Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0083-0368
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2006-02-02T05:00Z

HUNT
REPORTING
COMPANY
Court
Reporting
and
Litigation
Support
Serving
Maryland,
Washington,
and
Virginia
410­
766­
HUNT
(
4868)
1­
800­
950­
DEPO
(
3376)
UNITED
STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
PUBLIC
HEARING
PROPOSED
PUBLIC
HEALTH
AND
ENVIRONMENTAL
RADIATION
PROTECTION
STANDARDS
FOR
YUCCA
MOUNTAIN
EPA
EAST
BUILDING
ROOM
1153
1201
CONNECTICUT
AVENUE,
NW
WASHINGTON,
D.
C.

TUESDAY,
OCTOBER
11,
2005
HUNT
REPORTING
COMPANY
Court
Reporting
and
Litigation
Support
Serving
Maryland,
Washington,
and
Virginia
410­
766­
HUNT
(
4868)
1­
800­
950­
DEPO
(
3376)
2
P
R
O
C
E
E
D
I
N
G
S
1
(
Whereupon,
the
hearing
began
prior
to
2
audiotape.)
3
FEMALE
VOICE:
­­
today
on
our
August
22nd
4
proposal
of
radioactivity
protection
standards
for
5
Yucca
Mountain.
6
I
am
joined
here
as
part
of
the
EPA
panel
to
7
listen
to
comments
today
by
Mr.
Keith
Matthews
of
the
8
Office
of
General
Counsel
and
Ms.
Betsy
Fornash
9
(
phonetic),
who
is
the
head
of
the
Yucca
Mountain
10
Technical
Team
in
my
office.
11
And
I
do
want
to
thank
you
all
for
making
the
12
time
today
to
participate
in
the
hearing
process.
It's
13
during
these
hearings
that
the
public
has
the
14
opportunity
to
comment
on
this
important
proposed
rule.
15
We
look
forward
to
receiving
your
comments
16
today.
It's
critical
to
the
development
of
public
17
policy.
We
are
open
to
receiving
all
points
of
view
18
HUNT
REPORTING
COMPANY
Court
Reporting
and
Litigation
Support
Serving
Maryland,
Washington,
and
Virginia
410­
766­
HUNT
(
4868)
1­
800­
950­
DEPO
(
3376)
3
and
we'll
carefully
consider
them
in
developing
the
1
final
rule.
2
We're
here
today
consistent
with
our
mission
3
to
protect
human
health
and
the
environment.
It's
a
4
mission
we
take
very
seriously.
5
Congress
directed
EPA
specifically
to
develop
6
standards
applicable
to
Yucca
Mountain.
The
standards
7
protect
the
public
from
the
hazards
of
the
radioactive
8
waste
that
may
be
eventually
disposed
of
at
the
9
facility.
Yucca
Mountain
can
be
opened
and
operated
10
only
if
it
meets
EPA's
standards.
So
we're
here
today
11
to
fulfill
the
specific
role
for
Yucca
Mountain
that
12
Congress
laid
out
for
us.
13
At
Congress'
insistence
again,
EPA
standards
14
will
be
incorporated
into
the
Nuclear
Regulatory
15
Commission's
licensing
requirements
for
Yucca
16
Mountain's
facility
and
then
the
Department
of
Energy
17
will
apply
for
the
license
to
operate
the
site.
Again,
18
only
if
DOE
can
meet
EPA's
standards
will
the
facility
19
open.
20
HUNT
REPORTING
COMPANY
Court
Reporting
and
Litigation
Support
Serving
Maryland,
Washington,
and
Virginia
410­
766­
HUNT
(
4868)
1­
800­
950­
DEPO
(
3376)
4
In
laying
out
our
agency's
role,
Congress
1
said
we
needed
to
follow
the
expert
advice
of
the
2
National
Academy
of
Sciences,
a
premier
U.
S.
scientific
3
organization.
The
NAS
in
its
report
to
EPA
said
our
4
standards
should
cover
at
least
the
time
period
when
5
the
highest
releases
of
radiation
are
most
likely
to
6
occur.
7
Our
first
EPA
Yucca
Mountain
standards
were
8
issued
in
2001.
In
July
of
2004,
the
U.
S.
Court
of
9
Appeals
of
the
District
of
Columbia
ruled
that
the
10
10,000
year
time
period
when
the
standards
would
be
in
11
effect
was
inconsistent
with
the
recommendations
to
the
12
agency
that
had
been
made
by
the
NAS.
13
It's
important
to
point
out
that
the
court
14
didn't
rule
that
EPA
standards
were
not
protective,
but
15
that
our
standards
were
not
consistent
with
or
based
on
16
a
longer
time
period
when
the
highest
doses
of
17
radiation
from
the
waste
are
expected
to
occur.
18
We
have
now
revised
our
standard
in
response
19
to
that
court
ruling.
Our
new
proposed
rule
limits
20
HUNT
REPORTING
COMPANY
Court
Reporting
and
Litigation
Support
Serving
Maryland,
Washington,
and
Virginia
410­
766­
HUNT
(
4868)
1­
800­
950­
DEPO
(
3376)
5
radiation
doses
from
the
Yucca
Mountain
facility
for
a
1
million
years
after
it
closes.
No
other
rules
of
the
2
United
States
for
any
risks
have
ever
attempted
to
3
regulate
for
such
a
long
period
of
time.
4
To
meet
the
challenge,
we
look
to
the
good
5
advice
of
the
NAS
and
international
scientific
6
community.
7
For
the
first
10,000
years,
we
propose
to
8
retain
a
dose
limit
of
15
millirem
a
year.
This
is
9
protection
at
the
level
of
the
most
stringent
radiation
10
regulations
in
the
U.
S.
today.
11
From
10,000
to
a
million
years,
we
propose
a
12
dose
limit
of
350
millirems.
This
represents
a
total
13
radiation
exposure
for
people
living
in
the
vicinity
of
14
Yucca
Mountain
no
higher
than
natural
levels
people
15
live
with
routinely
in
other
parts
of
the
country.
16
One
million
years
includes
the
time
at
which
17
the
highest
doses
of
radiation
from
the
facility
are
18
expected
to
occur.
It
also
represents
25,000
19
generations.
20
HUNT
REPORTING
COMPANY
Court
Reporting
and
Litigation
Support
Serving
Maryland,
Washington,
and
Virginia
410­
766­
HUNT
(
4868)
1­
800­
950­
DEPO
(
3376)
6
Our
proposal
requires
also
the
Department
of
1
Energy
to
show
that
Yucca
Mountain
can
safety
contain
2
the
waste
even
considering
the
effects
of
volcanos,
3
earthquakes,
climate
change,
and
corrosion
of
the
4
canisters.
5
We've
proposed
the
revised
standards
to
6
address
the
issues
specifically
raised
by
the
court,
7
reflect
sound
science
and
its
limitations,
protect
8
human
health,
and
provide
clear
guidance
to
the
Nuclear
9
Regulatory
Commission
for
licensing.
10
The
proposed
rule
maintains
the
11
protectiveness
of
the
2001
standards
and
addresses
the
12
NAS
advice
by
adding
protections
through
to
one
million
13
years,
a
time
when
the
highest
doses
of
radiation
from
14
the
site
are
most
likely
to
occur.
15
Again,
we
look
forward
to
hearing
your
16
comments
on
our
proposed
approach
to
meeting
this
17
unprecedented
scientific
challenge
in
setting
18
standards.
19
I
would
now
like
to
ask
Doug
Sarno
20
HUNT
REPORTING
COMPANY
Court
Reporting
and
Litigation
Support
Serving
Maryland,
Washington,
and
Virginia
410­
766­
HUNT
(
4868)
1­
800­
950­
DEPO
(
3376)
7
(
phonetic),
who
will
preside
as
our
hearing
officer,
to
1
explain
some
of
the
ground
rules
and
procedures
of
the
2
hearing.
Thank
you.
3
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you,
Elizabeth.
4
I'm
going
to
call
individuals
up
as
you
have
5
registered.
Most
of
you
should
be
aware
of
your
6
approximate
time
slot.
We
will
also
keep
going
as
long
7
as
additional
individuals
would
like
to
be
on
the
8
record.
9
Everything
today
is
being
recorded
and
will
10
be
transcribed
and
placed
in
the
record.
11
Please
be
aware
that
you
can
also
get
on
the
12
record
in
a
variety
of
other
ways.
There's
a
fact
13
sheet
back
there
that
gives
you
all
the
instructions
14
for
providing
comment,
through
the
web,
e­
mail,
15
internet,
faxing,
mailing,
courier.
You
name
it,
we'll
16
accept
it.
17
Also
here
there's
a
box
back
there
if
you
18
have
written
comments
or
you
have
a
written
version
of
19
what
you
are
presenting
into
testimony
today.
Feel
20
HUNT
REPORTING
COMPANY
Court
Reporting
and
Litigation
Support
Serving
Maryland,
Washington,
and
Virginia
410­
766­
HUNT
(
4868)
1­
800­
950­
DEPO
(
3376)
8
free
to
drop
that
back
there.
Everything
that's
left
1
in
the
box
in
the
back
will
be
collected
and
also
2
entered
into
the
record.
You
may
also
tape
your
3
comments
or
type
in
your
comments.
There
are
forms
in
4
the
back
both
for
typing
or
simply
hand
writing
your
5
comments.
6
There
will
be
lengths
of
comment
today.
Five
7
minutes
for
individuals
and
ten
minutes
for
individuals
8
who
are
representing
organizations.
And
as
I
said,
9
when
I
get
to
the
end
of
the
signed
up
­­
the
pre­
10
signed
up
list
and
the
people
who've
signed
up
as
they
11
were
walking
in
the
door,
then
I
will
ask
if
others
are
12
also
interested
in
providing
testimony.
13
I
will
help
you
with
timing
by
holding
up
14
signs,
five
minutes,
two
minutes,
one
minute
just
to
15
give
you
a
sense.
I
will
call
time
at
the
prescribed
16
end
of
your
period
so
that
we
can
make
sure
that
17
everybody
has
an
opportunity
to
speak.
18
With
that,
I
would
like
to
call
Lois
Gibbs
as
19
our
first
speaker,
representing
the
Center
for
Health,
20
HUNT
REPORTING
COMPANY
Court
Reporting
and
Litigation
Support
Serving
Maryland,
Washington,
and
Virginia
410­
766­
HUNT
(
4868)
1­
800­
950­
DEPO
(
3376)
9
Environment
and
Justice,
and
she
will
have
ten
minutes.
1
MS.
GIBBS:
Thank
you.
I
don't
need
ten
2
minutes
to
say
what
I
have
to
say,
that
this
plan
is
3
terrible.
4
My
name
is
Lois
Gibbs
and
I'm
Executive
5
Director
of
the
Center
for
Health,
Environment
and
6
Justice.
Our
national
organization
empowers
local
7
groups
to
achieve
democratic
forces
working
to
protect
8
people
and
the
environment
from
health­
threatening
9
contaminants.
10
I
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
comment
on
11
EPA's
proposed
radiation
release
regulations
for
the
12
proposed
national
high­
level
radioactive
waste
dump
at
13
Yucca
Mountain
in
Nevada.
We
strongly
oppose
EPA's
14
proposal.
It
is
a
double
standard.
It
is
extremely
15
dangerous
and
it
is
immoral.
16
For
the
first
10,000
years,
people
exposed
to
17
Yucca's
leaking
radioactivity
would
have
the
current
18
radiation
standards
allowing
a
lifetime
cancer
rate
of
19
one
in
835
people.
Then
it
dooms
future
generations
to
20
HUNT
REPORTING
COMPANY
Court
Reporting
and
Litigation
Support
Serving
Maryland,
Washington,
and
Virginia
410­
766­
HUNT
(
4868)
1­
800­
950­
DEPO
(
3376)
10
a
new
radiation
standard
of
one
in
36
cancer
rate.
1
These
cancer
rates
are
horrifying.
This
is
a
2
complete
violation
of
EPA's
responsibility
to
protect
3
public
health
and
the
environment.
A
standard
based
on
4
a
one
in
36
cancer
rate
is
not
a
standard.
It
is
a
5
death
sentence.
6
This
proposal
to
allow
350
millirem
per
year
7
radiation
doses
to
people
living
downstream
from
the
8
leaking
nuclear
waste
dump
would
cause
cancers,
birth
9
defects,
and
genetic
damage.
It
would
also
set
a
very
10
dangerous
precedent
that
could
be
applied
across
11
America.
12
For
decades,
EPA
has
declared
any
radiation
13
dose
above
15
to
25
millirems
per
year
to
be
14
nonprotective
of
public
health.
That's
a
direct
quote.
15
Its
general
policy
has
been
to
regulate
16
exposures
to
limit
cancer
rates
to
one
in
10,000
or
17
even
one
in
a
million
persons
exposed.
But
EPA's
18
proposed
standard
for
Yucca
would
be
a
23­
fold
19
increase.
Radiation
standards
to
protect
health
and
20
HUNT
REPORTING
COMPANY
Court
Reporting
and
Litigation
Support
Serving
Maryland,
Washington,
and
Virginia
410­
766­
HUNT
(
4868)
1­
800­
950­
DEPO
(
3376)
11
the
environment
should
do
just
that,
protect
people,
1
not
legalize
pollution.
2
EPA
needs
to
take
a
precautionary
approach
on
3
these
problems.
The
precautionary
approach
shifts
the
4
question
we
ask
about
hazards
from
what
level
of
harm
5
is
acceptable
to
how
we
can
prevent
harm.
EPA's
6
proposed
standards
do
not
prevent
serious
harm.
They
7
cause
serious
harm.
8
These
proposed
regulations
are
completely
9
unacceptable
and
should
be
immediately
withdrawn.
They
10
must
not
be
allowed
to
set
a
precedent
because
they
11
represent
a
large­
scale
weakening
of
the
environmental
12
and
public
health
protection
standards.
It
would
be
13
the
worst
such
standard
in
the
Western
World
in
14
violation
of
international
principles.
15
We
urge
EPA
to
throw
out
this
dangerous
16
proposal
and
work
on
standards
that
truly
protect
17
future
generations
and
our
environment.
18
Thank
you.
19
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you.
20
HUNT
REPORTING
COMPANY
Court
Reporting
and
Litigation
Support
Serving
Maryland,
Washington,
and
Virginia
410­
766­
HUNT
(
4868)
1­
800­
950­
DEPO
(
3376)
12
Next
up,
Robert
Musil
from
Physicians
for
1
Social
Responsibility.
2
And
you
have
ten
minutes.
3
DR.
MUSIL:
Thank
you
very
much.
I
think
I
4
will
use
more
of
my
ten
minutes
than
the
previous
5
speaker,
but
I
really
appreciate
this
opportunity
to
6
prevent
harm
and
to
present
testimony
on
behalf
of
7
Physicians
for
Social
Responsibility.
8
I
did
want
to
stress
at
the
outset
that
all
9
of
us
understand
that
we're
talking
about
regulations
10
and
procedures
and
protection
standards,
but
I
want
to
11
remind
all
of
us
that
we're
actually
talking
about
12
people
and
protecting
human
health.
13
I
know
you
know
that
and
people
in
this
room
14
do,
but
I
think
it
sometimes
is
difficult
when
we
look
15
at
maps
or
talk
about
regulations
to
understand
that
16
there
are
actually
people
there
and
there
may
be
people
17
there
as
far
as
we
can
imagine.
18
And
so
I
want
to
focus
my
remarks
on
health
19
standards
and
the
protection
of
people
who
currently
20
HUNT
REPORTING
COMPANY
Court
Reporting
and
Litigation
Support
Serving
Maryland,
Washington,
and
Virginia
410­
766­
HUNT
(
4868)
1­
800­
950­
DEPO
(
3376)
13
live
in
the
area
and
will
throughout
future
1
generations.
2
Physicians
for
Social
Responsibility
has
been
3
working
on
this
subject
for
over
40
years
with
a
4
concern
for
the
public
health
and
environmental
5
legacies
caused
by
the
testing,
production,
and
6
stockpiling
of
nuclear
weapons,
shipment
and
storage
of
7
nuclear
waste
and
the
like.
8
I
am
fortunate
to
represent
some
33,000
9
physicians,
nurses,
and
other
health
scientists
and
10
concerned
citizens.
11
We
also,
I'm
very
proud
to
say,
in
1961
did
12
some
of
the
early
studies
on
strontium­
90
in
children's
13
teeth
that
brought
scientific
rigor
and
accuracy
to
the
14
question
of
whether
open­
air
testing
was
indeed
harming
15
our
children
or
not.
And
I've
reviewed
many,
many
16
epidemiological
studies
since
that
time.
17
We
also
won
the
Nobel
Peace
Prize
in
1985
18
along
with
our
colleagues
from
the
International
19
Physicians
for
the
Prevention
of
Nuclear
War.
20
HUNT
REPORTING
COMPANY
Court
Reporting
and
Litigation
Support
Serving
Maryland,
Washington,
and
Virginia
410­
766­
HUNT
(
4868)
1­
800­
950­
DEPO
(
3376)
14
Our
concern
with
the
Yucca
Mountain
site
for
1
some
years
now
has
been
our
sense
and
considered
2
judgment
that
has
been
driven
primarily
or
has
3
certainly
allowed
political
and
commercial
interests
to
4
affect
our
views
of
the
science
and
what
is
acceptable
5
in
that
repository.
We
do
believe
that
it
doesn't
meet
6
minimal
public
health
and
safety
requirements.
7
We
do
think
that
there
would
be
under
the
8
proposed
standards
gross
violations
of
scientific,
9
ethical,
and
public
health
principles
that
consistently
10
have
characterized
much
of
the
conduct
around
proposals
11
for
Yucca
Mountain.
12
Let
me
talk
very
specifically
about
the
13
standards.
As
you
know,
there's
a
proposed
10,000
year
14
cutoff
limit
with
a
15
millirem
year
dose
limit
per
15
year
and
that
that
particular
standard,
if
that
was
all
16
there
was,
was
declared
illegal
by
the
Court
of
Appeals
17
is
why
the
NAS
has
explicitly
rejected
a
10,000
year
18
cutoff
as
arbitrary.
And
so
we're
talking
about
far
19
into
the
future,
but
that
is
something
that
you
all
20
HUNT
REPORTING
COMPANY
Court
Reporting
and
Litigation
Support
Serving
Maryland,
Washington,
and
Virginia
410­
766­
HUNT
(
4868)
1­
800­
950­
DEPO
(
3376)
15
have
been
obviously
instructed
by
the
law
to
do.
1
Unfortunately
the
rules
that
we
are
looking
at
and
2
as
we've
examined
them
are
weaker
than
the
original
3
standards.
They
do
propose
and
argue
a
dramatic
4
reversal
of
international
and
public
health
standards.
5
And
we
do
believe
that
there
is
a
two­
tiered
system,
a
6
double
standard.
7
For
the
first
10,000
years,
the
rules
permit
8
15
millirem
per
year
dose
limits
from
Yucca.
It
is
9
after
that
period
that
the
350
millirem
per
year
10
exposure
limit
does
increase
exposures
by
2,300
11
percent.
The
previous
speaker
referred
to
23
times.
12
For
years,
collectively
you
at
EPA
and
others
13
of
us
in
the
health
professions
have
argued
that
any
14
radiation
dose
above
15
to
25
millirem
per
year
is
15
nonprotective
of
public
health.
I
think
if
we
agree
to
16
that
and
stipulate
that,
it
will
give
us
a
baseline,
if
17
you
will,
to
compare
what
comes
afterwards.
