I'd like to start by saying that I'm morally

          17   opposed to both the production of and use of nuclear

          18   weapons.  And, if some of you are not opposed to

          19   production of because you think that it will be used

          20   just as a deterrent and not ever be used, I'd like to

          21   present the moral issues.

          22            The fact as Kamara said is that money is

          23   being diverted from important arenas that are facing

          24   our nation, health, education, social welfare.

          25            In New Mexico or in the whole country, $7,600


                                                                    51

           1   per household in this country goes toward military

           2   expenditures.  As an educational assistant who doesn't

           3   make very much in Albuquerque -- and, just for an

           4   example, teachers in New Mexico are 48th on the list

           5   of teacher salaries.  And educational assistants are

           6   far below that.

           7            Just think what the amount of money that is

           8   spent on something that I hope will never be used

           9   could accomplish if it were put towards other healthy

          10   and beneficial issues like health, education, and all

          11   of that kind of thing.

          12            A lot of people might say that the fact that

          13   Los Alamos is here in this state provides economic

          14   prosperity for New Mexico.  But, in fact, in the last

          15   20 years, when funding for Los Alamos National Labs

          16   has increased a lot, the per capita income for New

          17   Mexico has greatly decreased.  And there are a lot of

          18   statistics out there about New Mexico being 49th,

          19   48th, 50th, whatever, in a lot of health and education

          20   and social welfare statistics.

          21            So this state is not benefiting.  There are

          22   maybe some people who are benefiting from working

          23   there.  There may be people or companies that are

          24   benefiting.  But certainly the people of New Mexico

          25   have not benefited from the fact that Los Alamos has


                                                                    52

           1   been here in the last 20 years.  There's been a great

           2   disparity between the poorest New Mexicans and the

           3   richest New Mexicans in the past 20 years.

           4            So in conclusion I would just like to say

           5   that, as signatories of this nuclear nonproliferation

           6   treaty, I think we should go for option A which is

           7   like no new or expanded production.  But I would like

           8   to say what we need is cessation of trigger production

           9   or nuclear weapons at all.  Thank you.

          10            MS. BRANDIN:  Donna Detweiler.

          11            DONNA DETWEILER:  I'm Donna Detweiler from

          12   Albuquerque, New Mexico, where I manage apartments for

          13   low income people.  I'm here today because of my

          14   rising nausea about what's happening here and my own

          15   need for confession because I've been part of it.

          16            I have been silent and I have paid my taxes

          17   and I'm a very embarrassed about that.  And so I'm

          18   trying to break the silence and I'm trying to do

          19   something different.  And I want to encourage the

          20   people who feel the same to do something different.

          21            I discovered that just a couple of weeks ago

          22   that my company is not withholding my federal income

          23   tax.  Okay.  This could get me in big trouble for

          24   saying this publicly, but it was a blessing to me

          25   because now I can decide if this is something that I


                                                                    53

           1   want to pay for or something that I don't want to pay

           2   for.  And I really don't.  And I have to decide how

           3   I'm going to accomplish that.

           4            So this is a beautiful place and I honor

           5   people who do what they believe is right in life.  And

           6   I don't want to vomit all over this floor, but I'm

           7   really close and I really want it to stop.  Thank you.

           8            MS. BRANDIN:  Daniel Erdman.

           9            DANIEL ERDMAN:  My name is Daniel or Daniel.

          10   I am a pastor in Albuquerque to a small congregation

          11   of Hispanic folks, most of whom are immigrants from

          12   Latin America.

          13            Today marks the 61st anniversary of the day

          14   on which the United States decided for the second time

          15   in history to be the only nation ever to use nuclear

          16   weapons in war.  And, amidst all the words that we

          17   have heard today, I'm asking for a moment of silence

          18   to recall that event for the people of Nagasaki.

          19            (Pause)

          20            DANIEL ERDMAN:  I pray this will be the last

          21   time any nation ever uses a nuclear weapon.  Since

          22   1945 our life as a nation and as a world has been

          23   profoundly impacted by nuclear weapons.  As a nation

          24   we have come to place our ultimate security in the

          25   belief that these weapons will protect us.


                                                                    54

           1            Today I'm here to speak against the

           2   production of plutonium pits here or anywhere else for

           3   a number of reasons.  The first is the increased

           4   production of waste.  This has already been mentioned.

           5   But currently we do not have adequate and safe plans

           6   for the disposal of the waste that has already been

           7   produced, and yet we propose to increase the amount of

           8   that waste.

           9            The second reason is the increased expense in

          10   a nation that is headed frankly for bankruptcy, a

          11   nation that has a national debt unprecedented in

          12   history.  Essential services are being cut back

          13   everywhere.  And I see the impact in the people of my

          14   congregation as they continue to struggle to make a

          15   living at minimum wage with no benefits, no prospect

          16   of healthcare, no assistance when they are laid off.

          17            The impact of continuing to devote such a

          18   large part of the national budget to nuclear weapons

          19   will result not just in an environmental impact but

          20   also in a human impact as has been mentioned, on

          21   health, on education, on employment, on housing, but

          22   also with not dealing with the real environmental

          23   dangers that we face as a world.

