1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 DRAFT SITE-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR 11 CONTINUED OPERATION OF LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY, LOS ALAMOS NEW MEXICO 12 Public Hearing 13 August 10, 2006 6:30 p.m. 14 Santa Fe Community College 6401 Richards Avenue 15 Santa Fe, New Mexico 87508 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 REPORTED BY: Jan A. Williams, RPR, CCR 14 Bean & Associates, Inc. 23 Professional Court Reporting Service 500 Marquette, Northwest, Suite 280 24 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102 25 (1563A) JAW 2 1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 (Comments given to court reporter.) 3 GERI JARAMILLO: Basically I'm just really 4 against the idea of creating more destruction, adding 5 more bombs and more death, anything more that adds to 6 more death in the world. We have so much technology 7 out there today, we have so many brilliant people in 8 the world that are so capable of creating worthwhile 9 things for this planet so that we can all live in 10 harmony, so that we can all live on a planet that we 11 will enjoy. 12 And the way we can enjoy is by getting those 13 brilliant minds to create worthwhile, clean, green 14 planet-friendly inventions and give us better ideas to 15 live harmoniously. And everybody in the world 16 deserves to live with clean water, good shelter, a 17 job, be able to live in harmony without having to fear 18 for their lives because of a war or because of hunger. 19 And we have the capability of creating such a 20 world today. And why bring more chaos, that is 21 unfathomable. 22 TIM ORIGER: So what I wanted to address, I 23 want to have them address or LANL address, I read in 24 documentation that every year they're planning to 25 release up to 6,900 pounds of depleted uranium into 3 1 the open air, which will go down over San Idelfonso 2 Pueblo and be carried on the wind. 3 And the government hasn't done adequate 4 research as yet on the long-range impact of depleted 5 uranium on human beings. We have several troops that 6 are coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan that have 7 been exposed to depleted uranium that are having 8 cancers occur and genetic mutations that are believed 9 to be connected to exposure to depleted uranium. 10 They have a 700 or 7,000 percent increase in 11 leukemia in Iraq due to exposure to depleted uranium. 12 There's been research done throughout Europe, Germany, 13 and England in specific that shows a connection 14 between these cancers and exposure to depleted 15 uranium. 16 How can they release -- if this is a toxic 17 material, how can they release that in a public area, 18 onto the public, onto civilian populations downwind 19 from the lab. That's my question. And that's one of 20 the things that I want addressed. 21 I think that's something that, before they 22 can produce more or release more, that's something 23 they should definitely have researched more. So there 24 should be extensive studies on the impact of depleted 25 uranium on human beings. 4 1 (The hearing commences.) 2 MS. WITHERS: Folks, we're going to go ahead 3 and start the hearing. It's about 6:30. So, if you 4 don't mind coming in and having a seat, we'll go ahead 5 and get started. 6 There's a lot of vacant chairs, if folks want 7 to come ahead and pick a chair and have a seat. If 8 you choose to stand, please find a place that's 9 comfortable for you. Just please do not block the 10 exit doors. The fire marshall is very adamant about 11 us keeping the exit doors free. 12 There are exit doors on both sides of the 13 room. And there are exit doors on the west side of 14 the building as well as the east side of the building. 15 So please, in the event of an emergency, go to the 16 exit door nearest to you and exit the room and the 17 building. 18 Our first order of business tonight is going 19 to be determining whether anyone needs the services of 20 an English-Spanish language translation. We do have a 21 translator with us here tonight, Mr. Jose Palomino. 22 And I'll ask Jose to go ahead and come up and 23 determine the need for such services. 24 MR. PALOMINO: (Speaking in Spanish). 25 MS. WITHERS: My name is Elizabeth Withers, I 5 1 work with the Department of Energy, and I'm the 2 document manager for the preparation of the draft 3 site-wide environmental impact statement for continued 4 operation of Los Alamos National Laboratory. 5 This document is the subject of tonight's 6 hearing. But, before we proceed with the hearing, I'd 7 like to introduce you to Mr. Ed Wilmot. Ed is the 8 manager of the Los Alamos Site Office for the National 9 Nuclear Security Administration. 10 ED WILMOT: Thank you, Elizabeth. A very 11 short message. We want to make sure and get your 12 comments. We'll give you as much time as possible for 13 that. The short message is to thank you for being 14 here tonight. We know it's time away from your 15 families and we do appreciate the time and effort that 16 it takes to come and present information tonight. 17 So thank you very much for that. Your input 18 is important to us. The NEPA process is one that 19 we're very concerned to get good accurate information. 20 The document, the draft site-wide EIS that Elizabeth 21 is preparing, is a work in progress. 22 And so we do need good accurate information 23 that we can provide to the decision-maker who is 24 Ambassador Brooks who is the administrator for the 25 National Nuclear Security Administration in 6 1 Washington. He will be using the information from 2 this document to make decisions and it needs to be 3 accurate. 4 So I do appreciate again your being here. I 5 appreciate the hard work that Elizabeth and the LANL 6 support team and the SAIC team has done. But most of 7 all again I thank you for your time and effort for 8 being here tonight. And I'll turn it back to 9 Elizabeth. Thank you very much. 10 MS. WITHERS: I'd like to take just a few 11 minutes before I in turn turn the floor over to 12 tonight's moderator to just very, very briefly 13 describe the site-wide environmental impact statement 14 and also our compliance process with the National 15 Environmental Policy Act. 16 The National Environmental Policy Act 17 effectively became law in 1970. And the implementing 18 regulations require us as federal agencies to hold a 19 public review and comment period on all draft 20 environmental impact statements and also to hold 21 public hearings. 22 This document is tonight's subject. And the 23 purpose of tonight's meeting is to offer you all the 24 opportunity to learn more about the ongoing operations 25 at Los Alamos National Laboratory about the proposed 7 1 projects over the next five-year horizon and also to 2 offer you all an opportunity to make comments on this 3 draft site-wide environmental impact statement. 4 This draft site-wide environmental impact 5 statement is the third in a line of site-wide 6 environmental impact statements that we prepare for 7 the operation of Los Alamos National Laboratory. The 8 first document was prepared and issued in 1979. The 9 second more recent document was issued in 1999. And 10 this is the third site-wide environmental impact 11 statement. And we hope to have this document ready to 12 be issued as a final document in early to mid 2007. 13 Like it's 1999 predecessor, this site-wide 14 environmental impact statement looks at three 15 alternatives for the operation of Los Alamos National 16 Laboratory. It considers a no action alternative, a 17 reduced operations alternative, and an expanded 18 operations alternative. 19 We have summary tables available out at the 20 front desk for you to take home with you tonight that 21 describe the impacts from operating Los Alamos 22 National Laboratory at each of these three levels of 23 operation. These are analyzed across the different 24 resource areas, natural and cultural resource areas 25 that are to be found in the Los Alamos region. 8 1 Additionally, we have provided summary tables 2 for each of the proposed projects so you can see the 3 impacts by project and also rolled up as a total for 4 the entire alternative. In a nutshell the 5 environmental impacts are to be expected if the 6 reduced operation alternative were implemented with 7 the as you can imagine reduced from the no action 8 alternative. 9 Basically the primary area of reduced impacts 10 would be in the area of air emissions. We are 11 proposing to eliminate the operation of the Los Alamos 12 Neutron Science Center. And this would result in a 13 reduction in the overall air emissions from that 14 facility. We're also proposing under this alternative 15 to reduce by about 20 percent the high explosive 16 testing performed at Los Alamos National Laboratory. 17 We would also expect under this alternative, 18 the reduced operations alternative, to see a 19 corresponding small decrease in the overall potential 20 human health impacts again primarily due to the 21 closure of the Los Alamos Neutron Science Center 22 operations. 23 The other areas of reductions in the impacts 24 would primarily be focused on a reduction in the 25 overall use of electricity, potable water, and natural 9 1 gas again associated with the closure of the Neutron 2 Science Center. 3 For the expanded operation alternative, as 4 you can imagine those would be expanded or greater 5 than the no action alternative level. The greatest 6 area of impact expansion is in the area of waste 7 production. 8 Under this expanded operations alternative, 9 we are proposing to implement a series of projects 10 that would replace old buildings at Los Alamos 11 National Laboratory with new structures. In the 12 process of doing this replacement of aging 13 structures -- and a lot of the buildings at Los Alamos 14 were built 30, 40, 50, 60 years ago. So that it is 15 now more economically feasible for us to replace a 16 structure with new buildings rather than to repair 17 them. 18 We would be tearing down a great amount of 19 floor space, but we would be generating a large amount 20 of waste. Under this alternative we are also 21 proposing to clean up Los Alamos National Laboratory. 22 We have entered into a consent order with the 23 State of New Mexico to clean up the laboratory. And, 24 under the provisions of this consent order, the State 25 of New Mexico would be responsible for making the 10 1 decision on most of the waste disposal sites as to how 2 to clean up these sites. 3 We considered how we should analyze the 4 impacts from this cleanup. And we decided that our 5 best approach was to do a bounding impact analysis. 6 So we consider two extreme options, if you will. 7 Under one option we consider that we might be 8 required to exhume all the waste, dig it up, put it 9 into containers like drums, load it onto vehicles, and 10 either move it on-site or off-site for disposal. 11 Under the other extreme option, we consider 12 that we may be required to cap all of the waste in 13 place and institute a LANL wide monitoring system, 14 long-term monitoring system of those sites. 15 We expect that this bounding impact analysis 16 will actually serve to overestimate the actual impacts 17 from cleaning up the site. But it will allow you, the 18 LANL stakeholder, to understand the types of impacts 19 that would be encountered in cleanup activities and 20 also the types of issues that would be associated with 21 site cleanup. 22 The third type of activity that we're 23 proposing under the expanded operations alternative 24 that would be a primary waste generation type activity 25 is the expansion of the overall plutonium pit 11 1 production process. 2 Currently we can make about 20 plutonium pits 3 per year. And we are proposing to elevate that level 4 of analysis up to 80 pits per year with a goal of 5 reaching 50 pits per year. 6 We would also with this alternative expect an 7 increase in transportation impacts. And this is again 8 largely associated with the cleanup of the site. 9 There would be a large number of trucks coming up to 10 the site delivering heavy equipment and materials and 11 there could be a large number of trucks leaving the 12 site with waste. 13 Then, if we did have to exhume all of the 14 waste and take it off-site for disposal, we would 15 expect to have to bring clean fill material back 16 on-site. So there would be a great increase in the 17 overall traffic impacts under this alternative. 18 We also under this alternative would expect a 19 somewhat greater impact to worker health based again 20 largely on site cleanup and also on the plutonium pit 21 production. Electricity used, natural gas, and 22 potable water use would also increase this time 23 associated with the proposed expansion of our super 24 computer facilities computational capabilities. 25 We currently at the Metropolis computing 12 1 center have limited the operation of that facility 2 based on the number of computations in terms of 3 teraops that that facility can operate at. 4 What we're finding, though, is that with each 5 generation of computing devices, that these computers 6 can run more and more effectively with less and less 7 electric use. So we have decided instead that a more 8 logical cap, if you will, on the operation of that 9 facility would be to limit its overall electric use 10 and water use for cooling. 11 So that's what we're proposing in this 12 environmental impact statement. The draft site-wide 13 environmental impact statement review and comment 14 period is now 75 days long. We did just recently this 15 week make a decision to extend the originally proposed 16 comment period of 60 days for another 15 days. 17 So the comment period will now end September 18 20. We'll be sending out announcements and making a 19 notice in the Federal Register next week. But you 20 will be also getting announcements in the mail as 21 well. 22 During this period there will be -- there 23 have been three public hearings. This is the third in 24 the series of public hearings. Our first public 25 hearing was in Los Alamos, New Mexico; our second one 13 1 was held last night in Espanola, New Mexico; and this 2 is the third opportunity for folks to present oral 3 comments. 4 We encourage you to make oral comments here 5 tonight. But, if you also want to make written 6 comments, we have some comment forms available for 7 your use if you wish. Also you can take those and 8 mail them in later. You can send me letters, you can 9 send me posters, I'm sorry, emails, Post-Its, that's 10 an old term, isn't it. I don't know where that came 11 from. 12 But, nonetheless, you can reach me by various 13 different addresses and various different means. We 14 do encourage you to send your comments in before 15 September 20 so that we can get all of the comments 16 together and start preparing the final document. 17 After the review and comment period ends, we will 18 gather up all these comments and we will use those to 19 complete the final impact analysis. 20 This is a draft document as Ed mentioned. It 21 may contain errors and mistakes. We know that. It is 22 the nature of the beast as a draft document. So we 23 appreciate your help in clarifying and correcting 24 information. 25 We will be taking all of the comments that we 14 1 receive, whether orally or in writing, and we will 2 reproduce those verbatim in the final environmental 3 impact statement. We'll also include information that 4 that final environmental impact statement -- we'll 5 probably include these in a separate volume. 6 And we will include identifying information 7 by comment as to exactly where we used the comment to 8 make changes in the document, to add information or to 9 change some type of analysis or so forth. 10 So, if you want to know exactly how we used 11 your comments that you're going to offer to us, then 12 you'll need to get the final environmental impact 13 statement and look in the impact statement for your 14 comments. We will be addressing any questions asked 15 through the comment process in the final environmental 16 impact statement. 17 If you would like an immediate question 18 answered, I encourage you to speak with the subject 19 matter experts that are out in the hall with the 20 posters tonight. I hope everybody got a chance to 21 take a few moments and see those posters. We do have 22 subject matter experts there from Los Alamos National 23 Laboratory and also the Los Alamos Site Office. 24 Just a little bit about how the decision gets 25 made. We will be using all of these comments as I've 15 1 already said to make the final environmental impact 2 statement. This final environmental impact statement 3 will then be issued and a notice of availability will 4 appear in the Federal Register as well as you will be 5 notified by letter and so forth if you sign up and 6 indicate an interest to be notified. 7 We will present the information and the final 8 environmental impact statement to the administrator. 9 And he will use this information together with perhaps 10 other information like budget information to make his 11 final decision on both the level of operation of Los 12 Alamos National Laboratory and also in the specific 13 projects to be implemented. 14 I want to emphasize to you tonight that, 15 although we analyze the cleanup of Los Alamos National 16 Laboratory in only one alternative, that the 17 administrator can pick and choose across the different 18 alternatives in making his decision. And we expect 19 him to. 20 We expect multiple records of decision to be 21 issued since we're looking out over a five-year 22 window. We expect the first record of decision which 23 can be issued no sooner than 30 days after the final 24 environmental impact statement is made available to 25 include a decision to clean up Los Alamos and to 16 1 implement the activities that are necessary to do 2 that. 3 I will be turning the floor over now to our 4 moderator. Our moderator tonight is Robin Brandin. 5 And she will facilitate the recording of oral 6 comments. 7 I want to thank you again for everybody 8 coming tonight. This is important to us and we 9 appreciate you being here. Please, if you have 10 questions that you would like immediate answers to, 11 please hold those for a discussion with the subject 12 matter experts. 13 If you think of a question later on that you 14 didn't think of tonight and you want to ask a subject 15 matter expert, please contact me either at the web 16 site listed here or at the 1-800 number and I'll get 17 the subject matter expert to get back with you so that 18 you can discuss your question. 19 The only other issue that I would like to 20 discuss just very quickly or touch on very quickly is 21 to ask you to please respect everyone who comes 22 forward to make their oral comment tonight. I can 23 tell you it takes a lot of guts to get up in front of 24 a room of strangers and speak. So please be 25 respectful of everyone. Thank you. 17 1 MS. BRANDIN: Good evening, everybody. We 2 have a great turnout. This is wonderful. Please, 3 those of you who are standing in the public, try to 4 get a seat because I guess because of fire laws we're 5 going to have to limit how many people are in here. 6 So make sure you get a seat if you're in here and want 7 to stay. 8 As Ms. Withers said, my name is Robin Brandin 9 and I'll be the moderator this evening. And my role 10 is to ensure that everyone who wants to speak and has 11 signed up to speak has an opportunity to do that. And 12 also to make sure that we get an accurate record of 13 what everybody has said. And in that regard my 14 partner in that is Jan Williams who is taking a 15 verbatim record of everything that is said here. 16 And I'm going to ask you please to make sure 17 that you speak clearly and not too fast so that she 18 can keep up with you. If she can't hear you or can't 19 understand you, she may interrupt or she may ask me to 20 interrupt to make sure that we're getting it right. 21 I gather, Mr. Palomino, there weren't any 22 takers on the Spanish language translation? 23 MR. PALOMINO: Not so far. 24 MS. BRANDIN: So, if anybody needs that, 25 please let me know. 18 1 So here is how we will proceed. I have cards 2 for those of you who indicated you wished to speak. 3 And there's a lot of you. I will extend the courtesy 4 to elected officials and their representatives first. 5 We only have a couple of those. 6 And then I will call on everyone in the order 7 that you registered. If you didn't check that you 8 wanted to speak when you registered or when you came 9 in and decide that you do want to, please go out to 10 the registration desk and fill out a card or retrieve 11 your card so we can add it to the pile. 12 Because I have quite a large number of 13 speakers tonight, about two to three times what we had 14 at the other two hearings, we're going to have to ask 15 you to limit your comments to about three minutes. We 16 have a timekeeper over here in the corner, Ms. Hale in 17 the green shirt. 18 And, when you're within 30 seconds of the 19 time allotment, she will hold up this yellow card. 20 And, when your time is up, she will hold up a blue 21 card. It's not that we mean to restrict your 22 comments, but please realize that there are a lot of 23 people and I want everybody to have an equal chance to 24 speak. 25 And there are other opportunities to comment 19 1 as Ms. Withers said. You can provide written 2 comments, you can email your comments. All of the 3 comments will show up in the site-wide EIS, in the 4 final EIS. So there are multiple ways to comment. 5 When I call your name, please step up to the 6 microphone over here, face the audience, and then 7 you'll be able to see Ms. Hale as well. And as I said 8 Ms. Williams is taking a verbatim account of this. So 9 please do not include any personal information that 10 you would not want to have published in the final EIS 11 because the transcripts will be published in the final 12 site-wide EIS. If you brought a written copy of your 13 comments, please hand them to Ms. Williams and that 14 will help her also get an accurate account. 15 As Ms. Withers said, the purpose of this part 16 of the meeting is to get your comments. So we won't 17 be answering any questions, especially in light of the 18 number of people who want to comment. So I hope you 19 got a chance to ask your questions before the meeting. 20 We will take a couple of breaks to give Ms. 21 Williams a rest. It's really hard to keep taking all 22 these comments. And so, if you have questions there, 23 the staff will be available to answer them. And I 24 think that's about it. 25 So does anybody have any questions on how 20 1 this is going to proceed? 2 SPEAKER: Is it possible to get more air in 3 here? It's really hot and stuffy. 4 SPEAKER: We'll check. 5 MS. BRANDIN: Thank you. 6 SPEAKER: I'm just a little concerned about 7 the three-minute time limit. I understand, you know, 8 your criteria. The only thing is like I find this 9 goes through the whole study. And, if we think the 10 logic of this thing out, if you have just a massive 11 protest and you have thousands of people and we follow 12 that format, that means everybody gets to speak for a 13 second and it basically negates the value of this. 14 I mean I think three minutes, if that's -- if 15 we can't accommodate everyone within five minutes, 16 that implies to me that there are not enough hearings, 17 we need to have additional hearings. So we need to 18 speak for at least five minutes. 19 MS. BRANDIN: The problem is we need to get 20 out of here by about 10:30. 21 SPEAKER: I'm just saying additional days. 22 That's what happened with the U.S. Air Force when they 23 did the bomber thing, they realized that this was not 24 turning into a meaningful exercise for public input 25 like the mandate states so they added additional 21 1 hearings and additional time. So I was hoping that we 2 can maybe do the same thing. 3 MS. BRANDIN: I'm sure Ms. Withers has heard 4 that request. 5 SPEAKER: I have a comment. And that is that 6 there has been an agreement that has been reached with 7 DOE and NNSA that the hearings would go on as long as 8 there were people who wanted to speak, that there 9 would not be a cutoff. 10 MS. BRANDIN: We'll go as long as we can. 11 But the facility -- we can't do anything about the 12 facility. But we probably -- we should probably get 13 on with it given the time limits. And I know a lot of 14 you are really anxious to talk. So we'll start. 15 And the first person I'm going to call on is 16 Mr. Matthew Ortiz, Santa Fe City Councilor. 17 MATTHEW ORTIZ: I want to thank the moderator 18 for giving me the ability to make my comments at the 19 front of the meeting and I beg the indulgence of the 20 crowd for jumping ahead of you in essence. And I want 21 to make my comments for the record. 22 Last night I introduced a resolution 23 objecting to the proposed expansion of nuclear weapon 24 activity. You know, folks, I need you to be quiet. 25 And then the way that the mayor does it at city 22 1 council is, after I'm finished, then you give a big 2 round of applause for everyone and then it doesn't cut 3 into my time. Okay. 4 So last night I introduced a resolution 5 objecting to the proposed expanded nuclear weapons 6 activity including plutonium pit production at the Los 7 Alamos National Laboratory and directing the City 8 Clerk to inform federal authorities of the objections. 