We
also
18
agree
that
doses
above
100
millirem
per
year
produce
19
unacceptable
levels
of
risk.
20
HUNT
REPORTING
COMPANY
Court
Reporting
and
Litigation
Support
Serving
Maryland,
Washington,
and
Virginia
410­
766­
HUNT
(
4868)
1­
800­
950­
DEPO
(
3376)
16
And
so
the
general
position
during
the
1
lengthy
period
that
we've
been
following
such
issues
2
from
EPA
has
been
to
regulate
radiation
exposures
to
3
keep
their
effects
in
the
cancer
risk
range
of
between
4
one
in
10,000
and
one
in
a
million,
a
standard
of
5
safety
and
protection
that
we
urge
you
to
maintain
6
throughout
the
deliberations
and
standards
of
Yucca
7
Mountain.
8
Now
proposing
a
350
millirem
per
year
9
exposure
limit,
although
it's
for
those
future
10
generations
that
we
haven't
met
yet,
but
will
live
11
there,
is
truly
vastly
outside
what
even
your
current
12
rules
say
is
acceptable.
And
many
of
us
have
agreed
13
that
a
dose
of
350
millirem
per
year
does
lead
to
a
14
cancer
risk
of
approximately
one
in
36,
vastly
outside
15
the
risk
limits
that
we've
been
talking
about
together
16
over
the
years
of
one
in
10,000
to
one
in
a
million.
17
That's
why
we
talk
about
a
two­
tiered
18
standard
for
the
people
who
will
be
there
during
the
19
first
10,000
years.
And
I
know
it
is
extremely
20
HUNT
REPORTING
COMPANY
Court
Reporting
and
Litigation
Support
Serving
Maryland,
Washington,
and
Virginia
410­
766­
HUNT
(
4868)
1­
800­
950­
DEPO
(
3376)
17
difficult
to
imagine
who
will
be
around
after
that
1
period,
but
they
will
similarly
be
residents
of
that
2
area,
presumably
called
Nevada,
but
we'll
have
to
ask
3
Senator
Reid
about
that
question.
4
One
of
the
problems
we've
also
found
is
that
5
there
is
during
the
first
10,000
years,
you've
used
a
6
mean
distribution
standard
and
then
shift
to
a
median
7
standard
in
the
out
years.
And
I
think
people
in
this
8
room
understand
that
a
mean
is
a
mathematic
average.
9
With
the
median,
that
means
that
any
number
of
10
exposures
could
be
above
the
350
millirem
limit.
In
11
effect,
the
sky
is
the
limit.
12
Statistically,
theoretically,
there
could
be
13
a
certain
chance
of
getting
cancer,
but
certainly
we
14
are
very
concerned
about
the
median
standard.
15
The
EPA
has
said
that
this
is
the
same
as
16
background
radiation.
From
our
perspective,
clearly
it
17
is
on
top
of
background
radiation.
18
And
we
also
know
from
any
number
of
reports
19
from
the
UN
Scientific
Committee
on
the
effects
of
20
HUNT
REPORTING
COMPANY
Court
Reporting
and
Litigation
Support
Serving
Maryland,
Washington,
and
Virginia
410­
766­
HUNT
(
4868)
1­
800­
950­
DEPO
(
3376)
18
atomic
radiation,
the
IAEA
and
other
scientific
groups,
1
that
natural
background
radiation
causes
about
three
2
percent
of
fatal
cancers.
And
so
we
are
looking
to
3
increase
that
number.
We
don't
want
and
don't
want
you
4
to
accept
that
standards.
5
I'm
going
to
talk
a
little
bit
also
about
6
exposures
in
drinking
water
because
the
"
Safe
Drinking
7
Water
Act"
currently
limits
radiation
to
about
four
8
millirem
per
year.
That
is
required
again
for
the
9
first
10,000
years
and
as
we
move
to,
let's
call
them
10
the
out
years
or
future,
future
generations,
it
goes
to
11
the
350
millirem
standard.
12
Again,
we
believe
you
should
apply
the
"
Safe
13
Drinking
Water
Act"
throughout
if
we
imagine
that
human
14
exposures
will
be
the
same
whether
you're
in
Nevada
in
15
our
time
or
in
future
generations.
16
We
also
do
believe
that
these
standards
17
unfortunately,
if
they
go
forward,
would
set
a
18
dangerous
precedent.
That's
another
one
of
our
19
concerns.
People
because
they
respect
the
EPA
will
say
20
HUNT
REPORTING
COMPANY
Court
Reporting
and
Litigation
Support
Serving
Maryland,
Washington,
and
Virginia
410­
766­
HUNT
(
4868)
1­
800­
950­
DEPO
(
3376)
19
that's
good
enough.
1
We
don't
believe
so.
We
believe
that
sound
2
science,
our
concern
that
we
all
share
for
human
health
3
in
the
area
for
future
generations,
not
only
our
4
foreseeable
children
and
grandchildren,
but
as
far
as
5
we
can
see
deserve
the
kind
of
protection
that
the
EPA
6
has
upheld
for
many,
many
years.
7
That
is
why
in
conclusion,
we
urge
you
to
8
revise
the
proposed
rules,
to
keep
radiation
exposure
9
limits
to
less
than
15
to
25
millirems
per
year.
So
10
long
as
there
is
stored
nuclear
waste
in
the
repository
11
and
as
it
remains
toxic
to
human
health,
we
also
urge
12
you
to
enforce
a
separate
ground
water
protection
13
standard
of
less
than
four
millirem
per
year
with
a
14
period
beyond
10,000
years.
15
In
managing
these
risks,
storing
the
16
deadliest
nuclear
waste,
we
urge
you
to
embrace
and
17
remain
with
your
original
mission
to
scientific
and
18
medical
standards
that
you
have
upheld
for
so
long
and
19
to
revise
these
standards
to
provide
the
strictest
20
HUNT
REPORTING
COMPANY
Court
Reporting
and
Litigation
Support
Serving
Maryland,
Washington,
and
Virginia
410­
766­
HUNT
(
4868)
1­
800­
950­
DEPO
(
3376)
20
possible
human
health
standards
for
all
future
1
generations.
2
Thank
you.
3
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you.
4
Mr.
Arjun
Makhijani,
Institute
for
Energy
and
5
Environmental
Research.
6
And
you
will
have
ten
minutes.
7
DR.
MAKHIJANI:
Thank
you.
I'm
Arjun
8
Makhijani,
President
of
IEER.
I'm
going
to
be
a
little
9
staccato
and
brief
because
I
have
to
run
right
after
10
this,
but
­­
and
we
will
submit
written
comments.
My
11
colleague,
Bryce,
will
unfortunately
not
be
able
to
be
12
here.
13
You're
not
going
to
hear
very
many
kind
14
things
from
the
environmental
groups
or
groups
with
15
environmental
goals
for
a
healthier
environment.
So
16
let
me
say
a
couple
of
nice
things
first.
I'm
17
surprising
my
friends.
18
I
think
the
most
important
point
to
hold
onto
19
in
the
standard,
it's
been
a
long
time
coming
that
the
20
HUNT
REPORTING
COMPANY
Court
Reporting
and
Litigation
Support
Serving
Maryland,
Washington,
and
Virginia
410­
766­
HUNT
(
4868)
1­
800­
950­
DEPO
(
3376)
21
EPA
hasn't
agreed
to
going
toward
peak
dose.
There
1
were
some
other
political
alternatives
out
there.
I'm
2
very
glad
that
the
EPA
has
embraced
the
idea
of
3
limiting
the
peak
dose
from
a
high­
level
waste
4
repository.
That's
very
important.
The
concept
is
5
important.
We've
advocated
for
a
very
long
time.
6
The
other
point
that
I'd
like
to
be
7
sympathetic
to
EPA
to
is
the
EPA
had,
although
I
think
8
the
EPA
found
a
wrong
solution
for
it,
is
how
do
you
9
deal
with
the
questions
of
hundreds
of
thousands
of
10
years
from
a
technical
point
of
view.
And
I
would
like
11
to
suggest
that
it's
not
in
the
relaxation
of
the
12
standard.
13
I'd
like
to
point
you
to
the
French
standard,
14
which
has
been
adopted
or
suggested
as
a
guideline
for
15
their
characterization
and
licensing
processes,
which
16
is
that
for
the
first
10,000
years,
they
also
have
a
17
10,000
year
line,
so
it's
not
unreasonable
to
say
today
18
we
can
calculate
things
for
a
few
thousand
years
more
19
accurately.
Long
term,
we're
not
so
sure.
This
is
an
20
HUNT
REPORTING
COMPANY
Court
Reporting
and
Litigation
Support
Serving
Maryland,
Washington,
and
Virginia
410­
766­
HUNT
(
4868)
1­
800­
950­
DEPO
(
3376)
22
acceptable
and
real
concept.
1
However,
the
French
solution
to
this,
and
2
I've
reviewed
the
French
repository
program
research
3
formally,
and
that
report
is
available
on
our
web
site
4
in
French
and
we
hope
soon
in
English,
the
French
5
regulation
says
that
for
the
short
term,
you
make
6
accurate
or
amateur
calculations
and
you
meet
your
25
7
millirem
limit
with
reasonable
best
estimate
parameter
8
characterization.
9
And
for
the
long
term,
you
actually
have
10
conservative
or
upper
bound
parameter
characterizations
11
because
you
cannot
do
characterization,
but
you
still
12
have
to
meet
the
same
dose
limit.
13
And
let
me
recommend,
and
this
will
be
both
a
14
technical
and
a
legal
marker,
I
think,
let
me
recommend
15
a
specific
alternative
to
you
for
a
standard
which
16
would
be
somewhere
between
10
and
25
millirem
for
the
17
effective
dose
equivalent
per
year
from
all
pathways
18
with
a
sublimit
for
four
millirem
per
year
from
19
drinking
water.
20
HUNT
REPORTING
COMPANY
Court
Reporting
and
Litigation
Support
Serving
Maryland,
Washington,
and
Virginia
410­
766­
HUNT
(
4868)
1­
800­
950­
DEPO
(
3376)
23
This
is
a
combination
that
would
put
the
1
United
States
in
the
leadership
of
health
protection
2
from
radiation
where
I
believe
it
belongs.
3
Now,
let
me
say
some
things
about
the
350
4
millirem
limit.
You've
heard
the
general
arguments.
I
5
think
they're
reasonably
clear.
But
350
millirem
as
a
6
background
reference
is
wrong.
It
includes
indoor
7
radon,
as
you
know.
8
I
believe
it
is
wrong
to
include
indoor
radon
9
as
background
because
indoor
radon
is
an
artifact
of
10
construction.
It's
like
taking
a
natural
sample
of
11
lake
water,
boiling
it,
and
then
saying
that
the
12
resultant
salt
concentrations
are
natural
13
concentrations.
This
is
conceptually
a
very
wrong
way
14
of
characterizing
background.
15
Natural
background
is
about
100
millirem
with
16
some
variations
in
altitude
due
to
cosmic
rays
and
sun
17
variations
obviously
due
to
radon.
But
the
proper
way
18
to
characterize
radon
in
natural
background
is
outdoor
19
radon,
not
indoor
radon.
20
HUNT
REPORTING
COMPANY
Court
Reporting
and
Litigation
Support
Serving
Maryland,
Washington,
and
Virginia
410­
766­
HUNT
(
4868)
1­
800­
950­
DEPO
(
3376)
24
And
I
believe
this
was
actually
done
in
the
1
United
States
until
there
was
some
need
felt
to
jack
up
2
background
concentrations
and
I
believe
it
is
3
technically
illegitimate
to
do
so.
And
I
have
given
4
you
a
very
specific
analogy
and
I
expect
that
in
the
5
comments
that
EPA
will
respond
to
this
analogy.
6
I
do
think
that
the
proper
reference
point
is
7
not
even
the
100
millirem
natural
background,
but
the
8
small
variations
in
cosmic
rays
or
internal
radiation
9
that
we
might
get
when
we
move
from
one
place
to
10
another.
That's
a
good
reference.
Twenty­
five
11
millirem
comes
from
approximately
there.
It's
a
good
12
way
to
proceed
if
there
is
a
drinking
water
sublimit.
13
The
point
regarding
future
generations
is
14
here
we
are
saying
that
we
have
standards
for
us
for
25
15
millirem
today
from
a
single
nuclear
facility.
And
16
we're
saying
we're
going
to
get
the
benefits
and
we're
17
going
to
protect
ourselves
more
than
we're
going
to
18
protect
future
generations
who
are
going
to
get
none
of
19
the
benefits.
20
HUNT
REPORTING
COMPANY
Court
Reporting
and
Litigation
Support
Serving
Maryland,
Washington,
and
Virginia
410­
766­
HUNT
(
4868)
1­
800­
950­
DEPO
(
3376)
25
This
is
a
risk
benefit
and
cost
benefit
1
that's
completely
topsy
turvy.
And
I
know
it
isn't
2
intended
and
it's
not
personal,
yet
if
we
as
a
society
3
adopt
this
kind
of
idea,
one
has
to
question
what
would
4
be
the
ethical
state
of
a
society
in
which
a
generation
5
­­
we
would
truly
be
the
"
me"
generation
for
our
6
children.
7
We
would
say
I'm
going
to
take
all
the
8
benefits
and
I'm
going
to
have
better
health
protection
9
and
I'm
going
to
dump
my
waste
on
you
and
you're
going
10
to
have
worse
health
protection.
There's
something
11
wrong
with
that
picture.
12
The
350
millirem
as
a
median
is
really
13
illegitimate
also.
The
EPA
has
always
protected
the
14
maximally
exposed
individual
whether
it
is
in
drinking
15
water,
whether
it
is
in
the
"
Clear
Air
Act,"
Subpart
H.
16
There
are
numbers
of
regulations.
17
There
is
a
stochastic
situation
here.
We
18
realize
there's
a
probabilistic
calculation
to
be
made.
19
But
the
proper
way
in
which
to
do
a
probabilistic
20
HUNT
REPORTING
COMPANY
Court
Reporting
and
Litigation
Support
Serving
Maryland,
Washington,
and
Virginia
410­
766­
HUNT
(
4868)
1­
800­
950­
DEPO
(
3376)
26
calculation
in
this
kind
of
situation
is
to
take
a
99
1
percent
value.
2
I
really
question
the
number
that
EPA
has
3
come
up
with
with
a
350
millirem
median
and
a
two
rem
4
95
percentile
which
is
indicated
by
the
data
from
the
5
DOE
in
that
these
are
the
very
numbers
that
would
allow
6
the
DOE
to
license
this
repository
according
to
the
7
contractor
calculations
that
have
been
public
for
quite
8
a
long
time.
9
I
believe
­­
let
me
just
put
it
more
politely
10
and
say
these
numbers
certainly
raise
a
question
as
to
11
whether
they
are
coincident
by
appeal
to
natural
12
radiation
or
whether
they
are
a
more
transparent
13
attempt
to
accommodate
the
industry
in
what
I
believe
14
is
the
worst
site
that
has
been
investigated
in
this
15
country
for
a
nuclear
waste
repository.
16
I
am
on
repeated
record
as
supporting
the
17
concept
of
a
geologic
repository.
I've
also
published
18
how
we
should
go
about
searching
for
one.
I've
served
19
on
the
EPA
Radiation
Advisory
Committee
and
I
believe
20
HUNT
REPORTING
COMPANY
Court
Reporting
and
Litigation
Support
Serving
Maryland,
Washington,
and
Virginia
410­
766­
HUNT
(
4868)
1­
800­
950­
DEPO
(
3376)
27
we
have
changed
the
rules
for
Yucca
Mountain
three
1
different
times
in
major
ways.
2
The
first
time
I
served
on
the
EPA
Carbon
14
3
Committee
in
which
we
unanimously
concluded
that
Yucca
4
Mountain
may
not
meet
the
Carbon
14
standard.
Then
5
that
standard
was
overthrown.
I
call
this
the
double
6
standard
standard
process,
a
special
standard
for
Yucca
7
Mountain.
8
Yucca
Mountain
then
is
found
not
to
be
able
9
to
meet
the
geologic
retardation
criteria
set
by
the
10
Nuclear
Regulatory
Commission.
The
NRC
throws
its
11
criteria
overboard
and
now
we're
all
hanging
by
the
12
good
graces
of
a
computer
program
whose
quality
13
assurance
­­
well,
I
won't
even
go
into
the
faulty
and
14
fabricated
data
arena.
15
But
I
do
think
that
you
do
have
to
take
into
16
account
as
one
of
the
uncertainties
that
this
is
the
17
way
in
which
calculations
are
being
done.
This
is
the
18
way
in
which
you
are
setting
health
protection
19
standards
and
how
that
is
going
to
mesh
with
the
20
HUNT
REPORTING
COMPANY
Court
Reporting
and
Litigation
Support
Serving
Maryland,
Washington,
and
Virginia
410­
766­
HUNT
(
4868)
1­
800­
950­
DEPO
(
3376)
28
licensing
process.
1
Certainly
we
need
a
little
bit
of
elbow
room
2
in
this
process
so
that
at
the
end
of
the
licensing
3
process,
future
generations
at
least
were
wrong
by
a
4
factor
of
two
or
three
won't
be
out
with
a
one
in
five
5
and
a
one
in
ten
or
one
in
two
or
one
in
three
cancer
6
risk
for
the
one
percentile
and
the
five
percentile
7
because
that's
the
way
it
is,
BEIR
7.
8
Moreover,
I
do
not
see
any
consideration
9
given
to
the
fact
that
the
BEIR
­­
you
know,
you
have
10
the
misfortune
of
coming
out
at
the
same
point
as
the
11
BEIR
7
report.
But
the
final
standard
will
come
out
at
12
a
time
when
you
will
have
had
time
to
digest
the
BEIR
7
13
report.
I
really
urge
you
to
do
that
because
it's
14
quite
different
from
the
BEIR
5
report
in
many
15
important
respects
that
I'm
sure
you
already
know.
16
The
risks
to
children
are
shown
to
be
much
17
greater
than
the
risks
to
grown­
ups.
The
risks
to
18
women
are
shown
to
be
overall
much
greater
than
men.
19
For
the
first
time,
cancer
incidence
risks
have
been
20
HUNT
REPORTING
COMPANY
Court
Reporting
and
Litigation
Support
Serving
Maryland,
Washington,
and
Virginia
410­
766­
HUNT
(
4868)
1­
800­
950­
DEPO
(
3376)
29
published
and
I
believe
you
should
go
according
to
1
cancer
incidence
risks
and
protect
to
standards
like
2
one
in
10,000
for
cancer
incidence,
not
cancer
3
fatalities
because
fatality
rates
are
changing
all
the
4
time,
fortunately
coming
down
due
to
improved
medicine.
5
Now,
I
think
that
the
question
of
protecting
6
pregnant
women
should
also
be
part,
the
question
of
7
protecting
developing
fetuses
and
embryo.
For
the
8
first
time
in
this
century,
unlike
the
last
century,
we
9
do
have
dose
conversion
factors
and
we
do
have
the
10
technical
capability
to
calculate
these
things.
11
Before
we
could
say,
well,
we
really
don't
12
know
how.
Today
we
cannot
give
that
excuse.
We
have
13
the
technical
capability
to
do
it.
14
And
I
really
would
­­
I
have
served
on
three
15
different
EPA
committees.
I
deeply
respect
the
EPA.
I
16
know
that
respect
is
broadly
shared.
That's
why
I
was
17
careful
to
say
good
things
to
start
with.
