Roundtable
Discussion
Summaries
Amargosa
Valley
10/
3/
05:
Key
Questions
Raised
During
Roundtable
Discussion

What
is
the
"
worst
case
release"
for
the
facility?


If
workers
can
face
up
to
500
millirems/
year
why
is
the
public
limit
350/
year?
(
What
is
the
threshold
of
negative
health
effects?)


What
limit
did
the
NAS
recommend?


15
millirem
additional
to
what?


How
did
EPA
go
from
15
to
350,
and
aren't
we
talking
about
these
numbers
in
addition
to
natural
background
levels?


Has
EPA
done
the
calculations
to
estimate
occurrences
of
cancer
due
to
exposure
from
Yucca
Mountain?


How
well
can
it
be
demonstrated
that
the
facility
will
actually
meet
the
limits?


Why
wasn't
local
data
on
radon
levels
used?


What
was
the
background
in
Carlsbad
prior
to
WIPP
and
what
they
are
now?
(
With
WIPP
in
operation?)


What
effect
does
the
old
NRDS
project
have
on
levels
today?


Why
isn't
it
safe
to
be
exposed
to
350
millirems
today
if
it
is
safe
in
10,000
years?


What
is
the
standard
of
what
is
safe
for
my
body
 
today
or
in
the
future?


What
is
the
groundwater
standard
for
the
first
10,000
years
and
why
isn't
there
one
after
that?

10/
3/
05:
Key
Roundtable
Comments

Record
of
110
millirems/
year
in
Amargosa
(
plus
radon
200
millirems)


We
are
far
below
national
average

Value
Mountain
on
a
spiritual
level.


Emphasis
on
"
long
time"
misleading
 
issue
is
how
well
DOE
understands
the
site.


DOE
must
provide
credible
science
evidence
that
it
can
be
met
such
that
Yucca
does
not
create
unacceptable
doses.


Need
to
get
a
real
number
for
background
in
Amargosa.


Making
this
hard
by
fighting
for
the
15
mR
 
the
burden
of
proof
should
be
on
DOE.


EPA
should
only
have
burden
to
what
is
safe.


Not
true
that
no
one
will
receive
a
dose
above
background
 
calculation
is
a
median,
not
a
ceiling.


NRDS
has
been
included
in
background.


Doorman
at
the
Waldorf
Astoria
gets
a
higher
dose
than
rad
worker
from
granite.


Big
difference
between
WIPP
and
Yucca:
no
one
drinks
from
groundwater
at
WIPP,
and
Yucca
has
large
dairy
and
wells.

Las
Vegas
10/
4/
05:
Key
Questions
Raised
During
Roundtable
Discussion

Why
aren't
the
recommendations
of
the
Bier
Report
incorporated
into
the
Standards?


What
scientific
justification
is
there
for
limits
on
radioactivity
in
water?


Is
EPA
considering
the
effects
of
different
types
of
radiation?


What
is
acceptable
incidence
of
disease/
sickness
from
lead,
asbestos?


Why
350?


Why
does
EPA
use
Colorado
as
a
comparison?


Why
aren't
workers
treated
as
members
of
the
public?

Why
can't
we
have
a
rule
that
any
subs
in
violation
of
standards
lose
their
contract?


The
safest
item
on
the
list
is
living
next
to
a
nuclear
power
plant,
so
why
are
we
moving
waste
from
there?

10/
4/
05:
Key
Roundtable
Comments

The
Shoshone
do
not
want
to
accept
money
to
agree
to
accept
nuclear
waste
on
their
traditional
lands.
Waste
should
be
buried
at
the
location
where
it
originated.


There
is
a
lack
of
logic
in
the
increased
limit
(
350
millirem).
EPA
is
raising
the
cancer
risk
through
this
increase.
People
are
not
any
more
capable
of
withstanding
that
amount
in
the
future.


It's
clear
that
the
public
comments
don't
matter,
since
the
NRC
is
already
writing
their
standards
based
on
EPA's
"
proposed"
standards.


EPA
has
said
that
doses
of
over
100
millirems/
year
produce
"
unacceptable
risk"
so
a
dose
of
350
is
unacceptable
to
the
public.


Sound
science
and
protecting
public
health
are
not
synonymous
with
Bush
administration.


Nevada
says
no.
The
is
similar
to
tobacco
industry,
who
said
tobacco
was
safe

No
risk
is
acceptable.
No
Nevada
resident
wants
to
live
near
a
nuclear
dump.


It
is
not
fair
that
Utah
got
rid
of
its
plans
for
nuclear
waste,
but
NV
can't.


Tribal
people
nearby
Yucca
Mountain
bear
a
disproportionate
burden
for
the
radioactivity
that
comes
from
the
nuclear
waste.


The
Government
does
not
protect
Native
Peoples
from
radiation.
They
cannot
"
just
move
away."


The
land
needs
to
be
kept
as
clean
and
healthy
as
possible
 
you
can't
fix
it
if
it's
damaged.


Many
people
who
will
be
injured
by
the
Yucca
Mountain
Project
will
not
be
able
to
fight
for
their
rights.


Workers
or
subcontractors
on
the
project
should
be
protected
like
the
public.


If
subcontractors
violate
codes
of
conduct
they
should
automatically
lose
their
contracts.


How
can
EPA
know
what
background
radiation
levels
will
be
like
in
10,000
years?


There
should
be
an
additional
30
days
for
tribal
people
to
consult
with
EPA
 
and
a
meeting
in
Elko.


There
is
too
much
uncertainty
involved
in
ensuring
the
facility
can
meet
its
limits.


The
Federal
Register
states
that
this
ruling
does
not
affect
tribes
 
which
is
wrong.


The
comment
period
needs
to
be
extended
for
a
long
time
in
order
to
engage
tribes
who
don't
use
the
science
that
government
uses.


Groundwater
is
the
most
important
receptor,
not
background
levels
of
radiation,
as
a
benchmark.
