Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0083-0209
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2005-11-08T05:00Z

1
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
Radiation
Protection
Standards
Applicable
to
Yucca
Mountain
P
U
B
L
I
C
H
E
A
R
I
N
G
&
C
O
M
M
E
N
T
S
October
4,
2005
Reported
by:
Gina
J.
Mendez,
CCR
No.
787
2
1
MS.
COTSWORTH:
Good
evening.
I'm
pleased
2
to
be
here
tonight.
I've
been
asked
by
Administrator
3
Steve
Johnson
to
represent
him
at
these
hearings
and
to
4
hear
the
comments
of
Nevadans
on
our
August
22nd
5
proposal
for
radiation
protection
standards
applicable
6
to
Yucca
Mountain.

7
I
want
to
thank
you
all
for
taking
the
time
8
to
be
here
this
evening.

9
At
this
hearing
and
at
other
formal
10
hearings,
we've
scheduled
the
public
an
opportunity
to
11
comment
on
this
very
important
proposed
rule.

12
EPA's
mission
is
to
protect
human
health
and
13
the
environment.
We
take
this
mission
very
seriously.

14
We're
here
today
to
fulfill
the
specific
role
for
15
Yucca
Mountain
that
Congress
laid
out
for
EPA.
That
16
role
is
to
make
sure
that
the
high­
level
waste
facility
17
will
be
operated
and
opened
only
if
public
health
can
be
18
protected.

19
EPA
standards
will
be
incorporated
into
the
20
Nuclear
Regulatory
Commission's
licensing
requirements
21
for
the
Yucca
Mountain
facility.
Then
the
Department
of
22
Energy
will
apply
for
the
license
to
operate
the
site.

23
Only
if
DOE
can
meet
EPA
standards
will
the
24
facility
open.

25
When
it
originally
laid
out
EPA's
role,
3
1
Congress
said
EPA
needed
to
follow
the
expert
advice
of
2
the
National
Academy
of
Sciences,
which
is
the
premier
3
U.
S.
scientific
organization,
made
up
of
leading
4
scientists
and
technical
experts.

5
We
first
issued
Yucca
Mountain
standards
in
6
2001.
In
July
of
last
year,
the
Court
ruled
that
the
7
10,000­
year
time
period
when
the
standards
would
be
in
8
effect
was
inconsistent
with
the
recommendations
of
the
9
National
Academy
of
Sciences.

10
It's
important
to
note
that
the
Court
did
11
not
rule
that
EPA
standard
was
not
protective,
but
12
rather
that
our
standards
were
not
consistent
with
or
13
based
on
the
longer
time
period
when
the
highest
doses
14
of
radiation
from
the
waste
are
most
likely
to
occur.

15
We've
now
revised
or
proposed
to
revise
our
16
standard
in
response
to
the
Court
ruling.
Our
new
17
proposed
rule
limits
radiation
doses
from
Yucca
Mountain
18
for
a
million
years,
up
to
a
million
years,
after
it
19
closes.
No
other
rules
in
the
United
States
for
any
20
risks
have
ever
attempted
to
regulate
for
such
long
­­

21
for
such
a
long
period
of
time.

22
To
meet
the
challenge,
we
have
followed
the
23
best
advice
of
the
NAS
and
members
of
the
international
24
scientific
community.

25
For
the
first
­­
in
summary,
for
the
first
4
1
10,000
years,
we
retain
­­
we
propose
to
retain
a
dose
2
limit
of
15
millirem.
This
is
protection
at
the
level
3
of
the
most
stringent
radiation
regulation
that
4
currently
exists
in
the
United
States.

5
From
10,000
up
to
one
million
years,
we
6
propose
a
dose
limit
of
350
millirem.
This
represents
a
7
total
radiation
exposure
for
people
in
the
vicinity
of
8
Yucca
Mountain
no
higher
than
natural
levels
that
people
9
live
with
routinely
in
other
parts
of
the
United
States
10
today.

11
One
million
years
includes
the
time
in
which
12
the
highest
doses
of
radiation
from
the
facility
are
13
expected
to
occur.
It
represents
25,000
generations.

14
Our
proposal
also
requires
the
Department
of
15
Energy
to
show
that
Yucca
Mountain
can
safely
contain
16
waste
even
considering
the
effects
of
earthquakes,

17
volcanos,
climate
change,
and
corrosion
of
the
18
containers.

19
We
propose
the
revised
standards
to
address
20
the
issues
raised
by
the
Court,
reflect
sound
science
21
and
its
limitations,
protect
human
health,
and
provide
22
clear
guidance
to
the
Nuclear
Regulatory
Commission
in
23
its
licensing
process.

24
We
look
forward
to
your
comments
on
EPA's
25
proposed
approach
to
meeting
the
unprecedented
5
1
scientific
challenge
we
have
in
front
of
us.
Your
2
comments
at
this
hearing
will
be
part
of
the
formal
3
rule­
making
record
as
will
all
other
comments
received
4
tonight
and
during
the
public
comment
period.

5
Thank
you
very
much.

6
MR.
SARNO:
I
will
be
serving
as
hearing
7
officer
here
this
evening.
What
that
just
means
is
that
8
I'm
going
to
be
keeping
time.

9
When
­­
I
will
announce
whether
you
have
a
10
five­
minute
or
a
ten­
minute
period.
Individuals
have
11
five­
minute
comment
periods.
People
who
are
speaking
on
12
behalf
of
an
organization
have
ten
minutes
in
which
to
13
provide
comments.
I
will
hold
up
signs
as
you're
coming
14
down
at
two
minutes
and
one
minute
just
to
give
you
a
15
clue
of
where
you
are
because,
unfortunately,
I
will
16
call
time
at
the
five­
or
ten­
minute
mark
just
so
that
17
we
can
accommodate
everybody
that
has
signed
up.

18
I
do
want
to
remind
you
that
this
is
not
the
19
only
way
to
be
formally
on
the
record.
There
are
other
20
ways
here
in
the
room,
or
you
can
e­
mail
EPA,
fax
EPA,

21
send
letters
to
EPA,
courier
a
letter.
You
can
­­
you
22
can
get
on
the
Web
and
do
it
that
way.

23
The
comment
stations
over
there
allow
you
to
24
have
written
comments,
put
them
on
the
computer,
or
also
25
audiotape
them.
So
there's
a
lot
of
different
ways
to
6
1
get
on
the
record.

2
We're
also
going
to
be
back
here
tomorrow
3
between
ten
and
noon
and
Thursday
between
ten
and
noon.

4
And
between
eleven
and
noon
both
days,
there
will
be
5
additional
formal
comment
periods
then.
And
if
we
need
6
to
stay
past
nine,
we
certainly
will.

7
Right
now
we
have
a
slate
of
people
signed
8
up,
up
through
nine
o'clock
but
not
past.
But
if
there
9
are
people
that
want
to
speak
that
haven't
had
that
10
opportunity,
we
will
create
that
opportunity.

11
MS.
COTSWORTH:
Thank
you,
Doug.
I
just
12
want
to
introduce
the
other
members
of
the
EPA
panel
13
who
will
be
listening
to
your
comments
this
evening.

14
I
have
Miss
Becky
Forinash,
who
is
the
15
lead
of
the
Yucca
Mountain
team
in
my
office,
and
16
Mr.
Keith
Matthews,
who
is
a
member
of
our
Office
of
17
General
Counsel.

18
Thank
you.

19
MR.
SARNO:
So
I
will
call
folks
up
in
the
20
order
that
I
have
them
signed
up
here.
And
the
first
to
21
offer
testimony
is
Jacob
Pass
(
Phonetic)
and
he
has
five
22
minutes.

23
MR.
PASS:
I'm
challenging
the
standard
both
24
on
a
scientific
and
legal
ground.
And
I
will
submit
25
written
comment.
This
is
just
a
very
brief
summary.
7
1
First
of
all,
Yucca
Mountain
is
not
just
a
2
regular
nuclear
waste
site
but
rather
immense
waste
site
3
in
for
a
long
way,
and
why.

4
Number
one,
large
amount
of
heavy
metals,

5
300
tons
will
be
deposit
at
Yucca
Mountain.
In
addition
6
to
the
70,000
ton
of
high
nuclear
waste,
the
canisters
7
are
subject
to
corrosion
­­
including
chromium,
nickel
8
molecule.

9
Second,
actinide
such
as
plutonium
and
10
neptunium
237,
as
the
time
progress,
will
be
converted
11
to
lead;
therefore,
the
standard
must
be
set
on
the
12
big­
waste
standard.

13
As
far
on
the
background
radiation,
I
quote
14
from
the
National
Academy
of
Science
recommendation.
It
15
stated:
Even
exposure
to
background
radiation
causes
16
some
concern.
Additional
exposure
causes
additional
17
risk.

18
EPA
ignore
the
bystander
effect.
And
it's
19
very
clear
in
the
recommendation,
they
are
making
a
20
reference
to
the
10
millirem
by
standard
federal
21
recommendation
for
research.

22
I
make
comments
on
what
is
an
x­
ray
exposure
23
and
generation,
which
is
in
the
range
of
300.
And
24
x­
ray,
it
just
pass
through
the
body,
it's
not
being
25
deposit.
8
1
Actinide
of
a
radiation
generated
up
to
2
70,000
and
will
deposit
in
the
bone.
There
is
a
3
difference
in
energy
level.

4
One
of
the
issue
which
I
had,
I
make
the
5
issue
of
risk
assessment
and
complex
natures.
It
6
brought
to
the
attention
of
NRC
and
EPA
no
action
has
7
been
done.
You
are
required
by
federal
regulation,

8
federal
acts,
federal
regulation,
the
curative
impact
9
and
the
curative
effects.
And
this
will
be
­­
probably
10
will
go
to
the
Court.

11
Last,
an
analogy
is
the
Missouri
versus
the
12
Illinois,
200
U.
S.
Supreme
Court
of
496
in
1906,
stated:

13
In
1906,
the
State
of
Missouri
sued
the
State
of
14
Illinois
that
the
discharge
of
sewage
from
Illinois
into
15
the
river
of
the
Mississippi
increased
in
typhoid
fever
16
in
St.
Louis.

17
The
State
of
Missouri
lost
their
appeal
to
18
the
Supreme
Court
due
to
the
fact
that
lack
of
19
experimental
data
raised
a
serious
doubt.

20
I
have
serious
doubt
on
your
proposal.
You
21
did
not
follow
to
the
letter
of
the
law.
You
did
not
22
sign
the
literature
showing
it
safe.

23
When
I
heard
here
various
organizations,
I
24
didn't
hear
any
safe
scientific
study.
The
same
analogy
25
can
apply
to
YMP,
the
new
proposal,
new
radiation
9
1
standard.

2
Thank
you.

3
MR.
SARNO:
Thank
you,
sir.

4
Jean
Treichel.

5
MS.
TREICHEL:
Hi.
Some
of
my
comments
are
6
based
on
the
last
section
that
we
heard,
the
roundtable.

7
But,
again,
I'm
hearing
the
same
things
even
in
your
8
opening
statement
with
the
"
unprecedented."
I
think
9
we've
heard
that
word
about
ten
times
tonight
­­
this
is
10
unprecedented,
we've
never
had
to
do
anything
like
this.

11
So
you
say
that
on
one
hand,
but
then
on
the
12
other,
you
say,
But
we've
worked
with
other
nations
and
13
look.

14
So
it's
not
unprecedented.
You
know,
there
15
are
other
nations
that
are
handling
this
problem.
Some
16
of
those
industrialized
nations
are
putting
in
one
17
million
year,
zero­
dose
standard.
So,
you
know,
there's
18
looking
at
those
regulations
that
are
those
other
19
countries.

20
Also,
another
thing
that's
occurred
is
the
21
people
that
have
come
in
from
tribes
to
speak.
I
heard
22
several
times
where
you've
said,
Well,
we
can
have
a
23
separate
conversation
with
you
about
what's
happening.

24
Well,
it's
their
land.

25
I'm
also
told
that
they
have
radiation
10
1
standards,
and
they
have
good
ideas
about
how
to
manage
2
the
land,
and
they've
never
been
spoken
to.

3
And
I'm
going
to
keep
my
­­
or
visiting
on
4
their
tribes
to
talk
to
the
people
about
what's
going
to
5
happened.

6
I
just
want
to
keep
my
comments
brief.

7
But,
you
know,
looking
at
this
document,
it
8
says,
Public
health
and
environmental
standard.
And
9
what
we're
hearing
is
a
radiation
standard
of
350
10
millirem.
And
that's
what
we're
being
sold
tonight,
and
11
your
job,
as
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
should
12
be
that:
To
protect
the
environment
and
to
listen
to
13
the
champions
of
the
environment
that
are
here
tonight
14
and
not
to
shove
a
new
standard
that's
been
invented
15
down
our
throats.

16
Thanks.

17
MR.
SARNO:
Thank
you.

18
Imogene
Specks
(
Phonetic).

19
MS.
SPECKS:
At
the
roundtable
presentation,

20
vague
references
have
been
made
to
radiation
standards
21
in
other
countries.
Which
countries
and
what
levels
of
22
radiation?

23
Vague
references
have
been
made
regarding
24
radiation
levels
in
other
states.
Only
Colorado
has
25
been
named.
11
1
What
factors
determine
the
radiation
and
2
what
is
the
level?
What
assurance
can
the
DOE
and
EPA
3
give
the
public
that
the
15­
millirem
level
can
be
4
maintained
for
10,000
years?