9 This resolution is cosponsored by Councilor 10 Carmichael Dominguez, Councilor Ron Trujillo, 11 Councilor Rebecca Wurzburger, Councilor Chris Calvert, 12 Councilor Patti Bushee, Councilor Miguel Chavez, and 13 Mayor David Coss. 14 Because again this is a draft resolution, it 15 will be adopted by the governing body at our regular 16 meeting on Monday, August 28th. I do want to read, 17 however, the perfunctory findings paragraphs, I want 18 to read the proposed actions that we want to take, and 19 then I want to give a brief conclusion or summary on 20 those proposed actions that we're going to take. 21 The findings that we make or that are 22 proposed to be made is that the National Nuclear 23 Security Administration, the semi-autonomous nuclear 24 weapons agency within the Department of Energy, has 25 announced its plans to expand a nuclear weapons 23 1 activity at the Los Alamos National Laboratory and 2 that these expanded activities are in addition to 3 nuclear weapon activities previously expanded in 1999. 4 And these expanded activities include the 5 planned quadrupling of plutonium pit production from 6 20 to 80 per year with the near doubling of related 7 radioactive wastes and that the plutonium pits are 8 used to trigger existing nuclear weapons and will be 9 used in future new design nuclear weapons. 10 And the use of plutonium creates health and 11 environmental hazards. And the governing body of the 12 City of Santa Fe does not support the creation of 13 further health and environmental hazards related to 14 nuclear weapons for the citizens of Northern New 15 Mexico. 16 The NNSA took 18 months from its formal 17 notice of intent to final release of its plan through 18 a draft site-wide environmental impact statement for 19 continued operations at the Los Alamos National 20 Laboratory, but it granted the public only 60 days to 21 comment on approximately 1,700 technical pages and 22 hundreds of referenced documents. 23 It is the declared policy of the United 24 States government to help constrain the proliferation 25 of weapons of mass destruction but should lead by 24 1 concrete example. 2 The resolution paragraphs are the following: 3 "That the governing body hereby states its objection 4 to the expansion of nuclear weapons activities at the 5 Los Alamos National Laboratory including increased 6 plutonium pit production; and that the governing body 7 objects to the insufficient 60, now 75-day public 8 comment period and strongly advises the NNSA to grant 9 a 30-day extension; and that the governing body would 10 direct the City Clerk to send copies of the resolution 11 to our Congressional delegation, our governor, the 12 Department of Energy, and NNSA." 13 I would like to say, as it relates to the 14 last one, that's an obvious. We need to send it to 15 the officials who are in charge. 16 "As it relates to our objection to weapons 17 activity, Santa Fe is downstream from the lab; we 18 always have been, we always will. We are, therefore, 19 as a city very active and very interested and very 20 concerned about the missions, both currently as well 21 as proposed, of the Los Alamos National Laboratory." 22 And, as it relates to the insufficient time 23 period, we, myself and all the members of the 24 governing body who have cosponsored this resolution, 25 would like the information that is in this draft 25 1 statement to be easily accessible and complete. 2 Hundreds of documents referenced and three minutes of 3 time is an insufficient time period for us to make our 4 comments as we are directly affected by the Los Alamos 5 National Laboratory. 6 I want the public, I want my constituents, I 7 want my city staff to be able to review materials 8 and -- review materials so that we can present 9 substantive concerns and comments. 10 I believe, therefore, that the comment 11 period -- an additional comment period is necessary. 12 Again it is my hope that this resolution that is 13 sponsored by all the members of the governing body 14 with the exception of my colleague whose husband works 15 at the lab who did not sponsor it, that it would be 16 passed unanimously on Monday, August 28. 17 Again I thank the moderators for giving me 18 the time to speak in advance of the public comment and 19 I thank the public for your active and involved 20 participation. 21 MS. BRANDIN: Don't you want to hear each 22 other? Please don't interrupt, its really hard for 23 Ms. Williams to hear the speakers. So the noise in 24 the background is interfering with people being able 25 to speak. So please give them the courtesy of 26 1 listening. You can applaud at the end. But please 2 listen while they're speaking. 3 Okay next speaker is Matt Miller representing 4 Congressman Tom Udall. 5 MATT MILLER: My name is Matt Miller. The 6 Congressman felt it was important that he be 7 represented here tonight. I thought I was going to 8 have five minutes. 9 I would like to second what the gentleman 10 back here said, three minutes is completely 11 insufficient. If you guys want to be heard here, we 12 need to do this in two nights with five minutes per 13 speaker. 14 But our constituents have raised a number of 15 concerns with us. I wanted to go over two of them 16 here tonight. One is the reference materials in the 17 SWEIS, as mentioned at the previous two meetings that 18 I attended in Espanola and Los Alamos, there are 19 literally hundreds of pages that are referenced in the 20 SWEIS that are not in the SWEIS. And they're only 21 available at the Los Alamos reading room, they are not 22 available online. 23 That means if you're coming from Taos, even 24 Santa Fe, and you really want to get into the SWEIS, 25 you're going to have a hard time doing this because 27 1 you have to go to Los Alamos and read hundreds of 2 documents. 3 We requested they be made available online so 4 everyone who really wants to get through the SWEIS can 5 read the referenced documents in addition to the SWEIS 6 itself. 7 The second thing I want to comment is the 8 comment period. As you all know, the original comment 9 period was 60 days. Congressman Udall on July 31st 10 sent a letter to Ed Wilmot at the DOE, at the LASO 11 office, requesting that the comment period be extended 12 a full 30 days to October 5. Now, as all you know, 13 since Tuesday the comment period was extended. But it 14 was extended 15 days instead of 30 days. 15 This is a great big tome, I mean this is 16 three tomes here totaling 1,500 pages. We do not feel 17 it is an unreasonable request that the comment period 18 be extended a full 30 days, to October 5, to get 19 through this SWEIS. 20 As I say, given the size of the room, we feel 21 this is unreasonable. There is no statute in place 22 that limits the amount of time for the comment period 23 that the DOE has. If they wanted to, they could 24 extend the comment period 100 days, if they felt like 25 it. 28 1 In addition to that, as mentioned earlier by 2 Matt and by people at the previous meetings, it took a 3 year and a half to get the SWEIS out. And now the DOE 4 is expecting our constituents to somehow read through 5 this year and a half thing in the making, this 1,500 6 pages at least, in 75 days. And we feel it's just not 7 sufficient. 8 We don't think it's an unreasonable request 9 that the comment period being extended a full 30 days, 10 to October 5. So for the record we would like to ask 11 the DOE, please extend the comment period a full 30 12 days to October 5. 13 MICHELLE HAWKINS ORTIZ: Can I take his last 14 30 seconds. 15 MS. BRANDIN: Yes. 16 MICHELLE HAWKINS ORTIZ: Thank you. 17 MS. BRANDIN: Would you please give your 18 name. 19 MICHELLE HAWKINS ORTIZ: It's Michelle 20 Hawkins Ortiz and I'm Congressman Tom Udall's state 21 director. Matt is the congressman's aid for Los 22 Alamos National Lab. 23 I just wanted to touch on one additional 24 concern which is with regard to the increased risk of 25 health effects under the expanded operations 29 1 alternative. Needless to say, our office is inundated 2 with claimants for the Energy Employees Occupational 3 Illness program, the EEOICPA program, which is 4 dysfunctional at best. 5 And we would like to formally request a 6 briefing, any kind of information that can be shared 7 with us about the potential health effects to the 8 worker as well as the community. And, in looking at 9 volume -- at least one of the volumes, there's these 10 cryptic references to some of the health effects. And 11 we just -- we need some sort of communication that 12 doesn't require a degree in health physics. 13 MS. BRANDIN: Our next speaker is Cathie 14 Sullivan. 15 CATHIE SULLIVAN: My name is Cathie Sullivan. 16 I want to read my comments since I don't think rapidly 17 on my feet. 18 Since that new iconic date, 9/11, a date that 19 the Bush Administration treats like December 7, 1941, 20 an information iron curtain has descended between the 21 American public and its government. Our rights to 22 government information are under attack. 23 At the lab and the Department of Energy, 24 documents formerly available are now hard to get. Nor 25 does the public have access to laboratory scientists, 30 1 the people actually doing the work, the people with 2 knowledgeable answers, the people who are not trusted 3 to speak to us. 4 Since Former Attorney General John Ashcroft 5 advised federal agencies that his office would back up 6 to the maximum extent of the law any agency that 7 stalled or denied federal Freedom of Information Act 8 requests, getting unclassified documents has become an 9 endurance contest between the gatekeepers and the 10 people. 11 At LANL I understand that all accident and 12 occurrence reports have disappeared behind the 13 post-9/11 information iron curtain. Why? Will it 14 strengthen al-Quada to know about a lab forklift 15 accident or an injury to a graduate student from the 16 carelessness of a senior LANL investigator. 17 The lab and the Department of Energy would be 18 embarrassed by these disclosures. And their 19 insecurity and vanity is harming our right to know. 20 Secrecy is toxic to good government and democracy. 21 Unless preventive medicine in the form of 22 openness and transparency is given soon in large 23 doses, we all may be attending the funeral of our 24 democracy, dead for lack of public participation and 25 an informed public. 31 1 These SWEIS hearings offer a small crack in 2 the informational iron curtain I've been describing. 3 Let us open that crack and reach in for more 4 information on critical issues such as expanding the 5 pit production plutonium at LANL, lab cleanup, future 6 LANL water demands, and details regarding safety 7 planning for the new biosafety laboratories. 8 My second point concerns the short EIS 9 comment period, by now even a familiar topic. A 10 diligent but underpaid and often volunteer activist 11 community is working hard to digest and constructively 12 comment on this year long 2,000 word document, 2,000 13 page document as are some individual citizens. They 14 deserve enough time to do a good job. 15 In fact, many in the activist community 16 believe that their independent comments are used by 17 the Department of Energy to call agency attention to 18 neglected and overlooked issues which, if left 19 unaddressed in the SWEIS, could form the basis of 20 future court lawsuits. 21 We will be glad to help keep you out of 22 court. But we need time to do so. And no, there is 23 no charge. We act out of patriotic self interest. 24 The draft SWEIS is a monster of almost 2,000 pages 25 with I understand multiple CDs worth of backup 32 1 documents. 2 In light of my earlier criticisms, I 3 gratefully acknowledge this trove of documentation. 4 But there is no need to rush because of an arbitrary 5 deadline set by DOE. In defense of granting a 6 significantly longer comment period, note the 7 following dates relevant to this draft EIS. 8 A notice of intent for a supplemental 9 site-wide EIS was printed in the Federal Register in 10 January of '05. This was later changed to a full 11 site-wide EIS. And on May 26 the draft was signed by 12 Deputy Director of the National Nuclear Security 13 Administration Dr. D'Agostino. 14 But close to six weeks elapsed before this 15 was presented to the public on July 7. DOE 16 implementing regulation 1021, section 1.313, mandates 17 the 45-day public comment period for average length 18 documents. But this draft SWEIS is huge. 19 And I urge extending the comment period to 20 reflect this length. We in the activist community 21 have fewer resources and people than does the 22 Department of Energy. We need more time. 23 The final SWEIS can only be strengthened 24 against inadvertent omissions, error, and challenge if 25 afforded a reasonable comment period. DOE has the 33 1 authority to make this happen. Please extend the 2 comment period to a date the activist community can 3 work for at least late 2006. This will produce the 4 best possible SWEIS, a goal we all share. Thank you. 5 MS. BRANDIN: The next speaker is Chris 6 Mechels. Is that right? 7 CHRIS MECHELS: Good evening. My name is 8 Chris Mechels, I'm retired from Los Alamos for those 9 of you who know me. The first thing I would like to 10 draw your attention to is this very important note at 11 back table which is where you can find the references 12 on the CDs. 13 Unfortunately, and I have talked with 14 Ms. Withers about this and she's been helpful in 15 clarifying it, they will -- if you request CDs, even 16 if you belong to let's say the DOE oversight bureau, 17 they will not provide a copy. 18 I, therefore, thoroughly support Tom Udall's 19 office's position, put these things online. I think 20 the reason offered for not providing them is they cost 21 $200 a pop for a CD set. These sets of these cost 22 $100 a pop. 23 It really needs -- rather than putting 24 them -- burning a bunch of CDs which I would support 25 doing, it's much easier to put them online and let 34 1 people get them. You do have to get them to 2 understand this, this is a very poor document. 3 I have managed to get the references and I've 4 been looking at them. And, for example, some of the 5 problems of this document, and by no means an 6 exhaustive list, is, for example, on their super 7 computer complex, they claim to be using a 50-teraops 8 machine and they're going to use 7.2 megawatts of 9 electricity in its current usage. 10 I just finished looking at their document, 11 their environmental assessment which was provided 12 courtesy of Ms. Withers when I couldn't get it any 13 other way. They show -- they show the usage in that 14 document as 63 million gallons per year. 15 Contrast that with what they say here, where 16 they don't even give you a figure for current usage. 17 And then they go on to say that the expanded usage 18 will be 15 megawatts and 51. So, in fact, the 19 51-gallon expanded usage is less than current usage 20 per their own documents. That's the kind of mischief 21 which is going on in the SWEIS. 22 Another one in the same set is they claim to 23 be using 51 million gallons which is 19 million 24 liters. If you do the sum, it doesn't work out. 25 Liters are smaller than gallons. It's just full of 35 1 errors. And you're not going to catch the errors 2 unless you look at the reference documents. 3 And right now the reference documents are not 4 available in any convenient way. Please put them 5 online. And, after you put them online, extend the 6 comment period as the Congressman asked so that we 7 might have a chance to use them and correct this 8 document which is highly needful of corrections. 9 Another one, for example, is high explosive 10 processing facilities. They're currently doing 15 11 safety mechanical tests a year. They're talking about 12 doing a 20 percent reduction which is 12 or a slight 13 increase on expanded operations to 500. It's 14 ridiculous on the face of it. And you can't prove 15 it's ridiculous unless you have the reference 16 documents which we don't. It just goes on and on. 17 The other thing I draw your attention to is 18 the fact that there are three major facilities with 19 obvious things missing. The Los Alamos super 20 computing center shouldn't be in Los Alamos. When you 21 log onto AOL, you don't care if it's from Virginia. 22 When you log onto this computer complex, you 23 shouldn't care if it's in New Mexico. If it is in New 24 Mexico, it's maxing out their water and it's maxing 25 out their power which are slightly over 100 percent of 36 1 their expanded operations. 2 LANSCE should not be here. They just 3 finished the neutron source out east which was 4 supposed to take over most of the LANSCE. Now we've 5 discovered we want to keep LANSCE apparently forever. 6 The biggest contaminator, huge use of power, huge use 7 of water, it shouldn't be in New Mexico, there's no 8 reason for it to be. 9 Lastly, DART. They make no mention of the 10 fact that DART is violating all the containment 11 regulations. They're using this ad hoc pile of form 12 containment mechanism which is not allowed in their 13 BEA and shouldn't be in use. No mention made of any 14 of this. This is a bad piece of work. And it needs 15 correcting. Thank you. 16 SPEAKER: Has something been done about the 17 ventilation or can more of the doors be opened? Is 18 someone working on getting more ventilation in here? 19 MS. BRANDIN: Somebody went out to try. 20 SPEAKER: There's also more doors that could 21 be opened. 22 MS. BRANDIN: I'm going to keep going and 23 hopefully we'll get that resolved. But we want to get 24 on with it. The next speaker are Sisters of Loretto. 25 SISTER ELAINE PREVOLAY: My name is Elaine 37 1 Prevolay, I'm a Sister of Loretto in Santa Fe. As 2 long as 28 years ago, the Loretto community declared 3 and published our commitment to an end of the 4 production of nuclear weapons and nuclear energy. 5 We are particularly committed we said 28 6 years ago to encouraging and assisting in the urgent 7 work of educating ourselves and others to the perils 8 of the continued proliferation of nuclear power and 9 arms. 10 The very next year the entire body of 300 11 Loretto members gathered for general assembly, wrote 12 by consensus, and published the following statement: 13 "Rooted as we are in our Judeo-Christian heritage, we 14 view our opposition to nuclear weapons and nuclear 15 energy as an urgent moral imperative. We recognize 16 that the burden of leadership in this regard falls not 17 only on concerned persons throughout the world but 18 especially on the community of faith. We consider 19 this a very serious matter of conscience." 20 I want to mention also that over 200 persons 21 from our community signed the petition that Peace 22 Action will submit this evening. 23 SISTER PATRICIA JEAN MANION: My name is 24 Patricia Jean Manion. And I first came to Santa Fe in 25 1952. And, of course, you probably know that our 38 1 first sisters came here in 1852. So we've been around 2 for awhile. This is the Vatican's statement that was 3 made in 1997. Archbishop Renato Martino, the 4 Vatican's representative to the United Nations, issued 5 the following statement to the UN. "Nuclear weapons 6 are incompatible with the peace we seek for the 21st 7 century. They cannot be justified and deserve 8 condemnation." 9 SISTER PENELOPE McMULLEN: I'm Penelope 10 McMullen, I'm a Sister of Loretto. The Loretto 11 community opposes the plan to increase production of 12 plutonium pits. We request that we now spend one 13 minute in quiet prayer and that this time of prayer be 14 recorded in the hearing proceedings. 15 We suggest that we who are gathered here use 16 our breath as prayer, breathing in light, grace, and 17 healing from God, Great Spirit, or the universe, and 18 breathing out that light, grace, and healing to each 19 other, Los Alamos, and our troubled world. And I 20 would ask Ms. Hale to put up the blue card when one 21 minute is over. 22 (Pause). 23 SISTER PENELOPE McMULLEN: Thank you. 24 MS. BRANDIN: Our next speaker is Tom Troth. 25 TOM TROTH: Good evening. I just have a 39 1 comment about fissile material, which plutonium would 2 fit in that category. Kofi Annan, the Secretary 3 General of the UN, on May 30, 2005, in an op-ed 4 article on the nuclear proliferation treaty, after a 5 review conference that happens every five years, 6 stated that a fissile material cutoff treaty for all 7 countries is indispensable. 8 Also the current pits that they have I've 9 heard and read from watchdog information have an 10 expected working life that lasts until 2038. So I'm 11 not sure why we're projecting us to need those pits 12 that far into the future. 13 The proposed ones are untested and they'll 14 need to be tested. I'm not sure how that process 15 goes. But also Kofi Annan stated in that op-ed 16 article that all countries should affirm their 17 commitment to a moratorium on testing and a 18 comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty should be 19 enacted. This new plutonium pit is going to 20 apparently be a different type and have a longer life. 21 So that's something to keep in mind. 22 And I think that ends my comments. Thank 23 you. 24 MS. BRANDIN: The next speaker is Dustin 25 William Olson. 40 1 DUSTIN WILLIAM OLSON: Thank you. We are 2 here right now because the people are allowing us to 3 be here. The people are allowing this comment period. 4 The people are allowing Los Alamos to exist. Now, we 5 live in a nation where there's a rule of law and 6 order. No one is above the rule of law and order. 7 And this is under the Constitution of the United 8 States of America. 9 Okay. The bottom line that gives Los Alamos 10 a reason or a rationale to exist is the National 11 Security Act of 1947. If that act is ever repealed, 12 you have no more bottom line to exist. We're not 13 talking about pit facilities or anything, just 14 existence. 15 Okay. Now, most people are concerned about 16 environmental impacts and stuff. I mean I'm concerned 17 about environmental impacts too. But I'm more 18 concerned about the shutdown of electric devices 19 during the three to five days of darkness when the 20 planet gets shut down. Okay. That's number one. 21 Does Los Alamos, can they function without 22 electricity. A directed energy weapons attack on the 23 pit facility site or the waste storage site, no one 24 seems to have any idea about a protection umbrella 25 anything. That seems like that might be a problem. 41 1 If there is an escalation of the coming 2 nuclear war in the Middle East, someone told me, oh, 3 they don't think that LANL is a prime target. No, 4 it's probably a secondary target. 5 Then there's the plate movement, a movement 6 of the rotational axis when the let's call it the 7 ionosphere, the electromagnetic sheath shifts, and we 8 have a new rotational axis. And so we're going to 9 have a lot of earthquakes. 10 What kind of -- does your -- I haven't read 11 this booklet. But does it address the predicament 12 that we would be in due to earthquakes and shut down 13 the power, transportation, et cetera, et cetera. 14 That's all I want to say. 15 SPEAKER: The Jemez volcano erupting above 16 Los Alamos. 17 MS. BRANDIN: Thank you. The next speaker is 18 Rebecca Procter. 19 REBECCA PROCTER: My name is Rebecca Procter, 20 I'm a resident of Santa Fe County. I'd like to make a 21 short overall statement to begin. And that is that I 22 believe backing the preferred alternative which 23 involves dramatically expanding production of pits 24 that form the cores of the actual nuclear weapons as 25 well as the outright dismissal of consideration of the 42 1 so-called green alternative which was focused on 2 science and waste management are both actions that I 3 view as putting the U.S. in direct violation of the 4 nuclear nonproliferation treaty. 5 Now, regardless of the stance that the 6 current administration takes regarding any treaty into 7 which the U.S. has entered, the people of the United 8 States are overwhelmingly in favor of honoring the 9 requirements of nonproliferation. 10 The ethical and moral stance that the current 11 document espouses is completely indefensible. 12 Creating massive new amounts of weapons of mass 13 destruction is not clearly not a formula for promoting 14 peace on the planet. 15 Now, I'm going to spend the rest of the time 16 that I have just pulling a couple of very brief 17 examples from my initial reading of the document which 18 admittedly is still superficial and I hope to spend 19 more time with it. I'm hoping to pinpoint a couple of 20 items that I think highlight issues that should be 21 addressed. 22 My first example is taken from the estimated 23 environmental effects of the expanded operations 24 alternative. And that is that it is estimated that 25 the bulk type low level radioactive waste will 43 1 increase under this alternative to a level that would 2 be somewhere between five and 23 times greater than is 3 currently being generated. 