Las Vegas

Return to the Index

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
PUBLIC HEARING ON THE
POSSIBLE SITE RECOMMENDATION
OF YUCCA MOUNTAIN

Wednesday, September 5, 2001
6:00 p.m.
232 Energy Way
North Las Vegas, Nevada

Reported by:

Kevin Wm. Daniel, CCR No. 711
Mary Cox Daniel, CCR No. 710 0002

A P P E A R A N C E S

Hearing Facilitators:	BARRY LAWSON HOLMES BROWN
Hearing Officers:	LAKE BARRETT Acting Director Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management U.S. Department of Energy
	CAROL HANLON Office of Licensing and Regulatory Compliance Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Office U.S. Department of Energy
	DR. RUSS DYER Project Manager Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Office U.S. Department of Energy

P R O C E E D I N G S

MODERATOR LAWSON: Before we get started, I want to make a request here. And you folks can judge for yourself who you are. If there are people who are working on the project itself, who do not need to be in this room, but could be in the other room, I'm going to suggest that you do it so we make enough room for the public to be able to participate here.

(APPLAUSE)

Now I don't know who you are, frankly, because I don't know the staff here, but if you fit into that category, and you're not essential here, you're going to hear everything that's going on in the other room. I'd also invite other members of the public who would be willing to do that to do it as well. I am going to have to free up this aisle, because we have a camera right down there. So if you want to sit down, or down that would be fine for now. But I also have to tell you that in the long run, I can't have people standing in the aisles, because if we have to exit quickly.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: We'll sit when they clear out.

MODERATOR LAWSON: I appreciate everybody's cooperation in this. This is great. We're going to get started as soon as the camera angle is clear on the central aisle. I'm just going to ask you please to clear this aisle and leave that open for that camera angle or the folks on the other side are not going to be able to see what's going on. Get to your seat and stay there if you would, please.

Please keep the angle in front of that camera clear, if you would. The biggest man back there, make sure that's kept clear for me.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Biggest woman.

MODERATOR LAWSON: That too. Okay? All right? Good, evening, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to this public hearing regarding the possible recommendation of the Yucca Mountain site for development as a geologic repository for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. If you want to have a very happy facilitator, you'll wish me luck. This is going to be some event.

My name is Barry Lawson, and I am a neutral moderator, and am not an employee of, nor an advocate for the Department of Energy, the State of Nevada, or any other interested party in this situation. I have been asked to run this meeting, or hearing, in a fair, efficient, and impartial manner. Holmes Brown, who's over here on to my right, is assisting me as the host site here in Las Vegas.

This hearing is being conducted in accordance with Section 114 A of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act as amended. The Department of Energy is required to hold hearings in the vicinity of Yucca Mountain site for the purpose of informing residents of the area of the consideration of the Yucca Mountain site as a potential national repository.

This hearing is one of the hearings required to be held in the vicinity of the site. Additional hearings required to be held in the vicinity will be on September 12, next week, and September 13th, and they will be in Amargosa Valley and Pahrump, respectively.

Notice of this hearing was published in the Federal Register on August 21st, of this year, and notice of changes to this public hearing were published in the Federal Register on August 31st, again of this year. To accommodate a request from the State of Nevada and elected federal officials, the Department of Energy has arranged for simultaneous sessions this evening in Carson City, Elko and Reno.

Before we go further, I would like to introduce to you the panel who is here to hear the comments this evening. To my far left, over here and to your right, is Mr. Lake Barrett. Mr. Barrett is the Acting Director of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, in the United States Department of Energy.

Seated in the middle, and who will also serve as the Hearing Officer for this site here in Las Vegas, is Carol Hanlon, who's from the Office of Licensing and Regulatory Compliance, Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Office, Department of Energy, here in Las Vegas.

To my immediate left is Mr. -- excuse me, Dr. Russ Dyer, who's Project Manager of the Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Office, also the United States Department of Energy.

I would also like to recognize Undersecretary of Energy Robert Card, who has joined us in this meeting representing the Secretary of Energy, and the Department of Energy, and will be observing tonight's proceeding. Mr. Card? Right over here. Thank you very much for coming, sir.

(APPLAUSE)

As you have probably guessed, we are electronically interconnected with three other sites: Carson City, Reno and Elko. This has not been an easy process to set up, and it's not an easy process to run. But I can also tell you that the hearing is also available on the World Wide Web, and the website designated is www.ymp.gov. This arrangement that has been established tonight will permit interconnectedness among the sites until 9:00 p.m., thereabouts, as one option, and also if we need to, if, for instance, the satellite connections break down or we have so many people, it allows us to run --

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Get to the meeting.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yeah, let's just get --

MODERATOR LAWSON: Excuse me, please. I can't take outbreaks like that. We have to move right along, and I have to give these rules. Running four separate hearing sessions, if we have a large number of registered speakers, as I indicated, I will probably break away at 9:00 p.m. so that all of us run our individual sites individually, so that we can make sure that we get as many people before it gets too late. In any case, we're going to see how it goes with the videoconferencing, and I retain some discretion to modify that system.

Now during the comment period of this hearing, I will first recognize the Nevada Governor, and members of the Nevada congressional delegation. These are the elected officials who have statutory role in the Yucca Mountain Project process. Some of these, I think the congressional delegation, will be coming to us from Washington, D.C., where they are this evening. After the testimony by these individuals, I will continue by having roughly 30 minutes of public testimony from here in Las Vegas, before switching in turn to Carson City, Elko and Reno in that order -- which is alphabetical -- for 10 minutes of testimony each. The order of taking the sites as I say was alphabetical. Then after we have gone through the other outlying sites, we will return here to Las Vegas for 30 minutes more, starting the circuit again until 9:00 p.m.

At 9:00 p.m., according to the way I see things going now, the videoconferencing will cease, individual hearings will continue, and testimony will continue to be accepted at each of these sites by the Court Reporter and a hearing officer until all those wishing to testify have had an opportunity to comment. Provisions have also been made at each site, including here, for individuals to provide comments to a DOE hearing Officer and site Court Reporter off camera. This is a service for those who have tight schedules to meet, or do not wish to stay for the duration. You may want to consider that option. If so, please see the registration people at your site. Now that Court Reporter, I understand, is in the larger room off the main lobby. And so if you want to do that and you're running short on time, please do that.

I am responsible for electronically tying us to each site. In turn, I ask for everyone's patience and cooperation in this effort to tie these four sites together electronically. I appreciate all participants taking time to learn more about the site recommendation process and encourage you to participate in this important public review process. Your comments will help the Secretary of Energy determine whether or not to recommend to the President the Yucca Mountain be developed as a repository.

Following the recommendation of the Secretary, the President would then consider whether or not to recommend to Congress that the site be qualified for a construction authorization. If a positive recommendation is made by the President, Nevada will have the unqualified right to veto the site within 30 days of the recommendation. If Nevada does veto the site, Congress would then determine whether to proceed.

A couple of ground rules for tonight -- please help all of us hear and understand your comments by speaking clearly and by not interrupting or speaking over one another. And please, no cell phones or pagers are permitted in the hearing rooms. Any member of the audience observed using a cell phone or pager will be asked to cease or to leave the room and take your conversation outside. But I hope we don't get to that point. I would ask you to turn them off.

Only one person may speak at a time. The Moderator at each site -- and that would be me here -- is the only person who can identify and introduce the speakers at that site.

In addition to these hearings, and those next week, there are other ways that you can provide your comments on this site recommendation. These will be described in the Department of Energy presentation and are available in a handout at the registration tables. If you would rather not speak tonight, there are forms at the back of the room on which yo may write your comments.

It is important to note, and I want to emphasize this, that all comments, whether they're spoken, written, faxed or e-mails, will be considered by the Department of Energy.

I'm pleased to say tonight that the deadline for submission of comments has been extended, just this afternoon, by the Secretary of Energy, until October 5th. It had been the 20th of September. It's now been extended to October 5th.

The agenda for this evening is as follows: There has been a poster session at each of the four hearing sites, and the Department of Energy and/or technical specialists will remain available throughout the evening in those poster rooms to answer questions you may have about the project. So, if you have questions, that's the place to go. This opening session will feature an introductory presentation by Dr. Steven Brocoum from DOE's Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management here in Las Vegas. To maximize the opportunity for public comment, I will go directly to comments following Dr. Brocoum's presentation, and a few introductory comments by me. If you have questions on his presentation or the process, please ask someone in the poster room at your site. All comments will be considered and the DOE will prepare a comment summary document following the public hearings. I'm going to ask that they be quiet out in the hallway, please.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: We can't, we're overflowing.

MODERATOR LAWSON: Okay.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: You probably needed a larger room and maybe more time and opportunity.

MODERATOR LAWSON: Excuse me, there is another room where people can go --

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: That's full as well. You have over a million people in this valley. It's a little difficult --

MODERATOR LAWSON: Okay, okay, fine. We're wasting time. I want to move along.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: We agree with you on that.

MODERATOR LAWSON: If you wish to speak -- excuse me, if you wish to speak but have not yet registered, please make sure that you do that.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: When, at 3:00 in the morning?

MODERATOR LAWSON: It is now my pleasure to introduce Dr. Steven Brocoum, who is the Assistant Manager of the Office of Licensing and Regulatory Compliance. He will provide an overview of the site recommendation process. Mr. Brocoum.

(APPLAUSE)

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Point of information?

MODERATOR LAWSON: Yes, sir,.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: How long will this presentation last?

MODERATOR LAWSON: It will be about 10 or 12 minutes and it will go much faster -- I'm going to ask people -- I am not going to take much more of this disruption. We have to have move. Dr. Brocoum, please.

Okay, okay, I'm going to stop right here. I'm going to stop. We will take a recess right now, until we have an agreement that we're going to move forward. I am not going to have people interrupting. We're going to move along in an orderly manner.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Come back in six months when you've prepared your recommendation to the President.

MODERATOR LAWSON: I'll just say it once, if I have any more outbreaks, I may have to take some action, and I don't want to do that because we want to move ahead. Dr. Brocoum, please.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: No, we have to agree. You just said --

MODERATOR LAWSON: Excuse me, one more outbreak, and I don't want to have somebody escort you out.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: You break another agreement.

MODERATOR LAWSON: Dr. Brocoum, please.

DR. BROCOUM: Okay, the first viewgraph. On the 4th of May of this year, the Department of Energy announced the initiation of the public comment period on the Secretary of Energy's consideration -- that's key word, "consideration" -- of the Yucca Mountain Site for recommendation to the President as a spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste geologic repository.

On the 21st of August, consistent with Nuclear Waste Policy Act as amended, the Department of Energy announced scheduling of public hearings to inform residents of the area that the site is being considered for possible recommendation and provide the public with the opportunity to provide comments. The operative word in those is the consideration. Site's under consideration.

Since May 4th, the Department of Energy has released information, information for public review to facilitate the development of these comments. The first report that was released was the Yucca Mountain science and engineering, which describes results of site characterization over the last 15 years. Kind of summarizes all the work that the Department's done in the last 15 years. We also wish to supplement to the draft environmental impact statement, which addressed the most recent information on design, low-temperature operating mode and potential impacts, potential environmental impacts associated with that.

Report was released on total life cycle cost, covers the potential costs of repository. And a nuclear waste fund report that assesses the adequacy of the nuclear waste fund to fund the repository. Those were all released on May 4th.

In late June and early July, we released supplements, the supplemental science and performance analysis. The first volume describes new information since the science and engineering report, and talks about uncertainty and the lower temperature operating mode. These are areas of nuclear waste, the fuel record as requested the Department to look at more carefully.

The second volume presents how this new information affects the performance of the repository. On the 21st of August, we released the Preliminary Site Suitability Evaluation. That describes results of our preliminary evaluation of the Yucca Mountain repository against the Department's proposed suitability guidelines, tendency past part 1963. On the 30th of August, the Department issued a Federal Register notice and in a general mailing a list of suggested topics for public consideration that the Department is particularly interested in hearing about. The first -- and these are kind of long, I'm going to read them because they're kind of long for me to cover everything properly.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: You have no written guidelines for building that site.

(AUDIENCE YELLING)

MODERATOR LAWSON: They're standing up there. You don't have to go through them.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: There's only two women back there interrupting.

MODERATOR LAWSON: Please, I'm just to --

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: You can read them.

DR. BROCOUM: There were six questions that the Department released covering various aspects of the repository. I won't read them.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Good.

DR. BROCOUM: My final viewgraph, next viewgraph, is just, it's -- we welcome your comments. We're trying to set up a process so we can receive your comments. We're trying to accommodate all the comments, and that's why I made my comments, my comments brief so we can get on with the hearing. Thank you.

MODERATOR LAWSON: Thank you very much.

(APPLAUSE)

MODERATOR LAWSON: Remember, we have three other sites. Again, my name is Barry Lawson, and I'm the lead Moderator for the public hearing and assisted by Holmes Brown here and by Ann Marshal, Katherine Tice and B. Riley in Carson City, Elko and Reno respectively. And they're tuned in to us. It is our intent to ensure that the public has an opportunity to provide comments to the Department of Energy, either through oral or written presentation, and we ask for your cooperation in doing this. There are court reporters at each of the four sites, and I have asked them to notify his or her site Moderator when clarification of comment is needed. The Court Reporter in this room for us is Kevin Daniel, who is seated right in front of me.

As stated earlier, it will be important that only one person speak at a time, and it is our responsibility to make sure there's adequate time for everybody to present or offer comments if they wish. I will rotate from site to site, and as described earlier, for each respective Moderator to introduce the next speaker from that site.

Each of you has received an agenda outlining the process I intend to follow. After the Governor and the congressional delegation, we will call each commenter in turn. Each speaker has been given a number and will proceed in numeric order. Now I recognize there's already been a number of people who would like to speak first. And obviously that's not going to happen. I'm going to do my darnedest to keep people to five minutes, and I'm going to ask people to be as gracious about letting their neighbors have a turn as possible. At the satellite sites, and here, we will post the next two scheduled speakers so you'll know that you're on, ready to go.

Each person will have five minutes for his or her comments. Please, limit your comments to five minutes, or less, so that others can have a similar opportunity. I plan to have the hearing continue until all the comments are heard, either at each site or by all. If you have oral comments that exceed 5 minutes, we invite you to submit the balance of your comments in writing before October 5th. Moderators will tell you when you have approximately 30 seconds remaining in your five minutes, and would ask you to conclude your comments as quickly, and as gracefully as possible. Each person presenting comments will be only recognized one time during this hearing.

Now, I will -- my own little rule here is if somebody does have some comments that go more than five minutes, and you're willing to stay until everybody else has had a chance for five minutes, I will invite you back for another five minutes. This is a long time to wait, but if you're willing to do it, I'm willing to listen.

If you have a written copy of your comments, or additional comments, please drop them in the comment box in your registration area. If you have supplemental reference material you wish to have included in the record, please give them to me, or to your site Moderator so that they can be officially recorded as exhibits.

Moderators must insist on silence in the hearing room so that the Court Reporter can make an accurate record of all comments and the officials and all audiences can understand them. Please hold any necessary conversations or unnecessary conversations, for that matter, in the outer hall.

Finally, it is my discretion to call for short recesses as I deem appropriate. I have no plans for them right away, but my intent is to proceed so as to hear as many commentaries as possible. I will provide some warning when possible so that other sites can be ready for such a recess. I thank you all for your cooperation and in making this hearing productive, and respectful.

Now when your site Moderator calls you to speak, please come to -- the designated microphone here in Las Vegas is right here. Tell the Court Reporter your name and organizational affiliation, if that's appropriate, and then begin. You will be addressing your comments to the Hearing Officer, who is Carol Hanlon, who's sitting in the middle, here in Las Vegas, or to one of the other hearing officers in the outlying sites. Please also speak toward the Court Reporter, as this makes it much easier for him to get an accurate record of your comments. Anyone who did not preregister to speak but would like to offer testimony may sign up at any time at the registration table. And remember, once again, court reporters are available at each site for people who wish to make their comments off camera.

Okay, we're ready to begin, and I'm going to recognize our first speaker this evening, the honorable Governor Kenny Guinn from the state of Nevada.

(APPLAUSE)

GOVERNOR GUINN: Good evening to all of you who are here to listen to us and hopefully in an honest fashion. On behalf of the citizens of the state of Nevada, we want to welcome you here this evening and hope that my remarks and the remarks of the many concerned Nevadans who will speak later will be taken in the spirit in which they are intended. That is honest, and constructive, and impassioned public input on an issue that is paramount to the health and safety of every Nevadan, and lest we not forget, every American whose home or school or place of business is along the proposed paths that the deadliest substance on earth, if the DOE has its way, will be brought to Nevada. This debate --

(APPLAUSE)

This debate is not new. As many of you know, Nevada's fight to keep the nuclear waste repository from coming to Yucca Mountain has raged on for nearly 20 years. Unlike many of the policy battles that grip Washington, however, this fight transcends many party affiliations. All party affiliations. Transcends socio-economic classes, race or gender, and galvanizes all Nevadans practically from every corner of this state in opposition. Though the debate is not new -- although it is not new, I must say that recent developments, and those that bring us here tonight, are quite alarming and raise a number of new concerns that we're truly concerned with, panel. The very purpose for this meeting is in question. You invited me and many of these good people here tonight so you and the Department of Energy can gather public comment on scientific evidence that is not complete, and that has not been made public to me nor the people in this room. Public comment --

(APPLAUSE)

Public comment in the absence of all important evidence. It's premature, and is grossly irresponsible to ask us to comment on what we do not have before us. Ladies and gentlemen, this is not the way we do business in Nevada.

(APPLAUSE)

And certainly this is not the way the government should handle its affairs. I am very disappointed you have chosen to disregard essentially all of our offices and my office's recommendations and decided to hold these hearings and these meetings prematurely and over our reasonable and faithful objections. We in Nevada will not stand for it.

(APPLAUSE)

Therefore, I would strongly advise you today, and formally request at the same time, you schedule additional hearings, which you've already had announced today by Secretary Abraham after we had written a letter. I just got it today, about 3:30, so we know it's been extended for 15 days, which isn't much time to go over the detail we've been given in the last few weeks. Of course, we'll have these over the coming months across Nevada, and hopefully it will give more citizens and their elected leaders a fair and appropriate chance to respond to your completed findings, should you have them. And I assure you, my outrage at the lack of protocol that has permeated this process will be detailed in letters directly to Secretary Abraham and to the President of the United States.

(APPLAUSE)

It is my sincere hope that you recognize this error and your duty to correct it as quickly as possible. I don't have to remind anyone here today that it was not long ago that Nevadans and all Americans were assured that nuclear testing was safe.

(LAUGHTER)

It was less than 50 years ago, and since that time, the DOE admitted that the aftermath of testing of the hydrogen bomb at Yucca Flats caused innocent Americans to die, and that cancer benefits should be paid to the families of dozens of men and women who were contaminated by the fallout from the nuclear testing. I'm not talking about casualties of war in some distant country. I am talking about the small farmers in our neighboring Utah who tragically suffered from contaminated nuclear air. And I'm talking about the Nevada workers and their families who took the government at their word, and as workers trekked to and from the test site every day -- and I knew many of them -- they were assured that they were not in harm's way. And I'm talking about the generations of patriotic American families, financially wiped out fighting cancer while they awaited some word of admission or assistance from their government. The DOE pathetically only made that admission just a few years ago, and it came only after years of denial and government red tape. And just yesterday, just yesterday, we learned for the first time that germ warfare testing -- imagine -- germ warfare testing was conducted at that same test site without any knowledge whatsoever by our own congressional delegation and my office as Governor. With a track record like this, it is no wonder the Department of Energy lacks credibility, not only in Nevada, but also in our neighboring states.

(APPLAUSE)

Given the history, I trust you can understand why I view this proceeding as morally illegal, if not technically so. It violates --

(APPLAUSE)

It violates everything we believe in as Americans. It duplicates all that was wrong in the past, and gives credence to the mistrust and cynicism harbored by so many of our people. Our concerns are clear. This wonderful state has been ignored for far too long. We demand fairness, and we demand accountability in this process. We will not sit idly by and let the Department of Energy run roughshod over our citizens with empty promises and bad science.

(APPLAUSE)

Let's remember, we did it once in good faith as proud and loyal Americans, but sadly we did not get back what we gave. So we have learned from the past, and we are not about to repeat the past this time.

(APPLAUSE)

MODERATOR LAWSON: We're all set. Are we all set with our feed in from Washington? Tim? All set? I believe you're going to be able to see and hear the presentations made from Washington. And the Court Reporter is taking notes on the comments that they make, so please keep the noise down if you can. I'd like to have those folks who are going to speak please introduce themselves.

SENATOR REID: My name is Harry Reid. I'm Senator from the state of Nevada.

Governor Guinn, I appreciate your statement. I appreciate your statement very much. But I received a telephone call just before coming here of someone that has attempted to attend this hearing, using that term loosely. He said that he got there at 4:00. He was told that he could testify sometime after midnight tonight. He said people are already leaving. They had to go through three security checks to get into the building. I mean, what kind of a hearing is this? No wonder people are frustrated with the process. No wonder people are upset with government. If this is how government treats its people, then this is a sad commentary.

For too long, this is how the people of Nevada have been treated by the Department of Energy. This is not a fair hearing. This is unfair from the very beginning. As Governor Guinn stated, we asked that the comment period be extended for 60 days. We got a curse -- course -- short letter back today from the secretary saying he would allow us 15 days. What's the rush? Well, you know, I think that the people of Nevada as Governor Guinn has said, have had about enough of the proceedings with the Department of Energy. I'm very, very disappointed, but we do not have the Secretary of Energy in Las Vegas tonight so he could speak to the people of Nevada. In addition to what people have to say. I don't believe the President Bush knows how the people of the state of Nevada are being treated. I don't think he knows that the Secretary graciously gave us another 15 days.

This congressional delegation is going to contact the President and let him know how we've been treated. This is not how we should be treated, and I bet the President agrees with us.

I think that we have to understand that we have lots of problems with nuclear waste, not the least of which is the Department of Energy. The Department of Energy refuses to recognize that the most difficult issue we have facing the people of the state of Nevada is transportation. But it's not just the people of the state of Nevada. It's no longer going to be not in my backyards. It's going to be in everybody's backyard. Because 46 states will have this poisonous substance passing by their schools, their businesses, and their bedrooms. On rails, and by trucks. But you note the Department of Energy won't tell us what railways they're going to use or what highways they're going to use. Why? Because they know that we'd have to have an environmental impact statement. Which I don't think they can get approved. And if they thought they could get approved, they would have started the process a long time ago.