5
The
claims
of
the
EPA
and
DOE
do
not
make
6
sense.
Public
protection,
I
don't
think
it's
7
believable.

8
MR.
SARNO:
Thank
you.

9
Joan
Bingham
(
Phonetic).

10
MS.
BINGHAM:
It's
my
opinion
that
the
EPA's
11
attempt
to
massage
and
change
the
standard
is
not
an
12
effort
to
protect
the
public
but
to
give
to
the
federal
13
government
what
they
want.

14
Time
and
money
would
be
better
spent
on
15
research
to
figure
out
what
to
do
with
the
spent
fuel
16
rather
than
bury
it
in
Nevada.

17
I've
been
opposed
to
this
issue
since
18
Yucca
Mountain
was
talked
about.
My
children
were
small
19
at
the
time,
and
we
had
no
say
in
it.
It
went
forward
20
despite
many,
many,
many,
people
not
wanting
it.
So
21
I've
lost
faith
and
trust
in
the
process
and
in
the
22
people
that
are
trying
to
make
these
changes
and
push
23
Yucca
Mountain
through.

24
MR.
SARNO:
Thank
you.

25
Either
Ian
(
Phonetic)
or
John
from
the
12
1
Western
Shoshone
Nation.

2
MR.
IAN:
Yes.

3
MR.
SARNO:
Ian,
you
have
ten
minutes.

4
MR.
IAN:
I
first
want
to
request
an
5
additional
30
days
to
comment
on
behalf
of
the
tribes.

6
I
would,
myself,
view
that
as
an
act
of
trust,

7
responsibility
exercised
by
the
EPA.
And
no
less
is
8
expected
by
the
tribes,
I'm
sure,
with
ties
to
9
Yucca
Mountain.

10
Again,
I
think
it's
important
that
the
EPA
11
clarifies
how
it
constructs
risks
so
that
it's
12
culturally
­­
culturally
appropriate
context
for
risks,

13
threat,
or
hazard
to
the
vulnerable
population
that
is
14
developed,
as
well
as
health
communications
strategy,
to
15
communicate
those
risks
to
the
tribes
in
a
way
that
they
16
understand.

17
I
think
that
right
now
there's
a
particular
18
class
of
individuals
that
are
being
disenfranchised
and
19
that
is
a
vulnerable
population.

20
Basically,
that's
all
I
have
to
say.

21
There's
a
lot
more
here.
I
haven't
had
a
complete
22
opportunity
to
review
the
July
report
of
this
year,

23
2005.
I
have
it
here
with
me.
There's
a
lot
of
24
interesting
things
in
there,
but
there
are
definitely
25
gaps
in
the
data
gathered.
13
1
As
I
talked
about
earlier
that
there
are
2
greater
uncertainties,
the
more
that
I
read,
the
more
3
information
you
get,
the
greater
are
the
uncertainties.

4
And
it
seems
like
the
approach
of
the
EPA
would
have
5
that
uncertainty
carried
out.

6
We're
going
to
treat
everybody
the
same
over
7
a
period
of
time.
And
I
think
those
receptors
are
8
individuals
differ,
and
their
exposure
to
hazards
­­
the
9
lifestyle,
what
they
eat,
the
rabbits
and
trees.

10
They're
not
just
numbers,
those
are
part
of
11
who
we
are,
the
land
that
fits
our
identity
and
how
we
12
construct
threats
and
risks
and
hazards
in
our
13
community.

14
Thank
you.

15
MR.
SARNO:
Thank
you.

16
Bradley
Austin
(
Phonetic).
Is
there
a
17
Bradley
Austin?

18
Marta
Adams
(
Phonetic)
on
behalf
of
the
19
Nevada
Attorney
General's
Office.
And
you
have
ten
20
minutes.

21
MS.
ADAMS:
Good
evening.
Thank
you
for
22
this
opportunity.

23
For
the
record,
I
am
Marta
Adams,
Senior
24
Deputy
Attorney
General,
appearing
on
behalf
of
the
25
current
general,
Brian
Sandoval
and
the
Nevada
14
1
Department
of
Justice.

2
A
primary
responsibility
of
the
Nevada
3
Department
of
Justice
is
to
protect
the
public
health
4
and
safety
of
all
Nevada
citizens.
The
Nevada
5
Department
of
Justice,
in
close
partnership
with
the
6
Nevada
Agency
for
Nuclear
Projects,
has
been
at
the
7
forefront
of
Nevada's
20­
plus­
year
struggle
to
stop
8
development
of
the
proposed
high­
level
nuclear
waste
9
down
at
Yucca
Mountain.
And
we
will,
as
the
State,
be
10
submitting
formal
extensive
comments
on
this
rule.

11
The
proposed
Yucca
Mountain
high­
level
12
nuclear
waste
repository
presents
great
health
and
13
safety
risks
to
Nevadans
and
is
wholly
unacceptable
to
14
Nevada's
leadership.

15
In
July
2004,
the
United
States
Court
of
16
Appeals
for
the
District
of
Columbia
Circuit
invalidated
17
the
radiation
health
protection
standard
for
the
18
proposed
repository
for
its
failure
to
adhere
to
the
19
Congressionally
required
recommendations
of
the
National
20
Academy
of
Sciences.

21
The
Court
held
that
EPA
deliberately
and
in
22
blatant
disregard
of
the
sound
advice
of
the
NAS
adopted
23
a
standard
that
fails
to
protect
public
health
and
24
safety
for
a
compliance
period
to
measure
it
when
25
radiation
hazards
are
at
their
peak
and
the
risk
to
the
15
1
public
is
greatest.

2
Unfortunately,
contrary
to
the
unequivocal
3
directions
provided
by
the
D.
C.
Circuit
Court
of
4
Appeals,
the
current
proposed
radiation
standard
fails
5
to
adequately
protect
health
and
safety.

6
Although
proponents
of
the
new
standard
7
argue
that
this
rule
actually
provides
health
and
safety
8
guarantees
for
an
unprecedented
one
million
years,
the
9
standard,
in
reality,
in
fact,
permits
future
10
generations
of
Nevadans
to
be
intentionally
subjected
to
11
radiation
levels
prohibited
everywhere,
both
nationally
12
and
internationally.

13
Rather
than
promulgating
a
revised
radiation
14
protection
standard
more
stringent
than
the
previous
15
standard
in
the
interest
of
public
health
and
safety,

16
EPA
actually
relaxes
the
standard.

17
Even
though
EPA
previously
determined
that
18
citizens
should
be
exposed
to
no
more
than
15
millirems
19
per
year,
the
new
proposed
standard
would
permit
20
exposures
of
between
350
and
1,050
millirems
per
year,

21
depending
on
whether
median
or
mean
exposures
are
22
considered.

23
This
relaxation
of
protection
for
citizens
24
living
close
to
the
proposed
repository
amounts
to
the
25
least
stringent
radiation
protection
standard
in
the
16
1
world.

2
The
proposed
EPA
standard,
if
ultimately
3
adopted,
would
allow
future
residents
of
Nevada
to
4
suffer
100
times
more
radiation
exposure
from
releases
5
than
levels
the
federal
government
currently
permits
to
6
residents
living
near
nuclear
power
plants.

7
And
I
would
refer
you
to
10
CFR,
Part
50,

8
Appendix
1,
Section
2A:
By
accepting
the
false
premise
9
that
no
man
may
package
relief
within
the
first
10,000
10
years
­­
and
I
would
submit
that's
a
complete
­­
that's
11
totally
preposterous.

12
EPA
has
created
a
bifurcated
standard,
which
13
fails
to
protect
the
public
in
the
first
10,000
years
of
14
the
repository's
operation.
And,
unquestionably,
in
the
15
period
beyond
the
first
10,000
years,
fails
at
nearly
16
astronomical
rates.

17
We
believe
that
EPA
has
created
a
standard
18
at
the
behest
of
and
in
collusion
with
the
Department
of
19
Energy
to
fit
DOE
site­
specific
needs
for
licensing.

20
In
its
earlier
radiation
rule
for
21
Yucca
Mountain,
EPA
promulgated
an
independent
22
groundwater
protection
standard
that
limits
radiation
in
23
groundwater
in
an
attempt
to
comply
with
safe
drinking
24
water
standards
established
in
the
United
States.

25
In
the
proposed
standard,
EPA
curtailed
its
17
1
groundwater
protection
after
10,000
years
and
subjects
2
drinking
and
irrigation
water
in
Amargosa
Valley
to
3
unacceptable,
dangerously
high
levels
of
radiation.

4
Only
through
the
abandonment
of
its
5
responsibility
to
future
generations
is
EPA
able
to
6
forego
protection
of
Nevada's
groundwater.

7
On
behalf
of
the
Nevada
Department
of
8
Justice,
I
respectfully
urge
EPA
to
rescind
its
proposed
9
rule.
In
the
interest
of
protecting
public
health
and
10
safety,
it
is
imperative
that
EPA
design
a
standard
11
truly
capable
of
protecting
present
and
future
12
generations
of
Nevadans
from
unacceptable
radiation
13
levels
when
the
radiation
risks
are
at
their
peak.

14
It
is
the
responsibility
of
EPA
to
15
promulgate
a
standard
that
assures
that
deadly
16
high­
level
radioactive
waste
is
truly
isolated
from
the
17
human
and
natural
environment.

18
I
ask
that
EPA
consider
these
comments
and
19
make
changes
to
a
new
proposed
rule
consistent
with
20
EPA's
duty
to
the
public.

21
Thank
you
again
for
this
opportunity.

22
MR.
SARNO:
Thank
you
very
much.

23
Governor
Guinn.

24
MR.
LOUX:
Obviously,
I'm
not
25
Governor
Guinn,
but
I'm
here
on
his
behalf.
18
1
I'm
Robert
Loux.
I'm
the
executive
director
2
of
the
Nevada
Agency
For
Nuclear
Projects,
a
branch
of
3
the
Office
of
the
Governor.

4
We
are
currently
reviewing
EPA's
proposed
5
health
and
safety
standards
for
Yucca
Mountain.
We'll
6
provide
extensive
comments
on
behalf
of
the
State
at
a
7
later
point
in
time.

8
Before
discussing
our
preliminary
views
of
9
EPA's
proposal,
I'd
like
to
acknowledge
EPA
for
at
least
10
partially
honoring
our
and
other's
request
to
extend
the
11
originally
announced
60­
day
public
comment
period.

12
Although
we
requested
180
days,
the
30­
day
extension
has
13
resulted
in
a
total
of
90
days
for
public
review
on
this
14
complex
proposal.

15
We're
disappointed,
however,
that
the
16
request
to
hold
additional
hearings
in
Northern
Nevada
17
or
other
parts
of
the
state
was
denied
by
EPA.

18
As
you
know,
we're
here
today
because
of
the
19
July
2004
Court
of
Appeals'
ruling
that
EPA
violated
the
20
law
when
it
issued
its
2001
standards
for
protection
of
21
Nevada's
health
and
safety
of
high­
level
waste
22
potentially
to
be
disposed
of
at
Yucca
Mountain.

23
Federal
law
requires
EPA
to
write
a
24
Yucca
Mountain
standard
based
on
and
consistent
with
the
25
findings
and
recommendations
of
the
National
Academy
of
19
1
Science
report
on
the
technical
basis
for
the
2
Yucca
Mountain
standard.

3
The
Court
found
that
EPA,
in
blatant
4
disregard
of
the
National
Academy's
recommendation,

5
wrote
a
standard
that
did
not
explicitly
require
6
compliance
at
the
time
of
the
expected
maximum
peak
risk
7
to
the
public
and
safety
­­
public
health
and
safe.

8
And
quoting
from
the
Court:
Only
in
a
world
9
where,
based
upon
means
and
disregard
of
­­
and
10
consistent
means
inconsistent
with
the
EPA's
adoption
of
11
the
10,000­
year
compliance
period
­­
be
considered
12
permissible
per
instruction
of
the
statute.

13
This
proposal
suffers
from
the
same
defect
14
as
the
previous
one.
It
is
inconsistent
with
the
15
Academy's
recommendation
in
many
respects.

16
EPA's
revised
proposal
will
advertise
it's
17
the
most
rigorous
rule
ever
because
it
seeks
to
extend
18
health
and
safety
regulations
out
one
million
years.
Is
19
actually
an
unprecedented
example
of
obstination,

20
federal
agency
collusion,
and
morally
bankrupt
standard
21
setting.

22
If
adopted,
the
proposed
Yucca
Mountain
23
standard
will
permit
countless
generations
of
Nevadans
24
to
be
intentionally
exposed
to
levels
of
radiation
that
25
would
never
be
tolerated
anywhere
else,
either
in
the
20
1
United
States
or
internationally.

2
It
is
an
undisputed
fact
that
waste
from
3
Yucca
Mountain
will
be
released
to
the
environment.

4
When
will
it
be
released?
Whenever
metal
containers
and
5
other
manmade
barriers
corrode
away
through
the
natural
6
moisture
in
the
mountain.

7
DOE
said
that
process
will
not
result
in
8
significant
releases
sooner
than
many
of
tens
of
9
thousands
of
years.
But
there
are
many
scenarios
that
10
result
in
much
earlier
releases.

11
And
to
believe
DOE's
version,
you
have
to
12
make
a
huge
leap
of
faith
by
conceding
the
manmade
13
disposal
containers
will
remain
intact
underground
at
14
Yucca
Mountain
for
tens
of
thousands
of
years
or
more.

15
That's
because,
according
to
DOE's
own
calculations,
if
16
there
were
no
metal
barriers,
radiation
would
be
17
released
in
the
environment
almost
instantly
in
excess
18
of
EPA's
proposed
limit
in
less
than
a
thousand
years.