          24            In the past 120 years, we have managed to use

          25   up almost all of the fossil fuels on the planet and at


                                                                    55

           1   the same time cause global warming to increase.  We

           2   are not dealing with these because there is not the

           3   money to research how to deal with these because we

           4   are spending it on nuclear weapons.

           5            The world has changed.  We have 10,000

           6   nuclear weapons.  Making more will be a decrease in

           7   our security.  As a nation many of us have a concern

           8   about terrorists getting their hands on fissionable

           9   material.  One step towards solution would be not to

          10   produce more.  And, if any money is spent, let it be

          11   on securing the existing material, not making more of

          12   it.

          13            When the nuclear age began decades ago, a

          14   very wise man said everything changed except the way

          15   we think.  After September 11, a less wise man said

          16   nothing is the same since September 11.  But something

          17   is still the same.  We still have not changed the way

          18   we think.  I pray that you will.

          19            MS. BRANDIN:  George Baker.

          20            GEORGE BAKER:  George Baker.  Water.  We live

          21   in a high desert where water is a very scarce

          22   resource.  Global warming predicts that it's going --

          23   our water supply here in Los Alamos and in New Mexico

          24   is likely to decrease, not increase.  The snow pack

          25   will melt sooner and will be accumulated later.  And


                                                                    56

           1   so our water supply that we depend on will be

           2   decreasing.

           3            The expanded operations will lead to a need

           4   for ever more water and electricity.  And, as you may

           5   know, generating electricity also takes water.  Aside

           6   from the supply issue, every bit of pit production

           7   will generate more waste stream than no pit

           8   production.

           9            We already are seeing a laboratory generated

          10   contamination of water in the test wells that have

          11   been drilled around here.  This threatens not just the

          12   water supply for Los Alamos, but for a great number of

          13   surrounding communities.

          14            Norris Bradbury who was once director of the

          15   laboratory who is quoted as saying I spent my whole

          16   life working on something that can't be used.  People

          17   say that the bunker buster bomb can be used.  It

          18   cannot be used because it creates radiation

          19   contamination over a large area.  You can't send

          20   troops in after you've blown one of those things up,

          21   even if it's effective.

          22            And besides all that the real mission and

          23   desirable future for Los Alamos is to be a scientific

          24   laboratory, not a pit production facility.  This is

          25   just not what we need here.  Thank you.


                                                                    57

           1            MS. BRANDIN:  Regina Wheeler.

           2            REGINA WHEELER:  Hello.  I have a very short

           3   statement.  My name is Regina Wheeler, I'm

           4   representing Los Alamos County local government.  And

           5   we wanted to let people know that we are reviewing the

           6   site-wide environmental impact statement draft and

           7   will be submitting written comments.  Thank you.

           8            MS. BRANDIN:  Shannyn Sollitt.

           9            SHANNYN SOLLITT:  My name is Shannyn Sollitt

          10   and I live in Santa Fe, New Mexico, downwind,

          11   downstream.  I have not read the site-wide

          12   environmental impact statements, the studies.  And I'm

          13   only commenting on my own understanding as an

          14   environmentalist for all my life.  At least all my

          15   adult life.

          16            And I would like to raise a question to the

          17   scientists here.  As to whether it is good science to

          18   put a nuclear weapons production facility at the top

          19   of a watershed, a windswept area in a fire prone zone,

          20   and expect that it is not going to adversely affect

          21   all the people downwind and downstream.

          22            That's the first and most obvious

          23   environmental impact that I see that is just beyond my

          24   imagination, that there can be environmental

          25   scientists here at the laboratory that would agree


                                                                    58

           1   that this would be a good place to put a nuclear

           2   weapons production facility.

           3            I would not advocate a nuclear weapons

           4   production facility anywhere.  But, if there needs to

           5   be one, why not put it right next to the nuclear

           6   weapons waste facility in Carlsbad, New Mexico, so

           7   that the waste that has already been generated from

           8   the nuclear weapons facility that hasn't ever made it

           9   out of Los Alamos County.

          10            I flew over it in an airplane.  And I got up

          11   on the airplane and said look, everybody, this is the

          12   largest nuclear weapons waste facility on the planet.

          13   And you don't know how to deal with it because there

          14   is no way to deal with it.  The only way to deal with

          15   it is to try to figure out a way to remediate it.  So

          16   that's number one question I would like to have

          17   addressed.

          18            Number two is, you know, the environmental

          19   impact is also a psychological impact.  And the

          20   people, the children, I do the Trains For Peace

          21   project, I work with children for world peace.  And

          22   children are growing up with the understanding that

          23   they are living in a community that creates weapons of

          24   mass destruction.  What is this going to do to their

          25   psychology.


                                                                    59

           1            I've been out and talking to the children up

           2   here.  I've been talking to the children who are state

           3   boarding over at the plutonium plant, you know, from

           4   the forties, you know.  And it took a long time for

           5   even to begin to start worrying about cleaning up for

           6   your own children.  That's just abhorrent to me.