I was listening to -- I was on a talk radio program in Las Vegas today, and someone said, I've been trying to get from the Department of Energy how they're going to bring it to Nevada and they won't tell us. They're not telling us, because they simply don't know. We have problems with transportation. You need only look at Baltimore, Maryland just a short distance from where this Nevada congressional delegation's now seated. We had for five days a full train held up in a mile-and-a-half tunnel. City of Baltimore was closed down basically for five days. This could have been nuclear waste. A week later in West Wendover, Nevada, we had a truck with low-level nuclear waste spilling stuff out. What if it had been high-level nuclear waste? It wasn't, and we should be thankful for that. For those people who are going to say, well, if we're not going to put it in Nevada, where are we going to put it, that's easy. Eminent scientists said leave it where it is and --

(APPLAUSE)

-- Department of Energy and the very powerful nuclear energy industry around the country. It's difficult for the public to comment. Why? Because tonight we have three security checkpoints they have to go through. One person, I repeat, said they would to wait until after midnight to testify. And then we get the commentator saying tonight, well, if you want to wait and finish your statement later, come along after everybody's finished and we'll let you have an extra minute or two. We're also told if you don't want to wait, talk to a Court Reporter. This is not who you should be talking to. You should be talking to the Secretary of the Department of Energy, so he can report what is happening here. This is unfair. I think it's the Nevada congressional delegation, in conjunction with Governor Guinn, are going to do everything within our power to let the people of America know that this is unfair what's happening in the state of Nevada. As a congressional delegation, we all agree. It's my pleasure to now introduce John Ensign, Senator from the state of Nevada.

SENATOR ENSIGN: Thank you for taking the time to be here. I know it's part of the law, and I know you have tough jobs to do tonight, but this is very important that we not only hear from the congressional delegation, but from the real people in the state of Nevada. Those are real faces that are in that audience, with real families who are very concerned about the quality of life that we have in our state, and feel that that quality of life is being threatened by one of the deadliest substances on the planet today.

One of the reasons that we object and people in the state of Nevada object to the Department of Energy and the way that it's conducted, this site characterization is typified by what's going on right now. Final characterization in these public hearings are being held before we have a final environmental impact statement. That was one of the documents Governor Guinn was referring to earlier and why we as a delegation are outraged by this. We think it's a wrong process, and we feel that it may be technically legal, it is certainly not a morally right way to handle these hearings.

The people of the state of Nevada have been looking at the DOE and looking at the way that they've been going forward. The science on this is not an exact science. There's been a lot of controversy as far as the scientists are concerned. And all the DOE scientists seem to be saying one thing, but yet outside scientists seem to be giving people of the state of Nevada quite different information. The other thing is is that right now, the Department of Energy's Inspector General is investigating a serious conflict of interest between the DOE and one of its contractors, Winston and Strom, who have been simultaneously representing the DOE and the leading proponent of moving waste to the state of Nevada, the Nuclear Energy Institute. Winston and Strom, who has advocated for waste storage without proper environmental safeguards, is now advising the DOE on the highly technical licensing application, which goes to the heart of whether Yucca Mountain could shield Nevadans from harmful radiation.

I think it is outrageous for the DOE to move forward before the IG has at least finished its investigation.

The other thing I want to talk about is the whole idea of whether we even need Yucca Mountain in the first place. See, I believe it is a bad idea to bring nuclear waste to the state of Nevada, not only for the people of Nevada, but also for the United States as a whole. We have this substance that, as Senator Reid was talking about, scientists have agreed that is absolutely safe to leave on site in their dry cask storage units, take them out of the cooling pours they're in now, put them in dry cask storage, which several sites around the country are currently doing. It's the cheapest thing to do, and that storage is good for 100 years. During that period of time, we ought to take some of the money, instead of building Yucca Mountain, and invest it in what's called recycling technology. There's -- you can call it pyroprocessing, you can call it accelerator transmutation. There's lots of different terms and different processes that are being looked at, but the bottom line is we have time to look at new technology for recycling this waste.

Yucca Mountain, which was originally supposed to cost a lot less than what the current estimates are going to cost, the cots have skyrocketed. People are talking now somewhere close to $60 billion, which is the most expensive construction project in the history of the world. This is wasted money, and it is money that, frankly, we're going to bury a very valuable resource. These nuclear fuel rods, which contain radioactive elements that will last 200,000 years, instead of trying to bury these things some place, which we don't have the technology as human beings to do that, instead of doing that, we can convert it, via these new processes, that will produce huge amounts of clean energy. And people are concerned about global warming and the various things that fossil fuels cause. We ought to be looking at these recycling technology, because we'll get a lot of clean energy which, also will help pay for the cost of developing this new technology.

We've been working on getting funding for some of this new reprocessing. It's not reprocessing. It's recycling technology, and that's where the Department of Energy should be putting its focus. Los Alamos, Argon Laboratories is doing some of that, but instead of investing all these scientists' efforts from the DOE into just figuring out whether Yucca Mountain is safe, we ought to put all our efforts in to finding recycling technology, which I believe will not only be the best thing for the state of Nevada, because Nevada won't end up with nuclear waste, but it will also be the best thing for the country, because we'll end up with a lot of clean energy.

And I want to thank you for allowing us to testify, and we're going to turn it over now to our house delegation who has been fighting tremendous effort with us in this battle to keep nuclear waste out of our state.

(APPLAUSE)

REPRESENTATIVE GIBBONS: I'm privileged to be here with our two Senators, Senator Reid and Senator Ensign, along with Congresswoman Shelley Berkley in fighting this effort to bring nuclear waste to the state of Nevada. I want to thank you for allowing us and our delegation the opportunity to testify this evening at this hearing.

Just over two weeks ago, the Department of Energy released the Yucca Mountain Preliminary Site Suitability Evaluation. Now here we are, attempting to make enlightened comment on a 300-page document describing undoubtedly the single most controversial project in Nevada's history, past and present. As elected officials, those of us here in Washington are privileged to have staff members help us make sense of government documents. That quite honestly not always themselves make much sense to begin with. Unfortunately, the public -- many of whom are in the audience this evening, and for whom this hearing is being held -- do not have that luxury.

Gentlemen, it took the Department of Energy and its professional scientists well over a decade to draw up this document. Yet, the public is expected to fully comprehend its magnitude in a short order and make comment on it. Well, I join with our senators in appreciating the 15-day extension. I am of the opinion, as they are, that it is way too short an extension. We should have been given the 60-day extension at least. Clearly, no scientific consensus has ever been reached with regard to ensuring public safety while transporting and storing high-level nuclear waste in Nevada, as has been previously stated. The safety of the citizens of Nevada should always be the government's highest priority and obligation, and we will not settle for less.

While I remain adamantly opposed to the current policy, I am hopeful that the Department of Energy will consider alternative means as suggested by Senator Ensign to solving our nation's nuclear waste problem.

To the Secretary of Energy this evening, let me say, it is my hope that your administration will not follow the same footsteps of your predecessors in supporting this irresponsible and misguided policy, and putting nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain. Let me say that having been to our nation's nuclear laboratories, I've personally witnessed the creativity and innovative thinking that is taking place with regard to transmutation and reprocessing technologies for nuclear waste. And I quite frankly am encouraged by that. And I'm confident that more reasonable methods of dealing with this deadly waste can become a reality, if given appropriate consideration and the resources to develop them. Nevadans, obviously, would like to be part of the solution. But not at the expense of the health and safety of our citizens. The bottom line is that whether it's 5 years or 50 years, or as the evaluation alludes to, 40,000 years, disaster is a very real possibility. With this project. Even a former top official in the Department of Energy who originally supported the initial recommendation of Yucca Mountain recently stated, and let me quote it to you, "Yucca Mountain is not a reasonable view, and in my opinion, should be put in mothballs," end quote. Clearly, Nevadans do not want to see minds changed tomorrow on decisions made today. Especially when it comes to their safety and their health.

I want to thank you for allowing us the opportunity and the rest of the delegation to testify this evening. And I certainly hope that the words we have spoken this evening, and the message that we have conveyed to you are taken back to the Secretary of Energy and clearly stated our objection to this policy and irresponsible process that has taken place. Thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

REPRESENTATIVE BERKLEY: -- first congressional District of Nevada. I wish I was there with you tonight so we could stand together in solidarity against this ridiculous project. I have listened very carefully to the Governor's comments that I thought were outstanding. Both senators who spoke eloquently, as they always do, and of course my colleague Jim Gibbons, and I'm not sure that I can add much to what has already been said. I'll be submitting additional testimony, but I think this hearing represents yet another disingenuous action by the Department of Energy. If the DOE was serious in its desire to include the people of Nevada in the decision-making process, then they would hold these hearings at a later, more appropriate time, perhaps following the release of the final environmental impact statement.

Despite the inappropriate timing of these hearings, it's -- oh, did they not hear any of that? Okay.

Despite the inappropriate timing of these hearings, it's important to address the scientific shortcomings of the studies to date. The Yucca Mountain Preliminary Site Suitability Evaluation represents the most incredibly optimistic evaluation of the Yucca Mountain Project. In fact, this document, not required by law, is being published by the DOE to try to drum up support for a failing project that has run into problem after problem. This evaluation is implausibly optimistic and sanguine in its treatment of key scientific issues relating to the site. The level of uncertainty that the DOE claims in its model is extremely small, while any serious scientific analysis would require a much larger range of uncertainty.

For example, the DOE claims the range of annual radiation dosage for the individual projection standard is .08 to point 1 millirem, a range of less than one order of magnitude. A more honest scientific evaluation would require a range of plus or minus five to six orders of magnitude. In this case, the range of dosage would exceed the EPA standard. The level of uncertainty that the DOE claims is so ridiculously narrow that even the Nuclear Regulatory Commission known for their pro-Yucca leanings refuses to grant the DOE a letter of sufficiency until the problem is rectified, further complicating the analysis of the project.

The projections made by the DOE are based on Environmental Protection Agency guidelines that are currently being litigated in the courts. At issue is the bewildering short compliance period of 10,000 years, and a weak millirem standards at extended distances. This document once again demonstrates how far we've come from the original idea of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. The original act was supposed to find a geological area with natural barriers that could contain the waste. This evaluation shows that the DOE is concentrating on just the opposite, on man-made structures that may or may not contain the waste. In fact, the majority of scientific uncertainty in this document centers on the potential failure of the man-made waste packages and containment structures. As a result, the DOE will end up spending, or will have to spend an astronomical amount of taxpayers' funds to build an unsafe nuclear waste dump, clouded by uncertainty and held to the lowest possible standards. Scientific evidence against the proposed Yucca site is plentiful, but each time legitimate arguments are raised, standards for Yucca Mountain are changed. In fact, on three separate occasions, the State of Nevada has demonstrated, using DOE's own data, that the site should be disqualified under both the EPA standards and DOE's own internal site screening regulations, and each time the DOE or Congress has changed regulations to ensure that Yucca Mountain is not disqualified, regardless of the health and safety consequences to Nevadans.

(APPLAUSE)

As a country, we must stop trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. Instead of trying to change the rules and dance around the law, we should immediately begin the decommissioning of the Yucca Mountain Project. The health and safety of our community, our country, and our families and the future of this great nation depends on what we do today, what we do here this evening. I think the DOE representatives see firsthand by the people that are in the audience tonight that Nevadans don't want this project. I don't know how much louder, how much clearer we can be.

(APPLAUSE)

We don't want it. Thank you very much.

MODERATOR LAWSON: Okay, I would just like to thank you -- if you can still hear me, I'd like to thank the congressional delegation for making themselves available tonight, and speaking so succinctly and well to this group. And I don't know whether they're going to stay to listen to any more, they're certainly welcome to do it if they're hitched up by satellite. As soon as I have a list of the people who are going to speak, we will start right in. I understand the first six speakers are sort of marooned in the back of that hallway and are going to be coming in this way, is that correct?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: There are two seats down front.

MODERATOR LAWSON: Okay. I'd like to now call our first speakers. We're going to take the -- I'm going to announce who the first three speakers are going to be, and I'm going to ask the first speaker to come right up here. The first speaker I have on my list is Gary Sandquist. Mr. Sandquist here? Our second speaker will Corbin Harney. And our third speaker will be Bill Vasconi. Is Mr. Sandquist here? If Mr. Sandquist is not, if Mr. -- is Mr. Sandquist -- please, if you're here, just acknowledge that you're here. If you're not, I'm going to start with Mr. Harney. Corbin Harney.

(APPLAUSE)

MR. HARNEY: My name's Corbin Harney. I'm a Shoshone Indian from Nevada here. I appreciate each and every one of you here this evening. You are the one that's going to put a stop TO this nonsense of what the DOE's been putting down.

(APPLAUSE)

It's been going on so long, telling lies after lies. Changing their policies and so forth. Like we have been saying right along for many, many years, I've been around here for 25 years, and I know Yucca Mountain is not a safe place to put any kind nuclear waste. It's not a mountain to begin with, like they've been telling us. All it is, just a rolling hill. And we, the people, always talked about that. That's a moving mountain to begin with. Because it's got a snake there, it's going to continue to move. Today, you, each and every one of you know that's pretty close to a volcanic, 7 volcanic buttes there. Underneath is hot water that's causing lot of frictions in that tunnel, and today they're telling you it's safe, it's not dangerous, but how come if it's not dangerous, many, many my people die from cancer? Caused from radiation.

(APPLAUSE)

Think about your grandchildren, your children and so forth down the line. How many more are they going to kill before they say this is dangerous? Let's not let this happen. I'm counting on you and each and every one of you. This town, in Las Vegas, if any accident ever happens, on the highway, railroad, whatever, they're going to shut this down. There will be nobody here coming into Nevada. A beautiful land that we, the people, can take care of. Beautiful water come out of those mountains, but whose contaminating it? The DOE. It's really sad to see those things happening.

We had to buy water today. How good is that water that we're buying? And they continue to spend millions and billions of dollars coming out of your pocket.

Let's do something about this together. I think we can change the direction. Let's change this DOE and put it to a better use than what they've been doing to us. We the people today is suffering, and we're going to continue to suffer if this continues on. We know in that part of the country, my people enjoy those land for thousands and thousands of years. They survived from that land. And today, they survive from those at one time, but today, there's nothing out there, because the radiation is killing everything on this face of this earth today. Not only here in Nevada, it's round the world.

I wish we can all stand up and tell the DOE we don't want this country of chemical, poison in the Nevada state at all. I hope that we can all say no to the DOE. This is what we got to have to say if we are going to have a voice in this at all. Not let them telling us what they can do ramming it down our throat.

This is what happened to us from the beginning. We are today the native people holding an empty bag. In other words, a promise is promise. Nothing happens in promise. It's the same thing going on for another few hundred years that I know of. Since '53, since I have been here, my people suffered and they using a native land throughout the country to bury this poison. Let's not let this happen. This is all we got to do, join hands together, enjoy the land, enjoy the earth. What we can survive from, what we can drink from.

We have to think about the younger generation, the future generation as they say, but they're not thinking about them. They're thinking about theirself. So far. That I see. This is something that I'm going to say to you. You are the one that's going to have to do something for your younger generation. If you don't think about them, they're going to be the one to suffer, and their life's going to end like what's happening today throughout the country. Maybe we just saying -- maybe they are just saying a good thing, but it's not true at all, whatever they say. Look at what they've been doing to you people. Statements after statements that we presented to them. You think they go through every and each one of them? No. They can't. There's no way they can do those things. This is what's happening today, so telling you people a lie, there's no statement coming from them that's really true. It's all a lie to begin with. Thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

MODERATOR LAWSON: Thank you very much, Mr. Harney. Our next speaker will be Gary Sandquist. Has he arrived? Great.

MR. SANDQUIST: We've had several hearings on private fuel storage in Salt Lake City, and I doubt if we've had more than two rows here, so let me compliment the people of Nevada for being active participants in this public process. Obviously the storage of spent nuclear fuel is an emotional item. I can recognize that and understand it. I am a Professor of Mechanical Engineering. I have been at the University of Utah for nearly 40 years. I have been involved with underground weapons testing, providing community radiation monitoring of these activities and such.

Right now we're confronted with some energy problems, as you're well aware in this country. California has some significant problems. They're easing, but that's because people are taking concern. But over the next 10 to 20 years, we have to face a critical issue in this country. How are we going to provide electrical power? That's something that I think the American people are not going to go without. We want electrical power. I kiddingly told my wife would she be willing to give up her washing machine and wash her clothes in the bathtub and wash dishes in the sink? She said she'd rather give me up.

Anyway, electrical power is essential to us. 20 percent of our electrical power comes from nuclear. That's not to say what the impact is in this sense, in this country, or in this state, let's say from that point of view. But you're tied into an interstate grid, and it's very important.

Greenhouse gases and global warming are significant issues. Nevada is a state that needs water desperately, and has some real problems with electrical power. We have to help the West. In order to resolve this issue associated with nuclear power, we have to find a place to store spent nuclear fuel. Right now it's being stored --

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Not here.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: How about Utah?

MR. SANDQUIST: Maybe it will be going to Utah.

MODERATOR LAWSON: Hold it. Hold it.

MR. SANDQUIST: Please, if I could have your attention. I know this is bringing up an emotional issue. We proposed that 40,000 metrics tons --

MODERATOR LAWSON: Excuse me. If I hear any more outbreaks, I'm going to have to stop and until we can have order here. I want to have every speaker have the respect of everyone in the room. And so we're going to continue. Mr. Sandquist, please.

(APPLAUSE)

MR. SANDQUIST: Utah is being considered for the temporary storage, up to 40 years of 40,000 metric tons of depleted, spent nuclear fuel. We have no nuclear plants in Utah. We do receive electrical power from the nuclear grid. But anyway, let me continue. We've -- we need to have a place to store this spent nuclear fuel. It's already there. It isn't a matter of wishing and desiring for it to go away. It's in 70 different locations throughout the country. It has to be resolved.

Now, who has decided or made this decision from the point of view that Yucca Mountain might be a reasonable place to store it? The National Academy of Scientists. The United States' best scientific brains that sit for the country have looked at this and said -- now maybe you don't really rely on them, but they make other very important decisions. Thank you. Besides that, the Congress, which you elect and maybe you don't like all of the Congressmen, but the Congress in '82 and '87 both decided through the Nuclear Waste Policy Acts that we needed to store this material, and after considering it, Yucca Mountain is a very attractive place to store this. Let me briefly --

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Attractive, that's the way we want to keep it.

MODERATOR LAWSON: I'm going to give him extra time, because you're eating into his time.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Thought this was supposed to be for Nevadans.

MODERATOR LAWSON: Excuse me, you're out of order, and I don't want to take the action that is in my discretion to do it. Everybody -- I don't want -- just -- wait a minute. Wait a minute. Just think of what's fair here. I don't want anybody in this audience or who's up here speaking being heckled so he reduces the time of that speaker and everyone else. Heckling for one person, you don't want it in the other direction either. Let's just proceed and move right along.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Is he a Nevada citizen?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: What's your affiliation?

MODERATOR LAWSON: There is no --

MR. SANDQUIST: I'll be happy to tell you that. I'm a Professor of Mechanical Engineering at the University of Utah. I have spent many years in Nevada.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Are you a Nevada resident?

MR. SANDQUIST: No, I am not a Nevada resident.

MODERATOR LAWSON: Okay.

MR. SANDQUIST: Let me just say, true education -- we have many Nevada students who come to the University of Utah to learn. True education is listening to all sides, not making up your mind. Listening to the facts, making a scientific, rational decision. Not letting bias make decisions. So that's what I'm here and trying to present to you in a sense, is a different point of view. You may not disagree with it, and I appreciate and understand it, but we do have an energy crisis. We do have 20 percent of our electrical power coming from nuclear. We must store the spent nuclear fuel somewhere.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: If you're being paid to say this, can you identify yourself, please?

MODERATOR LAWSON: Please, really, I'm very serious about this. I will close this meeting and go to the other sites if I can't have the respect -- it's --

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Go ahead.

MODERATOR LAWSON: Continue. Continue.

(AUDIENCE YELLING)

MODERATOR LAWSON: Okay, okay -- I'm sorry, you have -- that's it. I'm going to call -- are we ready to go to one of the other sites?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: This is supposed to be for Nevadans. It's a joke.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: It's a Nevada problem. It's for Nevada. It's a joke. You lie.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Throw everybody out.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: That's right.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Close the meeting.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Let him finish.

MR. SANDQUIST: I thought it was a public meeting, and I thought it was open to many ideas and discussion, and if that's not the case, then --please --

MODERATOR LAWSON: Okay, please. Please, let him finish, and then we'll go on to other speakers.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Close the whole meeting.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Let him speak.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Go back to Utah.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: In a real hearing, you have cross-examination of witnesses. We don't have any cross-examination here.

MODERATOR LAWSON: Excuse me, we have a person here who'd like to speak for just one second. He asked me if he could speak.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I don't agree with this point of view or his side of it. But I want my fair time. And I feel like he should have his.

(APPLAUSE)

Everybody gets a chance to speak.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I don't want to hear it from four locations. It's inappropriate.

MODERATOR LAWSON: Go ahead, sir, finish. You have two minutes.

MR. SANDQUIST: 20 percent of our power comes from nuclear, that's a fact. We have spent nuclear fuel which must be disposed of. Utah is being considered as a temporary storage for up to 40 years of 40,000 metric tons of this material. The transportation impacts upon Utah will be very significant. Most of that spent fuel will move through Utah, even if it does not go to Nevada, even if the site is not found to be acceptable. We must face up to that, and it's an important issue. Are you people willing to forgo 20 percent of your electrical power, are you willing to ask for global warming?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes, 20 percent.

MR. SANDQUIST: Let me comment. Nevada, Las Vegas is the fastest growing city in the United States. From the point of view of electrical power consumption, here is extremely heavy. It will cut back on your industry, gambling will go down the tube from that point of view. You'll have a lot of impacts if we forgo electrical power. It's interesting. And I do not, as a resident of Utah, I do not permit or decide -- I do not feel it's appropriate to allow all of that electrical power to be produced by coal and ship it to Nevada, the electrical power in California. So anyway, it's a public hearing. Let me present my side. I think it's an issue that we have to face up to. I recognize that it is not popular. There are many people who oppose it, and I can understand, there are many people in Utah who oppose private fuel storage. But it's an important issue. It's perhaps in a sense like the Second World War, or Korean War. Others -- there were many who opposed that, but part of the national will, it's necessary to make a decision.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: That doesn't compare.

MODERATOR LAWSON: 30 seconds.

MR. SANDQUIST: Anyway, please consider that that large fraction of electrical power comes from there. The best scientific brains in the country have looked at this, and the National Academy of Scientists and others have resolved and decided -- and let me just, as a brief last mention, about 2 billion years ago in a small province in South Africa, nature put together a natural reactor. It operated for 100,000 years and deposited its radioactive materials right on the ground. After 2 billion years, on the surface, these radioactive materials have not moved more than a few hundred meters over 2 billion years. Do you think mankind has the ability to put it underground, above the water table a thousand feet and below the Yucca Mountain range a thousand feet, and hold it for 10,000 years?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: No.

MR. SANDQUIST: Thank you for your time and attention.

(MIXED BOOS AND APPLAUSE)

MODERATOR LAWSON: Our next speaker will be Bill Vasconi, and he will be followed by Dario Herrera.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Point of process, point of process. I'd like to raise a point of process, please.

MODERATOR LAWSON: Please, go ahead.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Point of process. It seems as though there are people that have come from outside of Nevada, and we appreciate that. But I think in the best interests of Nevada and the people that have come here, that I would ask, I would ask the facilitator request that those people who have come from outside of Nevada to stay inside and let the Nevadans who are not being --

(APPLAUSE)

MR. VASCONI: My name is Bill Vasconi, and I am a Nevadan.