4 In addition, the so-called packaged low level 5 nuclear waste would increase under that estimate to a 6 level somewhere between 2.5 and 5.25 times greater 7 than is currently being generated. 8 Now, the issue I'm raising here is not 9 whether LANL will deal with that waste in some manner. 10 The issue that I want to be considered is whether it 11 is acceptable to the people of New Mexico to have this 12 much more radioactive waste being generated and 13 possibly moved through the state to holding 14 facilities. I personally believe that that is 15 ethically unacceptable. 16 To take another tack that has to do with 17 public health, we don't know from this document 18 exactly how the estimates of risks of various accident 19 scenarios was generated. The statistics provided are 20 not backed up by an explanation of methodology. 21 To take just one example, and this is -- keep 22 in mind that the example I've chosen is an accident 23 scenario that is not considered to have the highest 24 possible risks to the off-site population, it's just 25 one of many possible scenarios. 44 1 And this comes from the estimated 2 consequences of a radiological accident deriving from 3 a plutonium facility storage container release at the 4 TA-55 facility which would be the facility that's 5 developing plutonium pits. 6 And they state this risk to be an increase in 7 latent cancer fatalities of .223. So that means less 8 than one fatality per 100 people. But think for just 9 a moment about that ratio and think about that in 10 terms of 10,000 people. 11 If that estimate is correct, we would be 12 looking at an increase in latent cancer fatalities of 13 more than 22 people out of 10,000. When viewed from 14 the larger perspective of the actual population that 15 could be affected in Los Alamos and Santa Fe Counties 16 alone, this is an unacceptable risk from this type of 17 accident. 18 Further, we can't tell right now from the 19 SWEIS if the risk of such accidents, and there are 20 many other possibilities mentioned in the document, 21 has been assessed in a scientifically defensible 22 manner. 23 Now, I'm going to indulge my professional 24 interest for the last few seconds that I have, and 25 that is that I am a professional archeologist. And I 45 1 may be only one of a few that will comment on this 2 document. So I just want to point out that it is 3 recognized that there will be adverse effects to 4 certain cultural resources from the expanded 5 operations alternative. 6 This involves the destruction or alteration 7 of certain buildings, some of which are eligible for 8 the National Register of Historic Places. There will 9 be some effects to known archeological sites. And 10 there will be potentially some effects to traditional 11 cultural properties which have religious and cultural 12 significance to tribal peoples in this area. 13 And in that case it has to do with the view 14 shed, the view from these traditional cultural 15 properties, which in most cases are sacred places. 16 Thank you for the time and thanks for your attention. 17 MS. BRANDIN: Our next speaker is Don Bennett 18 followed by Carl Smith. 19 DON BENNETT: Thank you. I'm in awe of the 20 sophistication and the detailed research and care of 21 my colleagues in this community. The local 22 environmental impact of dramatically increasing 23 nuclear weapon triggers at Los Alamos National Lab is 24 indeed a valid concern. But there is a larger danger. 25 Spending billions to expand the U.S. 46 1 stockpile of nuclear weapons will not improve our 2 national security in today's world. More likely it 3 will degrade global security by keeping the U.S. in 4 the forefront of the unending proliferation of nuclear 5 weapons. 6 And the integrity of our global environment 7 will be further impaired if Los Alamos fails to 8 reassess its national security role. The billions of 9 new dollars, this pool of scientific talent, and an 10 enlightened new Los Alamos mission should be 11 aggressively applied toward the development of 12 nonmilitary nuclear alternatives to fossil fuels. 13 Our insatiable use of oil has led the U.S. 14 into dangerous military adventures, political 15 confrontations in the Middle East, thus decreasing our 16 security. Our always expanding fossil fuel use is 17 leading to major environmental degradation as well. 18 Just imagine how much constructive good and 19 goodwill Los Alamos could contribute to our national 20 security, economy, and the environment by developing 21 safe new generations of commercial nuclear power 22 plants, small and economical nuclear plants for the 23 world's Merchant Marine fleets, for example. As the 24 United States' power generation was weaned from fossil 25 fuels, the environmental degradation would certainly 47 1 moderate. 2 I prefer that the National Nuclear Security 3 Administration and Los Alamos take the lead in finding 4 nonmilitary constructive solutions to our new national 5 security problems and environmental threats rather 6 than spend time, talent, and treasure, our treasure on 7 tasks and products that will escalate the global 8 nuclear arms race and contribute nothing toward global 9 environmental solutions. Thank you. 10 MS. BRANDING: Mr. Smith. The next speaker 11 after Mr. Smith will be Paulette Frankl. 12 CARL SMITH: My name is Carl Smith, I live in 13 Santa Fe. I do not support any increases in nuclear 14 weapons research. And that's really what I'm here to 15 say. The previous two speakers have articulated this 16 so well that I really am hesitant to say anything 17 more. 18 But I have three points, quick points I hope. 19 One, the first point is that, if you have them, you 20 want to use them. So why do we still have them? And 21 we have -- well, on July 25, 1945, when President 22 Truman ordered the delivery of the special bomb on the 23 day where the weather permitted it over one of four 24 possible targets in Japan, the whole thing escalated. 25 It became like a toboggan running down a hillside. 48 1 They had two bombs ready. They used the 2 first one and that was really all that was necessary. 3 They didn't even give the Emperor of Japan time to 4 respond to the ultimatum. And they went ahead because 5 they had the second bomb ready, they went ahead and 6 used it. 7 Isn't that the nature of war? Isn't that the 8 way these things work? I say we don't need them. The 9 second point is somewhat like that. Our leadership in 10 this nation started the Iraq war looking for weapons 11 of mass destruction, to get rid of them. All the time 12 they were right here in New Mexico. 13 I think we ought to set up a tour bureau to 14 bring people here to find the weapons of mass 15 destruction. They could paint them and name them and 16 do all kinds of things with them. These serve no 17 destructive life-enabling purpose. They are illegal. 18 So let's get rid of them versus trying to improve 19 them. 20 The last thing I want to say is personal and 21 a little bit pejorative. And I keep asking myself 22 why, why are we doing all this, why are we trying to 23 improve these weapons of mass destruction, why are we 24 keeping them? Why is Los Alamos so focused on all of 25 this, why? And I came up with my own answer and 49 1 realized we've got to keep jobs for those folks. This 2 is a massive welfare system. The military, 3 corporations that serve this are massive welfare 4 systems. 5 Now, I personally do not mind that. I 6 personally don't mind subsidizing people to do useful 7 work. But we need these people in Los Alamos, the 8 engineers and scientists, to do constructive work like 9 our previous two speakers said. There are useful 10 things to be done in this country. Let's get on with 11 it. 12 MS. BRANDIN: Paulette Frankl. After 13 Ms. Frankl is Betty Kronsky. 14 PAULETTE FRANKL: My name is Paulette Frankl 15 and I'm a resident of Santa Fe. I'm a mother and a 16 grandmother and somebody who is very concerned about 17 nature, the environment, water, air, animals, Native 18 Americans, and habitats and health of all sort. To 19 continue this quest for bigger and better weapons is 20 not the way. 21 It isn't Los Alamos that just decided, well, 22 we're going to sort of clean things up a bit and make 23 things newer and better and bigger. That's not what's 24 going on. This was authorized somewhere right at the 25 top. Los Alamos isn't making these sort of 50 1 improvements all of its own accord. 2 And I heard that, if New Mexico were to 3 secede from the union, it would be the third largest 4 or one of the three largest nuclear powers on the 5 planet. Please understand this. We are living next 6 to an accident waiting to happen. As Helen Caldicott 7 said, if you live next to a nuclear power plant, you 8 don't need a war, all you need is an accident. 9 And accidents happen. Among other things 10 where is all this waste, you know, where is it going 11 to be taken out of? Before I came here, I came from 12 Las Vegas, Nevada, well Yucca Mountain, that's over 13 there somewhere, who cares. These are going on the 14 roads that we drive on. And again an accident waiting 15 to happen to Yucca Mountain, if not here. 16 Yucca Mountain has right next to it a Native 17 American reservation that's one of the largest in the 18 country. Most people don't care about that. I care 19 very much about what happens to our native people. 20 It is happening to all of us. We are it. 21 And just to kind of get down to the basics as a mother 22 and a grandmother and a person who cares about life on 23 earth and peace in the world, you don't fight for 24 peace, you live it. There is only as much peace on 25 earth as there are peaceful people. 51 1 Certainly we're seeing that right now in 2 Lebanon. How much more hatred and destruction do we 3 need to turn the tide of our own mentality to say 4 enough, we're just not going to do this anymore? And 5 even though I'm very grateful for this hearing, I 6 wondered, are our voices really going to make a 7 difference. And, if not, we need to make sure that 8 they do. Thank you very much. 9 MS. BRANDIN: Following Ms. Kronsky will be 10 William Christison. 11 BETTY KRONSKY: My name is Betty Kronsky, I'm 12 a member of People for Peace, a peace organization 13 that was formed during the first Gulf War in response 14 to people feeling very helpless and very upset about 15 what was going on. And since that time we've had 16 several other wars to react to and to talk about and 17 to try to study. 18 We had an interesting conversation with one 19 of the experts outside. He was really very engaging 20 and helpful. We were standing in front of the poster 21 that advertised the new plan for the plutonium pits 22 and the plutonium facility. 23 And I noticed, on the bottom line of the 24 poster, the comment that this was meant to satisfy 25 mission objectives. And I asked him what was meant by 52 1 mission objectives. And he really didn't know, that 2 wasn't his -- you know, his province. The objectives 3 are set by the politicians and not by the scientists. 4 And I wondered about these mission 5 objectives. And, of course, it's been said here 6 before. Does it have to do with increasing weapons 7 for waging nuclear war and what would be the rationale 8 for war? Is there a moral justification for using 9 nuclear weapons? 10 The way that the wars in Iraq and Lebanon are 11 being waged today imply to the world that it is okay 12 to kill civilians, to destroy infrastructures, and to 13 contaminate the environment. 14 My understanding is that this kind of war is 15 morally wrong. Any kind of war is morally wrong. But 16 certainly the kind that is being waged today, it's 17 only an inch beyond what's happening in Lebanon today 18 to use nuclear weapons. 19 We've already used them -- I mean we've 20 already used depleted uranium on warheads. And 21 without really knowing what the result is going to be 22 in terms of human lives and cancer production. 23 Certainly it's obvious that, if we have them, 24 we will use them, that there will be demagogues, 25 political leaders that will convince us the way they 53 1 did in the mid-forties, that it was okay to use them 2 against the civilian population. 3 So I think that many people here believe as I 4 do, that we do not want to increase our capability of 5 nuclear weapons. We would like to get rid of the ones 6 we have. And the expert who was talking to us said 7 that we actually are burning plutonium to get rid of 8 it. Then why are we wanting to produce so much more? 9 It just doesn't make sense. Thank you. 10 MS. BRANDIN: Following Mr. Christison will 11 be Bud Ryan. 12 WILLIAM CHRISTISON: My name is William 13 Christison. I don't want new plutonium pits produced 14 here or anyplace else in the United States. I have 15 lived in New Mexico for 25 years. It is just as 16 important that new nuclear pits and expansion of the 17 production of nuclear weapons not occur anywhere else 18 in the United States as well as here. 19 Now, why basically are we doing this? And I 20 want to tell you a little bit about my credentials. I 21 worked for 28 years for the Central Intelligence 22 Agency. I wrote two or three of the first national 23 intelligence estimates produced on the problem of 24 nuclear proliferation worldwide. 25 And the situation is just about as bad now as 54 1 it was in the 1960s and the 1970s and the 1980s and 2 the '90s and now. Israel by the way got its first 3 nuclear weapons 39 years ago with the help of the 4 United States. 5 India who now has nuclear weapons recently 6 signed a treaty with the United States that is going 7 to allow India to expand its nuclear weapons with 8 assistance from the United States. Maybe not money, 9 but the money from us will go for peaceful uses. And 10 the money as you know is wholly fungible and will give 11 India more money to expand its own nuclear weapons 12 program. 13 So here we are. We are helping our own 14 government expand its nuclear weapons, we are helping 15 two other countries, India and Israel, expand their 16 nuclear weapons. This is in total violation of one of 17 the basic policies that the United States should be 18 implementing as enunciated in the nonproliferation 19 treaty signed in 1969 or 1970. 20 And so that means, in effect, every single 21 person working in Los Alamos and participating in the 22 program of expanding nuclear weapons production in 23 this country is going to be a criminal under 24 international law. I wonder if the people who work 25 there realize that fact. 55 1 Now, one other thing I want to say. The 2 nuclear weapons program of the United States and what 3 Los Alamos National Laboratory is going to be asked to 4 do in the near future, expanding production of 5 plutonium pits means that it's going to make it easier 6 for the United States to carry out all the rest of its 7 foreign policies, its very aggressive foreign policies 8 which have resulted in more hatred of the United 9 States. 10 All of these things are really very closely 11 related. The Israel-Palestine issue, the present 12 slaughter of innocent people in Lebanon, the present 13 slaughter of equally innocent people in Iraq, killing 14 of people in Afghanistan continues. All of these 15 things are very closely related. 16 If we people who want to change U.S. policies 17 in the nuclear field can do that, then it's also a 18 step toward helping us change our foreign policies in 19 all of these other areas. And that is what needs to 20 happen if we're going to have anything like a peaceful 21 world in the coming decades. Thank you very much. 22 MS. BRANDIN: Bud Ryan. And following 23 Mr. Ryan will be Peggy Prince. 24 BUD RYAN: Hi, I'm Bud Ryan, I'm with Pax 25 Christi New Mexico which is part of Pax Christi 56 1 International and the Catholic Peace Group. 2 Okay. So why are we planning on making pits 3 here? Does this not break Article VI of the NPT 4 treaty? Linton Brooks, the administrator of the NNSA, 5 has said publicly that the plan is to eventually 6 replace all our nuclear weapons. 7 We as a country have already wasted seven 8 plus trillion dollars when adjusted for inflation on 9 these weapons. So, even though we have never used 10 these weapons in anger since 1945, when we became the 11 only country to do so against the innocent civilians 12 of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I say we have killed many 13 people here and around the world by wasting the seven 14 plus trillion dollars on nukes when it should have 15 been spent on decent housing, food, good schools, and 16 hospitals for all the people of the earth. 17 Clean up Los Alamos, stop weapons production, 18 and use our scientists who are some of the best and 19 brightest the U.S. has to offer to invent things to 20 benefit all humankind. Let the U.S. lead the way in 21 getting all nuclear weapon states to live up to the 22 NPT treaty and maybe the U.S. can begin to repair our 23 reputation that has been trashed since 9/11, when the 24 Bush Administration highjacked our country and became 25 to many people around the world the greatest terrorist 57 1 state on the planet. 2 The manufacture of weapons of mass 3 destruction is a blasphemy to God, The Creator, and it 4 is something that we, the people, must stop. 5 MS. BRANDIN: Following Ms. Prince is Jay 6 Coghlan. 7 PEGGY PRINCE: Good evening. My name is 8 Peggy Prince, I'm with Peace Action New Mexico. And 9 in my hand I am holding well over over 500 signatures 10 on a petition which reads "I vigorously oppose the 11 proposal for LANL to continue or expand its nuclear 12 weapons mission. It is dangerous for the health and 13 safety of the environment and all life in Northern New 14 Mexico." 15 So I was intending to submit these petition 16 signatures tonight. But this petition has gotten such 17 a groundswell of interest that what I'm going to do, 18 what we're going to do is we're going to leave the 19 petition open for signatures until the first part of 20 September and then submit these petitions to become 21 part of the formal comment in the final SWEIS. 22 So it's really important. So, if you would 23 download this off of our web site and circulate it, 24 there's a return address on there. And you can send 25 it back to our office. And we will make sure that all 58 1 of your names, signatures, and this petition go into 2 the final SWEIS document. 3 And, you know, to say one more thing, I'm 4 kind of a bottom line kind of person. And the bottom 5 line here is that we need to stop this. There is no 6 other choice. We have to stop this terrible 7 experiment in trying to ramp up our nuclear weapons 8 production. 9 You know, they're trying to put one over on 10 us. And they're hoping that we're so afraid about 11 getting on a government list or something like that as 12 some people have said to me, we're so afraid of that 13 that we are being scared into silence. And we need 14 for that not to happen. Now is the time for courage. 15 Thank you. Mr. Coghlan. 16 MS. BRANDIN: Mr. Coghlan. The next speaker 17 will be Michael Collins. 18 JAY COGHLAN: My name is Jay Coghlan, I work 19 for Nuclear Watch New Mexico. I have either the honor 20 or hassle of doing this stuff for a living. Others 21 have spoken about the process to date, the truncated 22 period of time that the NNSA has given for the comment 23 period. I'm quite familiar with it. But I simply 24 echo those remarks. 25 With respect to the reference documents, some 59 1 speakers have noted how important they are. And 2 indeed they are. And a couple of weeks ago we called 3 up the Los Alamos reading room which is like the 4 official repository for those documents. And first we 5 went to their web site and they had a web site that 6 was still dated as being February 2006. 7 And on that web site they said coming soon, 8 online documents. So we're going great, we call them 9 up. You got the SWEIS documents? No. And then they 10 thanked us for bringing their attention to that 11 statement on their web site saying that there would be 12 online documents. And they go, oh, that statement is 13 really confusing. Tell you what, we'll take that 14 statement off. 15 So the end result is no online documents. 16 However, we're not ones to take this laying down. I 17 say screw NNSA. Nuclear Watch is going to put those 18 reference documents up on our web site. That will 19 happen by midweek. 20 You just go to www.nukewatch, that's 21 n-u-k-e-w-a-t-c-h, dot org. They will be there, the 22 19 CDs that Los Alamos did give us. And hopefully 23 this will shame them into providing online access to 24 these documents in the future. 25 Right now I'm going to take what might be an 60 1 unexpected twist. I not only look at Los Alamos, but 2 I look at the nuclear weapons complex as a whole. And 3 previously and, in fact, the last round of hearings a 4 couple years ago was over a facility called the modern 5 pit facility. And this would be a super bomb plant in 6 the NNSA's hopes and desires capable of a production 7 capacity of 450 pits a year. 8 I have worked hard on that issue. Others in 9 New Mexico have and others across the country have. 10 The end result is that super bomb plan has been 11 defeated for two years running. That is a very 12 important victory. And we have to make sure that the 13 modern fit facility never comes into being because 14 what that facility is is a full-scale return to 15 industrial production of nuclear bombs. 16 Now, I repeat again, an extremely important 17 victory. That, of course, has a negative boomerang 18 effect on Los Alamos. But they have fallen for our 19 grand strategic plan. That is to keep pit production 20 surrounded here at Los Alamos, and then it's going to 21 be a death by 1,000 cuts. 22 You know, pick this SWEIS apart. But this 23 SWEIS is only one small step. There has to be a much 24 broader social and political and legal movement 25 towards the eventual eradication of weapons of mass 61 1 destruction in this state. It has to start here. 2 Forty-three percent of the total national budget DOE 3 for its nuclear weapons activities take place in this 4 state alone. 5 Now, to drive this home -- and, you know, I'm 6 obviously I'm going to run out of time real soon. 7 But, in order to make it real, our President has 8 stated that all options remain on the table when it 9 comes to dealing with alleged uranium nuclear 10 facilities. 11 If there were to be a nuclear strike against 12 Iran, the most likely weapon of choice would be an 13 earth penetrating weapon that is a variant of a Los 14 Alamos design that was engineered by Sandia right 15 outside of Albuquerque. So the consequences are 16 immediate, especially given the broad foreign policies 17 that other speakers have alluded to. 18 And then, to tie this in, there was going to 19 be a huge explosion using 700 tons of ammonium nitrate 20 fuel oil in Nevada. And the folks in Nevada and also 21 Utah rose up and have defeated that. That test is now 22 being delayed into March, April, thereabouts, to 2007. 23 The bad news is the most probable location for that 24 test is White Sands right here in our own state. 25 So what you end up having are two weapons 62 1 laboratories developing weapons that have a decent 2 probability of use in an actual nuclear war. And then 3 we will have the real -- the test, the practical test 4 of that earth penetrator likely to be here in White 5 Sands. 6 New Mexicans should not stand for it. We 7 should better organize. We are actually absolutely 8 pivotal to this not only for our country but for the 9 entire world. 10 MS. BRANDIN: Mr. Collins. Following him is 11 Jack Frenkel. 12 MICHAEL COLLINS: Someone once said where 13 does it say in the Constitution that it's free speech, 14 but it's only three minutes. My understanding is 15 we're going to be doing -- not we. They want to do 16 the same work as Rocky Flats, exact same work, same 17 process, same mess, same need to clean it up. So why 18 isn't it going to be closed? 19 Let's close the Los Alamos weapons 20 production. I don't see any need for it. Maybe we 21 have to close the whole thing to do it. I don't know. 22 We might not be able to do alternative work if people 23 don't seem to get the message. We've been telling 24 them for years and years. 25 I was going to say I'm tired of you guys 63 1 fucking around with this, but that would be obscene. 2 What's obscene is what you guys do. It's totally an 3 obscenity, the production. You've been terrorizing 4 New Mexico, you've been terrorizing the world for 60 5 years. And we're sick of it. 6 It's a total obscenity. Talk about -- is 7 this why we crawled out of primal ooze, solely to take 8 chromium and eight times toxic chromium and put eight 9 times the safe limit in our Rio Grande and our 10 drinking water? Right. 11 I think it should be a Superfund site, except 12 they don't fund Superfund sites anymore. The 13 stockpile is way over. I really think that it should 14 be looked at as far as the fact that it is the exact 15 same thing that's happened in Rocky Flats and it 16 should be closed for the exact same reasons. 17 Someone said that the decision is going to be 18 made by some hullabaloo, somebody, some muckety-muck 19 in DOE. Congress makes the decisions, not DOE. 20 Congress makes the decisions, not as George Bush says. 21 Congress is the decider, not George Bush. 22 MS. BRANDIN: Mr. Frenkel. Following him is 23 Seely Solomon. 