1 1 2 PUBLIC HEARING 3 4 DRAFT SITE-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 5 FOR CONTINUED OPERATION OF 6 LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY, 7 LOS ALAMOS, NEW MEXICO 8 (Draft SWEIS) 9 10 11 12 13 14 August 9, 2006 6:30 p.m. 15 Northern New Mexico Community College Eagle Memorial Gym 16 Espanola, New Mexico 17 18 19 20 21 22 REPORTED BY: MABEL JIN CHIN, NM CCR #81 Bean & Associates, Inc. 23 Professional Court Reporting Service 500 Marquette, Northwest, Suite 280 24 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102 25 (1562A) MC 2 1 ESPANOLA, NEW MEXICO, AUGUST 9, 2006, 6:30 P.M. 2 3 MS. ELIZABETH WITHERS: Ladies and 4 gentlemen, it's about 6:30, so if you want to go ahead 5 and come on down and have a seat we'll go ahead and 6 get started with tonight's hearing. Hopefully we have 7 got enough chairs. There's plenty of seats. 8 Since it's a little bit of housekeeping, 9 there are exits on all the walls in this building I 10 think, so if we have any kind of emergency and need to 11 vacate, please go to one of the doors nearest to you 12 and vacate the building. 13 Our fire marshal wants to make sure that we 14 keep the exits free, but I don't think that's a 15 problem in this big space. 16 The first order of business tonight is to 17 find out whether or not anyone needs an 18 English-Spanish language interpreter. We do have an 19 interpreter with us tonight, Mr. Jose Palomino. I'm 20 going to ask Jose to find out whether or not anyone 21 needs his service. 22 (No interpretation was asked for.) 23 MS. ELIZABETH WITHERS: My name is Elizabeth 24 Withers and I represent Department of Energy. I'm the 25 document manager for the preparation of the Draft 3 1 Site-wide Environmental Impact Statement for continued 2 operation of Los Alamos National Laboratory in Los 3 Alamos, New Mexico. This document is the subject of 4 tonight's hearing. Before we proceed any further with 5 the hearing, I would like to introduce to you the 6 Deputy Manager of Los Alamos Site Office for the 7 National Nuclear Security Administration. 8 MS. JAN CHAVEZ-WILCYNSKI: Good evening. 9 Everybody my name it Jan Chavez-Wilcynski, and I'm 10 Deputy Manager for the National Nuclear Security 11 Administration, Los Alamos Site Office. I'm welcoming 12 you tonight. I'm very happy to see good participation 13 from the public. 14 I, first of all would like to thank 15 Elizabeth Withers, the staff from Los Alamos National 16 Laboratory, and the support contractor, SAIC, for all 17 of their good work on this document. I think it's an 18 easy to read document. It's lengthy but easy to 19 read. And I want to thank them for their hard work on 20 that. 21 It is an important document. I think you 22 are aware of the potential impact to local 23 communities. We hope that you will provide your 24 comments and questions tonight. You have an 25 opportunity at the poster sessions as well as after 4 1 the meeting, I know, to get questions answered. We 2 look forward to hearing your comments. 3 Without any further ado, I would like to 4 turn back to Elizabeth Withers, who will talk about 5 the process from here for this evening. Thank you and 6 good night. 7 MS. ELIZABETH WITHERS: Thank you, Jan. I 8 would like to take just a few moments, before I turn 9 the floor over to our moderator for the evening, to 10 very briefly describe the Site-wide Environmental 11 Impact Statement and also to describe our compliance 12 process with the National Environmental Policy Act. 13 The National Environmental Policy Act 14 effectively became law in 1970, and that act requires 15 the -- through the implementing regulations, to hold a 16 public comment and review period on draft 17 environmental impact statements, and also to hold a 18 public hearing. So the purpose of tonight's hearing 19 is to allow you to find out a little bit more 20 information about continuing operations at Los Alamos 21 National Laboratory, and also to find out more 22 information on the proposed project over the next 23 five-year window, and also to provide you with an 24 additional venue or opportunity to make comments on 25 the Draft Site-wide Environmental Impact Statement. 5 1 This Draft Environmental Impact Statement is 2 the third in a line of Site-wide Environmental Impact 3 Statements that has been prepared for operation of Los 4 Alamos National Laboratory. The first Site-wide 5 Environmental Impact Statement was issued in 1979. 6 More recently, the second one was issued in 1999. 7 This third document we hope to issue as a 8 final Environmental Impact Statement in early to mid 9 2007. 10 Like its 1999 predecessor, this Draft 11 Environmental Impact Statement looks at three 12 alternatives for the operation of Los Alamos National 13 Laboratory. It considers a no action alternative, a 14 reduced operations alternative, and also an expanded 15 operations alternative. There is some summary tables 16 available up front at the front desk there as you all 17 came in that summarizes the impacts from operating the 18 facility over the three different alternatives, and it 19 does so by the environmental resource area or resource 20 concern that is in the Los Alamos area. 21 Additionally, there are charts and tables 22 provided in that packet that look at each individual 23 proposed project so that you can look at the impact 24 individually and then also in total. 25 In a nutshell, the environmental impact 6 1 associated with reduced operations alternative are, as 2 you would imagine, reduced from the no action 3 alternative. Primarily, the greatest area of 4 reduction in impact is in the area of air emissions. 5 One of the proposals under this reduced operations 6 alternative is to shutdown the operations at the Los 7 Alamos Neutron Science Center, or LANSC facility as 8 it's often called, at our Technical Area 53. There 9 would also be a reduction in air emissions from the 10 reduction of about 20 percent with regards to high 11 explosive testing, which is also being proposed under 12 this alternative. There would be a correspondingly 13 small decrease in the overall amount of human health 14 impacts that would be expected as well under this 15 alternative, based upon the closure of that facility, 16 and also we would expect a reduction in electric, 17 natural gas and critical water use as well. 18 Under the expanded operations alternative, 19 we would, as you would imagine, expect to have a 20 greater level of impact than the no action 21 alternative. This increase in impacts would be 22 primarily in the area of waste production. We are 23 proposing demolition activities in relationship to 24 construction activities for many of the older 25 facilities at Los Alamos. We would like to replace 7 1 them with newer facilities and consolidate the 2 facilities. So we would be doing a great amount of 3 demolition activities under those proposals. Also, we 4 would be creating a great amount of waste or 5 generating a great amount of waste through our site 6 cleanup activities. 7 We have entered into a consent order for 8 site clean up with the State of New Mexico. Under the 9 provisions of this consent order, the State of New 10 Mexico would be making decisions for most of the waste 11 sites, as to how to actually carry out the cleanup 12 activities. The exact methods and techniques, 13 treatments and so forth would be decided by the State 14 of New Mexico, and so we don't know exactly what the 15 impacts would be. We created a bounding scenario, 16 though, by considering two extreme options with regard 17 to impacts. We considered an option that would 18 require us to clean up all of the tracts of 19 contamination by exhuming the waste, putting it into 20 drums and other containers, and putting it onto trucks 21 and shipping it either on-site or off-site for 22 disposal. We also looked at an option that would 23 require us to cap all of the waste in place and 24 install a long-term monitoring facility. So we think 25 that the outcome of this bounding case for impact with 8 1 regard to waste generation through this process 2 probably overestimates what would really happen when 3 we clean up the actual site. However, preparing these 4 type of analyses will allow you, the stakeholder, to 5 understand the type of impacts and also the types of 6 issues associated with site clean up. 7 Additionally, under this alternative we 8 would be generating waste related to plutonium pit 9 production. We are proposing to increase the number 10 of plutonium pits that can be produced at Los Alamos 11 National Laboratory from the current level of 20 pits 12 per year up to a maximum of 80 pits per year in order 13 to meet our goal of producing 50 certified pits. 14 We would additionally expect under this 15 alternative to see an increase in transportation 16 impact, again, primarily associated with removing the 17 waste and transporting it off site. 18 We would also expect to see a slight 19 increase in worker health, primarily, impacts because, 20 again, the workers involved in waste handling process, 21 and also the pit production process would be exposed 22 to greater levels of material. 23 Additionally we would expect to see an 24 increase in electric use, natural gas and potable 25 water as well. With regard to those resources, 9 1 though, the expansion or enhancement of our super 2 computing facility, the Metropolis Center for 3 Computing, would probably result in a greater use of 4 electric and water use. 5 The Draft Site-wide review and comment 6 process has been extended from the originally proposed 7 60 days to 75-day-long period. This period will end 8 September 20th, and during this period we will have 9 had public hearings. We held our first public hearing 10 last night in Los Alamos. This evening's hearing is 11 the second hearing, and we have one more hearing 12 tomorrow night in Santa Fe. We encourage everyone to 13 make oral comments at these hearings. These oral 14 comments will be recorded verbatim through the use of 15 our court reporter. And if you would like to submit 16 written comments tonight, we do have some comment 17 forms on the front table there for your use, if you 18 wish. You can also write me letters, E-mail me, fax 19 me. We have a toll free number that you can call and 20 leave comments as well if you go home tonight and 21 think of something else you would like to say. 22 After the reviewing comment period ends, 23 we'll take all of the comments that we have received 24 and we will use these, then, to make changes to the 25 final Site-wide Environmental Impact Statement. This 10 1 document is a draft. We know it's somewhat imperfect 2 and we would appreciate your help in correcting any 3 errors, adding any information that you think may need 4 to be added if we have forgotten some aspect of the 5 environment in the LANL area, or if we need to correct 6 any data. 7 All comments, whether oral or written, will 8 be included in the Final Site-wide Environmental 9 Impact Statement. We'll be issuing a separate volume 10 that will have all of the comments recorded and 11 reproduced verbatim. So if you want to see exactly 12 how your comment got used in the process, you will be 13 able to get the final Environmental Impact Statement 14 and be able to look up your individual comment and see 15 exactly how we have incorporated information or how we 16 have changed the document based on your comments. 17 If you ask a question with your comment 18 letter or -- or note, then we will try to answer that 19 question in the final document as well. 20 The Final Site-wide Environmental Impact 21 Statement that is issued will be used in part by the 22 National Nuclear Security Administrator's 23 Administrator to make final decisions regarding the 24 level of operations at Los Alamos National Laboratory, 25 and also to make decisions about whether or not to 11 1 implement each of the individual projects being 2 proposed. We expect there to be more than one Record 3 of Decision issued, and we expect the first one, the 4 first Record of Decision can be issued no sooner than 5 30 days after the Final Environmental Impact Statement 6 has been made available. And we expect at least at a 7 minimum, that the first record of decision will 8 include a decision to implement the activities that we 9 need to in order to meet the consent order activities. 10 We are very committed to cleanup, and I 11 wanted to make a point of explaining that the 12 Administrator is allowed to choose across the 13 alternatives. For example, the Administrator could 14 choose to make a decision to implement cleanup 15 activities, and could also make a decision to decrease 16 the amount of high explosive testing, and for some 17 operations he could also choose a no action 18 alternative. So he can pick and choose across 19 alternatives. If you want to compare, it's sort of 20 like when you go to vote. When you enter the voting 21 booth you can choose to vote a straight party ticket, 22 everybody on one particular party, or you can vote a 23 split ticket and divide your vote among the different 24 parties, depending on the offices. 25 I hope that everybody has taken the 12 1 opportunity to take a look at the posters and talk to 2 the subject matter experts. We do have folks here 3 from the Los Alamos National Laboratory and also from 4 the Los Alamos Site Office to answer questions. 5 Because we have a number of folks who have 6 signed up to speak tonight, we're not going to have a 7 panel of experts and a formal question and answer 8 period. If you aren't able to talk to the subject 9 matter expert, or you think of something later and you 10 want to ask a question and get an immediate answer, 11 you can send me a fax, or call that 1-800 number and 12 leave a message, or somehow reach me among these 13 different manners of communication, and we'll get back 14 in touch with you with appropriate subject matter 15 expert. 16 I'm going to go ahead and turn the meeting 17 over now to our facilitator for tonight's meeting, 18 Robin Brandin, and she will facilitate the recording 19 of tonight's oral comments. Again, I would like to 20 thank you all for coming. I would like to ask you to 21 ask your questions of the subject matter experts, and 22 I would also like to ask you to please be courteous 23 and to respect the folks who come forward here tonight 24 to give their oral comments. It takes a lot of guts 25 to get up in front of a room of strangers and make 13 1 oral comments, so please treat them kindly. Thank 2 you. 3 Robin? 4 MODERATOR ROBIN BRANDIN: Good evening, 5 everybody. Thank you for coming to this public 6 hearing. As Ms. Wither says, my name is Robin 7 Brandin, and I will be the facilitator tonight. And I 8 know that Jose asked earlier, but there have been a 9 few people come in so, Jose, would you mind getting up 10 and asking whether anybody would like my instructions 11 translated? 12 (Jose Palomino questioning in Spanish.) 13 MR. JOSE PALOMINO: No one. Okay. 14 MODERATOR ROBIN BRANDIN: Thank you. 15 As Ms. Withers said, we have come to the 16 real purpose of this hearing, which is to record your 17 comments on the Los Alamos Site-wide Environmental 18 Impact Statement. My role as facilitator in this 19 process to ensure that everyone has a fair chance to 20 comment, everyone who wants to comment has a chance to 21 comment, and that also that we get a complete and 22 accurate recording of those comments. That my partner 23 in that regard is Ms. Mabel Chin, who will be taking a 24 verbatim record of these proceedings. 25 And this is how we will proceed. I have 14 1 cards for those of you who indicated when you 2 registered that you would like to speak. I will 3 extend the courtesy to any elected officials first who 4 would like to speak. I don't have an indication that 5 there were any. Is there anybody here who is an 6 elected official? 7 Okay. Then I will go on to those of you who 8 have registered to speak in the order that you 9 registered. 10 Let's see. I have 13 people currently 11 registered, and I would like to start -- it's not a 12 huge number. We have some time. I would like to 13 start with a time limit, ask you to limit your 14 comments, please, to five minutes. Ms. Hale sitting 15 here in the front row right in front of me will be our 16 timekeeper. When you are within 30 seconds of your -- 17 of the end of your time allotment she will hold up 18 this yellow card. And when your time has run out, she 19 will hold up a blue card. If at the end of the 20 comment period, or of the people who have registered, 21 we have additional time, I will ask if anybody who 22 hasn't registered would like to comment. And then if 23 you still have some time, if people have already 24 commented, we'll give them another opportunity to 25 comment again or to extend their comments. 15 1 If you find that five minutes is not enough 2 time, as Ms. Withers says, and this poster indicates, 3 there are several other ways that you can comment, 4 including providing written comments. All of the 5 comments, whether oral or written, will be published 6 in the Final Environmental Impact Statement. 7 See. And there's also another hearing 8 tomorrow evening, if for some chance we should run out 9 of time. You are welcome to attend that hearing as 10 well. 11 So, when I start, when I call your name, 12 please step up to one of the two microphones here at 13 the end of each alley -- aisle -- thank you. Senior 14 moment there, and that way you will be able to see 15 Ms. Hale. And please speak clearly so that Ms. Chin 16 can hear you and record your comments accurately. If 17 she has trouble hearing you or understanding you, she 18 will either interrupt you or let me know and I will 19 interrupt you to make sure that we get it accurately. 20 Because the comments were getting today are 21 all going to be recorded for the official record, 22 please do not include any personal information that 23 you would not want to have published in the 24 Site-wide -- Final Site-wide EIS in your comments. 