Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0083-0364
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2006-01-18T05:00Z

1
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
1
2
3
4
5
6
Radiation
Protection
Standards
Applicable
to
Yucca
Mountain
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
P
U
B
L
I
C
H
E
A
R
I
N
G
&
C
O
M
M
E
N
T
S
16
17
18
19
20
October
3,
2005
21
2
1
ELIZABETH
COTSWORTH:
As
most
of
you
in
the
audience
know,
2
I
am
Elizabeth
Cotsworth.
I'm
the
Director
of
the
Office
of
Radiation
and
3
Indoor
Air
at
EPA.
The
Administrator
of
the
Agency
has
asked
me
to
4
represent
him
at
these
public
hearings
and
to
hear
the
comments
of
you
5
and
fellow
citizens
for
the
next
couple
of
days
in
Las
Vegas
on
our
August
6
22nd
proposal
for
radiation
protection
standards
for
Yucca
Mountain.
I
7
won't
share
the
background
and
summary
of
our
rule
 
which
most
of
you
8
heard
as
we
sat
around
and
had
our
public
meeting
 
I
think
we'll
go
9
directly
into
our
public
hearing
format.
Let
me
also
introduce
Betsy
10
Fornash,
who
is
the
head
of
the
Yucca
Mountain
team
in
my
office
 
who
11
is
the
key
person
responsible
for
the
proposed
standard
on
which
some
of
12
you
will
be
commenting
tonight,
and
finally
I'll
turn
this
over
to
Doug
Sarno
13
who
will
preside
as
our
Hearing
Officer
for
this
formal
public
hearing
and
14
Doug
will
share
the
ground
rules
on
how
this
public
hearing
will
actually
15
flow.
Doug?
16
17
DOUG
SARNO:
Thank
you,
Elizabeth,
and
we
don't
have
a
whole
18
lot
of
folks
signed
up
so
we'll
be
a
little
more
flexible.
Our
rules
are
set
up
19
so
that
the
maximum
number
of
people
can
have
an
opportunity
to
speak
20
and
to
have
their
comments
placed
in
the
record,
and
to
be
sure
that
no
21
one
individual
or
group
would
monopolize
the
time,
but
that's
not
going
to
22
be
a
problem
here
tonight.
So,
if
instead
of
five
minutes,
you
need
six
and
23
3
a
half,
I
think
we
can
manage
such
a
thing,
but
I
will
still
give
you
a
1
warning.
Individuals
will
get
five
minutes
and
if
you
are
representing
an
2
organization,
then
you
get
ten
minutes.
I
will
give
you
a
2
minute
and
a
3
one
minute
warning
that
looks
like
this
so
that
I
don't
have
to
interrupt
you,
4
so
if
you're
paying
attention
to
me
you'll
see
those.
I'll
call
time,
but
if
you
5
need
to
finish
a
statement,
by
all
means,
we'll
let
you
do
that.
Also,
if
you
6
have
much
longer
comments
than
can
reasonably
fit
into
five
minutes,
as
7
we
said
earlier
there's
lots
of
other
ways
to
get
into
the
record.
Getting
8
into
the
record
at
this
hearing
is
absolutely
no
different
than
getting
on
the
9
record
using
one
of
the
three
comment
stations
in
the
back,
or
sending
in
10
your
comments
directly
to
EPA
via
phone,
fax,
courier,
email,
on
the
11
internet
 