19
It's
no
coincidence
that
EPA's
proposed
20
standard
for
the
proposed
10,000
years
­­
10,000­
year
21
period
allows
radiation
doses
ten
times
higher
than
22
during
the
initial
period
at
a
level
far
beyond
what
23
EPA,
in
its
previous
rule­
making,
said,
quote,
No
24
regulatory
body
will
ever
consider
acceptable.

25
The
only
possible
reason
for
the
use
of
the
21
1
convoluted,
bifurcated
standard
is
EPA's
commitment
to
2
promulgate
a
standard
that
will
make
DOE's
life
easier
3
in
the
NRC
licensing
process.

4
EPA's
unprecedented
proposal
­­
proposed
5
maximum
dose
for
an
individual
after
the
first
10,000
6
years
is
14
times
higher
than
the
dose
allowed
for
7
low­
level
waste
disposal
in
the
United
States
currently.

8
It's
also
ten
times
higher
than
the
level
of
protection
9
recommended
by
the
National
Academy,
as
you've
heard
10
earlier,
35
to
100
times
more
­­
less
protective
than
11
those
living
near
nuclear
power
plants.

12
When
the
Court
vacated
EPA's
original
13
Yucca
Mountain
rule
in
2004
for,
among
other
things,

14
limiting
the
period
of
compliance
for
just
10,000
years.

15
The
simplest
and
most
logical
thing
for
EPA
to
do
was
to
16
extend
the
same
allowable
dose
for
the
first
10,000
17
years
for
the
entire
life
of
the
repository.

18
Yet
EPA
rejected
that
solution
out
of
hand.

19
Why?
As
these
varied
EPA
representatives
have
20
themselves
acknowledged
in
the
meeting
with
Nevada
21
officials
earlier
this
year,
to
do
that
would
disqualify
22
Yucca
Mountain.
And
EPA
has
been
directed
to
assure
23
that
does
not
happen.

24
Instead,
EPA
has
produced
a
collusion
with
25
DOE,
a
standard
that
just
coincidentally
allows
exposure
22
1
slightly
higher
than
DOE's
most
optimistic
estimates
of
2
where
the
maximum
releases
for
Yucca
Mountain
will
be
3
after
10,000
years.

4
EPA
has
manufactured
a
standard
tailored
to
5
fit
the
site,
not
to
protect
public
health
and
safety.

6
In
its
earlier
Yucca
Mountain
rule,
EPA
set
7
a
groundwater
protection
standard
that
limits
radiation
8
to
groundwater
available
for
human
use,
such
as
in
9
Amargosa
Valley,
to
levels
required
for
safe
drinking
10
water
throughout
the
country.

11
In
a
proposed
new
standard,
EPA
ends
that
12
protection
after
10,000
years
leaving
drinking
and
13
irrigation
water
with
only
the
higher,
unacceptable
dose
14
limit.

15
Nowhere
in
its
regulations
or
policies,

16
except
here,
does
EPA
put
a
time
limit
on
protecting
the
17
quality
of
our
drinking
water
resources.
And
again,
the
18
collusion
is
obvious
as
DOE's
performance
models
show
19
Yucca
Mountain
will
greatly
exceed
safe
drinking
water
20
levels
for
radiation
during
the
period
of
maximum
21
releases.

22
Because
predicting
future
climate
over
both
23
in
the
short
and
long
run
is
an
inexact
science
at
best,

24
EPA
has
written
a
rule
to
permit
DOE
to
make,
for
25
compliance
purposes,
the
one
future
compliant
assumption
23
1
we
know
not
only
to
be
wrong
but
absurd.

2
Future
climate
at
Yucca
Mountain
is
3
important
because
it
strongly
influences
the
rate
at
4
which
waste
containers
and
other
metal
barriers
corrode.

5
EPA
and
its
new
proposal
permits
the
assumption
that,

6
after
10,000
years
and
out
to
one
million
years,
the
7
climate
at
Yucca
Mountain
can
be
assumed
to
remain
8
unchanged
for
the
purpose
of
those
compliance
9
determination.

10
Enough
is
already
known
about
past
variation
11
in
climate
to
see
not
only
the
absurdity
of
the
12
assumption,
but
also
to
put
some
limits
on
the
magnitude
13
of
changes
they
expect
in
the
future.

14
Obviously,
EPA
can
do
better
than
they
allow
15
the
assumption
the
climate
will
remain
unchanged
after
16
the
next
10,000
years.
The
fact
the
Agency
has
not
done
17
so
is
additional
evidence
of
assisting
DOE
and
of
EPA's
18
clear
intent
to
pave
the
way
for
Yucca
Mountain
19
licensing
rather
than
establish
legitimate
and
truly
20
protected
health
and
safety
regulations.

21
Throughout
the
history
of
nuclear
power,
its
22
regulation
has
been
held.
And
it's
unethical
to
pass
23
onto
future
generations
health
and
safety
risks
that
we
24
of
this
generation
are
unwilling
to
impose
on
ourselves.

25
In
its
proposal,
EPA,
for
the
first
time
in
24
1
its
regulatory
history,
has
broken
with
its
principle,

2
setting
the
United
States
apart
from
other
nations
in
3
the
world
in
its
disregard
for
human
health
and
safety
4
for
future
generations.
Of
course,
this
is
5
unacceptable.

6
EPA's
proposed
rules
are
unacceptable
in
all
7
counts.
It
flaunted
the
intent
of
the
Court,
which
was
8
to
ensure
that
Yucca
Mountain
be
judged
using
credible
9
science
based
on
the
maximum
expected
risk
to
the
human
10
health
and
safety.
Instead,
EPA
is
transparently
and
11
unethically
acting
to
facilitate
the
Yucca
Mountain
12
licensing
by
literally
stacking
the
deck
with
13
unprecedented,
irresponsible
breaks
from
established
14
regulatory
and
ethical
principles.

15
In
developing
the
proposed
Yucca
Mountain
16
health
and
safety
standards,
EPA
is
turning
the
17
standard­
setting
process
on
its
head.
Instead
of
18
designing
a
regulation
to
protect
the
current
and
future
19
generations
by
ensuring
the
proposed
repository
site
is,

20
in
fact,
capable
of
isolating
the
waste,
EPA
has
worked
21
hand
in
glove
with
DOE
to
design
a
standard
with
a
22
single
objective
in
mind:
That
it
will
not
disqualify
23
the
site.

24
Given
Yucca
Mountain's
geology,
release
of
25
radioactive
material
is
inevitable,
and
when
it
occurs,
25
1
irreversible.

2
EPA
must
withdraw
the
proposal,
replace
it
3
with
one
that
extends
meaningful
protection
at
the
time
4
when
the
risk
is
greatest
and
let
the
chips
fall
where
5
they
may
with
regard
to
whether
the
­­
the
implications
6
for
licensing
the
site.
To
do
nothing
less
is
a
gross
7
disservice
not
only
to
Nevada
but
the
entire
country
as
8
a
whole.

9
Thank
you.

10
MR.
SARNO:
Thank
you,
Mr.
Loux.

11
Robin
Drew.

12
MS.
DREW:
Good
evening
again.

13
I
am
looking
at
the
Agency
rules
of
the
14
approval
monitoring
and
operation
of
a
potential
15
Yucca
Mountain
repository.
And
what
I
see
here
is
the
16
Agencies'
names
are
the
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
17
Agency,
the
U.
S.
Nuclear
Regulatory
Commission,
and
the
18
U.
S.
Department
of
Energy.

19
So
I'm
presuming
that
this
is
a
complete
20
list
of
the
agencies
involved
because
I'm
getting
it
21
from
your
fact
sheet.

22
A
little
background.
I
was
injured
working
23
on
the
Yucca
Mountain
Project.
The
subcontractor
that
I
24
was
working
for
was
Manpower
of
Southern
Nevada.

25
Manpower
was
a
subcontractor
to
Bechtel
SCIC,
now
known
26
1
as
CIC.

2
So
we've
got
the
U.
S.
Department
of
Energy;

3
the
subcontractor
is
Bechtel;
the
subcontractor
to
them
4
is
Manpower
of
Southern
Nevada.
And
the
insurance
5
company
that
is
handling
my
workers
compensation
case,

6
which
is
a
subcontractor
to
Manpower
is
Nevada
7
CompFirst.

8
Now,
my
concern
was
who
has
responsibility
9
for
the
fact
that
I
was
injured
by
the
Yucca
Mountain
10
Project?
So
I
went
to
the
EPA
tonight,
and
they
said,

11
It
ain't
us,
look
at
the
NRC.

12
So
the
NRC
stood
up
and
said,
It
is
us,
but
13
not
now.

14
I
went
to
the
U.
S.
Department
of
Energy,

15
here's
their
letterhead.
And
here's
what
they
said
­­

16
I'm
not
going
to
read
you
their
whole
letter.
It
says
17
here,
You
further
suggest
that
the
DOE
and
its
18
contractors
do
not
care
about
the
fair
handling
of
19
worker
compensation
claims
from
Yucca
Mountain
Project
20
workers.
That
suggestion
is
not
correct.
The
DOE
is
21
interested
in
the
fair
treatment
of
all
YMP
workers.

22
To
conduct
business
in
Nevada,
DOE
23
contractors
must
provide
workers
compensation
coverage
24
and
follow
the
State
process
described
above
to
25
adjudicate
contentious
claims,
such
as
yours,
to
assure
27
1
fair
treatment
of
all
involved
parties.

2
You
are
encouraged
to
continue
to
exercise
3
any
rights
you
may
have
to
use
that
process
to
address
4
any
remaining
issues
you
may
have
with
the
processing
of
5
your
workers
compensation
claim.

6
With
regard
to
your
prediction
of
how
other
7
workers
or
members
of
the
public
will
be
treated
based
8
on
your
personal
experience,
we
do
not
believe
your
9
workers
compensation
claim
experience
provides
a
10
reasonable
basis
for
making
such
predictions.

11
Consequently,
we
are
not
addressing
the
specific
12
questions
enumerated
by
you
regarding
that
matter.

13
I
did
contact
Senator
Reid's
office.
And
14
Senator
Reid's
office
asked
the
DOE
to
respond
to
my
15
concerns
at
any
rate.

16
In
concluding
in
my
comments,
I
would
say
17
this:
It
is
my
understanding
from
speaking
with
EPA
18
staff
here
today
that
the
EPA/
YMP
health
and
safety
19
standards
specifically
exclude
the
health
and
safety
of
20
YMP
workers.
This
lack
of
standards
for
the
health
and
21
safety
of
YMP
workers
is
inappropriate.
The
EPA
must
22
include
health
and
safety
standards
for
all
persons
who
23
may
be
injured
by
the
YMP
including
YMP
workers.

24
Lastly,
it
is
my
understanding
that
three
25
specific
agencies
have
some
jurisdiction
regarding
28
1
YMP:
The
EPA,
the
DOE,
the
NRC.
None
of
these
agencies
2
have
standards
which
require
YMP
subcontractors
to
3
comply
with
existing
and
future
laws
­­
including
4
county,
city,
state,
and
federal
laws
­­
or
face
the
5
loss
of
the
YMP
contract.

6
This
lack
of
standardized,
zero
tolerance
7
for
subcontractor
law
breaking
in
performing
YMP
8
contracts
is
inappropriate.
The
EPA
must
include
9
standards
which
require
that
all
YMP
subcontractors
10
found
to
be
in
violation
of
codes,
statutes,
and
laws
11
will
have
their
contract
with
the
YMP
terminated.

12
To
avoid
passing
the
buck
for
such
a
13
standard
from
agency
to
agency,
all
agencies
­­

14
including
EPA,
NRC,
and
DOE
­­
must
have
the
same
15
standard.

16
Thank
you.

17
MR.
SARNO:
Thank
you,
Miss
Drew.

18
Dr.
Denis
Beller.

19
DR.
BELLER:
Good
evening.

20
I'm
a
research
professor
at
the
University
21
of
Nevada,
Las
Vegas,
and
at
the
Idaho
State
University
22
where
I
direct
an
international
project
to
investigate
23
technology
to
transmute,
that
means
to
destroy,
nuclear
24
waste.

25
At
UNLV
I
conduct
research
to
detect
29
1
terrorists,
to
increase
proliferation
resistance
of
2
advanced
nuclear
fuel
cycles,
and
to
recycle
used
3
nuclear
fuel.
I
also
coordinate
the
UNLV
Master
of
4
Science
degree
program
in
Materials
and
Nuclear
5
Engineering,
represent
UNLV
on
the
Nuclear
Engineering
6
Department
Heads
Organization
and
advise
the
student
7
section
of
the
American
Nuclear
Society.

8
I
am
also
the
chairman
of
the
Nevada
section
9
of
the
American
Nuclear
Society,
the
Second
Vice
10
President
of
the
Eagle
Alliance,
which
is
a
nuclear
11
science
and
technology
advocacy
organization,
and
a
12
member
of
several
environmental
conservation
13
organizations,
as
well
as
the
past
officer
of
one
of
14
them.

15
However,
I'm
not
here
tonight
to
represent
16
the
opinions
or
the
positions
of
any
of
those
17
organizations
or
societies.
Instead,
I'm
here
to
18
present
my
personal
opinion
of
the
separate
radiation
19
protection
standards
that
have
been
proposed
by
the
20
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
for
the
21
Yucca
Mountain
repository
for
the
text
10,000
years
and
22
for
10,000
to
one
million
years.