           7            And it's so depressing.  It is so completely

           8   depressing to people in Santa Fe and I'm sure most of

           9   the people in Northern New Mexico to feel as if we are

          10   so unempowered to speak truth to power and to

          11   recognize what abhorrent activity we are doing here at

          12   the crown jewel of New Mexico when we could be doing

          13   something so valuable, so important, utilizing our

          14   educational facilities for the creation of

          15   technologies that can address the real, real national

          16   security issues of global climate change, for

          17   instance.

          18            There are so many ways that the brilliant

          19   minds that are working in Los Alamos could be utilized

          20   rather than making nuclear pits.  We already have

          21   10,000 nuclear weapons and 20,000 of them, you know,

          22   in storage.  And the scientists who have worked on

          23   these weapons according to Nuclear Watch in New Mexico

          24   say that they have an undetermined end date.  What do

          25   we need to build more pits for.


                                                                    60

           1            I have here a card for people to send to

           2   their legislators that addresses the nonproliferation

           3   treaty and the fact that any legislator who votes to

           4   allocate funds for the future nuclear weapons is --

           5   for the future of nuclear weapons is really in

           6   violation of his or her oath of office because the

           7   nonproliferation treaty is according to the

           8   constitution the law of the land.

           9            And, if your elected official is not

          10   upholding their duty to abide by this treaty, then

          11   they are in violation of their oath of office.  And I

          12   would ask you to come and pick up these cards from me.

          13            And I really hold a prayer for Los Alamos.  I

          14   hold a prayer that it can be transformed as this

          15   T-shirt says into an educational institution, into an

          16   institution that engages only in life affirming

          17   research and development.  The people who live here

          18   deserve that and the world deserves it.  Thank you.

          19            MS. BRANDIN:  Trish Williams.

          20            MS. WILLIAMS:  I would like to yield my time

          21   to Greg Mello.

          22            MS. BRANDING:  Charles Pergler, is that

          23   right?  Did I pronounce it right?

          24            CHARLES PERGLER:  Charles Pergler.  Thank

          25   you.  I appreciate the opportunity to speak tonight.


                                                                    61

           1   One of the things I've never forgotten is my right as

           2   a citizen of U.S. to speak out on any topic.  I have

           3   never forgotten my responsibility to speak out on any

           4   topic.  And this night is one of those.

           5            The public notice of these meetings and the

           6   public participation is flawed.  It's not flawed in a

           7   procedural sense, but it is flawed in the spirit of

           8   NEPA, trying to reach out and get as broad a

           9   representation of the public as you can get.

          10            Now, that sounds like criticism of the NNSA.

          11   It really isn't.  It's just a difficult process to get

          12   citizens involved in speaking out and understanding.

          13   But in this case I think they need to go more than the

          14   procedural aspects of NEPA.  I think they have to

          15   enjoin with the spirit of NEPA.

          16            And that is I suggest further debate in this

          17   county of the sanity of pit production here.  When I

          18   talked to friends and colleagues around this county,

          19   it becomes painfully obvious they don't know it's pit

          20   production.  That's really what this site-wide is

          21   about.  It's pit production.  That seems to be lost.

          22            I would like to recommend to the NNSA to do a

          23   more extensive outreach program and facilitate

          24   community discussion.  The thing that bothers me the

          25   most on this is the science is not there saying we


                                                                    62

           1   need to have new pits.  Indeed there seems to be

           2   evidence that we don't need new pits.  It seems with

           3   my knowledge that our pits are effective at least

           4   until about 2050, 2060.

           5            Why the rush to build new pits.  As Greg

           6   Mello has already stated, there is research going on

           7   currently to determine the actual aging process of the

           8   pits to assess their effectiveness.  One year's worth

           9   of data as Greg has stated is worth ten years of

          10   aging, ten to 14 years.

          11            Let's wait a couple years, let's have the

          12   data come in, let's fully understand before we spend a

          13   billion dollars on this what we're getting into, if

          14   our stockpile is safe and secure.  Isn't that

          15   something?  It saves us money that we can put to

          16   education or other purposes.

          17            Now, another fundamental that I will call a

          18   flaw in the NEPA process is I believe this takes out

          19   of the country's hands the decision to hear the

          20   arguments pro and con against -- for or against pit

          21   production.

          22            As Greg once again has alluded to, the modern

          23   pit facility EIS was put on hold after the draft.  No

          24   decision was issued.  Many communities were involved

          25   in that process.  What happens here if we decide to go


                                                                    63

           1   to pit production at Los Alamos?  We effectively

           2   foreclose on other communities' ability to speak and

           3   attract that business should they want to do so.

           4            I think that is a fundamental process flaw in

           5   the NEPA.  LANSCE has just taken over the contract for

           6   Los Alamos National Laboratory.  Its predecessor UC

           7   had flaws in the way it managed this facility.  It was

           8   improving.  But, nevertheless, it was still weak.

           9            LANSCE is a new contractor.  Let's see their

          10   track record before we give them this great

          11   responsibility of taking care of pit production.

          12   Again let's wait two, three, four, five years, get a

          13   track record from LANSCE.  We do not compromise our

          14   stockpiles.  It will be safe for the next five years.