And
I
hope
18
that
at
the
end
of
the
process,
I
won't
have
any
19
critical
things
to
say
because
you
will
have
tightened
20
HUNT
REPORTING
COMPANY
Court
Reporting
and
Litigation
Support
Serving
Maryland,
Washington,
and
Virginia
410­
766­
HUNT
(
4868)
1­
800­
950­
DEPO
(
3376)
30
the
standard
to
something
like
four
millirem
drinking
1
water
to
the
maximally
exposed
organ
and
overall
2
effective
dose
equivalent
of
somewhere
between
10
and
3
25
millirem
from
all
pathways.
4
Thank
you
very
much.
5
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you.
6
Judith
Johnsrud
from
Sierra
Club.
7
MS.
JOHNSRUD:
I
hope
this
will
do
and
you
8
can
hear
me
properly.
Ms.
Scottsworth
(
phonetic)
and
9
the
others,
thank
you.
10
My
name
is
Judith
Johnsrud.
I
live
in
11
Pennsylvania.
I'm
chairing
the
Sierra
Club's
National
12
Committee
on
Radiation
Impacts
and
have
served
as
their
13
advisor
on
radioactive
waste
management
for
a
number
of
14
years.
15
Our
comments
today
are
very
brief
and
­­
at
16
least
I
hope
brief
enough
and
will
be
followed
by
a
17
submission
in
writing
that
is,
I
hope,
a
good
analysis
18
of
the
(
unintelligible).
19
There
are
only
a
few
points
that
I
really
20
HUNT
REPORTING
COMPANY
Court
Reporting
and
Litigation
Support
Serving
Maryland,
Washington,
and
Virginia
410­
766­
HUNT
(
4868)
1­
800­
950­
DEPO
(
3376)
31
want
to
make
today.
I
concur
strongly
with
Arjun
1
Makhijani's
comments
with
regard
to
the
acceptance
of
2
the
300,
350
millirem
per
year
that
is
based
on
the
use
3
of
indoor
radon.
That
simply
is
not
naturally
4
occurring
background
as
natural
as
the
radon
initially
5
really
is,
of
course.
6
But
this
use
has
put
us
into
a
situation
of
7
accepting
as
a
gospel
truth,
if
you
will,
a
level
of
8
background
that
is
not
real.
9
I
try
to
carry
a
radiation
monitor
with
me.
10
I
don't
consider
it
terribly
accurate.
But
I
would
11
strongly
recommend
to
everyone
in
the
public
that
they
12
also
have
their
own
methods
of
measuring
to
have
a
13
sense
of
what
is
normal
even
if
not
terribly,
terribly
14
accurate.
15
We
find
this
proposal,
this
proposed
rule
to
16
be
totally
unacceptable
to
protect
public
health
and
17
safety.
And
that
is
indeed
EPA's
mission
or
so
we
wish
18
to
believe.
19
I
have
to
tell
you,
on
the
way
down
here,
the
20
HUNT
REPORTING
COMPANY
Court
Reporting
and
Litigation
Support
Serving
Maryland,
Washington,
and
Virginia
410­
766­
HUNT
(
4868)
1­
800­
950­
DEPO
(
3376)
32
200
mile
drive
in
fog,
a
sign
suddenly
appeared
that
1
said
ye
doer.
And
I
thought
I
really
want
to
suggest
2
to
EPA,
which
is
the
one
agency
of
our
government
that
3
I've
always
had
a
fondness
for
and
a
belief
in
4
integrity,
ye
doer
with
respect
to
setting
public
5
exposure
standards
for
far
into
the
future
beyond
our
6
capability
to
know
that
future,
standards
that,
in
7
fact,
exceed,
as
we've
heard
from
and
will
hear
from
8
others
today,
that
exceed
anything
close
to
acceptable
9
limits
with
regard
to
cancers,
cancer
incidence,
cancer
10
fatalities,
not
to
mention
all
of
the
other
impacts
11
that
are
associated
with
what
we
tend
to
consider
low
12
level
radiation.
13
Now,
in
recent
years,
within
the
past
15
14
years
perhaps
or
more,
the
research
that
has
been
15
undertaken
in
the
field
of
radiation
microbiology
and
16
other
realms
of
biology
have
brought
us
to
a
point
of
17
an
understanding
that
indeed
there
is
no
safe
dose
18
level.
19
Not
only
the
national
academy,
but
also
the
20
HUNT
REPORTING
COMPANY
Court
Reporting
and
Litigation
Support
Serving
Maryland,
Washington,
and
Virginia
410­
766­
HUNT
(
4868)
1­
800­
950­
DEPO
(
3376)
33
ICRP,
the
International
Commission
on
Radiological
1
Protection,
in
their
committee
one
report,
which
I
2
commend
to
you,
this
is
the
report
titled
"
Low
Dose
3
Extrapolation
of
Radiation
Related
Cancer
Risk"
that
4
came
out
last
winter.
It's
in
a
draft
form
and
it's
in
5
revision.
6
However,
as
they
detail
the
findings
of
low
7
dose
radiation
research
and
as
the
Department
of
Energy
8
in
its
low­
level
radiation
ten­
year
program
is
finding,
9
there
are
many
new
consequences
of
low
dose
radiation.
10
And
so
they
are
at
a
point
of
essentially
declaring
11
that
there
is
a
new
paradigm
with
respect
to
low
dose
12
impacts.
13
And
I
want
to
emphasize
that
a
radiation
dose
14
does
not
act
alone.
We
are,
in
fact,
all
of
us
exposed
15
to
a
great
variety
of
hazardous
substances
and
we
have
16
not
done
the
basic
research
to
know
what
the
impacts
of
17
the
entire
range
of
hazardous
materials
released
into
18
the
environment
will
be
as
they
act
and
interact
with
19
one
another
upon
individual
human
beings.
20
HUNT
REPORTING
COMPANY
Court
Reporting
and
Litigation
Support
Serving
Maryland,
Washington,
and
Virginia
410­
766­
HUNT
(
4868)
1­
800­
950­
DEPO
(
3376)
34
I
have
called
this
in
the
past
the
multiple
1
additive,
cumulative,
and
synergistic
effects
that
we
2
must
take
into
consideration
both
for
present
3
populations
and
certainly
for
the
future.
I
should
4
hope
that
the
EPA
operates
with
a
sense
of
our
species'
5
responsibility
for
the
future.
And
that
goes
to
all
of
6
the
substances
and
damage
that
we
release
into
the
bio
7
system.
8
I
do
commend,
if
you
haven't
had
an
9
opportunity
to
become
familiar
with
it,
I
especially
10
commend
the
ICRP
report
(
unintelligible)
committee
one.
11
Now,
the
other
aspect
that
I
want
to
address
12
briefly
goes
to
the
longevity
of
the
problem.
I
don't
13
really
believe
that
our
civilization
is
likely
to
last
14
for
10,000
years.
We
have
no
notion
of
what
future
15
presumably
human
beings
will
be.
16
But
what
we
do
need
to
consider
is
that
we
17
may
not
be
capable
in
the
future
of
what
will
be
18
necessary
in
order
to
maintain
any
control
over
19
radioactive
or
other
hazardous
materials
that
we
so
20
HUNT
REPORTING
COMPANY
Court
Reporting
and
Litigation
Support
Serving
Maryland,
Washington,
and
Virginia
410­
766­
HUNT
(
4868)
1­
800­
950­
DEPO
(
3376)
35
carelessly
generate
today.
1
When
I
look
at
the
longevity
as
a
geographer,
2
which
is
what
I
am
in
combination,
I
am
very
troubled
3
that
we
have
­­
we
have
based
our
assumptions
about
the
4
control
of
radioactive
materials
on
what
is
available
5
to
us
in
technology
and
resources
today.
6
And
we
have
­­
I've
been
troubled
about
this
7
for
a
good
many
years
having
been
quite
familiar
with
8
Hubbards
(
phonetic)
Peak
with
regard
to
the
fossil
9
fuels
for
oil
particularly.
And
now
suddenly
I
should
10
hope
that
EPA
in
its
reconsideration
of
this
11
unacceptable
rule
will
be
begin
to
take
into
account
12
the
problems
of
the
future.
13
I
used
to
think
that
if
we
could
maintain
14
control
of
the
radioactive
waste
that
we
have
generated
15
in
the
past
half
century,
if
we
could
maintain
the
16
control,
dispose
of
them
­­
well,
we
don't
dispose
of
17
anything
­­
isolate
them
in
such
a
manner
that
future
18
populations
would
have
an
opportunity
equal
with
ours
19
when
our
disposal
fails,
but
if
they
could
have
an
20
HUNT
REPORTING
COMPANY
Court
Reporting
and
Litigation
Support
Serving
Maryland,
Washington,
and
Virginia
410­
766­
HUNT
(
4868)
1­
800­
950­
DEPO
(
3376)
36
opportunity
equal
with
ours
to
recover
and
1
recontainerize
and
continue
to
maintain
control
that
2
that
might
­­
we
might
be
able
to
work
out
some
means
3
of
controlling
these
wastes
far
into
the
future,
4
isolating
them.
5
But
if,
in
fact,
the
future
lacks
the
6
resource
bases
that
are
necessary
that
we
depend
upon
7
today,
then
I
respectfully
suggest
to
EPA
that
you
must
8
begin
again.
You
must
consider
the
pregnant
women,
the
9
fetus,
the
­­
those
who
have
suffered
from
other
10
illness,
from
age,
in
setting
a
radiation
protection
11
standard
that
will
truly
protect
and
to
be
honest,
to
12
take
a
very
strong
position
concerning
the
desirability
13
of
generating
far
more
radioactive
wastes.
14
I
thank
you
for
your
time
and
I
hope
that
the
15
Sierra
Club's
comments
will
be
of
utility.
16
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you
very
much.
17
David
Wright
from
the
National
Association
of
18
Regulatory
Utility
Commissioners.
19
MR.
WRIGHT:
Greetings
from
the
palmetto
20
HUNT
REPORTING
COMPANY
Court
Reporting
and
Litigation
Support
Serving
Maryland,
Washington,
and
Virginia
410­
766­
HUNT
(
4868)
1­
800­
950­
DEPO
(
3376)
37
state.
My
name
is
David
Wright
and
I'm
a
Commissioner
1
on
the
South
Carolina
Public
Service
Commission.
2
I
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
appear
before
3
you
today
to
make
a
short
statement
on
behalf
of
the
4
National
Association
of
Regulatory
Utility
5
Commissioners.
Since
we
will
be
providing
more
6
extensive
comments
in
writing,
I
will
summarize
those
7
comments
for
you
today.
8
NARUC
is
a
quasi­
governmental
nonprofit
9
organization
founded
in
1889.
Within
its
membership
10
are
the
governmental
bodies
of
the
50
states
engaged
in
11
the
economic
and
safety
regulation
of
carriers
and
12
utilities.
13
Utility
rate
payers
are
stakeholders
in
the
14
matter
of
disposal
of
nuclear
waste.
On
their
behalf,
15
we
have
followed
this
matter
closely
since
well
before
16
the
passage
of
the
"
Nuclear
Waste
Policy
Act"
of
1982.
17
Under
the
terms
of
the
"
Nuclear
Waste
Policy
18
Act,"
the
federal
government
is
responsible
for
the
19
safe,
permanent
disposal
of
all
government
and
20
HUNT
REPORTING
COMPANY
Court
Reporting
and
Litigation
Support
Serving
Maryland,
Washington,
and
Virginia
410­
766­
HUNT
(
4868)
1­
800­
950­
DEPO
(
3376)
38
commercial
high­
level
radioactive
waste,
including
1
spent
nuclear
fuel
from
nuclear
power
plants
in
34
2
states.
3
In
turn,
the
nuclear
utilities
pay
a
fee
to
4
the
Treasury
to
pay
for
the
disposal
of
the
spent
fuel.
5
The
utilities
pass
the
cost
of
those
fees
along
to
6
their
customers.
To
date,
over
$
23
billion
has
been
7
collected,
yet
the
repository
is
at
least
12
years
8
behind
schedule.
9
We
urge
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency
10
to
refuse
the
radiation
standard
for
the
Yucca
Mountain
11
repository
as
needed
to
enable
the
Department
of
Energy
12
to
design,
build,
and
eventually
operate
and
monitor
13
the
repository
to
serve
its
purpose
and
protect
public
14
health
and
safety
for
present
and
future
generations.
15
NARUC
commented
in
the
original
rule
making
16
in
1999
and
we
repeat
a
general
comment
we
made
then.
17
The
rule
making
involves
very
complex
scientific
18
matters
that
the
general
public
has
little
19
understanding
of.
20
HUNT
REPORTING
COMPANY
Court
Reporting
and
Litigation
Support
Serving
Maryland,
Washington,
and
Virginia
410­
766­
HUNT
(
4868)
1­
800­
950­
DEPO
(
3376)
39
We
remarked
that
10,000
years
was
an
almost
1
unimaginably
long
period
of
time
for
a
regulation
and
2
now
because
of
the
federal
court
decision,
the
proposed
3
revised
rule
would
place
radiation
dose
limits
out
to
4
one
million
years
in
what
your
spokesperson
terms
an
5
unprecedented
period.
Although
we
disagree
with
that
6
extension,
we
recognize
that
you
had
to
meet
the
7
directions
of
the
court.
8
We
find
the
two­
tiered
dose
limits
for
before
9
and
after
10,000
years
to
be
an
appropriate
recognition
10
of
the
greater
degree
of
uncertainty
for
the
longer
11
period.
While
we
favored
the
25
millirem
per
year
dose
12
limit
in
the
original
rule,
it
was
decided
to
be
15
13
millirems
per
year
through
10,000
years.
This
revision
14
does
not
change
that
limit
since
the
court
found
it
15
acceptable
and
consistent
with
the
recommendations
of
16
the
National
Academy
of
Sciences.
17
We
agree
with
the
dose
limit
for
the
period
18
after
10,000
years
being
set
at
a
higher
level
since
19
there
is
greater
uncertainty
in
forecasting
so
far
into
20
HUNT
REPORTING
COMPANY
Court
Reporting
and
Litigation
Support
Serving
Maryland,
Washington,
and
Virginia
410­
766­
HUNT
(
4868)
1­
800­
950­
DEPO
(
3376)
40
the
distant
future.
Selecting
350
millirems
per
year
1
for
that
period
for
the
reasonably
maximally
exposed
2
individual
is
well
reasoned
and
drawing
that
comparison
3
to
levels
people
in
other
Western
States
are
routinely
4
exposed
to
makes
good
sense.
And
we
feel
the
public
5
can
relate
to
that
better
than
trying
to
understand
6
what
a
millirem
is.
7
We
note
that
the
occupational
dose
limit
for
8
workers
building
the
repository,
in
placing
the
waste
9
packages
and
so
forth,
is
5,000
millirem
per
year,
the
10
same
as
it
is
for
workers
in
other
nuclear
and
medical
11
facilities
such
as
the
DOE
Savannah
River
site
in
my
12
state
of
South
Carolina.
13
The
Nuclear
Regulatory
Commission
deems
that
14
much
higher
dose
level
to
be
protective
of
worker
15
health,
so
we
believe
the
350
millirem
per
year
dose
16
limit
for
the
repository
protects
the
public
health
as
17
well.
18
We
also
agree
with
revisions
to
the
rule
to
19
be
more
current
with
international
scientific
protocols
20
HUNT
REPORTING
COMPANY
Court
Reporting
and
Litigation
Support
Serving
Maryland,
Washington,
and
Virginia
410­
766­
HUNT
(
4868)
1­
800­
950­
DEPO
(
3376)
41
in
dose
measurement
methodology.
1
We
agree
with
the
sections
of
seismic,
2
volcanic,
climatic
and
general
corrosion
features,
3
events,
and
processes,
although
we
think
the
detailed
4
requirements
might
have
been
better
­­
been
included
in
5
the
NRC
implementation
regulation
as
should
the
6
probability
threshold
for
consideration
of
unlikely
7
FEPs.
8
Let
me
conclude
by
saying
that
we
believe
the
9
proposed
revised
rule
meets
the
objectives
laid
out
in
10
the
discussion
accompanying
the
revision
and
that
it
is
11
responsive
to
the
court
ruling,
protective
of
public
12
health,
reflective
of
best
science
and
cognizant
of
13
limits
of
long­
term
projections,
implementable
by
NRC
14
in
its
licensing
process,
and
limited
in
scope
and
15
focused
on
aspects
critical
to
the
above
goals.
16
The
Yucca
Mountain
repository
is
important
to
17
the
nation's
energy
security.
Geologic
disposal
was
18
chosen
as
the
preferred
means
for
safe
disposal
of
19
nuclear
waste
over
22
years
ago.
If
it
is
not
built,
20
HUNT
REPORTING
COMPANY
Court
Reporting
and
Litigation
Support
Serving
Maryland,
Washington,
and
Virginia
410­
766­
HUNT
(
4868)
1­
800­
950­
DEPO
(
3376)
42
some
nuclear
power
plants
will
have
to
shut
down
before
1
their
useful
lives
are
over.
2
And
it
is
almost
certain
that
no
new
nuclear
3
power
plants
will
be
built.
That
would
mean
we
would
4
be
even
more
dependent
on
fossil
fuel
energy
sources
5
with
both
economic
and
environmental
consequences.
6
There
are
close
to
40,000
metric
tons
of
7
spent
nuclear
fuel
presently
stored
at
72
power
plant
8
sites,
many
on
the
shores
of
bodies
of
water,
in
9
populated
areas
that
were
never
intended
to
be
storage
10
sites
for
indefinite
periods.
11
To
date
rate
payers
have
paid
$
23
billion
for
12
the
promised
relocation
and
safe
disposal
of
the
spent
13
nuclear
fuel
and
they
continue
to
pay
each
and
every
14
month.
It
is
past
time
for
the
federal
government
to
15
fulfill
its
obligation
to
build
the
repository.
16
Thank
you
for
this
opportunity
to
give
our
17
views
on
the
proposed
rule.
And
we
urge
that
it
be
18
adopted
expeditiously.
Thank
you.
19
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you
very
much.
20
HUNT
REPORTING
COMPANY
Court
Reporting
and
Litigation
Support
Serving
Maryland,
Washington,
and
Virginia
410­
766­
HUNT
(
4868)
1­
800­
950­
DEPO
(
3376)
43
Michelle
Boyd
with
Public
Citizen.
1
And
you'll
have
ten
minutes.
2
MS.
BOYD:
My
name
is
Michelle
Boyd.
I
am
3
the
legislative
director
at
Public
Citizen
which
is
a
4
consumer
advocacy
organization
with
more
than
160,000
5
members
nationwide.
6
We
were
part
of
the
coalition
of
7
nongovernmental
organizations
that
successfully
8
challenged
EPA's
first
Yucca
Mountain
radiation
9
standard.
10
Unfortunately,
EPA's
second
attempt
at
11
drafting
a
radiation
standard
for
the
proposed
Yucca
12
Mountain
repository
is
yet
another
example
of
setting
13
regulations
to
guarantee
that
the
site
will
be
licensed
14
rather
than
setting
health­
based
regulations
that
the
15
site
must
meet
in
order
to
get
licensed.
16
It
is
not
EPA's
job
to
ensure
that
Yucca
17
Mountain
can
get
licensed
by
the
Nuclear
Regulatory
18
Commission.