24 JACK FRENKEL: My name is Jack Frenkel. I am 25 confronted here with a tremendous problem. And, 64 1 discussing in three minutes, I felt that we should 2 just use common sense since we won't solve it very 3 quickly. 4 So releasing vaporized depleted uranium from 5 weapons tests in the air near Los Alamos or 6 manufacturing plutonium pits a few miles from Santa Fe 7 are not attractive for tourists to come to Santa Fe 8 and New Mexico nor for the people who live here. 9 If at all necessary, such activities should 10 be moved to White Sands Proving Ground or the proposed 11 waste disposal site at Yucca Mountain in Nevada or 12 near the uranium enrichment plant in Eunice or an 13 abandoned mine or another remote facility far from 14 population centers. 15 Accidents do happen. And radioactively 16 contaminated air is very difficult to decontaminate as 17 we learned from the contaminated canyons near Los 18 Alamos and in Rocky Flats which just mentioned had to 19 be abandoned. Why take such risks in the scenic and 20 economically productive tourist population center. 21 Thank you. 22 MS. BRANDIN: Following Ms. Solomon will be 23 Greg Mello. 24 SEELY SOLOMON: Hello. I'm Seely. I used to 25 be Suki and now I'm Seely. I'm both I guess. I'm 65 1 going to talk about the grandfather exemption. It 2 should not be applied to all facilities at LANL which 3 began operations before December 31st, 1988, because 4 there are many of them. And the continued release of 5 polluting gases adds to the burden of harmful toxins 6 which the plants, animals, and people of Northern New 7 Mexico are exposed to. 8 Grandfathers may be special people. But 9 polluting facilities are not. And they can't get away 10 with hiding behind the image of a grandfather in order 11 to poison the environment. 12 Instead I propose the grandmother clause. 13 That older facilities which began operations before 14 December 31st, 1988, be the first ones to be required 15 to clean up their act, making the changes and filters 16 and scrubbers on their exhaust gas carrying capacity 17 to bring them into compliance with the latest safety 18 codes. 19 We grandmothers feel strongly that no one 20 should be allowed to be exempted from the rules. We 21 certainly can't fool the natural world into believing 22 that it's okay because its healthy function depends on 23 clean pure air and water. 24 And grandmothers want everyone including 25 grandfathers to set a good example for the younger 66 1 generations because we are all responsible for our 2 actions and want to pass on the best world we can to 3 our kids. That's the way they will learn how to 4 manage this world properly, by following our good 5 example. 6 So let's not get it ass backwards. Let's 7 straighten this out. Should we make more plutonium 8 triggers for nuclear weapons at LANL? Absolutely not. 9 One plutonium trigger is too many. After all the 10 suffering in this world, we don't need to plan on ways 11 of increasing it. Once again we've got our priorities 12 ass backwards, putting destruction ahead of support 13 for life. 14 Instead of wasting precious resources, time, 15 and energy and, oh, yes, tax dollars on making weapons 16 of mass destruction, we need to join together to solve 17 the pressing problems of today's world which is global 18 warming, renewable energy production, and clean 19 alternative fuels. Like the bumper sticker I saw 20 recently says it, strengthen life, death takes care of 21 itself. 22 MS. BRANDIN: Thank you. Mr. Mello. 23 Following Mr. Mello will be Will Parrish. 24 GREG MELLO: Thank you, Suki. Seely I meant. 25 This is the third hearing on the subject that I've 67 1 been to this week. And I'm surprised that not one 2 single person testifying at any of the locations 3 including Los Alamos spoke in favor of increasing pit 4 production. And, in fact, no one spoke in favor of 5 retaining a nuclear deterrent. 6 Now, in the past I would have expected 7 somebody to step forward and sort of defend the 8 nuclear deterrent and the need for safety, 9 reliability, and so forth. But it didn't happen. Not 10 yet. Maybe tonight. 11 We're all here and so we have kind of voted 12 in a way to invest this process with our faith. So 13 we -- but we have to be careful with this. Few I 14 think here, certainly few last night, felt that this 15 was a good faith process in which the policy choices 16 facing the country would be adequately heard, you 17 know, in the three minute comment period and so forth, 18 which deals with a tiny, tiny, tiny sliver of the 19 issues involved as Bill Christison pointed out so very 20 well. 21 So in a way I've already said my peace as far 22 as the oral testimony to the NNSA. I want to talk to 23 us as a community. 24 We have to be careful about our own focus and 25 our own energy level and our own commitment to this 68 1 because this isn't a good faith process. And, if we 2 fall into without really thinking about it the idea 3 that by coming here and saying our peace that this is 4 going to stop pit production here in Northern New 5 Mexico, we will be making a very, very big mistake. 6 In fact, there are a lot of people who would like us 7 to make that mistake. 8 Now, whoever organized the -- who talked to 9 the city councilors and got this draft resolution 10 which follows one passed last year which was even 11 stronger, but this one is quite timely, did a very 12 good thing. And that can be generalized to other 13 cities. 14 The Town of Madrid has also passed a 15 resolution. The Town of Taos has considered a 16 resolution. The County of Taos has heard the subject 17 and has thought about it. I urge you to get involved 18 in reaching local officials just like someone did so 19 effectively in the City of Santa Fe. 20 Get to those officials, get to the state 21 legislators. It's going to affect our economy, our 22 society, our culture, our morale, our mental health, 23 everything. And, by appealing to the neoconservatives 24 in the Bush Administration, that's what Linton Brooks 25 is, we are not going to -- it's not going to come out 69 1 well. 2 And that's what this process is, it is an 3 appeal within the executive branch. So that's fine, 4 we're here, we are speaking out strongly. But this 5 has to be an inspiration for us and not something that 6 we go away from and think, ah, we really told them 7 something. 8 We have to organize within ourselves, within 9 our friendship networks, and support the organizations 10 who are working on this. Get involved, put your 11 energy there, put your life there. Freedom has never 12 been as they say defended just by kind of like a 13 hobby, like, oh, maybe after a latte. We have to 14 really care. 15 Now, I'd like to take the logic that Bill 16 Christison mentioned about the relationship of these 17 nuclear weapons to our foreign policy and take it 18 back. For us in New Mexico, this is the most 19 effective thing we can do for many of us, to affect 20 the foreign policy of the United States and limit its 21 violence. 22 Just as Bill said, it's absolutely essential 23 for the United States to have nuclear weapons as the 24 ultimate guarantor of the safety of our expeditionary 25 forces. Nuclear weapons are what make war possible. 70 1 In the Middle East, usable nuclear weapons 2 are what make -- nuclear deterrents and nuclear 3 coercion are compellants, they use the word 4 compellants now, the Defense Science Board. That's 5 what makes that possible. 6 Those usable nuclear weapons are the 7 objective together with the so-called responsive 8 infrastructure. Well, that's not responsive to us, 9 it's responsive to Linton Brooks and The White House. 10 We once built -- these facilities are not really 11 controllable by Congress. 12 This process is an attempt to prejudice and 13 make an end run around the Congressional 14 decision-making process, put hundreds of millions -- 15 billions of dollars of projects, get the environmental 16 approval, and a kind of an executive branch commitment 17 while we still have George Bush in The White House and 18 before the full impact of debt and war begins to 19 settle in in Congress. 20 These facilities and this agenda is already 21 very controversial in Congress. And so, by speaking 22 out and committing yourself to fight it, you are 23 joining with a lot of people in Congress who are 24 already fighting it. This is a conservative activity. 25 Now, I know my time is up, but I just want to 71 1 say -- okay. Just one more thing then. Much of what 2 has been said tonight has focused on the increase in 3 pit production activity at Los Alamos. And in a way 4 that's proper because that is what this EIS is about. 5 Innovation and new capacity is absolutely 6 essential for the maintenance of the nuclear weapons 7 program. You can't have a huge complex project like a 8 nuclear weapons complex and have it just idle for year 9 in and year out, decade in and decade out. 10 The weapons managers are desperate to restart 11 this because they fear that the tacit knowledge and 12 the ideological certainty in the younger generation 13 won't be there to continue the nuclear weapons mission 14 into a new generation. They're right, they're 15 absolutely right. 16 It's not really about an increase in 17 capacity, it's about continuing at all. And a vote, 18 an effort to keep Los Alamos from making plutonium 19 pits condemns -- the nuclear weapons program puts it 20 on a path toward oblivion. 21 We should be very clear about that so we 22 don't get suckered into a technical argument with 23 people who have a lot of classified information in 24 their back pocket. So it's only by -- as has been 25 done by many speakers here this evening, we clarify 72 1 our moral and our evaluative stance. 2 We can make common cause with people who are 3 working for education, for healthcare, for the type of 4 values which could create sustainable economy in New 5 Mexico; because this has not brought us prosperity, it 6 has hurt us economically very badly. 7 We will be putting ourselves in an economic 8 cul-de-sac, committing ourselves to a path of economic 9 decline, increasing economic disparity when we could 10 be looking at real national security challenges and 11 building sustainability, community, and putting our 12 economics together with our spirituality in a way that 13 makes sense so our kids won't kill themselves. 14 MS. BRANDIN: After Mr. Parrish will be 15 Andrew Culp. 16 WILL PARRISH: My name is Will and I'm a 17 graduate of University of California-Santa Cruz class 18 of 2004. And the University of California as many of 19 you know was the manager of the Los Alamos National 20 Laboratory from its inception until very recently, 21 when it partnered with Bechtel and Los Alamos 22 Security, LLC, to privatize the management of the Los 23 Alamos Laboratory. And the University of California 24 also managed the Lawrence Livermore National 25 Laboratory from its inception. 73 1 Every nuclear weapon in the United States 2 arsenal was designed by an employee of the University 3 of California. Now, I'm here tonight all the way from 4 Santa Barbara along with five other students and 5 recent graduates of the UC basically for the reason 6 that we want to be here in solidarity of every single 7 person in this room who opposes the production of new 8 nuclear weapons and is working for nuclear 9 disarmament. 10 And we want to be in solidarity also with 11 everyone everywhere who is working for disarmament of 12 nuclear weapons and production of new nuclear weapons 13 materials. The reason that we're here tonight is that 14 we think that there is no more important place to be 15 in the struggle to disarm the United States nuclear 16 weapons arsenal than right here right now. 17 And like Greg Mello I have been to each of 18 the hearings that the NNSA has conducted over the past 19 three nights. And like Greg mentioned there has not 20 been a single person who has risen to this microphone 21 and spoken in favor of production of new plutonium 22 pits. There has not even been a single person who has 23 spoken in favor of the U.S. having a so-called nuclear 24 deterrent. 25 Every single person who has spoken out in the 74 1 last three nights has opposed the production of new 2 plutonium pits. So I think that the sentiment of 3 people of New Mexico has been made pretty clear. 4 And, with that in mind, I would propose that 5 we actually -- some of us take on a little different 6 mode in the discussion for the rest of this evening, 7 because the question isn't any more what we think 8 about plutonium pit production. 9 The people at the NNSA aren't really 10 listening to us anyway, they don't value our opinions 11 very much anyway. What they do respect and what they 12 do value is when we organize ourselves politically to 13 make a stand. 14 And with that in mind I propose that, in 15 contrast to the process that's taking place right now, 16 that we have somewhat of a genuine democratic process 17 where we actually talk about what we're going to do to 18 stop the production of new plutonium pits in New 19 Mexico for the rest of the night. 20 So, with that in mind, I invite some of my 21 colleagues and other people to come up here and make 22 some proposals about how we are going to come together 23 and stop production of new plutonium pits and do so as 24 a step toward nuclear disarmament in the U.S. and 25 around the world. Thank you very much. 75 1 MS. BRANDIN: Mr. Culp. And after that we're 2 going to take a short break. 3 ANDREW CULP: I would actually prefer to take 4 the break before I speak, if that's okay. 5 MS. BRANDIN: Fine. Five minutes, everybody. 6 (Break) 7 MS. BRANDING: Before we get started, I would 8 like to make an announcement. Everybody ready. The 9 purpose of this meeting is to take the testimony of 10 the people who have signed up to talk about the 11 site-wide EIS. I want to make sure that everybody who 12 has done that has an opportunity to do so. 13 There have been some discussions about having 14 other meetings here, but that's not the purpose of our 15 meeting. If you would like to have a meeting, that's 16 fine. But I want to make sure that everybody who 17 wants to comment on the site-wide EIS and the purpose 18 of the meeting has the opportunity to do that first. 19 ANDREW CULP: Hello. I'm kind of a geek for 20 kind of participatory interactions and all that kind 21 of stuff. So I'll start this out. Good evening. 22 Okay. So first things off, I think we should 23 give props to the court reporter. So, as my colleague 24 Will brought up, it's fairly unanimous, the people's 25 sentiment here. And so I really encourage people to 76 1 come and talk if they have interesting and new things 2 to say about pit production. 3 But I want to take this to the next step 4 because I feel that this great convergence of people 5 is not something that always happens and it's 6 something that we have to take into consideration 7 because we're here right here and right now. And 8 there is some wonderful energy and we can go really 9 far with it. 10 So the first thing I want to do is just up 11 the energy just a little bit more. I've got a little 12 chant that I really like. Okay. It's the people 13 united will never be defeated. Okay. And let's do 14 that three times. One, two, ready, go, the people 15 united will never be defeated, the people united will 16 never be defeated, the people united will never be 17 defeated. 18 So, in using this forum as kind of a safe 19 space for people who don't always come together, I 20 want to open it up to more of a question and answer, 21 more of a forum, less of a hearing, and see what 22 people might propose. 23 Now, it's not a propose what we should do in 24 ten years, what the policymakers should do. I want to 25 know what the people should do because we're the 77 1 people, we're not the policymakers. So who is a 2 person who would like to give me a proposal so we can 3 talk about it? 4 SPEAKER: Fire all Congress. 5 MS. BRANDIN: Excuse me. Please, let's not 6 do this. The purpose of the meeting -- 7 ANDREW CULP: I think this is my free speech. 8 MS. BRANDIN: You're allowed to be up there 9 but not to take testimony from other people in the 10 audience. 11 ANDREW CULP: I think it would be important 12 testimony for the people to decide what to do about 13 plutonium pit production. So anyone else have an 14 idea? 15 SPEAKER: I think that everybody should call 16 their Congressman or Representative, every single 17 person. 18 ANDREW CULP: Every person should call their 19 Congressman or Representative, every person. So how 20 can we do that, how can we ensure that everyone is 21 going to be calling their representatives and that 22 they have a focused goal in mind? 23 SPEAKER: We have postcards out here, that 24 you can send the postcards. 25 ANDREW CULP: There are postcards outside 78 1 that people can pick up. And where can they pick them 2 up? Shannyn has them. 3 SPEAKER: Give them to all your friends. 4 ANDREW CULP: And I would like to hand it off 5 to my colleague to continue this conversation. 6 SOPHIA RITCHIE: My name is Sophia Ritchie, 7 I'm also signed up to speak. I'm going to dedicate my 8 three minutes as well to opening up this room so that 9 we can discuss together. Does anyone else have 10 anything they would like to add or propose? 11 SPEAKER: Remind all our elected officials 12 that they all took an oath to protect and defend the 13 Constitution of the United States and of New Mexico 14 and we will hold them accountable. It is time that we 15 hold them accountable. 16 SPEAKER: There is a 1-800 number that you 17 can use to call any member of Congress. You call, 18 they ask you who do you want to talk to, and that's 19 the best number to use free. That number is 20 888-355-3588. That's all you need to call any member 21 of Congress. 22 SPEAKER: Repeat it again. 23 SPEAKER: All right. 888-355-3588. 24 SOPHIA RITCHIE: I encourage everyone to 25 write this number down and give it to your friends and 79 1 people in your community. 2 SPEAKER: Shannyn has the postcards right 3 here that you can give out to your friends. 4 ASTRID WEBSTER: I've heard rumors that the 5 Department of Tourism and our illustrious governor 6 want to have a peace conference in New Mexico. And I 7 think we should help him do that, because there are 8 some things that aren't well understood; and that is 9 how important Los Alamos is to our present future, 10 et cetera, how important Eunice is to our present and 11 future, and how important Carlsbad is. 12 So, if we're going to mention peace in New 13 Mexico, by God, we ought to take people to see all of 14 our nuclear installations, because that would say the 15 word peace and New Mexico don't go hand in hand. 16 We have diplomacy by trident here. And so I 17 think we should let all the tourists who come to New 18 Mexico know that Los Alamos really is the pits. 19 CHRISTY ESCOBAR: We're also going to be 20 passing around a contact info sheet for everyone in 21 this room that would like to be further involved in 22 the rest of the process. And that will be passed 23 around throughout the remainder of this hearing. 24 SPEAKER: Maybe we could develop a pledge 25 like there is a peace pledge now about Iraq. Maybe we 80 1 can develop one about this issue here and promise 2 civil disobedience if something is not done. 3 SPEAKER: I do want to mention quickly that 4 there is a call for nuclear disarmament. Everyone 5 please sign it. We all are here for this process. We 6 do all want nuclear disarmament. Let's all work 7 together please to support this. 8 SOPHIA RITCHIE: The woman in the back 9 mentioned civil disobedience. And I would just like 10 to propose that as an option. I know that once we go 11 back to California, we will be participating in 12 nonviolent civil disobedience and solidarity with the 13 people of New Mexico until pit production is stopped 14 and not continued further in this state. 15 And, if anyone has proposals at this time for 16 other things that we could do, solid ideas, we can 17 take those or open up the floor. 18 SPEAKER: We need a moratorium to stop all 19 nuclear activity in the state of New Mexico and the 20 United States. We also need an independent 21 investigation of all the nuclear facilities here in 22 New Mexico and around the United States. 23 They have grossly contaminated the ecosystems 24 of the world. And we are drinking radioactive water. 25 You know, it needs to stop. We do need a moratorium, 81 1 it's got to stop. I've been an activist 16 years and 2 it has escalated instead of dying down. So it is time 3 that we get a moratorium throughout the United States. 4 WILL PARRISH: I'd like to take just a little 5 bit of our remaining free speech time to talk about a 6 few proposals that some of us talked about before this 7 hearing began. 8 And a few of those included -- and I want to 9 see a show of hands of people who support these when I 10 say them, please. These included organizing car pools 11 to meet with Congresspeople to express our opposition 12 first of all to the process by which this SWEIS is 13 being carried out and also to express our opposition 14 to production of new plutonium pits and to other 15 activities in the Los Alamos National Laboratory. 16 So who favors going in car pools to meet with 17 Congress people about that? 18 So what we're going to do -- we happen to be 19 working with the Los Alamos Study Group which many of 20 you may have heard of, I assume most of you have. 21 And, if you sign up on the Los Alamos Study Group 22 sign-up sheet, we promise that we will be in touch 23 with you about any of these plans that we propose over 24 the course of the time that we're here. 25 We're here through August 18 working with the 82 1 Los Alamos Study Group. And we would also love to 2 work with the other wonderful community organizations 3 in New Mexico who would like to be a part of these 4 plans also. Okay. 5 So another plan that we talked about was 6 performing nonviolent civil disobedience. I don't 7 want to go into too much detail beyond that right now 8 because some of those things should probably be worked 9 out privately. But engaging in nonviolent civil 10 disobedience to help bring about a halt to plutonium 11 pit production at Los Alamos Laboratory. 12 Who is interested in that idea? Great. 13 Okay. So those were the two ideas that we were most 14 in favor of. Thanks to those of you who are 15 interested in those, we will be in touch with you. 16 And, in our remaining free speech time, we'll give it 17 over to other people in the audience who have ideas. 18 SPEAKER: I'm going to state again, Shannyn 19 has these postcards and the labels for Udall, 20 Bingaman, and Domenici. All you have to do is give 21 them to ten people. And she's got the labels for 22 those ten people, three to each person with the label. 23 She's got them. This is a really good opportunity to 24 make a difference. She's got them already, she has 25 thousands of them. 83 1 SHANNYN SOLLITT: I printed 18,000. 2 SPEAKER: This is an important move that 3 she's made here, she worked really hard to get these 4 together. So I encourage everybody to get their stack 5 of ten with their labels. And give ten to each person 6 with the three labels. 7 KAMARA O'CONNOR: My name is Kamara O'Connor. 8 And I just want to bottom line everything that we as a 9 community took democratically to discuss in this 10 incredibly undemocratic process to note that we 11 decided, one, that everybody in this room was going to 12 sign one of these postcards and send them in. 13 Two, that everybody in this room is going to 14 sign your name and carpool with us to sit in on 15 Congressional offices and let them know what we think 16 about the nuclear weapons production. And three, 17 we're going to, I don't know, block Los Alamos, shut 18 that place down. Like are you guys ready to do this? 19 The NNSA needs to understand that the New 20 Mexican community is united to defeat this together, 21 forget all the petty stuff, this, that, and the other, 22 we're all going to work together and we can then 23 succeed. Thank you so much. 24 MS. BRANDIN: Okay, guys. I have a request. 25 There are a number of people here from Albuquerque who 84 1 have a long way to go back. And they have requested 2 to be put ahead. Their time is not on until about 15 3 people. 4 And so I agreed to put the question to the 5 audience, because I said I will take people in the 6 order that they registered, whether you would extend 7 them the courtesy of going to the head of the line now 8 even though they're out of order. Okay. 9 SPEAKER: The people from Dixon too. The 10 people from Dixon are downwind. 11 MS. BRANDIN: So the folks from Albuquerque 12 who made that request, can one of you tell me your 13 name so I can find your card. 14 SPEAKER: I do think that it's true that 15 other people who have come a long ways, you know, 16 should also be able to testify, from Dixon, 17 Vallecitos, Chamisal. 18 SPEAKER: Las Vegas, Mora. 19 MS. BRANDIN: I'm going to request that you 20 go out and give your names to the people out in the 21 registration table so that we don't take up too much 22 valuable time trying to find you. In the meantime the 23 folks from Albuquerque who requested to come up, where 24 are you? Can you give me your name, please. Floy 25 Barrett. 