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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

21 for such a long period of time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5 Thank you very much.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

18 Thank you.

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

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

4 Number one, large amount of heavy metals,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2 Thank you.

3 MR. SARNO: Thank you, sir.

4 Jean Treichel.

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

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

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

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

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

24 Well, it's their land.

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

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

6 I just want to keep my comments brief.

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

16 Thanks.

17 MR. SARNO: Thank you.

18 Imogene Specks ( Phonetic).

19 MS. SPECKS: At the roundtable presentation,

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

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

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

8 MR. SARNO: Thank you.

9 Joan Bingham ( Phonetic).

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

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

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

24 MR. SARNO: Thank you.

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

2 MR. IAN: Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

14 Thank you.

15 MR. SARNO: Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

16 EPA actually relaxes the standard.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

21 Thank you again for this opportunity.

22 MR. SARNO: Thank you very much.

23 Governor Guinn.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

18 Yet EPA rejected that solution out of hand.

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

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

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

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

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

15 Nowhere in its regulations or policies,

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

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

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

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

5 EPA and its new proposal permits the assumption that,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9 Thank you.

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

11 Robin Drew.

12 MS. DREW: Good evening again.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

16 Thank you.

17 MR. SARNO: Thank you, Miss Drew.

18 Dr. Denis Beller.

19 DR. BELLER: Good evening.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

17 The new EPA standard for the second period,

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

4 We created a peaceful nuclear technology,

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

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

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

10 Thank you for your time.

11 MR. SARNO: Thank you very much.

12 MS. COTSWORTH: Thank you.

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

15 MS. RABORN: Thank you.

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

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

4 and massive public opposition.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

23 such as indoor radon exposure. This is misleading.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4 MR. SARNO: Thank you very much.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

12 In his book A Brighter Tomorrow,

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

19 neptunium, and curium.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4 MR. SARNO: Thank you very much.

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

7 MS. FELDMAN: Thank you.

8 MR. SARNO: And you have 10 minutes.

9 MS. FELDMAN: Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

17 This proposal is entirely unacceptable.

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

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

2 The ploy is so transparent it's laughable.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2 MR. SARNO: Thank you.

3 Peggy Mace Johnson ( Phonetic).

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

6 Citizen Alert, representing the people of Nevada;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11 Thank you very much.

12 MR. SARNO: Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

23 At the current time, as a public advocate,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

14 Thank you.

15 MR. SARNO: Thank you, Miss Treichel.

16 Mike Henderson with Congressman Gibbons'

17 Office. And you will have 10 minutes.

18 MR. HENDERSON: Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6 you change the game.

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

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

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

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

6 Thank you.

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

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

11 MR. WALTON: Thank you.

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

15 I want to focus on intergenerational equity.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7 It's true your mathematics diminishes,

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

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

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

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

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

16 you should have.

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

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

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

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

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

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

12 why recommend 350 when you can recommend 15?

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

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

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

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

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

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

10 Thanks for the time.

11 MR. SARNO: Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

17 they are a part of me.

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

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

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

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

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

23 It's the same thing with the Earth.

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

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

6 because the carpet came from somewhere.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

12 And you people need to do the same thing.

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

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

19 Thank you.

20 MR. SARNO: Thank you very much.

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

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

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

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

11 Thank you.

12  o0o

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


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 250 (Monday, December 30, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 79432-79433]
[FR Doc No: 2013-31098]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP14-293-000.
    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
    Description: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P. submits tariff
filing per 154.204: 12/17/13 Negotiated Rates--JP Morgan Ventures
Energy Corp (HUB) 6025-89 to be effective 12/16/2013.
    Filed Date: 12/17/13.
    Accession Number: 20131217-5175.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/30/13.

    Docket Numbers: RP14-294-000.
    Applicants: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America.
    Description: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America LLC submits
tariff filing per 154.204: EOG Resources Negotiated Rate to be
effective 1/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 12/17/13.

    Accession Number: 20131217-5192.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/30/13.

    Docket Numbers: CP14-28-000.
    Applicants: Peninsula Pipeline Company, Inc.
    Description: Blanket Certificate of Peninsula Pipeline Company,
Inc.
    Filed Date: 12/6/13.
    Accession Number: 20131206-5257.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/27/13.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: December 18, 2013.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
 Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-31098 Filed 12-27-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P