25 And if you have brought a written copy of your 16 1 comments, please hand them to Ms. Chin or to me. That 2 will help us also get the -- your comments accurately. 3 As Ms. Withers indicated, the purpose of 4 this part of the session is to get everybody's 5 comments. We want to make sure that everybody has a 6 chance to make their comments. So, if you have 7 questions, I hope you had a chance to ask them at the 8 poster sessions earlier, or if we have time, after the 9 public comment period. We won't be answering any 10 questions during this part of the session. If you ask 11 questions, we will record them and the answers will be 12 provided in the Final EIS, or you can pass your 13 questions on to Ms. Withers, as she indicated earlier. 14 And that's pretty much all I have. So does 15 anybody have any questions on these -- how this is 16 going to proceed? 17 Yes, sir? 18 FROM THE FLOOR: These microphones facing, 19 who are we supposed to be -- 20 MODERATOR ROBIN BRANDIN: Yes. Face the 21 audience when you speak. 22 FROM THE FLOOR: Okay. 23 MODERATOR ROBIN BRANDIN: Any other 24 questions? 25 Okay. We'll get started with the first 17 1 speaker, which is Greg mellow. 2 MR. GREG MELLO: Thank you, all of you who 3 have come so far to hear our testimony. And let me 4 say, very quickly run down a few points. I believe 5 that this EIS process is a continuation and an 6 abridgement of the failed modern pit facility 7 environmental impact process, which was a national 8 process that provided a great deal more possibilities 9 for input around the country on pit production, and 10 this process is being foisted here on New Mexico with 11 just three days of public hearings, in what is the 12 poorest, practically, state in the country. I think 13 this is being done to get this through during the 14 existing administration, and to get it through before 15 a consciousness of debt in this country rises to the 16 level that this type of expense becomes more and more 17 problematic. Because of the debt situation, 18 essentially all the expanded alternative activities 19 are -- will be financed out of public debt. So, what 20 we're talking about is borrowing money to build these, 21 what looks like, a very large Christmas stocking of 22 projects at Los Alamos National Laboratory. If you 23 have read this, you see that they want to tear down a 24 lot of existing facilities which have been perfectly 25 adequate until this moment, at least they're being -- 18 1 I mean, I haven't heard that they are inadequate -- 2 and they would like to replace them with brand new 3 facilities, hundreds of thousands of square feet per 4 project, and there are several such projects. 5 I want to correct the idea that this EIS 6 involves a lot of cleanup. Now, maybe it does and 7 maybe it doesn't, but disposal takes place all the 8 time at Los Alamos National Laboratory, permanent 9 disposal. Cleanup is a -- is a -- something that 10 proceeds by fits and starts. There is -- it's -- I 11 think it's quite deceptive or confusing for the 12 expanded operations alternative to have expanded 13 nuclear weapons activities in many forms, especially 14 pit production, and to also put in that alternative 15 expanded cleanup for two reasons. First, it submerges 16 the real policy choices between cleanup and increased 17 nuclear weapons. And there is no way that there can 18 be money to do those things at the same time. 19 So, in the analysis, the expanded operations 20 alternative may cover the impacts of the pit 21 production by blending them with impacts which are 22 actually imaginary from cleanup that no one really has 23 the money to do or intent to do. So it's very 24 important that Elizabeth said that Linton Brooks can 25 pick and choose projects from within these 19 1 alternatives. And I would suggest that these 2 alternatives be split apart so that the real 3 alternatives facing the country can be brought out in 4 starker relief, and the policy content of the EIS 5 would come more to the surface. 6 Another alternative which should be here is 7 to wait. There is no rush to do any of these 8 projects. There's no rush to produce plutonium pits. 9 There's no rush to replace existing buildings with new 10 buildings, fancier buildings, and we ought to wait 11 while we are accumulating, even if you really, really 12 like nuclear weapons, we are getting data on the 13 longevity of nuclear weapons, a great deal of 14 information every year through accelerating aging 15 experiments. So the present value of these 16 expenditures could be tremendously decreased by 17 postponing these expenditures into the future. So if 18 we could wait 10 or 20 years to produce -- to make a 19 pit factory, the present value of that investment, the 20 difference would be really huge and of importance, 21 great policy importance. 22 Let's see -- the Congress is the one who 23 makes the decisions about this, not Linton Brooks. 24 That's very important. Now, from perspective of the 25 NNSA employees, that's how they think of it but, in 20 1 fact, it's Congress who funds these, especially the 2 House of Representatives. This is a very 3 controversial set of projects which the House of 4 Representatives has called absurd and irrational. So, 5 people who oppose expansion of pit production are in 6 very good hands because it's Republicans in the House 7 that are using this language, especially in the House 8 Appropriations Committee, but those bills have been 9 ratified by the entire House, which is not 10 particularly specific as I -- 11 So, another important point -- so, we want 12 to bring our concerns after these hearings and after 13 this NEPA process directly to Congress. Don't be 14 satisfied with providing input to the executive branch 15 only, because that's where good ideas can go to die 16 right now. So, we have to bring these concerns to 17 Congress. 18 It's very important that the underlying 19 documents that this EIS refers to be available to the 20 public. This process is taking place in a backdrop of 21 opacity and lack of transparency from the DOE for a 22 very long time, about any of the policy issues 23 involved in any of the underlying documents. Even the 24 citizen's advisory board, my experience is if you say 25 one thing which is critical of the Department of 21 1 Energy, you get dropped from their E-mail. And I 2 haven't gotten an E-mail from them in months. 3 Now, I want to in the remaining minute or 4 two, I want to say something about economic impact. 5 The choices in this Environmental Impact Statement 6 entail economic choices for the country, and while 7 people may think that jobs come here to Rio Arriba 8 County as a result of the lab, and they're right in 9 that, I think about a 175 million dollars comes to Rio 10 Arriba County from the lab, but it comes with a 11 price. There's more federal jobs, more federal money 12 pouring into Rio Arriba County from 13 nonmilitary-related sources, and when we put our vote 14 for nuclear military spending, it's a vote against 15 these other forms of spending which are actually the 16 predominant forms of spending, federal spending in 17 Northern New Mexico. So it's a vote to impoverish 18 ourselves. 19 The average American household is spending 20 about $7,600 on military matters each year now. This 21 represents an immense opportunity cost for the 22 country. There is no way we can lift our people out 23 of poverty, get the education we need or the 24 healthcare we need while we are supporting the 25 military to the tune of over $7,000 per household. 22 1 And so we have to look at those kind of distributed 2 socioeconomic costs. 3 And for the other counties, Rio Arriba 4 County is the most military-dependent county in the 5 hinterland of Los Alamos. For the other counties it's 6 really extreme. Taos County is vastly more influenced 7 by nonmilitary federal spending than military federal 8 spending. Thank you, very much. 9 MODERATOR ROBIN BRANDIN: Thank you. 10 Okay. I'm not sure how to pronounce this 11 name. Michelle Peixinho. Can you correct my 12 pronunciation? 13 MS. MICHELLE PEIXINHO: My name is Michelle 14 Peixinho. It's Portuguese. I am Tau from the 15 Philippines. I grew up in Manila and Honolulu. I 16 have lived in Chimayo with my family for six years 17 now. And before we moved here, I was living in Las 18 Vegas, Nevada, so I learned a lot, quite a bit about 19 nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons production. I 20 lived for a few years with my family in a little town 21 called Tecopa, California, just across the California 22 border, which is directly downstream of Yucca 23 Mountain, and because of that I learned a lot about 24 nuclear waste and the problems that we have in our 25 country about dealing with the waste that we have 23 1 produced, that is, particularly waste coming out of 2 nuclear power production, which I think is yet 3 unresolved to this day. 4 I think that for me, I have three children. 5 I am a worrier, and I am extremely concerned about my 6 ability to grow food and my ability to feed my kids, 7 my ability to be able to draw water out of the ground 8 and feel good about drinking it. I am worried about 9 this stuff, and I worry about it every day. Every 10 single day. So, I came here thinking that I was going 11 to be among my peers and I do see many of my peers 12 here, but my neighbors aren't here. A lot of my 13 clients that I work with aren't here. There's nobody 14 that I see who are parents from my children's school 15 who are here. This is a very, very small group of 16 people from Rio Arriba County. And I don't -- I -- 17 this is not enough for -- of a voice. So I don't know 18 if you can maybe seek out more, because this is not 19 enough. 20 So, I am concerned here with what I see on 21 page 10 of this document. I just opened it up, and 22 all these -- for this expanded operations. I mean, 23 you are looking at from 38,000 cubic yards of low 24 level, it goes up to 881,000 cubic yards. That's just 25 one of these -- and there are several pages of types 24 1 of waste that comes out of this expanded operations. 2 So I am concerned about where that's going to go, 3 because I feel like I have lived at the end of the 4 nuclear waste cycle, and whether it goes to Nevada, 5 whether it goes down to Southern New Mexico, whether 6 it stays right here, it doesn't matter, because it's 7 all the same water. It's the same hydrologic cycle 8 that we all depend on, and that makes me worried. 9 So, I just wanted to bring attention to that 10 right there because there's lots of it here, lots of 11 different kinds -- chemical waste from 19,000 low end 12 it goes up to 129,000. Where's that going to go, you 13 know? And how can I, you know, keep my kids from 14 having to deal with that. 15 And the other issue that I learned at Yucca 16 Mountain in dealing with is it is the longevity of 17 this waste. It's not just like trash and you throw it 18 away and it's done. This stuff will be here for 19 whatever, hundreds -- 250,000 years. I don't know the 20 number. I'm not a scientist, you know, but it's not 21 going to go away, so how many generations exactly is 22 that? And how are we accountable to those 23 generations? How do you look at the intergenerational 24 impact of these genetic changes that happen because of 25 this radiation that's affecting us? I sit on the 25 1 Maternal Child Health Council of Rio Arriba County and 2 our issue now is obesity, and I raised my hand to my 3 peers there and I said, hey, what about thyroid 4 problems? We have a huge obesity issue in our 5 county. We have a huge suicide issue in our county. 6 We're top in the nation. We have a huge drug problem, 7 we're top in the nation. You are sitting right here 8 in Rio Arriba County, and these are our problems. How 9 is all this money that is our money that we pay into, 10 to go into this, going to help solve our daily 11 problems? And then, to top that off, you got to turn 12 on the news and watch how nuclear weapons are causing 13 people to kill each other. Hand to hand. They are 14 not even fighting with nuclear weapons, but they're 15 fighting over nuclear weapons. They're already dying 16 from nuclear weapons, you know what I'm saying? It 17 worries me. I worry about it sick. I cry about it, 18 you know, and I'm sure that you guys understand, 19 because I think we're all in the same page about it. 20 We're all human beings. And that's -- that's how I 21 feel about it. We're human beings, and at some point 22 we would have to say, well, why do we want to be a 23 community that continues to endorse and stand by while 24 our country continues to develop these nuclear 25 weapons, points fingers at all these other countries 26 1 to say, you can't develop these nuclear weapons, and 2 these huge wars are happening over it. We're 3 hypocrites. We're Americans and we are hypocrites. 4 And I'm an American. I'm not talking about somebody 5 else. I'm talking about me. I'm a taxpaying 6 American. I'm standing up here and I'm a hypocrite, 7 you know, and I feel crappy about it. I don't want to 8 feel like that, you know. 9 So, those are my feelings about it, and I 10 appreciate you all taking the time to listen to it. 11 And I am going to try to write out, you know, my 12 feelings about it. I don't know how I can get more of 13 my neighbors involved. I am pretty darned sure that a 14 lot of them didn't even know this was going to be 15 happening, so how is it that we're really truly going 16 to get people's opinions and take away the economic 17 factor of the fact that people have to work at Los 18 Alamos because they have to make a living. People 19 can't find good jobs in Espanola, in Rio Arriba 20 County. People can't find good jobs. If you want to 21 make more than 20 bucks an hour, if you want to have 22 benefits, you want to have a retirement plan, you 23 better work at LANL, you know. And I can't blame 24 anybody for that, so I don't blame people for that. 25 But they have to have an opinion about it outside of 27 1 their work, you know, outside of their economic 2 situation. How are we going to seek out that opinion, 3 you know? 4 So, anyway, I appreciate you guys listening 5 to me, and thank you. 6 MODERATOR ROBIN BRANDIN: Trish Doherty. 7 MS. TRISH DOHERTY: Hi, everybody. My name 8 is Trish Doherty and I'm actually English. I was born 9 in England. I have been 30 years in this country. 10 I'm still based in New York City, and I had a great 11 privilege of purchasing a piece of land in Chimayo 12 just recently -- two years ago, actually, and I'm in 13 the process of moving over here. And I'm extremely, 14 extremely, extremely upset and concerned that LANL 15 wants to produce more plutonium pits. I am so 16 amazed. Thank you. 17 I am asking decision makers to come with 18 great wisdom, to see with great vision, to be 19 accountable to all future generations. We are at a 20 turning point at this time on the earth. This is the 21 time to apply great intelligence of the human being. 22 I am 100 percent against Los Alamos National Lab 23 producing more nuclear weapons, more pits per year, 24 more transportation of waste, more health concerns and 25 more toxic waste. I have to wonder what makes you 28 1 think you can take the future of this beautiful place 2 in New Mexico into your own hands and endanger all 3 life for thousands of years to come. It only takes 4 one mistake, one accident, one fire, one terrorist 5 attack, one earthquake -- Los Alamos stands on three 6 fault lines -- to set off a catastrophic accident 7 beyond words. 8 Have you ever seen the movie showing the 9 deformed, lifeless disabled children lying helplessly 10 in beds their entire lives, the victims of Chernobyl? 11 They would have been normal children. You are playing 12 with a gamble that is unacceptable. 13 The SWEIS document fails to address several 14 issues. It is not a viable document, so why do we 15 keep referring to it? There is no real health 16 assessment. The cleanup has not been addressed -- and 17 I realize you spoke about it a little bit earlier -- 18 but it has not been made a priority. There have been 19 no comprehensive health studies done near the nuclear 20 facility. How do I know as a person coming here that 21 my health will not be adversely affected by 22 contamination in the air, the water, the soil and the 23 food? It is a fact that plutonium was found that can 24 be traced isotopically in the sediments of the Rio 25 Grande at Cochiti. 29 1 It is a fact that a produce sample, a plum 2 from this area, was found to be high in americium, a 3 substance which is the product of radioactivity. It 4 is a fact that already 822 acre fields of industrial 5 waste is being discharged into the canyons every 6 year. Apparently you say the canyons are dry. But 7 water comes sometimes, as it has this summer, and 8 spreads that waste into our sacred soil and our sacred 9 water. 10 It is a fact that there are records of 11 higher cancer rates in Los Alamos County. I have 12 questions about if I want to move here. I happened to 13 have a hair analysis test in 2004, because I have some 14 lead in my body, and I took another test a year later 15 to check if the lead had gone down. My uranium 16 levels, which were no problem in 2004, had gone over 17 what is an acceptable level. Now I wasn't here all 18 that much between 2004, 2005, but I was on my land, my 19 sacred, beautiful land, for a few weeks, and I was 20 drinking my well water. And I have been told that 21 there's natural uranium here. So all I'm saying is, 22 we don't know, and are there any tests being done to 23 find out about this. How are your uranium levels? 24 How are your uranium levels? Do you know is anyone 25 testing? 30 1 Uranium levels in toxic levels lead to 2 kidney disease. 