85 1 FLOY BARRETT: I'm a member of Albuquerque 2 Center For Peace and Justice and I have been active in 3 all of this issue for many, many years. I think 4 everyone who has spoken before has put my sentiments 5 out there already about the whole issue of the new 6 site environmental impact statement. 7 I support all of that. What I would like to 8 do tonight is just to reflect a moment about the great 9 minds that are up at Los Alamos. The people who 10 invented and came up with this horrible, horrible 11 nuclear bomb have got some intelligence that could be 12 used for very positive things. 13 I think we should challenge them to use their 14 great minds to come up with renewable energy for all 15 of us, to come up with many ways of using the 16 technology to clean up everything out there that's in 17 nuclear waste and also to use their great minds to 18 work with our communities to develop the very best 19 that is possible in health. 20 I think that they have the brains to think of 21 all kinds of technologies that could be used in the 22 health field. They've already done something with 23 lasers for eyes and a few things. But it's just a sad 24 affair that they're wasting those great minds on 25 destruction instead of something that could be 86 1 constructive. And I think that's what I'd like to 2 challenge the scientists to do. 3 JUDITH KIDD: Hi, I'm Judith Kidd with the 4 Albuquerque Center For Peace and Justice. And I 5 really appreciate all the information that I have 6 learned from all the excellent speakers tonight and 7 the organizing ideas that have come out of our 8 friends. 9 I feel so strongly about some of the same 10 ideas that the preceding speaker just gave. And I'm 11 not going to repeat all that. But we do, we need to 12 work on getting Los Alamos -- let those people work on 13 things that support our future. I'm thinking of our 14 children, our grandchildren, our grandchildren's 15 children. 16 What will those people, what will those young 17 people think of us down the road if we haven't put 18 energy at this critical time into sustainable 19 environmental living, into climate control, into all 20 the kinds of things that are going to create a better 21 world. We really need to focus on that. 22 And I hope all of our energies, our 23 organizing energies, are speaking to the people in Los 24 Alamos, get us to work together on that. We must work 25 to create a peaceful sustainable world for those 87 1 future generations. Thank you. 2 MS. BRANDIN: Anybody else from Albuquerque? 3 BOB ANDERSON: My name is Bob Anderson, I'm 4 from Albuquerque, I'm with a group called Stop the War 5 Machine. And our group's focus is the military 6 industrial complex which runs the state of New Mexico 7 and most of this country ever since World War II. 8 And we try to broaden it out a little bit 9 past nuclear weapons. But we want to speak to what's 10 happening with this EIS and the process of it. Two 11 things I want to point out on that. 12 One, there's a big silence of why there's no 13 hearing in Albuquerque for this process, the largest 14 city in the state, the state that's down river from 15 where all this crap is going to be washed out and has 16 been washing out for 50 years up there downstream into 17 our water supply. 18 There's no hearing scheduled for that. And I 19 have written and asked for that. And no word, no 20 response to it why Albuquerque has been omitted from 21 this. 22 Santa Fe and Albuquerque and all the places 23 downstream are going to be switching to drinking 24 surface river water. We know that because our aquifer 25 has been drained. The water quantity question has 88 1 become a water quality question also. 2 And we know that, with the expansion of 3 production in Los Alamos with this pit production, 4 we're going to have a problem like a super Rocky 5 Flats. If there's an accident, a volcano, an 6 earthquake, or an accident in production or waste 7 transport or whatever, that stuff is going to all come 8 downstream. 9 And I don't think any of the politicians care 10 about the people who are going to be drinking this 11 stuff. I agree with everything everyone else has said 12 about this is a nonproliferation issue, we should be 13 stopping this, we shouldn't be continuing it. So, in 14 terms of process, I want to bring that into it, that 15 the EIS has some very serious omissions in it. 16 Also I want to point out some other omissions 17 in the process and the draft statement. In a sense 18 all that's preceded us here tonight is a political 19 statement in a lot of ways. An environmental 20 statement should look at not just health and water but 21 should look at environment, the social environment we 22 live in, the political environment we live in, the 23 military environment we live in in the world. 24 Those should all be in there. There's none 25 of that in that. None of this will be reflected in 89 1 the statement unless you can bring it in in some 2 technical kind of way. And we have to expand it out 3 from that. In a way this is sham. But in a way it's 4 a preparation for us to be able to try to organize 5 ourselves. 6 The reason they're pushing this thing is Pete 7 Domenici, he wants the pork for the state, the 8 military people want the jobs and the money. But the 9 military of the country is facing global resistance to 10 our empire that they're trying to build. 11 And they're resorting to all kinds of devious 12 destructive weapons. The B-61, like Jay Coghlan was 13 talking about, if they use that weapon on a small 14 scale and they breach the threshold of the horror of 15 using nuclear weapons in warfare on a global situation 16 in the world, that opens the door to a whole new 17 horrible world that none of us want. 18 We're living in a state I think that is very 19 much like the people of Germany in World War II, when 20 the Nazis were preparing the global war machine. 21 That's where we're at. And it's not just nuclear 22 weapons. That's the most horrible thing. But there's 23 a whole family of weapons and systems that they're 24 developing here. 25 And I just want to draw your attention to the 90 1 green flier that we produced about the beam weapons 2 that they're developing here in the state between Los 3 Alamos, Sandia, and Kirtland Air Force Base to control 4 and kill people with laser weapons, microwave ovens, 5 directed energy weapons. This is the new generation 6 of where they're headed. 7 We've got to stop all that. It's got to be 8 people like us right here in the state. I just want 9 to say that we've got to get this hearing down in 10 Albuquerque, there should be a hearing for it down 11 there on the plutonium pit production and the 12 environmental problems of it. 13 And most of all it's a criminal enterprise. 14 The politicians behind it are criminals and they 15 should be put in jail and this project should be shut 16 down. Thank you. 17 JANET GREENWALD: Hi, I'm Janet Greenwald, 18 and I'm one of several coordinators of Citizens for 19 Alternatives to Radioactive Dumping. We deal mostly 20 with issues of contamination of people and land and 21 water and potential contamination. 22 When I first joined CARD which is the 23 acronym, I lived in Dixon, New Mexico. And my family 24 has a farm there and that's where two of my children 25 still live. They have other jobs, but they also farm 91 1 like most people in the area. 2 They sell their produce at farmers markets 3 and so forth. And a lot of our organic produce comes 4 from that area of the world, in New Mexico and outside 5 of New Mexico. 6 After the Los Alamos fire, a friend of mine, 7 Carol Miller, sent samples of her broccoli to Los 8 Alamos. And they tested the broccoli and found that 9 it was high -- had unusually high levels of americium. 10 And the broccoli -- Ojo Sarco is the next valley over 11 from Dixon, it's kind of up from Dixon. 12 And then I went to the resulting meeting. 13 And at the meeting the state and Los Alamos said that, 14 given the average consumption of an American of 15 broccoli per week, that a little bit more americium 16 there in the broccoli was fine. 17 But, of course, we know, those of us who have 18 lived in the country or live in the country know that, 19 when your broccoli comes in, you eat a whole lot of 20 broccoli, you feed your children broccoli, you take 21 broccoli to your grandmother, you take a lot of 22 broccoli to the farmers market, and so on and so 23 forth. 24 In Ojo Sarco there was also -- right after 25 the Los Alamos fire, there were aberrations in animal 92 1 birth, goats, chickens, and horses. And also those 2 same aberrations were seen in Sapello which is north 3 of Las Vegas and in Gallinas which is north of Las 4 Vegas. 5 There was a young woman who just came into 6 the state who had a metals body count before she came 7 in. And she didn't really know about Los Alamos, she 8 was camping. And the ash started falling like it did 9 in Ojo Sarco and Penasco and many places. And she 10 just took videotapes of it, wow, this is really a 11 trip. So then afterwards she had a metals body count. 12 And her body was full of all kinds of metals. 13 So, due to that information and other 14 information that is still coming in unfortunately 15 about contamination of soil and plants, our 16 organization believes that an environmental injustice 17 has been done to the low-income, resource-light 18 communities, mostly of color communities surrounding 19 Los Alamos and especially downwind from Los Alamos. 20 And we believe that, to put an additional 21 burden on people who are already stressed, whose 22 health is stressed, environment is stressed, is an 23 environmental injustice and also violates Title VI. 24 So this is another approach that we can use 25 to fight back. And I urge us to develop that 93 1 approach. I think that in this modern age 2 environmental justice is very important because, if 3 you cannot dump on the resource-light people of the 4 earth, can you really have a second nuclear age? What 5 do you think? Thank you. 6 DORIE BUNTING: Janet Greenwald has devoted 7 about 20 years of her life to this issue and at great 8 sacrifice. 9 MS. BRANDIN: Can I get your name. 10 DORIE BUNTING: My name is Dorie Bunting, I'm 11 from Albuquerque. And I'm just saying that Janet has 12 spent years and years on this issue starting with the 13 WIPP facility down at Carlsbad. 14 I would just like to say that, looking back 15 over of years of these hearings, many years, we've 16 come to a point in our history here in this country 17 that is apocalyptic. And I think that's what we're 18 saying here tonight, that we stand on a precipice. 19 And I think we are up to drawing back from 20 this precipice. We all have strength and ability to 21 do this. And we can do it. All during the Cold War 22 we said that the Soviet Union -- we couldn't make 23 treaties with the Soviet Union because they wouldn't 24 abide by them. And this evening we're talking a lot 25 about the nonproliferation treaty to which we are 94 1 party. 2 And that you have to realize that our country 3 up to before this administration put in a great deal 4 of effort into coming to agreements and trying to stem 5 the nuclear holocaust. And that's what we have to get 6 back to, to a civilized approach to the world 7 community. 8 And also I want to urge you to watch the 9 media in your communities and look for openings to use 10 the media because the media as we know is being more 11 and more taken over by the corporate interests and 12 leaving us out in our opinions. 13 So I just want to say that the Tribune and 14 the Albuquerque Tribune in the last couple of years 15 has moved quite a bit toward publishing a lot of 16 opposition to the nuclear issue. And, if you watch 17 that and then respond and encourage them to do that, 18 call them. 19 And these are two headlines from 2003 at the 20 time of the previous hearings. A bomb factory That's 21 the Pits. And Deadly Silence on Nukes. And they 22 recently had an editorial about Sue Dayton, a very 23 complimentary editorial. So don't give up on the 24 media, write letters to the media and use that as a 25 means of communicating to your community. Thank you. 95 1 MS. BRANDIN: Is that it for the Albuquerque 2 group? I'll go back to the list until I get another 3 list. Sarah Miller. And following her is Dominique 4 Mazeaud. 5 SARAH MILLER: My name is Sarah Miller and I 6 am part of -- I'm an intern at the Los Alamos Study 7 Group this summer which is a great organization, much 8 like all the organizations that you all work for. And 9 I urge you strongly to unite and support each other in 10 this process, in this major event coming towards us 11 recently to disarm Los Alamos, New Mexico, the U.S., 12 and the world. 13 We must unite, we must support each other, 14 and in that support bring an end to this atrocity that 15 is nuclear weapons that is being supported by LANL and 16 the DOE and the U.S. We must end this. So please, I 17 call you all to urge everyone that you know to stop 18 nuclear weapons, to stop arming the U.S., to stop this 19 increase of militarization, please, please do what you 20 can, please. 21 MS. BRANDIN: After Dominique Mazeaud is 22 Shama Beach. 23 DOMINIQUE MAZEAUD: My name is Dominique 24 Mazeaud and I'm from Transylvania, I'm not from here 25 originally, you can hear that. I became an American 96 1 citizen in 1989 because I started coming to these 2 hearings. And I decided I had to become one. 3 I have been brought up by a French father who 4 really was so grateful to America for what America had 5 done for Europe and the world. I believe totally in 6 the American soul as put out by our forefathers and 7 foremothers. 8 However, today my heart is really feeling 9 very broken because I wonder about where our soul is 10 going. And in terms of -- I agree with everything 11 that has been said. I don't want to add anything on 12 those hearings. 13 But, in terms of actions, September 21st is 14 International Peace Day as put out by the United 15 Nations. And every year more and more people are 16 marking and taking that day very seriously. And there 17 is a call for all women and, of course, bringing along 18 with us our men to really unite and speak up and share 19 some of the things that we've been speaking about 20 tonight. 21 So I keep tuned and let's all get together on 22 the 21st of September. We have enough time to get 23 organized and unite and we are. Thank you. 24 MS. BRANDIN: Thank you. Shama followed by 25 Erich Kuerschner. 97 1 SHAMA BEACH: I have three simple sentences. 2 And I thought that -- I have been coming to these 3 meetings for 15 years. And I just thought of another 4 simple sentence to add to the other three which was 5 that, if 15 years ago they had listened to the good 6 people who were speaking at the hearings, we would 7 have shut down the lab at Los Alamos as we know it and 8 we would have a first class institute creating 9 alternative clean energy and all the other good stuff 10 we need. 11 So these three sentences I decided to write 12 so that my five year old grandson could understand 13 them. I think we are drowning in words. 14 I say no to Los Alamos National Lab's plan to 15 quadruple plutonium pit production. We have enough 16 triggers for nuclear warheads that will be reliable 17 for the next 60 years. Under the nuclear 18 nonproliferation treaty which our country signed, we 19 should be dismantling what we have. 20 Yes, it is very polluting. It is polluting 21 our atmosphere, our drinking water. What else did I 22 say here? Oh, so we are polluting more. Quadrupling 23 the plutonium pit production is bad, it is a bad thing 24 to do. You know it, I know it, and everyone in this 25 room knows it. So, as an elder in this community, I 98 1 ask you to do the right thing. Dismantle and clean 2 up. We will help. 3 MS. BRANDING: Following Mr. Kuerschner will 4 be Andrew Tongate. 5 ERICH KUERSCHNER: Boy, I like the way 6 this -- the way this direction is going. Just as a 7 background, my father worked for weapons all his life 8 starting working out working for Hitler on the B-2, 9 the guidance system, and came to this country and 10 worked on weapons systems until he retired in 1978 11 including doing national intelligence estimates. 12 So I think it's all clear to us now, whether 13 we have democracy or not, it's always been hard to try 14 to explain to my children Hitler came into being. And 15 it ought to be clear when we can't have a democratic 16 process on how best to determine the future role of 17 Los Alamos in our communities. 18 But some outsider that we don't know tries to 19 tell us how to do it and we have unanimous consent. I 20 mean it should be clear that it's not a matter of 21 keeping democracy, it's a matter of regaining 22 democracy, because, you know, let's be clear here, we 23 do not have a democracy. 24 The first thing that I want to state is that 25 I want to make a formal request for an extension of 99 1 time. I would like hearings, new hearings to begin 2 one week after -- I mean 30 days like they're supposed 3 to be after the EIS became generally available. So 4 that makes a new set of hearings happening on 5 September 5th and then we have a comment period until 6 October 5. 7 Now, I've worked on EISs almost from the very 8 beginning with Skip Morings and Merrills. So I know 9 what an EIS is supposed to look like. This is a sham. 10 The sad thing is the economics of this thing, if it 11 were done properly like we did EISs back in the 12 seventies, it would be so obvious that all these 13 things you guys are saying would be so clear. 14 There's no numbers in socioeconomics. I mean 15 there's a few dribbly senses by someone who has one 16 year as PR. I mean there's plenty of Ph.D.s in the 17 military and in Iran and everywhere that could laugh 18 at this. So this is really an issue of three boys or 19 a small group of men just like Hitler wanting to see 20 how far they can get an empire in their lifetime 21 before they pass away. Let's just really be clear 22 about that. 23 So it's really a question of like either 24 extending these hearings and let's all work on the 25 same side and hopefully we're all in the same country. 100 1 Except for a small group of people, everyone is 2 unanimous on this. So let's extend these hearings and 3 have a legitimate process. 4 The second part I wanted to make, if you look 5 at the impact, the earlier speaker implied that the 6 greatest impact here is air quality and waste 7 management. I mean it's nonsense. We all know it's 8 pit production and weapons production, I mean that's 9 the really big issue. 10 This needs to be quantified. If somebody 11 really thinks pits are useful -- and I mean my 12 understanding is that, by the time we could possibly 13 use these pits, the building which we're proposing to 14 build from it will be obsolete. They won't come into 15 play after that building is no longer -- I mean the 16 whole thing is absurd. 17 And, if one were to quantify this and treat 18 economics with the seriousness that one, you know, 19 addresses chemical and air quality, I mean it would 20 just be so obvious. And the sad thing is the person 21 who coined the term voodoo economics, ridiculing 22 Reagan's nonsense use of lack of numbers or 23 quantification, was George Herbert Bush. 24 Anyway there's no evidence to support pit 25 production, and any honest scientific study would make 101 1 that really clear. So anyway let's go to what we can 2 do. I mean I do suggest that we try to force reason 3 and science back into our society and we do use -- 4 this EIS statement addresses the real thing. 5 If it were done in good faith, we would have 6 those extra 30 days after we get the EIS and so a 7 whole new set of hearings. And, if we don't get 8 those, I mean it's time for litigation or civil 9 disobedience. 10 And so let's just make it clear that maybe 11 it's more cost-effective to talk this out like adults 12 and let's secure the national defense for our children 13 and for the future and let's all work on the same 14 side. I mean the sad thing is, if you read carefully 15 what the mandate of LANL is, one of them includes 16 providing for the national security, another one is 17 disarmament. 18 I mean a real EIS would give you a table, 19 give you numbers, give you marginal products and say 20 an extra dollar spent in pit production relative, an 21 extra dollar spent in disarmament, or an extra dollar 22 spent on non-nuclear proliferation or whatever. 23 You know, it would be obvious, there's no 24 numbers there because there aren't any. It's 25 nonsense. And that's what it is. But I still think 102 1 we should take an honest step to address this rightly 2 before we go into litigation and civil disobedience. 3 And one way we can do it is just start right 4 now. I like the tone that the Los Alamos Study Group 5 took in terms of saying whose meeting is this, who are 6 we deciding for. I mean does Bush get to decide how 7 this country goes and whether we have nuclear arms? 8 I mean let's face it, World War III has 9 started. I mean with Iraq, if you look at what 10 happened in Germany, I mean we are in this. And the 11 real issue now is are the Americans -- do they value 12 freedom enough, are they willing to fight for what our 13 forefathers did, a democracy, and return democracy 14 back to America. 15 I saw the rubble, I saw the destruction, I 16 know, any one is welcome to come to my house and look 17 at the evidence of what Hitler had. He had much more 18 superior military hardware than this country has at 19 that time. But look what happened. In the end, like 20 Eisenhower said, it's not the size of the dog in the 21 fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog. 22 And this is not a fight that we can win. You 23 know, so we're on a precipice here, whether we open up 24 this nuclear Pandora box and go in that direction or 25 whether we have the guts and courage to stand up for 103 1 our kids and secure the kind of country that we want. 2 I mean they're doing the same thing now that 3 happened to the Native American population, it 4 happened to the Spanish population. It's always a 5 bunch of people saying this is mine, I get to decide 6 process, I get to decide what we do, where we go. 7 Let's be clear about this. This is what Skip 8 Morings and Merrills on their first EIS back in 1970, 9 the Baltimore Beltway group. May I talk for a few 10 minutes? It's not your country, please. I mean it's 11 our country, the people get to decide what this 12 process is, this is none of your business quite 13 frankly. 14 MS. BRANDIN: There are other people here who 15 would like to have their opportunity to speak. 16 ERICH KUERSCHNER: Do we have a democracy 17 here or do we not? 18 MS. BRANDIN: No, we don't, because there are 19 other people -- 20 ERICH KUERSCHNER: I would like the record to 21 reflect that the facilitator said we do not have a 22 democracy here. 23 MS. BRANDIN: Only because you are not being 24 democratic to other people in this room. Please let 25 other people talk. 104 1 ERICH KUERSCHNER: Let's have a vote on who 2 is being democratic. Am I being democratic? Is the 3 facilitator being democratic? 4 MS. BRANDIN: I'm just trying to give other 5 people the chance to talk too, sir. 6 ERICH KUERSCHNER: Anyway, what I suggest we 7 do is we keep this thing as a start of our commitment. 8 I mean we saw how things changed in Vietnam, those of 9 you who saw that. We've got civil rights. I mean 10 that's what gets you anything, it's the guts that you 11 have and the way that you show them, your willingness 12 to stand up for what you believe in. 13 So, as a beginning of that -- and I like a 14 lot of the suggestions that the Los Alamos Study Group 15 had. But, in addition, I'd like to suggest that we 16 keep -- I talked to the hall monitor. He said we can 17 keep this building open and this room open as long as 18 we like. 19 So I think we can show the public like who is 20 really interested in making America secure, who is 21 really interested in America's defense. Is it the 22 people who want to try to collect their knowledge and 23 work together on this problem or is it a facilitator 24 who just wants to go home and call it a done deal. 25 Thank you very much. 105 1 MS. BRANDIN: I implore you to please try to 2 keep your comments to a reasonable time. So we're 3 about halfway through. And I would really like people 4 to have an opportunity to talk. If we have time at 5 the end and you would like to speak again, we'll try 6 to give you that opportunity. But it's just common 7 courtesy to the other people who would like to speak 8 here. 9 With that Mr. Tongate. 10 ANDREW TONGATE: My name is A.J. Tongate. 11 And I must appreciate and respect everybody here for 12 doing what they feel they need to do. I have a lot to 13 say and I don't really know to where to begin. 14 But I want it to be known that I am one 15 individual, but my voice is for my community. It is 16 not solitary. I'm here on behalf of everyone at my 17 community, Santa Fe, New Mexico, the United States, 18 and the world. The entire world. 