1 1 2 3 4 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ( EPA)

5 6 Radiation Protection Standards Applicable to 7 Yucca Mountain 8 9 10 11 P U B L I C H E A R I N G & C O M M E N T S 12 October 6, 2005 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Reported by: Gina J. Mendez, CCR No. 787 2 1 MS. COTSWORTH: Good morning. I'm 2 Elizabeth Cotsworth. I'm the director of EPA's Office 3 of radiation and Indoor Air. I'm delighted to be here 4 with all of you today.

5 I have been asked by the Administrator of 6 EPA to represent the Agency at today's hearings and to 7 hear the comments of the citizens of Nevada on the 8 Agency's proposed August 22nd radiation protection 9 standards for Yucca Mountain.

10 I want to start by thanking you for taking 11 your time this morning to participate in the hearing 12 process at this hearing as well as those we have had for 13 the last two days here in Las Vegas and on Monday 14 evening in Amargosa Valley.

15 The public has its opportunity to comment on 16 the record on this proposed important rule, and we look 17 forward to receiving your comments. It's a critical 18 part of development of the final rule that the Agency 19 will issue and the development of public policy. We're 20 open to receiving all points of view and commit to fully 21 considering them in the development of the final rule.

22 Our mission is to protect human health and 23 the environment. It's a mission that we take very 24 seriously at the Agency.

25 As most of you in the audience today know, 3 1 radiation exists naturally everywhere. The majority of 2 an individual's exposure comes from natural sources, but 3 exposure to radiation levels above recommended levels 4 can impact human health. That's the reason why we 5 closely monitor and regulate the use of manmade 6 radiation. And that's behind why Congress directed EPA 7 to develop standards applicable to Yucca Mountain.

8 Our standards are intended to protect the 9 public from the hazards of radioactive waste that may be 10 disposed of at the facility at Yucca Mountain.

11 Yucca Mountain can only be opened and 12 operated if it meets EPA standards. So we're here today 13 to fulfill the specific role for Yucca Mountain that 14 Congress specified for EPA.

15 As Congress also directed, EPA's final 16 standards will be incorporated into the Nuclear 17 Regulatory Commission's licensing requirements for 18 Yucca Mountain. Then the Department of Energy will 19 apply for the license to operate the site.

20 Again, only if DOE can meet EPA standards 21 will this facility open.

22 In laying out the Agency's role, Congress 23 told us we needed to follow the expert advice of the 24 National Academy of Sciences, which is the premier, the 25 leading U. S. organization made up of scientists and 4 1 technical experts.

2 The National Academy of Sciences, in a 3 report to the Agency, said that our standards should 4 cover at least the time period when the highest releases 5 of radiation are mostly like to occur.

6 We first issued a Yucca Mountain standard in 7 2001. In July 2004, the Court ruled that the 8 10,000 year time period when the standards would be in 9 effect was inconsistent with the recommendations made to 10 us by the National Academy of Sciences.

11 It's important to point out that the Court 12 didn't rule that EPA standard was not protected, but 13 merely that our standards were not consistent with or 14 based on a longer time period when the highest doses of 15 radiation from the waste are most likely to occur.

16 We have now proposed a revised standard in 17 response to the Court's ruling. Our new proposed rule 18 limits radiation doses from Yucca Mountain for up to a 19 million years after it closes. No other rules in the 20 United States for any risks have ever attempted to 21 regulate for so long.

22 To meet this challenge, we have again 23 followed the best advice of the National Academy of 24 Sciences and the international scientific community.

25 For the first 10,000 years, we propose to 5 1 retain a dose limit of 15 millirem a year. This is 2 protection at the level of the most stringent radiation 3 regulations existing in the United States today.

4 From 10,000 to a million years, we propose a 5 dose limit of 350 millirem. This represents a total 6 radiation exposure for people living in the facility

7 vicinity of Yucca Mountain no higher than the national 8 levels people live with routinely in other parts of the 9 country.

10 One million years does include the time at 11 which the highest doses of radiation from the facility 12 are expected to occur. It represents 25,000 13 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 the corrosion of the 18 canisters.

19 We propose the revised standards to address 20 the issues specifically raised by the Court to reflect 21 sound science and its limitations, protect human health,

22 and provide clear guidance to the Nuclear Regulatory 23 Commission for licensing.

24 The proposed rule maintains the 25 protectiveness of the 2001 standards and addresses the 6 1 NAS advice by adding protections up to one million years 2 including the time when the highest dose of radiation 3 from the site is most likely to occur.

4 We look forward to hearing your comments on 5 our proposed approach to meeting this unprecedented 6 scientific challenge in setting standards to protect 7 human health for one million years.

8 Your comments will become part of the formal 9 records, as will all other comments received during this 10 three days in Las Vegas and hearings in Amargosa Valley,

11 in addition to any that are supplied subsequently 12 through November 21st to the Agency.

13 Again, I want to thank you for participating 14 in the hearings and the public comment process.

15 Mr. Ray Clark of EPA, the Yucca Mountain 16 team, will be here with me on this panel to hear and 17 listen to your comments. But I will now turn it over to 18 our hearing officer, Doug Sarno, to explain how the 19 hearing will actually proceed.