(APPLAUSE)

I've been here since '64. We all have our conventions.

MODERATOR LAWSON: Excuse me, Mr. Vasconi.

Somebody has made a suggestion. I'm going to leave it up to the people who may be from outside, there's other places to, another place here to use a Court Reporter. There's a public meeting. There is no, nothing that says that people have to be from any city, town or state to speak publicly. But obviously -- just a minute, please. I recognize, and I'm sure that people who are from outside of Nevada recognize the feelings of the people here, and I would just ask you, if you, if you want to speak here -- and you may -- but also recognize that there is -- whichever side you're on, there's a feeling here that Nevadans should have a right to speak --

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I want to bring up a point. California state line is only 20 miles away from Yucca Mountain. They are going to be affected as much as we are. If they're here, let them talk.

MODERATOR LAWSON: Okay.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: We're here, and we hate Yucca Mountain.

MODERATOR LAWSON: And before I ask Mr. Vasconi to go on, I have to note that there were a set of keys, set of keys have been found near the front entrance. Please reclaim them at the registration table. Some things are more important than others. Mr. Vasconi, please continue.

MR. VASCONI: Again, my name is Bill Vasconi.

I am a resident of Nevada. I've been a resident for 37 years. I was born and raised in the hills of Pennsylvania. Attended 101st airborne, came and went to work at Nevada test site for four years, radiation monitor. I have some 17 years at the Nevada test site, majority of them the testing site of the program.

The history, I have got a family here, three kids. They're married to members of the opposite sex. I've got six grandchildren. The only loss is the fact that they all became Republicans. I don't know what to say about that. I served in the state of Nevada, on committees. I cannot be intimidated so say anything you want to. I have served in Nevada on several committees, environmental restoration, waste management, board of directors of the NTS Development Corporation, Nevada Test Site Historical Foundation. I have served labor, I've served the Nuclear Waste Study Committee. In Clark County, I'm a Clark County resident. We don't have any problems here, do we? No, hell no. 50 percent of the people that live in this town have been here less than 10 years. Their concerns are this: Traffic, water, jobs, crime, schools. Schools. Schools. Think about schools. We're in a service industry here. Why aren't we giving our young people that graduate from high school an opportunity to provide themselves an education a long-term job beyond that of taxi driver, bed changer, bartender, working for the casinos? With an educational system built around Yucca Mountain, we can to that.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: What?

MR. VASCONI: Those of you who do not consider nuclear waste a national issue, address this, if you will. We've had 50 years of nuclear waste, defense waste from development of nuclear weapons, fuel rods by the U.S. Navy. You do realize we have 70 nuclear-powered submarines. 10 nuclear-powered aircraft carriers. We also have 81 research and medical reactors in universities. That's a national problem. There are those Nevadans that consider themselves not a part of this nation's nuclear issues and concerns. But may well be the designated solution for future generations of Nevadans and Americans. Some Nevadans, I among them, see YMP as a viable solution to this nation's nuclear issues and concerns. Nuclear waste, no. Nuclear waste, perhaps. We feel that they are those opposed to hosting the repository, but also they believe the YMP will be built if found scientifically suitable.

Nevadans are in firm support. 80 percent of want a strong role by the scientists of the state university and college systems and the scientific oversight and analysis. Scientists -- Nevadans have confidence in the State University system and believe it should have a vested interest in the studies, the operation, the monitoring, the health and safety, the environmental issues of the project. What's unfortunate is that our elected officials to this date have not done anything to protect Nevadans, including support for the safest transportation routes, securing funding for emergency management programs throughout the state. Let us maximize the benefits that can be realized by our states, the counties and the communities, as a result of the scientific and technological expertise that has been developed at the Nevada test site over the last five decades. Scientific studies conclude YMP provides a unique opportunity for Nevadans for equity benefits for the people. Meaningful dialogue should be initiated securing compensation to the State of Nevada. This equity package list should include increased funding to affected units of local government from the Nuclear Waste Fund for local impact and environmental studies. World class environmental and energy research centers in UNLV.

MODERATOR LAWSON: 30 seconds, please.

MR. VASCONI: Federal funding for state-of-the-art emergency response program, water rights issues.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Oncology lab.

MR. VASCONI: Are Nevadans informed of YMP issues? No. As for politicians, I question who works for whom. Is YMP progressing? Yes. Why aren't Nevadans involved with solution? Everyone has an opinion. But the opinions should be based on substance. The State and the anti-s always focus on the process. This is a standard intervention technique that demonstrates their lack of legitimate scientific or technological problems with the projects. The State's credibility is at a loss. We need leadership that deals with the YMP issues with some common sense and reality options. Realities of Yucca Mountain are far more dangerous than the political games being played.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Time's up.

MR. VASCONI: In conclusion, when the dust

settles --

MODERATOR LAWSON: Okay, okay.

MR. VASCONI: In conclusion, when the dust settled, and if Yucca Mountain becomes this nation's first nuclear repository, then what is the plan?

Nevadans' legislators need to re-examine it, strengthen our environmental concerns, as the opportunity to make the best out of this situation will soon be history as well.

(MIXED BOOS AND APPLAUSE)

MODERATOR LAWSON: Our next speaker is Dario Herrera.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I wrote my speech and I wasn't paid to stand at the mike either.

MODERATOR LAWSON: Our next speaker is Dario Herrera. And he'll be followed by Myrna Williams. Next speaker will be Myrna Williams to be followed by Dario Herrera, then follow that by Mayor Goodman.

MS. WILLIAMS: It's kind of interesting obviously I'm not Dario. But I am Myrna Williams, and I'm the Vice-Chair of the Clark County Commission. I'm also a member of the Nevada Nuclear Projects Commission, and when I served in the legislature, I chaired the high-level Nuclear Waste Committee. The Preliminary Site Suitability Evaluation itself is the most recent in a parade of DOE documents, and my comments will not address the substance of the PSSE, because its conclusions are readily predicted.

What is more significant is what the conduct of these hearings tells us about the DOE's contempt for the American people and about the scientific content of the Yucca Mountain program. During the entire Yucca Mountain program, the DOE has consistently failed to conduct public meetings in a manner that enables the public to participate in a meaningful way. And we see that here again tonight. The public comments on the Yucca Mountain environmental assessment in 1985 were never addressed. The public hearings were structured to prevent the public from even providing verbal comment on the document. The Nevada initiative undertaken by DOE in 1987 to subvert local resistance to the Yucca Mountain Project was a public relations disaster, because it relied on misinformation. It was designed to communicate the DOE message to Nevadans, not receive the thoughts on the issue, just like tonight. And you see half the time being taken by people through our, who are in some way connected with DOE. In 1999 --

(APPLAUSE)

The public hearings on the draft environmental impact assessment were constructed to exclude the most important public comment. The public comments that were recorded took place late in the evening. Literally hundreds of people were unable to voice their opinion on the draft EIS. And I see faces out there, many people that were there. Not once in the literally hundreds of public comments that were, were made, were they made a part of the official record on DOE documents in this period. There is no evidence that the DOE made any effort to respond to the public in a meaningful way.

Now in 2001, the hearings on the document that says the site is suitable are being conducted with only two weeks notice in an obscure barricaded facility that is normally off limits to the public. Once again, the meeting has been designed to make things easy for the Department of Energy, not the public. Once again, hundreds of people will not be able to comment.

The DOE constantly tells Nevadans that science will decide about Yucca Mountain. Did science demand that the hearings be held this way? Did science demand that only 15 days notice be provided for these hearings? The answer is unequivocally no. It is clear that the narrow agenda of some industry lobbyist sets the course for the Yucca Mountain program. Once again, we in Nevada are being sacrificed for the expedient politics. The only conclusion that is reasonable is based on the history of the Department and its indifference to the public, and public comment. The consequences of this indifference will be felt and will corrode faith in the Democratic process. The DOE is harming the nation, and I've got to tell you, that includes the EPA, who thinks that we can tolerate more radiation than 49 other states in the United States and our territories.

(APPLAUSE)

It establishes a painful precedent that will be taken up by other industries that need similar help. It shows that purchasing political power is more important than science, and more important than public opinion. The DOE has made Yucca Mountain program more dangerous tonight. The message that will be sent to this nation is that the federal government does not care what its citizens think or what they care about. People in other states are going to find out they can become targets too. I want to just close by saying, I hope those people who are up here talking about Congress and what Congress wanted understand that our Nevada congressional delegation never supported this, ever.

(APPLAUSE)

That's starting in 1982. Our congressional delegation and our good Senator Richard Brian nicknamed this the screw Nevada bill. Now you know, we're not going to let that happen.

(APPLAUSE)

MR. HERRERA: Myrna's --

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Who are you?

MR. HERRERA: I think they know who I am, thank you. Before I get into my statement, I'm the Chairman of the Clark County Commissioners, Dario Herrera, by the way.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Now I know. But I didn't know until you told me.

MR. HERRERA: What follows is a formal statement from the Board of County Commissioners. But before I get into our evaluation of this evaluation of the suitability of Yucca Mountain, I'd like to talk about some of the things Myrna talked about.

First of all, we join with the State of Nevada, the Governor, and our congressional delegation asking for a 60-day extension of this public hearing so that the folks who weren't able to be here tonight are able to be here and give their testimony. But we believe this evaluation is premature and at best incomplete. It doesn't provide adequate basis for consideration. The site recommendation by the Secretary of Energy, the President, the Congress, the United States, further, the absence of a final environmental impact statement to consider the issues and the suitability evaluation we think puts the cart before the horse. How can you decide whether or not Yucca Mountain is safe if you haven't done the final environmental impact statement? It seems a very reasonable question to ask.

(APPLAUSE)

A year ago or so, the County Commission had an opportunity to evaluate the draft EIS sent out by the DOE. We identified a number of issues, not the least of which was the transportation of nuclear waste along Nevada's roads. Nothing in the EIS suggested the population and the proximity of the population along the beltway. Nothing in the EIS suggested the proximity of residential communities to the beltway. Nothing talked about the growth in population, nothing mentioned the traffic on Spaghetti Bowl, on our beltway, on I-15. None of that. Our comments were submitted on February 15th, 2000. And rather than getting a response from the DOE, what we got was a letter saying that our comments, our concerns, have been catalogued. No response. Other than your comments have been catalogued.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Stab you in the back.

MR. HERRERA: It's incredible to me that the DOE really wants to pretend that they have Nevadans' interests at heart. Why they wouldn't take the time to evaluate the comments that the Board of County Commissioners, the City of Las Vegas, the City of North Las Vegas, the City of Boulder City, took the time and through our staff really tried to assess the impact that this could have on the health and safety of Nevadans, on the economy of Southern Nevada, and Nevada as a whole, and quite frankly on the quality of life that all of us have come to expect and I think deserve. Now let me say this -- I am appalled at the arrogance of the DOE. I am appalled --

(APPLAUSE)

I am appalled that our Secretary of Energy would not take the time away from Washington, D.C. to be with the Nevadans and face the people who he has to face to make this decision.

(APPLAUSE)

Certainly it's easy for him to be sheltered in D.C. and say, you know what, it's the right thing to do, but it's harder to be in this room, look these people in the eye and say, that's the right thing to do, when they know the sentiment in this room. Now I'm not here to make a political speech. I'm not here to make a political speech at all, but I am here to say that the Clark County Commission, with Myrna Williams' leadership, with my leadership, with the leadership of my colleagues, will do everything we can within our power to make sure that your voices are heard. In fact --

(APPLAUSE)

Myrna and I announced yesterday we're going to dedicate $1 million to join with Governor Guinn's efforts at the state level to provide legal challenges to anything the DOE decides that is not based purely on science.

(APPLAUSE)

Thank you. I want to take a moment to thank all the Nevadans, and certainly the people from our neighboring states, for taking time away from their lives, from their family, from their work to be here today. If the DOE doesn't value your comments, we certainly do. And we want to make sure that your voice is heard not only today, but before the decision is made. Thank you very much.

(APPLAUSE)

MODERATOR LAWSON: The next speaker will be Mayor Goodman, and he will be the last speaker before we go to Carson City. Mayor Goodman.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Go, Oscar.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Give them hell, Oscar.

(APPLAUSE)

MAYOR GOODMAN: Madame Chairman, ladies and gentlemen: I'm going to cut to the chase, because I know you all want to talk, and I am not going to take your time, but I want to send a message back to Washington about how serious we in Las Vegas and we in Nevada consider this matter.

When I was first elected, I pledged that I was going to do whatever I could to make sure that nuclear waste doesn't come through the city streets of Las Vegas. And I didn't want to talk out of ignorance. I went up to Yucca Mountain, I went up with Dr. Dyer and I went up with Dr. Ritkin, and we were on a bus, and after we viewed the site, I said to them, I said, "Can you tell me with any kind of certainty that this nuclear repository is safe?" And Dr. Ritkin looked in my face and said, "Nobody could ever say that with certainty." Well, if they can't tell us that we're safe, how dare they even consider bringing this crap here?

(APPLAUSE)

Now I say I'm the happiest mayor in the world, and I am, and I aim to stay that way. I've got four children are going to be moving back to the state of Nevada and my grandchildren and their children and future generations want to know that they're coming to an area that they don't have to worry about whether or not a truck is going to spill over when the grandfather is sitting as the mayor up on the 10th floor and looks down at U.S. 95 and sees this crap all over our roads. Because I've been told --

(APPLAUSE)

I've been told that if there is a spill like that, the driver doesn't have to worry about too much, because he's wearing a uniform. But the people around there within 42 square miles are having carcinogens put into the air which could give them cancer and kill them. And that's not going to take place as long as I am the mayor of Las Vegas. I'll tell you why.

(APPLAUSE)

We are doing something about it. We passed an ordinance, maybe the first ordinance of its kind in the United States, and it's been asked for by other cities and foreign countries alike, that anybody who drives nuclear waste through the city of Las Vegas, high-level nuclear waste, is going to be arrested. And don't dare me, because I tell you, I'll be there to make the arrest myself.

(APPLAUSE)

And I'll tell you something else. Let me tell you something. The most dangerous thing you can give to an old criminal lawyer is a badge. Okay?

(APPLAUSE)

But in all sincerity, don't -- don't test us. Because I've been told by all the constitutional experts in the land that the city can't pass a law that affects federal highways and federal byways and federal transportation. But I'll tell you one thing, I'll be out there, and I'll participate in the arrest, and let's see the driver try to get out of jail in my city. Thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

MODERATOR LAWSON: Okay. As announced, after this 30 minutes, we're now going to shift to Carson City, then Elko and Reno. Each of those sites have 10 minutes, and so their presentations will be live here. At approximately 8:00 or 8:05, we'll be back here with at least probably six more speakers here, and those speakers will be Rick Knight, Senator Bill O'Donnell, Mayor Jerry Kuhaida, and Suzi Snyder, and I'm also going to ask, we have a disabled person here who has been out of the hospital only two weeks. And she has not asked to move up, but I'm asking if people would mind if I take her as one of the six, and we take at our next session here? Okay, we'll now switch to Carson City. Thank you.

(Recess)

MODERATOR LAWSON: Okay, thank you very much, Reno. We appreciate it, and it came through loud and clear, as it did the other sites. Now we're going to return to Las Vegas here for 30 minutes of testimony. And the first person I'm going to call to speak is Rick Knight. Mr. Knight here? He would be followed by Senator Bill O'Donnell, and Mayor Jerry Kuhaida.

MR. KNIGHT: Thank you, Mr. Moderator. As you heard, my name is Rick Knight. I'm a business agent for teamsters here in Las Vegas, Nevada, and I would like to first thank the Department of Energy for allowing us to comment on what I envision the Energy Secretary doing later this year, which is recommending the site as a repository. All right, I hope the people from out of state don't get -- don't let a few hysterical emotional comments taint their perception of how true Nevadans view this issue. It's a shame.

(LAUGHTER)

This is an important issue, and to mock it isn't right.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Quit mocking it.

MR. KNIGHT: This is a hearing where we should focus on substance and not process. Okay? It is a process that was changed because the anti-s scared off the sun goals, and truth be told that's why we are here tonight. But that has been the strategy of the anti-s from day one, stall, stall, stall, play games and act foolish. Well, the teamsters don't stall.

(APPLAUSE)

Okay, the teamsters move things. Let's see the project move forward.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Why don't you move it someplace else.

MR. KNIGHT: But let's see -- but let's see it move forward based on good science.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: On money.

MR. KNIGHT: And today all the science indicates the site will be found suitable, and instead of criticizing the site, I recommend anyone who hasn't toured the site, take the tour and ask questions. Okay?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Oscar did.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yeah.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Our mayor did that, sir.

MR. KNIGHT: I've been a resident for 30 years of the state of Nevada.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: 33 here.

MR. KNIGHT: I have always liked the fact that Nevadans have had the reputation of being free thinkers. Now if science finds the site suitable, and my union brothers build the site like I know that we can, certainly make sure that the waste is transported and the site safer.

(AUDIENCE YELLING)

MODERATOR LAWSON: Please.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Please, let him talk.

Let him talk. Everybody has a right.

MR. KNIGHT: I don't want everyone who is in the room to think the shipments won't come through Las Vegas. You don't know the issues. If Clark County isn't able to keep low-level waste out of the valley, there's no way high-level waste won't come through the valley. Let's move on with the project, but let's oversee the DOE every step of the way. We can do this, let's get it on. I want to thank you for your time.

(MIXED BOOS AND APPLAUSE)

MODERATOR LAWSON: Okay, our next speaker -- excuse me, our next speaker is Senator Bill O'Donnell. He'll be followed by Mayor Jerry Kuhaida and John wells.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: What number is it, please? What number speaker?

MODERATOR LAWSON: Number 8.

SENATOR O'DONNELL: My name is Senator Bill O'Donnell. In 1982, Nevada was one of three names of three states that were chosen to be considered for the placement of Yucca Mountain, or placement of nuclear waste. In 1987, Nevada was the only state to be considered for a repository of nuclear waste. Many people in this room are afraid of nuclear waste. And many people are scared. The opposite of fear is knowledge. People actually don't fear electricity, they don't fear fire. And they fear nuclear waste because they can't see it. --

(AUDIENCE YELLING)

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Please, come on.

SENATOR O'DONNELL: I'm not running for re-election. I'm --

(APPLAUSE)

SENATOR O'DONNELL: I'm retiring. But what I have to say tonight I believe is very important to you. And let me be succinct. Nevada is the only proper noun in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. It says that if this site is suitable, we get the waste. Pure and simple. If it is suitable. And if you think, if you think that science is going to prevail over politics in this issue, look around. Now a lot of people tonight have said we're screwed. We're dumped upon. Now what?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Resistance.

SENATOR O'DONNELL: These people -- you know, these people are here, tonight, and I appreciate Secretary Abraham listening to my comments. These people tonight --

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: He's not here.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Where is he?

MODERATOR LAWSON: Please, come on.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Let him talk, it's unfair.

SENATOR O'DONNELL: These people tonight are here because the law says they have to be here.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: That's right,

otherwise they wouldn't be.

SENATOR O'DONNELL: Do you think -- the comment was made -- I was home taking a shower. And I'm hearing the television, and I'm hearing the man say -- I think it was Mr. Hanlon -- is one of you Mr. Hanlon? Where's Mr. Hanlon?

MODERATOR LAWSON: Ms. Hanlon over here.

SENATOR O'DONNELL: Was it Ms. -- there was a gentleman who said -- I heard it, because I was getting ready. I heard him say, you're only being considered. Considered? Well, what's your alternative if we're not going to be considered? What is your alternative? They don't have one.

The point I'm trying to make, the point I'm trying to make here is that we in the state of Nevada are all opposed to storing nuclear waste in our state. However, that decision was made in 1987. And I want you to think for a minute. This meeting isn't going to do anything. The law isn't going to change. And the proper noun, Nevada, will remain in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. It will not come out. None -- in the last 20 years, none of our congressional delegation have ever put a measure in to take Nevada out of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. Why? Because they don't have the votes. The point here is, Nevada needs the same consideration. We're the only ones selected. And it is political suicide for me to stand up here and say, you know, I think we need consideration for what you're doing to us. Nevada has done its part. Nevada has been there, and fought the cold war. Nevada has more nuclear waste stored underneath its land than you can shake a stick at. If you're going to do this, then we need to invoke the Fifth Amendment. You are taking our state. You need to justly compensate us for your taking.

(APPLAUSE)

And that's my message to you. It is political -- you'll never hear from a politician, you will never hear from a politician in this state, you know what, I think we ought to talk to the federal government and ask them where do they plan to transport this waste? Is it through the Spaghetti Bowl? Well, if it is, maybe we can ask them can they do an alternative route? Well, we can't do that. No, no, can't do that. Can't talk to them because if we do talk to them, then we're tacitly approving the fact that we want the dump.

MODERATOR LAWSON: 30 seconds.

SENATOR O'DONNELL: So we have no choice. I hope --

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Leave it where it is.

We're Americans.

SENATOR O'DONNELL: I hope, and I understand, that any political leader in this state cannot stand up and negotiate for anything, and make sure that our citizens are safe. And I hope Secretary Abraham, and I hope the DOE, listens to those who have cooler heads and will represent this state and be concerned with the safety. Let me add one more thing.

MODERATOR LAWSON: Please quickly.

SENATOR O'DONNELL: Just one more thing.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Time.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Shut up.

SENATOR O'DONNELL: One more thing. Did you ever stop and think about the politicos and making political statements? You -- I saw this room light up and stand up and cheer when they were going to arrest the man, the teamster, who was going to drive the truck full of nuclear waste in our state.

(APPLAUSE)

Isn't that a great idea?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I'm for that.

SENATOR O'DONNELL: Now who's going to drive the truck full of nuclear waste, and where are you going to store it after it's here in the city?

(APPLAUSE)

MODERATOR LAWSON: Our next speaker is Mayor Jerry Kuhaida, to be followed by John Wells and Sally Zigler.

MAYOR KUHAIDA: Thank you. Good evening. My name is Jerry Kuhaida. I'm from Oakridge, Tennessee, which has been a DOE community -- for 16 years. Tonight I'm speaking as chairman of the Energy Communities Alliance or ECA. ECA is a membership organization of local governments that are adjacent to or impacted by the Department of Energy activities across the country. Our membership has been comprised of over 20 communities in the states of Tennessee, New Mexico, Colorado, Washington, Idaho, Ohio, and Nevada.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Nevada.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Excuse me, I'm from the South, and --

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Be excused if you like.

MAYOR KUHAIDA: Our mission is to bring together DOE-impacted communities in order to share information, learn from each other, and effectively address an increasingly complex set of constituent, environmental, transportation, regulatory and economic development needs of those communities. ECA's goal is to ensure that local governments have a voice in all DOE decisions that impact local communities.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Take a plebiscite here.

MAYOR KUHAIDA: ECA's membership does not have a formal policy on a selection of Yucca Mountain as the nation's repository for spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. However, we do support accelerated cleanup of a DOE complex, so that the nation's World War II and Cold War moorage, that is the cost of storing and managing radioactive and other contaminants generated during weapons production, can be reduced and so that these sites can be reused to support economically viable communities nearby.