19 We do not want increased production, we do 20 not want production of any kind of nuclear weapons. 21 This is no way to grow, this is no way to behave, 22 let's all be adults here. Come on. 23 So that being said I must appreciate you for 24 bringing me here because I was very much unaware of 25 what was going on. And without this meeting I 106 1 probably wouldn't have taken action for a long time. 2 And now that I am here, I need to say that 3 this is not enough, this meeting will not accomplish 4 anything. We must keep growing, we must keep acting, 5 we must bring this to a halt. We must do something. 6 Do not leave tonight feeling you have 7 accomplished something, because you have not. We have 8 not accomplished anything until we see the complete 9 collapse of this horrible, horrible industry. 10 It's taking me a lot of effort to smile 11 tonight. I am smiling because I do have hope, because 12 I see so many people coming tonight and expressing 13 their desires for peace, for love, for humanity. 14 And I just need to say that I value my life 15 and I imagine everybody here values their life. And, 16 if that is true, think of the people on the receiving 17 end of each one of those nuclear weapons. They must 18 value their lives as well. There's no other 19 reasoning. If you value your life, you must value 20 theirs because they do as well. Thank you. 21 MS. BRANDIN: The next speaker is Miguel 22 Pacheco followed by Linda Wiener. Mr. Pacheco? Okay. 23 How about Linda Wiener? 24 LINDA WIENER: Hi, I'm Linda Wiener, I am 25 with Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety. I would 107 1 just like to agree with most of what's been said 2 tonight and just add a little bit. I'm just going to 3 tell some things that have been -- these are the 4 things that have gotten in the newspapers in the last 5 six months about Los Alamos' environmental record. 6 We have it was mentioned the hexavalent 7 chromium found in the monitoring well that they had 8 concealed for two years. By the time we knew about 9 it, it had doubled. 10 There are PCBs in our water, there's 11 perchlorate in our water. Over 1,000 discharge sites 12 at Los Alamos that should be monitored under the law, 13 under the Clean Water Act, they fail to monitor. 14 There's an issue of the fake monitoring 15 wells. This is my favorite. $125 million spent on 16 monitoring wells almost all of which failed to 17 monitor. They filter out the heavy metals and the 18 radionuclides before monitoring. And so it always 19 looks fine. It's everything is always fine. 20 SPEAKER: They're a bunch of criminals. 21 LINDA WEINER: And this is just the stuff 22 that's been in the newspaper. Imagine what doesn't 23 get in the newspaper. 24 So considering this record, their failure to 25 obey environmental laws, their failure to monitor, 108 1 their failure to protect our air and water, doesn't it 2 seem insane that we should increase the kinds of 3 activities that Los Alamos does. I think it's pretty 4 clear that they're incapable. Thank you. 5 MS. BRANDIN: Miguel Pacheco followed by 6 Shannyn Sollitt. 7 MIGUEL PACHECO: I could have been -- I 8 wanted to be in 100 or 200 different places than this 9 tonight. But I had to come here. I grew up here, 10 I've been here all my life, and I've seen the 11 disrespect, the lack of respect that is happening. 12 That's why certain mentalities wanted to 13 create nuclear bombs, nuclear power. A lack of 14 respect, lack of respect for life and for the health 15 of the people who live here. 16 The last lady that spoke, it's true, there's 17 been so many coverups. We've been so polluted and 18 full of toxins. But this so-called government of ours 19 is so busy trying to oppress people throughout this 20 world. They started here, they oppressed the local 21 people. 22 And now why else would they want to bring 23 these toxic chemicals and heavy metals, uranium 24 curtain. A woman spoke of the Iron Curtain. It's a 25 uranium curtain here. Sixty years, they buried all 109 1 those toxins up in Los Alamos. 2 There are 15, 20 arroyos and rivers that go 3 down to the Rio Grande. What's that? 10 million 4 people plus are taking that water. The air after the 5 fires that happened. No one is immune to this. 6 All this money that could be -- people have 7 talked. Where could this money be directed. It could 8 be directed to health, education, just helping people 9 grow, helping people survive. Too many people I have 10 talked to, they couldn't come because they're too busy 11 surviving, no gas money. That's criminal. 12 The Department of Energy, it's like a 13 department of capturing energy, capturing the people's 14 energy. It's time to rise up. You know, we're all in 15 poverty, we're all being enslaved. Why? Because of 16 certain invisible elite that want to take over the 17 world. Okay. 18 They talk about weapons and space, right, 19 nuclear weapons and space. Who needs one bomb? Who 20 can really justify that dropping one bomb anywhere? 21 What's happening in Lebanon? Mainly innocent 22 children, women, children, old people. Iraq, depleted 23 uranium. Who is going to take this waste? 24 The whole cycle from uranium. And the 25 Navajos and the Hopis, the Denai, they mined that 110 1 uranium. That was the first initial step. What 2 happened to them? The lungs, the cancers. 3 Our water, you know, the limited water here 4 has been polluted. It doesn't make sense. So it's a 5 game to enslave people. It takes more energy to 6 create this nuclear power, nuclear weapons. Why? To 7 enslave people. So let's rise up. It's time to say 8 no more. It's insane. We shouldn't even have to be 9 talking about this. 10 We were given a beautiful earth, a beautiful 11 world. A certain mentality has no respect. And how 12 can we allow them to carry on? They're not our 13 leaders. They have led us to destruction, to death. 14 And why do we permit them to carry on? One bomb, no. 15 Plutonium, we could go into the volumes and volumes. 16 That's not important. No more bombs. 17 All these Superfunds are not being funded 18 right there in Los Alamos, all over the country. The 19 Columbia River, all the salmon are dying. Why? 20 Because all those barrels are rotting into the 21 Columbia River. Savannah, South Carolina, North 22 Carolina, all over this country. 23 You people, the Department of Energy, the 24 Department of Defense, believes they're above the law. 25 They're creating death all over and we still permit 111 1 them to do that. 2 MS. BRANDIN: Sir, can you wrap up your 3 comments please. 4 MIGUEL PACHECO: So I'm just saying that we 5 have to stop this. I think we should have more 6 hearings. We need hearings in Albuquerque, down 7 south, you know. And then one more thing. The 8 nuclear fuel processing plant in Eunice, New Mexico, 9 set up by the four, five European powers, right. 10 Great Britain, Dutch, German, help me, Netherlands, 11 and France bought into it. 12 When Los Alamos delivered a couple hundred 13 pounds of plutonium, the next day they bought over a 14 half interest. Something is going on. Why are we 15 funding the dictators of the world? Do you trust the 16 leaders in this country? What are they doing? 17 They're killing the world's population. We're not 18 immune to it, we're no better than them. We're next. 19 We have been next. In fact, no more bombs. Let's 20 stop them. 21 MS. BRANDIN: Ms. Sollitt, Shannyn Sollitt 22 followed by Richard Yunker. 23 SHANNYN SOLLITT: Hi, I'm Shannyn from Santa 24 Fe. This is the third hearing I've gone to this week. 25 And I spoke extemporaneously at the first two hearings 112 1 and I decided, well, this time I would like to follow 2 the rules. It's very difficult for me to do that kind 3 of thing. 4 But, since this is a site-wide environmental 5 statement that we're making here, I decided to write 6 one out. I understand that, when you come to the 7 hearings, that you're supposed to get answers for the 8 questions that you pose in the site-wide environmental 9 statement. Is that correct? You don't know? 10 MS. BRANDIN: No, no. The purpose of the 11 hearing is to get your comments. 12 SHANNYN SOLLITT: But then what are you going 13 to do with the comments? 14 MS. BRANDIN: They will be published in the 15 final site-wide EIS and the responses will be also. 16 SHANNYN SOLLITT: These are a bunch of 17 questions I have laid out here in this little bit that 18 I wrote to be submitted to you. I'll read it quickly. 19 The Department of Energy has a deplorable record when 20 it comes to the safety of citizens in regards to the 21 weapons production facilities across the U.S. 22 This track record has proven just as 23 deplorable at the Los Alamos National Laboratory as 24 elsewhere. In the site evaluation of LANL facility 25 that was made available to the public, I noticed that 113 1 they cite many instances where the Department of 2 Energy has fallen very short in its ability to protect 3 the environment. 4 Los Alamos National Laboratories was put in a 5 remote area high on a mountain because of the concerns 6 for secrecy in the second world war. Today the 7 location of the laboratory is antithetical to its 8 purposes, if its purpose is to produce nuclear 9 weapons. 10 I would like a response from my testimony 11 here to explain to the public what kind of rationale 12 puts a nuclear weapons production facility on top of a 13 windswept mountain in the middle of a wildfire zone 14 and at the source of a watershed that feeds the Rio 15 Grande Bravo River, the lifeblood of New Mexico, 16 providing water for 10 million people? Not good 17 science. 18 Rocky Flats, the previous pit production 19 facility in Colorado that was closed for its egregious 20 environmental behavior, pumped plutonium contaminated 21 waste into creeks that were feeding the public water 22 supplies. A horrific waive of infant deaths, cancers, 23 and other problems followed. 24 Not only was the water supply contaminated, 25 but plutonium particulate was found in the soil and 114 1 sand surrounding the facility. One particle of 2 plutonium, if breathed or otherwise ingested, can kill 3 a human or animal. Documented cases of plutonium 4 particulate found in the ashes of children from Rocky 5 Flats were permitted after death attests to that. 6 I would like a response for my testimony here 7 to explain to the public what LANL intends to do with 8 the waste storage problem that it is already plagued 9 with before even thinking about creating more. 10 Is the DOE intending to move 12,500 drums 11 buried before 1971 that is currently contaminating the 12 aquifer to WIPP. Such action furthering endangering 13 the population with the possibility of an accident or 14 spill. When an aquifer is contaminated, there is no 15 way to remediate it. What about the tritium, 16 plutonium, and other radionuclides found in the 17 canyons on the neighboring areas. 18 On top of the Pajarito plateau is an enormous 19 nuclear waste dump in a fire prone zone. Is the plan 20 to continue the storage of this waste? What happens 21 in the event of a fire or some major weather calamity? 22 Plutonium doesn't burn. But carried by the wind it 23 can land on any farmer's land. One particle of 24 plutonium, if breathed or otherwise ingested, can kill 25 a human or an animal. 115 1 Why would any rational person or agency want 2 to put a nuclear weapons production facility on top of 3 a windswept mountain in the middle of a wildfire zone 4 and at the source of a watershed. Please answer this. 5 We are making comments not just to be saying 6 things into the wind. We want to know from your 7 scientists why you would want to do this activity 8 there. It's not safe anywhere, nowhere, nowhere, 9 nowhere but there. 10 This is a site-wide environmental impact that 11 we want -- I want an answer to. And I want to see it, 12 I want -- I have my address here, I want it written to 13 me. Because otherwise you're just completely 14 disrespecting everybody who is getting up here to make 15 any kind of testimony. And I'm following the rules 16 except I'm taking too long. Okay. 17 Something which is not addressed in the SWEIS 18 review is the spiritual and psychological landscape. 19 Why is there such an inordinately high teen suicide 20 rate in Los Alamos, why did the travesty of Columbine 21 High take place in Littleton, Colorado, a bedroom 22 community for the Lockheed Martin plant. Is this just 23 a coincidence or is it water that could have been 24 contaminated? 25 Chemicals discharged from the plant that are 116 1 known to cause aggression, neurological disorders, 2 depression, cancers, birth defects, leukemia and other 3 types of problems are found in the Columbine Valley. 4 Or is it the soul of the human being that has lost all 5 hope for a just and compassionate world. 6 Please, before you consider putting this 7 production facility here, answer these questions. I 8 call for a definitive research of the towns close to 9 all the weapons production facilities to be done on 10 the psychological effects on children and adults of 11 the weapons of mass destruction facilities. 12 I do not want to see our children brought up 13 in an environment that condones production of these 14 weapons. I want the children growing up here to see a 15 bright future with the possibility of working at the 16 Los Alamos National Laboratory on life-affirming 17 activities, on technologies that bring answers to the 18 real national security issues of global climate 19 change, on the use of renewable energy forms, on 20 technologies for the remediation of horrific waste 21 from the nuclear industry that started here and that 22 are causing such suffering here and all over the 23 world. 24 This is a common sense vision that I believe 25 is held by the majority of people here and the world. 117 1 Thank you. 2 RICHARD YUNKER: My name is Richard Yunker, 3 my friends call me Preacher, my friends here tonight. 4 I've had to wait so long and now I'm mad. We showed 5 up tonight on really, really short notice to tell you 6 that we don't need any more WMDs or plutonium pits or 7 weapons of war, we already have too many. 8 As a species we are committing ourselves to 9 self annihilation. We have a plethora of the most 10 diabolical, sinister, outlandish weapons of murder 11 imaginable. And yet we rail hypocritically against 12 those nations that we deem as enemies when they don't 13 agree with us and want their share of these weapons to 14 defend themselves against us. 15 We are contaminating our air, soil, water 16 around the world for eons to come as if we think we 17 are the last generation on the planet. Do we not 18 believe in the continuing of mankind? Are we not 19 acting like we don't care about the futures of our 20 children or our grandchildren or great grandchildren. 21 They are our only guarantee of eternal life. 22 We go around committing the world -- around the world 23 committing degradations, atrocities on defenseless 24 countries spouting freedom, democracy, and 25 Christianity. And, when a country emerges with a 118 1 democratically elected leader, we do everything to 2 suppress and destroy it. 3 The day after 9/11 the Iranians marched in 4 the streets in support of the U.S., deploring the 5 crime, what had been done to us. This administration 6 has so squandered that goodwill and so alienated Iran 7 that Israel and the United States are the worst 8 enemies. 9 In the April 17 issue of the New Yorker, 10 Seymour Hersh wrote about the administration's plan to 11 nuke Iran's underground nuclear facility at Natanz 75 12 feet below the surface and rock and steel reinforced 13 concrete using the bunker buster, the B-6111, referred 14 to as the mother of all bombs. This, of course, will 15 teach the Iranians that making nuclear weapons is 16 wrong. 17 The Pentagon has demanded that the 18 administration take this option off the table, but 19 they aren't listening. Mr. "Shock and Awe" Rumsfeld 20 and the DSB, that's the Defense Science Board, are 21 telling the Pentagon we can build the B-61 with more 22 blast, more robust, and less energy, less radiation. 23 And Bush with his messianic vision says he 24 will do what no one else has had the courage to do and 25 that doing Iran will be his legacy. On that day what 119 1 will 1.2 billion Muslims do? 2 Why shouldn't Iran want a nuke. They are 3 surrounded by nuclear nations. China, Russia, India, 4 Pakistan, Korea, France, and oh, yes, Israel. Last 5 count 200 warheads. And as of today they are still 6 denying it. We have to stop this madness. 7 I have lived in a beautiful isolated village 8 valley in the Sangre de Cristos for the last 38 years, 9 with lots of big trees, rolling hills, terraced, and 10 plenty of water, but downhill from Los Alamos, 11 downwind from Los Alamos, blissfully and naively 12 growing vegetables, thinking I'm doing the best for my 13 family and friends, only to find out that the manure, 14 the wood, ashes, the compost, and the fertilizers, 15 organic fertilizers I used are contaminated with 16 cadmium, mercury, americium, and cesium. Such pretty 17 names for such vile toxic substances. 18 On August 6, 2004, we marched with Pax 19 Christi from Asbury Park to the labs. And, as we 20 marched with our banners, we passed young people, 21 probably technicians, scientists, and physicists. 22 They wouldn't make eye contact with us as if they were 23 ashamed of what they were doing, like they had sold 24 out. 25 What happened? You were so brilliant, 120 1 educated, bright futures, full of hopes, ideas. At 2 what point did you think it was okay? Why come you? 3 Who are these thugs slouching towards Babylon, towards 4 Santa Fe, Espanola, Dixon, Penasco, Taos, Chamisal, 5 Truchas, Trampas, Vallecitos, and Llano. 6 Their smooth, disarming manners, bland 7 mendacious smiles, pockets full of money, poison, 8 cancer and suffering, pockets full of plutonium, 9 uranium 238, oil, bile, and the blood of the world's 10 children, going to high schools at graduations, 11 colleges at graduations, seducing young minds, the 12 best minds of our generation, to come and be 13 engineers, come and split some atoms, come and be 14 scientists, make a good living for yourself. 15 The Lord has given us the beautiful minds. 16 He said here is the sun, the wind, the surf to create 17 all the energy you need. Be good stewards, love it 18 and preserve it. It's a no-brainer that a technology 19 whose byproducts are so toxic and poisonous that it 20 can't be disposed of and yet be used to make the most 21 dangerous diabolical weapons imaginable is a bad idea. 22 But we showed up tonight to tell you no. How 23 could you ever think it was okay to shove it in the 24 arroyos, to bury it in the ground, to sneak it and 25 leak it into the water table, to vent it into the air. 121 1 We don't need another environmental impact statement 2 to know -- and you don't need one either to know that 3 it stinks to high heaven. And yet everything you 4 want -- every time you want to commit another 5 environmental atrocity, you come up with another EIS. 6 Well, we showed up tonight to make sure you 7 understand how we feel. It never was right and never 8 will be. How can you? Don't we breathe the same air, 9 don't we walk the same ground, are we not all brothers 10 and sisters? Don't you have children you love and 11 care about, their health and well-being? Are you just 12 in denial about this stuff? How can you not see it as 13 well? 14 The labs should never be closed, they should 15 be converted to peaceful, healthy nurturing, 16 life-sustaining research and technologies to begin to 17 heal the environment and reverse global warming, 18 research for mega-epidemics, alternative resources, et 19 cetera. 20 It will be a great day when we have enough 21 money -- when we don't have enough money for bombs and 22 weapons because we spent it all on food and shelter 23 for the world's poorest people who are living in 24 grunge and poverty and despair, we spent it all on 25 healthcare and education. Sorry, no more money for 122 1 bombs. 2 Then the lab will truly become the beacon of 3 hope at the top of the hill, the crown jewel of New 4 Mexico. We showed up here tonight to tell you that we 5 are hopping mad as well and we're not going to take 6 this shit anymore. 7 And every time you come, this will still be 8 here, we will still be here, and we'll tell you the 9 same thing. And we'll do everything we can to stop 10 you. And, when you realize that you're wrong, we'll 11 do everything to help change it. 12 So the DOE should go back to Linton Brooks 13 and say those people in the mountains don't want this 14 shit and neither do we and you should quit your jobs 15 and work for peace. It's not much money, but it feels 16 real good. Nuclear arms, may it rest in peace. 17 MS. BRANDIN: Our court reporter needs a 18 break so we're going to take another five-minute 19 break. 20 (Break) 21 MS. BRANDIN: I'm going to make another plea 22 to please keep your comments short because our court 23 reporter, Jan, is really beginning to come apart at 24 the seams. She's working pretty hard. 25 Okay. Our next speaker is Carol Benson 123 1 followed by Eduardo Krasilovsky. 2 ASTRID WEBSTER: I'm not Carol, I'm Astrid, 3 but Carol is headed for Albuquerque as we speak and 4 she wanted me to say several things. She wanted me to 5 draw attention to the yard signs, the billboards that 6 the Los Alamos Study Group has put out. You too can 7 we have one of these. You can do more than float 8 words on the air, you can put a picture in people's 9 minds. And these are really good pictures. So see 10 lasg.org on the web site to get one. 11 Also the Los Alamos Study Group has a call 12 for nuclear disarmament. Over 4,000 people have 13 signed it, over 400 businesses have signed it, and 14 about 110 organizations have signed it. I think, 15 ladies and gentlemen, we ought to quadruple this 16 number. Quadruple something safe rather than nuclear 17 weapons. And Carol last of all wanted to say thank 18 you for letting them go first. Thank you. 19 MS. BRANDIN: Eduardo Krasilovsky. Astrid, 20 you're next. 21 ASTRID WEBSTER: All right. Here I am back 22 as me. I respectfully disagree with the second 23 speaker representing Tom Udall. A 15-day extension 24 with a mere three minutes per objecting citizen is 25 more than enough when you listen politely without 124 1 really hearing anything. 2 Those of you who were in Los Alamos Tuesday 3 night already know that I grew up in a don't ask, 4 don't tell home. My German rocket scientist father 5 used to preach children should be seen and not heard. 6 To cement the lesson in place, he often 7 pulled us by our ears, almost dragging us to the site 8 of our sins or transgressions. Is it any accident 9 that I've become a listening therapist, using music to 10 connect children's hearts to their intelligence and 11 their voice. 12 I could not stop dreading my father's next 13 unexpected appearance until he was safely sequestered 14 in a nursing home in his early eighties. I didn't 15 even know when I was growing up that my father had a 16 Ph.D. in physics and meteorology until I was dating my 17 husband and he said so what does your dad have a Ph.D. 18 in. And I said (gesturing). 19 And he said, well, why don't you ask him. 20 And I said, hey, dad, what do you have a Ph.D. in? 21 And he said who wants to know. Talk about don't ask, 22 don't tell. I grew up terrified of this man. 23 My boyfriend wants to know. Okay. Physics 24 and applied meteorology, no big thing. I didn't ask 25 him would you have answered that for me because I sort 125 1 of knew the answer. 2 I was the victim as were my siblings of all 3 kinds of indignities, not the least of which was not 4 being listened to, not even really much of the time 5 wanting to be seen. Erich grew up a few blocks from 6 us. And I asked him Tuesday night over dinner do you 7 think your father cared one whit about you? No. 8 Now, those people who are taking home sizable 9 checks from Los Alamos need to think about your 10 children because your hand is not harming them, they 11 are so obedient to your will that their own hands are 12 harming them. The children of this universe are 13 crying for some positive attention, especially those 14 of color. And what are we doing? We're designing 15 bombs to get rid of them. 16 Who in this room thinks nuclear weapons are 17 the stupidest idea that mankind has ever come up with? 18 All right, you California kids, I have a new 19 cheer for you. And that is nuclear weapons, stupid, 20 stupid, stupid. Three times. Nuclear weapons, 21 stupid, stupid, nuclear weapons, stupid, stupid, 22 stupid, nuclear weapons, stupid, stupid, stupid. 23 Linton Brooks, take that to the bank. You 24 are dragging the human race with all kinds of helpers 25 with little badges on to the precipice of human 126 1 existence. We're dying here in case you don't know 2 it. And you know what your cheer is? Bring it on. 3 Well, I think those of us who live in this 4 state ought to do you a favor because you can't stop 5 yourselves because you're addicted. And that is, when 6 somebody says we're going to have a peace conference 7 in New Mexico, well, guys, let's show them. 8 Let's be there, let's point to the largest 9 waste dump in the Southwest. Let's point to the 10 eight, what is it million, whatever, the new chemical 11 metallurgy building that's going to cost us a billion 12 bucks and going to be obsolete in eight years. Let's 13 bring peace tourists to New Mexico and let's us tell 14 them the truth because we know the other guys won't. 15 Thank you. 16 MS. BRANDIN: And we have Mr. Krasilovsky? 