23
Although
I'm
certain
that
the
repository
can
24
be
designed,
constructed,
and
operated
to
meet
these
25
standards,
I
also
believe
that
they
protect
few
30
1
individuals
from
miniscule
or
even
nonexistent
threats
2
at
the
expense
of
hundreds
of
millions
of
other
3
Americans.
That
expense
is
not
without
human
cost,
what
4
Amory
Lovins
calls
"
opportunity
cost."

5
Nobel
Laureate
Dr.
Burton
Richter
of
6
Stanford
University
recently
pointed
out
that,
just
to
7
maintain
our
current
supply
of
nuclear­
generated
8
electricity
at
20
percent,
we
will
need
another
nine
9
Yucca
Mountains
before
the
end
of
the
21st
century.

10
We
can't
spend
the
same
hundreds
of
billions
11
of
dollars
in
more
than
one
place.
We
need
to
take
care
12
of
hurricane
victims
and
war
veterans,
provide
13
prescriptions
for
an
aging
population,
and
fight
poverty
14
here
and
around
the
globe.
We
should
not
be
put
in
the
15
position
of
deciding
to
do
that
or
spend
that
money
on
16
Yucca
Mountain
and
other
repositories
that
will
be
17
required
in
other
states
if
we
enact
what
is
proposed
18
today.

19
The
early­
time
standard
will
waste
20
Americans',
meaning
consumers'
and
taxpayers',
money
21
because
it
is
simply
too
low.
The
proposed
EPA
standard
22
for
Yucca
Mountain
will
keep
potential
exposures
far
23
below
any
level
that
has
ever
been
shown
to
cause
any
24
human
health
effects.
This
after
thousands
of
studies
25
of
hundreds
of
thousands
of
exposed
individuals
as
well
31
1
as
controls
over
the
past
20,
50,
and
even
100
years.

2
The
early­
time
EPA
standard,
15
millirem
per
3
year,
is
less
than
one­
tenth
of
average
background
in
4
the
United
States,
a
few
one­
hundredths
of
natural
5
background
in
other
western
states,
and
a
few
6
one­
thousandths
that
of
other
societies
on
this
mostly
7
green
but
all
naturally
radioactive
Earth.

8
This
point
has
been
reiterated
in
the
9
official
position
of
the
Health
Physics
Society
as
well
10
as
others
worldwide.

11
The
Health
Physics
Society
is
made
up
of
12
thousands
of
professionals
dedicated
to
the
protection
13
of
people
from
radiation.
The
official
position
of
the
14
Health
Physics
Society
states
in
part:
Below
10
rem,

15
risks
of
health
effects
are
either
too
small
to
be
16
observed
or
are
nonexistent.

17
That
was
not
10
millirem,
that
was
10,000
18
millirem.

19
If
we
can't
see
the
effects
on
people
of
20
10,000
millirem,
on
real
people,
why
are
we
falsely
21
attempting
to
protect
Nevadans
to
15
millirem
per
year?

22
None
of
these
levels
have
ever
been
23
demonstrated
to
cause
adverse
health
effects.
In
fact,

24
people
in
the
U.
S.
and
elsewhere
have
lived
in
25
higher­
than­
average
radiation
environments,
such
as
32
1
Colorado
with
700
millirem
per
year
average,
as
well
as
2
individuals
who
have
been
overexposed
to
low­
level
3
radiation,
such
as
more
than
35,000
nuclear
shipyard
4
workers,
have
been
shown
to
have
lower
cancer
rates
and
5
increased
longevity.

6
In
other
words,
many
studies
have
indicated
7
that
radiation
at
these
levels
is
good
for
people,
not
8
the
converse.
So
it's
been
from
tens
to
hundreds
of
9
billions
to
ensure
a
near­
zero
exposure
is
a
waste
of
10
the
public's
money.
This
isn't
the
government's
money
11
we're
discussing
here;
it's
mine,
it's
ours,
and
it's
12
yours.

13
In
addition,
while
a
de
facto
time
period
of
14
10,000
years
has
been
established
internationally
for
15
protection
from
radiation,
no
such
standard
exists
for
16
any
other
toxic
material
or
other
risk.

17
The
new
EPA
standard
for
the
second
period,

18
10,000
to
one
million
years,
is
worse,
as
it
could
set
a
19
new
precedent
for
the
world.
No
other
organization
has
20
suggested
setting
any
environmental
protection
standard
21
beyond
10,000
years.
We
simply
have
no
historical
22
record
upon
which
to
base
this
kind
of
policy,
no
23
international
body
of
radiation
protection
scientists
24
nor
nuclear
engineers
participated
in
the
establishment
25
of
this
precedent­
setting
standard.
33
1
This
precedent
should
not
be
set
without
2
major
international
participation,
careful
science
3
policy
studies
and
much
discussion.

4
We
created
a
peaceful
nuclear
technology,

5
along
with
Russia
and
others,
and
we
should
work
6
diligently
to
regain
our
leadership
position.

7
MR.
SARNO:
That's
time.
I'm
sorry.

8
MR.
BELLER:
I'll
submit
the
rest
of
this
in
9
writing
today
to
the
committee.

10
Thank
you
for
your
time.

11
MR.
SARNO:
Thank
you
very
much.

12
MS.
COTSWORTH:
Thank
you.

13
MR.
SARNO:
Shannon
Raborn
on
behalf
of
14
Senator
Harry
Reid's
office.

15
MS.
RABORN:
Thank
you.

16
On
August
22,
2005,
the
EPA
made
public
its
17
revised
radiation
protection
standards
for
the
proposed
18
Yucca
Mountain
high­
level
nuclear
waste
dump.
These
19
public
health
and
safety
standards
are
important
because
20
they
set
the
minimum
allowable
levels
of
radiation
to
21
which
humans
can
be
exposed
and
the
maximum
level
of
22
radiation
that
can
be
in
groundwater.

23
Unfortunately,
EPA's
standard
is
wholly
24
inadequate,
does
not
meet
the
law's
requirements,
and
25
does
not
even
attempt
to
protect
public
health.
EPA's
34
1
proposal
is
yet
another
example
of
this
administration's
2
myopic
pursuit
of
Yucca
Mountain
in
the
face
of
3
scientific
uncertainty,
falsification
of
information,

4
and
massive
public
opposition.

5
Instead
of
sticking
to
his
commitment
that
6
he
would
proceed
with
Yucca
Mountain
only
if
it
were
7
based
on
sound
science,
President
Bush
has
again
cast
8
sound
science
aside
in
favor
of
voodoo
science
and
9
political
expediency.

10
Unfortunately,
it
will
be
impossible
to
list
11
all
of
the
problems
with
this
rule
in
five
minutes,
so
I
12
will
just
summarize
some
of
the
most
egregious.

13
In
the
1992
Energy
Policy
Act,
Congress
14
mandated
that
EPA
set
public
health
and
safety
standards
15
for
allowable
radiation
exposure
from
Yucca
Mountain
16
based
upon
and
consistent
with
the
findings
and
17
recommendations
of
a
National
Academy
of
Science's
study
18
directed
to
identify
the
scientific
bases
for
such
19
standards
at
Yucca
Mountain.

20
In
1995,
NAS
study
­­
the
NAS
study
21
recommended
that
compliance
with
the
standard
be
22
measured
at
the
time
of
peak
risk,
whenever
it
occurs,

23
finding
no
scientific
basis
for
limiting
the
time
period
24
of
the
individual
risk
standard
to
10,000
years.

25
In
its
first
public
health
and
safety
35
1
radiation
standard,
EPA's
human
dose
standard
was
set
at
2
15
millirems
per
year.
But
since
EPA
arbitrarily
3
determined
that
this
standard
needed
to
be
in
place
only
4
during
that
period
in
which
no
leakage
is
expected
from
5
the
repository
for
10,000
years,
the
D.
C.
Court
of
6
Appeals
voided
the
10,000­
year
compliance
period
as
7
inconsistent
with
the
Congressionally­
mandated
8
recommendations
of
the
NAS.

9
Specifically,
the
Court
found
that
EPA
had
10
abused
its
discretion
when
it
unabashedly
rejected
NAS's
11
findings
and
then
went
on
to
promulgate
a
drastically
12
different
standard,
one
that
the
Academy
had
expressly
13
rejected.

14
The
EPA
was
directed
to
issue
new
standards
15
that
comply
with
the
law
and
protect
public
health.

16
EPA's
revised
standards
would
keep
the
15
millirem
17
radiation
dose
limit
for
humans
during
the
first
10,000
18
years
of
the
repository's
operation
when
no
leakage
from
19
waste
containers
is
expected
by
the
government.
But
20
after
that
period,
when
leakage
is
certain
to
occur,
it
21
would
set
the
standard
at
350
millirems,
nearly
25
times
22
more
lenient.

23
According
to
the
NAS,
there's
a
linear
dose
24
relationship
between
radiation
exposure
and
cancer.
In
25
other
words,
there
are
adverse
effects
from
radiation
36
1
even
at
the
lowest
levels.

2
According
to
EPA,
it
does
not
assume
that
3
humans
are
somehow
better
able
to
handle
doses
of
4
radiation
in
the
future.

5
Elizabeth
Cotsworth,
the
director
of
EPA's
6
Office
of
Radiation
and
Indoor
Air,
acknowledges
that
7
the
risk
to
public
health
increases
at
the
higher
level.

8
Nowhere
in
the
revised
proposal
does
EPA
discuss
the
9
increased
risk
to
public
health
from
the
higher
levels
10
of
exposure.
Rather,
EPA
admits
that
the
350
millirem
11
number
is
not
based
on
public
health,
which
is
EPA's
12
purview,
but
on
uncertainties
with
the
repository's
past
13
10,000
years
­­
which
is
not
the
EPA's
concern.

14
EPA
sets
the
public
health
and
safety
15
standard.
DOE
addresses
it
how
­­
if
and
how
it
can
be
16
met.

17
EPA
is
proposing
the
least
protective
18
radiation
standard
in
the
world.
No
other
U.
S.
or
19
international
radiation
protection
standard
permits
a
20
dose
of
350
millirems
per
year
to
the
members
of
the
21
public.

22
Most
other
countries
proposing
a
geologic
23
repository
have
proposed
or
established
a
radiation
24
standard
of
10
millirems
per
year.
Swiss
regulations
25
explicitly
set
no
expiration
date
on
protecting
future
37
1
generations.

2
Further,
EPA
has
for
decades
declared
any
3
radiation
dose
above
15
to
25
millirems
per
year
to
be
4
inadequate
to
protect
public
health.
It
has
repeatedly
5
gone
on
record
that
doses
of
100
millirem
per
year
6
produce
unacceptable
levels
of
risk.
For
example,
EPA
7
regulates
radioactivity
in
water
at
4
millirems
per
year
8
and
air
emissions
at
10
millirems
per
year
and
toxic
9
waste
site
cleanup,
under
Superfund,
at
the
equivalent
10
about
.03
to
3
millirems
per
year.

11
EPA's
proposed
rule
also
exceeds
the
12
National
Academy
of
Sciences
recommended
acceptable
13
range
of
radiation
exposure,
which
is
2
to
20
millirems
14
per
year,
and
the
U.
S.
Nuclear
Regulatory
Commission's
15
radiation
health
standard
for
low­
level
radioactive
16
waste,
which
is
25
millirems
per
year.

17
EPA's
proposal
to
set
a
public
health
18
standard
based
on
inflated
natural
background
levels
is
19
deceptive
and
sets
a
dangerous
precedent.
First,
EPA
20
misleads
the
public
by
implying
that
the
level
is
set
at
21
natural
background
levels.
However,
EPA's
own
documents
22
show
that
EPA
has
included
manmade
sources
of
radiation,

23
such
as
indoor
radon
exposure.
This
is
misleading.

24
Further,
it
is
an
ethically
unacceptable
method
to
set
25
public
health
and
safety
standards
based
on
levels
in
38
1
the
particular
vicinity.

2
We
believe
that
all
U.
S.
citizens
deserve
3
the
same
level
of
protection
regardless
of
where
they
4
live.
Are
we
next
going
to
allow
higher
levels
of
5
arsenic
in
drinking
water
in
some
areas
of
the
6
United
States
than
in
others?

7
In
addition,
EPA's
proposal
would
disregard
8
to
groundwater
protection
standard
at
the
time
when
9
exposure
is
expected
to
occur
after
10,000
years.

10
Groundwater
is
the
primary
route
for
radiation
exposure
11
from
the
proposed
repository.

12
The
groundwater
under
Yucca
Mountain
13
provides
drinking
and
irrigation
water
to
the
Amargosa
14
Valley
and
Southern
California.

15
In
its
original
rule,
EPA's
groundwater
16
standard
was
set
at
4
millirems
for
10,000
years.
In
17
its
revised
proposal,
EPA
leaves
the
standard
in
place
18
but
proposes
to
completely
eliminate
the
standard
after
19
10,000
years.

20
Moreover,
the
EPA's
declared
that
it
will
21
not
consider
public
comment
on
this
aspect
of
the
22
proposed
regulation,
which
EPA
discusses
in
its
23
rule­
making
despite
the
fact
that
this
decision
is
24
integral
to
the
overall
radiation
standard.

25
Not
only
is
this
more
shoddy
science
on
the
39
1
part
of
the
Bush
Administration,
but
it's
illegal
under
2
the
Administrative
Procedures
Acts.

3
In
addition,
it
is
unethical
to
expose
4
future
generations
to
higher
levels
of
radiation
than
5
current
generations.

6
Intergenerational
equity,
the
principle
that
7
the
health
of
future
generations
should
be
as
protected
8
as
current
­­
as
the
current
generation
has
the
9
foundation
of
U.
S.
and
international
public
health
and
10
safety
laws
for
decades.
Yet,
in
its
draft
rule,
EPA
11
throws
this
fundamental
principle
out
by
applying
a
12
standard
that
is
nearly
25
times
weaker
for
future
13
generations.