It
is
EPA's
job
to
set
a
standard
that
19
will
be
protective
of
public
health
for
all
generations
20
HUNT
REPORTING
COMPANY
Court
Reporting
and
Litigation
Support
Serving
Maryland,
Washington,
and
Virginia
410­
766­
HUNT
(
4868)
1­
800­
950­
DEPO
(
3376)
44
into
the
future.
1
Contrary
to
EPA's
claim,
the
draft
of
2
radiation
standard
will
not
protect
the
public
for
one
3
million
years.
Extending
the
concept
of
individual
4
dose
standard
to
one
million
years
is
meaningless
when
5
the
standard
after
10,000
years
is
14
times
greater
6
than
what
EPA
itself
has
stated
is
protective
of
public
7
health
and
more
than
23
times
higher
than
the
first
8
10,000
years.
9
In
fact,
EPA's
proposed
rule
is
the
least
10
protective
radiation
standard
in
the
world.
No
other
11
U.
S.
or
international
protection
standard
emits
a
dose
12
of
350
millirems
per
year
to
individuals.
13
EPA
itself
has
for
decades
declared
any
14
radiation
dose
above
15
to
25
millirems
per
year
to
be
15
inadequate
to
protect
the
public
health.
It
has
16
repeatedly
gone
on
record
that
doses
of
100
millirems
17
per
year
produce
unacceptable
levels
of
risk.
18
In
its
own
final
rule
for
the
first
Yucca
19
Mountain
radiation
standard,
EPA
wrote
in
its
response
20
HUNT
REPORTING
COMPANY
Court
Reporting
and
Litigation
Support
Serving
Maryland,
Washington,
and
Virginia
410­
766­
HUNT
(
4868)
1­
800­
950­
DEPO
(
3376)
45
to
a
comment
opposing
70
millirems
per
year
standard,
1
quote,
"
The
risk
level
associated
with
70
millirems
is
2
about
five
times
as
high
as
the
risk
level
associated
3
with
the
individual
protection
limit."
4
This
is
well
above
the
NAS
recommended
level
5
and
unprecedented
in
the
current
regulations
of
this
6
and
other
nations
for
this
activity.
7
In
addition
to
being
completely
inconsistent
8
with
the
agency's
own
previous
recommendations,
EPA's
9
proposed
standard
is
justified,
and
I
put
that
in
10
quotes,
by
using
incorrect
and
fraudulent
claims.
11
First,
it
is
completely
false
to
claim
that
12
the
level
of
radiation
is
safe
as
long
as
it
does
not
13
exceed
the
highest
levels
of
background
radiation
in
14
the
highest
radiation
prone
states
such
as
Colorado.
15
Background
levels
of
radiation
across
the
16
U.
S.
are
highly
variable
with
Colorado
being
17
significantly
above
the
average.
No
U.
S.
or
18
international
regulations
use
background
radiation
to
19
set
public
health
standards
for
radiation
exposure.
20
HUNT
REPORTING
COMPANY
Court
Reporting
and
Litigation
Support
Serving
Maryland,
Washington,
and
Virginia
410­
766­
HUNT
(
4868)
1­
800­
950­
DEPO
(
3376)
46
According
to
the
recent
National
Academy
of
1
Sciences'
BEIR
7
report,
which
we've
heard
quoted
many
2
times
today,
any
amount
of
radiation
will
increase
an
3
individual's
risk
for
getting
cancer.
About
three
4
percent
of
fatal
cancers
are
due
to
exposure
to
5
background
radiation
which
equates
to
about
18,000
6
people
who
die
annually
in
the
U.
S.
from
exposure
to
7
background
radiation.
8
Second,
by
including
radon
exposure
as
part
9
of
the
natural
background
radiation,
EPA
is
dishonestly
10
inflating
background
levels.
Radon
is
normally
never
11
included
as
part
of
background
dose
because
indoor
12
radon
exposure
is
a
man­
made
public
health
risk.
EPA
13
itself
has
classified
radon
as
a
known
human
14
carcinogen.
15
Also
according
to
EPA,
radon
exposure
is
the
16
second
leading
cause
of
lung
cancer
in
the
United
17
States.
When
high
levels
of
radon
are
detected
in
18
buildings,
renovations
are
usually
made
in
order
to
19
reduce
that
radon
that
goes
into
the
building.
EPA
has
20
HUNT
REPORTING
COMPANY
Court
Reporting
and
Litigation
Support
Serving
Maryland,
Washington,
and
Virginia
410­
766­
HUNT
(
4868)
1­
800­
950­
DEPO
(
3376)
47
found
that
radon
comprises
about
87
percent
of
the
1
background
radiation
in
Denver.
2
Third,
it
is
scientifically
fraudulent
to
use
3
the
median
dose
to
set
the
radiation
standard
rather
4
than
the
mean
dose.
Scientists
around
the
world
have
5
rejected
this
approach
for
decades
and
as
the
projected
6
mean
exposure
does
not
take
into
account
the
possible
7
higher
doses.
EPA
itself
has
always
used
the
projected
8
mean
exposure
for
its
work
in
the
past.
9
According
to
DOE's
total
system
performance
10
assessment
for
site
recommendation
at
the
time
of
peak
11
dose
after
the
wave's
(
phonetic)
packages
corrode
and
12
fail,
the
mean
dose
of
the
many
computer
simulations
is
13
about
6,000
millirems
per
year
while
the
median
dose
is
14
about
200
millirems
per
year.
15
The
repository
could
not
meet
a
standard
that
16
required
the
mean
to
be
less
than
350
millirems
per
17
year
but
would
meet
the
standard
if
the
mean
were
used
18
instead
of
the
­­
if
the
median
were
used
instead
of
19
the
mean.
You
can
only
imagine
what
this
makes
the
20
HUNT
REPORTING
COMPANY
Court
Reporting
and
Litigation
Support
Serving
Maryland,
Washington,
and
Virginia
410­
766­
HUNT
(
4868)
1­
800­
950­
DEPO
(
3376)
48
public
think.
1
EPA's
general
position
for
decades
has
been
2
to
regulate
exposures
to
keep
the
risk
to
the
public
at
3
one
cancer
in
one
million
people.
According
to
the
4
recent
BEIR
7
report
on
radiation
health
risks,
350
5
millirems
per
year
over
one's
lifetime
will
cause
6
cancer
in
approximately
one
out
of
36
people
exposed.
7
This
is
a
risk
three
to
five
orders
of
magnitude
8
greater
than
the
range
the
EPA
has
always
used
before.
9
DOE
calculations
show
the
mean
exposure
is
10
more
than
three
times
the
median
exposure
under
EPA's
11
350
millirem
per
year
standard.
Therefore,
in
reality,
12
some
people
actually
receive
about
1,000
millirems
per
13
year
producing
a
cancer
in
one
in
every
ten
people
14
exposed.
15
Because
this
is
not
a
maximum
but
rather
an
16
average
dose,
more
people
would
get
much
higher
doses
17
resulting
in
proportionately
higher
risks.
Under
these
18
standards,
significant
numbers
of
people
could
legally
19
be
exposed
to
doses
that
would
produce
a
statistical
20
HUNT
REPORTING
COMPANY
Court
Reporting
and
Litigation
Support
Serving
Maryland,
Washington,
and
Virginia
410­
766­
HUNT
(
4868)
1­
800­
950­
DEPO
(
3376)
49
100
percent
chance
of
inducing
cancer
in
the
exposed
1
individual.
2
Incredibly
EPA
is
proposing
to
arbitrarily
3
abandon
its
ground
water
standard
after
10,000
years
at
4
the
point
when
the
ground
water
will
become
5
increasingly
contaminated
according
to
DOE's
models.
6
EPA
has
concluded
that
ground
water
is
the
7
most
likely
pathway
to
lead
to
human
exposure
for
8
radiation
from
the
Yucca
Mountain
site.
9
When
the
Nuclear
Energy
Institute
challenged
10
EPA's
authority
to
set
a
separate
ground
water
11
standard,
the
court
upheld
EPA's
claim
that,
quote,
12
"
Preventing
ground
water
contamination
is
more
cost
13
effective
and
environmentally
effective
and
applying
14
ground
water
standards
will
encourage
a
robust
15
containment
and
isolation
design."
16
EPA
wrote
in
its
final
rule
for
its
first
17
radiation
standard,
itself
wrote,
"
We
believe
that
18
there
is
no
question
that
separate
ground
water
19
protection
standards
are
appropriate
for
deep
geologic
20
HUNT
REPORTING
COMPANY
Court
Reporting
and
Litigation
Support
Serving
Maryland,
Washington,
and
Virginia
410­
766­
HUNT
(
4868)
1­
800­
950­
DEPO
(
3376)
50
disposal
facilities.
We
believe
that
the
use
of
1
contaminated
ground
water
for
purposes
that
could
2
result
in
exposures
to
individuals
should
be
of
concern
3
and
that
avoiding
contaminating
useable
ground
water
4
resources
is
in
the
general
interest
of
the
public
at
5
large."
6
Apparently
this
only
applies
to
members
of
7
the
public
within
the
first
10,000
years.
8
EPA
has
declared
that
since
it
is
not
9
modifying
ground
water
standards
that
it
does
not
have
10
to
consider
public
comment
on
this
vital
aspect
of
the
11
proposed
regulation.
Simply
because
the
court
decision
12
allows
EPA
to
set
a
ground
water
standard
does
not
mean
13
the
agency
is
exempt
from
considering
public
comment
on
14
its
decision
to
not
extend
the
ground
water
standard
to
15
one
million
years.
16
The
ground
water
standard
is
integral
to
the
17
protectiveness
of
the
overall
radiation
standard
and
18
EPA
should
extend
the
ground
water
standard
to
one
19
million
years
and
must
take
into
consideration
all
20
HUNT
REPORTING
COMPANY
Court
Reporting
and
Litigation
Support
Serving
Maryland,
Washington,
and
Virginia
410­
766­
HUNT
(
4868)
1­
800­
950­
DEPO
(
3376)
51
public
comments
on
this
issue.
1
Finally,
but
most
importantly,
this
proposed
2
standard
is
immoral.
It
has
long
been
resolved
both
in
3
the
United
States
and
internationally
that
it
is
4
unethical
to
expose
future
generations
to
much
higher
5
levels
of
radiation
than
current
generations.
EPA
6
stated
as
much
in
its
final
rule
for
its
first
7
radiation
standard
for
Yucca
Mountain.
8
And
I
will
quote
to
you,
"
A
guiding
9
philosophy
in
radioactive
waste
management
as
well
as
10
waste
disposal
in
general
has
been
to
avoid
imposing
11
burdens
on
future
generations
for
cleanup
efforts
as
a
12
result
of
disposal
approaches
that
would
knowingly
13
result
in
pollution
in
the
future.
14
"
With
respect
to
radioactive
waste
disposal,
15
we
believe
the
fundamental
principle
of
16
intergenerational
equity
is
important.
We
should
not
17
knowingly
impose
burdens
on
future
generations
that
we
18
ourselves
are
not
willing
to
assume."
19
Yet
EPA's
proposed
rule
blatantly
tramples
on
20
HUNT
REPORTING
COMPANY
Court
Reporting
and
Litigation
Support
Serving
Maryland,
Washington,
and
Virginia
410­
766­
HUNT
(
4868)
1­
800­
950­
DEPO
(
3376)
52
the
principle
of
intergenerational
equity.
1
Christian
Shrader
Fishett
(
phonetic)
stated
2
the
moral
issue
very
clearly
in
her
recent
article
3
called
"
Mortgaging
the
Future
Dumping
Ethics
with
4
Nuclear
Waste,"
which
appeared
in
"
Science
and
5
Engineering
Ethics."
6
And
I
will
quote
her,
"
EPA's
double
radiation
7
standards
for
different
generations
suggests
that
we
8
merit
more
protection
than
our
descendants,
yet
we,
not
9
they,
profit
from
nuclear
power
plants
that
produce
the
10
radioactive
waste."
11
The
"
Energy
Policy
Act"
of
1992
requires
EPA
12
to,
quote,
"
Set
public
health
and
safety
standards
for
13
the
protection
of
the
public
from
releases
from
14
radioactive
materials
at
the
Yucca
Mountain
site."
15
This
draft
will
utterly
and
completely
fail
16
us
in
that
legal
and
moral
debate.
17
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you.
18
Bryce
Smith.
Is
there
a
Bryce
Smith
here?
19
(
Whereupon,
there
was
no
response.)
20
HUNT
REPORTING
COMPANY
Court
Reporting
and
Litigation
Support
Serving
Maryland,
Washington,
and
Virginia
410­
766­
HUNT
(
4868)
1­
800­
950­
DEPO
(
3376)
53
HEARING
OFFICER:
Carah
Ong
on
behalf
of
the
1
Nuclear
Age
Peace
Foundation.
2
And
you'll
have
ten
minutes.
3
MS.
ONG:
Thank
you
for
this
opportunity.
My
4
name
is
Carah
Ong
and
I'm
the
Washington,
D.
C.
Office
5
Director
of
the
Nuclear
Age
Peace
Foundation
which
is
6
based
in
California.
7
The
foundation
is
a
nonprofit,
nonpartisan
8
research
and
advocacy
organization
which
initiates
and
9
supports
efforts
to
eliminate
nuclear
threats.
We
are
10
a
membership
organization
of
over
12,000
individuals
11
from
across
the
U.
S.,
including
in
Nevada,
and
we're
12
also
a
co­
founder
of
the
International
Network
of
13
Engineers
and
Scientists
for
Global
Responsibility.
14
On
behalf
of
the
foundation
and
our
members,
15
I
am
here
today
to
express
our
deep
concern
over
the
16
EPA's
revised
radiation
protection
standard
for
Yucca
17
Mountain
high­
level
radioactive
waste
dump
in
Nevada.
18
We
believe
this
revised
radiation
protection
standard
19
will
fall
far
short
of
protecting
public
health
and
20
HUNT
REPORTING
COMPANY
Court
Reporting
and
Litigation
Support
Serving
Maryland,
Washington,
and
Virginia
410­
766­
HUNT
(
4868)
1­
800­
950­
DEPO
(
3376)
54
that
it
even
disregards
the
agency's
own
previous
1
recommendations.
2
If
approved,
the
standard
will
ignore
the
3
scientific
consensus
on
the
health
impact
of
radiation
4
as
well
as
the
many
unresolved
problems
surrounding
5
radioactive
waste.
It
will
set
a
terrible
precedent
6
lowering
the
bar
for
radiation
protection
across
the
7
country
and
perhaps
even
around
the
world.
8
The
Yucca
Mountain
project
is
a
distinct
9
danger
to
defenseless
citizens,
not
just
to
this
10
generation,
but,
as
we've
heard
in
previous
talks,
to
11
thousands
of
generations
to
come
who
will
be
affected
12
by
this
decision.
13
The
July
2004
D.
C.
Circuit
Court
of
Appeals'
14
decision
found
EPA's
previous
standard
of
15
millirem
15
per
year
radiation
exposure
limit
for
10,000
years
to
16
be
illegal.
According
to
that
ruling,
the
standard
EPA
17
sets
for
Yucca
Mountain
must
be
consistent
with
the
18
National
Academy
of
Sciences'
study
on
the
project
19
which
recommended
that
the
standard
extend
through
the
20
HUNT
REPORTING
COMPANY
Court
Reporting
and
Litigation
Support
Serving
Maryland,
Washington,
and
Virginia
410­
766­
HUNT
(
4868)
1­
800­
950­
DEPO
(
3376)
55
time
of
highest
risk
to
public
in
its
peak
dose.
1
The
Department
of
Energy
estimates
peak
dose
2
at
several
hundred
thousand
years.
3
We
believe
the
EPA's
recently
revised
4
standard,
however,
fails
to
comply
with
the
court
5
ruling
and
the
intent
of
the
National
Academy
of
6
Sciences'
recommendations.
7
Instead
of
extending
the
15
millirem
per
year
8
limit
through
the
time
of
peak
risk,
EPA
has
proposed
9
the
two­
part
standard
15
millirem
per
year
for
10,000
10
years
and
then
the
350
millirem
per
year
standard
11
thereafter
which
would
be
at
two
million
years.
12
Such
a
standard
is
not
scientifically
13
justified
and
would
perhaps
be
the
least
protective
14
radiation
standard
in
the
world.
No
other
U.
S.
or
15
international
radiation
protection
standard
permits
a
16
dose
of
350
millirems
per
year
to
individuals.
And,
in
17
fact,
EPA's
proposed
standard
is
not
even
consistent
18
with
the
agency's
own
previous
recommendations.
19
Yucca
Mountain
is
also
located
on
native
20
HUNT
REPORTING
COMPANY
Court
Reporting
and
Litigation
Support
Serving
Maryland,
Washington,
and
Virginia
410­
766­
HUNT
(
4868)
1­
800­
950­
DEPO
(
3376)
56
land,
which
is
a
particular
concern
to
many
of
our
1
constituents,
which
belongs
to
the
Western
Shoshone
by
2
the
"
Treaty
of
Ruby
Valley."
The
Western
Shoshone
3
National
Council
has
declared
this
land
a
nuclear
free
4
zone
and
has
demanded
an
end
to
nuclear
testing
and
the
5
dumping
of
nuclear
waste
on
their
land.
6
We
support
the
claims
of
the
Western
Shoshone
7
to
their
sovereign
land
which
they
hold
as
sacred
and
8
we
believe
that
the
revised
radiation
standard
is
a
9
form
of
environmental
racism
that
will
10
disproportionately
harm
the
lands
and
health
of
the
11
Western
Shoshone
people.
12
We
are
also
concerned
that
Yucca
Mountain
13
sits
above
the
only
source
of
drinking
water
for
the
14
residents
of
Amargosa
Valley.
The
aquifer
below
Yucca
15
Mountain
provides
water
to
Nevada's
largest
dairy
farm
16
which
supplies
milk
to
some
30
million
people
on
the
17
west
coast.
18
Another
casualty
of
EPA's
proposed
rule
is
19
the
"
Safe
Drinking
Water
Act"
standard
limiting
20
HUNT
REPORTING
COMPANY
Court
Reporting
and
Litigation
Support
Serving
Maryland,
Washington,
and
Virginia
410­
766­
HUNT
(
4868)
1­
800­
950­
DEPO
(
3376)
57
radiation
in
drinking
water
to
four
millirems
per
year
1
which
EPA
would
only
enforce
for
the
first
10,000
2
years,
but
would
then
replace
it
with
the
350
millirem
3
per
year
all
pathway
exposure
limit.
Water
as
we
all
4
know
is
a
very
precious
resource
which
will
require
5
more
not
less
protection
as
time
goes
on.
6
Yucca's
radioactive
waste
will
leak
into
the
7
underlying
drinking
water
aquifer
which
will
become
the
8
primary
pathway
for
harmful
doses
to
people
downstream.
9
The
"
Safe
Drinking
Water
Act"
standard
should
be
10
applied
to
protect
Yucca's
aquifer
and
the
people
11
downstream
for
as
long
as
the
high­
level
radioactive
12
waste
remains
hazardous
which,
of
course,
is
hundreds
13
of
thousands
of
years
into
the
future.
14
Yucca
Mountain
is
also
directly
above
an
15
active
magna
pocket
and
is
the
third
most
seismically
16
active
area
in
the
United
States.
In
the
past
25
years
17
alone,
over
600
earthquakes
of
2.5
or
greater
on
the
18
Richter
scale
has
struck
within
15
miles
of
Yucca
19
Mountain.