20 Doug.

21 MR. SARNO: Thank you, Elizabeth.

22 I will be inviting individuals up at the 23 appropriate time for your testimony as well as keeping 24 time for your testimony.

25 Testimony is in one of two blocks. 7 1 Individuals who are representing organizations will have 2 ten minutes in which to provide their testimony;

3 individuals representing themselves will have five 4 minutes.

5 I have four individuals signed up. I will 6 call them in order. And after that time, I will invite 7 anyone else who wishes to testify to also step forward.

8 Just as a reminder, this is not the only way 9 to get on the record with your comments. You  here 10 today, there are three different ways in the back of the 11 room over by the comment station to get on the record.

12 You can provide written comments, either ones you write 13 here, or you can provide us with written comments that 14 you brought with you. All of that will be put into the 15 record.

16 There's a tape recorder back there. If 17 you're more comfortable privately taping your comments,

18 please do it that way. There's also a computer in which 19 you can type your comments in. All those will find 20 their way directly into the record.

21 Also, there are a number of other ways that 22 you can do this through the Internet, through e mail, by 23 mailing, by faxings.

24 Everything is laid out in Fax Sheet No. 3 25 back there. And all of these pathways are, again, 8 1 available, as Elizabeth said, through November 21st.

2 So please take advantage of that, of that 3 opportunity, and know that all comments, regardless of 4 how they are submitted, are treated equally and given 5 the same weight in the consideration by EPA.

6 As I call folks up, I will start the time 7 period. I will let you know where you are in your time 8 period by holding up a two minute and one minute warning 9 signs just to give you a sense of where you are and try 10 not to interrupt your flow of testimony.

11 We will start with Mike Bauffman ( Phonetic)

12 from Lincoln County. He is representing Lincoln County,

13 and he will have ten minutes.

14 MR. BAUFFMAN: Thank you.

15 My name is Mike Bauffman, and I'm here today 16 to offer remarks on behalf of Lincoln County, Nevada,

17 and White Pine County, Nevada.

18 My comments today should be considered 19 preliminary and will be supplemented by written comments 20 to Docket ID No. OAR 2005 0083 to be submitted by 21 Lincoln County and White Pine County prior to 22 November 21, 2005.

23 Pursuant to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, as 24 amended, Lincoln County, Nevada, and White Pine County,

25 Nevada, are two of ten units of local government 9 1 designated by the Secretary of Energy as affected by the 2 proposed deep geologic repository at Yucca Mountain.

3 Since 1984, Lincoln County has undertaken an 4 effect program to oversee the Department of Energy's 5 program to implement the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, as 6 amended, specifically involving the deep  the proposed 7 deep geologic repository at Yucca Mountain. In a 8 related system, transport spent nuclear fuel and other 9 high level radioactive waste to the site.

10 Lincoln County and its only incorporated 11 jurisdiction, the City of Caliente, have established a 12 joint city/ county Impact Alleviation Committee to 13 oversee Yucca Mountain oversight activities.

14 Since its inception, the committee has met 15 in excess of 80 times. The committee's volunteer 16 members have contributed in excess of 2,000 hours in 17 reviewing Yucca Mountain activities and in providing 18 oversight program design and implementation advice to 19 the Lincoln County commission and the Caliente City 20 Council.

21 Under the direction of the committee,

22 Lincoln County and the City of Caliente have sponsored 23 nearly 75 technical reports covering a wide variety of 24 Yucca Mountain topics including assessment of risks,

25 transportation impact assessment, emergency 10 1 preparedness, risk perception, economic and physical 2 impact, stigma, and environmental impacts and land use 3 impacts of the repository system, among others.

4 Lincoln County is located downwind from the 5 proposed Yucca Mountain repository. Many residents of 6 Lincoln County were present during atmospheric tests of 7 nuclear weapons at Nevada Test Site. Some of the 8 residents have lost family members through 9 radiation induced cancer linked to downwind exposure 10 from above ground testing of nuclear weapons.

11 Lincoln County is, therefore, very concerned 12 about offsite exposure to radionuclides originating from 13 the Yucca Mountain site.

14 In like manner, White Pine County is located 15 downwind from the Nevada Test Site and the 16 Yucca Mountain repository site. Like Lincoln County,

17 White Pine County residents have lost family members to 18 cancer traced to exposure from above ground tests of 19 nuclear weapons at the Nevada Test Site.

20 Accordingly, both Lincoln County and White 21 Pine Counties are particularly concerned with features,

22 events, and processes which might result in 23 unanticipated atmospheric releases of radiation and 24 exposure consequences for residents living downwind of 25 the Yucca Mountain site. 11 1 Review by both counties of EPA's proposed 2 radiation standards for Yucca Mountain has been focused 3 largely upon the adequacy of EPA proposed multiple dose 4 standards regarding protection of public health and the 5 implication of said standards with regard to how EPA's 6 standards will affect the way the Department of Energy 7 conducts performance assessments relating to seismic and 8 igneous FEPs.

9 With regard to EPA's proposed multiple dose 10 standards, Lincoln and White Pine County believe said 11 standard adequately considers protection of public 12 health.