3 There is an alternative to this plan to 4 increase nuclear weapons production, which is not, I 5 don't believe stated, that is highly intelligent, 6 deeply wise and sustainable. That would be to convert 7 Los Alamos National Laboratory into a research center 8 on climate change, just a small problem that our 9 society is facing right now. And renewable energies, 10 that is intelligent. And sustainable agriculture, 11 which is helping to keep our earth strong and healthy 12 for future generations and for all life on this 13 beautiful, beautiful planet. This would be an 14 investment in the future of our children, and the many 15 generations to come, as well as nature, wildlife, and 16 would honor the total interconnectedness of all life. 17 In terms of referring to what was said 18 earlier, I would definitely, out of the options 19 presented, would choose the cleaning up and reduction 20 of explosions. And of course, to these more 21 environmentally friendly solutions. Thank you. 22 MODERATOR ROBIN BRANDIN: Thank you. 23 Regina Wheeler? 24 MS. REGINA WHEELER: Hello. My name is 25 Regina Wheeler. I'm representing Los Alamos County 31 1 local government, and we just wanted to let you know 2 that we are reviewing the LANL SWEIS draft and will be 3 submitting written comments. Thank you. 4 MODERATOR ROBIN BRANDIN: Thank you. 5 Mateo Peixinho? 6 MR. MATEO PEIXINHO: Good evening. 7 MODERATOR ROBIN BRANDIN: Good evening. 8 MR. MATEO PEIXINHO: I'll be brief. 9 Honestly, first comment I have on this is that I would 10 like to formally protest this process, echoing what 11 Mr. Mello said. This format of three hearings here in 12 Northern New Mexico is not even close to being 13 adequate to address the enormity of this proposal. 14 Increasing our pit production is a huge 15 problem. It's the wrong way for us to go. I'm a 16 general contractor in the area and, you know, the 17 capitalist side says, oh, great, money coming in. 18 This is, you know, a chance for us all to put money in 19 our pockets. But this is the wrong way to go about 20 it, because ultimately our natural beauty here, our 21 children, all the things that are the real important 22 things are going to be sacrificed for a very 23 short-term gain. 24 And so, like my wife had said, we worry 25 about these things for our children. We live within 32 1 sight. We see your porch lights, for those of you who 2 work at the lab, from our home. We look across at 3 what you're doing there and we're downwind from you. 4 And we would like you to know that, that we survive 5 from this land here and we want to continue to. And 6 if our lakes and our rivers are contaminated, that's 7 going to make all the living things have shorter 8 lives, and that's unacceptable. So, that's the first 9 thing that I was wanting to say. 10 Another issue before it got into general 11 contracting here, I worked in water remediation. I 12 think there's some big problems with the test wells 13 that are around the site, the way that they're being 14 drilled, the way that they are tested, with small 15 amounts of water being pulled up, sometimes a gallon 16 or so being pulled up at one time. It's not going to 17 represent anything, especially as time goes on. If 18 you drill and you use, you know, the drilling 19 products, the different types of clays, the bentonite 20 clays, they're going to clog up your groundwater 21 movement, and also clog up the filters in those test 22 wells. So, I think we're being fooled. And you know, 23 like I said, I worked in groundwater remediation. 24 It's kind of a joke. A lot of people who were in the 25 oil industry are making good money on that now, but we 33 1 can't get it clean once it's contaminated. 2 So, okay, we're monitoring. What next? Say 3 we find it's moving faster, like we found around the 4 Nevada test site? They said it would take, you know, 5 thousands of years for it to move a half a mile, and 6 within a few years of these test wells being put in, 7 there were some of them put in improperly, we found 8 that the radioactive waste was migrating much more 9 quickly. So as we look, you know, as water becomes 10 more and more precious every moment, we are going to 11 see that what a huge mistake we have made. 12 So when you make more pits, when you go from 13 20 to 80, that's a huge problem for our future 14 generations. And we can't do it, you know. We are 15 either going to stop by consciousness and by the right 16 thinking, or it's going to stop when we just can't 17 survive anymore. And you know, I just can't 18 understand why we put that on our children's children 19 and our great-great-great-grandchildren. That's just 20 wrong-minded, you know. And not only us as humans, 21 but all the living things. Our lives are already 22 being curtailed by nuclear contamination, you know, 23 cancer rates and all these things. 24 Again, you know, I am here talking to this 25 microphone. I don't feel that the Department of 34 1 Energy has any intentions, whatsoever, of taking our 2 public comments and utilizing them in their 3 decision-making process. I think that this is a total 4 farce. And I want to make sure that that's in the 5 record and issue my grievance against my government 6 and protest against that. So, thank you very much and 7 have a good evening. 8 MODERATOR ROBIN BRANDIN: Thank you. 9 Jean Nichols? 10 MS. JEAN NICHOLS: My name is Jean Nichols, 11 and I don't even know where to begin. I am also 12 outraged that this process is just a very short 13 comment period when it took a year and a half to come 14 up with this Site-wide. It's -- it's right during 15 August when, you know, a lot of people are on vacation 16 and it's the Indians' feast days and, you know, we're 17 just like, you know, everybody else said, and here it 18 is in a sports plex, which goes to show that we're 19 just being made a sport of. And then it's on Nagasaki 20 Day, when we should never more be considering dropping 21 nuclear weapons. We should not be making more pits. 22 There's no reason for one more pit, let alone 80. And 23 I understand this is just a coverup for the next step, 24 which will be 450 pits a day -- a year, you know, as 25 another Rocky Flats. 35 1 So, I am representing not just myself. I 2 mean, like we said, there aren't very many of our 3 neighbors here, but I represent a group called United 4 Neighbors, and it's all of us in Northern New Mexico, 5 and all the people in Penasco, and all the people in 6 Dixon and everybody -- you know, when you consider 7 Site-wide, you really have to go -- the site is 8 everybody downwind and everybody downwater. You have 9 to take into account all of our health studies which 10 are not being done. I mean, I go to the clinic and I 11 say, have there been health studies? Way too many 12 people have cancer. Way too many people. I just 13 found out about a family in Ojo Sarco the other day 14 who, he worked at the lab. He came home and he washed 15 his clothes in the -- in with the diapers of the 16 family, and the whole family had cancer. And they had 17 cancer to the extent where they couldn't even donate 18 body parts because every part of their body was 19 riddled with cancer. We're not even studying that. 20 We're an experiment. 21 She spoke about the plums that had been 22 studied, and these plums that were tested with 23 americium that came from my neighborhood, and whoever 24 did the test told the people where the plums are 25 growing, don't feed these to your grandchildren. And 36 1 yet, you know, we're trying to live here, and people 2 are trying to come and grow, and grow organic things. 3 And we just want to live, you know. I don't have any 4 hard feelings against individual people who work at 5 the lab. I'm trying not to. You know, I think you 6 are misinformed and, you know, we're all into tunnel 7 vision. And this whole Site-wide Environmental Impact 8 Statement, it is. It's premature. I mean, right now 9 we're just glimpsing the very tip of the melting 10 iceberg with these rains that are coming now. So the 11 fact that we are -- we are going to see more and more 12 flash floods going down these canyons, picking up this 13 waste, carrying it to the Rio Grande, and we're also 14 not taking into account the seismic activity. I 15 understand that there's a study is due out in 2006, so 16 why we're not waiting for that study and basing this 17 Environmental Impact Statement on those results? It's 18 just -- it's absurd. You know, it's so absurd that I 19 think we're all suffering from posttraumatic stress 20 syndrome and that we really -- that's why it's so hard 21 for people to come to these hearings. They hear 22 nuclear and they just go blank. They don't want to 23 even think about it because it is unthinkable, and 24 it's asking us to accept the unacceptable every day in 25 our lives and it's not right. 37 1 There's a whole lot of other things with the 2 air and the water and the cleanup, and the only one -- 3 you know, only the expanded alternative has any kind 4 of cleanup to it. We need a cleanup first before we 5 even think of any of these alternatives. 6 I didn't come prepared at all, so, you know, 7 I am going to try to think about it more and actually 8 write out a, you know, some statements. But right now 9 I'm just, like, so overwhelmed by the contradictions 10 here, and the fact that, you know, we can't be doing 11 this. They never said how much any of this is going 12 to cost. Yes, it comes out of our public debt. Well, 13 how much? How much we're talking here? You know, 14 3,000,000,000? 83,000,000,000? Whatever the cost is, 15 any time you deal with nuclear substances, however 16 much you are spending on it, you can -- you can 17 multiply that by at least 29, because if you are 18 talking about the cancers and the cost of the medical 19 and the people down line and the cleanup and the -- 20 everything else, not to mention the lack of respect 21 that we now have in the world for even doing this. 22 Nuclear weapons are illegal on an 23 international level, and we should listen to that 24 and -- you know, we are telling Iran they can't even 25 develop nuclear weapons sometime in the future, and 38 1 then we're going to make more here? Excuse me. No. 2 FROM THE FLOOR: No. 3 FROM THE FLOOR: No. 4 FROM THE FLOOR: No. 5 MODERATOR ROBIN BRANDIN: Thank you. 6 Carol Miller? 7 MS. CAROL MILLER: I used to come to these 8 meetings as a public health professional representing 9 the American Public Health Association, the New Mexico 10 Public Health Association. Also, I served as an 11 officer, and I realized this was not about public 12 health. This is not about anything except an insanity 13 that has gripped our government. I can't believe that 14 we're here on Nagasaki Day. I'm glad Jean raised it. 15 This should be a day of reflection of what happens. 16 We are in the time period where a lot of people around 17 the world are grieving over the United States' use of 18 nuclear weapons on innocent civilians in Hiroshima and 19 Nagasaki. 20 So, I have a couple of points I want to 21 make. One is, abolish nuclear weapons world wide. 22 That is the goal. And I want to quote a very dear 23 friend Winona Leduke, who said, everything we do has 24 to be by mom's rules. You know, mom's rules, you 25 can't make another mess until you clean up your first 39 1 mess. Let's talk after this is cleaned up, which no 2 one knows how to do, will cost more than the 3 1,000,000,000,000-plus dollars we have spent in this 4 country alone on nuclear weapons. And I want to take 5 the rest of my time with all of us for a moment of 6 silence, and I want the timekeeper to actually make 7 sure it's okay. And this moment of silence is for the 8 Navajo uranium miners who died getting the raw uranium 9 out of the ground. It doesn't just get to Los Alamos 10 with no human contact. For the workers across the 11 United States and the other countries who have died 12 and are dying from being involved in nuclear weapons 13 complex. For the one-second victims of Hiroshima and 14 Nagasaki, several hundred thousand people that were 15 vaporized, along with their buildings, in one second. 16 I did take a pilgrimage to Hiroshima in 2004 and 17 brought ash from the Cerro Grande fire that fell in my 18 garden and put it in the river at ground zero as just 19 my own personal asking of forgiveness for what has 20 happened. 21 I want a moment of silence for my neighbors, 22 current and former lab workers, dead, barely dead and 23 somewhat alive. And I would like someone to notify us 24 when the remainder of my time is done. Thank you. 25 MODERATOR ROBIN BRANDIN: Okay. We will 40 1 continue. Thank you. 2 Andrew Cult? 3 MR. ANDREW CULT: My name is Andrew, and I 4 have a family that's really involved in nuclear 5 issues. Both my parents met in the Air Force when -- 6 Hill Air Force Base, where my father helped design the 7 navigation system for the Minuteman II 8 intercontinental ballistic missile. And then my 9 brother has gone on to work for Essex in St. Louis, 10 where he helps make fighter jets which are used to 11 deliver all kinds of weapons. So I think it's really 12 important, too, that I actually grew up in Omaha, 13 right next to Offutt Air Force Base, which used to be 14 the Strategic Air Command, and is now the Strategic 15 Nuclear Command. And it seems like it was always in 16 the back of my mind that, you know, nuclear weapons 17 were all around me, they were really close, and that 18 the people who push the button are just, you know, 30 19 minutes away from me. And it was always kind of in 20 the back of my mind and kind of scary. 21 And so, I come here today with a couple of 22 things. The first is, I really don't think plutonium 23 pits are needed. No one has really explained what 24 they would be used for, other than maybe these new 25 flexible nuclear weapons, which I think the flexible 41 1 response is just code word for more usable nuclear 2 weapons that could be actually used. That's kind of 3 scary. And it's really ominous for something like 4 this to happen on a day where I get discuss -- on 5 Nagasaki Day. It has been 61 years since the nuclear 6 weapon was used, yet people want to start making 7 weapons that can and should -- and they say they 8 should be used, because they want small weapons, maybe 9 even -- you know, I have seen reports of suggestions 10 to build even one kiloton nuclear weapons, and that's 11 just ridiculous, you know. So why do we need more 12 pits? We're signing all these international treaties 13 to get rid of nuclear weapons. Why do we need more of 14 them, you know? 15 We don't have Russia anymore as a threat. 16 And there are accidents and miscalculations that 17 happen every day. The Jupiter II intermediate range 18 ballistic missiles we used to have in Italy? They got 19 struck by lightening on four different occasions and 20 actually armed themselves. You know, things like that 21 happen. 22 In 1995, after the cold war, the United 23 States and Norway, fired off a research rocket, and 24 Russia's failing early warning system declared it as a 25 nuclear attack on Russia. Yeltsin was woken up in the 42 1 middle of the night. He had given the codes and was 2 30 seconds from firing the weapons, from what most 3 people think, and decided against it at the last 4 minute. That was after the cold war, you know. That 5 was just a few years ago. That could happen to us at 6 any moment. There's no reason to make that more 7 possible. 8 So, you know, in this SWEIS people are 9 talking about safety and, you know, we drove by Los 10 Alamos Nuclear Labs today and saw, you know, big 11 safety signs. But, you know, what is safe about 12 nuclear weapons; right? Safety to most people means 13 acceptable risk; right? It doesn't mean that there is 14 nothing happening. Safe doesn't mean that no one is 15 getting hurt. Safe, according to most people, means 16 that less people are getting hurt. You know, enough 17 people that's okay. I don't think it should be okay. 18 I don't think it's safe for anyone to be getting 19 hurt. But this report shows that if we expand 20 production, more people will get hurt. And it will be 21 workers, people who have to work really hard jobs and 22 go in there and do work that they probably should not 23 have to do, but they have to put food on the table for 24 their families, so they're going into work every day, 25 and they're the people who are on the front lines 43 1 having to face this kind of contamination threat, and 2 that is just unacceptable for plutonium pits that 3 aren't needed? 4 And why is this statewide? You know, I grew 5 up in Omaha. I had to deal with problems like this 6 every day. This shouldn't be a statewide issue. I 7 have friends from where I grew up who I know would 8 really love to comment about this, but they don't have 9 $400 to get plane tickets and a hotel and everything 10 to come out here for these three days after reading 11 the document that came out just a few days ago, the 12 thousands of pages. You know, these people don't have 13 time to do all this. It's just being rushed. 14 I'm offering you one solution. That's all 15 I'm offering right now. It's just wait. You know? 16 Wait and actually listen to people, because the 17 statistics and the studies in this report are flawed. 18 People can't get the documents, some of the DOE 19 documents. They don't even know the secondary 20 research that's backing this up. They cannot access 21 any of the information, and even if they wanted to, 22 they cannot pour through those pages and pages of 23 research and decode all this really complex scientific 24 information, kind of mull it over, and come to one of 25 these three hearings in New Mexico, you know, and just 44 1 days after it's happened. So just wait. There's 2 plenty of time. What do we need new pits for, 3 anyway? 4 MODERATOR ROBIN BRANDIN: Thank you. 5 Will Parrish? 6 MR. WILL PARRISH: Okay. There's a reason 7 they call me the world's tallest peace activist. 8 Anyway, my name is Will, and I am a graduate of the 9 University -- I'm sorry. 10 Thank you. 11 My name is Will, and I'm a graduate of the 12 University of California Santa Cruz, class of 2004. 