20
HUNT
REPORTING
COMPANY
Court
Reporting
and
Litigation
Support
Serving
Maryland,
Washington,
and
Virginia
410­
766­
HUNT
(
4868)
1­
800­
950­
DEPO
(
3376)
58
In
1992,
a
5.6
quake
cracked
walls,
shattered
1
windows,
and
caused
some
one
million
dollars
in
damage
2
to
the
Department
of
Energy
building
­­
excuse
me
­­
3
field
office
stemming
the
site.
4
On
July
14th,
2002,
an
earthquake
registered
5
on
the
magnitude
of
4.4
on
the
Richter
scale.
6
It
defies
reason
to
expect
that
radioactive
7
waste
will
sit
for
tens
of
thousands
of
years
8
undisturbed
by
unpredictable
nature
or
by
human
or
9
technology
errors
in
the
design
of
the
containment
10
structure
itself.
11
The
problem
of
what
to
do
with
high­
level
12
radioactive
waste
warrants
additional
consideration
and
13
resources,
including
investigation
of
alternatives
to
14
Yucca
Mountain,
many
proposals
of
which
Dr.
Makhijani
15
has
put
forward.
16
Instead
of
setting
a
new
and
very
dangerous
17
precedent
for
the
storage
of
radioactive
waste
18
throughout
the
country
in
order
to
simply
satisfy
19
political
pressures
to
license
Yucca
Mountain,
the
20
HUNT
REPORTING
COMPANY
Court
Reporting
and
Litigation
Support
Serving
Maryland,
Washington,
and
Virginia
410­
766­
HUNT
(
4868)
1­
800­
950­
DEPO
(
3376)
59
Environmental
Protection
Agency
should
fulfill
its
1
mission
to
protect
human
health
and
the
environment.
2
We
ask
you
to
withdraw
the
standard
3
immediately
and
to
propose
a
standard
that
is
truly
4
protective
of
public
health
and
the
environment
for
5
this
generation
and
generations
to
come.
6
Thank
you.
7
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you.
8
Steve
Kraft
with
the
Nuclear
Energy
9
Institute.
10
You
will
have
ten
minutes.
11
MR.
KRAFT:
Good
afternoon.
Thank
you.
12
I
am
Steven
Kraft
from
the
Nuclear
Energy
13
Institute
and
I
thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
14
address
this
important
topic
today.
15
I
have
placed
in
the
receptacle
in
the
back
16
the
text
of
my
statement
today
(
unintelligible)
at
the
17
time.
18
Safe
operation
of
a
geologic
repository
for
19
the
disposal
of
used
nuclear
fuel
and
high­
level
waste,
20
HUNT
REPORTING
COMPANY
Court
Reporting
and
Litigation
Support
Serving
Maryland,
Washington,
and
Virginia
410­
766­
HUNT
(
4868)
1­
800­
950­
DEPO
(
3376)
60
both
defense
and
commercial
activities,
at
Yucca
1
Mountain
is
an
important
national
priority.
2
EPA's
radiation
protection
standards
are
3
foundational
in
the
regulatory
framework
that
will
4
protect
the
public
health
and
safety
today
and
in
the
5
future.
6
EPA
is
to
be
commended
and
complimented
for
7
moving
forward
quickly
with
this
new
proposal
in
8
response
to
the
July
9,
2004,
court
ruling.
9
EPA
has
proposed
standards
that
from
a
10
conceptual
standpoint
are
protective
of
public
health
11
and
safety.
The
proposal
represents
progress
towards
12
an
important
national
goal
of
safe
disposal
of
used
13
fuel
and
other
high­
level
radioactive
waste.
14
However,
having
said
that,
the
industry
15
strongly
believes
that
extending
the
repository
16
regulation
beyond
10,000
years
is
not
sound
public
17
policy
nor
effective
regulation.
We,
therefore,
oppose
18
the
standard.
19
The
court
specifically
offered
the
agency
two
20
HUNT
REPORTING
COMPANY
Court
Reporting
and
Litigation
Support
Serving
Maryland,
Washington,
and
Virginia
410­
766­
HUNT
(
4868)
1­
800­
950­
DEPO
(
3376)
61
possible
approaches
to
address
its
findings.
First,
1
the
option
to
revisit
the
standards,
which
is
what
EPA
2
is
engaged
in
now,
and
the
second,
to
return
to
3
Congress
for
clarification
as
to
the
time
period.
4
EPA
has
thus
far
chosen
to
take
the
first
5
path
and
in
doing
so
has
proposed
the
compliance
period
6
out
to
a
million
years.
This
is
not
the
best
way
to
7
address
the
court
mandate.
8
Should
EPA
choose
not
to
go
back
to
Congress,
9
which
it
has
not
done
so
so
far,
NEI
recommends
that
10
EPA
follow
the
road
map
that
the
court
provided
in
its
11
decision
to
overcome
the
deficiencies
in
the
original
12
rule
making
and
finalize
the
currently
proposed
13
standards
so
that
the
10,000
year
period
is
retained.
14
The
legislative
history
supporting
both
the
15
1982
"
Energy
Policy
Act,"
which
set
this
regulation
in
16
motion,
and
the
2002
"
Yucca
Mountain
Development
Act"
17
approving
the
site
for
further
development
and
18
licensing
makes
clear
that
Congress
meant
for
the
19
compliance
period
to
be
limited
to
10,000
years.
20
HUNT
REPORTING
COMPANY
Court
Reporting
and
Litigation
Support
Serving
Maryland,
Washington,
and
Virginia
410­
766­
HUNT
(
4868)
1­
800­
950­
DEPO
(
3376)
62
Our
support
for
a
10,000
year
compliance
1
period
is
based
in
large
part
on
the
basic
principles
2
cited
by
EPA
in
its
proposal
for
balancing
risks,
3
costs,
and
benefits
fairly
across
future
generations.
4
This
is
taken
from
the
National
Academy
of
Public
5
Administration
report
from
August
of
2005.
6
There
are
four
aspects
to
this,
trustee,
7
sustainability,
chain
of
obligation,
and
precautionary.
8
For
the
sake
of
time,
I
will
not
discuss
three
of
them
9
that
we
believe
the
standard
does
meet,
trustee,
10
sustainability,
precaution,
but
will
focus
on
the
chain
11
of
obligation
aspect
of
this
philosophy.
12
The
million
year
standard,
we
believe,
does
13
not
meet
the
chain
of
obligation
requirement.
This
is
14
defined
as
each
generation's
primary
obligation
is
to
15
provide
for
the
needs
of
the
living
and
succeeding
16
generations.
Near­
term
concrete
hazards
have
a
17
priority
over
long­
term
hypothetical
hazards.
18
Specifying
a
million
year
compliance
period
19
shifts
priorities
in
favor
of
hypothetical
hazards
in
20
HUNT
REPORTING
COMPANY
Court
Reporting
and
Litigation
Support
Serving
Maryland,
Washington,
and
Virginia
410­
766­
HUNT
(
4868)
1­
800­
950­
DEPO
(
3376)
63
the
far
distant
future
and
it
does
so
at
the
expense
of
1
near­
term
concrete
waste
disposal
needs
today
of
a
2
significant
national
importance.
3
Humans
will
experience
evolutionary
changes
4
over
the
next
million
years.
Only
one
thing
is
known
5
for
sure
about
that
time
period.
Several
hundred
6
thousand
years
before
a
millions
years
passes,
used
7
nuclear
fuel
and
high­
level
radioactive
waste
in
the
8
repository
will
pose
less
of
a
hazard
than
that
of
the
9
original
natural
uranium
from
which
the
material
was
10
produced.
11
Analyses
over
such
long
time
periods
can
do
12
little
more
than
distract
from
current
national
efforts
13
to
address
today's
clear
and
present
needs
with
14
radioactive
waste
disposal
and
energy
generation.
15
Implementation
of
a
disposal
program
should
16
not
be
delayed
while
scientists,
engineers,
regulators,
17
and
lawyers
speculate
about
what
might
happen
one
18
million
years
from
now
as
they
work
through
arguably
19
esoteric
calculations
that
have
little
effect
on
public
20
HUNT
REPORTING
COMPANY
Court
Reporting
and
Litigation
Support
Serving
Maryland,
Washington,
and
Virginia
410­
766­
HUNT
(
4868)
1­
800­
950­
DEPO
(
3376)
64
health
and
safety.
1
Significantly,
EPA
itself
has
recognized
2
difficulties
inherent
in
implementing
the
one
million
3
year
standard
as
evidenced
in
the
following
statement
4
on
the
record:
5
Quote,
"
What
we
are
proposing
is
6
unprecedented
in
our
national
regulatory
schemes
and
we
7
remain
greatly
concerned
about
the
ability
of
the
8
implementing
agencies
to
manage
the
uncertainties
in
9
the
very
long­
term
projections
in
order
to
make
10
comparisons
with
a
numerical
standard
meaningful."
11
Our
formal
written
comments
will
explain
12
further
why
we
have
this
concern.
We
will
document
the
13
basis
behind
our
conclusion
that
a
one
million
year
14
standard
is
contrary
to
sound
public
policy
and
explain
15
a
basis
for
recommending
how
EPA
can
adhere
to
the
16
10,000
year
standard.
17
Let
me
emphasize
that
our
industry
believes
18
proposed
standards
are
protective
in
concept,
even
19
though
they
are
not
sound
public
policy.
So
in
20
HUNT
REPORTING
COMPANY
Court
Reporting
and
Litigation
Support
Serving
Maryland,
Washington,
and
Virginia
410­
766­
HUNT
(
4868)
1­
800­
950­
DEPO
(
3376)
65
addition,
our
written
comments
will,
therefore,
also
1
indicate
how
we
support
EPA's
actions
to
make
them
as
2
technically
sound
as
possible.
3
We
believe
that
EPA
has
done
the
best
job
4
possible
in
attempting
to
make
the
inherently
5
unreasonable
workable.
It's
a
very
difficult
task
and
6
we
commend
you
for
doing
it.
7
We
urge
EPA
to
move
forward
in
the
most
8
expeditious
manner
possible.
The
agency
should
act
9
immediately
to
either
seek
clarification
from
Congress
10
or
reassert
the
original
policy
of
10,000
years
as
I
11
have
described.
12
More
than
20
years
of
world­
class
science
13
have
demonstrated
that
a
repository
can
be
safely
14
developed
at
Yucca
Mountain
and
based
on
this
evidence,
15
Congress
and
the
President
have
approved
the
site
and
16
the
courts
have
validated
this
decision.
17
The
courts,
however,
have
called
upon
EPA
to
18
revisit
the
single
issue
of
compliance
period
and
19
implementing
this
decision
in
an
important
sound
20
HUNT
REPORTING
COMPANY
Court
Reporting
and
Litigation
Support
Serving
Maryland,
Washington,
and
Virginia
410­
766­
HUNT
(
4868)
1­
800­
950­
DEPO
(
3376)
66
national
priority.
Sound
standards
must
be
in
place
so
1
that
the
Yucca
Mountain
licensing
process
can
proceed.
2
Thank
you.
3
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you.
4
Jim
Bridgeman,
the
Alliance
for
Nuclear
5
Accountability.
6
You
will
have
ten
minutes.
7
MR.
BRIDGEMAN:
Hi.
My
name
is
Jim
8
Bridgeman.
I'm
the
program
director
for
the
Alliance
9
for
Nuclear
Accountability
and
I
do
appreciate
the
10
opportunity
to
testify
on
behalf
of
ANA
on
the
EPA's
11
proposed
standards.
12
The
Alliance
for
Nuclear
Accountability
is
13
made
up
of
34
national
and
local
organizations
living
14
and
working
downwind
and
downstream
from
this
nation's
15
nuclear
weapons
facilities.
16
Our
groups
are
intimately
aware
of
the
17
contamination
created
by
U.
S.
nuclear
operations
as
18
many
individuals
who
work
in
these
organizations
have
19
personally
suffered
health
effects
and
have
fought
20
HUNT
REPORTING
COMPANY
Court
Reporting
and
Litigation
Support
Serving
Maryland,
Washington,
and
Virginia
410­
766­
HUNT
(
4868)
1­
800­
950­
DEPO
(
3376)
67
tooth
and
nail
to
obtain
health
care
and
compensation
1
for
themselves
and
for
others
in
their
communities
who
2
suffer
similar
maladies.
3
Our
groups
have
repeatedly
and
vigorously
4
stood
up
for
workers,
including
many
whistle­
blowers
5
and
community
members
who
have
suffered
harassment
and
6
intimidation
from
the
Energy
Department
and
its
7
contractors
who
have
downplayed
the
harmful
effects
of
8
contamination
and
sought
to
cover
up
rather
than
9
correct
safety
issues
at
sites
across
the
country.
10
It
is
within
this
climate
that
we
turn
to
the
11
Environmental
Protection
Agency
to
fulfill
its
mission
12
and
protect
public
health
and
the
environment.
13
The
Yucca
Mountain
project
has
been
plagued
14
by
several
problems
of
mismanagement
and
corruption,
15
including
the
falsification
of
water
data
by
the
U.
S.
16
Geological
Survey,
the
lack
of
planning
by
the
Energy
17
Department
for
cracked
spent
fuel
canisters,
the
18
invalidation
of
the
DOE's
licensing
support
network
by
19
the
Nuclear
Regulatory
Commission
and,
of
course,
the
20
HUNT
REPORTING
COMPANY
Court
Reporting
and
Litigation
Support
Serving
Maryland,
Washington,
and
Virginia
410­
766­
HUNT
(
4868)
1­
800­
950­
DEPO
(
3376)
68
U.
S.
District
of
Columbia
Circuit
Court
of
Appeals
1
striking
down
of
EPA's
first
proposed
standard
for
2
Yucca
Mountain.
3
Any
project
that
has
this
many
problems
4
should
come
under
the
microscope
of
Congress
and
5
agencies
responsible
for
oversight
to
question
its
most
6
basic
assumptions
and
exercise
careful
oversight.
7
Yucca
Mountain
also
sets
a
precedent
in
being
8
the
most
highly
radioactive
dump
planned
in
the
9
country,
designed
to
hold
95
percent
of
all
the
10
radioactivity
of
this
nation's
waste.
For
the
most
11
radioactive
dump
planned
in
the
country,
also
plagued
12
with
numerous
problems,
the
Environmental
Protection
13
Agency
should
be
more
vigilant
and
more
exacting
in
its
14
oversight
of
the
DOE,
setting
a
tough
standard
to
meet
15
independent
of
any
influence
of
the
DOE
or
industry.
16
Instead
these
standards
appear
made
to
order.
17
By
setting
a
350
millirem
per
year
standard
for
18
dosages
based
on
a
median
measure,
the
EPA
is
19
consciously
providing
a
standard
made
to
fit
the
20
HUNT
REPORTING
COMPANY
Court
Reporting
and
Litigation
Support
Serving
Maryland,
Washington,
and
Virginia
410­
766­
HUNT
(
4868)
1­
800­
950­
DEPO
(
3376)
69
limitation
of
the
site.
1
How
else
do
you
explain
this
standard
when
2
the
DOE's
Yucca
Mountain
total
systems
performance
3
assessment
for
site
recommendation
reveals
a
mean
dose
4
of
600
millirem
per
year
at
peak
levels
which
can
be
5
measured
as
only
200
millirem
per
year
by
looking
at
6
the
median?
7
The
Alliance
for
Nuclear
Accountability
has
8
already
gone
on
record
criticizing
EPA's
willingness
to
9
create
a
standard
based
on
measurements
taken
miles
10
away
from
the
mountain,
allowing
for
higher
levels
of
11
radioactivity
to
be
emitted
and
diluted
or
evaporated
12
before
being
measured.
13
Now
the
EPA
proposes
a
new
standard
which
14
compounds
this
problem
by
doing
away
entirely
with
the
15
water
standard
after
10,000
years
and
setting
a
16
radiation
level
that
throws
out
decades
of
precedent­
17
setting
policy
embedded
in
EPA's
drinking
water
limit
18
of
four
millirem,
air
emission
of
ten
millirem,
or
19
Superfund
cleanup
to
three
millirem.
20
HUNT
REPORTING
COMPANY
Court
Reporting
and
Litigation
Support
Serving
Maryland,
Washington,
and
Virginia
410­
766­
HUNT
(
4868)
1­
800­
950­
DEPO
(
3376)
70
This
allows
a
jump
from
cancers
anticipated
1
in
one
out
of
every
835
persons
exposed
during
the
2
first
10,000
years
to
a
rate
of
at
least
one
out
of
3
every
36
exposed
after
that
time.
This
is
clearly
4
unacceptable.
5
By
throwing
away
decades
of
precedent,
the
6
EPA
is
setting
a
new
and
very
dangerous
precedent
for
7
the
storage
of
radioactive
waste
throughout
the
8
country,
if
not
overseas
as
well.
9
Other
DOE
sites
are
already
looking
for
ways
10
to
cut
corners
on
cleanup
through
the
DOE's
End
States
11
initiative
proposing
lighter
industrial
standards
for
12
cleanup
and
other
ways
to
lighten
the
government's
13
cleanup
load.
14
Approving
such
a
weak
standard
for
the
15
nation's
most
radioactive
waste
dump
would
send
a
clear
16
message
to
government
and
industry
that
it
is
okay
to
17
change
the
rules,
that
it
is
okay
to
abandon
existing
18
cleanup
agreements,
and
leave
additional
contamination
19
in
our
nation's
ground,
rivers,
and
lakes.
20
HUNT
REPORTING
COMPANY
Court
Reporting
and
Litigation
Support
Serving
Maryland,
Washington,
and
Virginia
410­
766­
HUNT
(
4868)
1­
800­
950­
DEPO
(
3376)
71
ANA
is
concerned
about
the
potential
of
this
1
precedent
for
other
DOE
cleanup
sites,
but
it
could
2
also
roll
back
cleanup
efforts
at
other
radioactively
3
contaminated
sites
across
the
country,
including
4
nuclear
power
plant
sites,
other
radioactive
waste
5
dumps,
and
other
nuclear
facilities.
6
This
nation
has
made
important
strides
away
7
from
the
days
of
dilution
is
the
solution
to
the
8
pollution
when
toxic
waste
was
simply
dumped
in
open
9
and
unlined
trenches.
It
is
shameful
for
the
EPA
to
10
now
propose
diluting
this
nation's
radiation
standards
11
in
order
to
satisfy
political
pressures
to
license
12
Yucca
Mountain.
13
Shortly
after
9/
11,
members
of
the
Alliance
14
for
Nuclear
Accountability
visited
the
Yucca
Mountain
15
site.
We
were
refused
a
tour
by
the
DOE
but
were
given
16
a
tour
and
hike
up
the
backside
as
guests
of
the
17
Western
Shoshone.
The
Western
Shoshone
still
hold
this
18
land
sacred
and
retain
rights
to
the
land
under
the
19
"
Treaty
of
Ruby
Valley,"
signed
by
the
U.
S.
government
20
HUNT
REPORTING
COMPANY
Court
Reporting
and
Litigation
Support
Serving
Maryland,
Washington,
and
Virginia
410­
766­
HUNT
(
4868)
1­
800­
950­
DEPO
(
3376)
72
in
1863.
1
The
rights
of
indigenous
people
to
this
land
2
and
the
effect
of
this
standard
on
the
indigenous
3
tribes
of
this
nation
should
not
be
taken
lightly.
4
They
have
been
here
for
generations
and,
God
willing,
5
will
be
here
for
generations
more.
They
have
suffered
6
enough
injustice
already
without
having
to
add
this
7
fight
of
environmental
racism
to
their
list.