17 The next speaker is John Otter followed by Norman 18 Budow. 19 JOHN OTTER: I'm going to emphasize a few 20 points I feel deserve it and then I'll make a 21 practical suggestion for political action. Nuclear 22 weapons are a moral issue. I think that's pretty well 23 been brought here today. As Bishop John Deere said a 24 couple days ago, war and nuclear weapons are the 25 greatest sin of mankind. 127 1 And you may not be of a Catholic or Christian 2 persuasion. But, even if you're a Darwinian or an 3 otherwise, the evolution of the earth might sometime a 4 few billion years from now create life again after 5 we've destroyed it. But I don't think that's a 6 premise that we want to follow. 7 The point is that nuclear weapons can destroy 8 the entire life on earth. And we have 20,000 of them, 9 each of which is 1,000 times more powerful than the 10 ones that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. No 11 problem. 12 And I think that particular knowledge is 13 available to us and our children. And it sets a tone 14 of a background of anxiety in the youth which I think 15 underlies a lot of our youth's social problems. 16 We have these wonderful efforts these days on 17 sustainability and countering global warming and 18 recycling as contrasted to nuclear weapons which are 19 wasting things rather than reusing them. But what can 20 we expect from our youth in terms of a focus on the 21 future when their outlook on living to an old age is 22 degraded, diminished greatly by a nuclear weapons 23 presence on earth. 24 I guess I'll move on to the suggestion. So 25 we don't want nuclear weapons. What can we do about 128 1 that? And there's been quite a bit of commentary 2 which leads to the idea of a revolution. And that's 3 not a bad idea, particularly a nonviolent revolution. 4 We've seen Ecuador, we've seen Argentina, 5 we've seen Venezuela, Brazil. But the United States' 6 prospects for that kind of a people's revolution isn't 7 quite so good because we have kind of a -- not such a 8 good political involvement in the populace currently. 9 It's certainly worthwhile to work on that. 10 And I know that appeals to us because it 11 seems to have a short kind of time scale to maybe do 12 it next week and get rid of nuclear weapons. But I 13 think we ought to couple that with a longer term time 14 scale approach. 15 And so we need to ask ourselves now who makes 16 the decisions that brought us all these nuclear 17 weapons. Well, our federal Congresspersons and our 18 state Congresspersons had a lot to with that. How did 19 they get elected? 20 They're supposed to be representing the 21 people, but they seem to be representatives of 22 corporate interests primarily and other ideas for 23 dominating the world. And that's because our election 24 system allows them to be elected on the basis of the 25 funding that they receive from corporations and large 129 1 interests. 2 So how do we counter that? Well, we need to 3 reform our electoral election system. And, of course, 4 these people who are in power are not going to just 5 decide to do that for us. We're going to have to 6 start where we have the power and we can -- and that 7 is in our own municipalities and counties and working 8 at the state level and the federal. 9 And there are public financing of elections 10 and there are -- and what I want to just pursue for a 11 minute is what's called brain choice voting or instant 12 runoff voting, where you rank the candidates. And it 13 has many advantages in terms of encouraging more 14 candidates to run, encouraging more people to vote, 15 increasing the accuracy of the representation so that 16 it really does -- the people who get elected really do 17 represent the people. And the charter and new 18 commission is considering this. And it will I think 19 go to the ballot before the people in Santa Fe city. 20 MS. BRANDIN: Sir, can you wrap up, please. 21 JOHN OTTER: It's been used in San Francisco 22 and recently two times in Burlington, Vermont. And 23 other cities have voted to use it and it's being 24 considered by a number of others. It's been used in 25 Australia for their government, their Congress 130 1 elections for 40 years -- 80 years and in Ireland and 2 other places around the world. 3 It's a great system. And, if you would like 4 any information about that to use or try in your 5 groups and your city, I would be happy to help you 6 with that. And my name is John Otter, I'm the only 7 Otter in Santa Fe. 8 EDUARDO KRASILOVSKY: My name is Eduardo 9 Krasilovsky. And I'm sorry, I'm tired, so my accent 10 gets worse as the night progresses. But I want to say 11 that I am not going to read those three volumes or 12 going to the Internet to read those 17 CDs because the 13 purpose of that technical jargon there is to keep us 14 down, to keep us in tunnel vision, the wrong vision of 15 life instead of helping us to go with the eagles and 16 take the view from above. And that's how they want to 17 win all this. They have done that over and over 18 again. 19 So why -- instead of reading volumes, just, 20 if you can do it, look for Helen Caldicott's book. If 21 you did, maybe an idea just came up from me, maybe we 22 should buy this book and put one book in each house in 23 Los Alamos. 24 Maybe we can win over some scientists, 25 because they are ignorant of many things. They are 131 1 not perfect. They may be very intelligent. But it 2 doesn't mean that they know and understand everything 3 especially with their hearts. 4 Now, why don't I want nuclear weapons. I 5 think we shouldn't talk about what they want us to 6 talk, I think we should close Los Alamos. The U.S. 7 currently, as of 2002, has 2,000 intercontinental land 8 based hydrogen bombs, 3,456 nuclear weapons in 9 submarines roaming the seas, 15 minutes from their 10 targets, 1,750 nuclear weapons on intercontinental 11 planes ready for delivery. 12 In total there is now enough explosive power 13 in the combined nuclear arsenal of the world to 14 overkill every person on earth 32 times. That's one 15 reason why we don't need these weapons. 16 Now, if you'll Google Eduardo Goncalves, he 17 wrote an article in The Ecologist in 2001 and showing 18 the following, using the official radiation risk 19 estimates published in 1991 by the International 20 Commission of Radiological Protection, in 1993 21 radiation exposure data calculated by the UN 22 Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic 23 Radiation, researcher Rosalie Bertell, author of the 24 classic book No Immediate Danger, has come up with a 25 terrifying tally. 358 million cancers from nuclear 132 1 bomb production and testing, 9.7 million cancers from 2 bomb and plant accidents, 6.6 million cancers from the 3 routine discharges of nuclear power plants. 4 As many as 175 million of those cancers could 5 be fatal. Added to this number are no fewer than 235 6 million genetically damaged and diseased people and a 7 staggering 588 million children born with a range of 8 teratogenic effects including brain damage, mental 9 disabilities, spina bifida, genital deformities, and 10 childhood cancers. 11 These are my two reasons why we need to close 12 Los Alamos. By the way I am a member of Veterans For 13 Peace, Bloomfield Peace Action, and Cornucopia of New 14 Jersey which makes me somebody who just is for life 15 and not for death which is what people in Los Alamos 16 do. Thank you very much. 17 MS. BRANDIN: The next speaker is Norman 18 Budow. Is Norman Budow here? Elizabeth Stow. How 19 about -- I can't read this. Willem Malten. 20 WILLEM MALTEN: So my name is Willem Malten. 21 You know, I'm not going to read that EIS book either 22 because, you know, the environment that I'm concerned 23 with is a slightly different environment than I think 24 is being described. 25 I think I'm concerned with the psychic 133 1 environment that a place like Los Alamos creates. I'm 2 concerned with trashed international treaties that Los 3 Alamos has taken a part in. I'm also concerned with 4 the degradation of democracy that weapons of mass 5 destruction inevitably lead to. 6 You know, last year we had a Hibakusha here 7 from Hiroshima. And her name is Shika Husasamori. I 8 don't know, some of you may have met her. You know, 9 and she, you know, is kind of like a reborn human 10 being or resurrected human being rather, kind of like 11 an angel. 12 And I think what, you know, her message 13 was -- you know what a Hibakusha is, right? A 14 Hibakusha is somebody that was the victim either in 15 Hiroshima or in Nagasaki and, of course, now, you 16 know, we can include also the Bikini Atolls, we can 17 include Kosovo, we can include Iraq, we can actually 18 include Laguna, Navajo, we can start including 19 Espanola. It comes really close. 20 And in a way the vision that expanded pit 21 production gives us is that we all have to have peace 22 with becoming Hibakusha and our children will become 23 Hibakusha and it's unacceptable. 24 In a world where most of the money is spent 25 on weapons, most of the problems start looking like 134 1 military problems and most of the solutions, 2 therefore, look military as well. Yet we need to open 3 our eyes to the bankruptcy this has wreaked on the 4 civil society. Ultimately this is the cause for 5 proliferation of weapons of mass destruction including 6 nuclear worldwide. 7 Nuclear weapons are the very spare point of a 8 culture of violence, the logical end point of the 9 failure of true diplomacy. These weapons are not just 10 aimed at the people of the world, they are not just 11 taking away the resources of the next generation, 12 these are weapons -- these weapons are aimed at the 13 heart of human dignity. 14 Through security comes from a stronger sense 15 of community for common causes. And that is why it's 16 been so great that actually Santa Fe last year signed 17 up as -- with Mayors for Peace and has become a 18 community of peace. 19 Now, it's up to us to get this meaning. When 20 over 80 percent of the American public has expressed a 21 desire for nuclear disarmament and yet the U.S. 22 national laboratories such as LANL at Los Alamos and 23 Sandia Laboratory in Albuquerque, both in New Mexico, 24 keep pursuing renewed testing, upgrading nuclear 25 weapons, and building a new pit production facility, 135 1 there's something wrong with this picture. 2 It illustrates that the magnitude of nuclear 3 weapons is incompatible with a functioning democracy. 4 And democracy may have to be rebuilt from the bottom 5 up. Neighborhoods, communities, and cities are now 6 vehicles that express people's will and have to 7 represent the changes that we are seeking. 8 So this is the main thing, you know, we have 9 to -- we have to figure out how to give meaning to 10 Santa Fe being a city of peace. And, if that means 11 civil disobedience, resistance, disruption of 12 transportation of nuclear weapons or pits, we should 13 face those possibilities. The call for nuclear 14 disarmament, as was mentioned before, this is a small 15 good step in the right direction. Thanks very much. 16 MS. BRANDIN: Thank you. Virginia Miller. 17 VIRGINIA MILLER: Hi, I'm Virginia Miller. 18 And I'm a member of a number of peace groups. And 19 I -- a lot of things that I was going to say have 20 already been said. And I support so much of what has 21 been said. So I will go over -- I'll probably leave 22 some of it out. But I will try to hit on a couple of 23 things that will maybe add something. 24 Let's see. I vigorously oppose any 25 continuance and expansion of nuclear weapons design 136 1 and production at Los Alamos National Laboratories as 2 called for in the LANL SWEIS. And I won't go through 3 all the different things because everybody has already 4 said that. 5 But one thing that hasn't been talked about a 6 whole lot is to protect explosive open air experiments 7 of up to 6,900 pounds of depleted uranium every year 8 when the use of DU weapons is a war crime under the 9 Geneva Convention, resulting in grievous health 10 problems shows a blatant disregard for the health and 11 safety of the people and environment of Northern New 12 Mexico for our land, our water, and our air. 13 The people in Iraq, the children in Iraq and 14 Afghanistan have suffered and they are dying from the 15 use of depleted uranium weapons. I find this 16 absolutely horrible that the lab would even consider 17 doing open air experiments with this material. 18 They should all be banned. All of this -- 19 the proposed activities of the LANL SWEIS is at a site 20 located above the Rio Grande. This has been noted. 21 But to me this is incredible. It's a source of water 22 for many communities in both New Mexico and Mexico. 23 But it shouldn't be done anywhere. But the fact that 24 it is above the Rio Grande River is just unbelievable 25 that they would do this kind of activity there. 137 1 All of this, all of this -- all of these 2 proposals, they are unnecessary, immoral, and illegal. 3 The current pits will last -- we are told by the 4 scientists that the pits will last 60 to 90 plus 5 years. And every one of these pits should be 6 dismantled. We don't need any more. Every one of 7 them and just no more. 8 The World Court has condemned the use and the 9 threat of the use of nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons 10 threaten our very planet and all life on it. It is 11 immoral. 12 I love this planet and I love all life on it. 13 And there's no way I'm going to allow this to 14 continue. It must stop, it must end. In 1970 the 15 U.S. signed a nonproliferation treaty under the 16 Constitution International Treaty, the supreme law of 17 the land. 18 In Article VI all nuclear powers are called 19 upon to engage in worldwide nuclear disarmament. It's 20 a law. This is the law. And the work at Los Alamos 21 National Laboratories is breaking the law, it's 22 against the law. And it's a crime, a crime against 23 humanity. I just found this out in an email recently. 24 MS. BRANDIN: Ma'am, are you getting close to 25 wrapping up? 138 1 VIRGINIA MILLER: Okay. That Representative 2 Dennis Kucinich introduced House Current Resolution 3 950 calling for the administration to lead in 4 negotiating a treaty abolishing nuclear weapons. He 5 submitted it to the House and the International 6 Relations Committee. 7 And we need to support any of our leaders who 8 are willing to speak out and have the courage to call 9 for a nuclear disarmament. And I was very glad to 10 hear Greg Mello speak earlier of the fact that there 11 are a number of Congresspeople who are willing to do 12 this. They need our support. It's going to require 13 all of us working together to get this job done. 14 MS. BRANDIN: Are you about done? 15 VIRGINIA MILLER: Yes, I'm almost done. I'd 16 like to call for the transformation of LANL as others 17 have done and all of the national laboratories. There 18 is so much work that they can do that will really 19 contribute to the well-being of humanity. 20 They can begin to clean up the radioactive 21 contamination, develop renewable sustainable energy 22 independence, work to help prevent and curb the 23 impacts of global climate change. These are things 24 that would really make a genuine contribution. 25 And they certainly have the brilliance and 139 1 the means to carry this out. This should become a 2 national priority. And these laboratories could do 3 that. And just think of the jobs that that could 4 provide for our state and the positive impact that it 5 could have on the world. That's our true national 6 security. 7 MS. BRANDIN: Ma'am, please. 8 VIRGINIA MILLER: All right. My last 9 sentence. If our leaders and the NNSA and the DOE and 10 the nuclear industrial complex choose to ignore the 11 law, they will be held accountable one way or another. 12 So stop this madness. Basta. 13 MS. BRANDIN: Clarissa Duran. 14 CLARISSA DURAN: Hi, I'm Clarissa Duran. 15 This is my sister Danielle Duran. We're from 16 Espanola. And I just want to thank the nice people 17 who gave me water because I almost passed out because 18 it's so damned hot in here. 19 Anyway first of all I want to say look around 20 this room. And I know everybody here knows somebody 21 of color. Next time bring them with you. And I'll do 22 the same. 23 The other thing I want to really tell people 24 is for those of you who want to close the labs, no, 25 because 25 percent of my community works there. And 140 1 we can't have a 25 percent unemployment rate. Our 2 community was an agrarian society until the road to 3 Los Alamos was built. 4 We are like Afghanistan and probably now like 5 Iraq. Our way of life was taken away from us. And 6 who is going to be there to help us rebuild our way of 7 life. Nobody. Nobody is doing that now. 8 SPEAKER: We will. 9 CLARISSA DURAN: All right. Well, we want to 10 see it. Come hang out with us and help us out. You 11 know, there are a lot of kids in our community who are 12 dying, who are on drugs, and will do anything not to 13 have to deal with the oppression that we live with 14 every single day. 15 And that's the effect of what Los Alamos is. 16 And yeah, I'm telling you not to close it because we 17 still need whatever money we need to make a living. 18 But we don't need to do it by producing nuclear 19 weapons. I'm on the Dennis Kucinich campaign for New 20 Mexico because he said to me that no, we wouldn't have 21 to close the labs, that we could change it into a 22 research facility that would help humanity. 23 And that's what I want you to think of, is 24 that your neighbors will suffer if you guys close the 25 labs. But we can do something positive with that 141 1 energy and that intelligence up there. We're 2 starting -- in Espanola I'm telling you about the hard 3 conditions. 4 But we've started to clean up our own waste. 5 And we did that by electing a brand-new city council 6 and a brand-new mayor. Our former mayor used to kiss 7 the asses of all the top people in Los Alamos. We 8 don't have that going on anymore. So, you know, you 9 guys can shove it because my sister here, Espanola 10 City Councilor Danielle Duran, is going to tell you 11 what she's going to do about Los Alamos. 12 DANIELLE DURAN: Thank you. My name is 13 Danielle Duran, I'm a city councilor for the City of 14 Espanola. And I was recently elected in March. One 15 of my big issues is economic development for the city 16 of Espanola. 17 And one of my major issues is how people 18 believe that Espanola is reliant on Los Alamos. And 19 just because we have 25 percent of our community 20 working in Los Alamos doesn't mean that we're totally 21 reliant. 22 And I wrote down some points which is that 23 Espanola existed before Los Alamos did. When it was a 24 boys' camp and it was farmers there, Espanola existed 25 as a commercial venue within the state. It was the 142 1 heart of Northern New Mexico commercial activities. 2 So to say that Espanola is completely reliant on Los 3 Alamos and it exists because of Los Alamos is a 4 complete fabrication. 5 The other thing is I have a degree in 6 economics and I do believe in Keynesian economics and 7 I believe in government crowding out which means the 8 more money and more activity that goes to the 9 government, the less that local businesspeople do, the 10 less that private people do. 11 So, of course, we don't have a lot of 12 business in Espanola because all of our time, all of 13 our talent, all of our people, and many of our 14 resources are going up to Los Alamos and being taken 15 over by Los Alamos. 16 When we talk about salaries, I mean Nambe 17 Mills is in Espanola. Do you think Nambe Mills can 18 compete with the salaries for machinists when it comes 19 to Los Alamos? No, they can't. So I mean that's 20 another issue for us. And that's not something -- 21 that's not a reliance that Espanola has on Los Alamos, 22 that's a problem Espanola has with Los Alamos. 23 And so finally I would just like to say that 24 I don't want to close the labs, not because 25 percent 25 of our people live up there -- work up there, I'm 143 1 sorry. But because I know scientists working in Los 2 Alamos on hydrogen fuel cells, on solar power, on wind 3 power, on other renewable energies and sustainable 4 development issues. 5 And I respect those people. And they do not 6 work on nuclear issues. And some people will say, if 7 you didn't have the nuclear part, you couldn't have 8 the renewable part. And I think all of us know that 9 that is a bunch of B.S. 10 When we look around us and we see the energy 11 crisis that is looming in our future, we know that 12 energy can take a huge portion of our budget from now 13 on. And it doesn't have to be solely focused on the 14 production of uranium or plutonium. It can be focused 15 on renewable energies, it can be focused on automation 16 technologies, it can be focused on micro and 17 nanotechnologies. 18 And that's the future that I see for Los 19 Alamos. And I hope that all of you will share that 20 vision with me for Los Alamos. 21 And before I finish I just want to say that I 22 believe these things. I have not discussed these 23 things with other members of our city council. And, 24 for those of you who have gone to all the meetings, I 25 apologize for not being at the Espanola meeting 144 1 yesterday, I did have an economic development 2 committee meeting and we talked about the future of 3 economic development in our valley. 4 And so I apologize for not being there. And 5 I would like to thank all the speakers who have gone 6 before me because I have learned so much tonight, I 7 have learned more than I thought possible. So I want 8 to thank all of you for speaking tonight and for your 9 action. 10 And finally I want to ask Los Alamos, if you 11 are really serious about being responsive to the 12 communities around you, please tell us. If you go 13 ahead with the increase in production of pits, how you 14 are going to safeguard the communities around you, how 15 are you going to make sure that none of that comes 16 down in the form of waste, of pollution, of 17 degradation of our environment or our people. And 18 that is what I would like a response to in this EIS. 19 Thank you. 20 MS. BRANDIN: Next we have Elizabeth West 21 followed by Barbara Conroy. 22 ELIZABETH WEST: Good evening. My name is 23 Elizabeth West. And thank you all for helping put 24 this on, for being here, and I have a bunch of mixed 25 feelings as don't we all. 145 1 Of course, I would like to add my comments to 2 the list of people and to the comments made by these 3 people against added Los Alamos pit production. I 4 also would like to make sure that my name and address 5 is written in. I'm speaking solely to help you, 6 because I do want a response and I would like to be 7 one of the people who gets that response. 8 My name is Elizabeth West, 318 Sena Street, 9 that's S as in Sam, e-n as in Nancy, a Street, Santa 10 Fe, New Mexico, 87505. Thank you very much. 11 I actually did speak up years ago about the 12 WIPP, the waste isolation pilot project down in 13 Carlsbad. And I did get a response from the 14 government. And I still have them someplace in my 15 basement. I really do want to hear back from you all. 16 Thank you. 17 I woke up this morning thinking about what I 18 was going to say and feeling a little discouraged. 19 And thank heavens I'm following so many great people, 20 especially these two women. It's just fabulous. I'm 21 so proud to be in a state with people like you two. 22 It's great. And lots of other people too. 23 I'm known to be a little bit of a Pollyanna. 24 And a Pollyanna I used to think is just somebody who 25 is, oh, everything is going to be just fine. And 146 1 actually Pollyanna is persistence. And so yes, I'm 2 kind of positive. 3 That's my job, I'm a librarian, and I want to 4 be nice to everybody. I also like to learn things. 5 And so those two things sometimes are a little bit in 6 conflict. 7 I also have a lot of good friends in 8 Washington, D.C., from all parts of the spectrum. So 9 this morning, when I woke up, I was thinking all these 10 funny jumbled thoughts. And what popped into my head 11 was George Wallace. George Wallace. 12 Well, I'll be 62 in November so I'm older 13 than some of you and younger than others. And George 14 Wallace, of course, I remember was a tremendous 15 antisegregationist, horrible, horrible, unbelievable. 16 And then late in his life he completely changed. So 17 it's possible, it's possible. 18 And I know it's possible. What we're going 19 through now is another version of a kind of fascism. 20 It's a petticoat fascism, of course. It's another 21 kind of anti -- a discriminatory situation, it's an 22 environmental problem. It's a mess of stuff as 23 segregation was and as a lot of other issues have been 24 and are. But that changed and this can change. This 25 will change. And I'm taking my vitamins and I'm going 147 1 to be around to see the change. 