13 And I think it's pretty clear that within this process 14 of evaluating the Site-wide Environmental Impact 15 Statement, that whatever comments are made here aren't 16 going to be heard by those in power. Linton Brooks 17 doesn't really care what I have to say. So with my 18 comments what I'm hoping to achieve is to connect with 19 at least some of you here, and hopefully contribute 20 something valuable to your efforts in opposing 21 plutonium pit production at the Los Alamos lab. 22 Now, when I was a UC Santa Cruz student I 23 learned in my third year there that the University of 24 California manages both the Los Alamos National 25 Laboratory and the Lawrence Livermore National 45 1 Laboratory, Los Alamos' sister facility in Northern 2 California. And I was at a point in my life where I 3 had come to actually think that I had something wrong 4 with me. I thought I was crazy, because issues like 5 nuclear weapons, issues like global warming, other 6 issues that are confronting the safety of people, the 7 safety of the environment, that are threatening the 8 future of our planet were treated as normal by most 9 people I was around, and I had so much trouble 10 understanding that, I thought I must be crazy for 11 caring so much when I learned about these issues. 12 And learning that the University of 13 California is involved with production of nuclear 14 weapons and research on nuclear weapons was actually a 15 very helpful and healing process for me, because the 16 University of California is pledged officially to 17 supporting open inquiry and supporting education for 18 the benefit of the future. And I realized when I 19 learned that the University of California was actually 20 actively supporting proliferation of nuclear weapons, 21 that that was a lie and that was a myth, and based on 22 learning about that myth, I began to question a lot of 23 other myths that I had been fed, and I realized that 24 it is normal to be concerned about the future right 25 now. It is very normal to speak out and express 46 1 concern about the future. 2 And so, the reason I am here is that I 3 became a nuclear disarmament activist as a student at 4 the University of California. I now work full-time as 5 a nuclear disarmament activist, and I came here all 6 the way here from Santa Barbara, California, because I 7 want to be here in solidarity with all of the people 8 here in this community, and all of the people who live 9 downwind from nuclear weapons production here, who are 10 speaking out based on their concern for the future, 11 and I want to point out that there is no such thing as 12 safe production of nuclear weapons. That is a 13 complete corruption and perversion of the term safety. 14 And I also want to point out that if you 15 look at the record of plutonium pit production in 16 particular in this country, which I have studied a 17 bit, the Rocky Flats nuclear weapons flat in Colorado 18 produced plutonium pits for over 40 years, and it was 19 actually raided by the FBI in 1992 and then shut down 20 because it had become so unsafe there. 21 There are communities -- people I know, 22 people I'm friends with in doing this work, who live 23 in communities that have been -- that's been 24 demonstrated to have as much radioactivity as areas of 25 Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan. And that's not a local 47 1 issue. That's an issue that affects all of us. 2 Radioactive toxins affect everyone on this planet, and 3 they also embody exactly the type of direction we 4 should not be headed in collectively in this society. 5 And so I thank everyone here for their 6 commitment for stopping the production of new 7 plutonium pits. I vow to do whatever is in my power 8 to support you in that effort. And I also want it 9 take this time to strongly support reconsidering this 10 entire, quite frankly, sham of a public comment 11 process. I think that this process needs to play out 12 in a much different way, and that Congress, first of 13 all, needs to have oversight over the final decision 14 about what happens at Los Alamos. What happens here 15 affects people everywhere, not only in this country, 16 but all over the world. And Linton Brooks should not 17 be the sole person deciding what gets -- what happens 18 with this Site-wide Environmental Impact Statement. 19 Thank you very much. 20 MODERATOR ROBIN BRANDIN: Thank you. 21 Christy Escobar. 22 MS. CHRISTY ESCOBAR: Hello. I'm Christy 23 Escobar, and we're here representing University of 24 California. And I'm sorry if any of this is a little 25 repetitive, because we all kind of have the same 48 1 idea. But -- okay. Good evening. We are here 2 representing the Coalition to Demilitarize Education. 3 We are students and recent graduates of three 4 University of California campuses and the University 5 of Missouri, Kansas City. We appreciate the 6 opportunity to speak here tonight, and we're excited 7 to be continuing our education by learning from 8 everyone's public comments, as well as by talking 9 individually with many of you. 10 We are here tonight as the University of 11 California Weapons Inspectors. The UC has managed the 12 Los Alamos National Laboratory since its inception. 13 We believe the nuclear weapons industry is extremely 14 destructive, and we have come all the way from 15 California because we are ashamed by our University's 16 involvement with it. We believe that we have a 17 special responsibility to speak out about the activity 18 the Los Alamos Laboratory engages in. 19 Let the record show that we, as 20 representatives of the UC, do not believe there is any 21 safe way to produce weapons of mass destruction or the 22 radioactive components. Nuclear weapons are not 23 environmentally safe. They significantly detract from 24 social programs, and they diminish national security. 25 Specifically in regards to the plutonium pit 49 1 production proposed in this Site-wide Environmental 2 Impact Statement, we think that this is a particularly 3 dangerous and unwise idea. Plutonium pit production 4 is quite simply bad for both human health and 5 respective surrounding communities. As Will mentioned 6 earlier, at the Rocky Flats Nuclear Weapons Lab in 7 Colorado, the last facility in the United States to 8 engage in large-scale pit production, there are now 9 many communities located downwind that have been 10 measured to be as radioactive as Hiroshima in Japan. 11 Cancer is an epidemic there. 12 There's no such thing as safe plutonium pit 13 production, and we will not stand by as our university 14 endorses it. 15 Ultimately, we don't believe that any 16 community under any circumstances should have to 17 suffer under the effects of nuclear weapons 18 production. We thank you for listening. 19 MODERATOR ROBIN BRANDIN: Thank you. 20 Kalea Matsakis? 21 MS. KALEA MATSAKIS: Hi. My name is Kalea 22 Matsakis, and I want to make it clear that I'm 23 speaking on behalf of myself and not on behalf of any 24 organization. And I want to talk a little bit about 25 my experience with the SWEIS, because I started 50 1 reading it about, I guess, three weeks ago. And it's 2 been a really difficult and confusing process for me, 3 mostly because I just don't understand how some of 4 these decisions are being made. But actually, I'm 5 going to step back a minute and talk about when I got 6 the notice for this SWEIS, and I saw that the public 7 comment hearings were on Nagasaki -- one of them was 8 on Nagasaki Day, and they were all on this week. And 9 I didn't understand how it was possible -- I didn't 10 believe myself that I remembered the date correctly, 11 and I had to go check with my coworkers, but I was 12 right, it is August 9th that we dropped the bomb 61 13 years ago on Nagasaki, Japan. And I realize that -- 14 is it just that you didn't know, or were you just 15 unaware of the history to the point where you would 16 schedule a hearing for this date? Because that's how 17 it felt to me. I mean, it couldn't be blatant 18 disrespect. But it seemed as though it was just not 19 being aware of the history, which is something that I 20 felt while reading the document. Because you don't 21 tell me what any of these things are, and I'm sorry 22 that I'm not addressing the crowd. I really want to 23 take this opportunity to discuss my frustrations with 24 the people who are present here. And it's just that 25 you don't tell me what these experiments are. I don't 51 1 understand what a criticality test is in support of, 2 what dynamic experiments are, why you are detonating 3 depleted uranium in the open air. I don't understand 4 this when I'm reading this. And I would really like 5 to ask the purpose of these experiments that is 6 included. And I think that that might help address 7 some of this lack of awareness that I saw in the 8 scheduling of the hearing. 9 But then again, I mean, I started to think, 10 maybe someone did know, and maybe this was sort of a 11 way to open up a conversation about the historical 12 impacts of our nuclear weapons production and to 13 really bring in remembrance and recognition of what we 14 have done into this discussion -- into this discussed 15 proposed activities. And I think that that would be a 16 really positive thing, if that's the way that this 17 meeting was going. 18 However, I don't know, because when I came 19 yesterday and I started to talk to some of the people, 20 who were running the hearings, and I asked whether or 21 not, you know, Nagasaki Day was going to be addressed 22 today, I was told with a raised eyebrow, it's ironic, 23 isn't it? And I thought, well, yes, it is. But it's 24 also not like that. It's serious as well. And I was 25 given the impression that it be would addressed in an 52 1 official way, that there would be some official 2 recognition of the day. However, coming in today I 3 asked about this again, and I was told that that might 4 be a violation of the separation between church and 5 state. And I personally feel disrespected by that 6 comment. And I actually felt disrespected by a lot of 7 things in this process. 8 I felt disrespected by the fact that the 9 comment period began before I received the document, 10 and I do work for an organization which is -- you 11 know, we should have received it before the comment 12 period began. And I felt disrespected by the fact 13 that I consistently am unable to get the background 14 documents, the scientific foundation. In fact, the 15 first time I opened the SWEIS, I opened to the seismic 16 page, and I couldn't believe that the 2006 seismic 17 study is due to be released this year, but was not 18 included in the SWEIS. You didn't wait to release 19 this document until that study was put out. 20 And I can't understand why that is. I just 21 don't -- I don't understand why that would be -- 22 likewise the area of risk assessment, I understand 23 that this document has been requested since the Cerro 24 Grande fire, which burned over Area G, the low level 25 nuclear waste dump at the lab, an historic waste dump 53 1 that has all kinds of other stuff, including barrels 2 of transuranic waste sitting above ground in canvas 3 tents. That assessment, we have been waiting for it. 4 It has yet to come out. And you say in the SWEIS that 5 it's going to come out in 2006. Again, this is a 6 serious site. I don't understand why it's not in the 7 document. 8 Likewise, I cannot understand how this 9 health studies are based on the ATSDR report, which is 10 a report that the EPA has rejected. I don't see why 11 that would be included with the EPA telling you that 12 this risk assessment needs to be redone, why continue 13 using it? I would actually really like this addressed 14 in this SWEIS. I don't understand why these things 15 aren't being done. 16 And I would also, then -- so to go back, 17 ADS, sort of like, maybe the hearings are scheduled on 18 this day as a way to bring out, you know, the 19 historical implications of Los Alamos National 20 Laboratory, you know, to bring that into the 21 discussion, to actually to give our voices the sort of 22 the import of a conscience, which I don't feel is in 23 this document. 24 I would like to go back to the fact that 25 these are -- these hearings are during the time in 54 1 preparation of the days of the pueblo feast days. 2 There are 15 of the Northern New Mexico Pueblos within 3 a 15-mile radius. This is unacceptable for you to do 4 that. 5 So if there is some level of wanting to have 6 voices heard, why is it only our voices? Why is it 7 only my voice and not everyone's voice, and everyone 8 who is impacted? And I think it's just not the 9 pueblos. There's a lot of people in this area who 10 should be considered. 11 Thank you. 12 MODERATOR ROBIN BRANDIN: Thank you. 13 Sheryl Kotowski? 14 MS. SHERYL KOTOWSKI: My name is Sherry 15 Kotowski, and the first thing I want to do is hand 16 these letters to Elizabeth Withers on behalf of some 17 people that couldn't make it to the hearing tonight, 18 and these are the letters that request the comment 19 period remain open until such time as the new public 20 health assessment, the seismic report and the risk 21 assessment for Area G has been released. And so I 22 would like for Elizabeth to sign in receipt for 23 these. 24 And one of the things -- let's see. 25 First, I want to thank -- I want to thank 55 1 the DOE for giving me five minutes to make a public 2 statement on a 1,500 page document that was released 3 30 days ago or that was released -- yes, 30 days ago, 4 and my copy happened to go missing in the postal 5 system, so I didn't get it until 15 days ago. 6 And the first thing I actually want to 7 really address is the real environmental impact of a 8 plutonium pit. One plutonium pit destroyed Nagasaki 9 in less than a second, and so I shouldn't be 10 complaining about having only five minutes to discuss 11 this document because that's very -- that's the true 12 environmental impact, and that is absolutely not 13 addressed in the SWEIS, and I haven't had a chance to 14 read it cover to cover, but it has not been addressed. 15 There are so many things to say. It's -- 16 it's just incredible that we get five minutes, and we 17 get a 15-day extension to review documents that aren't 18 available. And one of the questions I have for the 19 DOE is that if those -- the Agency for Toxic 20 Substances Disease Registry Report is going to be 21 available in 15 days? If the Seismic Report is going 22 to be available in 15 days? And if the Risk 23 Assessment for Area G is going to be available in 15 24 days? 25 The next issue I really want to address is 56 1 water. Water. We live in an arid climate. Water is 2 precious to us. With this proposed increase of 3 expansion of nuclear weapons production at the 4 laboratory, the laboratory already uses and dumps 500 5 acre feet of water per year down into the canyons, and 6 this is water -- this is pristine water pumped up from 7 the aquifer. It's used, it's defiled to make nuclear 8 weapons. It's dumped into the canyons as industrial 9 wastewater. It's not even cleaned up to human -- 10 human health standards or environmental health 11 standards. 12 With the increased pit production, it will 13 go up to 822 acre feet per year of wastewater being 14 dumped into the canyon systems. And so you have an 15 understanding of how much water that is, I live in a 16 very small community in Northern New Mexico, an 17 agricultural community, and we use -- we're allotted 18 37 acre feet of water a year. It's a community of 19 about 2,500 people, so that's a 20-year water supply 20 for our community. 21 Then the next thing I was thinking about 22 when I looked at the Rio Grande and I think about the 23 diversion project, the drinking water diversion 24 project in Albuquerque -- by the way, Albuquerque 25 doesn't even have a public hearing, and we're talking 57 1 about their wastewater. It's the largest metropolis 2 in the state of New Mexico, less than 60 miles away, 3 and they don't have a public hearing in Albuquerque. 4 But anyway, so I was looking at the Rio Grande, and 5 I'm thinking -- I mean, I live -- I live less than a 6 mile from the banks of the Rio Grande in the Embudo 7 Valley, in the Rio Grande Gorge, and how is this much 8 water going to be -- how can it sustain that 9 population? And then I thought about it, and it's 10 why -- Santa Fe and Albuquerque are going to be 11 drinking Los Alamos industrial wastewater. It's 12 absolutely unacceptable to -- for us to drink 13 somebody's wastewater. And on top of it, they have to 14 clean it themselves. It's not even -- it's not even 15 the DOE that's paying for the water to be cleaned to 16 human drinking water standards. 17 Constantly -- and this is not just about 18 money, it's about life, it's about integrity, but it 19 keeps going back to, they are taking our money and 20 running with it, and not doing anything to help any of 21 our communities. And we need to just say you can't do 22 this. You have to put this back into our schools. 23 You have to put this back into vitality, into life. 24 One of the things in the SWEIS, you have 25 three alternatives. There is no green alternative. 58 1 You know, someone, an elected official was telling me 2 today that you know, LANL is the crown jewel of New 3 Mexico, and that -- and that they are putting all of 4 this money into researching alternative sustainable 5 energy, and that is absolutely not the truth. There 6 is no green alternative and that's what we want. If 7 LANL is going to be taking our money and spending it 8 on something, we want them to be creating a healthy 9 environment for us. We don't want them destroying our 10 lives and destroying our water and everything we stand 11 for. Thank you. 12 MODERATOR ROBIN BRANDIN: Thank you. 13 Clarissa Duran. 14 MS. CLARISSA DURAN: First of all, I just 15 want to say hi to everybody, all my friends and all my 16 new friends. And we're all here in Espanola, which is 17 the place where we know how to behave and misbehave. 