13 The near term standard requiring DOE to 14 demonstrate that a person living 11 miles away from the 15 Yucca Mountain site would be exposed to no more than 16 15 millirem of radiation per year during the first 17 10,000 years of repository operations appears 18 reasonable. This conclusion is based upon the fact that 19 a routine chest x ray emits 10 millirem, and a mammogram 20 emits 30 millirem, medical procedures which Lincoln and 21 White Pine County residents voluntarily undertake.

22 Concerning the longer term radiation 23 standard, Lincoln and White Pine Counties are concerned 24 that the proposed requirement that DOE demonstrate that 25 a person living 11 miles away from the Yucca Mountain 12 1 site would be exposed to no more than 350 millirem after 2 10,000 years of repository operations represents a 3 theoretically arbitrary and seemingly unjustifiable 4 increase between years 10,000 and 10,001 of repository 5 operations.

6 It is not clear how DOE will be able to 7 demonstrate through performance assessment that, in the 8 year 10,000, radiation exposure is limited to no more 9 than 50 millirem and then demonstrate that, in the year 10 10,001 of operations, the allowable exposure is 11 increased to 350 millirem.

12 EPA is encouraged to give further 13 consideration to the justification for and public health 14 implications of such a significant one year increase in 15 allowable exposure.

16 As it stands, Lincoln and White Pine County 17 residents are left wondering if EPA believes the 18 15 millirem standard is required to protect public 19 health and the environment during the first 10,000 years 20 of repository operation, why would the Agency ever 21 consider increasing the allowable exposure limit by a 22 factor of 23?

23 Conversely, if an exposure limit of 24 350 millirem provides for protection of public health 25 and the environment in the year 10,001, why would it 13 1 require a more stringent standard in prior years?

2 The public needs surety that EPA fully 3 understands the health and environmental consequences of 4 exposure to various levels of radiation. The proposed 5 public health and environmental radiation protection 6 standards for Yucca Mountain, Nevada, which are subject 7 to Docket ID OAR 2005 0083 serve to confuse rather than 8 reassure the public.

9 Thank you.

10 MS. COTSWORTH: Thank you.

11 MR. SARNO: Thank you very much.

12 Next up is Mr. Charles Taylor.

13 Mr. Taylor, you'll have five minutes.

14 MR. TAYLOR: Good morning. My name is 15 Charles Taylor.

16 I have a question. I heard you say that the 17 mountain could withstand earthquakes and everything 18 else, but what if there's a freaky accident, and it 19 happens within? How would we  how would I tell that 20 I've been exposed? I mean, what are the side effects if 21 I'm exposed? That's my question.

22 MR. SARNO: How do you want to handle this?

23 Deal with it afterwards?

24 The nature of this format right now is that 25 we are just listening. So there will be time afterward, 14 1 and the EPA folks will sit down with you and talk about 2 that. And anyone else who's interested in answers to 3 that question, after the formal hearing ends, we 4 certainly will have that conversation.

5 I apologize for the limitations for this,

6 the nature of this.

7 Next up is Charlotte Omahandro ( Phonetic).

8 MS. OMAHANDRO: My name is Charlotte 9 Omahandro, and I'm a resident of Las Vegas.

10 The EPA website states there is no safe 11 level of exposure to radiation. Radioactive groundwater 12 contamination from the Yucca Mountain repository is 13 inevitable due to its siting in a geologically unstable 14 area riddled with hundreds of known earthquake faults.

15 After the lethal contamination reaches 16 Lake Mead, less than 100 miles away, it eventually will 17 be carried down the watershed into the Baja California 18 where it will be dispersed into the Pacific Ocean.

19 How much radioactivity will it take to kill 20 the ocean? We don't know.

21 How much radioactivity will it take to kill 22 us? The ingestion of minute amounts will do the trick.

23 There are over 200 radioactive substances 24 produced in nuclear reactors. Many of them have 25 exceeding long half lives. For example, Plutonium 239, 15 1 one of the most poisonous substances known to man, has a 2 half life of 24,000 plus years. It causes genetic 3 damage that is carried through subsequent generations 4 without additional exposure.

5 Genetic damage, in practical terms, means 6 that your grandchildren won't look like you, and their 7 grandchildren won't look human. If there are any.

8 Given the exceedingly poor record of 9 radioactive contamination management at other sites 10 since World War II, the message is clear that the 11 federal government and the U. S. Congress considers the 12 Southwestern U. S. and Northwestern Mexico to be 13 expendable.

14 The irreversible effects of the 15 contamination from 177,000 tons of high level toxicity 16 or lethal radioactive material won't be felt for a few 17 generations, so current politicians feel safe from being 18 held accountable during their own lifetime. As long as 19 their present crop of local voters aren't freezing in 20 the dark or at immediate risk of deadly radioactive 21 contamination themselves, what do they care for the 22 future residents of Nevada, Arizona, California and 23 Mexico, or for the Pacific Ocean?

24 The radioactive contamination from 25 Yucca Mountain cannot be permanently contained, and we 16 1 all know it. There is no manmade structure that has 2 ever stood as long as the half life of Plutonium 239.

3 Yucca Mountain will eventually render an 4 enormous area of this country permanently unfit for 5 habitation. So the message is simple: Millions of 6 Southwesterners and our future generations are 7 expendable.

8 MS. COTSWORTH: Thank you.

9 MR. SARNO: Thank you.

10 Mr. Michael Sherwood.

11 MR. SHERWOOD: Thank you.

12 I would like to start by saying that I am 13 only 19 years old, and I am a UNLV student. My parents 14 moved here in 1988 with the intent of making money and a 15 better life.