14
EPA
is
proposing
to
allow
an
action
that
15
will
kill
people
for
hundreds
of
thousands
of
years,

16
people
who
have
no
say
in
the
decision
nor
receive
any
17
benefit
from
it.

18
Clearly,
EPA
is
ignoring
the
input
of
19
science
­­
scientists
and
the
public
on
these
issues.

20
Clearly,
EPA
and
the
administration
know
that
this
21
proposal
cannot
withstand
scrutiny.
Clearly,
this
22
proposal
is
unacceptable
and
will
needlessly
expose
23
people
to
the
risk
of
horrible
adverse
effects
for
24
generations.

25
EPA
must
scrap
this
proposal
and
issue
one
40
1
that
protects
public
health
and
safety.

2
In
addition,
I
would
also
like
to
submit
3
comments
for
the
record
from
Senator
Harry
Reid.

4
MR.
SARNO:
Thank
you
very
much.

5
Irene
Mavis
(
Phonetic)
on
behalf
of
Clark
6
County.
And
you
have
10
minutes.

7
MS.
MAVIS:
Good
evening.
For
the
record,

8
my
name
is
Irene
Mavis,
planning
manager
for
9
Clark
County's
Nuclear
Waste
Program.
And
I'm
providing
10
the
following
comments
to
you
on
behalf
of
Clark
County
11
as
part
of
our
participation
in
the
review
of
the
12
radiation
protection
standard
for
the
proposed
nuclear
13
waste
repository
at
Yucca
Mountain.

14
I
would
like
to
thank
and
recognize
EPA
for
15
its
efforts
to
include
meaningful
public
involvement.

16
And
I
hope
that
EPA
officials
will
carefully
consider
17
all
of
the
concerns
expressed
and
the
issues
raised
18
during
the
course
of
these
public
meetings.

19
Clark
County
intends
to
submit
formal
20
written
comments
prior
to
the
conclusion
of
the
public
21
comment
period
in
November.
And
the
comments
we
offer
22
tonight
are
intended
to
supplement
those
written
23
comments.

24
Clark
County
officials
are
most
concerned
25
with
making
sure
that
our
population
is
not
being
asked
41
1
to
tolerate
our
health
risks
beyond
what
is
reasonable
2
and
acceptable
for
humans
in
general.
Our
thorough
3
analysis
and
comments
will
exam
the
issue
of
whether
the
4
standard
offers
sufficient
protection,
a
benchmark
5
against
existing
national
and
international
standards
6
that
currently
exist.
And
we'll
identify
examples,
if
7
they
exist,
of
other
standards
that
may
offer
better
8
protection
than
the
EPA's
draft
standard
proposes.

9
In
addition,
we
will
consider
an
offer
and
10
opinion
whether
the
draft
standard
meets
the
intent
of
11
the
U.
S.
District
Court
of
Appeals
when
it
vacated
the
12
original
standard
which
did
not
follow
the
13
recommendation
of
the
National
Academy
of
Sciences.

14
The
radiation
standard
for
Yucca
Mountain
15
has
been
debated
for
nearly
two
decades
for
good
reason.

16
There
is
no
more
important
issue
to
public
health
and
17
safety
and
environmental
protection
than
the
18
promulgation
of
adequate
federal
regulation.
Protection
19
from
radiation
exposure
is
the
cornerstone
scientific
20
issue
from
which
all
others
emanate.

21
Important
yet
unanswered
questions
regarding
22
geology,
volcanism,
seismic
activity,
water
23
infiltration,
and
climatology
are
all
variables
that
24
must
be
evaluated
in
order
to
make
defensible
decisions
25
regarding
compliance
with
the
proposed
radiation
42
1
protection
standard.

2
We
recognize
that
many
have
weighed
in
on
3
this
issue
over
the
years,
including
the
National
4
Academy
of
Sciences,
as
well
as
independent
health
5
physicists
and
other
experts
in
this
field.

6
The
U.
S.
Congress
and
the
courts
have
had
7
their
say,
and
the
affected
agencies
have
worked
towards
8
developing
an
appropriate
standard
for
the
9
Yucca
Mountain
Project.
However,
even
the
staunchest
10
proponents
of
the
repository
believe
the
radiation
11
standard
must
be
set
at
a
strict
level.

12
In
his
book
A
Brighter
Tomorrow,

13
United
States
Senator
Pete
Domenici
claims,
While
the
14
U.
S.
Congress
establishes
a
10,000­
year
period
for
15
evaluation
of
repository
performance,
spent
nuclear
fuel
16
should
be
isolated
from
the
environment
for
17
approximately
300,000
years,
primarily
because
of
the
18
radiotoxicity
of
the
actinide
in
the
fuel
plutonium,

19
neptunium,
and
curium.

20
Proponents
of
the
Yucca
Mountain
Project
21
like
to
talk
about
the
general
public's
irrational
fear
22
of
radiation
and
its
lack
of
understanding
of
the
true
23
effects
of
radiation.

24
While
it
may
be
true
that
some
people
have
25
an
exaggerated
view
of
the
effects
of
radiation,
our
43
1
experience
in
Public
Outreach
tells
us
that
it's
more
a
2
matter
of
lack
of
trust
in
government
than
a
lack
of
3
understanding
of
the
science
of
radioactivity.
After
4
all,
most
people
don't
hesitate
to
get
an
x­
ray,
a
5
mammogram,
an
MRI,
or
a
CAT
scan
because
of
radiation
6
fears.
People
don't
generally
avoid
flying
airplanes
or
7
watching
TV
because
they
fear
radioactivity.
They
trust
8
in
doctors,
in
airlines,
and
their
own
good
judgment
to
9
protect
them
from
undue
exposure
to
radioactivity.

10
The
real
problem
here
is,
and
you've
heard
a
11
lot
about
it
tonight,
a
large
number
of
people
don't
12
trust
the
federal
government,
especially
here
in
13
Southern
Nevada,
to
tell
them
the
truth.
And
here
is
14
why:
In
1957,
the
Atomic
Energy
Commission,
the
15
predecessor
to
the
Department
of
Energy,
issued
a
little
16
blue
handbook
called
Atomic
Tests
in
Nevada.

17
In
the
handbook,
fallout
from
radiation
is
18
characterized
as
inconvenient.
Unfortunately,
today
we
19
know
that
fallout
from
hundreds
of
atomic
tests
at
the
20
Nevada
Test
Site
went
well
beyond
inconvenient
in
terms
21
of
health
and
safety
for
many
Nevadans,
including
Test
22
Site
workers
and
their
families
and
Utah
downwinders.

23
Authors
of
the
handbook
claim
that,
simply
24
stated,
Nevada
test
fallout
has
not
caused
illness
or
25
injury
to
health
of
anyone
living
near
the
Test
Site.
44
1
Unfortunately,
we
now
know,
simply
stated,
that's
just
2
not
true.

3
When
describing
time
periods
of
the
4
half­
life
of
various
elements,
the
range
is
described
in
5
the
handbook
as
a
fraction
of
a
second
to
many
years.

6
Of
course,
we
know
that,
in
terms
of
measuring
half­
life
7
of
potentially
dangerous
elements,
many
years
can
be
8
counted
in
tens
or
hundreds
of
thousands
of
years.

9
Nevadans
have
been
subjected
to
such
10
minimization
and
distortion
of
the
facts
for
over
50
11
years
in
order
to
gain
support
for
Test
Site
activities
12
in
the
name
of
patriotic
duty.

13
Over
the
years,
local
elected
officials,
as
14
well
as
members
of
the
general
public,
have
come
to
15
recognize
we
are
being
asked
once
again
to
trust
the
16
government
to
protect
us
from
radiation
exposure
for
17
generations
to
come,
but
this
time
in
the
name
of
18
Homeland
and
energy
security.

19
The
history
of
trust
speaks
for
itself
for
20
many
long­
time
Nevadans,
as
well
as
newer
residents,
in
21
experience
and
other
Department
of
Energy­
based
22
communities
who
now
find
themselves
claimants
under
the
23
Radiation
Exposure
Compensation
Act
and/
or
former
24
participants
in
the
Department's
Legacy
Management
25
program.
45
1
Thank
you
for
allowing
time
for
Clark
2
County's
comments
and
your
consideration
of
our
3
concerns.

4
MR.
SARNO:
Thank
you
very
much.

5
Jane
Feldman
(
Phonetic)
on
behalf
of
6
Sierra
Club.

7
MS.
FELDMAN:
Thank
you.

8
MR.
SARNO:
And
you
have
10
minutes.

9
MS.
FELDMAN:
Thank
you.

10
My
name
is
Jane
Feldman.
I
am
a
11
spokesperson
and
a
volunteer
for
the
Southern
Nevada
12
group
of
the
Sierra
Club.

13
Radiation
standard
of
350
millirem
exposure
14
per
year
is
dangerously
unacceptable.
It
does
not
15
protect
our
health
or
the
health
of
future
generations,

16
nor
does
it
guarantee
the
health
of
the
water,
soil,

17
air,
plants,
or
animals
in
the
areas
surrounding
18
Yucca
Mountain.

19
The
EPA
itself
has
declared
for
decades
that
20
any
radiation
dose
above
15
to
25
millirem
per
year
to
21
be
nonprotective
of
public
health.
The
EPA's
general
22
position
for
decades
has
been
to
regulate
exposure
to
23
keep
risk
in
the
range
of
one
in
10,000
to
one
in
one
24
million
cancers.

25
For
example,
the
EPA
regulates
radioactivity
46
1
in
water
at
4
millirem
per
year,
air
emissions
at
2
10
millirem
per
year,
Superfund
cleanup
at
the
3
equivalent
of
roughly
.03
to
3
millirem
per
year.

4
The
EPA
has
gone
on
record
over
and
over
5
again
that
doses
of
100
millirem
per
year
produce
6
unacceptable
levels
of
risk.
This
proposal
allows
350
7
millirem
a
year,
not
the
EPA
nonprotective
15
millirem
a
8
year,
not
even
the
EPA
unacceptable
100
millirem
a
year.

9
Annual
exposure
of
350
millirem
a
year
is
10
equivalent
to
receiving
an
x­
ray
a
week.
The
most
11
recent
report
from
the
National
Academy
of
Sciences
12
shows
that
for
every
36
people
receiving
that
sort
of
13
dose
during
a
lifetime,
one
person
will
develop
cancer.

14
The
proposal
allows
one
cancer
in
36,
not
one
in
a
15
million,
not
even
one
in
10,000,
but
one
cancer
in
every
16
36
people.

17
This
proposal
is
entirely
unacceptable.

18
It's
unconscionable,
it's
immoral,
it's
reprehensible.

19
How
is
it
that
the
EPA
finds
itself
in
this
20
peculiar
situation
of
negating
its
own
work
of
past
21
decades?
The
DOE
has
published
its
findings
that
it
22
expects
that
Yucca
Mountain,
that
way
it's
currently
23
envisioned
to
be,
expected
to
release
250
millirem
of
24
nuclear
radiation
per
year.
The
EPA
has
obviously
25
conformed
the
standard
to
meet
the
ability
of
the
DOE
to
47
1
achieve
them.

2
The
ploy
is
so
transparent
it's
laughable.

3
The
watchdog
has
lost
his
bite.
Indeed,
he
has
lost
his
4
bark.

5
DOE
tells
the
nation
not
to
worry,
these
6
levels
of
radiation
won't
be
experienced
for
200,000,

7
300,000
years.
But
the
proposed
standard
will
be
set
8
today
to
accommodate
that
level
of
radiation.
Even
if
9
it
were
moral
to
argue
that
it's
okay
to
delay
the
risk
10
to
unborn
generations
of
the
future,
the
legal
allowance
11
will
be
in
place
to
accept
and
institutionalize
that
12
level
of
risk
today.
And
it
is
certainly
not
moral
to
13
delay
the
risk.

14
Under
the
proposed
rule,
these
doses
would
15
be
permitted
to
occur
generation
after
generation
for
16
hundreds
of
generations.
It's
hard
to
conceive
of
a
17
proposed
environmental
regulation
or
action
that
raises
18
such
serious
questions
of
generational
immorality.

19
EPA
is
proposing
to
commit
an
action
that
20
will
kill
people
for
hundreds
of
thousands
of
years,

21
people
who
have
no
say
in
the
decision
nor
received
any
22
support
or
benefit
from
it.
They
bear
only
the
cost,
a
23
huge
human
cost.

24
We
have
additional
concerns.
In
at
least
25
two
different
ways,
the
EPA
is
cooking
the
numbers
to
48
1
reduce
them
to
a
toxic
roux.
The
EPA
changed
the
kind
2
of
average
from
a
mean
dose
in
the
original
rule
to
a
3
medium
dose.

4
DOE
calculations
show
the
median
to
be
more
5
than
three
times
higher
than
the
mean.
So
using
the
6
median
results
in
doses
about
750
to
a
thousand
millirem
7
a
year,
not
the
250
to
300
millirem
a
year.

8
Using
the
median
exposure,
the
calculations
9
show
that
there
will
be
one
cancer
in
ten
people.

10
Also,
the
standard
is
an
average
dose
rather
11
than
a
maximum
permitted
dose.
Large
numbers
of
people
12
will
get
doses
far
higher
than
this
average
dose
with
13
proportionally
higher
risks.

14
Half
the
radiation
scenarios
will
result
in
15
doses
higher
than
that.
There
is
no
upper
limit
for
the
16
half
of
the
exposures
that
would
be
above
the
median.

