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