Obviously accelerated cleanup involves the transfer of waste from sites to which continued storage is costly and disposal is inappropriate. It goes to sites at which disposal can be accomplished much more efficiently and cost effectively. The Energy Communities Alliance recognizes, of course, the idea of developing central repository sites for disposal of nuclear waste in the United States. The key, of course, is to ensure that these sites are safe for disposal of the nuclear waste and that the transportation of waste to these sites through communities is done safely. Even a safe and well-managed transportation disposal of radiological materials involves material at disposal site region as a dump for unwanted waste generated elsewhere. The consequence is damage to the economic development objectives of such affected communities.

ECA believes that, based upon the results of DOE's Yucca Mountain Preliminary Site Suitability Evaluation, the results of the Environmental Protection Agency and Nuclear Regulatory Commission studies and standards setting, that the Secretary of Energy will recommend the selection of the Yucca Mountain Site, as a central repository for high-level radioactive waste and spent fuels from around the United States. ECA wants to ensure that the administration, Congress, DOE, NRC, EPA, the State and others understand the needs and impacts on the local communities around the site of this decision. From ECA's perspective, we want to ensure if the program advances, that the impacts of the selection of Yucca Mountain are mitigated and that the communities around the Yucca Mountain Site can benefit positively from the selection of the site. The Energy Communities Alliance supports the provision of resources to communities disproportionately impacted by waste transportation and waste disposal. ECA recognizes that the cleanup of generator sites in the DOE complex is economically beneficial to the nation and to the future of nearby communities.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Why are you here?

MAYOR KUHAIDA: But involves transfer of risk and potential damage to the economic future of the regions most affected by waste transportation and disposal operations.

ECA makes the following recommendations: Number one, the DOE should conduct a nationwide campaign for the cleanup of the DOE complex in such a way as not to jeopardize the public health and economic future of the communities in the region of the receiving sites. And that the DOE should take specific steps in consultation with local communities to ensure that this does not occur. These communities require adequate resources for emergency management, impact mitigation, equity compensation, and economic development. Number 2 --

MODERATOR LAWSON: 30 seconds.

MAYOR KUHAIDA: That the DOE agency responsible for the disposal at the site should be responsible for obtaining such adequate assistance from generator sites, and the generator sites shall cooperate in providing the needed resource.

Number 3, at the destination end of a major controversial nation shipping campaign, the risk of alternative routes be assessed. Further, the Secretary of Energy must ensure that economic development opportunities are afforded these impacted communities.

Thank you for your consideration. ECA appreciates the opportunity to testify at this very important hearing.

(APPLAUSE)

MODERATOR LAWSON: Our next speaker is John Wells. Is John Wells here, please? Are you John Wells?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: No, may I --

MODERATOR LAWSON: Is John Wells here?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Point of order? May I ask you respectfully to ask those who have a slot who are not from Nevada who do have access to the DOE, to put their statement on the record and not waste our time?

(APPLAUSE)

MODERATOR LAWSON: Before you start, Mr. Wells, I'm sorry to hold you up. I made the announcement earlier that we have an alternative place for people to speak. And I'll just remind you, you probably don't know, but I'm standing here with 122 names at this site, to speak this evening. I'm going to stay as long as necessary, but I'm also saying that if you want, if you want to make your comments on another record, you may do that in the other room. And/or submit written comments. I'm sorry, that's the way it is.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: How are we assured those written comments will get read?

MODERATOR LAWSON: I've been assured that they will.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: So there's no point putting them in there.

MODERATOR LAWSON: Never mind. Okay you're out of order. You're out of order.

Mr. Wells, you're on, please. To be followed by Sally Zigler.

MR. WELLS: Good evening. My name is John Wells. I'm here tonight delivering comments on behalf of the Western Shoshone National Council. The Western Shoshone Nation believes that the Preliminary Site Suitability Evaluation and all documents produced to date are deficient. The Western Shoshone Nation has a fundamental problem with the DOE's disregard for the proper role of Native American nations based on our inherent sovereignty, historical relations, international treaties and the U.S. Constitution. All too often consulting is consisting of brief conversations with individuals from Native American communities, after decisions are made, and policy is employed.

The cultural differences needed to be resolved by the DOE are at least as serious and difficult to deal with as they were 200 years ago. The Western Shoshone government understands the intended approach of the DOE to solving problems of high-level nuclear waste is to use science, not politics. Science is intended to provide knowledge and to inform politicians in the creation of policy. However, it is politics that directs and funds the efforts of the DOE. And so today, we are here to address both politics and science before the Secretary of Energy decides to recommend Yucca Mountain to the President.

The DOE claims it is following the direction of Congress under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. We are sure that Congress appreciates the administration's unwavering loyalty to congressional legislation. However, our view is that the rights, responsibilities and duties of Americans, including members of Congress, is unambiguously defined by the Constitution. Constitutional authority and prohibition against alienation of title to the Western Shoshone property interests exists in the following documents: The Northwest Territorial Ordinance of 1787. "The utmost good faith shall always be observed towards the Indians. Their land and property shall never be taken from them without their consent. And in their property rights and liberty, they shall never be invaded or disturbed."

U.S. Constitution, Article 6, paragraph 2. "This Constitution and laws of the U.S. which shall be made in pursuance thereof and all treaties made or which shall be made under the authority of the U.S. shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

Treaty of Guadeloupe Hidalgo, 1848, 9 Statute 922. "Special care shall be taken against those invasions, against the Indians, which the United States have solemnly obliged themselves to restrain."

Act of Congress organizing the territory of Nevada. 1861. "Providing that nothing in this act contained shall be construed to impair the rights or property now pertaining to the Indians in said territory, so long as such rights shall remain unextinguished by treaty between the United States and the Indians." The Treaty of Ruby Valley, 1863. "Treaty of peace and friendship."

As for the scientific process, the Western Shoshone government finds it limiting. This hearing tonight is limited by obtaining information from a small number of communities in the vicinity of Yucca Mountain. Due to the limited notice of these hearings, and the focus by the DOE of holding hearing in the vicinity of Yucca Mountain, many Western Shoshone communities are unable to provide testimony here today.

We believe that the DOE does not want to know the truth. But we will tell you the truth that it's caused serious harm to our society. The truth is relevant. And for the DOE, their truth is from the origin in a culture of secrecy. The DOE has created consolidated groups of tribes to act on behalf of Native Americans instead of the elected tribal governments. The DOE has appointed its own subcontractors, former employees, and paid others as part of this consolidated group of tribes. The DOE has developed cultural triage, a study protocol to deliberately destroy our living culture and pursuant of its intended development. The DOE has poisoned our lands with 828 underground nuclear weapons tests. The DOE has killed our people with fallout from 105 above-ground weapons tests.

To understand the geology of Yucca Mountain, the DOE has only to look at the underground test area to understand how the existing radiation in the soil and ground water will act. The enduring purpose of nuclear technology is the development of weapons of mass destruction. The DOE nuclear legacy of widespread radioactive contamination must be considered. We are already aware that the DOE has contaminated the ground water at the Nevada test site. We need to know where the plumes are. What the ground water flow is. How the radiation is transported. And what the lifestyles are of those who can consume the water.

MODERATOR LAWSON: 30 seconds, please.

MR. WELLS: The public has need and a right to know the extent of present contamination, whether they are at risk from present contamination from the DOE which is responsible. The DOE develops consequence scenarios of radiation exposure, isolated from the true real world, past exposure of our people, and the probable risks of our communities from radiation release in transport or on site. For the Western Shoshone Nation, our truth is that of a proud ancient people who have existed in the Great Basin for 1,000 generations. We have fought wars against invaders to our territory, and in 1863, allied ourselves with the United States by treaty emanating from international law. The Treaty of Ruby Valley. We were not conquered by the United States. Our property was not taken by the United States. We did not sell our property to the United States. And were never put on reservation. We are today as always have been, a free people with our own aspirations for growth and development. We wish to follow our dreams and aspirations and not have our lives and that of our future generations cut short by radioactive contamination.

Our experience with nuclear hazards is as victims, advocates and as scientists. We have experienced the adverse health, social and economic effects of radioactive contamination downwind from the Nevada test site. Our unfortunate experience as downwind victims informs our policy against the proposed high-level nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, no matter how much is spent.

MODERATOR LAWSON: Wind it up.

MR. WELLS: As victims, we live with the stigma of past radiation exposure that has not been considered by the DOE. Cumulative health effects are not considered by the DOE. The DOE is trespassing on Western Shoshone lands, paying nothing for the use of Western Shoshone property. The burden for United States nuclear development is being paid by the Western Shoshone Nation. Benefits such as grants equal to taxes, jobs, research grants and knowledge pass over the Western Shoshone people to nonnative communities and contractors. We believe institutional racism conceived long ago to be an ongoing policy of the DOE. Environmental justice is a new concept, developed to address the past inequities of government development.

We are not waiting for the DOE to employ environmental justice principles. We will state for the fact as they are, the DOE practices environmental racism. And we are the victims of that racism here in the Great Basin.

Democracy is the best form of government on earth. It is good for electing leaders. But not for deciding who you will dump nuclear waste upon. The failure of the DOE is a failure of the United States nuclear waste policy. The previous comments are provided on the basis of inherent government authority of the Western Shoshone National Council, as a legitimate protector of the rights and interests of the Western Shoshone people, to ensure that Western Shoshone public health, safety, property are protected because the United States law provides too little protection for Western Shoshone people. Thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

MODERATOR LAWSON: Our next speaker and our last speaker in here in Las Vegas before we move on to Carson City is Sally Zigler, and we're going to take a minute to get her comfortably over here.

MS. ZIGLER: It's very important to me tonight that I use my two feet to get up here. I just got home from the hospital yesterday, after over 20 days in the hospital. My name is Sally Zigler. I live in Henderson. I've been a resident of Nevada since '87. I have worked for the Department of Energy, contractor on the Yucca Mountain Project from March 19 of 1990 to October of '94. While I was on my job, and on a job assignment in Tucson, Arizona, lifting around a heavy technical information display for Yucca Mountain, I was injured. I had a cervical injury. It ruined three of my discs. The contractor that I worked for would not get me the help that I needed. As a result, I have not been able to work since 1994. And I am losing my eyesight. Because of chronic migraines, and what they call optic neuritis.

I believe very much in the storage of waste. I believe that something needed to be done. I worked at Hanford. I have six sons. My fifth son died of bone cancer. And they figured that he was contaminated in the fetus. I also lost my thyroid. I felt a responsibility to my fellow Americans. And to their families. Before my injury, I was elected to the American Nuclear Society Executive Board for Human Factors. I was hoping that I would be able to do something to help for the sake of my son that I lost. Since my injury, the Department of Energy and the contractor that I have worked for have gone into my medical records. They've put false things in my medical records. They said I was lifting an aluminum set, when indeed it was steel. It took 4 1/2 to 6 hours to put that, that display up. They sent a young woman with me who had been in a bad car accident the year before, and she was not able to do the work. I was told because I was over 50, that it was just my bones. For 7 years now, I have not been able to sleep in a bed normally, like most people. I've had to sit up in a chair. And I have come to the conclusion that bad management, is bad management, is bad management.

(APPLAUSE)

And I'm here to tell you, Nevadans, for which I am a Nevadan, and I plan on being buried here when I die, along with my son who died of bone cancer, I tell you that there are things that have gone on with the Department of Energy that are not right.

(APPLAUSE)

And if they tell you that there is that fund that will protect you, if they have us build, look at me. I was one of their own. I always got one of the top ratings. I was a workaholic. I believed in what I was doing. Do you think that they would help you, you, or you or you or you? Would they help any of you?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: No.

MS. ZIGLER: They would not. Now, I want to give you an example of how this applies to the community. In 1991, the government audit agent office was told to go to the Department of Energy to the Yucca Mountain Project, and we were called in as workers and told to put our heads down, not look them in the eye, so that they wouldn't talk to us. And all of a sudden -- I had been working on an administrative review process, which meant this -- all the money that goes out from the Department of Energy to any contractor, university, any agency, has got to generate a report. And that report was what I did when I wasn't on the road traveling for the displays. And all of a sudden, before the auditing agent came in, I had about 181 documents, approximately I will say 181 documents, that were controversial that the Department of Energy and its contractors did not want released to the public. Some of them had faulty science, and should have been eradicated from the system.

MODERATOR LAWSON: 30 seconds.

MS. ZIGLER: But some of them were controversial. These documents disappeared off the system before the auditing agent. So ask yourself, are these the kind of people that you want to protect you? Are these the kind of people that we want to put a nuclear storage system? And by the way, that is not liquid, that is a hard waste, but do we want to have that in our system.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: No.

MS. ZIGLER: John Ensign has said that tonight, if you listen. Thank you.

MODERATOR LAWSON: Thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

MODERATOR LAWSON: Okay, thank you all. We're now going to move on to Carson City. And then to Elko, and Reno. We will start back here a little after 9:00. Our first speakers here will Yoli Bell, Rod McCullum, George Harris. Hope you'll be on tab here, up front at 9:00. I'll now turn it over to Carson City.

(Recess)

MODERATOR LAWSON: Thank you very much, I appreciate it. And this is going to conclude the presentation of the sites one to the other. What we're going to do, however, is I think that there may be one or two more speakers at different sites, at least as of now, and they are invited to stay and to listen to the speakers here if they choose to do that. And so, we have a lot of people to go through, and I'm going to ask for your cooperation to move it as quickly as possible so that as many people on this list as possible we can get at a reasonable hour.

I am going to take a short break at 9:35, just to give some of the people that have been running around a little bit of a rest, but then we're going to start up and go right straight through at least for another hour and a half. The first speaker will be Yoli Bell. Yoli Bell here, and she'll be followed by Ron McCullum and George Harris.

MS. BELL: Good evening. I'm not a politician, I'm here as a parent. I have lived in Las Vegas or the Las Vegas Valley since 1987. First time I visited Yucca Mountain was in 1993. I took a group of my students out there just for educational purposes. I went again after tracking it, on August the 1st of 2001 this year. I read extensively. I didn't walk in just blindly. I read materials, I studied the materials, I went to the center, and I spoke to people, so when I walked in, I posed questions, expecting some concrete answers, and I have to say I was impressed.

I came back home, I spoke with my sons. I really value their opinion. I asked them what I -- I told them what I had seen and asked them what they thought, and I wanted their honest opinion, and they said, "Well, how do you feel," and I said I really truly believe in my heart that with the problems we have in society today, I don't look 10,000 years ahead. I look at today. I look at cancer. I look at heart disease. I look at lung disease, at emphysema, numerous of which I'm plagued with. I don't worry about what's going to happen 10,000 years now. I am worried about society today. I'm worried about the carcinogens that are plaguing us in the air through pollution, whether it be through water, by air. There are countless ways of being contaminated and getting into it our system. I read about the leukemia in Fallon, which is heartbreaking. I have read about the cancer that downwinders got back in 1952, due to the above-ground testing. Then it started again underground, and I empathize with everybody. I, I can't emphasize how sorry I feel for them.

But I think that the thing that I'm worried about right now is that when I look at 34 states having waste stored above ground, I -- and then I hear our congressional speakers speak tonight, emphasizing the dangers of this waste being above ground, and yet at the same time, saying, keep it in your backyard, we don't want it in ours, none of us want it in our backyard. Whether it's in Texas, in Nevada, or in Washington. I would be lying if I said dump it in my backyard. I don't want it, but the fact remains that if it's going to come, I have to think realistically and objectively. I try not to be emotional, because I'm thinking of my family as well. My feeling is if it's going to come and I have no control over it, then let's find the proper way to find the safety transportation to bring it and transport it and bury it 1,000 feet underground. I worry about another Chernobyl incidence. I worry about an explosion. I worry about sabotage, and for this reason, I do support burying it 1,000 feet underground because --

(APPLAUSE)

Because I don't think we have anything to worry 10,000 years from now. And I'd rather have it in a completely controlled environment, and since Yucca is the only site that's being evaluated currently, I have also seen the scientific intelligence, that's really quite transparent out there. I think we need to consider really going for compensation. The nuclear waste is not going away. It is going to continue for many years. We talk about progress, but what comes with progress? More nuclear waste, more growth, and more need for electricity. Therefore, after doing my own personal research, as a parent, I'm for it. Thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

MODERATOR LAWSON: Our next speaker is Rod McCullum, and he'll be followed by George Harris and Dick Telfor.

MR. McCULLUM: Thank you. My name is Rod McCullum. I'm a nuclear engineer. I work for the Nuclear Energy Institute, trade association that represents the owners and operators of the 103 nuclear plants in 31 states. We also represent a number of other businesses, about 249 members in total in the medical research, the scientific materials, science research communities.

We generate 20 percent of the nation's electricity. We do so without emitting harmful air pollutants or greenhouse gases. The scientific benefits of nuclear science are also quite extensive. We contribute significantly to the protection of our environment, and we contribute significantly to the quality of life in this country. We're proud of what we do. We're proud of our safety record. Those 103 nuclear power plants --

(APPLAUSE)

-- are embraced by the communities in which they are. They are --

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: What about Three Mile Island?

MR. McCULLUM: Even in Three Mile Island. They are assets to those communities. Those communities want them to stay. They want them to continue to generate power, they want them to be able to move their waste to a safe, permanent disposal site. I've talked to nuclear plant workers who used to work at other types of power plants and changed jobs because of a cleaner, safer working conditions at nuclear power plants.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: You're a PR man from the industry.

MR. McCULLUM: I am a nuclear engineer. I'm the technical person from the industry.

MODERATOR LAWSON: Just give the presentation.

MR. McCULLUM: Sorry.

MODERATOR LAWSON: Look --

MR. McCULLUM: Over this comment period that's been open since May 7th, we've reviewed the scientific documentation that DOE has produced. We've seen it discussed in numerous public scientific meetings. We've seen the science debated. We conclude from all this review that this is a convincing case. That Yucca Mountain is capable of protecting public health and safety. Science is credible. Science was conducted by thousands of scientists over a 20-year period. From all six national laboratories, and from the U.S. Geologic Service. These are the most credible minds we have. They are the best minds we have.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: From the tobacco industry.

MR. McCULLUM: They are independent scientists, and they have done this work at a cost of $4 billion, 7 billion on the total program, including the other sites that were studied.

The DOE science we find is conservative. We've had our own independence sciences from the Electric Power Research Institute do their own studies. They show that Yucca Mountain will perform even better than DOE's studies. And finally, we believe it because we look at the natural analog data. If you look at Egyptian pyramids, cave paintings in Europe, pack rat mittens in your own desert out here and other things that exist in nature and, of course, the natural reactor in Africa, you find in fact that this is credible. That we are not just making up the future. DOE's predictions about the future have credibility because we can observe the past. We see things can survive without the protections they will have at Yucca Mountain in less favorable venues that they radionuclides do not move through the geology. All this comes out to radiation levels of equivalent to what you would get in a year from eating 20 bananas, or from flying from Los Angeles to Las Vegas.

The same political leaders who are discouraging Yucca Mountain because of the risk this level of radiation might pose encourage a lot of people to fly from Los Angeles to Las Vegas, to bring the tourist dollars here. One thing we also know point about is fuel transportation. We know it's safe. We have a record in this country of over 3,000 shipments over 1.7 million miles of safety. We have also a much more extensive basis of experience overseas. In France -- where they reprocess use nuclear fuel routinely, the reprocessing of this material requires --

MODERATOR LAWSON: Excuse me, sir, just hold off a minute. I'm not going to take any more outbursts. I want to get through this meeting. I am starting to lose my temper. Let him finish. I don't want any heckling of other people from the other side either. Go ahead.

MR. McCULLUM: In France, the material is routinely transported across the countryside. It's the most heavily nuclear dependent country. It has some of the cleanest air in the world as well, yet because they reprocess, they transport it. Yet the French countryside is prime tourist territory. It's also prime wine country. You buy wine there, people go on vacation there. And it has not been hurt one bit by the fact that every day the same material is being shipped by road and rail through that French countryside.

MODERATOR LAWSON: 30 seconds.

MR. McCULLUM: To wrap it up, Nevada also could benefit, jobs, and diversity of the economy. Your tourist industry will not suffer. That is a myth. The government has an obligation to move this stuff. That obligation is past, present and future. All these nuclear plants, facilities and the defense complex was built on the understanding the government would take care of this stuff. The present consumers across the country pay $17 billion for effective disposal. And the future, what this is really about, future generations. It's why I can stand here, because even as not a Nevadan, my children or grandchildren might be. It's about all our children and what type of world we want them to inherit. Do we want them to inherit a world with clean air, plentiful energy, a world where society behaves responsibly?

Yucca Mountain is the right thing to do. It is the responsible thing to do. The Secretary and the science has shown us it can be safe. We have the regulatory process to keep it that way throughout the future. The Secretary of Energy should recommend the Yucca Mountain Site. Thank you.

(MIXED BOOS AND APPLAUSE)

MODERATOR LAWSON: Our next speaker is George Harris, to be followed by Dick Telfor and Forrest Darby.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you. My name is George Harris. My family's lived in this valley for 50 years. And I'm a business guy here. Okay? And I'm so happy you shared that information with me, because now I can go out and tell the 250 FAMILY members, all my employees and all the members, you know, you say it's okay to bring nuclear waste here. Here's the reality, okay? Perception's reality. All right? Pepcon, Pepcon crippled this town for two weeks. If the perception that a truck rolls over, nothing happens, with the way the media works today, it goes all around the world. And if you think I'm kidding you guys, think about this: You can go to Europe now, for almost $300, 399 round trip. Because a mad cow disease has destroyed their tourism. Okay? It's, it's shameful. All right?

I'm totally against nuclear waste. But I'll tell you what, we're Nevadans. Shame on everybody in this room for the way some of us have acted. We don't have to -- I don't agree with this guy. But our issue is right, we're on the right side of the issue. You don't boo at people, and I mean, it's embarrassing. But I'll tell you, the disinformation on both sides is -- you know, Harry Reid said today, on TV, you had to go through three checkpoints to get here. That's just not true. I drove right through -- I drove right to the gate, right to the parking lot. We can't lose credibility on the issue. Okay?

(APPLAUSE)

Don't -- don't sit and heckle. Don't say, if it's not -- we can all stay here. All right? I got to tell you guys, your credibility with me is a little shot because you can't even keep this room cold. I mean, you know, I am just -- I'm telling from you perception. I represent my employees and my family. And I've lived here all my life. All right? And perception's reality, and you guys, I win.

I -- and I also want to say this. Don't close your ears to everything either. Learn. I went to the nuclear waste repository thing two months when they were into it. Okay? It was like a 10-feet hole. All right? I have also got to say, you know what, guys, I need to go back up there and look, because I haven't taken the time to go back and look. But I can tell you what, when it's all over and in, everybody needs to stand in a line to make sure no one comes over this border with nuclear waste. Because it's only going to bring heartbreak to these families. Thank you very much.