16 But I'd like to tell you that I'm here today 17 to show you who you will be hurting. It is not your 18 problem, and it is not his problem, but it is our 19 problem. It is my children and my children's children 20 who will be affected by this inhumane radiation 21 standard.

22 And I'm not going to throw numbers at you 23 because we all know that you know the facts. You know 24 how these things are going to affect Nevadans.

25 I want it to be said that, if you continue 17 1 to set irrational standards, you and the Administration 2 you work for will be to blame.

3 According to the group Public Citizen, you 4 are proposing the most harmful radiation standards that 5 this world has ever seen. As far as the EPA radiation 6 standards goes, this is a bad thing in general. If we 7 allow standards like this to be approved in our society,

8 we will eventually perish. It is illogical, immoral,

9 and irresponsible to set standards with such apathy for 10 these American taxpayers.

11 It is my understanding that we call you the 12 Environmental Protection Agency, yet I don't know what 13 you're protecting.

14 So who is it that you're protecting?

15 Because it surely isn't this environment. With 16 standards like this, you have failed not only to protect 17 the environment but the people who inhabit this 18 environment.

19 If this standard stays, it will be known as 20 the greatest failing in American history. Yet I come 21 here optimistically, and I would like to believe that 22 you, all three of you, generally want to help us in this 23 cause.

24 Yet the ball is now in your court. You need 25 to ask yourselves if this is a rational decision. Even 18 1 if you may justify your standards, you know down in your 2 hearts and in the back of your minds that this is not a 3 justifiable action.

4 Yet the decision is yours, it is not mine.

5 The future of our environment is in your hands, and you 6 must make a responsible decision.

7 Please, I know you are kind and caring 8 people, but this decision will benefit all Americans if 9 you repeal this standard. And don't make a decision 10 that leaves the American people with uncertainty and 11 disdain.

12 The American way is the way of the people.

13 And to disrespect the wants and concerns of those people 14 is tyrannical at best. My suggestion to you is to 15 repeal this proposal at once.

16 And I thank you for your time.

17 MS. COTSWORTH: Thank you.

18 MR. SARNO: Thank you, Michael.

19 That is the end of those who have signed up 20 for testimony. Are there any others who wish to speak?

21 Yes, sir. Please come forward. Please 22 state your name for the record and whether or not you 23 are representing an organization.

24 MR. SNYDER: My name is John Snyder, the son 25 of Albert and Bessie Snyder of Covington, Ohio, a little 19 1 town north of Dayton, Ohio.

2 I'm here on personal business that is 3 related to atomic energy. I cannot divulge what it is,

4 but I can tell you that, in the future, there is going 5 to be a day dawn according to God, his spirit; that we 6 will be able to denature radioactivity and put it back 7 in the ore state.

8 For I have seen it in my mind's eye. And in 9 that ore state, you will be able to store it in 10 alluminum clad paper sacks. If you drop it on the floor 11 and bust it apart, in its denatured condition, you'll be 12 able to take a dust pan and a broom, sweep it up, and 13 put it in a sack. God has shown me this in visions.

14 And I want to say something about the people 15 who are sitting before you up there. These people have 16 families that live here too. They're just as concerned 17 about this radioactivity, about their families, as we 18 are. They are our Americans, you are Americans with us.

19 And I want to tell you, when they dropped 20 the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, I was 21 a 16 year old. I remember that like it was yesterday.

22 From that day down to today, 60 years later, I have yet 23 to recall any incident in the newspapers or on 24 television of any major nuclear accident where people 25 got killed by the hundreds and thousands. It is not 20 1 there.

2 I'm telling you I have the utmost confidence 3 in our energy commission. God bless them, they have 4 done a wonderful job in the last 60 years. And I highly 5 commend you for it.

6 In Jesus' name, thank you.

7 MS. COTSWORTH: Thank you.

8 MR. SARNO: Thank you, Mr. Snyder.

9 Are there any other individuals who would 10 like to offer formal testimony at this time?

11 Yes, sir. Go ahead.

12 MR. WATKINS: Lowell Watkins, Nye County.

13 I'm the chairman of the Democrat Central Committee, also 14 in Nye County. A former 18 year Test Site worker.

15 I would hope that you guys wouldn't lower 16 the standard. It's dangerous as it is. I did work at 17 the Test Site 18 years, and you read in the newspaper 18 every day about people that have been at the Test Site 19 working that's dying.

20 I'm strictly against Yucca Mountain. I live 21 approximately 45 miles away, and I don't think it's 22 good. I don't like the low level waste that we have 23 coming through Pahrump, Nevada, and I think it's 24 dangerous. And I just like to be on record saying that.

25 Thank you. 21 1 MR. SARNO: Thank you very much.

2 Yes, sir.

3 MR. DECLEVER ( Phonetic): Good morning. My 4 name is Ritchie DeClever, and I work at  for the 5 Yucca Mountain Project. I've been in the nuclear 6 industry since 1958, had a heart attack in 1980. And 7 I'm a great proponent of nuclear science in general.