2 So the last thing -- I have a moment or two I 3 think. My Washington friends, I'm very interested in 4 a lot of topics. And one of emails I sent to a friend 5 of mine who is a pretty nifty Republican and -- no, 6 not necessarily, there are all different kinds of 7 Republicans. He's a pretty good one. 8 And we differ on some things, of course. But 9 he is not a Conservative Without a Conscience, a 10 referral to a book, of course, because I'm a librarian 11 by John Dean. Anyway, when I wrote to him -- he is 12 very high up in the government under the previous big 13 Bush. No, excuse me, under Reagan. And then pretty 14 high up recently until Condoleza Rice came in. 15 A very connected guy. I'm not going to 16 mention his name because he is still alive and he is a 17 friend of mine. But I will say that, when I wrote to 18 him about something I'm going to do in November, I'm 19 going to go down to the School of Americas and I sent 20 them some email about that. And he said oh, well, 21 that's interesting. I don't think I've heard anything 22 about that. 23 And I gave him the new name, you know, the 24 unlisted long name and I didn't give him the School of 25 Assassin's name. But anyway I was appalled. And then 148 1 I realized our friends and our nonfriends and our 2 people who we would have dinner with hopefully at Nora 3 in Washington. For anybody that goes to Washington, 4 that's a great -- the first organic foods restaurant 5 in the United States. 6 I hope that they will learn about these 7 things. There are so many things to learn about. And 8 Los Alamos is one of them. So I'm hopeful, but I'm 9 feeling really tough. So I'm going to be friendly and 10 talk to my friends in Washington. And thank you very 11 much. I hope I have not spoken too rapidly. I 12 appreciate what you're doing. 13 And for the record again I do want a response 14 to any of the questions that have been asked here. 15 Any and all of them. Thank you very much. 16 MS. BRANDIN: Barbara Conroy. I think it 17 says Monika Steinwald. 18 MONIKA STEINWALD: So, you know, the people 19 have brought up that they want -- you know, many of 20 us -- I see the same things, many of us have been here 21 many years. The first WIPP hearings and everything. 22 And I did expect a response, but all I got 23 was this amazingly mind-boggling, mind numbing stuff, 24 you know, scientific stuff about this and that and 25 that had no relevance really in any way to life. 149 1 And so I'm a little ambivalent about wanting 2 to give anything. And I don't give my email out or 3 anything like that because I'm into life. You know, I 4 live my little -- I have a little actually colored, 5 you know, personal colored granddaughter because I 6 adopted a kid from Brazil 21 years ago. And I also 7 have a little Anglo child. 8 And I look at those little -- they're both 9 little tiny things, they're under six months. And, 10 you know, I look at those magical beings, I think 11 little tiny hands, perfect little hands. I am filled 12 with love and vitality. 13 And I wonder if the people who make the 14 bombs -- I'm going to direct my remarks to the people 15 who seem to be up from Los Alamos. I also have two 16 adopted kids from Los Alamos. One of them is back up 17 there. And she used to say, oh, mom, they don't make 18 the bomb, you're nuts. They don't make something like 19 that. 20 Well, as she got to be a teenager, I got to 21 know a lot of kids who lived under bridges in Los 22 Alamos. And the reason I got here quite late was 23 because I decided to use the mass transit. I do that 24 periodically. It took me two hours to get from 25 downtown Santa Fe. And I thought now, if we spent a 150 1 little more money on mass transit and less money on 2 the bomb, maybe lots more people would be here. 3 And then, if I could go back to the WIPP 4 hearings for a moment, because they told us over and 5 over and over that this was temporary and it was low 6 level. I'm married to a lawyer. I hear all these law 7 stories, et cetera. Well, I knew that the first group 8 of lawyers who worked for the government quite because 9 they told the truth in government. They hired another 10 group who would lie to them. And now you know it's a 11 lie. 12 I mean we have huge, huge roads going through 13 New Mexico down to WIPP. I grew up in Alamogordo. 14 And that way you know who my dad is maybe a little 15 bit. Carlsbad is amazing, it's like rich, you know. 16 The DOE, the government bribes people to ruin 17 their environment, ruin their kids and everything, 18 lots of money. You know, someone said if your check 19 -- I think it was Einstein said something like that. 20 If your check comes from -- if you earn a check from a 21 particular organization, it's very hard to loosen 22 yourself from them and tell the truth about them. 23 And I think that's part of Los Alamos' 24 problem. So I am totally against the pits. You know, 25 when we began -- Israel began bombing Lebanon, I cried 151 1 a whole day because I thought about kids like mine, 2 little grandchildren, perfect little beings get 3 bombed. It happened -- I cried when we bombed 4 Afghanistan. And have we fixed Afghanistan? I'd like 5 to know. Is that fixed? 6 And those weren't nuclear bombs, those are 7 just ordinary bombs. And now we are in Iraq and we 8 have made an incredible mess of Iraq. If our 9 government makes such a mess of a country -- and they 10 want to go into Syria and into Iran and into Egypt. 11 There's a document out there that probably 12 most of you have not heard of. Clean Start, look it 13 up on the Internet. That's the future for us. War 14 forever. But, you know, you talked about the storm 15 earlier. I thought a storm, we need a really good 16 storm. 17 We had a fire at Los Alamos and it went just 18 to the gate. It did dispense some of that nuclear 19 stuff and I have proof of that actually. We need a 20 really good storm that will shake up the world up 21 there. A really good storm to show what nuclear waste 22 does, what plutonium does. 23 I saw the film from -- I saw the film from 24 Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But I also saw the film, the 25 Russian film, The Lesson at the UN. All these kids 152 1 with tumors. Instead of a little, sweet, perfect 2 child like I have, kids with tumors that are as big as 3 the rest of their bodies. That's what nuclear waste 4 does. 5 You know, and we can make bombs, but can we 6 make a child? Until we learn how to make a child, we 7 better stop forgetting those bombs. And I think 8 anyone with their heart open -- I remember the day I 9 walked out of my bedroom one day, because I had a 10 father who made bombs and he treated us in a 11 particular way that only -- if you really make bombs, 12 you don't treat kids like a loving father with a 13 heart. 14 But my dad did have a heart, I learned that 15 later. But I realized I had a numb heart. And I even 16 knew as a 12 year old in Alamogordo that I would have 17 to suffer a lot before I really knew what love was. 18 And I have suffered a lot. 19 And I think that the universe is a moral 20 place. And I think all the ill that we have done. 21 You know, my husband used to say we have the greatest 22 country. All his friends, everybody used to say we 23 have the greatest country. Well, I would like to 24 know, I would like that in the EIS statement, how we 25 have the greatest country. 153 1 We are the greatest bomb makers. We have the 2 worst transportation system. How many people here, 3 raise your hands, how many people have taken the bus 4 here ever? The young people. How about the people up 5 there? Great. Okay. Here in Santa Fe, though? I 6 think we need a little more money here in Santa Fe. 7 It's horrible, you're right. 8 And then you have to hear Bush on the radio 9 and the advertisement on the radio which drove me 10 crazy. Anyway, if your heart is alive, if your 11 heart -- everyone has brains up at Los Alamos. I have 12 known many scientists. I have never heard of one who 13 admits making -- helping to make the bomb. 14 And I think like Cristo said, the son of the 15 big Cristo, when he was at the last thing, you know, 16 remember he said you all are all dead. And I think, 17 unless you have a heart, and you don't make bombs if 18 you have a heart, you are dead. 19 Your brain may be alive. But your brain is 20 like a computer. It cannot make life even though we 21 tried making all these different things. You cannot 22 make life. And the universe is moral. And whatever 23 ill we are doing now and what we keep doing will come 24 back to us. Thank you. And I hope for a big storm. 25 MS. BRANDIN: Sheri Kotowski. 154 1 SHERI KOTOWSKI: I'm Sheri Kotowski. And 2 Clea Mustakis was going to speak with me, we were 3 going to talk about some things together. She has put 4 hundreds of hours into researching the site-wide 5 environmental impact statement. It's grueling. 1,500 6 pages. 7 And it's not technical, that's the really 8 worrisome part of it. It's gook, it's nonsense, it's 9 convoluted. I mean there's no scientific background 10 to it. It's like we finally got the 15 CDs or the 19 11 CDs that were the reference material today. She had 12 them in her hand. This document was issued on July 7 13 I believe. I actually didn't get my document until 15 14 days ago because it got lost in the U.S. postal 15 system. So that's number one. 16 I think it's -- this situation is grueling. 17 It's 15 minutes until 11. We've all been here since 18 six o'clock this afternoon. We asked in our 19 negotiation process, when these hearings were being 20 negotiated, we asked to have more than one session on 21 the day. 22 We asked for additional sessions. We asked 23 that these sessions start at three o'clock in the 24 afternoon, go to five, have a break, and have an 25 evening session because people have kids, people have 155 1 jobs, and that has to be considered when you're making 2 public comment. We're humans, we have lives. 3 And, you know, the whole process is 4 destroying our lives. Modern pit facilities. A lot 5 of what I'm going to say has been said tonight 6 already. And I'm going to say it again because we've 7 been saying this for years. 8 We defeated the modern pit facility two years 9 ago. It's back again. This document says it goes 10 from 20 pits for 80 pits. And then every part of the 11 summary it says, oh, and we also calculated it for the 12 modern pit facility which is 450 pits per year. So 13 you've heard that. 14 One of the things I also wanted to point out, 15 three minutes. A 1,500 page document, what is it, $5 16 million SWEIS, that's how much it cost. One of the 17 people that I work with likes to do demos and 18 illustrate things. I thought I would do a little demo 19 with that. 20 I think that it's probably a little 21 exaggerated and it might be a little bit inaccurate. 22 But I think, if we filled this whole room with beans, 23 we call that $5 million for the SWEIS, for the draft 24 SWEIS. 25 I'm going to be that one little bean outside 156 1 of this room. And that's how much energy has been put 2 into this and how much consideration my opinion gets 3 and all of the hard work that I have also put into 4 researching this document. 5 What I really wanted to talk about is water. 6 Water is so precious. It's not just precious in this 7 state, it's precious to everybody. I mean it's life. 8 The planet, we survive because of water. Our whole 9 life is based on water. 10 With the increased pit production, we go from 11 500 acre feet of water per year used by LANL. This is 12 discharge water, this is industrial wastewater, this 13 is sanitary effluent. You can't use this water, you 14 can't drink it, all you can do is make more pits with 15 it. But they don't make more pits with it, they flush 16 it into the canyons. 17 In dry years all the contamination, it 18 just -- it sticks on the soil. When it's windy, it 19 blows around. When these big storms come, it just 20 washes into the river. Albuquerque is going to be 21 drinking this water. 22 And who is going to pay for cleaning this 23 water to drinking water standards? Not the 24 laboratory. It's up to the municipalities, the 25 municipalities to clean this water so that Albuquerque 157 1 can drink it and Santa Fe can drink it. So we're at 2 500 acre feet of water. We're going to go up to 822 3 acre feet of water used per year. 4 Another demo. I live in a really small -- 5 MS. BRANDIN: Can you wrap it up. 6 SHERI KOTOWSKI: I'm going to just continue 7 because, you know what, I've been here since 6:30 and 8 I've worked on this document for the last two weeks, 9 I've been sweating blood and I want to finish what I'm 10 going to say. 11 MS. BRANDIN: The problem is -- 12 SHERI KOTOWSKI: I'm going to finish and I'm 13 not going to take that much longer. But I do want to 14 illustrate how much 822 acre feet of water is. I live 15 in a really small community in Northern New Mexico. 16 They've told us we have to district our water because 17 us little tiny communities are using too much water. 18 We are allotted 37 acre feet of water a year. 19 With increased pit production and expanded weapons, it 20 would take us 20 -- that's the equivalent of 20 years 21 of our allotted water supply. 22 And I also want to say that Los Alamos is 23 taking more than their allotted water supply. We get 24 charged, we get fined. And they will stand up and say 25 we're going to take more water. And that's a 158 1 violation. It's against the law for us to take more 2 water and we get charged for it. And they can just 3 say that they're going to use all the water that they 4 want. 5 And one more thing. 1,400 sites, potential 6 release sites at the laboratory. Every single time it 7 rains, the snow melts, all of that washes down. It 8 doesn't make any sense. And we really have to stop 9 and protect our water. Thank you. 10 MS. BRANDIN: Our last speaker Catherine 11 Montano. 12 CATHERINE MONTANO: My name is Catherine 13 Montano and I'm a member of the Citizens of the 14 American Constitution. A few months ago LANL was 15 burning depleted uranium nuclear waste, diesel, an 16 open burn, a bonfire, throwing whatever they wanted to 17 get rid of. 18 And we're downwind in Las Vegas, New Mexico. 19 And we drink surface water. So they are poisoning the 20 water that we drink. The very fabric of creation is 21 in danger. Our school yards. This is a most crucial 22 time. 23 And you know that I never volunteered to do 24 this work. I was physically thrown out of my bed by a 25 higher power. And I was told that I had to get 159 1 involved in stopping the nuclear madness. At the time 2 I couldn't even pronounce the word plutonium, I used 3 to tell the Anglo women, how do you say that word. I 4 could hear it in my brain but it just wouldn't come 5 out of my mouth. 6 For 16 years I have gone to nuclear hearings. 7 And they have all been like this one tonight. A dog 8 and pony show, because that's all they are. You know, 9 they do it to satisfy the letter of the law, that they 10 had a public hearing for the people. 11 And the people -- you know, when I first got 12 involved, I went home and I turned on the television. 13 It said, oh, New Mexicans don't care one way or the 14 other if they bring nuclear waste into the state of 15 New Mexico. And I thought that's not true. Because 16 there was hardly anybody at the hearings. 17 The media wasn't there. You know that I went 18 to channel -- one of the channels here in Albuquerque, 19 TV stations. And I asked them how come you guys 20 aren't covering these hearings. It's the most 21 important -- these were the WIPP hearings. 22 These are the most important -- it's the most 23 important issue facing the state of New Mexico. They 24 want to bombard us with everybody's waste from all 25 over the United States. 160 1 See, New Mexico, they think it's Mexico. 2 They think, oh, they live in the desert, it's just a 3 bunch of Mexicans and Indians. And you know what's 4 interesting, everybody is flocking to New Mexico 5 because it's predicted that the East Coast and the 6 West Coast is going to be under water. And the only 7 place you can run to is the Southwest. 8 But you're all going to run to the fire. 9 Because New Mexico is rated number one in the nation 10 highest in radiation spills. You've heard tonight all 11 the criminal activity at Los Alamos. 12 A few months ago we put out a letter, a 13 Constitutional letter. I worked on petitions when 14 WIPP first came out. In our area we gathered 6,000 15 signatures. We presented 17,000 signatures to 16 Governor Bruce King. 17 And I happened to be the one to read the 18 petition. And I asked him to sign it. And, when I 19 put it over to him, he slammed it back and he said I 20 don't sign petitions. And I said, Governor, I thought 21 you were a compassionate man, I thought you cared 22 about the people of the state of New Mexico. Oh, I am 23 compassionate man. 24 And at the end he came up to me because I let 25 him know how contaminated the state of New Mexico is. 161 1 We are walking miracles. We all have plutonium in our 2 bodies. If you don't believe me, get a hair analysis 3 and you'll find out how much plutonium you have in 4 your body. 5 And, you know, there is a researcher, his 6 name is Ernest Sternglass. Right now he's 82 years 7 old. But all his life he researched what radiation 8 does to our bodies. He says that the more we get 9 radiated and the more the animals get radiated, the 10 more violent they will become. 11 Look how violent our society is today. And 12 it's time that we stop this operation. You know that 13 the Constitution is a very powerful law, it's the 14 supreme law of the United States. And I've heard some 15 of you talk about democracy, that we're a democracy. 16 We're not a democracy, we're supposed to be a 17 republic, a nation of laws. 18 But we have ignored our laws. And, you know, 19 our activists here in New Mexico, we've been fighting 20 administrative law. Well, it's geared for them to win 21 and for us to lose. Constitutionally we closed down 22 the operation at Los Alamos Labs. It took us 40 days. 23 And what we did is we sent out this 24 Constitutional letter letting all our elected 25 officials know that they work for us, we pay their 162 1 salaries, and we will hold them accountable. You 2 know, you can do all the civil resistance, all the 3 protests, it doesn't work. 4 We've sat in senators' offices, I mean we've 5 done it all. I'm 56 years old. And we've done it 6 all. And the only thing that will work is the 7 Constitution. We have won over 300 cases here in the 8 state of New Mexico. 9 We stopped PNM in Las Vegas from burning 10 diesel. We stopped a plant that was putting out 800 11 tons of carcinogens into the air of Las Vegas. And 12 how did we do it? Through the Constitution. 13 See, when you use the Constitution, you go to 14 the individual that took that oath. See, these guys, 15 when they pick up that hand, they think it's just a 16 party. They don't realize that, when they say they 17 will defend and honor the Constitution, and if they 18 don't, we can set them aside from their position that 19 they hold and sue them lawfully, criminally and 20 civilly. 21 And believe me, when you go after the person 22 instead of the machinery of government, they get 23 scared because they stand alone. And that's the 24 way -- that is the tool that we need. 25 And, you know, I would like to tell our 163 1 President, because he went around telling people here 2 in the United States that he was against abortion. 3 He's for life. Well, you know, I'd like to ask him 4 this question, what's the difference in killing that 5 baby before it's born or let that baby be born and 6 radiated to death? What is the difference? 7 You know what the difference is? Not only do 8 you kill the baby, but you kill the parents, the 9 grandparents, their siblings, it kills everything. 10 And like I say it is time that we have a moratorium in 11 the state of New Mexico and around the United States. 12 We want cleanup of our state. I know they 13 can't clean radioactivity. But we still want some 14 cleanup. And we also need an independent 15 investigation of all the facilities. 16 You know that one year I was coming from 17 California and I was in Los Alamos. And you know what 18 he told me? He says I work at Los Alamos Labs and I 19 make so much money I don't have time to spend it. 20 Then I ran into a little old man that said I have 21 nuclear stocks, but they've all gone to hell. 22 And I felt like saying to him I helped them 23 go to hell. And you know that during the nuclear 24 hearings I had someone come up to me, and this was 25 like 400 people. And he gave me a message, he says 164 1 this message is for you. 2 And I read it. And, when I finished reading 3 it, I told him a few things. He says that's true. 4 And I would like to share that message because this 5 message comes from a herald angel. And this is it. 6 Opposition to WIPP, say no to the waste 7 isolation project WIPP. The massive hole dug in 8 mother earth and into the salt of her veins is meant 9 to house nuclear waste and dispose of them. It is a 10 lie. There are entities from the dark forces at work 11 here. Skullduggery abounds. Chemical warfare has 12 become state of the art. 13 Thanks to the dark forces that have spread 14 out world disease, one of which is AIDS, there are 15 bunkers throughout the country that are now 16 contaminated which is all our nuclear facilities. The 17 cannisters have leaked and are earmarked to come to 18 WIPP. How dare they. This will devastate our state. 19 A secret underground base is planned by the 20 dark forces to complete the H bomb. The very fabric 21 of creation is in danger. Our school yards. This is 22 a most crucial time. Your brothers and sisters of 23 spacemen and are love, joy, hope, and peace. To our 24 brothers and sisters of earth, know that we are in the 25 skies for you and we extend a hand of friendship and 165 1 we stand with you. 2 Come forth like workers come forth. I am 3 Ashtar and I have spoken through a starfighter. 4 Through those gentle warriors and warriors of the sky 5 and so it shall be. And at the bottom it had the Star 6 of David, inside was his name and around it it had 7 seven dots. And I thought who is this. And why would 8 they give it to me. It's got to mean something to me. 9 And you know that during the day, if I go to 10 the bathroom, I would ask my friends watch my stuff. 11 At the end of the day, I picked it up again. And it 12 was interesting because around the opposition to WIPP 13 it was like a white lettering. The star was colored 14 white. And each little dot, there were seven dots 15 around the star, they were colored like little 16 spaceships. 17 I have seen the ships line up in that 18 formation. And the night that I saw them line up in 19 that formation, this man made the statement that he 20 had been up on a ship and that Jesus had greeted him. 21 And I was ready to laugh at him when the sky lit up 22 with seven ships in the same formation that was on the 23 Ashtar message. 24 So I know that there's millions and millions 25 of ships that are monitoring the earth and are 166 1 watching to see what we are doing here. So it is 2 important for you people that came from California, 3 because the University of California is running Los 4 Alamos Labs. And we need help from all over the 5 country to stop this ugliness in our state. 6 MS. BRANDIN: Ma'am, I'm going to interrupt 7 for a minute. For the benefit of the court reporter, 8 you've gone past your time so I'm going to ask her to 9 stop. 10 CATHERINE MONTANO: I want to make one more 11 comment before you take me off the record. My 12 grandson came calling one day. He says, Grandma, I 13 saw the sticker. You know what the sticker said? It 14 said may all nuclear weapons rust in peace. 15 MS. BRANDIN: That was our last speaker. 16 It's been a very long, grueling night for all of you I 17 know. I appreciate you coming out for this public 18 hearing. And please be careful driving home. And be 19 safe especially if there's a storm out there. Thank 20 you again. 21 (At 11:05 p.m. the hearing was concluded.) 22 23 24 25 167 1 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE 2 3 I, JAN A. WILLIAMS, New Mexico CCR #14, DO 4 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT ON August 10, 2006, the hearing 5 was taken before me, and that I did report in 6 stenographic shorthand the proceedings set forth 7 herein, and the foregoing is a true and correct 8 transcription of the proceedings had upon the taking 9 of this hearing. 10 I FURTHER CERTIFY that I am neither employed 11 by nor related to any of the parties or attorneys in 12 this case, and that I have no interest whatsoever in 13 the final disposition of this case in any court. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 __________________________________ 21 Jan A. Williams, RPR Certified Court Reporter #14 22 License Expires: 12/31/06 Bean & Associates, Inc. 23 Professional Court Reporting Service 500 Marquette, Northwest, Suite 280 24 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102 25 (1563A) JAW