          15            In closing I just want to emphasize again I

          16   believe this will be a national issue as advertised

          17   locally that's a flaw in the process.  Just stand up

          18   and say no.  Thank you.

          19            MS. BRANDIN:  I'm going to butcher this one

          20   as well.  Kalliroi Matsakis?

          21            KALLIROI MATSAKIS:  Yes, Kalliroi Matsakis.

          22   My name is Kalliroi Matsakis and I'm here to speak on

          23   behalf of Concerned Citizens For Nuclear Safety.  And

          24   what I would like to do is read some letters that we

          25   had signed recently.  And then afterwards,


                                                                    64

           1   Ms. Withers, I have a receipt for you to sign I'm

           2   going to take back with me.  And I'll give you the

           3   letters.

           4            The first one is a request for an extension

           5   of time.  And we appreciate the extension until the

           6   20th, but we would like it to be much longer.

           7            "Dear Ms. Withers, I feel the Department of

           8   Energy is serving a grave injustice on the people of

           9   Northern New Mexico.  The people are being asked to

          10   comment on a complex and lengthy document during a

          11   time of summer vacation, harvests, getting children

          12   ready for school, and preparations for market, feast,

          13   and fiesta days.

          14            "I'm concerned about the lack of time allowed

          15   for the public to thoroughly review the draft

          16   site-wide environmental impact statement for Los

          17   Alamos National Laboratory.  Also many documents

          18   referenced in the draft LANL SWEIS are not readily

          19   available to the public other than through the DOE

          20   reading room.  Many documents are not available

          21   electronically.  Many who are interested in providing

          22   comments work during the day when the reading rooms

          23   are open.

          24            "I am also concerned that the draft LANL

          25   SWEIS relies on conclusions made in a draft Agency for


                                                                    65

           1   Toxic Substances and Disease Registry public health

           2   assessment that concludes, quote, that there was no

           3   data to link environmental factors with the observed

           4   incidence of any cancer in Los Alamos County, end

           5   quote.

           6            "And I quote, that no harmful exposures due

           7   to chemical or radioactive contamination detected in

           8   groundwater, surface soil, surface water and sediment,

           9   or biota are occurring or expected to occur in the

          10   future, end quote.

          11            "In comments about the draft assessment, the

          12   Environmental Protection Agency stated, quote, ATSDR

          13   may have been overly conservative in their risk

          14   assessment approach and makes a blanket statement that

          15   there is no problem.  ATSDR should redo their risk

          16   assessment to reduce conservatism and not assume that

          17   there is no risk, end quote.

          18            "An inaccurate, incomplete, and inadequate

          19   health assessment misdirects policy, undermines

          20   pollution prevention, and thereby increases the risk

          21   to human health.  The draft LANL SWEIS should be

          22   pulled until a technically defensible public health

          23   assessment is written and made available for public

          24   review.

          25            "Furthermore, two important documents have


                                                                    66

           1   not been completed prior to the release of the draft

           2   LANL SWEIS.  These reports are the earthquake report

           3   and the risk assessment for LANL's low level

           4   radioactive waste dump at Area G.  The deadline for

           5   commenting on the draft LANL SWEIS should be delayed

           6   until after the public has had an adequate opportunity

           7   to review both reports.

           8            "Therefore, I request that the comment period

           9   remain open until such time as the new public health

          10   assessment, the earthquake report, and the risk

          11   assessment for Area G are released for public review.

          12   Under the circumstances I request a written response

          13   within five days."

          14            And I have another one to read as well.

          15   Okay.  So I'm going to skip over some of this since a

          16   lot of plutonium has been covered, but there are some

          17   water issues that I would like to address.

          18            "When implementing cleanup, LANL must do so

          19   to the fullest extent possible.  Lands must be cleaned

          20   up to the level that allows for a future pregnant

          21   subsistence farmer and her children to live on the

          22   land, grow food, raise animals, and drink the water

          23   their entire lives with good health.  All waste must

          24   be removed during cleanup.

          25            "LANL currently has approximately 40,000


                                                                    67

           1   drums of transuranic waste sitting above ground in

           2   fabric tents awaiting shipment to WIPP.  However, the

           3   proposed expansion operations focuses on a vast

           4   expansion of waste generation and removing drums that

           5   are currently buried in Area G.  DOE should address

           6   permanent disposal of existing waste before further

           7   waste generation is even considered.

           8            "LANL activities jeopardize both water

           9   quality and quantity.  New Mexicans rely on this water

          10   for drinking and farming.  Contaminants exceeding

          11   acceptable levels for health have already been found

          12   in surface water and the regional aquifer.  DOE did

          13   not use the most current water quality standards or

          14   consider contaminants that are moved in running

          15   canyons when analyzing the impacts for our water.

          16            "DOE finds no problem with increasing LANL's

          17   water usage above the amount allotted to it from the

          18   regional aquifer while proposing to dump 268 million

          19   gallons of treated wastewater into the canyons which

          20   flow to the Rio Grande.  It is unacceptable that LANL

          21   blatantly or that DOE blatantly disregards laws

          22   regulating water quality and quantity.