18 So, for those of you who are going to speak and those 19 of you who aren't going to speak, like my mom, who 20 didn't sign up to speak but should have, because she 21 has been a teacher here in this valley for over 30 22 years. I want to hear everybody who doesn't want the 23 pits to come to Los Alamos, to be built in Los Alamos, 24 to let the people know who are going to listen to this 25 CD and maybe understand, maybe not understand, let me 59 1 hear you say yes or no. Do you want them? 2 FROM THE FLOOR: No. 3 MS. CLARISSA DURAN: All right. That's what 4 you have got to know, the people who are going to 5 listen to this, and in Espanola we're a strong people 6 and we're not just going to lie down and take what 7 you're trying to give us, because that's a bunch of 8 BS. A lot of people are coming up here and they're 9 telling me where they're from, and I'm going to tell 10 you that my people have been here for over 10,000 11 years, my great-great-great-grandmothers were from San 12 Juan Pueblo and from Picuris Pueblo, and that my 13 Spanish family has been here for over 400 years and we 14 have survived a lot of things, and we're going to 15 survive this, too, because we are not going to let you 16 do this. We're not going to let you do this to us and 17 we're not going to let you do this to our children, 18 because I'll tell you this. If all the people who 19 were here really believed that this was their home, 20 the people who want to do this, you wouldn't be doing 21 this because you know what? Maybe you are here, maybe 22 your children are even going to grow up here, but what 23 about your grandchildren? My grandchildren are going 24 to grow up here. And the generations on and on and 25 on, and I want to leave them the same beautiful place 60 1 that I wake up to every single morning. 2 When I lived in Las Cruces for seven years 3 every morning I got up and I cried because I couldn't 4 see my Sangre de Cristos, because I couldn't see the 5 Jemez mountains, and because I couldn't see my people, 6 all of you beautiful people who are out there sitting 7 in this audience, and all the people who are sitting 8 at home because they're tired because they worked, or 9 maybe they are at their second job so that they can 10 afford cars and they can afford the computers and they 11 can afford all those things that the American -- 12 American people, that the United States says we need 13 to have in order to function in this country. And you 14 know that's not true. And the people who are 15 listening to this, you know that's not true. But this 16 is a way to enslave us, and that's what Espanola is. 17 Make no mistake. We know we're your bedroom 18 community. We know you have been testing out viruses 19 on us, because we get sick, and then you find out what 20 it's all about by checking out our hospital 21 statistics. We know that. And we know about the chem 22 trails that you are pouring over us. And why, why are 23 there so many children right here in the west side who 24 have died of leukemia because of this spill that has 25 never been cleaned up. 61 1 When I was a student here at Northern we had 2 a lot of people come and talk to us, and tell us, oh, 3 this is what we're going to do about the spill. And 4 you know what? I don't believe -- I didn't believe 5 that then, and I don't believe this now. And I don't 6 think anybody in this audience does, either. 7 So, for all the people who are sitting here 8 tonight and all the people who are sitting at home 9 because they are tired because they worked all day and 10 they have to be home and be with their children, I am 11 standing up for them tonight and I will stand up for 12 them for the rest of my life. And what I have to say 13 to you is no. 14 MODERATOR ROBIN BRANDIN: Thank you. 15 Marilyn Hoff? 16 MS. MARILYN HOFF: I have questions, but I'm 17 going to have to submit them later because of this 18 time constraint we have. 19 My first comment on the draft SWEIS for Los 20 Alamos is a protest on the range of alternatives the 21 public is asked to choose between. The no change 22 alternative, the expanded alternative, even the 20 23 percent reduced alternative each represents business 24 as usual at LANL, and LANL's business as usual kills. 25 Each alternative would continue to manufacture 62 1 plutonium pits in a push to restart a nuclear arms 2 race, raking in huge taxpayer-subsidized profit at the 3 expense of the safety of downwinders and the stability 4 of the volatile international political climate. Even 5 with no change, LANL would continue to explode over 6 four tons of depleted uranium into the atmosphere 7 during procedures euphemistically described in the 8 SWEIS as expanding in dynamic or hydrodynamic test. 9 All of those euphemisms mean explode. 10 After the first Gulf War, LANL enamored of 11 the murderous possibilities of dehumanisance, 12 advocated garnering proponency of the U.S. depleted 13 uranium arsenal in argument against environmental 14 concerns. So it comes as no surprise that LANL would 15 downplay the dangers of depleted uranium while at 16 Technical Area 15 LANL weapons designers explode tons 17 of depleted uranium in so-called hydroshots or 18 hydrodynamic tests DART and Building 306, during which 19 DU substitutes for plutonium in mock nuclear 20 explosions. 21 LANL postures that these 100 major mock 22 nuclear tests per year primarily for stockpile 23 stewardship. Even as Linton Brooks eagerly promotes 24 new generations of usable nukes, nuclear bunker 25 busters and many nukes -- and nuclear bunker busters 63 1 is what George Bush is lusting to drop on Iran -- the 2 DART record of decision so that DART explosions could 3 prove useful in the design of nuclear weapons, and 4 coincidentally, a new nuclear bunker buster has 5 entered the U.S. arsenal during the regime of 6 so-called stockpile stewardship. According to a 7 Brookhaven report, 220,000 pounds of depleted uranium 8 munitions were exploded at LANL prior to 1999. This 9 is the nonnuclear, but certainly radioactive range of 10 unlivable and sickening our own soldiers. 11 Does this SWEIS even tabulate the munitions 12 currently exploded by the Department of Defense at 13 LANL? Does the exemption of DOD munitions test from 14 oversight by any other governmental body, thanks to 15 the military munitions rule, mean that these 16 explosions, probably taking place at TA-36, go 17 unaccounted in the SWEIS? Or do the 2,600 pounds per 18 year of depleted uranium allotted to TA-36 go to the 19 Department of Defense munitions tests? 20 The so-called expenditure of depleted 21 uranium munitions closely resembles the description of 22 a war crime. Namely, that it kills indiscriminately, 23 that it kills for generations to come, a crime LANL 24 perpetrates on the pueblos, villages, towns and cities 25 of New Mexico. 64 1 The good news is that the expenditure of 2 LANL doesn't apparently increase in the expanded 3 alternative. The bad news is that it is being 4 exploded in enormous amounts already, as I said, four 5 times per year. 6 According to physicist Marian Falk, such 7 explosions proceedings nanoparticles of uranium oxides 8 and nitrides as essentially weightless as air, upon 9 whose whims it can travel the world over. 10 When inhaled, these radioactive poisonous 11 heavy metal uranium particles can travel anywhere in 12 the body, causing among various other illnesses, 13 cancers and birth deformities. These DU explosions 14 that they power the nuclear arms race, also drive the 15 worst abomination of this current SWEIS proposal to 16 quadruple LANL's production of plutonium pits, the 17 core of nuclear weapons. These many pits contradict 18 the claim of stockpile stewardship as manned solely to 19 maintain the aging nuclear arsenal. 20 LANL's costly building projects gets 21 increased activities, it's stepped up machining of the 22 world's most dangerous element, plutonium, to make the 23 world's most devastating weapon, is a nuclear chain 24 reaction of greed. And as I understand it, plutonium 25 is being extracted from spent fuel rods. Spent fuel 65 1 rods is a veritable definition of remote-handled 2 waste. Remote-handled waste by definition means you 3 must not come near it. It will kill you. 4 Then probably what is happening is that the 5 depleted uranium after the plutonium has been 6 extracted, is being extracted from this spent nuclear 7 waste, from our nuclear reactions, and that's why 8 these contaminants are being found up in the fruits in 9 Ojo Sarco, and the various contaminants that are in 10 spent nuclear waste are probably being exploded in 11 contaminated so-called depleted uranium. 12 Exploding DU at DART leads to new nuclear 13 weapons designs, leading to manufacture of more 14 plutonium pits, leading to a ballooning of radioactive 15 and hazardous waste production, waste pollution, even 16 as LANL fails to clean up the mess it has already 17 made, and has no solution for the deadly mess it plans 18 to make, and increasingly wants to ship it onto New 19 Mexico's treacherous highways to poison the unstable 20 chambers of WIPP. 21 The unlisted alternative that I would choose 22 for my own cause was a discontinuation of DU 23 explosions of any kind, of the cessation of any 24 efforts to test or design new nuclear weapons, the 25 total dismantling, in cooperation with other nuclear 66 1 nations of the world, of the U.S. nuclear arsenal, and 2 a thorough cleanup of LANL, returning it to 3 environmental livability. 4 Greenhouse gasses, global warning, 5 alternative fuels, there are plenty of ethical ways to 6 do science at LANL. None of the alternatives listed 7 in the SWEIS are in any way beneficial to life on 8 earth. Thank you. 9 MODERATOR ROBIN BRANDIN: Jeanne Green? 10 MS. JEANNE GREEN: It's Jeanne. 11 MODERATOR ROBIN BRANDIN: I'm sorry. 12 MS. JEANNE GREENE: That's okay. 13 We have more, many not nuclear weapons to 14 destroy the planet. Bechtel is in this profit at the 15 detriment of us all. The SWEIS document does not 16 provide an acceptable alternative to ensure safety of 17 the public. LANL should not be allowed to increase 18 plutonium pit production or any additional munitions 19 production when it has not dealt with the massive 20 amounts of radioactive, chemical and heavy metal 21 wastes already on site, and continuing to be released 22 into the air, water and soil in New Mexico. 23 Independent monitoring of contamination has 24 shown americium 241 in plums at Llano. Also found in 25 the soils were plutonium, strontium 90, cesium 137. 67 1 Depleted uranium is not even mentioned in the study. 2 Also above normal levels in local soils, 3 beryllium, cadmium, cobalt, mercury and lead. LANL's 4 streams are contaminated with PCBs, gross alpha, and 5 selenium. Radioactive waste enough to fill 9,000 6 Olympic-sized pools is sitting aboveground in canvas 7 tents, just ready for the next wildfire, earthquake or 8 terrorist to come along. We must take advantage of 9 the tremendous amount of technical expertise available 10 at LANL and change its mission to research and 11 development of sustainable alternatives towards energy 12 independence from foreign oil. This will seriously 13 reduce the need for weapons for current and future 14 wars. 15 My recommendations are to implement full 16 cleanup of the major waste sites at LANL and refrain 17 from generating any more toxic waste. No, no, no new 18 nuclear bomb factory. 19 The NMED LANL consent order for cleanup 20 should be mandatory and immediate, not tied to 21 increased weapons activity or plutonium pit 22 production. DOE must adopt the removal option for all 23 cleanup activities and apply the most recent water 24 quality standards and current impaired stream 25 information. 68 1 It is not acceptable to be exploding 2 depleted uranium with explosives in the open air. 3 This must stop. New Mexicans cannot be considered 4 collateral damage in an eternal war against 5 terrorism. DOE must institute a program to stop all 6 toxic air pollutant emissions from LANL facilities. 7 Also, it is a grave oversight to omit the 8 2006 seismic hazard study information in planning for 9 future building. DOE must make permanent disposal of 10 existing waste a priority rather than expanding 11 operations to generate more toxic and radioactive 12 waste. 13 LANL's mission should be pro-life instead of 14 pro-death, sustainable energy alternatives instead of 15 weapons of mass destruction. Thank you. 16 MODERATOR ROBIN BRANDIN: Thank you. 17 Cliff Bain? 18 Nobody seems to want to use that microphone. 19 MR. CLIFF BANE: My name is Cliff Bain and I 20 live in Arroyo Hondo, Taos County. Even if the 21 weapons production activity of Los Alamos and dozens 22 of other sites could be made perfectly safe and not 23 threaten the environment and the people and the 24 animals and the bees of Northern New Mexico, it would 25 still be a crime against humanity, against nature. 69 1 These weapons have only one purpose, and they have 2 always had only one purpose, and that is world 3 domination by this government for economic and 4 military purposes. And that makes my family and 5 everybody else on this planet immensely unsafe. 6 I am threatened, we are all threatened 7 because this psychotic fantasy of world domination is 8 going to lead to the proliferation of these weapons. 9 Our threat will increase the rage and anger against 10 our people, ourselves. There will be resistance, as 11 we see across the world right now. The invincibility 12 of the United States, the invincibility of the Israeli 13 military is a fallacy. We will reap the holocaust, 14 and when it comes home to us are we going to feel safe 15 because of some homeland security? 16 There is no defense in these policies. This 17 is madness, it is domination, and the fallacy of -- of 18 that -- the notion that we can dominate is delivered 19 to us every day as we watch the carnage across this 20 planet. The only thing that insulates us right now 21 is, you know, a couple of oceans. But how long will 22 that be, you know, whether it is a car bomb, or a 23 suitcase bomb or something else, when it comes to us, 24 we deserve it. 25 We have tolerated for 60 years our boot 70 1 being put on the neck of the world. And I am just 2 absolutely stunned that the people that work at Los 3 Alamos can maintain the level of denial that allows 4 them to sleep, that allows them to go to work. I am 5 stunned that we as citizens of this country can keep 6 paying the taxes that make this happen. You know, 7 it's going to stop someday. I don't know if it will 8 stop when we wake up and decide that there is a path 9 of cooperation of the sharing of resources, the 10 putting of the intelligence of the human race to, 11 perhaps, letting beings on this planet survive instead 12 of die off in these -- this holocaust that we have 13 designed and implemented. I don't know how it's going 14 to end but, I know that we, as citizens of this 15 country, have more power to turn things around than 16 any other people on this planet and we are not doing 17 it. 18 I just ask all of you who work at Los 19 Alamos -- you know, so many people have said you 20 understand what's going on. Well, you know, think 21 clearly about what you're doing. Think clearly about 22 where your life's work is, and think about your 23 grandchildren, think about the children in Lebanon and 24 Iraq and Iran, every other place that is responding to 25 our aggression, responding to our threats by trying to 71 1 maintain their culture any way they can. 2 You know, we all have to wake up and I hope 3 we do it soon. And we're going to get some help from 4 around the world, because if we continue with these 5 policies, the shock and the awe is going to come home. 6 MODERATOR ROBIN BRANDIN: Thank you. 7 Shannyn Sollitt. 8 MS. SHANNYN SOLLITT: Hello. Here I stand. 9 It feels like another exercise in futility. I have 10 stood before microphones for years and years and 11 years, opposing all of the activities coming from the 12 crown jewel, Los Alamos. It is so wonderful to see 13 young people here, and I am really grateful that the 14 students from the University of California have 15 brought their consciousness and awareness that this is 16 an educational institution that is dedicated now to 17 creating weapons of mass destruction. What has 18 happened to our society? What has happened to our 19 world when our educational institutions condone this 20 kind of activity? It's truly sick. 21 I -- I don't live in Espanola anymore, but 22 at the time I did live in Espanola I designed this 23 logo because I understood that LANL was going to 24 expand its nuclear weapons production activities. 25 That was ten years ago, nine years ago. This logo I 72 1 designed in the Santa Cruz River Valley, and it is a 2 prayer for peace, uniting many, many spiritual paths 3 of peace that are actually related to this particular 4 bioregion. The prayer is to transform the 5 laboratories creating weapons of mass destruction into 6 institutions that engage only in life affirming 7 research and development. 8 And I stand and I hold this prayer 9 constantly. It's my, like, way of walking through the 10 world. And when I designed this logo and held that 11 prayer, I was holding that prayer first for the people 12 who live here. I could walk up outside of my house 13 and look down the Santa Cruz River Valley and see all 14 the farms, and drive down the road and see the people 15 selling their vegetables, and go to the farmers market 16 and really understand what it is to be in an agrarian 17 society where all of the life is dependent upon the 18 earth. 19 And then up there, on the hill, they are 20 putting a facility that can contaminate the entire 21 earth. And it's up the hill. It's upstream. It's 22 upwind. When the fires happened several years ago all 23 of the smoke came down here and contaminated the 24 people and the land and the food. Where is the 25 respect? 