8
After
touring
Yucca
Mountain,
ANA
was
the
9
given
a
tour
of
the
nearby
Ponderosa
Dairy,
supplying
10
milk
to
stores
up
and
down
the
West
Coast.
We
saw
how
11
the
dairy
was
growing
alfalfa
in
the
middle
of
the
12
desert
and
how
precious
water
is
to
that
local
business
13
and
others
that
are
in
that
area.
14
Clearly
EPA
cannot
predict
what
communities
15
will
be
here
in
10,000
years.
However,
the
EPA
should
16
approve
a
standard
that
sets
a
precedent
protective
of
17
human
health
and
the
environment
as
if
that
standard
18
were
in
place
today.
19
In
other
words,
the
"
Safe
Drinking
Water
Act"
20
HUNT
REPORTING
COMPANY
Court
Reporting
and
Litigation
Support
Serving
Maryland,
Washington,
and
Virginia
410­
766­
HUNT
(
4868)
1­
800­
950­
DEPO
(
3376)
73
standard
limiting
radiation
to
four
millirem
per
year
1
is
important
now
and
later.
The
"
Safe
Drinking
Water
2
Act"
standard
should
be
applied
to
protect
Yucca's
3
aquifer
and
the
people
downstream
for
as
long
as
the
4
high­
level
radioactive
wastes
remain
hazardous
hundreds
5
of
thousands
of
years
into
the
future.
6
Having
worked
on
the
land
mine
issue
at
a
7
prior
job,
I
have
come
to
see
the
land
mine
as
an
apt
8
metaphor
for
Yucca
Mountain.
Tens
of
thousands
of
9
vulnerable
shipments
headed
to
a
storage
location
10
fraught
with
problems.
It
seems
like
only
a
matter
of
11
time
before
something
goes
horribly
wrong.
12
The
EPA
has
a
responsibility
to
the
current
13
and
future
citizens
of
this
country
to
ensure
that
the
14
Yucca
Mountain
project
is
not
something
that
will
place
15
the
public
and
our
environment
at
risk.
Perhaps
the
16
EPA
can't
defuse
this
land
mine.
However,
the
least
it
17
can
do
is
approve
a
standard
that
does
not
sacrifice
18
decades
worth
of
precedent
in
order
to
provide
a
weak
19
standard
made
to
order.
20
HUNT
REPORTING
COMPANY
Court
Reporting
and
Litigation
Support
Serving
Maryland,
Washington,
and
Virginia
410­
766­
HUNT
(
4868)
1­
800­
950­
DEPO
(
3376)
74
Thank
you
very
much.
1
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you
very
much.
2
Navin
Nayak
from
U.
S.
Public
Interest
3
Research
Group.
4
MR.
NAYAK:
I
do
appreciate
the
opportunity
5
to
contribute
U.
S.
PIRG's
comments
to
this
process.
6
And
since
we
are
here
today
to
discuss
EPA's
proposed
7
rule,
as
Ms.
Scottsworth
did
at
the
beginning,
I
think
8
it's
worthwhile
to
establish
a
benchmark
against
which
9
this
rule
can
be
measured.
10
EPA
itself
on
several
occasions
and
again
11
today
has
stated
that
its
role
in
this
process
is
12
simple.
Its
role
is
to
develop
standards
that
are
13
designed
to
protect
public
health
and
the
environment
14
from
exposure
to
radioactive
waste
that
would
be
stored
15
in
the
repository.
16
The
sole
job
of
the
EPA
in
this
process
again
17
is
to
protect
the
public
and
the
environment
from
18
exposure
to
radioactive
waste.
Unfortunately,
EPA
has
19
released
a
revised
rule
that
suggests
a
very
different
20
HUNT
REPORTING
COMPANY
Court
Reporting
and
Litigation
Support
Serving
Maryland,
Washington,
and
Virginia
410­
766­
HUNT
(
4868)
1­
800­
950­
DEPO
(
3376)
75
goal,
a
goal
of
setting
a
standard
that
would
enable
1
Yucca
Mountain
to
be
licensed.
2
In
working
to
set
a
standard
that
would
3
enable
Yucca
Mountain
to
be
licensed,
the
EPA
has
4
abandoned
its
real
priority.
Contrary
to
EPA's
5
assertion,
the
proposed
standard
will
not
protect
6
public
health
for
one
million
years.
7
While
the
EPA
may
have
set
a
standard
in
8
place
for
a
million
years,
that
standard
is
14
to
23
9
times
weaker
than
the
accepted
standard
of
protection.
10
In
fact,
in
establishing
this
new
standard,
the
EPA
11
has
relied
on
questionable
logic
and
science.
12
The
EPA
has
long
held
that
any
standard
above
13
15
to
25
millirem
would
fail
to
protect
public
health,
14
yet
now
they
propose
a
standard
that
would
allow
15
exposure
of
up
to
350
millirem
per
year.
16
The
EPA
claims
that
it
holds
firm
to
the
15
17
to
25
millirem
standard
as
an
acceptable
level
for
18
10,000
years,
but
that
it
cannot
apply
that
same
19
standard,
one
that
will
protect
public
health,
beyond
20
HUNT
REPORTING
COMPANY
Court
Reporting
and
Litigation
Support
Serving
Maryland,
Washington,
and
Virginia
410­
766­
HUNT
(
4868)
1­
800­
950­
DEPO
(
3376)
76
that
point.
1
Again,
what
is
disconcerting
is
the
logic
and
2
sciences
applied
by
the
EPA
to
arrive
at
this
3
conclusion.
And
let
me
enumerate
just
a
few
examples
4
where
this
is
apparent.
5
First,
to
justify
the
new
standard,
something
6
that
is
20
times
weaker
than
a
protective
standard,
the
7
EPA
relies
on
the
concept
of
uncertainty.
The
EPA
8
argues
that
since
uncertainties
arise
or
increase
with
9
time
that
a
higher
dose
is
justified.
10
The
EPA
uses
the
analogy
of
hurricanes,
11
suggesting
that
the
ability
to
predict
a
hurricane's
12
path
and,
therefore,
which
towns
to
evacuate
is
13
increasingly
difficult
the
further
the
hurricane
is
14
from
landfall.
But
whether
a
hurricane
is
two
hours
15
away,
two
weeks
away,
or
two
years
away,
all
16
communities
should
be
afforded
the
same
level
of
17
protection.
18
The
EPA,
however,
argues
that
at
some
point
19
in
the
future,
the
public
does
not
demand
the
same
20
HUNT
REPORTING
COMPANY
Court
Reporting
and
Litigation
Support
Serving
Maryland,
Washington,
and
Virginia
410­
766­
HUNT
(
4868)
1­
800­
950­
DEPO
(
3376)
77
level
of
protection.
Uncertainty
does
not
justify
the
1
application
of
different
levels
of
protection.
2
In
fact,
the
EPA's
arbitrary
application
of
3
this
principle
underscores
the
weak
rationale
behind
4
it.
Fortunately,
the
EPA
in
their
proposed
rule
5
acknowledges
that
uncertainty
always
exists.
Between
6
now
and
10,000
years,
uncertainty
will
exist,
yet
the
7
EPA
only
applies
the
concept
of
uncertainty
after
8
10,000
years.
9
Moreover,
it
doesn't
apply
the
concept
in
a
10
gradual
sense;
it
applies
it
all
at
once
from
10,000
11
years
until
a
million
years.
Underpinning
this
overall
12
approach
is
a
faulty
assumption
that
we
can
apply
13
different
principles
of
justice
to
different
14
generations.
15
Yet,
even
this
concept
put
forward
by
Swedish
16
researchers
relies
on
three
principles
of
justice,
a
17
strong,
a
weak,
and
a
minimal
principle,
which
seems
to
18
suggest
subtle
bend
points
over
time.
19
The
EPA
instead
introduces
a
sheer
cliff
at
20
HUNT
REPORTING
COMPANY
Court
Reporting
and
Litigation
Support
Serving
Maryland,
Washington,
and
Virginia
410­
766­
HUNT
(
4868)
1­
800­
950­
DEPO
(
3376)
78
10,000
years
that
moves
from
a
strong
principle
to
a
1
minimal
principle.
In
effect,
the
EPA
is
arguing
that
2
uncertainties
suddenly
arises
at
10,000
years
but
then
3
disappears
from
10,000
years
to
a
million
years.
4
As
a
result,
the
people
living
10,000
years
5
from
now
will
be
protected
by
a
strong
standard
while
6
those
living
10,001
years
from
now
will
not.
7
Even
less
rigorous
in
their
theory,
in
their
8
thinking
is
the
assumption
that
those
living
10,001
9
years
should
receive
the
same
protection
as
those
10
living
one
million
years
from
now
as
if
again
11
uncertainty
disappears.
12
If
the
EPA
were
being
consistent
in
its
own
13
argument
in
any
shape
or
form,
they
would
not
presume
14
that
people
between
10,001
years
and
a
million
years
15
should
receive
the
exact
same
protection.
16
Although
U.
S.
PIRG
strongly
believes
that
all
17
generations
should
be
protected
by
the
exact
same
18
standard,
the
uneven
application
of
the
concept
of
19
uncertainty
suggests
again
that
the
EPA
is
less
20
HUNT
REPORTING
COMPANY
Court
Reporting
and
Litigation
Support
Serving
Maryland,
Washington,
and
Virginia
410­
766­
HUNT
(
4868)
1­
800­
950­
DEPO
(
3376)
79
interested
in
protecting
the
public
and
more
focused
on
1
licensing
Yucca
Mountain
and
that
instead
of
a
2
consistent
logic
being
applied
throughout,
the
EPA
is
3
more
interested
in
bending
the
rules
to
fit
their
end
4
goal.
5
Another
example
of
uneven
rationale
and
6
questionable
science
underpinning
the
proposed
rule
is
7
the
manner
in
which
the
EPA
arrived
at
the
higher
dose
8
standard
of
35
millirem.
Others
have
spoken
about
9
this.
10
The
EPA
bases
their
350
millirem
standard
on
11
average
natural
background
radiation
levels
that
people
12
currently
live
with
in
the
U.
S.
That's
a
quote.
Yet,
13
in
establishing
the
standard
for
natural
background
14
radiation
levels,
the
EPA
blatantly
includes
exposure
15
to
indoor
radon
which
is
a
man­
made
product
and
not
a
16
part
of
natural
background.
17
If
the
EPA
were
to
consider
a
standard
that
18
were
based
solely
on
natural
background
levels,
they
19
could
never
in
good
faith
or
in
good
science
arrive
at
20
HUNT
REPORTING
COMPANY
Court
Reporting
and
Litigation
Support
Serving
Maryland,
Washington,
and
Virginia
410­
766­
HUNT
(
4868)
1­
800­
950­
DEPO
(
3376)
80
a
standard
of
350
millirem
since
they
acknowledge
1
themselves
that
250
millirem
of
that
standard
is
a
2
result
of
indoor
radon
levels.
3
Furthermore,
the
EPA
acknowledges
that
it
4
considered
setting
a
long­
term
standard
of
100
millirem
5
or
200
millirem.
Yet,
in
justifying
their
decisions
to
6
choose
the
weakest
standard,
the
EPA
essentially
argued
7
that
given
the
time
frame,
there
was
essentially
no
8
difference
between
100,
200,
and
300
millirem
of
9
exposure.
This
is
a
direct
quote.
10
That
is,
when
taking
increasing
uncertainties
11
into
account
in
the
very
long
term,
the
effects
of
12
factors
that
would
distinguish
projections
of
100,
200,
13
or
350
millirem
per
year
within
a
10,000
year
time
14
frame
are
more
difficult
to
identify
clearly
at
very
15
long
times
so
that
such
projections
may
be
16
qualitatively
identical
to
each
other.
17
Yet,
this
begs
the
question,
if
the
EPA
18
maintains
that
these
standards
are
essentially
19
indistinguishable,
why
choose
a
number?
Why
not
500
20
HUNT
REPORTING
COMPANY
Court
Reporting
and
Litigation
Support
Serving
Maryland,
Washington,
and
Virginia
410­
766­
HUNT
(
4868)
1­
800­
950­
DEPO
(
3376)
81
or
­­
1
(
Whereupon,
some
testimony
lost
during
2
audiotape
change.)
3
MR.
NAYAK:
­­
to
arrive
at
the
proposed
4
rule.
5
Third,
not
only
does
EPA
propose
using
6
background
radiation
as
the
benchmark,
but
it
has
7
altered
the
manner
in
which
it
calculates
the
average
8
dose.
Instead,
the
EPA
proposes
using
the
median
dose
9
which
ignores
the
higher
doses.
I
won't
go
into
much
10
detail
about
this
as
others
have
spoken
about
that.
11
Note
that
in
each
of
these
decisions
or
each
12
of
these
assumptions
that
the
EPA
has
made
to
create
a
13
new
standard
past
10,000
years
based
on
a
faulty
theory
14
of
certainty,
to
base
that
standard
on
background
15
radiation
with
the
inclusion
of
radon
and
to
use
the
16
median
instead
of
the
mean
results,
each
one
of
those
17
cases
results
in
the
weakening
of
public
health
and
18
environmental
protections.
Not
a
single
one
of
those
19
decisions
resulted
in
increased
protection
of
public
20
HUNT
REPORTING
COMPANY
Court
Reporting
and
Litigation
Support
Serving
Maryland,
Washington,
and
Virginia
410­
766­
HUNT
(
4868)
1­
800­
950­
DEPO
(
3376)
82
health.
1
Estimates
by
the
DOE
as
part
of
the
Nuclear
2
Waste
Technical
Review
Board
in
'
99
concluded
that
the
3
maximum
dose
for
Yucca
Mountain
will
be
between
200
and
4
300
millirem
per
year.
5
After
bending
the
standards
sufficiently,
it
6
should
no
longer
be
surprising
to
the
public
that
the
7
EPA
has
arrived
at
such
a
low
standard
that
the
DOE
8
should
easily
be
able
to
walk
right
over
it.
9
When
the
U.
S.
embarked
on
the
path
of
10
producing
radioactive
waste
in
this
country
many
11
decades
ago,
we
knew
very
well
that
we
were
making
a
12
decision
that
would
impact
generations
to
come.
13
Nuclear
waste
remains
a
radioactive
threat
for
hundreds
14
of
thousands
of
years.
15
Implicit
in
the
decision
to
produce
16
radioactive
waste
is
the
responsibility
to
properly
17
isolate
it
or
dispose
of
it
without
adversely
affecting
18
generations
that
had
no
part
in
that
decision.
19
If
the
EPA
cannot
establish
a
standard
that
20
HUNT
REPORTING
COMPANY
Court
Reporting
and
Litigation
Support
Serving
Maryland,
Washington,
and
Virginia
410­
766­
HUNT
(
4868)
1­
800­
950­
DEPO
(
3376)
83
will
protect
the
public
at
the
time
of
peak
dose,
then
1
it
should
simply
acknowledge
that
Yucca
Mountain
is
not
2
suitable,
that
disposing
waste
there
would
place
the
3
public
at
risk.
4
By
bending
the
rules
to
create
a
weak
5
standard,
EPA
is
in
effect
acknowledging
that
commonly­
6
respected
standards
are
too
strong
for
Yucca
Mountain,
7
but
it
is
not
EPA's
job
to
rewrite
the
rules
for
public
8
health
protections
so
that
Yucca
Mountain
is
licensed
9
as
a
repository.
10
As
I
mentioned
at
the
beginning,
EPA's
sole
11
job
is
to
establish
a
standard
that
will
protect
public
12
health
and
the
environment,
not
only
for
a
few
years,
13
not
for
a
few
thousand
years,
but
throughout
the
entire
14
period
of
peak
dose.
15
In
short,
the
responsibility
inherent
in
16
producing
nuclear
power
includes
the
responsibility
to
17
protect
the
public
which
falls
to
the
EPA.
We
urge
you
18
to
take
that
responsibility
seriously
and
to
drop
this
19
revised
proposal
that
fails
to
protect
the
public
and
20
HUNT
REPORTING
COMPANY
Court
Reporting
and
Litigation
Support
Serving
Maryland,
Washington,
and
Virginia
410­
766­
HUNT
(
4868)
1­
800­
950­
DEPO
(
3376)
84
to
set
a
standard
that
will
in
truth
protect
the
1
public.
2
Thank
you
for
your
time.
3
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you.
4
Robert
Meisenheimer,
five
minutes.
5
MR.
MEISENHEIMER:
First,
I'd
like
to
thank
6
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency
for
this
7
opportunity
to
represent
the
citizens
of
South
Carolina
8
and
Georgia
and
to
present
these
views
of
the
Citizens
9
Advisory
Board,
an
elected
board
established
to
provide
10
advice
and
opinions
on
specific
environmental
issues
to
11
the
Department
of
Energy's
Savannah
River
site.
12
My
name
is
Robert
Meisenheimer
and
I
live
on
13
Hilton
Head
Island,
a
South
Carolina
community
that
14
gets
its
drinking
water
from
the
Savannah
River.
I'm
15
not
associated
with
the
DOE
or
any
of
its
contractors
16
or
any
industry
whatsoever.
17
I'm
simply
an
elected
member
of
the
Citizens
18
Advisory
Board
for
the
Savannah
River
site,
a
member
of
19
the
public,
if
you
will.
But
I
have
an
interest
in
20
HUNT
REPORTING
COMPANY
Court
Reporting
and
Litigation
Support
Serving
Maryland,
Washington,
and
Virginia
410­
766­
HUNT
(
4868)
1­
800­
950­
DEPO
(
3376)
85
what's
going
on
here,
a
very
real
interest,
and
I
1
believe
an
informed
interest.
2
The
Savannah
River
site
has
a
substantial
3
inventory
of
high­
level
waste
that
is
being
vitrified
4
for
future
disposal
in
the
repository.
There
is
no
5
question
that
we
have
a
real
need
for
the
repository.
6
Accordingly,
I
visited
the
Yucca
Mountain
7
site
not
as
a
representative
of
the
government
but
as
a
8
public
citizen
on
a
fact­
finding
visit.
9
As
a
result
of
that
visit,
I
came
away
10
convinced
of
the
technical
adequacy
of
the
design
and
11
plans
for
operation
of
the
deep
underground
repository
12
and
so
reported
same
to
my
fellow
CAB
members
at
13
Savannah
River
site.
14
I'm
here
today
to
convey
to
you
the
strong
15
feelings
of
the
Savannah
River
site's
Citizens
Advisory
16
Board
in
recommending
favorable
consideration
and
17
adoption
of
the
proposed
EPA
standards
for
Yucca
18
Mountain.
19
Our
citizens
should
not
be
subjected
to
the
20
HUNT
REPORTING
COMPANY
Court
Reporting
and
Litigation
Support
Serving
Maryland,
Washington,
and
Virginia
410­
766­
HUNT
(
4868)
1­
800­
950­
DEPO
(
3376)
86
risk
associated
with
long­
term
storage
of
these
high­
1
level
waste
canisters
at
some
temporary
location
on
the
2
Savannah
River
site.
This
is
inconsistent
with
their
3
design
and
intended
purpose.
And,
of
course,
the
4
temporary
storage
would
also
be
a
grave
national
5
security
risk
in
today's
terrorist
threat
environment.
6
The
SRS
CAB
has
analyzed
the
issues
and
7
concluded
that
the
public
health
standards
proposed
by
8
the
EPA
for
Yucca
Mountain
are
fair,
adequate,
and
9
consistent
with
the
standards
prescribed
for
similar
10
endeavors.