8 From the time I had my heart attack, I asked 9 my internal medicine specialist, cardiologist, why I was 10 in the hospital at that time. Didn't know. But he took 11 a blood sample and realized that my metabolism was way 12 up there.

13 Well, what can we do about your metabolism?

14 So he suggested that we bring the level of the thyroid 15 condition down since it regulates metabolism. So he 16 gave me an Iodine 131 radioactive pill at the time 17 rather than undergoing surgery.

18 So I had the Iodine 131 pill to, basically,

19 disintegrate my thyroid in 1980. And I've been taking 20 Synthroid ever since. Since then I haven't had any 21 further heart attacks, but I've been injected probably a 22 dozen times with a technician for stress testing.

23 So, again, nuclear science has an advantage 24 to improving the life, enhancing the quality of life.

25 And medicine is certainly one area which we see that in 22 1 day to day activities.

2 I am a proponent of your standard. I think 3 it will work. In terms of danger, as with commercial 4 nuclear facilities, the individuals working at the 5 station or at the mountain experience the highest 6 dangers. The public, basically, experience no danger at 7 all.

8 I worked at Hanford. And an interesting 9 story I'd like to relate, about three weeks ago, a Nobel 10 Laureate, presented a paper in Vienna, Austria. And he 11 presented it concerning energy and waste. And the main 12 emphasis was the fact was that if we, in the U. S.,

13 continue at a 20 percent nuclear generation of 14 electricity, as we  as we are now from the mix of 15 fossil fuel, hydro, solar, et cetera, for the next 16 century, we will need nine repositories.

17 So we should consider Yucca Mountain as a 18 prototype, basically, for the future repositories.

19 Unless, as this gentleman indicated, we get into an 20 accelerated decay phenomenon, which hopefully our 21 scientists are working on in Argonne and in our national 22 laboratories.

23 So the important thing here is that we have 24 several options. The once through concept that we are 25 exercising now and at the same energy generation rate, 23 1 we will need nine repositories within this century, over 2 the next 95 years.

3 Or if we went to a processing mode, as the 4 French are doing, and as we did at Hanford, and we 5 generated 57 million gallons of sludge and high level 6 waste, which will eventually be vitrified and go into 7 Yucca Mountain as the 10 percent of high level waste.

8 So I leave you with that thought in mind.

9 But nuclear energy or nuclear science is a  is a great 10 field, and it's just evolving. And so let's not stop it 11 at Yucca Mountain, let's complete the nuclear fuel 12 cycle.

13 Thank you.

14 MS. COTSWORTH: Thank you.

15 MR. SARNO: Thank you.

16 There's a gentleman back there first. I 17 forgot the order.

18 Yes, sir, you.

19 MR. CHERRY ( Phonetic): My name is 20 David Cherry, and I'm here today both in a capacity 21 representing the Office of Congresswoman Shelley Berkley 22 of Nevada. The Congresswoman could not be here today 23 due to the Congressional voting schedule. She had to 24 return to Washington D. C. But she was among those who 25 had requested that EPA add this third day of hearings in 24 1 Las Vegas to allow as many people as possible to attend.

2 So we thank EPA. She thanks EPA for making 3 that possible and is glad that we had this additional 4 day to talk about this important subject.

5 The Congresswoman will be submitting full 6 written comments to the record.

7 So I would also like to just add some 8 comments on behalf of myself. I was born here in 9 Las Vegas and was a resident for the first 27 years of 10 my life. I now live in Washington D. C., but I still 11 have family who live here in Las Vegas.

12 I think what's important is, in addition to 13 talking about radiation and its effects on human beings 14 and the potential that Yucca Mountain has to create harm 15 to those living in Nevada, I think it's important that,

16 also, the record reflect what the law requires the 17 Environmental Protection Agency to do in this case and 18 to look at the reason that we're here today. And that's 19 because of a Court ruling that said that EPA failed in 20 its first attempt to satisfy the requirements set down 21 by Congress to address the issue of radiation 22 contamination that would be released by Yucca Mountain.

23 The reason EPA failed the first time out is 24 because its standards were ruled to be arbitrary and not 25 in keeping with the recommendations made by the National 25 1 Academy of Sciences, as required by Congress, under the 2 law which created Yucca Mountain.

3 Again, what we're faced with is a move by 4 the Environmental Protection Agency to ignore the words 5 that were set forth by the National Academy of Sciences 6 in its report on this  the activities that are 7 supposed to take place at Yucca Mountain.

8 The idea expressed by NAS was that the 9 standard would be protective over the course of the 10 repository's life span and with particular attention 11 being paid to the maximum radiation doses and when they 12 would be released. And if that's not to occur for the 13 first 300,000 years or more, it's impossible to believe 14 that EPA would set a standard which would suddenly,

15 after the first 10,000 years, allow for an enormous 16 increase in the amount of radiation that would be 17 emitted from the site.

18 That 10,000 years, again, seems to be an 19 arbitrary standard not in keeping with the idea that it 20 will be another 290,000 years before we even hit the 21 maximum dose.

22 So if we're protecting at a level of 23 15 millirem for the first 10,000 years, there seems to 24 be no logic, especially in keeping with the advice of 25 the National Academy of Sciences, that the radiation 26 1 standard take into account the entire life cycle of the 2 waste.