          23            "LANL must be required to reevaluate and

          24   broaden their air sampling programs.  Toxic and

          25   radioactive air emissions do have a detrimental impact


                                                                    68

           1   on the surrounding area and people.  The draft SWEIS

           2   allows for processing 87,000 pounds of high explosives

           3   and up to 6,900 pounds of depleted uranium to be blown

           4   up in dynamic experiments annually.

           5            "DOE must monitor and implement comprehensive

           6   sampling programs at all open burning and open

           7   detonation sites for all activities using high

           8   explosives and depleted uranium.  Beyond that DOE must

           9   institute a program to stop all toxic air pollutant

          10   emissions from LANL facilities and activities.

          11            "Operations at LANL are a major violation of

          12   environmental justice.  New Mexico has the second

          13   highest minority population in the country.  It is not

          14   possible that LANL activities would have no effect on

          15   these populations.  The analysis using six-year-old

          16   information does not account for undocumented

          17   residents nor low-income individuals above the poverty

          18   level.

          19            "In addition, there are 15 pueblos within a

          20   50-mile radius of LANL.  And yet the public hearings

          21   are to take place during pueblo feast days which

          22   assures in large part that many will be unable to

          23   participate.  I request an analysis in the final SWEIS

          24   with public input and review.

          25            "My recommendation is that Congress change


                                                                    69

           1   the mission of LANL to focus on research and

           2   development into renewable energy such as solar and

           3   wind and cleanup technologies that support the

           4   environmental and public health.  The SWEIS must

           5   include a fourth alternative that focuses on these

           6   activities.  While DOE does not think that such a

           7   shift is possible, it is my belief that LANL must

           8   transition to peaceful and sustainable research."

           9            And do I have a minute?  Can I just read one

          10   person's comment that they wrote on the end.  So this

          11   is a letter that CCN has circulated and signed.  And I

          12   would just like to read one person's comment that they

          13   wrote at the bottom which is "Albuquerque and the

          14   surrounding region are not included in this and they

          15   should be given a voice and their own public hearing.

          16   Thank you."

          17            And I just want to thank the people in

          18   Albuquerque who did come up and say that we strongly

          19   feel that 60 miles is not too far to be concerned.

          20   Thank you.

          21            MS. BRANDIN:  I think this is Stephane

          22   Hiller.

          23            STEPHANE HILLER:  Thank you.  My name is

          24   Stephane Hiller and I am here from the North Bay area

          25   of California which is where Los Alamos' twin facility


                                                                    70

           1   Lawrence Livermore Labs is located and where plutonium

           2   is slated to be vastly increased in the near future

           3   despite the fact that the Department of Energy says

           4   that the facility really can't handle it and so

           5   they're going to increase it.  And then maybe they're

           6   going to remove it after 2014.

           7            I would like everyone at Los Alamos and all

           8   of you, if you don't already know, to realize that the

           9   quadrupling of pit production here is just part of a

          10   critical change in the United States nuclear policy

          11   since 2002.  I don't mean just part, I mean it is one

          12   part of a vast and significant overhaul of United

          13   States nuclear policy.

          14            Up until 2002 the policy of the United States

          15   after dropping the bomb twice as you know was

          16   deterrence, that the more we amassed, the more we

          17   could prevent nuclear war.  And there was folly in

          18   that policy as anyone could realize.  But the folly

          19   has exceeded itself.

          20            In 2002, when Bush announced the new nuclear

          21   policy and in a series of subsequent documents that

          22   have come to light recently, joint military operations

          23   directives, presidential directives, Pentagon

          24   documents and so forth, there has been a marked change

          25   from deterrence to use.


                                                                    71

           1            And tactical nuclear weapons which are a

           2   third to three times, I'm not sure if I'm exactly

           3   right on this, but approximately the size of the bomb

           4   which leveled Hiroshima are now included in a triad of

           5   usable -- safe usable military weapons.

           6            This is a really significant change.  And the

           7   public is completely unaware of this.  And so

           8   apparently is Los Alamos.  So this is not an academic

           9   exercise.

          10            By making more pits, this lab and the

          11   citizens of New Mexico and the citizens of the United

          12   States are preparing to participate in a nuclear

          13   strike anywhere in the world that could easily lead to

          14   World War III or sometimes called World War IV and, in

          15   fact, has already been labeled and is expected to do

          16   so.

          17            Is that really what the best and brightest

          18   American minds want to do here?  It's not what the

          19   people of America want.  In numerous surveys the

          20   majority of Americans have repeatedly said they did

          21   not believe nuclear weapons should ever be used.

          22            The use of taxpayer money to enable companies

          23   like Bechtel and their friends to create more bombs is

          24   a travesty of American democracy.  Thank you.

          25            MS. BRANDIN:  Mr. Mello.


                                                                    72

           1            GREG MELLO:  Thank you for the extra minutes.

           2            I haven't read all of EIS yet.  But it's

           3   important for everybody to realize that there will be

           4   accidents involved in expanded plutonium operations.