11
We
compared
these
standards
with
those
in
12
effect
for
the
Waste
Isolation
Pilot
Plant
in
New
13
Mexico,
where
we
dispose
of
our
transuranic
waste
and
14
more
significantly,
we
feel
with
the
standards
that
our
15
CAB
imposed
on
the
DOE's
underground
burial
of
16
radioactive
waste
in
the
SRS's
old
radioactive
waste
17
burial
ground
in
South
Carolina.
18
Both
disposal
analyses
used
the
10,000
year
19
time
frame
as
the
initial
baseline
evaluation
period.
20
HUNT
REPORTING
COMPANY
Court
Reporting
and
Litigation
Support
Serving
Maryland,
Washington,
and
Virginia
410­
766­
HUNT
(
4868)
1­
800­
950­
DEPO
(
3376)
87
I
mention
this
not
to
highlight
an
SRS
initiative
but
1
to
demonstrate
our
Citizens
Advisory
Board's
acceptable
2
of
level
of
risk
responsibility
as
opposed
to
other
3
community's
not
in
my
back
yard
avoidance
of
societal
4
responsibility.
5
The
SRS
CAB
is
proud
to
join
with
the
6
University
of
California
and
University
of
Wisconsin
7
endorsement
of
the
proposed
EPA
standards
for
the
Yucca
8
Mountain
waste
repository.
I
tell
you
this
today
and
9
I'm
authorized
to
state
that
our
CAB
will
follow­
up
10
with
a
formal
recommendation
in
support
of
these
11
proposed
standards.
12
It
will
be
forthcoming
from
our
next
13
scheduled
CAB
meeting
on
November
15th.
And
as
I
14
understand
it,
that
timing
is
compatible
with
your
15
revised
time
deadlines.
16
This
new
recommendation
will
be
our
CAB's
17
fourth
such
recommendation
in
support
of
opening
the
18
repository.
Previous
recommendations
were
made
in
July
19
2001,
May
2004,
and
October
2004,
all
after
extensive
20
HUNT
REPORTING
COMPANY
Court
Reporting
and
Litigation
Support
Serving
Maryland,
Washington,
and
Virginia
410­
766­
HUNT
(
4868)
1­
800­
950­
DEPO
(
3376)
88
technical
environmental
analysis
and
a
review
by
1
interested
parties,
including
environmental
review
2
groups
in
South
Carolina
and
Georgia.
3
Simply
put,
the
proposed
EPA
standards
are
4
fair,
technically
adequate,
and
responsive
to
the
5
legitimate
needs
of
the
citizens
of
both
Nevada
and
the
6
other
49
states
in
our
country.
The
United
States
7
needs
Yucca
Mountain
and
these
standards
will
8
facilitate
that
need
being
satisfied.
9
And
thank
you
for
this
opportunity.
10
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you.
11
Angela
Kelly,
Peace
Action.
12
You
have
ten
minutes.
13
MS.
KELLY:
Thank
you.
And
thank
you
for
the
14
opportunity
for
citizens
to
register
their
comments
15
today.
16
My
name
is
Angela
Kelly
and
I'm
the
17
organizing
and
political
associate
at
the
National
18
Office
of
Peace
Action,
formerly
SANE
(
phonetic)
and
19
the
Nuclear
Freeze.
20
HUNT
REPORTING
COMPANY
Court
Reporting
and
Litigation
Support
Serving
Maryland,
Washington,
and
Virginia
410­
766­
HUNT
(
4868)
1­
800­
950­
DEPO
(
3376)
89
And
on
behalf
of
Peace
Action's
national
1
network
of
more
than
100
community­
based
chapters
and
2
over
100,000
citizen
members
across
the
country,
I'm
3
here
to
express
our
shared
concern
and
opposition
to
4
the
dangerous
double
standards
recently
set
for
5
radiation
regulations
at
Yucca
Mountain.
6
Peace
Action
joins
numerous
peace,
justice,
7
and
environmental
organizations
in
calling
for
the
EPA
8
to
withdraw
such
an
unacceptable
proposal
which
9
threatens
our
environment
and
dooms
future
generations
10
to
horrific
rates
of
radiation
exposure
and
fatal
11
cancer
risks,
that
the
proposed
regulations
would
12
expose
children
10,000
years
from
now
to
a
one
and
36
13
cancer
rate
is
an
unethical
and
alarming
violation
of
14
social
justice
and
intergenerational
equity.
15
Historically
our
nuclear
policies
have
16
severely
afflicted
the
health
and
habitats
of
17
downwinders
rendering
children,
indigenous
peoples,
and
18
other
marginalized
populations
especially
vulnerable.
19
We
must
halt
these
unjust
and
dangerous
practices
20
HUNT
REPORTING
COMPANY
Court
Reporting
and
Litigation
Support
Serving
Maryland,
Washington,
and
Virginia
410­
766­
HUNT
(
4868)
1­
800­
950­
DEPO
(
3376)
90
rather
than
allowing
and
loosening
the
regulations
for
1
their
continuations
for
generations
to
come.
2
The
allowable
levels
of
risk
proposed
by
the
3
EPA
are
simply
not
acceptable
as
they
would
be
more
4
than
triple
the
amount
of
radiation
exposure
the
EPA
5
has
repeatedly
stated
produces
unacceptable
levels
of
6
risk.
7
Allowing
for
this
new
precedent
could
set
8
back
cleanup
efforts
at
other
radioactively
9
contaminated
sites
across
the
country
creating
much
10
higher
disease
rates
to
future
generations
and
regions
11
around
the
country.
12
Furthermore,
the
EPA's
proposal
would
only
13
continue
this
deadly
trend
in
the
United
States,
but
14
would
also
set
a
dangerously
low
precedent
around
the
15
world.
Indeed,
the
lower
thresholds
proposed
in
these
16
standards
is
by
far
the
worst
in
the
Western
World.
17
Broadly
speaking,
Peace
Action
opposes
the
18
dangerous
nuclear
weapons
and
power
production
that
19
only
creates
a
need
for
the
radioactive
dumps
such
as
20
HUNT
REPORTING
COMPANY
Court
Reporting
and
Litigation
Support
Serving
Maryland,
Washington,
and
Virginia
410­
766­
HUNT
(
4868)
1­
800­
950­
DEPO
(
3376)
91
Yucca
Mountain
while
furthering
proliferation
and
1
threatening
generations
to
come.
2
But
to
our
immediate
concerns,
simply
put,
if
3
the
Yucca
Mountain
site
cannot
meet
public
health
and
4
environmental
protection
standards
as
it
obviously
5
cannot
by
these
lowered
regulations,
then
the
dump
6
should
never
be
opened.
Our
standards
cannot
be
7
compromised
or
manipulated
simply
to
license
a
project
8
that
will
kill
significant
numbers
of
people
in
an
9
ongoing
fashion
for
hundreds
of
thousands
of
years
to
10
come.
11
Thank
you.
12
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you.
13
Kevin
Kamps,
the
Nuclear
Information
and
14
Resources
Services.
15
And
you
have
ten
minutes.
16
MR.
KAMPS:
Good
afternoon.
My
name
is
Kevin
17
Kamps
and
I
serve
as
a
nuclear
waste
specialist
at
18
Nuclear
Information
and
Resource
Service.
19
NIRS
is
the
information
and
networking
center
20
HUNT
REPORTING
COMPANY
Court
Reporting
and
Litigation
Support
Serving
Maryland,
Washington,
and
Virginia
410­
766­
HUNT
(
4868)
1­
800­
950­
DEPO
(
3376)
92
for
citizens
and
environmental
organizations
concerned
1
about
nuclear
power,
radioactive
waste,
radiation,
and
2
sustainable
energy
issues.
And
on
behalf
of
our
3
members
across
the
U.
S.
and
around
the
world,
I
submit
4
the
following
comments:
5
Disregarding
all
applicable
long­
established
6
laws,
regulations,
and
intergenerational
morality,
EPA
7
has
proposed,
as
Dr.
Makhijani
called
it,
a
double
8
standard
standard.
EPA's
proposal
would
for
the
first
9
10,000
years
post
burial
of
the
wastes,
retain
its
10
original
Yucca
regulations,
permitting
a
lifetime
11
cancer
rate
of
one
in
835
people
exposed
to
Yucca's
12
leaking
radioactivity,
the
15
millirem
per
year
13
permitted
radiation
dose.
14
But
after
10,000
years,
EPA
now
proposes
a
15
one
in
36
lifetime
cancer
rate.
This
figure
calculated
16
using
the
recent
findings
presented
in
the
National
17
Academy
of
Sciences'
Biological
Effects
of
Ionizing
18
Radiation
report,
BEIR
7.
This
is
for
persons
19
downstream
and
represents
a
23­
fold
increase
in
20
HUNT
REPORTING
COMPANY
Court
Reporting
and
Litigation
Support
Serving
Maryland,
Washington,
and
Virginia
410­
766­
HUNT
(
4868)
1­
800­
950­
DEPO
(
3376)
93
allowable
radiation
to
350
millirem
per
year
which
is
1
equivalent
to
300
­­
I'm
sorry
­­
which
is
equivalent
2
to
58
chest
X­
rays
per
year.
3
And
I
just
wanted
to
point
out
that
I'm
one
4
of
the
posters
in
the
back
of
the
room.
It's
stated
5
that
a
typical
chest
X­
ray
is
15
millirem.
But
6
according
to
an
EPA
press
release
announcing
7
Administrator
Whitman's
(
phonetic)
release
of
the
8
original
regulations,
it
was
stated
that
a
chest
X­
ray
9
is
six
millirem.
10
So
I'm
concerned.
That's
a
two
and
a
half
11
fold
difference
in
what's
attributed
to
a
chest
X­
ray
12
which
is
quite
significant.
The
inconsistency
is
13
troubling.
14
About
half
of
those
cancers
downstream
from
15
Yucca
Mountain
that
I
just
mentioned
would
be
fatal
and
16
it
should
be
noted
that
BEIR
7
has
reaffirmed
that
any
17
radiation
dose,
no
matter
how
small,
carries
with
it
18
the
risk
of
health
damage.
The
EPA's
proposed
rule
19
change
flies
in
the
face
of
these
recent
BEIR
7
20
HUNT
REPORTING
COMPANY
Court
Reporting
and
Litigation
Support
Serving
Maryland,
Washington,
and
Virginia
410­
766­
HUNT
(
4868)
1­
800­
950­
DEPO
(
3376)
94
findings.
1
To
make
matters
worse,
EPA's
350
millirem
per
2
year
figure
is
not
a
maximum
permitted
dose
to
the
3
public,
but
rather
a
median
dose.
This
means
that
50
4
percent
of
doses
would
be
higher
than
350
millirem
per
5
year.
Large
numbers
of
people
would
under
this
6
proposed
rule
get
doses
far
higher
than
350
millirem
7
per
year.
8
EPA
proposes
changing
from
the
mean
dose
or
9
average
after
10,000
years
to
a
median
dose.
According
10
to
Dr.
Bob
Gould
(
phonetic),
Chair
of
the
Security
11
Committee
of
Physicians
for
Social
Responsibility,
the
12
sky
is
the
limit
as
to
how
high
doses
could
go,
for
13
incredibly
there
is
no
upper
limit
for
those
half
of
14
the
exposures
greater
than
350
millirem
per
year
that
15
would
be
above
the
median.
16
These
higher
doses,
of
course,
would
carry
17
proportionately
higher
health
risks.
So
use
of
the
18
median
is
a
manipulation
and
is
unacceptable.
19
In
DOE's
Yucca
Mountain
total
system
20
HUNT
REPORTING
COMPANY
Court
Reporting
and
Litigation
Support
Serving
Maryland,
Washington,
and
Virginia
410­
766­
HUNT
(
4868)
1­
800­
950­
DEPO
(
3376)
95
performance
assessment
for
site
recommendation
at
the
1
time
of
peak
dose,
the
mean
dose,
the
average
of
many
2
computer
simulations
is
about
600
millirem
per
year,
3
whereas
the
median
dose
is
about
200
millirem
per
year.
4
Yucca
would
not
meet
a
standard
that
required
the
mean
5
to
be
less
than
350
millirem
per
year
but
would
if
the
6
median
were
used.
7
EPA's
use
of
a
350
millirem
per
year
median
8
dose
limit
is
thus
a
transparent
attempt
to
keep
Yucca
9
licensable
despite
its
clearly
unsuitable
geology.
10
This
median
of
350
millirem
per
year
results
in
doses
11
of
2,000
millirem
per
year
or
two
rem
per
year
to
the
12
five
percent
of
people
most
exposed
downstream.
13
Over
a
lifetime
of
such
exposures,
one
in
14
five
women
would
contract
cancer
from
Yucca's
leaking
15
wastes.
This
is
nightmarishly
unacceptable.
16
EPA's
proposed
350
millirem
per
year
dose
17
would
not
just
occur
for
a
brief
time
and
then
decrease
18
to
far
lower
levels.
Under
the
proposal,
these
large
19
doses
would
be
permitted
to
occur
year
after
year,
20
HUNT
REPORTING
COMPANY
Court
Reporting
and
Litigation
Support
Serving
Maryland,
Washington,
and
Virginia
410­
766­
HUNT
(
4868)
1­
800­
950­
DEPO
(
3376)
96
generation
after
generation
for
evermore
into
the
1
future,
at
least
to
a
million
years,
after
which
time
2
regulations
would
end,
although
certain
of
the
radio­
3
nuclides
would
remain
hazardous
and
deadly
beyond
that
4
time.
5
Under
EPA's
proposal,
given
the
lack
of
a
cap
6
on
maximum
doses
and
the
hundreds
of
thousands
of
years
7
these
leaking
wastes
would
remain
harmful,
significant
8
numbers
of
the
people
most
exposed
to
radiation
doses
9
could
suffer
a
statistical
100
percent
risk
of
10
contracting
cancer.
11
The
State
of
Nevada
has
noted
that
EPA
on
12
page
108
of
its
proposed
rule
holds
that
exposures
of
13
the
magnitude
associated
with
unmined
uranium
ore
14
bodies
meet
the
standard
of,
quote,
"
minimal
justice."
15
EPA
further
states
that
estimates
of
the
16
risks
from
unmined
ore
bodies
range
upward
to
100,000
17
excess
cancer
deaths
over
10,000
years.
So
it
follows
18
that
EPA
believes
ten
excess
deaths
per
year
are
19
acceptable.
20
HUNT
REPORTING
COMPANY
Court
Reporting
and
Litigation
Support
Serving
Maryland,
Washington,
and
Virginia
410­
766­
HUNT
(
4868)
1­
800­
950­
DEPO
(
3376)
97
But
for
a
one
million
year
assessment
period
1
called
for
by
the
proposed
Yucca
rule,
this
means
that
2
ten
million
excess
cancer
deaths
will
be
acceptable
to
3
EPA.
Of
course,
this
is
completely
unacceptable.
4
EPA's
proposal
would
set
a
very
dangerous
5
precedent
that
could
be
applied
across
the
U.
S.,
not
6
just
at
Yucca
Mountain.
EPA
has
for
decades
declared
7
any
radiation
dose
above
15
to
25
millirem
per
year
to
8
be
nonprotective.
Its
general
policy
has
been
to
9
regulate
exposures,
to
limit
cancer
rates
to
one
in
10
10,000
persons
exposed
or
even
to
one
in
one
million
11
persons
exposed.
12
For
example,
EPA
limits
radioactivity
in
13
drinking
water
to
four
millirem
per
year,
air
emissions
14
at
ten
millirem
per
year,
and
Superfund
cleanups
to
the
15
equivalent
of
roughly
0.03
to
three
millirem
per
year.
16
EPA
has
gone
on
record
again
and
again
that
17
radiation
doses
of
100
millirem
per
year
produce
18
unacceptable
levels
of
risk.
But
EPA's
350
millirem
19
per
year
proposed
standard
for
Yucca
is
a
23­
fold
20
HUNT
REPORTING
COMPANY
Court
Reporting
and
Litigation
Support
Serving
Maryland,
Washington,
and
Virginia
410­
766­
HUNT
(
4868)
1­
800­
950­
DEPO
(
3376)
98
increase
in
allowable
radiation
over
the
15
millirem
1
per
year
standard
and
would
more
than
triple
the
amount
2
of
radiation
exposure
the
EPA
has
repeatedly
stated
3
produces
unacceptable
levels
of
risk.
4
If
EPA
were
to
implement
this
proposed
rule,
5
it
would
set
a
precedent
that
could
roll
back
cleanup
6
efforts
at
other
radioactively
contaminated
sites
7
across
the
country,
including
other
radioactive
waste
8
dumps,
nuclear
power
plant
sites,
and
nuclear
fuel
9
chain
facilities.
10
There
is
the
added
danger
that
this
precedent
11
could
be
applied
to
other
polluted
sites
suffering
from
12
nonradioactive
but
toxic
and
hazardous
chemical
13
contamination
allowing
for
much
higher
cancer
rates
and
14
other
disease
rates
to
future
generations.
15
EPA
is
supposed
to
protect
public
health
and
16
safety
and
the
environment,
not
undermine
such
17
protections
to
grease
the
skids
for
profit­
seeking
18
industry
interests.
19
EPA's
proposal
is
a
shoehorn
designed
to
20
HUNT
REPORTING
COMPANY
Court
Reporting
and
Litigation
Support
Serving
Maryland,
Washington,
and
Virginia
410­
766­
HUNT
(
4868)
1­
800­
950­
DEPO
(
3376)
99
weaken
the
standards
so
that
the
geologically
1
unsuitable
site
can
still
be
licensed
rather
than
2
requiring
the
site
to
meet
public
health
and
3
environmental
protection
standards.
4
If
the
Yucca
Mountain
site
cannot
meet
public
5
health
and
environmental
protection
standards
as
it
6
clearly
cannot,
then
the
dump
should
never
be
opened.
7
Dan
Hirsh
(
phonetic)
of
the
Committee
to
8
Bridge
the
Gap
has
stated
it
is
hard
to
conceive
a
9
proposed
environmental
regulation
or
action
that
raises
10
such
serious
questions
of
intergenerational
immorality.
11
EPA's
unethical
and
immoral
proposal
would
12
represent
a
horrible
injustice
for
future
generations.
13
In
fact,
EPA
cites
a
Swedish
agency
that
talks
about
14
strong
principles
of
justice
for
150
years,
weak
15
principles
of
justice
out
to
300
years,
and
then
16
minimal
principles
of
justice
beyond
that.
17
So,
in
fact,
EPA's
unethical
and
immoral
18
proposal
would
represent
injustice
for
future
19
generations.
20
HUNT
REPORTING
COMPANY
Court
Reporting
and
Litigation
Support
Serving
Maryland,
Washington,
and
Virginia
410­
766­
HUNT
(
4868)
1­
800­
950­
DEPO
(
3376)
100
This
is
quite
ironic
for
the
Department
of
1
Energy
explains
away
its
rush
to
open
the
Yucca
dump
as
2
a
matter
of
intergenerational
responsibility
in
that
3
current
generations
created
this
high­
level
radioactive
4
waste
and
thus
should
solve
the
problem
so
that
future
5
generations
need
not
worry
about
it.
But
future
6
generations
would
have
very
much
to
worry
about
if
7
EPA's
proposed
rule
stands.
8
Another
casualty
of
EPA's
proposed
rule
is
9
the
"
Safe
Drinking
Water
Act"
standard
which
limits
10
radiation
in
drinking
water
to
four
millirem
per
year
11
which
EPA
would
only
enforce
for
the
first
10,000
years
12
but
would
then
replace
with
the
350
millirem
per
year
13
all
pathway
exposure
limit.