73 1 And so we can look at the Site-wide 2 Environmental Impact Statement and say, oh, this isn't 3 there and this isn't there and this isn't there, and I 4 haven't really looked at it because it's so obvious to 5 me that you don't put a nuclear weapons production 6 facility at the top of a mountain. What are you 7 thinking? If you are going to put a facility 8 somewhere, put it down where you are going to dump the 9 waste. And I don't think you should put one 10 anywhere. It is time to wake up to peace, or we as a 11 species are going to be annihilated. 12 So, as part of the Los Alamos Peace Project 13 idea I have created this postcard for you to send to 14 your legislators. Essentially, it says that we have 15 already 23,000 nuclear pits. 23,000 nuclear pits. 16 Now we have to make new pits? Hum, that sounds like 17 we are proliferating nuclear weapons. And the 18 proliferation of nuclear weapons stands in direct 19 contradiction to the nonproliferation treaty that the 20 United States ratified in 1970. 21 And nuclear weapons are -- and this treaty, 22 as we are proliferating them, is an absolute against 23 our constitution which says that all treaties are 24 considered to be the law of the land. And any 25 legislator who is voting to spend the money to 74 1 proliferate nuclear weapons is in violation of his or 2 her oath of office. And essentially this is what this 3 card says, that we are aware that you are not 4 upholding your oath of office and, therefore, it is an 5 impeachable offense. 6 So, I make a request that all of the people 7 who are here, who are standing against this 8 insanity -- you can call it nothing less than 9 insanity -- that we all kind of, if we can, at the end 10 of this to gather up and hold our energy together, 11 because this force that we are up against is the 12 darkest side of the human soul. It is like the 13 darkest side of the human soul that has taken over our 14 entire government, and we need to revolt against it 15 because it is revolting. 16 And I am a velvet revolutionary. That means 17 I only stand with love. And so, I just ask that we 18 all, if we can, gather up our forces and come 19 together. I have gone to this hearing in Los Alamos. 20 I am going to go again in Santa Fe. And I have 17,000 21 -- 18,000 of these cards that we need to get to our 22 legislators to let them know that, you know, the buck 23 doesn't stop up there. It stops with their allocation 24 of the funding for this. I love you all. 25 MODERATOR ROBIN BRANDIN: Thank you. 75 1 Diane Gledhill? 2 MS. DIANE GLEDHILL: We're a fairly small 3 group here tonight, but I want to let those people out 4 there, people know, people that are going to listen to 5 these and respond to these hearings, I am just one 6 person. I can tell you I represent Los Alamos Study 7 Group. I represent Embudo Pods. I represent the 8 Democracy Network. I represent Action Coalition of 9 Taos. That's just a handful of folks up north. The 10 people gathered in this room tonight represent people 11 all over the United States who do not want to see the 12 continuation of the proliferation of nuclear weapons. 13 We are only a handful. 14 I want to add to that that I represent the 15 hundreds of people that came to the courthouse in Taos 16 asking for a resolution for -- following a nuclear 17 nonproliferation treaty, and I represent the people 18 who went to the government in Madrid and got a 19 resolution for nonproliferation of nuclear weapons, 20 people who are all over our state who are not here 21 tonight. How many thousands of people, Greg Mello, 22 signed onto the call for non? How many? 23 MR. GREG MELLO: More than 3,000 24 individuals, more than 100 New Mexico organizations, 2 25 New Mexico cities. There's, I think, about 400 New 76 1 Mexico businesses. All of them requested the end to 2 pit production. 3 MS. DIANE GLEDHILL: And I'll just add to 4 that, I spoke to 70 businesses in Taos who are willing 5 to sign on -- very few people questioning it, except 6 those people who are particularly concerned about the 7 livelihoods of New Mexicans, and I'm about to -- I 8 have a little problem here. 9 I came in the door tonight and I was offered 10 the EIS. It was like this. The EIS, it's huge, a 11 huge document. And I ask you, did anybody in this 12 room read it from cover to cover? And if you did, 13 having closed the last page and gone to bed, did you 14 put your head on the pillow and say, ah, all is well? 15 No flood, no fire, no geologic event, no 16 terrorist, no jackpot crazy person is going to cause a 17 problem. It's all under control. 18 You see, the problem with the EIS -- and the 19 reason I am not even going to look at it and I don't 20 want a copy is, there's a lot of scientific 21 intelligence, there's a lot of analysis, there's a lot 22 of education, but I don't see a section on wisdom. 23 Why doesn't an EIS of this magnitude seek out the 24 people who hold the wisdom in this world, the leaders 25 in our time of spirituality and the wisdom for future 77 1 generations? But I don't see a section on wisdom. 2 And my wisdom says we don't need an IRS -- 3 an EIS to accomplish that type of faith. You need an 4 act of faith to believe that this is safe. We need an 5 act of faith, and I don't have it, and it's good that 6 I don't, because I think everybody here tonight, 7 basically whether you have the technology and the 8 education to understand an EIS, you don't believe it. 9 You don't believe it's a safe thing and a good thing. 10 I have several points that haven't been 11 brought up that I would like to say I also believe 12 should be a part of an EIS. It's an Environmental 13 Impact Statement. That isn't just water and air, my 14 friends. That's how you feel in your heart. And 15 that's whether you maybe feel oppressed and helpless 16 because you know the decisions were made before you 17 came to this room. 18 It's an environment, it's about issues that 19 make us feel helpless, it's about issues that make us 20 feel abused and used. And I would like to comment on 21 a couple of them. Inequalities, and I would like the 22 EIS to address and see if they can rectify some 23 inequalities in this system. The men who make these 24 policy decisions are the same people who have 25 everything to gain by their implementation. They are 78 1 in an industry of power and wealth that feeds on 2 further funding and further weaponry and another and 3 another and another. We don't get to be present 4 during those decisions. We get to write letters to 5 the editor and maybe a letter to your Congressman. 6 I was outraged to learn that, and I might 7 have the name wrong because I didn't get to look at 8 some of the facts and figures I have known over time, 9 but I think his name is Mr. Robinson, head of Sandia; 10 am I right? Mr. Robinson had the ear of legislators 11 when he opposed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and 12 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, and at the same time 13 he was the head of Sandia Labs and he was in the 14 process of joining with Lockheed to get a bid to also 15 head up Los Alamos. Now you ask me if that's not a 16 fox in the hen house. Why does Mr. Robinson get the 17 ear of our legislators and it's so hard for us to be 18 heard. I want an EIS that addresses inequality. 19 Second inequality. I want an EIS that'S 20 going to tell us before this starts why it is the 21 small New Mexico Environmental Department is the sole 22 small finance agency to defend our -- our health and 23 the cleanliness of our environment against such 24 Goliaths as the Department of Energy, University of 25 California, now Bechtel? How many entire New Mexico 79 1 budgets probably fit within the Bechtel budget? 2 One of the, and only one, and again I'm not 3 going to give you specifics, but can I tell you when 4 the New Mexico Department of -- Environmental 5 Department gets onto something, then, boy, they are 6 just bombed with lawsuits and they keep us tied up in 7 court for years and years and years. And that's 8 inequality. They have so much money to counter any of 9 the people who are using their scientific and 10 educational expertise to try to keep our environment 11 safe, not that I feel that's the main issue. 12 Third inequality, why is it that Los Alamos 13 County is one of the top and richest counties in the 14 United States and right next door, Rio Arriba is one 15 of the poorest? Defense spending goes up and up and 16 up in the state of New Mexico and has for a number of 17 years, and our rating is one of the poorest country -- 18 poorest of the states in this United States has 19 remained the same, right down at the bottom with just 20 small fluctuations. 21 Our representatives would have us believe 22 that the military operations in this state, and most 23 certainly Sandia and Los Alamos labs, are helping us 24 financially, and that is a myth. And I am not the 25 person to go into the details of it, but I think it 80 1 speaks for ourselves that although the spending goes 2 up we are not seeing it, and Rio Arriba County where 3 probably the greatest proportion of people are earning 4 their money at Los Alamos labs live, is just the 5 epitome of poverty, the highest drug rates, the 6 highest suicide by teenagers, the highest child 7 mortality -- you name it, we got it, including a 8 suffering educational system. 9 There are a myriad of things that surround 10 this operation that are not always clear to the eye of 11 the beholder, and it is terribly important that the 12 Dominici and Bingaman and Richardson and Udall 13 understand that the military complex and Sandia and 14 Los Alamos are not helping us financially. And if 15 they don't know that, boy, we got a lot of information 16 to let them know. 17 MODERATOR ROBIN BRANDIN: Ma'am, can I ask 18 you to wrap up? 19 MS. DIANE GLEDHILL: My quick wrapup is, we 20 cannot be a state that pursues sustainability and 21 simultaneously create the most destructive weapons in 22 the world. And I want to say, we are in Rome, the 23 fires are burning, the fires of resource depletion and 24 the fires of global warming, and are we going to play 25 violin and keep piling weapons on or are we going to 81 1 direct our attention to those problems, and thank you. 2 MODERATOR ROBIN BRANDIN: Thank you. 3 Harvey Frauenglass? Am I pronouncing it 4 right? You will correct me if I didn't. 5 MR. HARVEY FRAUENGLASS: Close enough. 6 Close enough. 7 We're dealing with a great technological 8 lab, but we have a little problem with microphones and 9 stuff like that. 10 My name is Harvey Frauenglass, and Diane is 11 a hard act to follow, and so are those wonderful 12 people from California, the students, and so is Carol 13 Miller. And I want you to know I voted for you when 14 you were running for representative. 15 I worked for 13 years at the DOE labs in New 16 Mexico, Sandia and Los Alamos. And for the last 25 17 years I have been doing penance as a farmer. But what 18 I want to say, whereas I agree with most -- with the 19 feeling and most of the things that the people here 20 have said, there's another side to Los Alamos that we 21 need to think about. I'm not talking about the 22 weapons production side. But there's another side 23 that if we had maintained the original name of Los 24 Alamos, Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory, we would be 25 in a lot better position now. 82 1 And I am going to conclude, tell you what my 2 conclusion is right now before I get into the 3 specifics. I think Los Alamos should be renamed Los 4 Alamos National Research Laboratory, not Los Alamos 5 bomb factory. 6 Right now we have laughed, and rightly so, 7 when people call Los Alamos the crown jewel of New 8 Mexico, of New Mexico research. But that, perhaps is 9 overdoing it. Yet, I would like to point out some of 10 the things that should be encouraged and should be 11 funded at Los Alamos that are happening right now, 12 that perhaps the people who put this EIS together 13 didn't even know about. And these are the kind of 14 things that if we shift the emphasis and put money 15 into that, we would be in a lot better place. 16 For example, the National Science 17 Foundation's primary climate change computer code is 18 done at Boulder, Colorado at the National Center for 19 Atmospheric Research, which sound right. But what we 20 don't know is that one half of that project is done at 21 Los Alamos. They have the expertise to predict the 22 oceanic changes and the changes in ice melting that is 23 worldwide. That this is a center right here for 24 that. This is the kind of thing that goes -- that 25 happens at Los Alamos that we don't even know about. 83 1 Another example. Los Alamos scientists have 2 developed codes that are capable of following a 3 million autos in large cities, city centers such as 4 Dallas, Texas. 5 They also have the capability and they are 6 just not doing enough in this, but they have the 7 capability of understanding the complexity of our 8 national electric grid, which is in very sad shape. 9 It is so interrelated that it defies the mind. If 10 something happens in Oswego and that goes down, and it 11 goes down in Biloxi, and this is a national security 12 risk probably far greater than someone dropping or 13 doing a bomb or doing something like that. Terrorists 14 could knock out the grid and we're out of production 15 or we're out of everything for weeks, the whole 16 country. Los Alamos has the capability and they are 17 working on that, on understanding how you get the grid 18 to work, what improvements, and these are very complex 19 technical things. They can do it. They have got 20 people there, scientists who are working on that right 21 now. 22 Another example, we have heard about avian 23 bird flu, and we have heard about HIV and similar 24 threats of global pandemics which are capable of 25 killing millions of people everywhere. Because it 84 1 takes time to develop vaccines, and distribute them, 2 it's essential to limit the spread of these diseases. 3 Los Alamos currently has the capability to simulate 4 the global spread of such pandemics and how we can 5 then deal with them. 6 I am not a scientist. I was working in 7 communications, in publications, but believe me, I 8 know these things are happening there and people know 9 that. 10 Another thing, we're talking -- we talk 11 about burning of our overgrown forests in the West and 12 all over the place. This has consequences for 13 communities from Los Angeles to Los Alamos and 14 everywhere. Los Alamos is the only place that 15 possesses the computer simulation codes that are 16 adequate for understanding how forest fires work, and 17 doing something about suppressing them. 18 There are other things. These are not the 19 primary mission of Los Alamos. I know that. We all 20 know that. But they are there, and the scientists are 21 working on these things. 22 My stepson's father worked in the biomedical 23 field at Los Alamos and developed a cell sorter where 24 you can sort cells by volume, which is now used in 25 medical research around the world. There are lots of 85 1 other things. 2 I don't want to bore you with this, but the 3 point I'm trying to make is, if we turn Los Alamos 4 into, instead of a science center, into a bomb 5 factory, the top people will go there to do this 6 research, they are not going to want to go there. 7 That's not what they want to do. The people are doing 8 the research are proud of their research. They are 9 proud of the science that they are working on. They 10 don't want to work in a bomb factory where there are 11 military people going around escorting the plutonium. 12 That's not what they want to do. 13 I think one of the things that we have to 14 consider as an effect of expanding plutonium 15 production there is the effect it's going to have on 16 the quality of people who are going to want to work 17 there, and we are going to want to have -- we need Los 18 Alamos. We need it. We need that science. We have 19 got it. Let's encourage that side of the thing and 20 let's just forget about making it into a bomb factory. 21 Now, if I really wanted to be mean, I could 22 say -- I could tell you some other sites where we 23 could make the bombs in other states, but why should 24 we push that on them? Maybe we just forget about 25 them. We don't need them, anyway. Thank you. 86 1 MODERATOR ROBIN BRANDIN: Thank you. 2 John Witham. Is that right? 3 MR. JOHN WITHAM: I'm John Witham. I'm with 4 Nuclear Watch New Mexico. My comments tonight are 5 about the comment period itself. On May 26th, Deputy 6 Secretary D'Agostino signed off on the SWEIS, and it 7 was over a month later that it was actually published 8 in the federal register, and we had a 60-day period to 9 comment on a 1,920-page document that has many 10 thousands of pages of reference documents. We got a 11 two-week extension. I think it's at least appropriate 12 that we get an extension that's equal to the time it 13 sat after being signed before being published. So 14 let's get at least another 30 days or 15 days to have 15 people from all over the country, like the intrepid 16 students from California, to have a chance to comment 17 on something that affects all of us. Thank you. 18 MODERATOR ROBIN BRANDIN: Thank you. 19 Betsy Martinez? 20 Go ahead. 21 MS. BETSY MARTINEZ: Hi. I have a letter 22 for Ms. Withers that mirrors much of what has been 23 said about the specific issues on the Environmental 24 Impact Statement and why we don't want more bomb 25 production and more pollution from Los Alamos. I am a 87 1 member of Pax Christi, New Mexico, a Catholic Peace 2 and Justice organization. We were in sack cloth and 3 ashes in Los Alamos on the 6th asking for repentance 4 for dropping the bomb, and I'm here to speak against 5 making more bombs and parts of them. 6 I am also a healthcare provider in Northern 7 New Mexico for 27 years. We have many of the same 8 comments that have been made in this letter that I 9 will give to Ms. Withers, but I would just like to 10 read the last paragraph, which has also been said, but 11 it needs to be said again and again and again. 