           5   There already are accidents.  And they're important to

           6   people who work in the plutonium facility.

           7            I recall being on an airplane with a

           8   scientist who was on his way to a job interview

           9   because his wife demanded that they get out of here.

          10   Eight people have been contaminated not too far from

          11   his work area.  And she was laying down the line and

          12   he was getting a job interview elsewhere.

          13            Well, that's one type of accident.  There are

          14   other kinds of accidents as well.  And I just want to

          15   put out the -- a serious question that what's called

          16   high reliability theory in risk analysis can be

          17   applicable to an operation as complex as this and urge

          18   you strongly to look at the alternative approach

          19   so-called normal accident theory, which posits a

          20   number of limits on the liability of operations and

          21   accidents.  Accidents happen aplenty at Rocky Flats

          22   and accidents happen here as well.

          23            I want to return to the adequacy of the

          24   process to deal with the subject matter.  I just

          25   noticed driving up here that there is a mention in the


                                                                    73

           1   summary of the EIS of a plan to be able to manufacture

           2   50 nuclear weapon secondaries here in addition to

           3   pits.  So, in addition to the primaries, there is a

           4   plan to manufacture the secondaries here in New Mexico

           5   on a comparable scale.

           6            Well, this is new to me.  And I try to

           7   understand what's happening here.  This raises the

           8   question of whether or not we understand everything

           9   that is involved, all of the connected actions that

          10   are involved in pit production here.  And some of

          11   these connected actions may be planned and others may

          12   just be held in reserve as contingency.

          13            So all of you who are involved in the EIS

          14   process may be working very hard to try to get it

          15   right and everything.  But you are not -- it's certain

          16   that you're not getting complete information from the

          17   programs.

          18            The question is what degree of withholding is

          19   there and what contingencies are there that the

          20   programs themselves are not fully cognizant.  At

          21   STRATCOM in 2003 there was a discussion of small

          22   builds of special weapons.

          23            Los Alamos briefed Congress in 1999 in a

          24   classified briefing on small builds of special

          25   weapons.  John Emily spoke of small builds of special


                                                                    74

           1   weapons in the state of laboratory address in

           2   approximately 1991.  In the federal budget, there is a

           3   mention of bays and cells at Pantex for the assembly

           4   of small builds.

           5            I think we have to look carefully at the

           6   possibility that what is being done here may -- there

           7   may be another part to this iceberg.  And it may be as

           8   I said partly planned and classified or partly a

           9   contingency which could be put into operation later

          10   which all the good-hearted people might not know about

          11   now.

          12            So I guess the idea that -- I mean returning

          13   to the Elizabeth metaphor about Linton Brooks making

          14   this vote party line or mixed candidates, it's a kind

          15   of travesty of a democratic decision.  We can't even

          16   know some of the most fundamental aspects of what we

          17   are supposedly discussing here.

          18            Because of things like this, as many of us

          19   have seen in last week in widely reported newspaper

          20   accounts, trust in government is plummeting in this

          21   country.  The question is how badly is Los Alamos

          22   Laboratory going to hurt itself with this process.

          23            No one trusts Los Alamos outside the county

          24   and I'm not sure that that many people trust Los

          25   Alamos Labs inside the county.  It behooves the


                                                                    75

           1   laboratory and the county government as well as the

           2   citizens to try to tease apart this process to the

           3   maximum extent well beyond the requirement of law

           4   because of the nature of what's being decided.

           5            What Callio said about the reference

           6   documents of the EIS is an extremely important point.

           7   It would be very important to get those electronically

           8   to folks.  This whole discussion is taking place in a

           9   context in which the information flow from Los Alamos

          10   Lab has been constricted over a number of years to an

          11   unprecedented level.

          12            Maybe some of you know that for a long time

          13   the public reading group was actually behind the razor

          14   wire fence and no member of the public could actually

          15   go to it.  Then the people who were assigned to give

          16   documents to the public were actually not empowered to

          17   do that.

          18            And then the security people who had to vet

          19   whether those documents could go out were reassigned.

          20   You could spend your life trying to get basic

          21   documents.  You can't get an LAUR.  That means

          22   unrestricted circulation at Los Alamos unrestricted.

          23   You can't get those documents from the Los Alamos

          24   library anymore, from the lab library.  You have to

          25   order them from NTIS.


                                                                    76

           1            So I would say that there's been a systematic

           2   attempt to damage the context in which this discussion

           3   was on.  Anyway that's just my way of background.  So

           4   this particular process is itself damaged by the

           5   damage to that context.

           6            Now, a couple of seconds to tally those

           7   comments.  The performance assessment for Area G is

           8   not available to the public.  It's long overdue by

           9   DOE's -- by the standards of DOE's own quarters.  The

          10   cognizant DOE official in Albuquerque is unable to

          11   acquire a copy of this document, the person who is

          12   supposed to review it.

          13            The Citizens Advisory Board is unable to

          14   acquire a copy of this document.  The management of

          15   Area G has been transferred from the environmental

          16   part of the laboratory to the pit production part of

          17   the laboratory because as we hear some people in the

          18   environmental management group are not happy with the

          19   whole concept of permanent disposal of nuclear waste

          20   here in Los Alamos County.