3 And I would think that a single standard 4 that was offered the maximum protection and that would 5 cover the entire million years that you now propose 6 would be in keeping with what the National Academy of 7 Sciences said was required under the law.

8 And so, again, if you said what is called a 9 bifurcated or a dual standard, you are again ignoring 10 the directions of what are our formal  some of the 11 formal scientists in this field who were employed by the 12 National Academy to make that determination. And it was 13 important enough that Congress required that in the law.

14 And for EPA not to, again, turn to those

15 to both the guidance of Congress and to the guidance of 16 the scientists seems to be inviting additional Court 17 action and, perhaps, this new standard being tossed out 18 and having to start all over again.

19 So in terms of the process being one that 20 looks at what's happened in the past and tries to take 21 into account mistakes that were already made, I would 22 encourage you and those who have a say in this to think 23 about what happened the last time, and make sure that 24 you're following the law and following the scientific 25 guidelines. 27 1 Thank you.

2 MS. COTSWORTH: Thank you.

3 MR. SARNO: Thank you very much.

4 I have this lady in the front.

5 MS. COTRON ( Phonetic): My name is 6 Gigi Cotron. I go in 2004 against Jim Gibbons. I'm not 7 opposed Yucca Mountain.

8 Thank you for being here and I wish you 9 luck.

10 Now, I want to talk to the average layman 11 and laywoman and tell them that we have always been 12 afraid of things that we don't know. Maybe 13 Yucca Mountain didn't use the nuclear reactors for a 14 good purpose before. But I'm going to give you the 15 benefit of the doubt. Nuclear reactors can be used for 16 electricity, which we are going to need in the next 17 years.

18 Like the people before me, they say France 19 is using them. Iran says they are using it. Korea 20 supposedly is using it for good uses.

21 So nuclear power can be used for electricity 22 and other good things.

23 I'm saying this in simple words so the 24 average men and women can understand it.

25 Thank you. 28 1 MS. COTSWORTH: Thank you.

2 MR. SARNO: Thank you very much.

3 MR. ABBEY ( Phonetic): Good morning. My 4 name is Joshua Abbey, and I'm a citizen of Nevada. And 5 I thank you for allowing the citizens of Nevada to have 6 an opportunity to share feedback with you.

7 In your introduction, the comment that you 8 made that made the biggest impression on me was the 9 unprecedented challenge that exists here, trying to 10 project for a time span of one million years.

11 And I think that brings to the EPA a level 12 of responsibility that is also unprecedented. And when 13 considering the larger scope of the implications of 14 Yucca Mountain, in terms of the variables and 15 potentialities that can occur over a time span of that 16 magnitude, I wish you only luck in trying to take that 17 responsibility and live with the decisions that you 18 make.

19 When the gentleman who was working in the 20 nuclear industry a moment ago said, in all likelihood,

21 if Yucca Mountain is approved, we'll need many, many 22 repositories within this century.

23 What does that really mean? Doesn't this 24 law and your certification and recommendation really 25 give the green light to the manifestation of many, many, 29 1 more nuclear reactors being built in America? Many,

2 many, more repositories and all of the potential 3 impacts  granted, some positive in terms of the energy 4 that it produces  but more importantly, in relation to 5 what we're discussing today, devastatingly negative 6 consequences?

7 Remember, the scope of this also includes 8 the transportation. I think that's very important 9 because the standards, when they talk to human 10 intrusion, are not limited to human intrusion at 11 Yucca Mountain. Anywhere along the transportation 12 routes near the major metropolises of this country,

13 human intrusion can underline the safety of those 14 containers and cause a devastation unlike anything we've 15 ever experienced.

16 And, again, you at EPA are charged with that 17 responsibility to ensure our safety. So please consider 18 those factors as well.

19 Thank you.

20 MS. COTSWORTH: Thank you.

21 MR. SARNO: Thank you very much.

22 Are there any other individuals who would 23 like to testify at this time?

24 Yes.

25 MS. DRYCAL ( Phonetic): My name is Judy 30 1 Drycal. I'm with the Nevada Nuclear Waste Task Force.

2 And I just wanted to clear up a couple of loose ends.

3 I've been to other hearings, and there were a few things 4 that were not put on the record.

5 You're writing a Yucca Mountain specific 6 standard. But I think it's more accurate to say that 7 you're writing this standard specific to what you refer 8 to as the RME, the reasonably maximally exposed 9 individual, which is a resident of Amargosa Valley.

10 And we talk about deep geologic disposal.

11 And, yes, the waste would be a thousand feet below the 12 surface, the very top of Yucca Mountain. But it sits a 13 thousand feet over the heads of the people who live in 14 Amargosa Valley. They live at an elevation of about 15 2,000 feet. The waste is buried at an elevation of 16 about 3,000 feet.

17 So when the waste comes down and gets into 18 the water table, which everyone knows that it will

19 the question is when  it goes to Amargosa Valley where 20 the water table is very close to the surface. And, in 21 fact, at some times, like in the spring, that water 22 comes to the surface, and the Amargosa River runs.

23 And we have pictures from this previous 24 spring in which many roads were closed, washed out, and 25 a lot of problems occurred out there because the 31 1 Amargosa River was running and looked just like an 2 all the time, everywhere river. But at this time of the 3 year, you can't find it except for the trees. You see 4 the green line that goes along where things are growing,

5 and that means the Amargosa River is underneath it.