(APPLAUSE)

MODERATOR LAWSON: Our next speaker is Dick Telfor, to be followed by Forrest Darby and George McCorkell. Its Dick Telfor here? If he is not, is Forrest Darby here? Please, Mr. Darby. You're followed by George McCorkell and Lyn Lawton.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Sir, what number are we up to?

MODERATOR LAWSON: We're around 14 or 15 here.

MR. DARBY: Yeah, my name's Forrest Darby. I was a test site worker, like a few other speakers here. And I have got all sorts of notes here and I will just jump around a little bit. I will try to keep them less than five minutes. One thing that the last speaker said that I completely agree with is the people who are against Yucca Mountain -- and they have great reasons for being against it, you know, there's a lot of good reasons -- if you heckle the speakers, you undercut your case, because it just, it just doesn't work very well for you. It's better to have both sides speak without heckling, and you know, the truth will win out, hopefully.

One little anecdote I wanted to talk about was when I was working out there, we had the major test, the underground tests, and a few days before these tests, we would have the physicists from Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore Laboratory would come in. They wouldn't come in during the six months that we set up for the test. They'd just come in maybe three or four days before the test. That was the only time that we got a chance to talk to these physicists. And Yucca Mountain was just getting started at that time. And I asked a couple of the physicists, I said, "What is more environmentally damaging, the underground testing that we're doing right now, or the encapsulated waste they're talking about sending to Yucca Mountain?" And he said, "Is that a trick question?" And I said, "No. I'm serious." And he said, "Of course the underground testing is more environmentally damaging." And yet we had, according to one speaker, I thought it was just 700 underground shots, but one of the speakers said we had 828. And we went ahead and we pushed these for many, many years. Everybody was -- you know, we didn't want to close down that industry, because we had tens -- we had actually over 10,000 workers out there and they were drawing good wages so we didn't want to shut that down.

But yet Yucca Mountain turns around with the encapsulated waste, and we want to stop that, and maybe we should. But it just seems like a real dichotomy to me that we were all for nuclear testing for so many years, now we're against the waste. I've worked on coal-fired powerhouses, nuclear powerhouses and so forth. And I can tell you that nuclear is a lot cleaner. As far as the pollution and so forth, global warming, nuclear is a lot better for global warming, so I mean, it doesn't cause global warming the same way coal-fired and oil-fired powerhouses do. And so there's some good things about it. Right now, in Area 5 out there, I don't know if they're still bringing in nuclear waste, but they were bringing it in forever in Area 5 at the test site. When one gentleman talked about how many thousand miles they've run with these trucks, on nuclear waste, well, they're bringing it in to the test site, and they have been for gosh, I don't know, 25 years.

Let's see, look at some other things here. Oh, Mr. O'Donnell, Senator O'Donnell talked about getting something for us accepting Yucca Mountain. I really hope we do, because I believe it was about 8 or 9 years ago we were supposed to get like $100 million a year for accepting this stuff. So I think there's some real positive things that can come out. We could ask for an awful lot from the federal government, because I think it's coming. Doesn't matter what happens in this hearing, I think this is coming. And I think we should get something for it. That's all I have to say. Thanks.

(APPLAUSE)

MODERATOR LAWSON: George McCorkell. Is Mr. McCorkell here? To be followed by Lyn Lawton, and then by Lisa Westerlund.

MR. McCORKELL: My name is George McCorkell. I'm the Yucca Mountain Oversight Director for Esmeralda County. I urge the DOE to work with the affected counties to develop an impact mitigation process and compensation package according to the act, and according to fairness and equity. We believe the impact mitigation is achievable and can be undone fairly and equitably. We also believe the cost is likely to run into the billions. We expect a significant level of assistance from the federal government with whatever resources are necessary to mitigate the multitude of impacts, both real and perceived, to Esmeralda County.

The citizens of Nevada are not well served by suggestions that impacts are so great they cannot be mitigated. This approach will only be ignored by policymakers and will accomplish to satisfy our needs.

None of this should be construed as an endorsement of the Yucca Mountain Project. Our goal is simply to be prepared to do whatever is necessary to protect the public health and safety and the quality of life for our residents, and create opportunity for Esmeralda County and for Nevada. This is the prudent thing to do in light of the fact that it appears to us that Yucca Mountain will happen, whether we want it or not.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: No way.

MR. McCORKELL: Thanks.

MODERATOR LAWSON: Our next speaker.

MS. LAWTON: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Lyn Lawton. I'm from Esmeralda County, Nevada. I'm a rural Nevadan. I have lived there for 28 years. Based upon review of the PSSE, the Preliminary Site Suitability Evaluation, the viability assessment and other technical documents, it is clear the DOE intends to move forward with recommending Yucca Mountain. But Esmeralda County has actively participated in the oversight process. We do not have the capability to independently determine if the site is suitable. Instead, we must rely on DOE and credible third party scientific organizations such as the National Academy of Sciences, and the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board.

Based upon our oversight of DOE, and the work done by other scientific organizations, we can only conclude that the site is suitable and licensable, and a repository will be constructed. This forms the basis for Esmeralda County's position that the Department must aggressively begin the process of impact mitigation, and the development of agreements which address the safety concerns for Nevadans. In addition, the federal government should develop plans to provide, and I say significant compensation to Nevadans to offset the fundamental inequities of the Yucca Mountain Project. Thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

MODERATOR LAWSON: Our next speaker is Lisa Westerlund. Before you begin, I have been told that 30 people have taken advantage of the Court Reporter in the other room. But I guess there's still space available, so if you want to take that option as the 30 other people have, please feel free to do so.

MS. WESTERLUND: My name is Lisa Westerlund, and I work for Esmeralda County and have lived in Central Nevada for five years. Goldfield lies in the main highway between Reno and Las Vegas.

We understand full well the fact, the dangers, dangerous cargo often travels on that highway. Certainly we are concerned about these dangerous cargoes, and as nuclear waste is added to the list of cargoes, we expect DOE to regulate those shipments to the same high safety standards that are used to regulate nuclear power plants around the country. We already have low-level nuclear waste traveling through rural Nevada and right to the Nevada test site, and we are happy that DOE has recognized its responsibility to help us to be prepared in case of an accident. The Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission must recognize the concerns we Nevadans have about safety of a high-level waste repository and transportation to get it there. We expect DOE and the NRC to adhere to a rigorous process for both licensing and construction. We are not afraid of the nuclear waste shipments, or of the repository of Yucca Mountain. But we insist of a rigorous safety program that be put in place, and we want to part of it.

(APPLAUSE)

MODERATOR LAWSON: This is DeAnn Siri, I assume? With Mike Anderson and Fred Tomme, and we will take a break after Mr. Tomme.

MS. SIRI: Good evening, my name is DeAnn Siri, and I am the duly elected Esmeralda County Clerk and Treasurer. I have worked for Esmeralda County government for 10 years, and have in Esmeralda County for 13.

Based upon our review of the viability assessment and the Preliminary Site Suitability Evaluation, we fully expect Yucca Mountain to move forward and be developed as a repository. Therefore, it is our belief that we must begin planning for the inevitable impacts to the repository program, particularly those related in transportation. Shipments to Yucca Mountain will most -- will almost certainly go through Esmeralda County, and we fully expect that Esmeralda will serve as the primary corridor for shipments by rail or truck for the next 30 years or more. Goldfield, the Esmeralda county seat, will be most impacted by these shipments. Goldfield does not presently have the infrastructure, equipment or emergency personnel to take on this responsibility. We fully expect DOE to provide assistance these areas. I request that the DOE immediately begin working with the county to develop detailed transportation plans, policies, mitigation strategies. Furthermore, DOE should develop equity compensation packages to compensate Nevadans for solving this issue. Thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

MODERATOR LAWSON: Introduce Mike Anderson, and then Frank -- excuse me, Fred Tomme.

MR. ANDERSON: My name is Mike Anderson. I too am from Esmeralda County. I'm also the -- I'm the Fire Chief for the town of Goldfield, and --

MODERATOR LAWSON: Before you go any further, I have to ask for silence in this room, so that we can hear, the Court Reporter can hear, and everybody else can. The people who are at the back of the room, if you have to speak, would you go outside so it doesn't interfere with people in understanding what's being said. Thank you. Please go ahead.

MR. ANDERSON: As I was saying, I'm the Fire Chief for the town of Goldfield, and I also serve on the Esmeralda County Local Emergency Planning Committee. As a trained responder, I recognize that in many respects, the transportation of radioactive materials may be safer and less of a threat to public health and the environment than are shipments of other types of hazardous materials which routinely travel through Esmeralda County and the town of Goldfield. The Esmeralda County Commission and its first responders are ultimately responsible for the health, safety and well being of the county residents.

Currently, Esmeralda County does not have the volunteers to staff adequate training to respond to a major radioactive materials incident. It is therefore vitally important that the Department of Energy begin a constructive dialogue with the county concerning mitigation of impacts from high-level radioactive waste transportation to Yucca Mountain. The Department should also begin developing policy in cooperation with local governments on a wide range of issues, including transportation modes, routes, inspections, management and other issues of importance. Yucca Mountain is probably going to happen, whether we like it or not.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: No it isn't.

MR. ANDERSON: So we better start doing something to protect our interests and people that live in the state. Thank you.

MODERATOR LAWSON: Is Fred Tomme here? T-O-M-M-E? If he's not, is Abby Johnson here?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: He's in Reno.

MODERATOR LAWSON: Is Abby Johnson? Is Dr. Jacob Paz here?

DR. PAZ: Yes.

MODERATOR LAWSON: Dr. Paz will be the last person before we take a break.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: What number is he?

MODERATOR LAWSON: 20.

DR. PAZ: My name is Dr. Jacob Paz. Just very briefly, my education. I have a PhD from Brooklyn Polytech. I was a research assistant professor, worked for EPA. I was -- I will submit everything in writing so you don't have to take this. I have several uncertainties which has been ignored and need additional research. My approach is based upon scientific data and scientific ethics. I don't take side. I work with both sides.

Number 1, we forgot that Yucca Mountain, in addition to the present nuclides, we have highly toxic carcinogens of chromium and nickel and potentially deuterium. There is a very good probability that Yucca Mountain Project could become a RCRA site and CERCLA site, because of the corrosion of heavy metals.

EPA have very clear regulation which is prohibited present of RCRA site in seismic affected area. Why this was not addressed in the EIS and other?

Second, in my opinion, I think, as a scientist what I, that Yucca Mountain, when I read the review of the absorption material by radionuclides, they missed one things. That we have a mixtures of heavy metals, and a mixtures of radionuclides, and what will happen what is absorption rate affinity replacement and the rate of increasing of radionuclides or heavy metals? It was not properly addressed. There is potential of increasing risk to human health.

Furthermore, most of the study at Yucca Mountain of the absorption has been done on a small laboratory scale. Now to take this experiment to the mountains, and to make a decision might introduce a very serious error. You have to do verified it by large columns field testing.

Another point which is caused me very great concern is oxidation of manganese oxide -- I am sorry, oxidation of chromium plus 6 which is highly carcinogen. I read the EIS, I read the related literature, and I have not found a very clear and precise scientific evidence to address the issue of oxidation by manganese oxide, which is present in large quantity in the Yucca Mountain. Only by additional research it can be addressed and solve the issue. The issue is very complex.

Another issue is why management have failed to incorporate it, the Nevada test site risk assessment of the 800 underground nuclear tests which has been conducted of these -- at 259 tests were presumed to have an impact on ground water, 112 were detonated in the ground water. Recently, we have an increase in awareness and questions about synergistic antagonism interaction. The EPA has been published guidelines. There has been called in the literature, and I have a list many, it's included in Presidential Commission on Risk Assessment in 1997. There is -- the National Science Research Council, NCRP, they have called to do this type of research and interaction between chemicals and radionuclide, and what I'm seeing it's very important, because if you take chromium and nickel together, there is a publication of the EPA which has been published, showing enhanced carcinogenicity. What is the impact, interaction between those chemicals and radionuclide is unknown. Despite my request for funding from DOE, I was told it's somebody else. DOE is responsible to site contamination.

Second, there was a call for the President and the Secretary DOE and many high official at YMP to do this research I couldn't go through.

Last, EPA has been published ground water as a methods of treatment of the waste -- I'm sorry, with the radioactivity in ground water. I think there is an, is not compliance, because under RCRA disposal restriction, you cannot do it. It's prohibited. Question mark? Should be, it's a very clear noncompliance.

In conclusion, their approval of Yucca Mountain as a high nuclear repository should be based only the best available science and technology. At this point, there are several major scientific deficiencies which must be addressed by additional research. YMP must comply with all EPA standard and regulation, and I like to throw a question for my friend here, which state to me we're going to use the best technology. Would he sponsor a research funding on the complex mixtures? I'm willing, and I'm working, I will provide the technical data if I will be funded. Both sides, I am a scientist. I don't take position.

MODERATOR LAWSON: 30 seconds, please.

DR. PAZ: Finished.

MODERATOR LAWSON: Thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

MODERATOR LAWSON: Can I ask you to leave your comments?

DR. PAZ: I'll just leave a copy, because I am going to submit it by writing very comprehensive.

MODERATOR LAWSON: I would also ask you and anybody else -- because this brings up the point -- that if you have other information or publications that you feel should be made part of the record, don't forget to include those. So we can make them as exhibits for the official record. We're now going to take a break. 7 minutes? 7-minute break which will get us back, according to that clock, in about 12 minutes of 10:00. I'm going to start immediately there, so please be back in your seats at that time. Thank you.

(Recess)

MODERATOR LAWSON: I'm going to ask you to please take your seats, or leave the room if you're still talking. Is Abby Johnson here, by the way? While we're waiting for that 30 seconds to expire, I just want to remind you that the individuals who are riding the Clark County bus that leaves at 10:00, it leaves at 10:00. You get it at the same place it deposited you in the first place. I still have this case of Pearl Vision sunglasses, if anybody wants to claim it.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I think somebody from Esmeralda left it there.

MODERATOR LAWSON: I think we're ready to begin. Court Reporter all set? Okay, thank you very much. Our next speaker will be Abby Johnson and Ms. Johnson will be followed by Chuck Muth and Melanie Walker.

MS. JOHNSON: My name is Abby Johnson. I'm the Nuclear Waste Adviser for Eureka County, Nevada. I'm speaking on behalf of Eureka County tonight, and tonight we're going to focus on some process issues. The first process issue is, it would be very helpful when you call somebody's name, to also say what their number is.

MODERATOR LAWSON: 19.

MS. JOHNSON: I know that now. But that would help so people can anticipate when they should be in the room to speak.

MODERATOR LAWSON: Good.

MS. JOHNSON: You've already heard rather articulately from Crescent Valley, Eureka County resident Joseph Caruthers who was at the Elko site about the impacts of building a nuclear waste rail line through our county. So I'm not going to talk about that. I have wanted all night to have a point of order concerning Section 114 A 1, of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, which says the Secretary shall hold public hearings in the vicinity of the Yucca Mountain Site, for the purpose of informing the residents of the area of such consideration and receiving their comments regarding the possible recommendation of such site. I think that the Facilitator and the Board should take comments from people in the vicinity of the site, that is Nevada, California, rather than people who are from other parts of the country. I talked to a woman who had to go to work on the swing shift, and so she was unable to stay. I've talked to parents who have had to leave and put their children to bed, which is the right thing to do. But, they should not be sitting here waiting to talk when people who are not in the vicinity of the site get to talk. I think it's wrong.

(APPLAUSE)

It is appalling that DOE would choose to do such a bad job of conducting these congressionally-mandated hearings. You have had 14 years to prepare for these hearings. And this is the best you can do?

(APPLAUSE)

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Amen.

MS. JOHNSON: Now when you want to tell Nevadans that you're ready to make Yucca Mountain a permanent nuclear waste repository, and ask them what they think, you don't have the courage to do the job right. It takes courage to tell the Secretary of Energy, the President, and the nation that Yucca Mountain is a bad site.

(APPLAUSE)

It takes courage -- it takes courage for the Secretary of Energy to personally face the people of Nevada. And hear and read their comments. I understand that he'll be reading compiled comments with staff rebuttals, those yeah-buts. He won't actually be reading the transcript of these meetings. I may be wrong, but that's what I was told by DOE. And it takes real courage, real, real courage to rewrite your own siting guidelines so that the repository will not be disqualified, which it would be under your existing guidelines. Your handling of this hearing process is an analogy to the entire project. You've bungled these hearings, and yet you want us to trust that you can dispose of nuclear waste safely.

(APPLAUSE)

The truth is, the truth is that Yucca Mountain will not contain the deadly radiation for its hazardous life. As I tell my son, end of discussion. DOE, you are the weakest link. Good-bye.

(APPLAUSE)

MODERATOR LAWSON: Thank you, Ms. Johnson. The next speaker was Chuck Muth. Is Chuck Muth here? If not, I would go to Melanie Walker.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: What number?

MODERATOR LAWSON: Number 23. Melanie Walker, 23. 24, Reid Walker. 25, Bob Wisne, is it? W-I-S-N-E? Number 27, Pete O'Neil. Mr. O'Neil to be followed by Number 28, Lou DeBottari. I know he's here. Would somebody notify him out in the hall, please? Here, he is here, okay. And then following him would be Herbert Marks.

MR. O'NEIL: Pete O'Neil, 27.

MODERATOR LAWSON: Good, thank you.

MR. O'NEIL: Good evening, I'm Pete O'Neil. I love up on Sunrise Mountain. I'm part of the new minority here in Las Vegas. 50 percent of us that haven't lived here 10 years. We're foster parents, we have three kids. And it's strange that this project, I think, has brought the community together in ways I don't think, I don't always see. Citizens and community groups, concerned about the future of Las Vegas, Southern Nevada and its residents have come together tonight. Some booing, some not. And the crisis, what -- it's from the Latin word, "point of decision." And unfortunately, a lot of what we're discussing tonight, a decision was made many years ago. If I was here back in 1987, I'd have been in Washington, D.C. on the steps of the Capitol raising hell, and it wouldn't have been passed, but it was.

I don't know if I mentioned too, I'm a candidate for U.S. Congress in the Third District, so that's why I'm really interested, along with my kids, and doing something about this. Somebody laughed, but you know, earlier this evening the politicians that were making a big fuss about this -- you know, I have a 2-year-old that has really bad asthma, and here in Las Vegas, it's really hard to treat. And we've had to go to doctors outside the state, and that's a huge health issue right now. We even went to some of the county and city officials. They didn't seem to care about it at all.

In the past, the federal government has built some great projects. You know, put a man on the moon, Hoover Dam. Federal funds go to help build normally what we think are good things, you know, new roads, bridges, community centers. Military planes to protect us. And unfortunately, sometimes also towards nuclear waste and depositing nuclear waste. And then sometimes we can't always trust our government. And you know -- but we can't distort things. And this evening, you know, I was going to make fun of it, but it was six security chick points we had to jump through tonight listening to Senator Reid.

I will say in the past two months, for information that I've been compiling, I could show you over there, I have got like five phone books from the Department of Energy. They've been very helpful, they've given me everything I needed, and I flunked out of chemistry, so this has been a difficult thing for me to try to get my hands around.

I have called people back East, even called some scientists in Europe who are sending me information about recycling. I am waiting for that next week. I will say the Department of Energy for me has given everything I have asked for. They've given me -- their staff has been terrific, always giving me as much information, and one of the things I've noticed in the last couple of weeks is that some of us are demonizing the federal employees, federal staff and scientists working on this project. And as earlier people have said, that's no good. You need to dialogue. And when you try to make, demonize people that are just doing their job following what was laid out in 1987, it's not going to make things any better.

With this said, it's time for us to get with our eyes open and with as much information and facts as we can find, move forward. Yucca Mountain is being considered because the fact that it's part of the nation's energy needs, in the past 40 years, included nuclear fuel. Our industrial growth over the past four decades was in part fueled by nuclear energy. And as a byproduct over these last 40 years, we are now storing nuclear waste temporarily at all these sites nationwide. It has to be stored somewhere. There is discussions that it could be stored locally, and then recycled, and like I said, the facts, I personally need to do more research. And you can talk to some people and they say hey, it's there, it can happen. You know. We need to do a little bit more research.

Close review shows that the biggest threat, though, I feel to Las Vegas, is transportation of waste to Yucca through the valley. That's why if proposed, the O'Neil Las Vegas Valley Protection Act could prevent that. You know, those of us earlier tonight that were booing and stuff, you know, I believe in Santa Claus. But it's when I'm around my children. And those of you here tonight that can tell me the governmental body that you're going to go to that will reverse this decision, please let me know when I leave tonight, because I'd like to know it. That's the fact, unfortunately.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Public in Nevada's going to stop it, sir.

MODERATOR LAWSON: 30 seconds.

MR. O'NEIL: One thing I will question that I'm going to submit also though, is when I lived back in New York for a couple of years, I used to go to Grant's Tomb up on the Upper West Side, and it was at that time over 100 years old and it was leaking and really in bad repair. I used to ask the federal rangers about the facility, and I'd say, "When are you guys going to make the repairs?" They'd be like, "We don't have the money to make the repairs." So in this research, in this information I have looked over, it has to be rebuilt every 100 years. So I just wanted to know if there's funds guaranteed to the state to guarantee that those -- in 100 years that federal government doesn't have the budget to do it, that we can do it.

I'll just close with a couple of quick things. You know, I think some of the statements made earlier this evening maybe riled us up and gets us excited. Nobody wants nuclear waste, but I don't think when we take that tact, it furthers our cause. We need to get our hands around this and be part of the decision-making process. Those -- as much as we want to think that Yucca Mountain isn't going to happen, it's going to take an act of Congress to stop it. And then any safety precautions will also have to take an act of Congress. Main issue will be transportation. When you take 40 years of waste, put it on the roads and have it go through Las Vegas, that's going to be dangerous, so we need to do some bypass roads, we need to do guaranteed a track system and compensation. I have had some people call me the last couple of days and say it's horrible we would ask for compensation. It happens. We're entitled. It's under the agreement, and we need to look into that.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Not enough money in the treasury.

(APPLAUSE)

MODERATOR LAWSON: Our next speaker is Mr. DeBottari, to be followed by Herbert Marks and Mark Frieze.

MR. DeBOTTARI: This is a first for me. This document, 480-plus pages, attempts to justify a site and compare it to a requirement that has been proposed but not approved. Nowhere in the report is there any mention that the site meets any of their requirements that were established for the deep geological disposal of high-level nuclear waste. The report attempts to tell the powers-to-be that if the proposed criteria is approved, the site will be suitable. This is like saying, here are the requirements for an airplane. The contractor replies, here's my proposal, and if you change the criteria and method of evaluation, I can simulate all the parameters that are based on my experience, instead of flying the plane. I can build your airplane. Would anyone be the first one to fly in that plane?

The Department of Energy's record has been at best poor when it comes to operating any site that was required to meet health considerations. The entire report uses a simulation that has not been approved to justify the statements that the site is adequate. DOE states that the site will meet the proposed criteria for the regulatory period. This 10,000-year period has no correlation to the period of dangerous radiation. Figure 3.3, page 3-10 clearly illustrates the problem past 10,000 years. The annual -- the mean annual dose at 20,000 years is 500 millirems per year. This far exceeds the EPA specified dose limit beyond the artificial requirement of 10,000 years. This illustrates the folly of the 10,000-year requirement as a regulatory period.