          21            When we talk about cleanup here, we have to

          22   always -- it's not really the greatest word to use

          23   because of the continued disposal which has come up

          24   several times.  So the question is are we cleaning up

          25   or are we dirtying or polluting.  It's kind of a race.


                                                                    77

           1            And the seesaw -- I don't know whether we've

           2   ever gone into the positive side of this ledger.  Now,

           3   there's a consent order and there is dirt being dug

           4   up.  I don't know whether that volume of earth, the

           5   contaminated material being removed is -- comes up to

           6   what is disposed every year at Area G permanently.  So

           7   cleanup is kind of a euphemism.

           8            The seismic analysis is also very important,

           9   and Callio brought that up also.  It's been pending

          10   for a long time.  And there are two components, two

          11   separate analyses which are very important to

          12   understand the implications of the plans discussed in

          13   the SWEIS.

          14            One is the seismic driver.  There have been

          15   very large earthquakes here in Los Alamos, a Richter

          16   magnitude of seven according to Los Alamos Lab.  These

          17   earthquakes will knock down most of the buildings in

          18   Los Alamos.  There have been three of them since the

          19   end of the Pliocene according again to the

          20   laboratory's seismologists.

          21            Now, we don't have anything written on this

          22   which the rest of us can get or which Roger at the

          23   monitor can get.  And we need that report.  Years have

          24   gone into it.  Dozens of people have worked on it.

          25   And it should be an ingredient in this EIS.


                                                                    78

           1            The second component is what is the

           2   engineering response of the building structures to

           3   these seismic drivers.  How many buildings here at the

           4   lab are going to fall down.  What about the Sigma

           5   Complex, for example, an older building which is

           6   necessary for the pit production mission.

           7            Now, Chuck Pergler mentioned the billion

           8   dollar commitment to pit production through the

           9   chemistry and metallurgy research replacement

          10   building.  But, in order for the CMRR to be really

          11   useful, PF-4, a main plutonium facility, has to be

          12   upgraded.  And quite possibly the Sigma Complex has to

          13   be ungraded or even replaced.

          14            So the question is are we -- is there an

          15   attempt to rush the commitment of the nation to pit

          16   production here which will entail really a lot of

          17   expense, not just a billion, maybe 2 billion in

          18   ancillary facilities.  And we won't know until we get

          19   the seismic analysis, the two reports of the seismic

          20   analysis.

          21            MS. BRANDIN:  I'm going to ask you to wrap

          22   up.

          23            GREG MELLO:  I guess the last comment is not

          24   long ago I spoke to the Los Alamos County Council.

          25   One of the other speakers was a mental health


                                                                    79

           1   practitioner consultant to the county here.

           2   Previously I had heard a presentation by the medical

           3   director of Los Alamos lab.

           4            Both of those presentations pointed to

           5   depression and stress as the highest environmental

           6   health problems here in Los Alamos County.  The

           7   presentations to the county council said that the most

           8   significant health problem as she saw it in Los Alamos

           9   County was attempted youth suicide which she said is

          10   rampant in Los Alamos.

          11            Now, is this in the EIS.  We have to look at

          12   these inchoate secondary impacts.  We have to look at

          13   the effect on the community.  And we may not be fully

          14   able to get it in a table with numbers.  But we need

          15   to look at it carefully.

          16            Suicide levels of female radiation workers

          17   have historically been high at Los Alamos, elevated

          18   more than ten times the national average according to

          19   the lab.  We need to get this stuff out there and talk

          20   about it because it affects the quality of life here

          21   in this community and in this region.

          22            And I beg you not to rush past all of this

          23   and just treat the EIS process as just a wicket you

          24   have to get through as soon as possible because the

          25   result of that will be harm for everybody.  Thank you.


                                                                    80

           1            MS. BRANDIN:  That's all the cards I have.

           2   Is there anybody who hasn't spoken who would like to

           3   speak.  Please, when you come up here, state your name

           4   so we can have it for the record.

           5            CHRIS MECHELS:  Hi, I'm Chris Mechels, I'm

           6   retired from the laboratory.  I didn't plan to speak

           7   tonight, but I tried to do my homework.  And I find I

           8   can't really do my homework because I was trying to

           9   get the DOE documents, some of the environmental

          10   assessments that are referenced in this SWEIS, and I

          11   can't figure out where to get them.

          12            They're on the DOE web site, but they're

          13   locked out, I mean they're password only.  I mean I'm

          14   very surprised.  Once upon a time on the DOE site you

          15   could actually get the environmental assessments.

          16   Now, you can't.

          17            My question is what the hell is going on.

          18   And, if Elizabeth is around, what the hell is going

          19   on?  You're referring to environmental assessments and

          20   we can't get to them.  They're on your bloody web

          21   site, but you've got to have a password.

          22            So please tell us where we can get this

          23   stuff.  If you're going to lock out the DOE web site,

          24   then you better tell us where we can get them if we

          25   are to make an intelligent comment.