6 But there was a question raised by a man out 7 at Amargosa Valley, and who's a resident out there, who 8 knew about background radiation because he does a lot of 9 monitoring. And he asked you to check with on the 10 ground, what they  what they know about that.

11 But you really need, because you're writing 12 an area specific standard, you need to understand that 13 area very well and realize that the groundwater is the 14 transport mode for this waste and just how that works.

15 And just the groundwater, which we think of as being 16 somewhere way, way down at the end of a well, sometimes 17 joins the people and the animals and everything that's 18 out there.

19 And in your rule, you write about realism 20 versus conservative assumptions when dealing with 21 uncertainties. Well, the water patterns out there 22 aren't terribly uncertain. And you have an excellent 23 chance to see realistic records of this. And I can even 24 send you the pictures if you'd like. People out there 25 take them and send them to me. And I took some myself. 32 1 I also want you to pay some attention to 2 cumulative doses. With the nuclear industry and the 3 nuclear cycle having to do with nuclear power, the limit 4 is 100 millirem from all  all sources. And when you 5 come in with the 350, which is very, very, high, I'm not 6 sure that's supposed to be added to background, which 7 would now, I guess, include whatever is emitting from 8 the low level dose site that's nearby from the Nevada 9 Test Site, from other nuclear activities out there.

10 But remember the Bush Administration has 11 asked that there be a shortened time for resumption of 12 testing. It used to be three years, now it's 18 months.

13 And I'm not sure what their plans are, but there's been 14 talk about resumption of testing for new nuclear 15 weapons. And I think you need to check through  or 16 Mr. Johnson, the head of the EPA, needs to check with 17 his counterpart in the Cabinet about what their  what 18 their plans are so that there may be, in fact,

19 cumulative doses. And would Yucca Mountain put the 20 skids on resumed nuclear testing, or would that somehow 21 make an impact on Yucca Mountain?

22 You know, it's a kind of chicken and egg 23 sort of thing. But they need to be considered together.

24 Thank you.

25 MS. COTSWORTH: Thank you. 33 1 MR. SARNO: Thank you, Miss Drycal.

2 Any other individuals who wish to comment?

3 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I just want to add 4 that I live in Pahrump, which is not far from 5 Yucca Mountain. And I've been in Amargosa quite often.

6 And I have no  I haven't seen anything that is 7 unusual. I drink the water. And I'm back in Pahrump,

8 and I'm not so far from Yucca Mountain. I'm actually 9 very close.

10 MR. SARNO: Thank you.

11 MS. COTSWORTH: Thank you.

12 MR. SARNO: We will remain here until 13 noontime, as posted. But unless I see anyone else, we 14 will adjourn for the moment.

15 And those of you who have questions of EPA,

16 feel free to come up and chat with folks. And we'll 17 just interrupt it if we have another formal comment.

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 102 (Thursday, May 28, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 30480]
[FR Doc No: 2015-12916]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4218-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2015-0002]

Kentucky; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the Commonwealth of Kentucky (FEMA-4218-DR), dated May 12,
2015, and related determinations.

DATES: Effective date: May 12, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated May 12, 2015, the President issued a major disaster declaration
under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford
Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the
Commonwealth of Kentucky resulting from a severe winter storm,
snowstorm, flooding, landslides, and mudslides during the period of
March 3-9, 2015, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant
a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the
``Stafford Act''). Therefore, I declare that such a major disaster
exists in the Commonwealth of Kentucky.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the
designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the Commonwealth.
You are further authorized to provide snow assistance under the
Public Assistance program for a limited period of time during or
proximate to the incident period. Consistent with the requirement
that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided
under the Stafford Act for Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75
percent of the total eligible costs. Federal funds provided under
the Stafford Act for Public Assistance also will be limited to 75
percent of the total eligible costs, with the exception of projects
that meet the eligibility criteria for a higher Federal cost-sharing
percentage under the Public Assistance Alternative Procedures Pilot
Program for Debris Removal implemented pursuant to section 428 of
the Stafford Act.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, Joe M. Girot, of FEMA is appointed
to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
    The following areas of the Commonwealth of Kentucky have been
designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Anderson, Bell, Bourbon, Boyd, Breathitt, Bullitt, Butler,
Calloway, Carter, Casey, Clay, Daviess, Elliott, Estill, Fleming,
Floyd, Franklin, Fulton, Gallatin, Grant, Greenup, Hancock,
Harrison, Hart, Jackson, Johnson, Knott, Knox, LaRue, Lawrence, Lee,
Leslie, Letcher, Lewis, Magoffin, Marshall, Martin, Mason, Menifee,
Metcalfe, Morgan, Nicholas, Ohio, Owen, Owsley, Perry, Pike, Powell,
Robertson, Rockcastle, Rowan, Spencer, Trigg, Washington, Webster,
Whitley, and Woodford Counties for Public Assistance.
    Anderson, Boyd, Bourbon, Bullitt, Butler, Calloway, Carter,
Daviess, Fleming, Franklin, Fulton, Gallatin, Grant, Hancock,
Harrison, Hart, LaRue, Lewis, Marshall, Mason, Nicholas, Ohio, Owen,
Robertson, Rowan, Spencer, Trigg, Washington, and Woodford Counties
for snow assistance under the Public Assistance program for any
continuous 48-hour period during or proximate the incident period.
    All areas within the Commonwealth of Kentucky are eligible for
assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2015-12916 Filed 5-27-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 104 (Wednesday, May 30, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24694-24696]
[FR Doc No: 2018-11430]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2018-0453; Product Identifier 2018-NM-028-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc., Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Bombardier, Inc., Model DHC-8-400 series airplanes. This
proposed AD was prompted by reports of the nose landing gear (NLG)
locking in a partially extended position due to loose bushings on the
lock link of the NLG locking mechanism. This proposed AD would require
inspecting the bushings and the lower lock link of the NLG for
discrepancies, and corrective actions if necessary. We are proposing
this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 16, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact
Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt Boulevard,
Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: 416-
375-4539; email: [email protected]; internet: http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this service information at the FAA,
Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-
231-3195.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://