14
Water
is
a
precious
resource
which
requires
15
more,
not
less,
protection
as
time
goes
on.
Yucca's
16
radioactive
wastes
will
leak
into
the
underlying
17
drinking
water
aquifer
which
will
become
the
primary
18
pathway
for
harmful
doses
to
people
downstream.
19
The
"
Safe
Drinking
Water
Act"
standard
should
20
HUNT
REPORTING
COMPANY
Court
Reporting
and
Litigation
Support
Serving
Maryland,
Washington,
and
Virginia
410­
766­
HUNT
(
4868)
1­
800­
950­
DEPO
(
3376)
101
be
applied
to
protect
Yucca's
aquifer
and
the
people
1
downstream
for
as
long
as
the
high­
level
radioactive
2
wastes
remain
hazardous
hundreds
of
thousands
of
years
3
into
the
future.
4
HEARING
OFFICER:
I'm
sorry,
but
your
time
is
5
up.
6
MR.
KAMPS:
Can
I
make
one
last
point?
7
HEARING
OFFICER:
Sure.
8
MR.
KAMPS:
A
final
point,
equal
protection
9
under
the
law
is
a
cherished
American
principle.
EPA's
10
proposal
violates
this
protecting
certain
generations
11
to
one
standard
but
other
generations
to
a
much
weaker
12
standard.
13
The
"
U.
S.
Declaration
of
Independence"
speaks
14
of
life,
liberty,
and
the
pursuit
of
happiness.
It
15
goes
on
to
say
that
when
government
becomes
inimical
to
16
these,
it
is
the
right
and
the
duty
of
the
citizenry
to
17
alter
or
abolish
that
government.
18
Unlike
some
recently
indicted
politicians
in
19
this
town,
I
do
not
call
for
the
abolishment
of
the
20
HUNT
REPORTING
COMPANY
Court
Reporting
and
Litigation
Support
Serving
Maryland,
Washington,
and
Virginia
410­
766­
HUNT
(
4868)
1­
800­
950­
DEPO
(
3376)
102
EPA.
We
need
the
EPA
to
protect
our
lives,
health,
and
1
environment.
That's
its
job.
2
But
we
do
call
on
EPA
to
alter
its
proposed
3
Yucca
Mountain
rule
to
make
it
truly
protective
rather
4
than
a
service
to
the
nuclear
establishment
in
industry
5
and
government
desperate
as
it
is
to
maintain
the
6
illusion
of
a
solution
to
its
forever
deadly
nuclear
7
waste
dilemma.
8
Thank
you.
9
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you.
10
Diane
Darrigo.
11
MALE
VOICE:
She
had
to
leave.
12
HEARING
OFFICER:
Actually,
if
you'll
hold
13
on,
let
me
get
someone
who's
signed
up
and
then
I'll
14
call
up
anyone
else
who
wants
to
speak.
15
David
Hamilton,
Sierra
Club,
National
Office.
16
MR.
HAMILTON:
Good
afternoon.
My
name
is
17
Dave
Hamilton
and
I'm
the
Director
of
Global
Warming
18
and
Energy
Programs
at
the
Sierra
Club.
Thanks
for
19
letting
me
speak
today.
20
HUNT
REPORTING
COMPANY
Court
Reporting
and
Litigation
Support
Serving
Maryland,
Washington,
and
Virginia
410­
766­
HUNT
(
4868)
1­
800­
950­
DEPO
(
3376)
103
On
behalf
of
its
800,000
members
nationwide,
1
the
Sierra
Club
opposes
the
proposed
amendments
for
the
2
radiation
standards
at
the
Yucca
Mountain
site.
A
3
radiation
standard
of
350
millirem
exposure
per
year
4
does
not
protect
our
health
or
the
health
of
future
5
generations,
nor
does
it
guarantee
the
health
of
the
6
water,
soil,
air,
plants,
or
animals
in
the
desert
7
surrounding
Yucca
Mountain.
8
In
July
of
2004,
the
D.
C.
Circuit
Court
of
9
Appeals
found
that
the
safety
standards
for
radiation
10
that
the
EPA
set
for
Yucca
Mountain
were
illegal.
11
Having
lost
the
case,
the
Bush
Administration
is
trying
12
to
change
the
rules
in
the
middle
of
the
game
by
13
changing
the
law.
14
It's
like
on
the
pitching
mound,
the
Bush
15
Administration
has
walked
the
bases
loaded
and
now
16
rather
than
learn
how
to
throw
strikes,
they're
going
17
to
change
the
size
of
the
strike
zone
and
triple
it.
18
For
decades,
it's
been
EPA
policy
that
19
radiation
exposure
above
15
to
25
millirem
per
year
is,
20
HUNT
REPORTING
COMPANY
Court
Reporting
and
Litigation
Support
Serving
Maryland,
Washington,
and
Virginia
410­
766­
HUNT
(
4868)
1­
800­
950­
DEPO
(
3376)
104
quote,
"
nonprotective
of
public
health."
The
EPA
has
1
gone
on
record
over
and
over
again
that
doses
of
100
2
millirem
per
year
produce
unacceptable
levels
of
risk,
3
but
now
we
are
in
a
situation
where
the
Department
of
4
Energy
is
unable
to
build
a
nuclear
repository
at
Yucca
5
Mountain
that
meets
these
long­
established
radiation
6
standards.
7
DOE
expects
Yucca
Mountain
to
release
250
8
millirem
of
nuclear
radiation
every
year,
so
EPA
is
9
lowering
its
safety
standards
so
DOE
can
meet
them.
To
10
simply
change
these
to
weaken
public
health
standards
11
so
we
can
hastily
approve
Yucca
Mountain
as
a
nuclear
12
waste
repository
is
both
dangerous
and
irresponsible.
13
An
annual
exposure
of
350
millirem
is
14
equivalent
to
receiving
an
X­
ray
every
week.
The
most
15
recent
report
from
the
National
Academy
of
Sciences
16
shows
that
for
every
36
people
receiving
that
sort
of
17
dose
during
their
lifetime,
one
person
develops
cancer.
18
The
proposal
allows
one
cancer
in
36,
not
one
in
one
19
million,
not
even
one
in
10,000,
but
one
cancer
in
20
HUNT
REPORTING
COMPANY
Court
Reporting
and
Litigation
Support
Serving
Maryland,
Washington,
and
Virginia
410­
766­
HUNT
(
4868)
1­
800­
950­
DEPO
(
3376)
105
every
36
people.
1
DOE
tells
the
nation
not
to
worry.
These
2
levels
of
radiation
won't
be
experienced
for
200
to
3
300,000
years,
but
the
proposed
standard
would
be
set
4
today
to
accommodate
that
level
of
radiation.
Even
if
5
it
were
moral
to
argue
that
it
is
okay
to
delay
the
6
risk
to
unborn
generations
of
the
future,
the
legal
7
allowance
would
be
in
place
to
accept
and
8
institutionalize
that
level
or
risk
today.
9
Under
the
proposed
rule,
these
doses
would
be
10
permitted
to
occur
generation
after
generation
for
11
thousands
of
generations.
It
is
hard
to
conceive
of
a
12
proposed
environmental
regulation
or
action
that
raises
13
such
serious
questions
of
generational
injustice.
14
EPA
is
in
essence
proposing
to
permit
an
15
action
that
will
disable
or
even
kill
people
for
16
hundreds
of
thousands
of
years,
people
who
had
no
say
17
in
the
decision
nor
received
any
supposed
benefit
from
18
it.
They
bear
only
the
cost.
19
But
this
is
only
the
beginning
of
the
20
HUNT
REPORTING
COMPANY
Court
Reporting
and
Litigation
Support
Serving
Maryland,
Washington,
and
Virginia
410­
766­
HUNT
(
4868)
1­
800­
950­
DEPO
(
3376)
106
problem.
In
at
least
two
different
ways,
the
EPA
is
1
cooking
the
numbers
to
give
the
appearance
of
safety.
2
EPA
has
gone
against
decades
of
scientific
practice
by
3
using
a
mean
dose
for
the
average
instead
of
a
median
4
dose.
5
DOE
calculations
show
the
median
to
be
more
6
than
three
times
higher
than
the
mean,
which
means
the
7
average
dose
is
actually
about
750
to
1,000
millirem
8
per
year,
not
250
to
300.
Using
the
median
exposure,
9
the
calculations
show
that
there
would
be
one
cancer
in
10
ten
people.
11
Furthermore,
the
EPA
is
misrepresenting
what
12
this
dose
is.
It
is
not
a
maximum
permitted
dose,
but
13
rather
an
average
dose.
Large
numbers
of
people
would
14
get
doses
far
higher
with
proportionally
higher
risks.
15
In
other
words,
under
the
EPA
standard,
16
significant
numbers
of
people
could
be
exposed
to
doses
17
that
would
produce
a
statistical
100
percent
change
of
18
inducing
a
cancer
in
the
exposed
people.
19
If
the
Bush
Administration
is
successful
in
20
HUNT
REPORTING
COMPANY
Court
Reporting
and
Litigation
Support
Serving
Maryland,
Washington,
and
Virginia
410­
766­
HUNT
(
4868)
1­
800­
950­
DEPO
(
3376)
107
these
new
standards,
they
will
be
the
least
protective
1
radiation
standards
in
the
entire
world.
It
will
be
a
2
sign
of
the
chronic
disregard
for
science
and
of
broken
3
promises
that
is
the
hallmark
of
this
administration.
4
In
1987
when
Congress
passed
the
"
Nuclear
5
Waste
Policy
Amendments
Act,"
it
targeted
Yucca
6
Mountain
primarily
because
it
was
the
only
state
7
Congressional
delegation
that
could
be
politically
8
overpowered.
9
Despite
the
fact
that
the
law
said
we
had
to
10
store
nuclear
waste
somewhere
and
that
Yucca
Mountain
11
seemed
to
be
the
safest
place
to
do
it,
it
was
more
12
about
politics
than
science.
But
the
law
did
state
13
that
we
would
spend
millions
of
dollars
on
tests
and
14
experiments
and
if
it
didn't
pass
the
rigorous
safety
15
standards,
no
nuclear
waste
would
be
stored
there.
It
16
did
not
say
we
would
change
the
standards
to
fit
the
17
site.
18
Now
we
have
an
answer.
Yucca
Mountain
is
not
19
safe
and
cannot
be
made
safe.
And
now
instead
of
20
HUNT
REPORTING
COMPANY
Court
Reporting
and
Litigation
Support
Serving
Maryland,
Washington,
and
Virginia
410­
766­
HUNT
(
4868)
1­
800­
950­
DEPO
(
3376)
108
accepting
the
science
and
trying
to
find
a
safe
1
solution,
the
EPA
is
now
trying
to
redefine
the
word
2
safe
so
it
covers
Yucca
Mountain.
3
These
standards
are
designed
to
protect
the
4
energy
and
nuclear
industries
at
the
expense
of
public
5
health
and
safety.
6
Hurricane
Katrina
taught
us
both
that
7
unexpected
catastrophic
events
are
possible
and
that
we
8
need
to
pay
more
attention
to
public
health
and
safety
9
rather
than
less.
10
The
Bush
Administration
and
the
EPA
should
go
11
back
to
the
drawing
board
and
find
a
solution
that
will
12
protect
Americans,
not
the
electric
utility
and
nuclear
13
industries.
14
Thank
you.
15
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you.
16
Are
there
any
other
­­
that's
the
end
of
the
17
people
I
have
signed
up.
And
I'd
like
to
know
are
18
there
more
people
who
would
like
to
testify
before
the
19
end
of
the
period?
20
HUNT
REPORTING
COMPANY
Court
Reporting
and
Litigation
Support
Serving
Maryland,
Washington,
and
Virginia
410­
766­
HUNT
(
4868)
1­
800­
950­
DEPO
(
3376)
109
Okay.
This
will
be
the
last
gentleman.
1
MR.
NELSON:
My
name
is
Dennis
Nelson.
I'm
2
the
Director
of
Support
and
Education
for
Radiation
3
Victims,
SERV,
and
I'm
also
a
Utah
downwinder.
4
I
would
like
to
give
a
little
bit
of
focus
5
from
my
personal
experience.
I'm
a
victim
and
my
6
family
were
victims
of
the
first
round
of
radiation
7
releases
in
the
west
and
so
I
have
a
very
critical
view
8
of
this
proceeding.
I
didn't
plan
on
speaking
today,
9
but
I
want
to
at
least
give
you
the
benefit
of
my
10
perspective.
11
The
ten
years,
eleven
years
that
above­
ground
12
testing
took
place
in
Nevada
showered
my
hometown
13
repeatedly
with
radiation
exposure
over
those
eleven
14
years.
And
the
junk
science
that
the
dose
15
recalculators
or
estimators
came
up
with
said
that
we
16
had
received
3.9
rads
total
exposure
or
rems
over
those
17
eleven
years.
18
The
problem
was
we
developed
an
epidemic
of
19
cancer.
So
if
you
take
that
3.9
rads,
divide
by
11,
20
HUNT
REPORTING
COMPANY
Court
Reporting
and
Litigation
Support
Serving
Maryland,
Washington,
and
Virginia
410­
766­
HUNT
(
4868)
1­
800­
950­
DEPO
(
3376)
110
you
get
about
300,
maybe
350
rems
per
year.
Now,
this
1
is
the
level
that
you're
proposing
and
this
caused
an
2
epidemic
of
cancer.
3
Congress
passed
a
compensation
bill
that
has
4
to
date
paid
more
than
half
a
billion
dollars
to
over
5
9,000
recipients
of
just
a
very
few
counties
in
that
6
area.
Now
they're
proposing
to
expand
that
to
multiple
7
other
areas
of
the
west,
which
could
increase
this
8
expense
to
tens
of
billions
of
dollars.
And
now
we're
9
proposing
to
do
something
like
this
again.
10
These
transportation
trains
that
go
out
to
11
Nevada
would
have
the
potential
for
a
radioactive
12
accident
or
a
terrorist
attack.
They
could
create
13
tremendous
devastation.
And
we
don't
have
a
correct
14
understanding
of
what
the
exposure
levels
would
be
and
15
what
these
exposure
levels
do
to
our
health.
16
I
think
there's
been
a
consistent
and
17
deliberate
attempt
to
downplay
the
effect
of
radiation
18
on
human
health
and
it's
been
going
on
since
the
19
dropping
of
the
bombs
on
Hiroshima
and
Nagasaki.
20
HUNT
REPORTING
COMPANY
Court
Reporting
and
Litigation
Support
Serving
Maryland,
Washington,
and
Virginia
410­
766­
HUNT
(
4868)
1­
800­
950­
DEPO
(
3376)
111
In
June
of
this
year,
there
was
a
meeting
1
called
the
Pugwash
(
phonetic)
Conference
in
Hiroshima,
2
Japan
and
a
Professor
Sawada
(
phonetic),
Asodji
3
(
phonetic)
Sawada,
presented
a
paper
wherein
he
4
estimated
that
the
current
level
of
risk
estimation
is
5
perhaps
20
to
50
times
too
low.
6
In
other
words,
he's
saying
that
because
the
7
Radiation
Effects
Research
Foundation
excluded
the
8
early
entrance
into
the
city,
and,
in
fact,
they
didn't
9
include
the
risk
estimates
for
these
people
and,
in
10
fact,
included
these
people
in
the
control,
that
they
11
have
severely
biased
this
data
and
the
risk
estimates
12
may
be
much
higher.
13
And
this
is
because
these
people
were
exposed
14
to
residual
radiation,
that
is
radioactive
15
particulates,
radioactive
gases,
radioactive
liquid.
16
They
weren't
exposed
to
the
prompt
radiation
from
the
17
bomb,
the
X­
rays
and
the
gamma
rays
and
the
neutrons
18
from
the
bomb.
They
were
only
exposed
to
this
residual
19
radiation
and,
yet,
they're
included
in
the
controls.
20
HUNT
REPORTING
COMPANY
Court
Reporting
and
Litigation
Support
Serving
Maryland,
Washington,
and
Virginia
410­
766­
HUNT
(
4868)
1­
800­
950­
DEPO
(
3376)
112
So
our
entire
basis
and
framework
for
our
1
risk
estimation
is
based
on
this
faulty
science,
this
2
junk
science.
And
it
may
even
be
scientific
fraud.
3
So
I
urge
you
not
just
in
the
long
term,
in
4
the
10,000
plus
years,
but
in
the
intervening
years,
5
the
first
10,000
years,
that
we
need
to
seriously
look
6
at
the
effect
of
radioactive
contaminations,
these
7
radio­
nuclides
getting
into
our
environment,
getting
8
into
our
food,
getting
into
our
air,
getting
into
the
9
earth
and
our
water,
and
we
need
to
understand
that
10
these
things
can
be
very,
very
dangerous.
11
I
can
only
speak
from
my
personal
experience.
12
I've
lost
three
family
members,
five
family
members
13
have
had
cancer,
seven
different
cancers,
average
age
14
of
death
was
49.
15
So
these
are
not
benign
materials.
These
are
16
very
dangerous
materials.
And
the
government
has
17
continually
downplayed
and
tried
to
show
that
they're
18
not
as
dangerous
as
they
really
are.
And
I
think
that
19
that
needs
to
be
borne
in
mind
when
you
license
a
20
HUNT
REPORTING
COMPANY
Court
Reporting
and
Litigation
Support
Serving
Maryland,
Washington,
and
Virginia
410­
766­
HUNT
(
4868)
1­
800­
950­
DEPO
(
3376)
113
potential
repository
that
could
cause
destruction
and
1
health
injury
to
a
future
generation.
2
Thank
you.
3
HEARING
OFFICER:
Thank
you.
4
Any
other
individuals?
5
(
Whereupon,
there
was
no
response.)
6
HEARING
OFFICER:
Okay.
Thank
you.
7
FEMALE
VOICE:
Again,
I
want
to
thank
8
everyone
for
coming
today
to
participate
in
the
public
9
comment
process.
I
apologize
for
the
coolness
of
the
10
temperature
of
the
room.
11
And
once
the
public
comment
period
concludes
12
on
November
21st,
we
will
be
reviewing
all
the
comments
13
and
considering
them
fully
in
the
development
of
our
14
final
rule.
15
Thank
you
very
much.
16
(
Whereupon,
the
above­
entitled
public
17
hearing
was
concluded.)
18
.
19
.
20
HUNT
REPORTING
COMPANY
Court
Reporting
and
Litigation
Support
Serving
Maryland,
Washington,
and
Virginia
410­
766­
HUNT
(
4868)
1­
800­
950­
DEPO
(
3376)
114
.
1
.
2
.
3
.
4
.
5
.
6
.
7
.
8
.
9
HUNT
REPORTING
COMPANY
Court
Reporting
and
Litigation
Support
Serving
Maryland,
Washington,
and
Virginia
410­
766­
HUNT
(
4868)
1­
800­
950­
DEPO
(
3376)
CERTIFICATE
OF
TRANSCRIBER
I
hereby
certify
that
the
testimony
given
in
the
above­
entitled
matter
was
transcribed
by
me,
and
that
said
transcript
is
a
true
record,
to
the
best
of
my
ability,
of
said
testimony.

That
I
am
neither
a
relative
to
nor
an
employee
of
any
attorney
or
party
herewith,
and
that
I
have
no
interest
in
the
outcome
of
this
case.

This
________
day
of
_______________,
20___.

_________________________________

REGINA
M.
CHANNELL
Transcriber