17
Let's
be
clear
about
this.
There
is
no
18
upper
limit
to
the
dose
at
all.

19
Dozens
of
the
300
or
so
exposure
scenarios
20
that
DOE
would
run
would
result
in
doses
above
the
350
21
millirem
or
1,000
millirem
doses.
In
other
words,
under
22
the
EPA
standard,
significant
numbers
of
people
would
be
23
exposed
to
doses
that
would
produce
a
statistical
100
24
percent
chance
of
inducing
cancer
in
exposed
people.
A
25
hundred
percent
risk
of
cancer
is
unacceptable.
49
1
A
last
comment.
The
standard
addresses
2
human
exposure
to
radiation,
it
does
nothing
to
quantify
3
or
to
address
the
exposure
and
contamination
to
the
4
water,
soil,
air,
rock
strata,
plants,
or
animals
in
the
5
desert
surrounding
Yucca
Mountain.
There
is
no
attempt
6
to
understand
the
legacy
of
toxic
pollution
within
the
7
environment
that
is
being
created.

8
It's
hard
for
any
of
us
to
contemplate
the
9
pollution
that
would
wash
into
people's
homes
in
10
New
Orleans
when
the
hurricane
breached
the
levy.
We
11
asked
ourselves:
How
could
people
have
possibly
created
12
such
a
toxic
wasteland?
We
need
to
ask
those
same
13
questions
right
now
of
ourselves
before
we
build
a
place
14
at
Yucca
Mountain
that
no
man
can
possibly
restore;
that
15
no
act
of
God
can
ever
make
clean
again.

16
Yucca
Mountain
is
not
safe.
It
cannot
be
17
made
safe.
If
the
Bush
Administration
is
successful,

18
these
nuke
standards
will
be
the
least
protective
19
radiation
standards
of
the
world.

20
The
Bush
Administration
is
asking
future
21
generations
to
pay
the
price
of
our
bad
energy
choices.

22
These
standards
are
designed
to
protect
the
energy
and
23
nuclear
industries.
The
Bush
Administration
and
the
EPA
24
should
go
back
to
the
drawing
board,
find
a
solution
25
that
will
protect
Americans
and
not
the
energy
and
50
1
nuclear
industries.

2
MR.
SARNO:
Thank
you.

3
Peggy
Mace
Johnson
(
Phonetic).

4
MS.
JOHNSON:
Good
evening.
My
name
is
5
Peggy
Mace
Johnson,
and
I
am
the
effected
director,

6
Citizen
Alert,
representing
the
people
of
Nevada;

7
however,
I'm
here
tonight
in
my
role
as
citizen.

8
Citizen
Alert's
comments
will
be
submitted
prior
to
the
9
close
of
the
comment
period.

10
My
testimony
is
going
to
primarily
respond
11
to
the
process
you
are
using
to
solicit
comments
on
this
12
very
important
and
vital
issue.

13
When
your
staff
and
public
relations
firm
14
met
with
us
as
stakeholders,
I
believe
we
made
it
clear
15
that,
above
all,
this
was
to
be
a
very
open
process.

16
You
can
imagine
our
surprise
when
the
rules
of
the
game
17
were
published,
and
the
process
was
far
from
open.
I
18
chose
to
play
by
your
rules
this
evening.

19
In
representing
the
citizens
of
the
state,
I
20
tested
your
process.
I
have
yet
to
see
any
21
advertisements
in
the
paper.
I
heard
no
PSA's,
either
22
on
the
radio
or
television,
but
I
did
see
a
reported
23
story
that,
indeed,
there
was
going
to
be
a
hearing.

24
And
I
believe
the
Sierra
Club
mailed
out
5,000
postcards
25
to
let
people
know
that
this
was
happening
tonight.
51
1
That's
not
something
that's
in
my
budget.

2
Your
budget
is
far
greater
than
mine,
and
I
believe
that
3
job
of
informing
the
public
is
your
job,
not
mine.

4
So,
as
a
citizen,
I
took
my
chances
to
see
5
if
I
would
be
allowed
to
speak,
though
I
did
not
make
an
6
appointment.
So
in
my
notes
here,
I
said,
I
guess
we'll
7
see.

8
So
here
I
am.
And
if
I
had
that
opportunity
9
tonight,
or
have
it,
I
would
like
to
tell
you
that,
as
a
10
plaintiff
in
the
lawsuit
challenging
the
radiation
dose
11
standard,
Citizen
Alert
finds
your
fix
totally
12
unacceptable.

13
We
believe
this
revised
proposal
is
14
inconsistent
with
the
law,
and
it's
an
insult
to
15
Nevadans,
as
was
your
first
standard.

16
Your
attempt
to
bifurcate
this
radiation
17
standard
throws
out
all
attempts
at
generational
equity
18
and
puts
future
generations
at
tremendous
risk,
the
very
19
risk
that
mandated
not
happen
­­
Congress
mandated
not
20
happen.

21
You
have
willingly
ignored
the
potential
22
effect
that
this
project
could
have
on
children,
women,

23
and
the
Native­
American
people
we
have
in
our
state.
We
24
find
this
to
be
an
unjust
and
irresponsible
policy.

25
Finally,
this
proposed
standard
will
set
a
52
1
terrible
precedent
because
it
is
contrary
to
2
internationally­
effected
radiation
protection
standards
3
and
lowers
the
bar
on
radiation
protection
at
other
4
contaminated
sites
across
the
country.
I
find
little
5
comfort
in
the
fact
that
you're
not
just
putting
6
Nevadans
in
harm's
way.

7
We
respectfully
request
that
this
proposal
8
be
taken
back
and
revised
once
again,
or
however
many
9
times
it
takes,
until
you
get
it
right
in
order
to
10
protect
the
health
of
the
public
and
the
environment.

11
Thank
you
very
much.

12
MR.
SARNO:
Thank
you.

13
Judy
Treichel
on
behalf
of
Nevada
Nuclear
14
Waste
Task
Force.
And
you
have
10
minutes.

15
MS.
TREICHEL:
The
Nevada
Nuclear
Waste
16
Task
Force
went
into
business
in
the
year
1987
when
17
Yucca
Mountain
was
singled
out.
And
we
are
a
public
18
advocacy
organization.
And
that's
not
an
easy
job
when
19
your
focus
is
Yucca
Mountain.

20
This
is
very
hard
stuff
to
deal
with,
and
21
it's
extremely
hard
to
go
from
the
meetings,
where
we
22
spend
most
of
our
lives,
back
to
the
public
and
be
able
23
to
tell
them
what's
going
on
and
try
and
bring
a
public
24
voice
into
the
many
bureaucratic
meetings
that
we
go
to.

25
There
are
not
as
many
people
here
as
there
53
1
should
be,
but
you
have
to
understand
they've
been
at
2
this
for
over
20
years
here
in
Nevada.
And
we
have
3
never
seen
any
instance
in
which
the
input
from
people
4
has
apparently
been
heard.
And
that
has
to
do
also
with
5
the
EPA's
and
the
many
­­
the
many
meetings
that
you
6
held
while
you
were
in
the
process
of
writing
this
rule.

7
And
we
don't
see
any
evidence
that
anybody
heard
8
anything
that
we
said
during
those
meetings
when
you
9
came
out
and
went
around
the
state.

10
I've
looked
at
the
draft.
I've
read
it
11
carefully.
And
I've
listened
to
you
two
nights'
worth
12
of
the
roundtables.
And
what
I
see
and
hear
are
people
13
who
are
here
to
defend
what
they've
done.
We
started
14
out
a
long
time
ago
with
the
DOE
talking
about
the
DAD
15
syndrome,
D­
A­
D.
Decide,
announce,
and
defend.

16
There
is
a
lot
more
of
defense
of
what
17
you've
done
than
any
sort
of
willingness
to
hear,
it
18
appears.
And
that's
why
I
ask
that
your
answers
be
as
19
short
as
the
questions
that
were
asked.
Because
we
hear
20
a
lot
of
people
defending
what
they've
done,
and
we
21
don't
see
any
of
what
we're
putting
in
being
reflected
22
in
your
final
standard.

23
At
the
current
time,
as
a
public
advocate,

24
it's
very
difficult.
We're
dealing
with
your
proposal,

25
and
we
believe
that
what
you
put
out,
you
intend
to
have
54
1
as
a
final
because
we
don't
see
you
listening.
We
don't
2
see
any
evidence
that
you've
listened
before.
And,
in
3
fact,
one
of
the
clear
evidences
that
we
have
is
that
4
the
Nuclear
Regulatory
Commission
is
so
confident
that
5
what
they
see
here
is
going
to
be
your
final
standard
6
that
they've
actually
thrown
their
proposal
out
on
the
7
street,
adopting
this
draft
as
their
standard
as
well.

8
So
we
not
only
have
to
deal
with
yours,
but
9
we
have
a
public
comment
process
going
on
the
NRC
10
standard
as
well.
So
it
appears
that
we're
just
kind
of
11
playing
a
game
here,
but
we're
required
to
have
to
do
12
that.

13
EPA's
new
methodology
really
shows
that
you
14
spend
a
lot
of
time
with
the
Department
of
Energy.
I
15
have
a
handout
that
I
recently
picked
up
when
I
was
over
16
at
the
DOE's
office,
and
it's
their
fact
sheet
on
the
17
American's
average
exposure.
And
it
almost
is
word
for
18
word
for
what
we
keep
hearing
from
Betsy
at
these
19
roundtables.
They're
talking
about
the
radiation
20
exposure
coming
out
of
the
repository
and
then
adding
to
21
background.

22
And
to
put
this
dose
in
perspective,
660
23
millirem,
which
is
what
they
come
up
with
when
they
add
24
the
releases
from
Yucca
Mountain
to
the
background,
is
25
somewhat
higher
than
the
360
and
the
national
average
on
55
1
a
yearly
basis.
But
it's
well
below
levels
received
by
2
people
living
in
other
parts
of
the
United
States.
And
3
you're
just
constantly
saying
that.

4
So
it
appears
that
you're
seeing
off
the
5
same
sheet
that
the
Department
of
Energy
did,
or
you
6
certainly
had
some
help
with
this
thing.

7
Even
though
the
EPA
has
spent
a
lot
of
time
8
going
around
in
having
meetings
with
us,
it
doesn't
9
sound
like
you
did
much
on
the
American
­­
the
10
Native­
American
front.
So
it
appears
that
you're
going
11
to
have
to
go
out
to
Moapa.
You
may
have
to
go
to
12
Duck
Water.
You
may
have
to
go
to
Death
Valley.
There
13
are
tribes
and
Indian
nations
here
that
need
to
be
a
14
part
of
this.
And
as
been
mentioned
before,
they
need
15
to
be
a
big
part
of
it,
and
it
needs
to
be
a
16
government­
to­
government
sort
of
process.
And
you
may
17
as
well
take
the
NRC
with
you
as
well
because
I
don't
18
think
they've
been
out
there
either.
And
they're
now
in
19
the
process
of
revising
their
regulations
too.

20
When
we
had
our
meetings
with
you,
it's
very
21
difficult
to
know
what
we
should
have
talked
about.
We
22
never
in
the
world
realized
that
you'd
go
to
350
23
millirem.
The
suggestion
was
made
that
somebody
had
24
said
perhaps
100
was
a
good
idea.
And
we
all
said
no.

25
But
you
couldn't
possibly
have
thought
that
we
meant
56
1
that
that
was
too
low.
So
I
don't
know
where
in
the
2
world
that
came
from.

3
And
there
was
never
any
hint
that
you
were
4
going
to
go
from
the
mean
average
to
the
median.
How
in
5
the
world
would
we
have
known
that
when
right
in
the
6
guidance
­­
and
the
guidance
is
only
this
big,
it
really
7
isn't
that
hard
to
read.
But
on
page
123,
it
very
8
clearly
says
that
we
recommend
that
the
mean
values
of
9
calculation
be
the
basis
of
comparison
with
our
10
recommended
standard.

11
That's
pretty
easy.
We
would
have
no
reason
12
to
know
that
you
were
going
to
switch
to
the
median,

13
which
was
very
well
addressed
by
Jane
Feldman
when
she
14
said
that
half
of
the
exposures
or
half
of
the
doses
can
15
be
well
over
or
almost
limitless.

16
You
talk
a
lot
about
uncertainties.
And
17
that
really
is
quite
a
smoke
screen.
There
is
not
that
18
much
uncertainty.
Department
of
Energy
has
done
19
computer
simulations,
they
show
us
what
they
expect
20
doses
to
be.
And
they're
right
out
there
within
that
21
range.
And
you've
met
what
their
expectations
are
by
22
having
the
median
used
for
your
calculation
mark
and
by
23
having
350
millirem.

24
When
anyone
gets
a
medical
process
that
25
involves
radiation,
they
sign
a
consent
form.
Well,
the
57
1
people
here
aren't
going
to
be
signing
a
consent
form.

2
And
the
people
in
the
future
won't
be
signing
a
consent
3
form.
But
this
is
just
being
imposed
on
people,
and
4
it's
clearly
unfair.

5
The
task
force
will
be
submitting
written
6
comments.
And
I
would
just
finish
by
saying
that
the
7
EPA's
job
is
not
to
worry
about
the
performance
of
the
8
repository,
not
to
worry
about
DOE's
uncertainty,
not
to
9
worry
about
DOE's
burden
of
getting
a
license.

10
Your
job
is
to
protect
the
public
health
and
11
safety.
If
Yucca
Mountain
doesn't
make
it,
that
doesn't
12
make
any
difference
to
you.
Your
job
is
to
do
your
job
13
and
to
protect
the
public.

