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