there's
a
lot
of
different
ways
and
the
fact
sheet
number
three
I
12
believe
talks
about
all
those
different
ways
and
gives
you
that
opportunity,
13
so
there's
absolutely
no
restriction
to
getting
your
full
and
total
comments
14
on
the
record.
And
everything
that's
on
the
record
will
be
considered
15
equally
by
EPA.
Just
because
you
came
out
here
and
were
able
to
speak,
16
doesn't
mean
that
it's
any
more
or
less
influential
than
any
other
forms
of
17
comment.
So
I
just
want
to
make
sure
everybody
knows
that
there
are
18
lots
of
ways,
and
those
of
you
who
talk
to
others
who
don't
want
to
come
19
out
to
these
hearings,
please
let
them
know
that
the
comment
period
ends
20
on
November
21st
so
there
are
lots
of
ways
to
get
on
the
record,
so
we
just
21
want
to
make
sure
everyone's
comfortable
with
that.
With
that,
we
will
22
start.
I'll
keep
time.
I'll
call
the
two
folks
that
are
signed
up
and
then
once
23
4
those
two
have
had
an
opportunity,
I
will
call
anyone
else
who
hasn't
1
signed
up,
but
would
like
an
opportunity
to
comment.
So
we'll
start
with
2
Jan
Cameron.
3
4
JAN
CAMERON:
Thank
you.
I'm
Jan
Cameron
with
(
unintelligible)
5
First
of
all,
I'd
like
to
thank
you
all
for
coming
here,
as
I
said
to
one
of
you
6
earlier
it's
nice
that
the
EPA
is
recognizing
that
Amargosa
Valley
actually
7
sits
here
and
might
be
impacted
by
Yucca
Mountain.
My
comment
8
basically
is
I
think
that
trying
to
set
standards
for
a
10,000
year
period
is
9
pretty
iffy
under
the
best
of
circumstances
with
the
best
of
scientists
with
10
the
best
intentions.
I
think
it's
admirable
to
have
some
standards
to
try
11
and
(
unintelligible)
to
try
and
set
standards
for
a
million
years,
I
think
12
passes
ridiculous
and
I
would
hope
that
any
standard
that
the
EPA
does
13
set
is
(
unintelligible)
because
things
will
change
so
much
(
unintelligible).
14
Thank
you.
15
16
KEN
GAREY:
I'm
Ken
Garey
from
Amargosa
Valley,
I'm
here
17
twenty­
five
years
or
so.
Welcome
to
Amargosa;
I'm
glad
you
could
be
18
here
because
folks
(
unintelligible)
standard
of
expected
or
anticipated
19
increase
in
radiation
from
the
Yucca
Mountain
project
itself
(
unintelligible)
20
described
as
15
mR.
In
the
roundtable
discussion
there
was
an
upset
that
21
15
mR
was
based
on
the
national
average
of
350
mR
annual
exposure.
22
We
here
at
Amargosa
have
been
measured
at
110
mR
in
our
state,
and
23
5
15
mR
compared
to
110mR
is
insignificant
compared
to
the
other
risks
we
1
accept
or
take.
We've
worked
a
number
of
years
to
establish
the
2
background
in
this
area,
and
when
people
worry
(
unintelligible)
parked
in
3
all
these
(
unintelligible)
stations,
(
unintelligible)
at
our
stations
is
measured
4
at
110
and
it's
consistent.
(
unintelligible)
I've
been
talking
with
Dr.
Park
5
and
he
mentioned,
does
that
exclude
Radon?
I
didn't
have
an
answer
but
6
then
I
thought
about
it
and
it
includes
Radon.
Radon
is
included
because
7
when
the
increases
and
decreases
(
unintelligible).
Radon
gas
is
naturally
8
occurring
in
the
soil.
(
unintelligible)
They've
added
in
the
chest
x­
rays
and
9
so
on
and
established
110
mR
a
year.
I
would
say,
living
this
close
to
the
10
test
site,
that
is
rather
important.
Although
we
have
other
stations,
exactly
11
like
the
ones
here,
through
Utah
and
down
in
New
Mexico
that
their
12
readings
of
annual
exposure
rates
are
sometimes
above
ours
and
13
sometimes
below,
depending
on
(
unintelligible).
But
I
don't
mean
any
point
14
other
than
this:
we
should
use,
measure
and
establish
background
15
characterization
in
this
community
at
110
per
year
and
that
added
to
15
16
mR.
A
good
background
(
unintelligible)
site
characterization
17
(
unintelligible).
Thank
you.
18
19
DOUG
SARNO:
Is
there
anyone
else
who
would
like
to
comment
20
at
this
time?
I'll
turn
it
back
over
to
Elizabeth
then.
We
can
let
these
folks
21
go
home.
We
will
be
here
until
9:
00
pm
in
case
there
are
other
people
in
22
the
community
who
would
like
to
come
and
comment.
Certainly
those
of
23
6
you
who
are
here
are
certainly
free
to
depart.
And
again,
I
thank
you
for
1
your
comments
at
the
public
meeting,
and
at
the
hearing
and
assure
you
2
that
we
came
here
to
listen
and
to
reassure
you
that
we
are
going
to
fully
3
consider
all
of
the
public
comments
that
we
receive
during
the
public
4
comment
period
in
formulating
our
final
rule.
Thank
you.
5