14
Thank
you.

15
MR.
SARNO:
Thank
you,
Miss
Treichel.

16
Mike
Henderson
with
Congressman
Gibbons'

17
Office.
And
you
will
have
10
minutes.

18
MR.
HENDERSON:
Thank
you.

19
Madam
Chair,
distinguished
panelists,
it's
20
my
privilege
tonight
to
represent
Congressman
21
Jim
Gibbons,
who
submits
the
following
statement
for
22
your
consideration.

23
Thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
submit
24
these
comments
for
the
record.
I
regret
that
I
am
25
unable
to
attend
this
hearing
personally.
58
1
The
Yucca
Mountain
Project
has
always
been
2
of
the
utmost
concern
to
me
and
to
many
of
my
3
constituents.
I
represent
every
county
in
Nevada,

4
including
Nye
County,
which
includes
the
Yucca
Mountain
5
waste
repository.
It
should
come
as
no
surprise
that
6
the
entire
Nevada
delegation
is
strongly
opposed
to
this
7
ill­
advised
and
dangerous
project.

8
It
is
extremely
disturbing
to
see
that
since
9
the
birth
of
this
project,
the
Department
of
Energy
has
10
consistently
failed
to
use
science
as
its
guide
and
has
11
instead
been
blinded
by
its
obsession
to
do
anything
and
12
everything
to
rubber
stamp
this
project
so
it
can
be
13
finished.

14
While
this
might
be
acceptable
to
the
15
bureaucrats
of
DOE
over
2400
miles
away
from
here,
it
is
16
completely
unacceptable
to
the
people
throughout
Nevada
17
and
this
country.
When
this
project
fails,
and
it
is
18
only
a
matter
of
time,
who
will
be
held
accountable
for
19
the
reality
of
the
deadliest
substance
known
to
man
20
contaminating
our
water
supply,
traveling
our
roads,
and
21
endangering
our
communities?

22
Last
year
the
federal
appeals
court
ordered
23
that
the
federal
government
needed
to
develop
a
plan
for
24
nuclear
waste
storage
that
protected
the
public
against
25
radiation
releases
beyond
the
proposed
10,000
years.
As
59
1
a
result
of
the
Court's
decision,
the
Environmental
2
Protection
Agency
needed
to
promulgate
a
new
safety
3
standard
that
can
show
compliance
well
beyond
10,000
4
years.

5
Many
experts
and
scientists
argued
that
the
6
EPA
could
not
realistically
develop
a
plan
that
could
7
ensure
public
safety
past
10,000
years.
Unfortunately,

8
many
underestimated
the
extreme
measures
the
proponents
9
of
this
protect
would
take
to
ensure
that
the
10
scientifically
flawed
project
continues.
Instead
of
11
playing
by
the
rules
of
the
game,
rules
intended
to
12
protect
public
safety,
the
DOE
and
the
EPA
have
decided
13
to
simply
change
the
game.

14
In
its
most
shockingly
disturbing
ruling
15
yet,
the
EPA
decided
that
it
was
scientifically
16
reasonable
to
increase
its
radiation
standard
after
17
10,000
years
from
15
millirems
to
350
millirems.
This
18
means
the
EPA
has
determined
that
once
the
clock
hits
19
10,000
and
one
day,
it
is
completely
reasonable
for
the
20
radiation
exposure
to
increase
23­
fold.
I
and
my
fellow
21
Nevadans
emphatically
disagree.

22
The
EPA
has
an
obligation
to
protect
public
23
safety
today,
tomorrow,
and
in
a
million
years.
It
24
should
not
speculate
that
a
standard
which
is
not
deemed
25
safe
today
could
miraculously
become
a
safe
standard
in
60
1
the
future.
This
decision
was
not
based
on
any
measure
2
of
public
safety
and
instead
just
continues
to
highlight
3
the
means
the
DOE
will
go
to
in
order
to
ensure
that
the
4
Yucca
Mountain
Project
continues.
This
recent
rule
just
5
reinforces
the
idea
that
when
you
don't
like
the
rules,

6
you
change
the
game.

7
In
the
next
few
days,
many
of
you
will
8
return
to
your
homes
thousands
of
miles
away
from
9
Nevada.
But
for
many
of
us
here
in
this
room,
Nevada
is
10
our
home.
Nevadans
are
the
ones
who
have
to
live
here
11
and
be
exposed
to
the
deadly
risks
of
the
DOE's
culture
12
of
ignoring
science
in
favor
of
expediency
in
regard
to
13
this
project.

14
And
I
remind
you
that
we
still
have
no
plan
15
for
transporting
this
deadly
waste
through
our
16
communities
for
thousands
of
miles.
The
safety
of
the
17
American
people
along
the
transportation
route
is
in
18
jeopardy
due
to
this
moving
hazard
that
too
easily
can
19
become
a
moving
target.

20
It
is
our
hope
that
you
re­
examine
this
21
decision,
focus
on
fulfilling
your
obligations
of
22
protecting
public
safety,
and
ignore
the
pressures
of
23
rubber­
stamping
this
project.
Is
it
too
much
to
ask
24
that
you
implement
a
rule
that
will
protect
the
people
25
of
Nevada
and
of
this
great
nation
today
and
tomorrow?
61
1
I
thank
you
for
your
time
today,
and
I
2
respectfully
request
that
these
comments
be
introduced
3
into
the
record.

4
Respectfully
submitted,
Jim
Gibbons,
Member
5
of
Congress.

6
Thank
you.

7
MR.
SARNO:
Thank
you,
Mr.
Henderson.

8
Craig
Walton
(
Phonetic)
on
behalf
of
the
9
Nevada
Center
for
Public
Ethics.
And
you
have
10
10
minutes.

11
MR.
WALTON:
Thank
you.

12
I'm
an
emeritus
professor
of
ethics
and
13
policy
studies
at
UNLV
and
currently
working
with
others
14
in
the
Nevada
Center
for
Public
Ethics.

15
I
want
to
focus
on
intergenerational
equity.

16
One
of
you
made
the
statement
that
you
­­
that
the
17
document,
which
we've
been
studying
closely,
founds
18
itself,
bases
itself
on
the
best
experts
in
the
world.

19
That's
not
true.
That's
not
true
at
all.

20
It
is
true
that
in
the
field
of
21
environmental
ethics,
you
will
find
controversy
about
22
what
kinds
of
obligations
do
we
have
toward
future
23
generations.
And
there
are
few
who
say
we
couldn't
have
24
any
because
we
don't
even
know
who
they
could
be.
They
25
may
even
be
so
like
ourselves,
these
folks
argue,
that
62
1
we
wouldn't
know
how
to
obligate
ourselves
or
not
to
2
where
they
may
be
very
unlike
ourselves.
And
then
on
3
what
ground
could
you
have
an
obligation
to
even
know
4
what
they're
talking
about?
That's
one
school
of
5
thought.
It's
a
very
small
school
of
thought.

6
If
you'd
like
to
corroborate
the
statement
7
that
I
just
made,
you
cite
the
National
Academy
of
8
Public
Administrators,
Reference
1,
Reference
2,

9
Reference
3.
Go
look
at
Reference
3,
which
is
the
­­

10
oh,
no,
Reference
1
in
that
book
is
the
entertainer
11
bibliography.
If
you
go
to
the
first
section,
it's
12
called
Intergenerational
Equity
or
Environmental
13
Ethics
­­
one
or
the
other.
Anyway,
that's
where
all
14
that
stuff
is.

15
And
you'll
see
there
a
paragraph
or
so
of
16
summary
of
about
125
articles
and
books
in
the
field
17
regarding
this
topic
we're
discussing
right
this
minute.

18
If
you
go
through
that
and
simply
check
off
which
of
19
those
even
addresses
what
we're
talking
about
and
then
20
put
them
in
a
column
­­
yes,
meaning
that
they
hold
to
a
21
certain
view;
and
then
no,
if
they
don't
hold
to
that
22
view
­­
here's
what
you
find:
About
52
of
them
discuss
23
the
question
of
whether
we
have
moral
obligations
to
24
future
generations.
About
a
half
of
eight,
in
other
25
words
teeter­
totter
­­
maybe
yes,
maybe
no.
There's
63
1
reasons
here,
those
reasons
there,
so
half
and
half.

2
There
are
eight
articles
that
go
half
and
3
half,
so
some
weight
toward
the
no.
There
are
44
that
4
say
we
do
have
moral
obligations
to
future
generations.

5
So
when
you
write,
as
you
did,
that
there
is
no
6
consensus
on
the
question
in
the
literature,
that
is
7
literally
correct,
of
course.
However,
it's
8
disingenuous
because,
although
there's
no
consensus,

9
there
is
a
strong
preponderance
of
conviction
amongst
10
all
those
you
cite,
or
your
citation
cites
that
scholars
11
all
over
the
world
hold
to
the
view.

12
And
Chapman
and
McCombie,
who
you
cite
with
13
the
authority
over
and
over
and
over,
summarize
this
14
chapter
and
say
the
same
thing,
mainly
that
the
moral
15
obligation
that
we
have
to
those
in
the
future
is
16
substantially
the
same
as
the
one
we
consider
ourselves
17
to
have
to
each
other
here
and
now.

18
And
if
you
look
around
this
room
at
the
ones
19
who
are
still
here,
look
at
the
irony
of
this.
Not
one
20
man
or
woman
in
this
­­
today
since
4:
30,
5:
00
o'clock
21
has
spoken
on
behalf
of
him
or
herself
for
the
present
22
generation.
So
here
you
have
an
interesting
23
falsification.

24
In
other
words,
these
people,
who
by
your
25
account
probably
diminish
their
sense
of
moral
64
1
responsibility
the
farther
away
the
generation
goes
from
2
here,
from
today,
all
of
these
men
and
women
have
argued
3
on
the
behalf
of
the
Nevadans
of
12,006.
That's
10,001
4
years
from
now,
2005
plus
10,001
years.
We've
argued
5
for
them,
not
ourselves.
How
on
Earth
could
we
do
that
6
if
we
feel
nothing
or
if
we
feel
that
it's
diminishing?

7
It's
true
your
mathematics
diminishes,

8
granted.
But
what
you've
done
is
premise
your
entire
9
document
on
the
claim
that,
as
the
mathematical
10
predictability
of
quantitative
dosage
standards
11
diminishes
with
increasing
uncertainties
and
a
12
cross­
plain
of
uncertainties
going
out,
therefore,
the
13
moral
responsibility
does
the
same
thing.

14
We
don't
hold
that
view,
we
don't
hold
that
15
view.
We
hold
the
view,
for
example,
that
murder
is
16
wrong.
We
don't
say
that
murder
is
wrong
today,
but
a
17
hundred
years
from
now
it
will
93
percent
wrong.
And
18
then
20,000
years
from
today,
it
will
be
41
percent
19
wrong,
and
then
500,000
years
from
today,
it
will
be
11
20
percent
wrong.
We
don't
do
that.
Some
things
in
21
morality
are
wrong
and
some
are
right.

22
And
the
brotherhood
and
sisterhood
of
men
23
and
women
has
been
held
by
every
religion
and
all
of
the
24
philosophers
as
long
as
we
have
a
history.
And
I'm
25
talking
the
whole
world,
and
I'd
be
happy
to
give
you
65
1
citations
and
backup.

2
So
it
is
simply
not
true
that
this
3
diminishing
moral
responsibility
standard
that
you've
4
used
has
the
credential
of
being
well­
rooted
in
the
5
history
of
religions
and
of
morality
and
debate
amongst
6
ethicists
around
the
world.
We
don't
hold
those
views.

7
It's
true,
yes,
there
are
huge
complexities
8
about
resources
and
degrees
of
responsibility
and
how
9
could
you
acquit
yourself
of
your
responsibility.
And
10
there's
huge
questions
about
the
sustainability
of
the
11
institutions.
How
can
you
ascertain
any
standard
if
the
12
institutions
themselves
go
to
pot?
You
don't
even
13
address
that.
You
have
no
discussion
in
the
document
14
about
process,
about
democracy,
about
how
to
give
these
15
things
moral
legitimacy.
And
like
those
who
follow
us,

16
you
should
have.

17
I'm
going
to
run
right
out
of
time.
I've
18
got
this
written
out,
and
I'll
submit
it.

19
MR.
SARNO:
You
still
have
four
minutes
if
20
you
want
to
continue.

21
MR.
WALTON:
Well,
I
think
that
it's
just
22
that
you
should
­­
when
you
rewrite
this,
you've
got
23
pieces
in
there,
there
are
pieces
in
there
that
could
be
24
used
to
draft
a
good
document.

25
But
here
it
goes
very
fast,
here's
the
66
1
point:
If
in
the
first
10,000
years,
you
can
say
2
15
millirem,
and
after
that
the
quantitative
­­
okay,

3
good.
But
all
of
the
people
you
quote
say
things
like
4
target,
qualitative,
benchmark
­­
remember
all
of
those
5
kinds
of
­­
vision.
There's
all
of
those
words
you
used
6
to
say
that
when
we
go
out
beyond,
we've
got
to
take
a
7
somewhat
different
logic.
Okay,
do
it.

8
But
just
because
you
do
that
means
that
you
9
can
say
any
standard
is
the
most
morally
­­
the
most
10
biologically
recommended,
but
we
don't
know
how
to
11
ascertain
it.
In
other
words,
you
can
recommend
beyond,

12
why
recommend
350
when
you
can
recommend
15?