It is interesting to note that DOE, after reviewing the results of their own simulation, decided the data didn't look too good. It shows there was no radiation before 10,000 years, period. So DOE simply varied some of the simulated data and ran the simulation again to show that radiation exposure was minimal for many more years. This proves the entire simulation process is suspect. The entire report is fraught with questions concerning parameters used in the simulation. The reader is given a list of reports without the DTN number, making it very difficult to find the information. One example of this is the corrosion rates of Alloy-22. Alloy-22 corrosion resistance depends in part on the thin film. DOE has simulated the effect of earthquakes, humidity, temperature, et cetera, on the life of the waste package. The placement of the waste packages on the support legs will cause damage if there's any rubbing motion as the support legs and waste package come in contact. Small earthquakes will cause slight movements between the two pieces and will break the film.

I could not determine that DOE simulated many point defects in the film, and used these defects in the simulation. One must assume that the film on these waste package was damaged during installation, and the natural repair of the film was interrupted many times during the time before closure and during the 10,000 years, due to small earth tremors. Please tell me the report and page number where this problem is discussed and evaluated. I don't want an answer that says, quote, "We studied the problem."

Alloy-22 is the centerpiece on which DOE build their case that man can build a system that will withstand the elements of mother nature for a minimum of 10,000 years without any maintenance. This far exceeds what man has done to date. DOE and the nuclear power industry want the public to believe that they are smarter engineers than God.

I have more -- I have many more questions on performance. Because of time constraints, I will speak to one more. DOE proposes to use helium, page 3-78, to conduct the heat from the center of the waste package to the outside ambient. Helium is a very difficult gas to contain, as it easily diffuses through metal. The welds may be structurally strong, but I question the robustness of the metal cask to contain helium, even through 500 years. This comes from experience of at least 30 years in the use of helium. I would like the DOE to show why they think they have solved this problem, and how they can prove it, and more important, how do they know the helium is in the container before the site is closed? Again, I do not want an answer to be, it was studied. Where was it studied, what's the page number? Not the DTN. I can't follow that.

It has become clear that DOE, after investigating minimal natural barriers, concluded that engineering barriers are required to contain the high-level nuclear waste, so as not to harm future generations. The DOE has continually added engineering barriers to replace the nonexisting natural barriers. The DOE, after much study and simulation, finally came to the conclusion that the original criteria could not be met. The DOE-proposed criteria has not been shown to be credible when examined against the real purpose of a deep geological repository.

MODERATOR LAWSON: 30 seconds.

MR. DeBOTTARI: The proposed site cannot ensure that waste can be isolated for as long as it's a hazard to future generations. Congress selected this site based on incomplete data, assuming the natural barriers in the Southwest would be adequate, in other words the salt mines, and that engineering barriers would augment the natural barriers. It now appears that the natural barriers are about 5 percent, a fact very cleverly concealed in this report.

Mr. Secretary, in all good conscience, can you recommend to the President that this is a good site, when about 95 percent of the containment is man-constructed from materials that have been tested for no more than .004 percent of the required years? This site, based on all the simulation to date, is not a suitable deep geologic repository for high-level nuclear waste. It would be just as safe to leave it above ground, as DOE has done in the past at some of their sites. Please, Mr. Secretary, wherever you are, do not rely on man-made barriers to ensure the safety of future generations. There are sites in this country that are far more suitable and do not require engineering barriers as a first line of containment. The northern portion of the state of Wisconsin is one such site. This is the same type of site that Sweden and Finland are considering for their deep geological repository, which have been praised by members of the White House and the nuclear energy lobby.

MODERATOR LAWSON: I must ask you to complete your comments.

MR. DeBOTTARI: I have three sentences. The Yucca Mountain Site does not have adequate natural barriers, and DOE has demonstrated that it cannot, after spending billions trying to justify a bad decision, made by Congress, replace mother nature. Please do not let this continue. I will add more comments on this report when I send it to DOE. Thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

MODERATOR LAWSON: Thank you, sir. I would just -- we went 8 minutes on that, we went 6 on the last one. I'd just ask you to please try to keep it to 5 minutes. When I give you 30 seconds, try to summarize the rest of your comments, especially if you have written comments that you can submit, please do that, in the interests of time.

Our next speaker is Herbert Marks, who I believe is right here, to be followed by Mark Frieze, who's number 30 and Frank Perna.

MR. MARKS: I am a resident of Las Vegas. I've been out on the streets of Las Vegas. I've seen the response of the public to the issue of Yucca Mountain. I don't understand all the scientific issues, but for my money, I'd prefer to agree with the last speaker's science rather than the DOE's science. But let's get back to reality. The people of Las Vegas, of Clark County, of the state of Nevada, do not want Yucca Mountain. The city officials --

(APPLAUSE)

MR. MARKS: The county officials, the state officials do not want Yucca Mountain. Our congressional delegation does not want Yucca Mountain. The most important thing that will come out of this meeting is a united opposition of the people of Nevada to Yucca Mountain. The DOE, the nuclear power industry, the Congress, the Bush administration, will not ride roughshod over that united opposition. People here have spoken --

(APPLAUSE)

-- of benefits. The NEI has hired former Governor List to sell Nevada on the benefits. You may note that I'm not young any more. In fact, I'm old enough to have lived through the great depression and the great world war. In preceding World War II, there was a fellow who spoke of benefits to England in negotiating with Germany. Yes, with Adolph Hitler. He went to Munich. We know what happened in Munich. I've been following national affairs since 1932. This idea of negotiating benefits reminds me of Neville Chamberlain. He negotiated with Germany to turn over 20 percent of Czechoslovakia to Germany in the so-called 1938 Munich Peace Agreement. Well, this didn't work out too well for Czechoslovakia, or England.

Other speakers have emphasized the inevitability. A little history will tell us that Germany, preceding World War II, made a lot of people think of the inevitability of the supremacy of the Third Reich. There was a fellow in England named Winston Churchill. He didn't believe in inevitability. He said to his followers, to the people of England, we will fight this on the land, on the sea, in the air. That resistance ultimately prevailed.

The DOE is trying to sell us on the perfection of their science. We don't want to be coerced into their views. Science will have different views, depending on who you talk to. We don't want to be subject to the risks and dangers. We don't want our children and our future generations to be subject to those risks. The best and the brightest brought us the Vietnam War. 30, 40 years later, Secretary Robert McNamara apologized to the tens of thousands of dead, to their survivors, to the destruction brought on by that war. You will live to apologize if you bring us Yucca Mountain.

(APPLAUSE)

MODERATOR LAWSON: 30 second, please.

MR. MARKS: Neither the Congress, nor the DOE will be able to coerce the people of Nevada to bring us Yucca Mountain. This project is based on coercion and coercion only. In our democracy, the destiny of Nevada should be in the hands of the people of Nevada. Not in the hands of the NEI, the nuclear power industry, the industry that has brought us the worst waste in our nation's history, and is now turning it over to the federal government, to the American taxpayer. The destiny must remain in the hands of the people, not in agencies from Washington.

(APPLAUSE)

MODERATOR LAWSON: Thank you. Our next speaker will be Mark Frieze, who's number 30, and Frank Perna. Is Mark Frieze here? Is Frank Perna here? Number 31? Is Calvin Meyers here?

MR. PERNA: I'm Frank Perna.

MODERATOR LAWSON: I just wanted -- is Calvin Meyers here? No, you can stay. You're up.

MR. PERNA: I know, I forgot something.

MODERATOR LAWSON: Calvin Meyers and Tosawii. Okay, so Frank Perna is our next speaker.

MR. PERNA: My name is Frank Perna. I am a resident of Clark County. I want to protest the Department of Energy's action enforcing this meeting to be held in this federal building. The symbolism of having a meeting in a guarded, barbed wire compound reinforces the unfair, inequitable, arrogant and unscientific process, ignoring state sovereignty and Nevadans' wishes, while attempting to prove Yucca Mountain is suitable as a nuclear repository.

The Department of Energy, Secretary Abraham, should have been in attendance, because this would have given us all a chance to have him carry a message to President Bush, and the message is, don't dump on us. And the reason for me saying that, I have a little flag here that I made, and it has "don't dump" on it, and it's a paraphrase of the 1775 revolutionary models, don't tread on me, or don't tread upon us. And I had a little chance to see what the DOE thinks, respects citizens. And they're either arrogant or they're ignorant. One or the other. Because they stopped me from bringing those placards.

Now, last Sunday I carried those in the Citizen Alert walk down the strip. And they're protected by the First Amendment. Protected by the Supreme Court under nonverbal communication. That's the same thing that protected the guys that burned the flags. They said it's okay to burn the flag. That's a nonverbal communication. So I come into this federal building, and they're stopping me from having nonverbal communication. Flag burners is okay. I guess they wouldn't mind if they burn flags out there, but that's one thing. I don't think they have the correct respect for citizens. They certainly don't have it for Nevadans.

Now we're hearing a couple of types of arguments about the pro-nuclear people. They say we should be delighted to get more jobs. Well, the people in the test site said that all the while it was operating. You tell them something, they'd say, "Oh, no, it's wonderful, it's a great, the DOE is protecting us." Well, the sad reality was that the test site killed many Nevadans, many downwinders, made them sick. And you know what, they had to fight the government to ever get compensation. Did we get the truth out of the DOE to protect these people? No. They had to go to Congress and finally get compensation. So they protect them, so the same argument we're hearing now, there's more jobs coming along, we should want this. It's a lovely thing to have. I don't think it is.

Then we have the other argument, they say well you have the NIMBY syndrome, not in my backyard syndrome. I'm going to tell you that the 1987 legislation was a NIMBY bill, because there were eight other suitable sites, disregarded. You know why? Because some Senator, some Congressman didn't want it in his backyard. So it was a NIMBY bill.

(APPLAUSE)

Out of eight possible sites, they selected one. You have two people in Congress today, Senator Murkowski, been there since 19, let's see, 1980, and, that's another story, and the Senator Domenici, who's been there since 1972. Murkowski didn't want it in Alaska, Domenici didn't want it in New Mexico. So that's the NIMBY. To hell with the NIMBY, but don't say we're not in our backyard. We are NIMBYs.

The other one is patriotism. We should want to do it because our government wants it, as if we could trust our government. I don't trust them. I don't know if you do. But now let me -- the next thing I want to do here is we were talking before about Mr. Barrett, who's sitting there in the front and his letter requesting our opinions. I was delighted to get it. No one ever asked me for my opinion in a letter. Anyway, here's the letter to Mr. Barrett. "I am replying to your letter of August 28th, posing five questions and a request for comments. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission recently requested the Department of Energy provide basic information and reports concerning radiation exposure, volcanic events, and the rate of flow of water through Yucca Mountain. Estimates for radiation and its effects on humans and the environment at Yucca Mountain were not consistent. Also, more study was required because minerals in the moisture in the tunnels and in the ground water could corrode titanium and stainless steel waste packages. Bill Bulky who was an NRC field representative, said -- and here's what he said, "The DOE has significant deficiencies in its program." Now that was about, beginning of August, I guess. August 21st, the DOE made a claim that Yucca Mountain was scientifically suited as a nuclear repository. This September 5th meeting at the Sun Coast was set up and canceled and reset for today at the DOE operation center.

MODERATOR LAWSON: 30 seconds, please.

MR. PERNA: As far as I know, the DOE -- NRC concerns weren't addressed. Why was the meeting set up in such a short notice, with a comment period to end September 20th? I haven't seen the PSSE, the report we're talking about, and even if I had, 468 pages would be difficult to digest in such a short period.

It was also unfair scheduling. This meeting, it was unfair scheduling this meeting after the Labor Day weekend.

The second question concerns the EPA and NRC radiation standards, which are the subject of litigation by the nuclear lobby. They don't want the EPA 25 millirem standard 12 miles from Yucca Mountain. Or the 4 millirem water standard. In fact, the nuclear lobby wants no standards, and that says something. Why don't they want standards? The State of Nevada has sued to increase the standards on air and water, by reading them closer to Yucca Mountain. The NRC wants no water standard. Why don't they want a water standard? You know, the test site, there's a plume going into Death Valley of radiation. If we had to depend on that water, we'd be up that creek

(LAUGHTER)

MODERATOR LAWSON: Mr. Perna, I've got to ask you summarize your comments. You're well over the time now.

MR. PERNA: Just let me read another paragraph, and then I will go. Secretary Abraham should not recommend the site to President Bush, because geological disposal is far worse than dry cask storage on site, which has a 44-year safety record. Nobody mentioned that, 1957, the first plant went on line. All that waste is on site. The nuclear industry wants it off-site. You want to know why? They don't want to produce 20 percent of our power, they want to produce 30 percent of our power. They don't give a damn about us or future generations. Thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

MODERATOR LAWSON: Okay, we're going to call Calvin Meyers. Is Calvin Meyers here? He'll be followed by Tosawii and Irene Davis.

Now as we are waiting for Mr. Meyers to come up, I have done a quick count, and we have some information from the Court Reporter who's been working outside. We have a maximum of 61 people remaining to speak. Now it may be fewer than that, if some people have gone and just signed up, but they're not going to speak. Think about that. Even if I am able to get people to go for five minutes, that's something in the neighborhood of five hours. So I would just ask you to think twice again about using the outside Court Reporter. Again, it's equal consideration.

The second is to keep your comments to 5 minutes for everybody's benefit. Mr. Meyers, please.

MR. MEYERS: Good evening. Or morning, or whatever time it is. I'm appalled at what goes on tonight. It's a disgrace.

(APPLAUSE)

And I am glad every one of you guys were here to see it. I am a member of the Moapa Band of Paiutes, and I am the Chairman of the Tribal Council, the head of a government. I've been treated with disrespect, and pushed out the door, and when I came to sign up, they never even told me I had to take a ticket. They waited until a couple of hours later when I came back. Where's your ticket? They didn't tell me. They didn't tell me we could call in and get on the speaker's list earlier. They never said that to us. DOE -- oh, yes, before I go on, any further, I'm going to take more than 5 minutes, and you're not going to stop me.

(APPLAUSE)

MR. MEYERS: DOE does not believe in government-to-government which is their own laws that they wrote, not us. They don't want to abide by them. They don't abide by the executive order that says you're supposed to take down impairments for government-to-government. They put more up. They do this all the time.

I was told by one DOE official outside, you guys are lucky you guys have your own meeting. That's a bunch of bull. That's not government-to-government. Government-to-government is you come to my tribe, you come to talk to my council. You don't talk to somebody off the street. It's another black eye for you. If it was me, I wouldn't even be able to walk around.

Before you go any further too, I had said some things in the way I shouldn't have, and I apologize, but I'm man enough to do that. I'm man enough to say I messed up and I am sorry, but DOE, they just keep on walking. And they walk over us more and more. DOE has no concept of what a tribal government is. Yet they do. But they ignore it. They ignore the fact that we don't have hundreds of people to read one document that they sent out a week ahead. I got it last -- I think two days ago. And I'm supposed to look at this thing and make an intelligent comment to -- how do you make intelligent comments to things you know nothing about? That you don't even have the chance to find out about. Because DOE is so damn arrogant in their ways that they don't even give us the chance. They don't fund us. We have not received one penny from DOE in all these years that they've been studying Yucca Mountain. Now isn't that a shame? The State of Nevada has plenty of money. Clark County does too. We have nothing. Yet the tribes are supposed to have a government-to-government relationship with these people. It's not there. It never will be there, until they recognize that they have to follow their own laws, laws that they wrote, not us. Laws that they wrote to protect themselves.

And they come up to me and say, well, we're new people here. I was told many years ago -- I have been doing this for at least ten years, so I know what I'm talking about from experience. They told me one time, well we don't know who to contact because you guys change so much. Well, I tell you what, Russ Dyer, you're one of many that I have seen as a manager here. And one of many that I will see leave here. And many that I will see that will not be here when, if that stuff ever comes down the road. Because I had, I had a nice conversation with one of the managers, and he got up and he -- this was in of the AULG meetings. He got up and said, "I have had 11 driver's license. This is my Nevada driver's license, last one I'm going to have, my last license, I'm here for good." I got up later on, said, "Here's my Nevada driver's license, the only one I've ever had, the only one I ever will. Who's going to be here?" Now he's gone, many years ago, he's gone.

Just to comment on your document, and I said this before, will take us at least 15 years or so, maybe even more. Because we would have to put somebody through college to learn your science. And then, on top of that, we would have to teach them the Paiute way of looking at things. So that they don't forget what you guys, how you try to corrupt their minds in looking at things your way. Because we do not look at things scientifically. Science is not correct. If science was so correct, how come they keep changing the law so that they can change it? If Yucca Mountain was so great, how come they keep changing those laws? How come they keep changing the way things are supposed to be? And every time I ask them, I ask DOE people, why do you do that? Why is Yucca Mountain really good? And I tell them, no, it isn't. But then they always tell me, hey, we'll engineer around it. If you can engineer around it, leave it where it's at, because you can engineer around that. You don't have to contaminate this whole country.

(APPLAUSE)

You have the great potential of wiping out government in one swoop. Very easily. Because my tribe, my government sometimes travels together. All it would take is one accident to wipe out a government. My bylaws, my constitution has no way of restarting that government. So essentially you've done what you have set out to do 500 years ago, when you first came to this land, and that's to wipe us out. And I've talked to the county. I have been to plenty of county meetings.

We belong to the steering committee for Clark County. The only reason I go, because I am interested. I need to know what's going on. I have great respect for those people, because they do allow us to be there with them. They even help fund us a little bit. That's more than DOE has ever done in the years that they've been here around here. When -- if one of our tribal people was to die because of the radiation, or even if it, one of your trucks was to hit one of us, or if one of your trains was to run off the track, that's a devastation to a tribe. The city of Las Vegas, that's not even a drop in the bucket. When you take transportation, you take all this bad stuff and we see what it does, we know what it does, you know, we're not stupid. We may not be the smartest people, but we're not stupid. We know what nature does. We know how it reacts to things.

What happens to my religion, my way of life, my essence of being a Paiute, and those people coming behind me? Will they be able to be Paiute when you guys send this down the land, down our land? What happens when you, when it was stated earlier about people's perceptions of a place that has had an accident there? You can wipe out our whole economic development in one little accident. And that's all it would take. Are you willing to pay us all that money? Are you willing to trade your life for one of ours? Now if you're willing to do that, you can go ahead and build it, but I have to have that guarantee that you're willing to stand there, and say yes, sacrifice me. Because that's what you're doing to the tribes all across the country. Thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

MODERATOR LAWSON: Our next speaker is Tosawii, to be followed by Irene Navis, and Janet and/or William McFarland.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Can you tell us what number we're up to?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes, we're up to Number 32.

TOSAWII: That's to wake up everybody who's falling asleep here. This is pretty boring, waiting around to be served, showing up at this meeting and preregistering. Show up, nobody knows who I am. Get a ticket. Find out my fellow Indian representative is put down the line to you. But before I begin again, before I continue, my name is Tosawii in my tribal language. I'm White Knife Shoshone of the Western Shoshone Bands of Northern Councils of Nevada.

We have a vested interest, because a lot of our people were moved from Central Nevada, Beatty area, Kawich Mountain area, Pioche, Panaca, all the way up to Elko during the late 1800s, 1900s. So a lot of those people, we represent them up there.

My personal band is Tosawii. We're the fighters of the Shoshone Tribe. We've been on the Snake River, down to the Humboldt River. But first of all, I'm going to have to admonish the Department of Energy, because they have no sense. I'm going to have to request Secretary Abraham to educate his people that they have to understand what a government-to-government relationship is, and I am not talking about writing us letters, inviting us to meetings. What I'm talking about is giving us the due respect that you guys give to state officials, the county officials, the city officials. You guys courted them, you give them their whole little political show. But where were the Indian tribes at? We were put in the back. And that infuriated me.

I spoke with five different representatives out there. Did I get an answer? No. Nobody came back and talked to me. I demanded to speak to somebody. I got up to this position where I'm at because of donated number from public citizen. If it wasn't for them, I'd still be out there waiting for, probably not even being served, from what I understand, from what this Facilitator just said. And that would be the kind of import I would have to get back to my tribe. I would say that I showed up, they didn't know who I was. Didn't, weren't able to give any public comment, wasn't able to get any public view.

We had representatives in Elko, we had representatives in Carson, Reno. I am not sure how successful the Reno and Carson City were, but I saw the representative up in Elko.

But to get back to what I came down here, my primary business is to assert our sovereignty as a nation. Shoshone Nation. What the government calls us Western Shoshone. The assertion that the State of Nevada has declared itself a sovereign, that's fine and dandy, but before that sovereign existed, we existed. We owned this land. We controlled this land. We managed this land. We didn't destroy it. We didn't leave it. We didn't give it away. We didn't sell it. We didn't sign it off. We haven't been paid for it.

We have been recognized as legal owners of this land on a national level, nation-to-nation basis, with the U.S. Government, also internationally. The land in question, as a whole nation -- see that? Can you see the states? You can see our, you can see our territory. That is the total Shoshone Nation. From Montana to Wyoming, Idaho, Colorado, Utah, Nevada, California. The area in question that we've been protected by for our legal agreement with this country, United States, is the Treaty of Ruby Valley. And I have personally been entrusted by the Traditional Council to carry this fight on. As one of the younger Councilmembers. Being the youngest member of that council.

We have within the past five years, since our fight with the government, lost many good leaders. We're losing strength. But we still have the fight in us. Even if there's one of us, there's still going to be a fight. We have been described as being passive, but that's a practice. We practice being passive. But what I preach, the time for being passive is over. The time for taking control is now. And by taking control, that means being out here in these meetings and being public. Educating the American public where we're at. We were awarded $26 million back in 1979 for this land, 23 million acres. As you can see, this land covers part of Idaho, some of Utah, all across Nevada, and into California. The government says we've been paid for it.

We've been paid for it, all right. The money's been given to Department of Interior on our behalf. They accepted it as our trustee. No Western Shoshone has been paid for this land. Another question that we have, they call it legalities. And it -- U.S. Supreme Court, they ruled we've been paid, because the Department of Interior accepted the money on our behalf. They paid themselves. That money is being held in trust. No Western Shoshone have been stepping forward to accept it.

Now it's in the process or status of being that it has to go through Congress. Now we have Senator Reid pushing through legislation trying to fast track us out of this land. What this has to do with this meeting is before our government, our traditional governments, our tribal governments have declared the U.S. government persona non grata. Which means we have not recognized your authority. And even on our Tribal Council, our tribal identifications, it says we are a citizen of the Western Shoshone first, then United States second. And I am not sure how many Americans out there understand that dual citizenship, but we have it. We've retained that right. They've never taken that from us or stripped it from us. What that has to pertain to the Department of Energy, they're on this territory, on our territory illegally. So I want to publicly using my power, my recognition from the Council, to publicly tell the Department of Energy to cease and desist. With all their actions.