12 We strongly believe that Congress must 13 change the mission of LANL. LANL could lead the world 14 in research and development of renewable energy such 15 as solar, wind and biomass, and cleanup technologies 16 that support the environment and public health. The 17 SWEIS must include a fourth alternative that focuses 18 on these activities. The security of the United 19 States will be strengthened by clean energy 20 independence rather than by accelerating the arms 21 race. The economy of New Mexico and the nation would 22 be improved by focusing on these life affirming 23 priorities. Thank you. 24 MODERATOR ROBIN BRANDIN: Thank you. 25 Ms. Chin has asked for a break. She has 88 1 been diligently working away, so we're going to take a 2 10-minute break and then we can resume. 3 (A recess was taken.) 4 MODERATOR ROBIN BRANDIN: Okay. Let's get 5 started again. We have several speakers yet. 6 I want to thank you all for giving Ms. Chin 7 a break here. She has been working very hard for a 8 couple of hours. 9 Okay. I'm going to call the next speaker, 10 which is -- I can't quite read it -- Bonnie Bonnoc -- 11 something. 12 MS. BONNIE BONNEAU: Can I use this 13 microphone? 14 MODERATOR ROBIN BRANDIN: Sure. It hasn't 15 gotten much use. 16 MS. BONNIE BONNEAU: Hello. Okay. Well, I 17 did get these in the mail. And -- 18 Okay. Is there somebody here representing 19 the people that are going to make a decision at all? 20 MODERATOR ROBIN BRANDIN: Over in that 21 corner on, the first row. 22 MS. BONNIE BONNEAU: Okay. Hi there. The 23 lady in blue, and you, too? 24 FROM THE FLOOR: No, not I. 25 MS. BONNIE BONNEAU: And I sort of randomly 89 1 opened these things, just out of -- out of, you know, 2 because you can't really sit down and read it. 3 FROM THE FLOOR: Talk into the mike? 4 MS. BONNIE BONNEAU: Okay. I'm trying. 5 So, this one section here in Volume 2, Book 6 1, about H40, H64, and on for about 20 pages, is about 7 the transuranic waste and the WIPP, and they have a 8 whole list of facilities which they say they are going 9 to need to deal with to send transuranic waste to WIPP 10 and they want a bunch of buildings constructed, and I 11 am curious if those buildings already exist. You 12 know, have they done most of this work already and 13 they are just asking for approval after the work is 14 all done, because I have heard them saying they want 15 to start shipping in December. There is no way in the 16 world they can get all this stuff by December also. 17 The decision powers, I want to know if somebody here 18 can tell me, if these buildings that are mentioned in 19 this section about how to handle waste from WIPP 20 already exist, even though I don't think the decision 21 has even been made on that, let alone on this? And do 22 they exist? Does anybody know? 23 MODERATOR ROBIN BRANDIN: I'm sorry, but we 24 are not in a position to answer questions here. If 25 you would like to ask Ms. Withers afterwards she can 90 1 answer the question, or you will see the answer in the 2 Final Environmental Impact Statement. 3 MS. BONNIE BONNEAU: I mean, it seems pretty 4 disingenuous to pretend you need to study the 5 environmental impact of something that you have 6 already spent the money and to plunge ahead and get 7 into it, and they are actually planning on shipping 8 this stuff already this year, I believe, or the first 9 of next year, and -- how can you do -- you know, you 10 are so far -- if you haven't just made this decision 11 yet, and do these buildings exist, you -- I bet they 12 do. 13 I think that a lot of times that everything 14 that we get in here isn't the real truth of all 15 information and there's a lot of fudging and a lot of 16 distortion of all the statistics, and there always 17 have been regarding the environmental impacts of the 18 Laboratory on our environment. And here, Section 4.0 19 is called Affected Environment, and I think it should 20 be called the Afflicted Environment, and they sort of 21 describe the very close region around Los Alamos yet, 22 you know, it contaminated about four states, and 23 there's research and studies that prove that it's 24 contaminated huge areas. And, you know, most of us 25 live fairly close to you and you are afflicting the 91 1 whole area with this pollution, like the 25,000-year 2 plague or something, you know, and it doesn't go away 3 and you can't see it and it just keeps on accumulating 4 and accumulating and getting into the -- more and more 5 into the water and the air and the soil and, you know, 6 the cumulative impacts can never really be known but, 7 you know, it may almost be too late to actually change 8 the inevitable, you know, genetic mutations and things 9 that have been set in progress already, because every 10 day you just contaminate our environment more and 11 more. 12 And there's no way these books could really 13 begin to cover all the pain and suffering you cause 14 and plan to continue to cause here, and then you go up 15 and they charge into one country and another and, you 16 know, be a plague here or there for a few years, and 17 then move on to another country, but it's been here in 18 New Mexico for 60 years, the same, you know, plague. 19 It's just a continuing. 20 And I would like to mention another subject 21 you never considered is the mental health, you know, 22 of our communities, and the mental health of the 23 people, and how much crazier the world seems to be 24 getting because the people in power are crazy, crazy, 25 you know, with their power, and they are just obsessed 92 1 with some kind of mad sense of wanting to destroy 2 things. I don't know really what's wrong with them, 3 except that's sort of what power makes you want to 4 destroy things. 5 But there's a dangerous bunch of stuff going 6 on, and we, the people, have so little to be able 7 to -- what can we do about that? What can we say? We 8 can stand here and talk and they can say, well, this 9 isn't really a referendum on national policies, you 10 know. This is just we are supposed to look at these 11 documents and tell you what's messed up about it, a 12 few words on pieces of paper, and there is no forum 13 for the national policy. There is no place. They 14 say, well, you can vote. Well, you can vote, you 15 know, for people who are all involved in the same -- 16 the same web of lies and power and violence. 17 And I think that mental health issues and 18 physical health issues go well beyond the small areas 19 mentioned in that section. And that it's why there is 20 so much violence in our communities and in our 21 families, and it's because we are a government that 22 says violence is good and power is good and, you know, 23 kill anybody you don't like. I mean -- and it's going 24 to come back and bite us and, you know, you can't 25 really expect it not to, just like that's the -- look 93 1 at New York City and all the other little tiny 2 terrorists. But we're terrorizing the whole world. 3 Go over there and bomb this and go over there and bomb 4 somebody else, somebody bombed us back. Surprise, 5 like, hello? 6 Anyway, it's -- you know, it's bad karma or 7 whatever. I don't know what you have to not believe 8 in to not -- to think that there is anything good 9 about it at all. And the main purpose of all these 10 things is to make money, and the more money they can 11 spend and the more money they can make and the more 12 money they can get, the more it's all about economics 13 and, like, money is some great goal where there's no 14 reason. It's the things like solar energy or wind 15 energy, they don't get the attention because nobody is 16 going to make enough money on them. And they can make 17 a lot more money making bombs and have a lot more 18 power, too, apparently, or whatever. 19 But I think of the gross national product 20 and the mental health issues and just the whole focus 21 and the way society is aligned behind the superficial 22 unhealthy goals is -- is a really important issue that 23 isn't exactly addressed in this document. And -- 24 MODERATOR ROBIN BRANDIN: Ma'am, could you 25 please wrap up your comments? 94 1 MS. BONNIE BONNEAU: Okay. Well -- so, we 2 went up to Los Alamos about 10, 15 years ago and did 3 some on-the-ground environmental studying with little 4 radiometers. We had three different radiometers and 5 we went around and we tested. First we did a 6 background in Redondo Canyon, and then -- in the woods 7 there, and then we went and we studied, tested the 8 outflows, the little gullies, all kinds of little dry 9 washes where you can see, like, during rainy times. 10 And every time we put the radiometers -- we had three 11 different varieties, and every time it just went over 12 the top when you tested it from the soil, on the 13 regular forest to the soil in the drainages. And 14 those drainages are going straight all over our state, 15 and they are also getting into Los Alamos aquifers. 16 And it's just right off the top, and they told us very 17 proudly that there were no bugs in Los Alamos. And 18 there aren't any bugs in Los Alamos because they have 19 short life cycles and the radiation has killed them 20 all already. Like, hello? How can brilliant people, 21 like, be proud of the concept of their working with 22 something that's already killed all the little insects 23 that God put down on God's green earth. 24 And I hope that they just wake up and say, 25 hey, we don't want to do this anymore and we're going 95 1 to work for a healthy world, and God wants us all. 2 Amen. 3 MODERATOR ROBIN BRANDIN: Thank you. 4 Julie Sutherland? 5 MS. JULIE SUTHERLAND: I am here today to 6 commemorate Nagasaki Day, and I feel this is a 7 travesty that this is happening. And I would like to 8 speak for those that aren't here, and that, in fact, 9 so many people that died because of nuclear bombs and 10 I -- I am just very distressed that the children -- do 11 any of you have children that -- that -- that you care 12 about and have some feeling as to whether they are 13 going to have a world to live in and that is healthy 14 and safe and beautiful? Please, there has been -- 15 there's so much that the youth can do positively if we 16 just give them the -- the ability to -- to -- to do 17 the work that they were born to do. And I pray that 18 -- that as Bonnie was saying, that the mental illness 19 and the drug abuse that is so prevalent in our society 20 can -- to cover up the feelings of despair that a lot 21 of you have, and I just pray that you can see the 22 light and -- and to give the youth and the rest of the 23 creatures of the earth a chance to -- to -- to be 24 happy and not desiring to end it all. 25 I was at a memorial this morning for a youth 96 1 that committed suicide because he was just hopeless. 2 There's just so -- we need to drop all the 3 hopelessness. But how do you do it when you are going 4 to increase plutonium pit production and take us all 5 down the road of destruction. 6 And I would just like to end by, like 7 Shannon said, with a circle, and I hope that we can, 8 you know, stand strong and say no to this. We said no 9 to Rocky Flats. Why are we proceeding to totally 10 contaminate the sacred lands of the pueblo people 11 forever more? And just visualize good things 12 happening and life-affirming -- there's so many great 13 things that Los Alamos could do, like, for -- come up 14 with cures to all the radiation sicknesses or, you 15 know, do alternative energy instead of nuclear. 16 Thank you. 17 MODERATOR ROBIN BRANDIN: Thank you. 18 Melissa Larson? 19 MS. MELISSA LARSON: I'm here. I want to 20 thank everyone that spoke before, because there's a 21 lot of things that were said, and I don't want to be 22 redundant. Besides, I don't have all the education to 23 say what everybody said. But one thing that I do is 24 at work, with the recycling, and I feel like that's 25 one of the things that Los Alamos Laboratory could be 97 1 doing, and in particular, about their waste. There 2 are so many industries and stuff that just are -- 3 especially in America, that are just throwing their 4 waste down the drain, and it's all being -- polluting 5 the earth. And I don't think we can go about business 6 like that anymore. 7 And if Los Alamos is going to produce things 8 that are toxic to the environment, then they better 9 learn how to balance them all so they don't ruin the 10 rest of the earth for everybody else. But in the 11 meantime, they shouldn't be doing this work because 12 it's destroying the earth for all the people. And we 13 need the earth to survive. 14 And if we want to be great New Mexicans and 15 be loving of the earth and have a home for the future, 16 we need to take care of it, and one of the ways to 17 take care of it is to look at the waste that we are 18 creating and let's stop doing that and really trying 19 to figure out what we're going to do about all the 20 waste that we have already created so that the earth 21 can survive still beyond the things that they are 22 going to destroy with if we let them, you know. 23 So, I think that we have to stop, stop the 24 war machine, and we have to start making peace in the 25 world and stop allowing war to go on, because it's a 98 1 crime against humanity, and every war is, and 2 especially the aggressive wars of the United States 3 and Israel, that huge Israeli lobby that allows the 4 media to say that the war is okay, that the killing of 5 people, innocent lives is okay, that disability, 6 deaths are okay. This is just war and war is okay. 7 But war is pollution, the worst pollution of the 8 earth. If anybody cares about the earth, then the 9 pollution that's created from war is the worst on the 10 earth. 11 And if anybody cares about ecology, then the 12 pollution of war is the worst on the earth, and we 13 have to stop that, and we have to stop making the 14 weapons of war and the war machine, and stop it now. 15 MODERATOR ROBIN BRANDIN: Thank you. 16 Evelyn Witt? 17 MS. EVELYN WITT: I am going to be brief, 18 because there are many words that have been said 19 tonight. I think the words we need to think about are 20 where is this beginning, who is responsible for this. 21 Where did it come from? We have got elected officials 22 that have gone along with it in Washington. We have a 23 corporation called Bechtel who is running this show, 24 and Bechtel got a contract for seven years to run Los 25 Alamos, over 500 million dollars, and they in their 99 1 statement have said, we are in the business of making 2 money. Now, what do you think that means, people? 3 I'm really sorry that a lot of people left 4 because I wanted to put fire in their belly, the kind 5 of fire I got in my belly. I'm fed up. And Greg 6 Mello said it at the beginning. You have got to go to 7 the House, go to the Congress, you have got to do it 8 now, every one of you. I don't believe the DOE, and 9 neither should you. I mean, it's obviously that this 10 is formulated to fail as far as comment goes. The 11 comment period isn't long enough, or inundated with 12 all kind of extraneous information, and we are 13 supposed to make a judgment? I don't think so. 14 I made my judgment. I know what's going 15 on. Number one, we have got a government that is 16 placing fear in people, scaring them half to death 17 since 9/11. Oh, well, gee, we've got to get weapons. 18 We've got to do this now. And so, we have a nation of 19 sheep. What leads sheep? What drives sheep? Fear. 20 So between the fear, and a corporation that 21 has money, and they don't have a very shining record, 22 if you take a look at their record, of what they have 23 done in Iraq. They haven't cleaned up Iraq. They got 24 a big contract from the United States government to 25 clean up Iraq. Did they clean up Iraq? No, they 100 1 haven't cleaned it up. Do you think they are going to 2 clean up the mess up there at Los Alamos, the waste 3 that we're going to get when all that crap begins? Do 4 you think that Bechtel cares about what happens to you 5 and your family? They don't care. What they care 6 about is money. They said it. They don't make any 7 bones about it. They said it. 8 And I want you people to get angry. I want 9 you to get real angry, because being nice just hasn't 10 worked. We went along with them for a long time, and 11 it's time to get angry and it's time to do something, 12 and the time is now. 13 These young people that spoke from 14 California, I got something to tell you. I have lived 15 quite a while. I have seen this nation go from a 16 moral nation to really dealing in some immoral, 17 egregious things, and it's time to put a stop to it. 18 And everybody that goes out from here, I want you to 19 tell everybody, to write their Congress, to make a 20 noise, a big noise. I don't know how much good it's 21 going to do, but we better start now before it's too 22 late, because the machine is moving and it's not going 23 to stop, and you get in the way and it will run over 24 you. You have got to start doing something now. 25 Thank you. 101 1 MODERATOR ROBIN BRANDIN: Thank you. 2 Charles Kading? 3 MR. CHARLES KADING: Hello. I live up in 4 Taos County, and I just want to say that this evening 5 has been quite a blessing. It's a rare time in the 6 United States that a person can sit in an auditorium, 7 even a dimly lighted gym, and listen to heartfelt 8 testimonies. And heartfelt is what I have sensed here 9 tonight, and I just feel like it's just -- it's just 10 been a wonderful experience. 11 Now I have been an environmental consultant 12 in various forms of environmental activism for over 30 13 years. I guess in most of it I have not been paid 14 for, at which -- because it's a real passion of my 15 heart. I believe a couple of people have mentioned 16 here that just, you know, our created order, how 17 beautiful our created order is, and I feel very close 18 to -- very close to our earth that God created, at 19 least I believe that God created. 