                                                                    81

           1            We've got a few days left.  So please,

           2   Elizabeth, if you're around, please tell us where we

           3   can get this environmental assessment because we can't

           4   get them from where we used to.  Thank you.

           5            MS. BRANDIN:  We're almost out of time.  Is

           6   there anybody who has not spoken?  Okay.  I will take

           7   another up to two people.  And two people have already

           8   raised their hand.

           9            ED GROTHUS:  I really want to thank the court

          10   reporter.  Without her I wouldn't have known a thing

          11   about what was going on.  But I do want to say

          12   something about nuclear waste.  There are a 103

          13   nuclear power plants in this country.  They have a

          14   lifetime too just like everybody and every other

          15   thing.  It's like 35 years and now they're pushing it

          16   up to around 50 years.

          17            At the end of the lifetime of a nuclear power

          18   plant, you have to get rid of the whole thing.

          19   Massive, massive amounts of nuclear waste, highly

          20   radioactive nuclear waste.

          21            Los Alamos isn't talking about this.  They

          22   even want to build more nuclear power plants.

          23   Supposedly the new ones will be better and safer than

          24   the ones that are now in operation.  What are they

          25   going to do with this massive amount of material?


                                                                    82

           1            I think that's an impact that exceeds every

           2   other kind of environmental assessment.  What are you

           3   going to do with the nuclear waste from 103 nuclear

           4   power plants?

           5            One other thing.  No one is secure unless

           6   everyone is secure.  We cannot threaten the world with

           7   our bombs.  Deterrence is a failure.  Families don't

           8   live that way and nations shouldn't get along that

           9   way.  We have to learn the golden rule, peace on earth

          10   goodwill to men, treat everyone as you want to be

          11   treated.

          12            So it's the only way we're going to solve

          13   this conundrum.  Thank you again for letting me speak

          14   a second time.

          15            MS. BRANDIN:  Ma'am.

          16            ASTRID WEBSTER:  I don't need a microphone,

          17   this will only take a second.

          18            MS. BRANDIN:  Could you please restate your

          19   name.

          20            ASTRID WEBSTER:  My name is Astrid Webster.

          21            SPEAKER:  And we really can't hear you over

          22   here.  We have another speaker that hasn't spoken.

          23            ASTRID WEBSTER:  I'm Astrid Webster.  And I

          24   wish it noted in the record that not one person at

          25   this small forum spoke up in favor of nuclear pit


                                                                    83

           1   production.  The other is that nuclear deterrence is

           2   like eating ice cream to prevent obesity.  Thank you.

           3            DAVE THOMPSON:  I'm Dave Thompson.  And I'm

           4   speaking as a citizen.  I just want to make an

           5   announcement.  I'm very active as those of you in the

           6   audience know me in the Los Alamos Committee on Arms

           7   Control and International Security.  We have been

           8   working for 20 years on the problem of arms reduction

           9   and how to eliminate the nuclear threat.

          10            I just wanted to announce that we're going to

          11   have a major public meeting in September at the United

          12   Church on the topic of -- with a laboratory speaker.

          13   And on the topic of the issues surrounding the

          14   possible pit production and plutonium disposition in

          15   general.

          16            We also -- a couple of us hope to be at the

          17   county fair with a table for the other people, an

          18   information table to discuss these issues with anyone

          19   that would like to discuss them and our long term

          20   proposals for reducing nuclear arms.  Thank you.

          21            MS. BRANDIN:  We've run out of time.  As

          22   Ms. Withers said, there are two other public hearings,

          23   tomorrow in Espanola and Thursday in Santa Fe which

          24   you're welcome to attend.

          25            And there are also other ways to make your


                                                                    84

           1   comments, written comments which will be also

           2   published verbatim in the final site-wide EIS.  There

           3   is a card in addition that is posted, there is a

           4   yellow card up front that has where to send your

           5   comments.  Thank you for participating in this public

           6   hearing and everybody drive carefully and be safe.

           7            (At 8:40 p.m. the hearing was concluded.)

           8

           9

          10

          11

          12

          13

          14

          15

          16

          17

          18

          19

          20

          21

          22

          23

          24

          25


                                                                    85

           1                   REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE

           2

           3            I, JAN A. WILLIAMS, New Mexico CCR #14, DO

           4   HEREBY CERTIFY THAT ON August 8, 2006, the hearing was

           5   taken before me, and that I did report in stenographic

           6   shorthand the proceedings set forth herein, and the

           7   foregoing is a true and correct transcription of the

           8   proceedings had upon the taking of this hearing.

           9            I FURTHER CERTIFY that I am neither employed

          10   by nor related to any of the parties or attorneys in

          11   this case, and that I have no interest whatsoever in

          12   the final disposition of this case in any court.

          13

          14

          15

          16

          17

          18

          19
                                 __________________________________
          20                     Jan A. Williams, RPR
                                 Certified Court Reporter #14
          21                     License Expires:  12/31/06
                                 Bean & Associates, Inc.
          22                     Professional Court Reporting Service
                                 500 Marquette, Northwest, Suite 280
          23                     Albuquerque, New Mexico  87102

          24

          25   (1561A)  JAW