(APPLAUSE)

From their past nuclear testing, contamination, which we never have ever, ever agreed to. It's not our way to destroy land. It's not our way to destroy the land that we have to live off of. What I get -- what gets me angry about that is back in 1980, without a lot of people's knowledge, in an EPA document, there were deer found north of the test site with 200 -- if I can recall right, 280,000 picocuries per blood liter of tritium. They tried to pass this off as being naturally occurring, but as everybody knows that's educated in radionuclides, tritium is a trigger device of the atomic weapons. They said it was a harmless level, but just, it's not the level that we're talking about, it's the principle. If those are animals out there, they got tritium in them, what other animals out there that have dangerous radionuclides that they haven't been informing us of.

MODERATOR LAWSON: You're now at 9 minutes.

TOSAWII: Being -- I'll let you know. Being people who have to subsist off this land because of our poor income levels, we have to hunt, we have to fish, we still take food off the land. There's many things we're taking off, and we think our doing ourselves healthy. But I'm not sure now. We have to think about as Chairman Meyers addressed us earlier, how many of our people have died from cancer.

We've had a continual high rate of people dying from cancer. Up in, up in our area. And it troubles me, because I see the children dying up in Fallon, of a mysterious disease. Maybe soon we're going to be seeing those pockets of diseases throughout Nevada. Popping up soon. And they're going to be unexplained. And we could just imagine what all that fallout was doing to us back in the past. I mean, there's continual horror stories of what happened when that wind was hitting those people. The sicknesses with animals, people.

In my own personal family, within the past five years, we've had four members of our people, in our family die of cancer. And that was never a traditional disease that we die from. And it just makes me wonder what this world's coming to. And we're going to leave it up to this Department to trust. I want to warn you people, Indians in the 1800s, we had the Department of Indian Affairs. The American public in the year 2000, they have the Department of Energy. Think of that.

(APPLAUSE)

MODERATOR LAWSON: Our next speaker is Irene Navis, to be followed by Janet and William McFarland. And then by Judy Treichel.

MS. NAVIS: My name is Irene Navis. I am Planning Manager with the Clark County Department of Comprehensive Planning. You've already heard from two of our commissioners that Clark County is opposed to the repository at Yucca Mountain. Since they had limited time to speak, I wanted to address some of the issues they talked about just a little more specifically.

Clark County's 15-year oversight of this program reveals that despite all of the studies that have been done at Yucca Mountain, too many unanswered questions remain, even as a site recommendation appears imminent. DOE's work to date reveals the following: Underestimates of the true health and safety risks to people and environment based on inaccurate population figures. Inadequate consideration of the full scope of potential impacts on at least 1.5 million Southern Nevada residents, at least 50 million U.S. residents, and on the 33 million visitors annually to the Las Vegas area.

Clark County and the State of Nevada are currently working on an impact assessment to fill in these gaps in information. An inadequate assessment of impacts to minority populations, especially relating to potential property value reductions and emergency preparedness. The lack of a final design for repository.

The Department of Energy insists that the flexibility, that they need flexibility to allow the design to evolve as needed. Lack of a comprehensive national study of transportation impacts. The Department of Energy characterizes transportation as a local problem. And insists on addressing this only after the site recommendation.

There's no actual fully tested waste package. The proposed casks are merely computer models, yet we are expected to trust that these containers are safe, though they have never been built, let alone physically tested.

Ongoing tests at Yucca Mountain. Many of these tests will not be completed and are not even required to be completed prior to site recommendation, or even at the time of license application to the NRC, which could take up to four years to complete.

For these reasons, we urge the Secretary of Energy to grant a minimum 60-day extension for the PSSE review. This will provide an opportunity to urge the Department of Energy to not only follow one consistent final set of rules, but to also recognize and address critical unanswered questions to the satisfaction of the scientific community, oversight agencies, and most importantly, the public, prior to site recommendation. Thank you.

MODERATOR LAWSON: Thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

MODERATOR LAWSON: Now call on Janet and/or William McFarland. Are they here? To be followed by Judy Treichel, and we -- that wasn't Mr. McFarland who made that mad dash? Are the McFarlands here? Okay. Is Judy Treichel here? Oh, good. And after she has spoken, we will take another 7-minute break, to give our Court Reporter a chance to unwind a bit.

MS. TREICHEL: My name is Judy Treichel. I'm the Executive Director of the Nevada Nuclear Waste Task Force. And this has been quite an amazing evening. It's been an amazing two weeks. If you're here to gather our comments for the Secretary of Energy, I think the first thing you have to tell him is that the people of Nevada overcame all the odds, overcame all of the tricks, all of the absolutely disrespectful sort of shenanigans that went on about these hearings, which were the most important things that have happened in this whole process, and in this project.

These hearings were not only held in a way that violated our constitutional rights, and probably violated the Administrative Procedures Act, but they also were very, very deceptive, and that's why you've had very unusual testimony coming from this lectern. Because they were set up in a way that people thought that they were supposed to be coming out here and giving comment on a technical document or a whole series of them, technical documents that aren't worth the paper that they're printed on, because they refer to rules that haven't even been finalized.

But what this really is, or is supposed to be, is the chance for Nevadans to tell the Department of Energy what they think about a nuclear waste dump being sited at Yucca Mountain. And I think you can safely go back and say that this place was packed, regardless of how tricky it was, regardless of the fact that you wound up with a nuke dump booster coming in from Utah who had the good sense to sign up early, that there was a nuke weapons guy from the Oakridge National Laboratory, had the good sense to call in and get an early spot. There were NEIP that -- I mean, you know, we're not that dumb. We know that these people were brought here.

(APPLAUSE)

They were given their spots. And here we sat, and had to put up with this stuff. And this is insane. This is not the way you treat people. It's not the way you treat nations that you're supposed to be respecting, who actually own that land. You called several meetings, all at one place, all at one time, and you moved the spot, and we had officially two business days to find out and get people here, and by God, Nevadans showed up and they showed up in big numbers.

(APPLAUSE)

And they were not served. Most people who showed up never got a chance to testify. Oh, yeah, you can go in the closet with the woman that's, that's taking down the testimony. That's not a hearing. A hearing is when you get heard. A hearing is when you are heard. When you get to hear the other people. That's why they come out. We all know that we can send in comments to Carol on e-mail. By snail mail. By whatever means, fax. We can do that. We know that. But you come to a hearing in order to be heard. And most of the people that came here were not heard.

Right now, it's 10 minutes to 11:00. The last bus to take people back went back at 10:00. My son didn't come. He has three school age children. When it's 10 minutes to 11:00 and you've got kids that have to catch buses at 6:00 in the morning, that's kind of a stretch. But they would have come. And they would have talked. And they do very well. And they're the Nevadans that would have to see this thing if it came. And it's not coming.

You're expecting an incredible leap of faith, and the people that we've heard here that are ready to sell out, that's insane. When they stand up here and at the same time tell you there's nothing we can do, it's coming. But we do trust that you're going to give us a whole bunch of money. Now that does not make sense. This is not a position of power in which you negotiate a really good deal. It doesn't work that way. If you thought, and were convinced -- and I sure hope you're not -- that you could just run right over Nevadans, there certainly would be no reason for you to suddenly get a nice streak and start throwing money around. We don't want the money. The Shoshone don't want the money. The Paiutes aren't going to sell out. And neither are Nevadans. We know how to live together here, and we're going to keep doing it.

(APPLAUSE)

And there's a lot we can do about it. There's the court system that I still believe works. And states' rights, and native rights, sovereignty rights don't get run over that quickly. And if they do, if that doesn't work either, you've got the people of Nevada, you've got the Western Shoshone, you've got the Paiutes, you've got two nations of people, a sovereign state, and two sovereign nations of people, that you've got to run those trains over. And I don't know if you've got the stomach to do that, but that's going to be what you're left with, and you should tell the Secretary that. And I wish he'd been here to hear this. Thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

MODERATOR LAWSON: Okay, just want to, we're going to take a recess now for --

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Keep going.

MODERATOR LAWSON: Well, I'm going to ask --

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Get another Court Reporter.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Bring that one that's not busy.

MODERATOR LAWSON: Please, I'm going to ask -- what's your name? Holmes Brown, my assistant, if he would take over when we come back. We're going to give 10 minutes, and then we're going to start up, and the first three speakers will be Michael Jackson, Suzy Snyder, Roy Byron and Paul Adams. We're starting with number 36. Going to start up at 5 past 11:00 according to that clock. I'd like you back at 4 past so we can start on time.

(Recess)

MODERATOR BROWN: Folks will take their seats, we'll resume the hearing. Thanks very much. This will get our panel reconvened, thanks.

As people are taking their seats, I realize that every moment is precious at this hour of night, so I'll just make a few minimal comments. My name's Holmes Brown. Like Barry, I'm not an employee of the Department of Energy, and I'll be serving as Facilitator for the remainder of the meeting. I think everybody realizes also the necessity of complying with the 5-minute rule. We still have a number of people to speak, and I hope everybody has the opportunity.

If you're going to be speaking, if your statement exceeds 5 minutes, I'd ask you to try and highlight the key points within a 5-minute period. And then either submit the remainder as a written statement, or if you like, you can go to the Court Reporter.

So with that, by way of brief introduction, let me call on our next presenter, which is Michael Jackson, and Suzi Snyder will be following him. Is Michael Jackson here? Okay, I know Suzy's here, and perhaps if someone who knows her could, if you can get her from outside. Let me then call the next person, Roy Byron. Is Roy Byron here? Okay, I think they're -- okay. Good. I was saving a spot for you. Okay, well, welcome. Suzi Snyder.

MS. SNYDER: Thanks, Holmes. Hi, I'm sorry. I guess Michael Jackson didn't show?

MODERATOR BROWN: That's correct.

MS. SNYDER: Darn. My name is Suzi Snyder, S-U-S-I, S-N-Y-D-E-R, I'm Shundai, S-H-U-N-D-A-I, Network. And I'm glad to be here tonight, although I have been up since 5:00 this morning. Kind of exhausted. I know many other people here as well.

First, I'd like to say a couple of things about the process here tonight, which I know a lot of people have touched on. Number one, we were given 5 minutes to speak on 500 pages. I don't think that's quite fair. And I realize we could submit written comments and so on and so forth. Number two, there were four hearings happening tonight. There's a hearing in Las Vegas, there was a hearing in Carson City, there was a hearing in Reno and a hearing in Elko, and as much as I really appreciate the opportunity to hear what my, what folks around the states have to say -- around the state, excuse me -- have to say, four hearings in one night which was allotted three hours, is ridiculous. It's just ridiculous.

(APPLAUSE)

And I do hope that in the future -- and I'm told this could very well be the last hearing, or the last one in Las Vegas -- that in the future situations we do get to hear what people around the state are saying, but not in the same night, you know.

We all want our time. It's like I said, like Judy said, we're here for a hearing. That means we want to be heard. It's after 11:00. I'm fortunate, I don't have kids that have to get up and go to school tomorrow. You know. I'm really lucky that way. I live in Pahrump, so that's quite a drive later, but you know, that will be all right.

I have a couple of questions. One question is, I saw in the article recently that talked about how much the DOE has spent on power at Yucca Mountain. And I'm really surprised. Because, the site -- not site characterization -- like I say, I have been up since 5:00 this morning. The, what is the, the SNER and the SDEIS, there's like a zillion acronyms and I'm sure you all hear them, and I can speak in alphabet, but these previous documents have said that in the future plans, if Yucca Mountain were to become operational -- and I hear on good authority that they're actually building out there, which is illegal, and I urge you to cease and desist -- and if in that case, then they would use solar power. Cool, throw something to enviros. All right. Why hasn't it been used up until now?

Why -- I mean if they're going out there, you know, they are, why not use alternative energies, if that's their plan in the future. It doesn't build trust. And as many people here tonight have said, we have very little trust in Department of Energy. We have had -- you know, Nevada has paid its nuclear dues. Many people here recall the nuclear weapons tests. Many people here know that nuclear weapons tests in one form or another continues at the Nevada test site.

I want to let the folks in Esmeralda County who ran out before I got a chance to talk to them, maybe they'll eventually hear a response to this comment or see this comment. You know, we're hoping that we eventually hear about the comments. We want comments back, we want to hear, you know, what you guys have to say about our comments, because you know, here we are. It's like taking, it's like go to school, and you're taking tests all semester. And you're constantly speaking, you have to give oral presentations, written presentations, taking tests all semester long, and then you find out you're not going to get any grades all semester, and then you got the final and the final's the one that counts, because if you screw up the final, you're screwed completely. This is our final. And you know, I don't want to screw up. I don't think anybody else does. I know you guys don't.

I want to talk about the nuts, and I brought this up at the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement Hearings, and I spoke to somebody outside just a few minutes ago. Why weren't people who eat nuts, people who grow nuts, in the Amargosa Valley, like pistachio nuts that are grown out there, this was not considered anywhere that I've been able to find, and if I'm wrong, talk to me. But this was not considered in the maximally-exposed individual, which is the guy who's going to die off this project. And why wasn't that taken into consideration? Like there's pistachio farms out there in Amargosa. That means that the ground water that is already contaminated because of the Nevada test site, which is flowing towards Amargosa Valley, is going to be -- you know, that ground water, that contaminated ground water is going to be taken up by the nut trees, people are going to eat the nuts, you know, and we all know what happens then.

MODERATOR BROWN: You're at about 4:30.

MS. SNYDER: And I was saying to the folks in Esmeralda County, there are county -- there's a county grant assistant program to help with emergency preparedness, that is available, that they should look into, because that's, that is an alternative. That's because of other nuclear wastes that are on our roads and rails right now, because I live in Pahrump, like I said, and Pahrump in the winter, we have anywhere from, from 35 to 15 nuclear waste trucks moving through our town. This is so-called low-level nuclear waste. I realize that's not within the scope of tonight's hearing.

I feel it's really important to say that Nevada has been used as a dumping ground. Seems to be, it seems to be a trend. So I am kind of a -- kind of going like that. It's 11:00 and I have been up since 5:00. So, you know, just want them to know there's something that they can do to get money for emergency preparedness, if that's what they're really interested in. There's no deal on the dump. I know it, living in Nevada, I know that Nevada is not going to stand for a high-level nuclear waste dump in our backyard. I know living here what I have seen. Living here what I've seen is that people are willing to do anything within their power to keep this nuclear waste out of our state. And I want you to understand that.

I want the three of you sitting at this table, I want you to take it back with you to D.C. I want you to recognize that people of Nevada will not stand for nuclear waste coming here. We won't stand for Yucca Mountain. You got to take -- and one last semi-technical comment, is just that the cumulative impacts, I mentioned that the test site is heavily contaminated. We all know the test site's contaminated. Many of our families have suffered from it. And that cumulative impact, you know, this ground water, at the Nevada test site that we know is contaminated moving towards Oasis Valley, Amargosa Valley, Beatty, towards Death Valley, towards where I live in Pahrump, and we know this water's contaminated, and you're going to put more waste, only a thousand feet from it, and engineer a bunch of barriers with a 20-year-old metal. I have said this over and over again, and I want just got to take a look at those cumulative impacts, because our health and safety is what matters, what counts here.

We recognize -- and I have many friends in reactor communities. And I want you to know that from my conversations with them, we do need to have a national dialogue on what to do with this high-level waste. You know, we need to include people who are sitting in Haddam, Connecticut, who are dealing with a reactor there. We need to include people around decommissioned reactors. We need to include a national dialogue, have a national dialogue where we have not just DOE, not just Congress, but we have the people from these different sites get together, share a meal with each other, and have a round-table discussion and really talk about this and figure out something that's safe, and publicly acceptable. And those are two big things. Safety first, and public acceptancy. So thank you very much. I appreciate your time.

(APPLAUSE)

MODERATOR BROWN: Let me call Roy Byron again. Is Roy here? Okay, Paul Adams? Sorry, I thought that was Paul Adams. Stephanie Smith? Okay, Russell Hoffman? Good. And Terrence Jackson and Malcolm McNelly are signed up after Russell. Welcome.

MR. HOFFMAN: MY name is Russell Hoffman, and I drove here from Carlsbad, California this morning. And I'm planning on driving back tonight, but I didn't know I'd be here so late. I could have gone to the gambling houses and lost my shirt. Seems that a lot of Americans come to Nevada and get suckered. This is going to be our chance to pay them back. Because if you guys, if you Nevadans -- how's it pronounced? Nevadans -- accept this thing, you're the suckers. Okay?

Now I have a question for the two of you on the right. About two days ago I sent you an e-mail that had about three pages of comments. Did you get it? Do you remember seeing it? Did you read it? You guys have four microphones there, and none of you have said a thing all night, not one word. Did you get my e-mail?

MODERATOR BROWN: Actually, I think in order to preserve time, we -- if you want to ask questions, and get answers, we can do that after your presentation. I'm sure somebody can let you know in the hallway. I'm sure that you --

MR. HOFFMAN: They're the people that vested.

MR. LAKE: I haven't seen it.

MR. HOFFMAN: Did you see it?

MS. HANLON: I have not seen it personally, no.

MR. HOFFMAN: Where did it go? We have dry cask storage coming in Carlsbad. Okay? That is not a safe solution. We've got tsunamis, we've got earthquakes, we've got terrorists, we've got a rail line that runs right by -- they had an explosion in the switch yard a couple of months ago. It threw shards of glass out on to I-5 past the railroad. That's not a safe solution.

But you've got to stop Yucca Mountain. Because that's not a safe solution either. You've got transport problems. You've got terrorist problems. You've got asteroids, water seepage. Everything that could possibly go wrong, and the only thing that he can tell you is that they think statistically it's not very likely.

I asked one of them what the, if they had looked at the difference between -- see, what they do in DOE and NRC is they isolate everything. Like I had to come here because they're not having a meeting in California. Even though the waste is going to be transported around about 46 states, 43 states, 40 states, I've heard a lot of different numbers. But I had to come here, so what they do is like, take the waste, the cask, might have a manufacturing defect. Okay? A rail line might have an accident. That's two separate accidents together. They can happen together. I tried to find anything in that stack of supposedly technical data, most of it's just information about nuclear history. You got that information, and most of it is a great reference source. But it's not really scientific information. It's an overview. That's it. I'm done. Did I use my five minutes?

MODERATOR BROWN: No. No.

(APPLAUSE)

MODERATOR BROWN: Terrence Jackson? Dr. Malcolm McNelly? Okay. Richard Pacheco, I believe's the name. Okay, you can help me with the name. Glad you're here.

MR. PACHECO: That was Pacheco.

MODERATOR BROWN: Okay, Pacheco, fine.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: What number?

MODERATOR BROWN: That's number 46.

MR. PACHECO: Yeah, we got there a lot sooner than I thought.

MODERATOR BROWN: Welcome.

MR. PACHECO: Thank you, my name is Richard Pacheco, and don't let the hat fool you. I have not come to praise Caesar, but to bury him. It was a nice hat, so I got it. You know, I've been listening to this pro and con, give and take all night. It's been interesting. And enlightening. You know, and I am not a fan of DOE. Although I was indirectly employed by DOE for a number of years, with CSC, Rico and EGG back in the days of NRDS. Remember NRDS where they started to house low-level nuclear fuel or spent fuel? You know about that. Right. I was there.

I've been to NRDS. I have been to the test site, and I know a lot of their dirty little secrets. But you know, they're basically a good agency. I think. They may be sneaky and a little underhanded sometimes, and they're hard-headed, but I don't think these people are stupid. Right? Now just to clear up a couple of things, you know, I heard the comment by the Senator about, you know, people getting frisked and whatever and checked and this on the way in. I had no trouble. I drove up here, I was directed how to get in here. I came in, I signed in, and I got my number and here I am. So I don't believe in that.

But I want to tell you a couple of things folks. Back in the 1950s where they exploded umpteen nuclear bombs above ground, right, the Nevada delegation and the city and the state officials, they were not out there beating the band and protesting and yelling and screaming. In the 1960s, when they were under, doing all the underground testing, and believe me, for everyone bomb they announced they were going to explode, they blew about 10. And I think I got my numbers correct. And they weren't yelling and they weren't screaming about that. Because they loved the jobs. 10,000 plus people. A lot of money coming into this state. And coming into this city. So in one respect, they're a little hypocritical.

Now whether I'm for this or against it, you know, what's fair is fair. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, nuclear testing is stopped, they're going to holler about this. Well, I heard some numbers kicked around here tonight, folks. I heard one number that was, said 14 years, and I heard another one that said 20 years. We've been studying this problem for 14 or 20 years? Is that right? What's the matter with us? This sounds like the Jimmy Carter days with the MX missile. Remember that? Put it on the train, and run it around the test site in figure eights and the Russians will never be able to catch up with it, or put it on flatbed trucks and run it around the country.

We're playing the same game over again. Whether you're on this side of the fence or on that side of the fence.

Now I learned a little about nuclear storage and waste tonight. And I have heard about this dry cask storage. Well, folks, 56 years ago, we let the genie out of the bottle. And now we have to get him back in. And you have one problem that's called nuclear proliferation, and now you have the other called nuclear waste. And we're trying to deal with them at the same time. But we've been chasing the problem for 14 or 20 years, pick a number and we've got to do something about it.

I don't think we're going to solve the problem by butting heads with the DOE. I think what happened here is we've had a political decision made, and we're going to have a scientific implementation of that political decision. And the State of Nevada, I don't care what the City, the County and the State people say, the state of Nevada is going to get this nuclear depository, right, and it's a freight train coming down the tracks. I don't wish it to be so, but I think that's what's going to happen. So we have to make the best maybe of a bad situation.

If we're going to get it -- and like I said, the DOE people are not stupid. I don't think they're going to build a nuclear repository in the state of Nevada and use boogie man science to justify it. That would be absolutely stupid. But they're not stupid, folks. Right? They are not stupid. And believe me, if we're going to -- if they're going to build this thing, I think, you know, when we get through arguing, we've got to sit down and have a little consensus. We've got to work together. And if that means constructing alternate roads and railroads, well, then we do it.

And I think there's only three things that are going to stop this nuclear repository from coming here. One is, the Governor brings out the National Guard and you stop the trucks and the trains or the construction crews from going into the test site. Two is open and armed rebellion by the people of the state of Nevada, or three is we secede from the Union. And that's the way I think you're going to stop it. Because you know, I don't know much about the science, and I heard the gentleman talk about, well, Wisconsin is the best place to put it. Well, you have to put it somewhere. And right now, it's sitting around at 110 I think different sites, and 43 different states. So now we've got 110 problems in 43 states, versus one problem in one state. I used to work for a jeans company, very well known jeans company.

MODERATOR BROWN: 30 seconds.

MR. PACHECO: Okay, and we had a motto there, and that motto was, you do it right the first time and you don't do it again. And that's what I would urge you proponents to do. Get together with the DOE, and we do it right the first time, and we don't do it again. Thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

MODERATOR BROWN: Harry Sontag?