www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-
0453; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received,
and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations
office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments
will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cesar Gomez, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe and Mechanical Systems Section, New York ACO Branch, FAA, 1600
Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2018-0453;
Product Identifier 2018-NM-028-AD'' at the beginning of your comments.
We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. We will consider all
comments received by the closing date and may amend this NPRM based on
those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this NPRM.

Discussion

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation
authority for Canada, has issued Canadian AD CF-2018-01, dated January
24, 2018 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing
Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe
condition for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model DHC-8-400 series
airplanes. The MCAI states:

    A landing incident took place whereby the aeroplane's nose
landing gear (NLG) was locked in a partially-extended position,
leading to gear collapse upon NLG touch down. The investigation
revealed that the NLG was locked in this position due to the
bushings on the lock link of the NLG locking mechanism becoming
loose. This condition was present due to insufficient interference
fit which resulted in some bushing outer diameter wear and fretting.
A dislodged bushing will also cause the bushing sealant to break.
Broken sealant allows moisture ingress and corrosion that can
accelerate free play buildup. Excessive free play at the lock link
can result in the inability to fully retract or deploy the NLG,
resulting in a risk of NLG collapse on landing.
    Bombardier Inc. has developed an inspection to identify and
correct this condition. This [Canadian] AD requires a repetitive
inspection and corrective actions based on the inspection findings.

    Discrepancies include any signs of migration of the bushings,
broken or missing edge sealant, diagonal paint cracks on the sealant,
and paint stripe misalignment. You may examine the MCAI in the AD
docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for
and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0453.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Bombardier has issued Service Bulletin 84-32-153, dated September
22, 2017. The service information describes procedures for a visual
inspection of the bushings and the lower lock link of the NLG for
discrepancies. The service bulletin also describes procedures for
repair or replacement of the lock link if any discrepancy is found.
This service information is reasonably available because the interested
parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by
the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 82 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
             Action                     Labor cost          Parts cost     Cost per product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection.....................  2 work-hours x $85 per               $0  $170 per            $13,940 per
                                  hour = $170 per                          inspection cycle.   inspection cycle.
                                  inspection cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed
AD.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.
    This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated
by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as
authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order,
issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and
Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the
Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable
to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight
Division.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the

distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

Bombardier, Inc.: Docket No. FAA-2018-0453; Product Identifier 2018-
NM-028-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by July 16, 2018.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc., Model DHC-8-400, -401, and
-402 airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 4001
and subsequent.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32, Landing
gear.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of the nose landing gear (NLG)
locking in a partially extended position due to loose bushings on
the lock link of the NLG locking mechanism. We are issuing this AD
to detect and correct excessive free play at the lock link of the
NLG locking mechanism, and consequent inability to fully retract or
deploy the NLG, which could result in collapse of the NLG and affect
the safe landing of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Repetitive Inspections and Corrective Actions

    Do a general visual inspection of the bushings and the lower
lock link of the NLG locking mechanism for discrepancies, at the
applicable time specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD,
in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier
Service Bulletin 84-32-153, dated September 22, 2017. If any
discrepancy is found, before further flight, repair or replace the
lower lock link, as applicable. Repeat the inspection thereafter at
intervals not to exceed 1,600 flight cycles.
    (1) For airplanes on which all NLG lower lock links have
accumulated 7,200 or fewer total flight cycles as of the effective
date of this AD: Before the accumulation of 8,000 total flight
cycles.
    (2) For airplanes on which any NLG lower lock link has
accumulated more than 7,200 total flight cycles as of the effective
date of this AD: Within 800 flight cycles after the effective date
of this AD.

(h) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In
accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal
inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate.
If sending information directly to the manager of the New York ACO
Branch, send it to ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing Operational
Safety, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,
Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before
using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal
inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the
local flight standards district office/certificate holding district
office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO
Branch, FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA); or TCCA
Design Approval Organization (DAO). If approved by the DAO, the
approval must include the DAO-authorized signature.

(i) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) Canadian AD CF-2018-01, dated January 24, 2018, for related
information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet
at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket
No. FAA-2018-0453.
    (2) For more information about this AD, Cesar Gomez, Aerospace
Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Section, New York ACO
Branch, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt
Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone: 416-375-
4000; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected];
internet: http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this service
information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th
St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on May 14, 2018.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-11430 Filed 5-29-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P