20 And I have traveled quite a bit around the 21 world, and I have been in the Middle East, Northern 22 Africa, Central America and Alaska, and various parts 23 of just about all of the states. Well, the other day 24 I had the opportunity and the blessing to be at 25 Hiroshima Day here in Los Alamos, had a wonderful 102 1 conversation with a man from the Netherlands, and he 2 approached me and he said, where are the folks? He 3 thought there would be absolutely thousands and 4 thousands of people commemorating the anniversary, the 5 61st anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima. And I 6 said, you know, how long have you lived in the 7 States? He said, I just came over here for a visit. 8 I had a goal in my life to bicycle across the United 9 States. Well, as I approached Los Alamos, having 10 known quite a bit of the history of Los Alamos, being 11 from the Netherlands, of course, we get a little bit 12 better education about the history of the United 13 States than those that live in the United States 14 oftentimes, and he said -- so we had a great chat just 15 about a number of things, but it just brings to mind 16 as I was sitting in the group here with many of whom 17 are friends of mine, and I have worked with on 18 various -- various passionate activism, what I would 19 like to call gentle activism, because that's the only 20 kind of activism that ultimately resonates for us. We 21 can be angry in our hearts, but angry sometimes has a 22 reverberation effect of alienating too many people, 23 and I don't think that alienating is really, at least 24 the way I would like to see us go. I see a lot more 25 getting done one-on-one, getting to know folks, much 103 1 the same as Kathy Kelly suggested to us at Hiroshima 2 Day. 3 But I noticed in sitting here in this 4 auditorium, with the lights around the periphery and 5 none over us, it almost seemed like something of a 6 little bit of a tomb. Well, that had some symbolism 7 in terms of what we are talking about here today. 8 But I wanted to -- I took note of the fact 9 that about 8 -- when this -- when all of the people 10 were standing -- were sitting here, about 8 percent 11 were represented by the state of California in the 12 form of our good friends from California, the 13 students. And I thought, how could that be? 8 14 percent of a New Mexico public hearing gathering from 15 another state. Were glad to have, we would like to 16 have this filled up with representatives from every 17 single state, but the fact of the matter is, is that 18 the word about these meetings, which I believe should 19 have been -- should have been put forth as a public 20 service because the Department of Energy, the EPA, all 21 government officials, when they sign on and start 22 receiving their checks from taxpayers, are public 23 servants, and I think they all believe that they are 24 doing good service. The problem is that I think we 25 have forgotten that our taxpayers are our servants, 104 1 and they have a responsibility to us as our servants 2 to do the very best for the citizenry of this 3 country. Now, I think that's something just to think 4 about and to take to task, all of our friends 5 relatives, representatives -- more in the eyeshot of 6 everybody in the media -- these are our public 7 servants. I would venture to guess that apart from 8 the public servants that are actually getting a 9 salary, and for Northern New Mexico probably a fairly 10 decent salary, just -- not that that's a bad thing in 11 itself, I'm not saying that -- but all that our 12 government officials, whether they are state, county, 13 federal officials, these are our servants, and we owe 14 it to them, as much as we are able, to share our 15 thoughts and our visions for what -- how we can see 16 this country as being a wonderful place to live. And 17 I suspect to say this most of us would agree that 18 there are some not so wonderful things in -- going on 19 here. But I -- I just wanted to say, like I said in 20 the beginning, I so enjoy being around people that are 21 heart felt and passionate. 22 The problem I found here tonight, and as I 23 have for the last 30 plus years, from the Vietnam 24 period on, was that I believe that our public 25 education system has been cloning an oil-addictive 105 1 consciousness in our minds, and it's inculcated, it's 2 so permeated the very fabric of the culture that 3 passion for life itself is just diminished to such a 4 level, that so often we are blinded by the very stuff 5 of life itself. And it's passed us by. 6 But, boy, I hear it tonight, and I just feel 7 very thankful to be here with you all tonight, and 8 let's, like, like everyone has said, the only way we 9 can -- we can kind of -- we have to pray and use every 10 part of our potential to -- to create. And I think 11 this is as much education -- and that is education in 12 the larger sense, not the confines of what we call 13 public education -- of enhancing our potential for 14 critical thinking. I think we were created to be -- 15 have a wonderful potential for critically thinking 16 about the life around us. 17 And once again, just -- I'm going too long 18 here. I have so much to say but, thank you all very 19 much. It's just a blessing to be here with you all. 20 MODERATOR ROBIN BRANDIN: Thank you. 21 Okay. That's all the cards I have. Is 22 there anybody who has not spoken and would like to 23 speak? 24 Okay. It's 9:30. We'll go for another 10 25 minutes if there are people who would like to speak 106 1 again. 2 Would anybody like to speak again? 3 Okay. Please raise your hand if you would 4 like to speak again so that -- go ahead. 5 Please state your name. 6 MS.SHANNYN SOLLITT: My name is Shannyn 7 Sollitt, and I would like to bring up the 8 environmental impact of -- the psychological impact 9 that it has. Many people have mentioned that Los 10 Alamos has the highest teen suicide rate, and I would 11 just like to mention that Columbine High School was 12 less than the distance between here and Los Alamos, 13 and I really feel that the reason why Columbine 14 happened is because they were in the midst of a 15 society that found that making weapons of mass 16 destruction was acceptable, so blowing up a high 17 school somehow, to those young minds, wasn't such an 18 egregious thing to do, and I would like to see an 19 environmental impact that relates to the psychology 20 of, especially young people, related to nuclear 21 weapons production facilities or any production 22 facilities that are creating weapons of mass 23 destruction. Thank you. 24 MODERATOR ROBIN BRANDIN: Thank you. 25 Mr. Mello. 107 1 MR. GREG MELLO: Thank you for the 2 opportunity to speak again. 3 MODERATOR ROBIN BRANDIN: And please state 4 your name. 5 MR. GREG MELLO: Yes, Greg Mello. 6 For the NNSA, and Lab people here, I -- you 7 may not know what a small federal presence there is in 8 the nuclear weapons program. It seems like an odd 9 thing to say, but there actually is less than 4 10 percent of federal -- the Federal Government accounts 11 for less than 4 percent of the spending in the nuclear 12 weapons program. The rest are contractors, and the 13 spending is concentrated in just a very few 14 contractors, as Evelyn and other people have said. If 15 you look at the wall here, the percentage of federal 16 effort in the nuclear weapons program is significantly 17 less than the percentage of mortar joints in that 18 wall. The rest is Bechtel, BWXT, WGI. Over half of 19 the Department of Energy's total budget is spent by 20 just nine companies, and this is a dramatically 21 increasing phenomenon. 22 So I want to suggest that we have to be 23 careful if, as federal employees -- and I was a 24 federal employee once -- that we are not just 25 facilitating money-making by a very small group of 108 1 companies. We're sort of doing a federal 2 Environmental Impact Statement, but it's not very 3 federal. 4 Now, I want to say something tactical to our 5 colleagues who are here. We need to work with 6 Congress to defeat these plans, exactly as Evelyn and 7 others have said. Evelyn anticipated several of the 8 points I wanted to make. That's great. 9 Please, do not go away from this room and 10 think that making comments to the Department of Energy 11 is going to accomplish anything. We have to remain 12 energized and get more energized. It's not going to 13 be enough to be nice. I want to be really clear that 14 the public relations practices of the Federal 15 Government and it's contractors have advanced 16 tremendously since the early 1990s, when I started 17 this work. Their job is to make sure your effort goes 18 nowhere. So, there is a misuse of civility in this 19 process. And this is a message to Jan, who is a very 20 nice person, but I want to tell you that we, 21 ourselves, in New Mexico, must galvanize ourselves for 22 a resistance action that puts the pressure on until we 23 succeed. 24 Now, we defeated this plan twice before. We 25 defeated it in 1990, when this country still cared 109 1 about the budget deficit. Los Alamos Laboratory 2 proposed a special nuclear materials research and 3 development laboratory that was a complete 4 boondoggle. Congress cut it because of citizens, like 5 you here, getting out there and making your voice 6 known at a pivotal moment and in a way that Senator 7 Bingaman and members of Congress couldn't forget. 8 Congressman Sprat from South Carolina years later 9 said, I saw my name in New Mexico papers vilified 10 because I promoted pit production in New Mexico. 11 That's what we have to do again. We can't let this go 12 by. 13 We defeated this again in 1997 because there 14 was an active earthquake fault under the CMR 15 building. It had to be taken out of the pit 16 production plan. That's twice here. 17 Trish, my wife, and the farmers at Pantex 18 defeated it at Pantex. It was defeated multiple times 19 in multiple places. The Department of Energy is 20 running scared. They have not been able to make pits 21 for 17 years. We can't let them restart this process 22 and transmit the ideology of nuclear weapons to a new 23 generation of young people who are malleable, and 24 whose careers are in the hands of the managers of 25 Bechtel. There are two billionaires running Bechtel, 110 1 and if that doesn't tell you where this thing is 2 running nothing else does. 3 So I beg you to leave this place inspired, 4 work with each other, don't let your passion die away 5 in loneliness and isolation. Reach out to your 6 friends. Form a group. Have a house meeting and 7 share information. Ask one of the people from the 8 organizations that are working on this to come and 9 talk to your group, talk to your church, talk to your 10 real estate organization, because they are going to be 11 affected, talk to your city council, talk to your 12 state representative. We have got to start putting 13 the pressure on and we can't let our shyness about the 14 Democratic party or the Republican party get in our 15 way. 16 We have to make people understand that it's 17 not going to be okay to sell Northern New Mexico down 18 the river and let the state become a colony for pits 19 in the North, uranium enrichment and waste disposal in 20 the south. It doesn't have to be that way. We can 21 make a sustainable economy in this state by a genuine 22 response to the real problems, the real security 23 problems of peak oil and global warming, and the other 24 genuine national security problems. 25 And this greed-oriented run on the treasury 111 1 has to be stopped. And I know that a lot of nice 2 people are involved in it, but that's all it is. And 3 we can stop it again. We have done it twice and it's 4 been done in other places, so let's get on it and 5 let's have a good time doing it. 6 MODERATOR ROBIN BRANDIN: Thank you. 7 Please state your name. 8 MS. KALEA MATSAKIS: I am Kalea Matsakis, 9 and I just want to let everyone know who is here that 10 Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety and the Embudo 11 Valley Environmental Monitoring Group have a letter in 12 the back which is requesting an extension of time 13 until the Area G Risk Assessment, the Seismic Hazard 14 Report and the Health Assessment have been properly 15 done and allowed for a public comment and review. And 16 I would really appreciate it if you could all come 17 back on your way out and pick up a copy and sign it, 18 so that we can try to get some real science behind 19 it. Thank you. 20 MODERATOR ROBIN BRANDIN: Thank you. 21 Anybody else? 22 You can go next. 23 MS. SHERYL KOTOWSKI: Sherry Kotowski. I'm 24 part of a group that's called the LANL Water Watch. 25 We are a network of many citizen groups in the area 112 1 around Los Alamos, and we put together a shared value 2 statement among other things. And this is -- I'm 3 inviting everybody to participate in this. There is a 4 copy of it that you can sign in the back, and I'm just 5 going to read to you what it says. "All people in our 6 communities are intricately tied to the health of 7 rivers, acequias and other water. Historical and 8 ongoing activities at Los Alamos National Laboratory 9 threaten our cultural, spiritual and ecological 10 survival. To ensure that the good health of 11 watersheds downstream and downwind from LANL and the 12 good health of the Rio Grande to provide safe drinking 13 water, clean water for irrigation, and pure water for 14 sacred ceremony now and in the future, we acknowledge 15 and assert the following: All people that live 16 downstream and downwind from LANL require and have a 17 right to clean water for drinking, sacred ceremony, 18 growing food, raising animals, recreating and overall 19 well-being. 20 "Number 2, traditional indigenous cultures 21 that live downstream and downwind from LANL require 22 and have a right to pure water for sacred ceremony. 23 "Number 3, wildlife and ecosystems living 24 downstream and downwind from LANL need and depend upon 25 clean water for their survival. 113 1 "Number 4, healthy communities require clean 2 rivers, groundwater and watersheds to achieve a strong 3 economy and sustainable future. 4 "Our local, federal, and state government 5 agencies have a duty to protect the health and welfare 6 by setting and enforcing laws and regulations that 7 protect water resources downwind and downstream from 8 LANL. 9 "Healthy communities and ecosystems require 10 clean, innovative and life-affirming science and 11 technology that will benefit the economy, the future 12 and health of all. 13 "Number 7, we recognize and respect that 14 flowing water does not seek or uphold political, 15 social, cultural or economical boundaries. 16 "Based on these values, we assert that 17 historic toxic waste must be cleaned up now to protect 18 drinking water, and life-threatening pollutants that 19 are the byproducts of ongoing LANL activities must be 20 kept from contaminating our watersheds and tainting 21 the Rio Grande. 22 "Adequate funding must be provided to clean 23 up contamination at LANL to achieve these shared 24 values." 25 A copy of this is at the back if you would 114 1 like to sign it and support the LANL Water Watch. 2 This is a way your whole community can get involved in 3 stopping pit production, the expanding activities at 4 Los Alamos National Laboratory, and form a solidarity 5 that's absolutely necessary for us to keep modern pit 6 production from happening in our state or anywhere. 7 Thank you. 8 MS. JEANNE GREEN: I just wanted to state 9 for the record that I did not see a single 10 announcement about these public hearings other than 11 from activist, peace activist groups. I did not see a 12 single announcement, and that is gross negligence. 13 Also, we're speaking to a brick wall. And 14 why aren't the people who wrote SWEIS here to answer 15 our questions? We're speaking to a brick wall. 16 MODERATOR ROBIN BRANDIN: Would you mind 17 giving your name? 18 MS. JEANNE GREEN: Jeanne Green. 19 MODERATOR ROBIN BRANDIN: One more. 20 Yes, ma'am. Please state your name? 21 MS. ARLENE MAESTAS: Arlene Maestas. I am 22 really happy to see this card out. And before you 23 leave tonight, pick up four, mail them to your 24 representatives in Congress, imagine getting 18,000 25 cards like this. It's Bingaman, Udall, Dominici and 115 1 who else? Heather? Haliburton Heather? If you can 2 get these cards to them, I think you would make an 3 impact on them. So, I don't know who -- I don't know 4 who has the cards -- 5 FROM THE FLOOR: I do. 6 MS. ARLENE MAESTAS: Okay. She has got 7 them. I think this would be the beginning of the 8 impact. Thank you. 9 MODERATOR ROBIN BRANDIN: Thank you. 10 We have run out of time in this hearing. 11 Thank you all for participating. We'll have people 12 here for a few more minutes, but we need to be out of 13 here by 10:00. 14 So, remember, you can also submit written 15 comments at the addresses on this poster, and there is 16 also a yellow card in the back that will tell you how 17 to submit written comments. 18 And please drive carefully on your way home 19 and be safe. Thank you. 20 (The hearing concluded at 9:45 p.m.) 21 22 23 24 25 116 1 STATE OF NEW MEXICO ) ) ss 2 COUNTY OF SANTA FE ) 3 4 C E R T I F I C A T E 5 I, MABEL JIN CHIN, New Mexico Certified Court Reporter, do hereby certify that I did report in 6 stenographic shorthand the proceedings set forth herein, and the foregoing is a true and correct 7 transcription of the proceedings. I further certify that I am neither employed by 8 nor related to any of the parties or attorneys in this case, and that I have no interest whatsoever in the 9 final disposition of this case in any court. 10 ___________________________ 11 Mabel Jin Chin, CCR Certified Court Reporter #81 12 License Expires: 12/31/06 13 14 (1562A) MC 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25