13
I
know
you
had
to
address
that,
you
gave
14
your
reasons.
But
that's
not
morally
reprehensible.

15
It's
only
­­
it
braces
this
huge
cynicism.
You've
16
walked
into
a
state
of
people
who
have
been
lied
to
for
17
a
long,
long,
long
time.
You
can't
ask
us
to
believe
18
you
just
because
you
came
from
back
East
and
have
a
job
19
to
get
done.
That's
not
good
enough.

20
We've
got
to
do
better
than
that.
And
I
21
think
that
the
ethic
standards
here
and
the
public
22
policy
standards,
you
had
none.
You
quote
Chapman
23
McCombie,
you
quote
the
Napa.
Look
at
that
document.

24
It's
predicated
on
process,
openness,
flexibility,

25
inclusion,
dialogue.
67
1
All
of
those
things
you've
heard
them
asked
2
for,
begged
for
today.
And
your
sources
in
your
3
document
quote
them
up
to
here
constantly.

4
Finish
reading
the
Napa
document.
It's
full
5
of
­­
read
the
synthesis,
Reference
3,
which
you
6
mentioned.
It's
all
process,
openness,
legitimacy.
But
7
you
never
touched
those.
You
quote
them,
but
you
don't
8
do
it,
you
don't
give
us
an
open
process.
And
you
9
haven't
done
one
in
regard
to
the
making
of
this
rule.

10
Thanks
for
the
time.

11
MR.
SARNO:
Thank
you.

12
Calvin
Meyers
(
Phonetic).
You
have
10
13
minutes,
Calvin.

14
MR.
MEYERS:
I
want
15.
I'm
tired,
it's
15
late,
I'm
grumpy.

16
A
lot
of
things
that
have
been
said
tonight
17
is
above
my
head.
Like
I
told
you
before,
we
do
not
18
have
the
scientific
mind
that
we
need
to
process
your
19
information.

20
What
I
didn't
really
hit
on
too
much
is
that
21
I
have
been
unhealthy.
The
IHS,
which
is
the
Indian
22
Health
Service,
which
gives
us
­­
I
can't
say
health
23
care
because
it's
not
really
health
care,
is
giving
us
24
less
and
less
because
it's
the
wisdom
of
Congress,
and
25
the
United
States
President
says
that
we
need
less.
68
1
Well,
when
they
start
shipping
this
stuff
to
2
my
lands
­­
not
yours,
mine
­­
my
health,
the
health
of
3
my
people
will
go
back.
That's
the
way
it
is.

4
So
when
my
health
and
the
health
of
my
5
people
start
going
downhill,
you
are
actually
going
to
6
just
put
us
in
the
ground
along
with
your
waste.
You
7
and
DOE
and
NRC
and
anybody
else
associated
with
this
8
project
is
doing.

9
That
to
me
is
great.
It
really
is
because
10
that
is
what
the
government
had
set
out
to
do
to
my
11
people
and
the
people
like
me.
That
to
me
is
­­
should
12
be
­­
to
every
citizen
of
the
United
States
should
be
13
appalling
to
try
to
get
rid
of
the
people
just
because
14
they
are
in
the
way.

15
I'm
not
in
the
way.
The
Creator
put
me
16
here,
you
didn't;
the
Creator
made
this
land
for
me,
you
17
didn't;
the
Creator
has
made
the
animals
for
me,
you
18
didn't;
the
Creator
made
the
air
so
I
can
breathe
it,

19
you
didn't.
The
Creator
made
the
water.
He
made
the
20
plants
so
I
can
use
them.
He
made
the
Earth
so
I
can
21
use
that.
He
made
the
Earth
for
us
to
use
as
medicine.

22
He
made
the
animals
for
us
as
medicine.
He
made
the
23
plants
for
us
as
medicine.

24
When
you
bring
these
toxic
substances
to
our
25
lands,
you
actually
take
away
that
medicine
that
we
use.
69
1
I
use
that
today.
I
am
looked
at
even
in
my
2
own
people
as
an
old
person
because
I
live
in
the
old
3
ways
here
amongst
you.
Because
this
is
my
land.
I
pray
4
to
this
land.
This
land
helps
me.

5
When
you
destroy
the
land,
you
destroy
what
6
helps
me.
You
destroy
a
part
of
me.
And
a
part
of
me
7
that
can't
come
back.
And
when
I
talk
about
destroying
8
the
land,
it's
not
just
the
mountain
itself,
it's
the
9
shipment.

10
It's
great
to
talk
about
just
this
piece
of
11
land
that
you
can
put
it
into,
but
how
the
heck
are
you
12
going
to
get
it
there?
That's
going
to
effect
a
lot
of
13
people.
And
I
know
that
you
say,
Well,
we're
not
14
looking
at
that.
Well,
you
might
as
well
­­
and
if
15
you're
walking
around
with
blinders,
you
better
take
16
those
blinders
off
because
that
stuff
may
come
by
your
17
house
tomorrow.
And
then
you
can
scream
and
yell
just
18
like
the
way
I
am.
Then
you
will
have
a
concern.
But
19
then
that
concern
can
be
very
easily
remedied
by
you
20
just
moving
away
from
that
route.

21
Well,
I
can't
move.
I
can't
move
because
22
this
is
my
land,
this
is
where
I
come
from.
I
come
from
23
right
out
of
the
ground.
My
teachings
that
I
was
taught
24
by
old
people,
and
they
were
taught
by
their
elders,
was
25
that
we
came
from
the
ground.
We
didn't
come
from
70
1
somewhere
else.
We
weren't
made,
we
came
from
out
of
2
the
ground.

3
We
were
taught
that
the
animals
in
us
and
4
all
living
things
on
the
Earth
communicated.
Well,
I'm
5
here
begging
for
the
life
of
the
animals,
of
those
6
plants
that
can't
speak
to
you
because
you
do
not
know
7
how
to
speak
to
them.

8
I
know
that
they
speak
to
us
because
when
I
9
walk
around
out
in
the
middle
of
the
desert,
which
you
10
say
there's
nothing
out
there,
well,
there
is.
There's
11
a
lot
of
life.
I
walk
around
in
the
middle
of
winter,

12
and
I
see
Bluebirds
that
walk
along
with
me.
I
see
a
13
lot
of
other
animals
that
walk
along
with
me.
I
speak
14
to
the
rabbits
when
they're
out
there.
I
speak
to
the
15
rattlesnake
when
he's
out
there
hissing
at
me.
And
I
16
talk
to
him.
He
doesn't
bother
me
because
I
was
taught
17
to
talk
to
them.
We
spoke
with
each
other.

18
These
things
are
the
things
that
I
have
to
19
protect,
and
these
things
that
I
fight
to
protect.
And
20
I
fight
all
of
the
government
all
the
time.
I
fight
21
this
project
because
this
project
is
not
good
for
the
22
animals
that
can't
speak
because
you
can't
listen
to
23
them
because
they
don't
speak
to
you.

24
That
is
a
problem
that
my
people
have.
My
25
people,
just
like
me,
have
that
problem.
Not
just
my
71
1
tribe
but
many
tribes
across
the
country.
Many
tribes
2
across
the
country
that
you
will
impact
when
you
do
3
these
shipments
to
this
wasteland.

4
It's
a
wasteland
to
you
because
you
do
not
5
know
what's
out
there.
You
probably
haven't
even
gotten
6
out
of
your
car
to
see
what
that
land
can
give
to
you.

7
You
probably
haven't
even
seen
what
the
beauty
of
that
8
land
is.
You
probably
haven't
even
got
out
of
your
car
9
to
see
that
little
tiny
plant,
that
little
tiny
flower
10
with
purples
and
yellows
and
whites
and
oranges
and
11
reds.

12
You've
never
seen
those,
that's
why
it's
13
nothing
to
you.
You
do
not
hold
those
things
as
14
anything.
Those
things
are
in
your
way
of
what
you
want
15
to
do.
What's
in
your
way
of
what
you
want
to
do
is
16
actually
me
because
those
plants
that
are
out
there,

17
they
are
a
part
of
me.

18
I
speak
to
those.
I
use
those
­­
I
use
19
those
plants
as
medicines,
I
use
the
Earth
as
medicine.

20
And
it
all
comes
back
to
am
I
going
to
be
able
to
21
protect
the
Earth,
which
was
given
to
us
to
protect,
to
22
use,
and
to
help
replenish
our
bodies,
to
help
replenish
23
our
people?
If
that
is
gone,
my
people
are
gone.

24
And
I
always
bring
to
the
table
about
this
25
is
your
home
too.
And
if
you
don't
take
care
of
your
72
1
home,
you
have
nowhere
else
to
go.
You
might
as
well
2
destroy
yourself
because
that's
what
happens
when
you
3
destroy
your
home.

4
And
I
still
am
having
the
same
thought
about
5
having
a
two­
or
three­
year
comment
period.
And
I'm
6
being
truthful
because
if
we
do
not
know
what
you
are
7
talking
about,
I
cannot
communicate
with
you.
It's
like
8
you
talking
with
the
animals,
they
can't
understand
you
9
because
you
don't
know
what
they're
talking
about.
You
10
don't
understand
them
because
you
don't
want
to
11
understand
them.
You
don't
understand
the
plants,
why
12
they're
there.
They're
there
for
a
purpose.

13
I
have
problems
with
DOE
all
the
time.
I
14
say,
Well,
the
creosote
bush,
plant,
is
a
medicine
to
15
me.
And
they
always
say,
Well,
there's
millions
out
16
there.
That's
true,
there
are
a
lot.
But
it's
not
how
17
many
is
out
there,
it's
that
one
that
speaks
to
me
that
18
says,
I
am
here
for
you,
you
come
to
me,
I
will
help
19
you,
I
will
heal
you.
That's
what
we
­­
that's
what
we
20
do.
We
don't
just
go
to
any
one,
it's
the
one
that
21
says,
I'm
here
for
you,
I'm
here
to
­­
I'm
going
to
do
22
something
for
you,
you
come
to
me.

23
It's
the
same
thing
with
the
Earth.

24
Whenever
I
use
something
from
the
Earth,
that
is
there
25
to
heal
me.
That
rock
or
that
sand
or
that
gravel
or
73
1
that
mud
or
that
water
says,
Come
here,
I'm
here
to
help
2
you,
I
know
what
your
problem
is,
I
can
heal
you
because
3
I
am
here
for
you.

4
That's
what
tribal
people
see
as
life.
We
5
see
life
is
not
just
walking
on
a
piece
of
carpet,

6
because
the
carpet
came
from
somewhere.

7
That
is
what
we
look
at.
We
don't
look
at
8
things
so
technically
because
we
know
that
one
­­
if
you
9
impact
something,
it's
going
to
impact
something
else.

10
And
it
always
comes
back
to
what
we
do,
what
we
impact.

11
If
we
do
a
bad
impact
to
something,
that
will
come
back
12
to
us
and
do
something
bad
to
us.

13
I
remember
reading
one
time,
going
to
one
of
14
these
meetings
in
Washington
D.
C.,
on
the
plane,
a
book
15
by
a
Sioux
medicine
man.
He
wrote
in
this
book
that
16
before
you
started
doing
anything
with
nuclear,
the
17
medicine
people
had
told
the
non­
Indians
to
leave
it
18
alone
because
they
do
not
know
what
it
is,
they
do
not
19
know
how
to
use
it.
It
will
harm
them.
But
in
the
20
non­
Indians
infinite
wisdom,
they
went
and
dug
it
up.

21
And
it
is
the
nuclear
waste
now
that
we
have
to
deal
22
with.

23
You
say,
Well,
let's
do
what
the
Indians
do,

24
we'll
just
give
it
back
to
the
Earth.
Well,
it's
not
25
the
same.
It's
not
the
same
piece
of
ground
that
came
74
1
from
the
Earth.
It's
completely
different.
It's
not
2
above
the
Earth
anymore.
It's
a
non­
Indian's
mankind
­­

3
mankind
who
made
things.
It's
no
longer
an
original
4
part
of
the
land.

5
So
when
you
guys
look
at
these
things,
you
6
need
to
really
think
about
what
you're
doing
because
I
7
have
to
look
after
generations
that
come
behind
me.
I
8
don't
look
at
things
for
myself.
I'm
here.
I'll
be
9
gone
in
a
few
years,
but
there's
generations
that
are
10
coming
behind
me
that
I
have
to
look
for.
I
have
to
11
protect.

12
And
you
people
need
to
do
the
same
thing.

13
The
government
needs
to
think
about
what
they're
doing.

14
And
they
really
need
to
protect
the
future
generations
15
because
I
hate
to
see
my
people
be
obliterated
from
this
16
Earth.
And
if
that
happens
that
is
not
something
that
17
we
made.
It's
something
that
non­
Indians
have
done
to
18
us.

19
Thank
you.

20
MR.
SARNO:
Thank
you
very
much.

21
That
is
the
end
of
the
individuals
I
have
on
22
the
formal
register
that
have
signed
up.
Is
there
23
anyone
else
who
wishes
to
make
a
comment
before
we
24
close?

25
Okay.
Thank
you
very
much.
I'll
turn
it
75
1
back
over
to
Elizabeth.

2
MS.
COTSWORTH:
Thank
you,
again,
for
all
3
your
comments
both
at
the
hearing
and
previously
in
the
4
public
meeting.

5
We
will
be
remaining
here
until
nine
o'clock
6
in
case
there
are
others
who
do
wish
to
speak.
But
I
7
thank
you
very
much
for
your
participation,
your
8
attendance
here
this
evening.
And
we
will
consider
very
9
carefully
all
the
comments
that
we've
heard
tonight
and
10
throughout
our
visit
to
Nevada.

11
Thank
you.

12
­­
o0o­­

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25