MR. SONTAG: First of all, I want to thank you for this copy, because it gave me information that I could use and letters that I could write, and I have written letters. What I'd like to do is read those letters to you. Some of them. Maybe a little reverse. This is one I wrote on the 26th of July to Senator Murkowski. I said, I viewed your presentation on C-span about your charts and defense of the high-level nuclear material. Material not waste, material. There is no such thing as waste when something is 10,000 years old. Going to outlive me, I think. The Yucca Mountain people keep calling it nuclear waste. Anything that has an active life of over 10,000 years is not a waste product. It is highly dangerous, and should be considered and treated as such. I am 77 years old. I have four children, eight grandchildren and six great grandchildren. I bring up my family background to emphasize my total concern for them, and the general welfare of the United States and its people.

You keep bringing up the billions of dollars already spent at Yucca Mountain. I was under the impression that the final disposition of the Yucca Mountain Project Feasibility Study was to be made after environmental impact statement was received and evaluated. The amount of money already spent was not to have, and should not have been the concern. Safety is my concern. Attached is a copy of the letter that I sent to the Yucca Mountain Characterization Office, which you have. I'll read that next. What will be the constant temperature without any attempts to neutralize it, will be for each individual container? Of the 11,000 to 17,000 containers in the immediate vicinity of each other?

I cannot get an answer from the Yucca Mountain people. And I don't know why. They should know what the temperature that's going to be without it being neutralized. Is it 2,000 degrees? Is it 3,000 degrees? What's going to happen? How do you neutralize it? With water? From ground water? I'll read that later. Let me finish my letter to him. In my opinion, each container is a potential atomic bomb waiting to explode. Can you imagine 17,000 atomic bombs exploding at the same time in the same location? Senator Murkowski, your state of Alaska will not feel the effects of any disaster at Yucca Mountain. But over 40 states within the United States will.

That's my letter to him. But my letter to other people -- and I wrote quite a few. You can guess who I wrote to. I put an attachment to it saying that I sent this -- I said, this copy is for your information. And for any discussion or action you deem necessary. And I said from the very beginning, my major concern was the containers the high-level nuclear material will be stored in. Now I'm not interested in the mountain that you dug out that's nothing there. You can build all the mountains you want. I'm not interested in transportation, because nothing has been decided on putting it there. What I'm interested is what the containers are going to contain. And I think you ought to listen. The high-level nuclear material will be stored in, which will be constant temperature without attempts to neutralize it. What is the temperature? I'd like to know. Nobody seems to know. Nobody wants to tell you. Okay? How much heat will gamma rays, alpha rays, neutros, proteus, radioactivity, fissus products and continual radiation generate heat will there be?

MODERATOR BROWN: You've got about 30 seconds.

MR. SONTAG: Just a little bit more, please.

MODERATOR BROWN: Everybody wants more time.

MR. SONTAG: This is real important. I don't think, the office has been --

MODERATOR BROWN: If you can be selective and you can submit the letter for the record.

MR. SONTAG: It will be. However, your supplement dated May 2001 did not indicate what the heat temperature will be. Your Table 2 designated there were going to be 11,000 to 17,000 containers. The scope said that the temperature will be 205 degrees on the rock, alongside of the caskets or the containers.

The ventilation. The second paragraph from the end states that during the emplacement, 70 percent of the heat will be taken out. So if you're taking out 70 percent of the heat, you're leaving 30 percent on top of 205 degrees, which the rocks will have, you're talking about 266 degrees. Now any high school student will tell you that water boils at 212. But if you, that's a failure on your cooling mechanisms, what do you have? Another 70 percent degrees on top of the 266. That comes to 1,865.5 degrees. Now to me, as far as I'm concerned, and I put it down here, beside the extensive property loss, the effects on the people around the country will be devastating. And this will be thyroid glands will be affected and the blood systems, red blood cells will be overwhelmed by white blood cells, and prolonged progressive increase in the cells is called leukemia.

MODERATOR BROWN: Okay.

MR. SONTAG: I am sure by now --

MODERATOR BROWN: One more point, if you would, thanks.

MR. SONTAG: I'm sure by now you think that the high-level nuclear material in this area is a bad idea. Please reference the figures where it shows that they're going to have water cooling system within the containers. That's on page 27. Then I go on to finish off. I said, Las Vegas is only 70 air miles from Yucca Mountain. As the crow flies. California, all of Southern California is within 235 miles. They're going to be affected. And what happens if the thing blows up? The science is negated on what happens to the wind.

The weather. The rain. That stuff flows. West to east, normally. The whole country would be covered, then you have the Santa Ana winds of California will cover all of Southern California. Where's the science on the wind and the weather and the rain? Is there anything in that book? No. But everyone seems to ignore it, so what I'm saying, your science is flawed. You don't have that in there, and you don't dictate it, and if there's a disaster, the whole country will suffer, and I told the President that. I said, no science. No members of Congress, no President of the United States or the executive branch can overturn the winds of nature. And on top of that, no Supreme Court could overturn it. That's it.

MODERATOR BROWN: Thanks. MR. SONTAG: One other item, I want to bring this up.

MODERATOR BROWN: Why don't you give that to the me to entered in record if you will.

MR. SONTAG: Please read this from the U.S. News World Report about a real hero, a Russian scientist that took care of Chernobyl and what he went through.

MODERATOR BROWN: Thank you very much.

(APPLAUSE)

MR. SONTAG: Don't take this lightly.

MODERATOR BROWN: The next person signed up is Stephen, looks like perhaps Cloober or Clooben. Okay. Is that person here? Okay. Adrian, this may be Zolkover?

MS. ZOLKOVER: Yes.

MODERATOR BROWN: Adrian here? Okay, fine. Let me read a few of the other names who will be -- if you can move expeditiously to the mike here. Thank you. John Hatter is next, and then it looks like Bud Tangren. So I will try and call some names ahead of time to give people notice as to when they're coming up. Fine. Welcome.

MS. ZOLKOVER: Thank you. I'm going to give this talk backwards, because I am going to run out of time.

MODERATOR BROWN: Okay.

MS. ZOLKOVER: I am not a scientist, however, I would like to report my findings from respected publications regarding the DOE's past performance record. I want to --

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Speak into the mike, please?

MS. ZOLKOVER: Pardon?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Can't hear you.

MODERATOR BROWN: Stand fairly close to it.

MS. ZOLKOVER: Okay, I want to add in order to keep things in perspective, 7 millionths of one 28th of a ounce of plutonium ash or dust inhaled gives you lung cancer. In their May 2001 supplement to the draft environmental impact statement, the DOE slips in a minor new detail that they want to drop on the land surface possibly in the near future 40,000 tons of high-level radioactive nuclear waste southeast of the Yucca Mountain about 60 to 70 miles away from Las Vegas. What about the radioactive dust, insects and birds that would invade Clark County?

It would be far safer and cost efficient to follow Scandinavia's example by recasking the nuclear rods in 100-year sealed casks and leave them where they are. And not by recommissioning the nuclear power plants. The United States has much safer and more cost-effective ways to produce energy. This is from the bulletin -- this is part of the DOE record. There's much more, but I don't have time.

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists May-June 2000, Energy into K, by Robert Alvarez, is the former adviser to Secretary of Energy and one of the Senate's energy staff experts. Quote, "In the summer of 1997, I received a phone call from Jim Bailey. Bailey was an ex-marine who worked out of the Department's Oakridge site. He was one of 238 Energy Department special agents who trucked nuclear weapons around the country. Jim's infant daughter Kelly died in '95 of three rare brain tumors, and he was fearful that his exposure to radiation had caused genetic damage that he had passed on to her. Subsequently, Bailey was tested by a cancer specialist who told him that he had chromosomal damage linked to radiation exposure. At the advice of his doctor, Bailey refused to go back to work, despite the Department's counseling efforts to persuade him that his fears were unfounded.

He was fired in September, 1996. A few days later, the Department, without explanation, removed all radiation monitors from all of the vehicles. By that time Bailey was caught up in a protracted legal battle with the Department. Meanwhile, the FBI was investigating alleged security breaches and 18 couriers had been put on suspension after refusing to undergo lie detector tests regarding the alleged leaks.

I brought it to the attention of the new Energy Secretary, Federico Pena, who will replaced Hazel O'Leary. His staff responded positively. Pena had been familiar with at least one concern raised by Bailey before I brought it up.

In November '96, an Energy Department truck carrying a nuclear device had skidded off an icy road in Nebraska. Because the radiation monitoring instruments had been removed by the Department, the United States and its Cabinet and the President then had been clueless about the extent of the public risks for nearly 12 hours. Later investigations found several serious problems with Department's nuclear courier system. Couriers were not provided with adequate information about radiation dangers.

After more than a year, the FBI could not substantiate the charges made against the couriers, and the internal Energy Department investigation found that the manager who called the FBI had acted improperly. The 18 couriers who were wrongfully suspended are still not back on the job because of bureaucratic indecision over whether they should take mandatory lie detector tests. Moreover, the Energy Department official who was transferred after the investigations found he had acted improperly, was recently promoted. Overseeing the couriers is once again part of his job description.

MODERATOR BROWN: 30 seconds or so.

MS. ZOLKOVER: Is that five minutes already?

MODERATOR BROWN: Yes.

MS. ZOLKOVER: Oh, gosh. Well, what he has to say -- he says that the DOE should quit their work. The Energy Department, in its current form, has outlived its usefulness, but having said that is not clear. Some want the Department dismantled, not because they have a bias against government operations, but because they believe that the DOE is simply not reformable. DOE should be terminated because it is a slovenly organization, a menace to public safety and incorrigibly immune to reform, says Daniel S. Greenberg, a prominent and influential science writer. The Department's important functions must continue, but they should be put under the management of government agencies that can responsibly handle complex affairs. I didn't even get to the Rocky Mountain, 16 miles from downtown Denver, they were almost all irradiated by 7,600 pounds of radioactive nuclear waste after the DOE several times removed heat detectors and they refused to have people patrol 24 hours a day. They had major fires. And it was a miracle that the water put it out.

MODERATOR BROWN: Thanks very much. Thanks very much. And I appreciate your even reluctantly complying with the 5-minute rule. Thanks very much. Our next speaker's John Hatter. Hi, John. Thanks for your patience. Following John, we have Bud Tangren and Terry Saunders. And Tom Leonard, if they happen to be here. John?

MR. HATTER: My name is John Hatter. I am the Northern Nevada Chair for Citizen Alert. And here we are again. Citizen Alert has not prepared detailed technical comments on the documents, because we don't really know what the basis is on making those recommendations. As far as we know, there's outside information that's not available to us, including a presumably updated transportation analysis in the final environmental impact statement. Which is not available to us at this time. And therefore, it makes no sense for us to make comments on documents where there's incomplete recommendation. And as it's already been mentioned, the guidelines for whether Yucca Mountain is suitable or not are also in the proposed stage. Again, why should we comment on something when it's not finalized, so we will not, I will not be doing that Citizen Alert, they haven't done that for that reason.

The nuclear industry and the DOE would like you to think that this is only about Nevada. It's not. The transportation analysis is a critical part of what should form the basis for the recommendation. If you can't transport, if you can't show that, demonstrate the transportation is safe, and reasonable, then therefore the project is also unreasonable. So that is an important part of the basis, ought to be a part of the basis, and it's not just a Nevada issue, because of that. If not other reasons as well. Well, it's getting pretty late. There's a lot of people that haven't been here. As of about 9:30, there were 100 cars that Citizen Alert and volunteers counted that left this parking lot who wanted to speak. We actually asked that question to them. This is another reason why we're very upset about this process. Why the DOE could not have done this on several nights, two-hour slots, I have no idea. I have talked to people here. And all they do is go around in circles. It's absolutely absurd.

(APPLAUSE)

This project is worth billions of dollars. Doesn't make any sense to me. And of course, as we have said before, these hearings shouldn't even be happening now anyway. The Department of Energy is not ready to make a recommendation. They have not given the public all the information. So, they shouldn't even have been done at this time anyway, and if they were done, they needed to be done on more than one night. It's absolutely ridiculous.

The people that did show up, and there were quite a few people that did show up, which, as we know, this venue was completely inadequate to handle. And the Department of Energy should have been well aware of that possibility. Back in 2000, when the Department of Energy held hearings on the draft environmental impact statement, there was also overflow crowds. And these are the people that are going to calculate the probabilities of doses for 10,000 years.

(LAUGHTER AND APPLAUSE)

Doing the math. The main reason, the main reason that people probably did show up at this meeting, at least from our information, is because of the outreach of the activist organizations and people that work in those communities. That's why the people are here. Not because of the Department of Energy's advertising for this. We are doing the Department of Energy's work. You are doing the Department of Energy's work. And that should not be the case. Expect to receive a bill. Thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

MODERATOR BROWN: Okay, Bud Tangren?

MR. HATTER: That's I, sir. You know, I thought Chicken Little had died a long time ago. But tonight I have heard one after another after another after another. And I'm almost a nervous wreck. The sky is falling. And we will all die before the morning gets here, I'm afraid.

I can't quite understand in this day of enlightenment, how so many people can be so deluded, and I've come to the conclusion that there's even -- there is either a tremendous amount of ignorance out there, or there is a tremendous amount of hypocrisy. Now, I'll give you a little bit of my background, as far as nuclear whatever goes. And it's simple: I came to Nevada in 1950, from Utah. I came here for one reason. To earn a living. And where could I earn a living? I couldn't earn a living in Utah, so I came to Nevada. Nevada was in the early stages of the test site program. Now what they were doing up there is their business, they're the big guys. I don't know about it. I've listened to a lot of stuff here tonight. And I couldn't tell you one thing about it, and I'd almost dare any one of you to explain it to me, and you've all heard it also. But I went to work at the Nevada test site.

Those were the early days of testing. We were doing above-ground testing up there at that time. And believe you me, I learned in a hurry about atomic power. Because it is dangerous, and it is tremendous. And I saw things that got blowed apart that I didn't have an idea that you could touch with, well, whatever, and I have worked around a lot of dynamite in my day too. But these things are dangerous.

But they were built for a reason. We were in a war. We'd used one of them, two of them, to end a war. How many lives were saved over that, I don't know. But that's a decision that your government made, and as we live under a government here, we have to abide by the rules. And those guys up there make the rules. Don't ever think you or I do. Because you don't. Consequently, they decided that atomic weaponry was the best way to go. Beat the heck out of hacking people up with a knife or maybe shooting them through the foot a few times, the belly with a gun. I don't know. But it got it over with, and for that I was thankful. I didn't get a chance to go myself, but I had four brothers that went.

So, for that reason, and that reason alone, now, it's gone on beyond that. And I think that the spin-offs from the scientific community, as far as nuclear, we are benefiting today.

Someone mentioned the fleet that is at sea today, that protects this country from rogue countries that would invade us perhaps, and cause more wars. For 40 years, we ran the cold war based on atomic weaponry, and we had peace in that time. So it's not all bad, as some have led us to believe. But we will pay the price, folks. And that's what it's all about anyway, is money.

I came here for money, and I dare say that every one of you came here for about the same reason that are still in the working class of people. And if you didn't come here for money, then you had to come here to retire. And if you came here to retire knowing that there was all this atomic dust and waste laying within 50, 60 miles of your doorstep, you're either crazier than hell or whatever. I don't know. You like misery.

So I would invite all of you -- and there's a million and a quarter of you living in this valley today -- that if you don't like it, go back where you came from, for crying out loud. No, but don't want to go, do you? You like the climate, you like the money, and you like the gambling and you like all the other things. Pay for it then.

It just so happens we were picked, for whatever reason, to have an explosion out there. Now we've got to pay the price. So let's straighten up, folks. It's money you're about, and if you don't think that, then you either lie or you're hypocrites. Again, because you came here for that. You're still here for that. So let's don't try and deny it. And if it's money that we need, and it's money you need, then I have suggested for many years to Harry and all the rest of those guys -- which by the way, Harry Reid has a tendency to lie quite a bit to you. And you saw it bald faced on that screen tonight. As every one of you had to go through three checkpoints and be searched practically to get in here. I walked in here and never had anybody say hello or good-bye or get out or anything else. So that's a lie. And he's been -- doing it a long time.

MODERATOR BROWN: 30 seconds.

MR. HATTER: All right, I want to tell these people here that they're here for one reason. They don't care about you and they don't care about me. The one reason they're in existence is to spend your tax money. That's the only reason that they're in business. And they'll do it today, and they'll do it tomorrow, and there is not one thing that you can do about it. If you want to try and stop it, go to Harry and the rest of those folks, because they are the ones that provide the money for these people to do what they do. Now if you have a beef about this whole thing, go to Harry. Go to his buddies up there. Tell them to stop spending your money, and this thing will come to a halt. That's all I can tell you. Thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

MODERATOR BROWN: Thank you. Okay, Terrence Saunders and after Terry, Tom Leonard, and Marla Painter are signed up.

MR. SAUNDERS: I'm Terry Saunders. I have a few remarks. I don't believe they should be allowed to bury any high radioactive waste. According to the National Academy of Sciences Wilshire Report, I forget which, the Beatty dump site about 367 feet above the water table, had a dump site was never supposed to leak. And as of about 1995, plus or minus a couple of years, there's radioactive carbon 14 and tritium at the water level. I found that out from the Ward Valley thing for -- I don't know how far Yucca, the Beatty site was from the Colorado River, probably 100 miles more or less. They're going to give them a second chance, unlined pits. The Ward Valley thing, 12 or 13 miles as the crow flies, and the fisheries go according to the geodetic surveys and stuff. Anyway, I don't think they should be allowed to bury it.

Secondly, the power crisis in California, we all focused on that. We have an energy shortage. And we was always picking on California for not producing their own power. Nevada only produces 50 percent of their power. Okay. We have 77,000 tons estimated of high radioactive radiation coming here, material to be buried. I'm -- I think that's kind of a mess.

The whole thing is a mess, but I do believe that you can make the best out of it. And I think we should take that energy and what we can get rid of it, if the French are smart enough, the Japanese are smart enough to convert this to reasonable fuel and use it over again, if we have 77,000 tons of material, and we can recycle it 10, 15, 20, 30 times, and end up with only 3,000 tons, whatever, build some nuclear power plants, use it up, reprocess it, keep it on site, and produce some power.

Nevada right now doesn't produce -- they produce half of their power. Let us produce 400 percent. Let's do something with the gaming industry. Let's become a net exporter of power. I don't even know how a ton of radioactive material converts to kilowatts, but design enough power plants and let them wear out, whatever, and use the stuff up so at some point we're down to one or two power plants, then we bury five tons of radioactive material instead of 77,000 tons. And stuff, they talk about 10,000 years. I have seen literature in the past, four or five, six years, I forget where, they talk about 25,000 years. We're talking about a quarter of a million years. Am I close on time?

MODERATOR BROWN: No, I am sorry.

MR. SAUNDERS: I thought you was giving me the nod there. Anyway, and if we had this long time periods, let's cut down the buried waste from 77,000 tons to 2,000 tons, something much less than that. Become an exporter of power.

There's another consideration. We went to war basically in Iraq for power. There's other reasons stated. Power and energy was a big part of it. And we're likely to go to war again. We had 25,000 people plus come back with Gulf War Syndrome. Some of these people brought back genetic damage, and God knows what they got over there. We sold it to Saddam Hussein. That's how we knew what he had, we sold it to him, when he was fighting the Iraquis and Iranians. Some of these guys, it was through the male genes, back in the '60s had a thing, thalidomide caused deformities. Babies were born with flippers or no arms or no legs or whole combination. The Gulf War Syndrome brought this back, and now it's through the males. There's some of their kids, an article in "Life" or "Look" magazine a few years ago.

If we have another war to secure our power base, our fuel base, our energy base, God knows how many thousands of people are going to come back with this disease or that disease. Not counting the friendly fire, but it was mostly -- God knows what they got into, but they got into it, and I think our government knew something about it, and to the extent we can keep our power here and produce it and save it and use, we've got 70,000 tons of this radioactive material that has a value to have it. And I say let us produce electric power, keep it on the test site. You couldn't grow a decent radish probably that wouldn't glow in the dark. So it's a mess up there. Leave it there and produce power for as long as it lasts. That's one part. Second part was a thing I saw in the paper, I don't know, five, six months ago.

MODERATOR BROWN: About a minute left.

MR. SAUNDERS: And was talking about Russia taking some of the spent uranium for some of the satellite bloc nations and stuff and reprocessing it. We will all knew Russia has a horrible cash flow problem. They sell to the good guys if they can, but if they can't sell to got guys, they'll sell to whoever, North Koreans, Lybia, you name it. They're out there. And I think the United States is missing an opportunity to bid for that material, bring it back here, put it in the damn test site, never let it leave, and reprocess it, reprocess it, until it has no use to it any more, then bury that.

I think it's stupid to bury 77,000 tons of stuff, and that fellow that left talked about things blowing up and stuff like that. The heat, I hadn't thought of that. Let's use it. Let's sell it to other states, make a cash crop out of it, and God knows what will come out of it in the meantime. Have secondary ideas.

Leave it up there, and maybe I think we should have a power company from Nevada, I don't know how Sierra, whatever, got involved with our power. Nevada should be self-sufficient power, and Nevada's been treated rotten in the past, unfairly and this and that and all the stuff you people have heard. Give them a chance to make money out of it, a second industry. Keep it up there and don't bury it. Don't bury the damn thing. Make a dam Carlsbad Cavern with a swimming pool under there if you want to. Don't bury it the. Reprocess and produce a cash crop and provide some that way. I will quit talking.

MODERATOR BROWN: Thank you very much. We've got Tom Leonard. Good. Okay, and then after Tom Leonard, Marla Painter. And Frank Villella.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: What number?

MR. LEONARD: 53.

MODERATOR BROWN: Thank you.

MR. LEONARD: I'm speaking tonight as a private voting, tax paying, rate paying citizen. I am a 13-year resident of Nevada. I am married, have three daughters. I'm also a degreed engineer and an employed manager. I followed this issue since the 1980s. The perception in this public hearing is that only the intervenors and the anti-s have legitimate public comments. I've listened to the sometimes hysterical and outrageous nonscientific rhetoric of the opponents. I have read both the newspapers here in Nevada, and the project science. The effort has been far more rigorous and exacting than any project in history.

Yucca Mountain has been voted. It is time for our leaders, state and federal, legislative and executive, to lead, and to follow through on the law, fund the project. Nuclear is a 20 percent energy share and 50-year mature industry. There is no indication that we Americans will give up our lifestyles and use less energy.

Fossil fuels are release more poisons over more of the U.S. through black lung disease, acid rain, particulate gasses and radiation released from coal mining and burning. We must store the spent fuel in a secure site. If the site is determined suitable by the Secretary of Energy, and President Bush, it is time to move forward. The federal government is legally obligated to accept and own both the legacy defense and commercial high-level waste. I expect our elected officials to do their duty, and stop delaying the repository. The State of Nevada -- sorry, I lost my place. And the federal government must collaborate on fees in lieu of taxes. Remember, a single majority of Congress, not the two-thirds majority of the last administration, is required.

Politicians, do your duty and follow the law. Listen to the DOE, the national labs, and the National Academy of Science.

In closing, I do have a comment for Senator Reid. He was misinformed. No security delays. Just help finding parking spots. The public comment period, slots were snapped up fast, but the real delay was an unruly crowd prone to multiple interruptions and long-winded political speeches by eight elected speakers constantly running for re-election.

(APPLAUSE)

MR. LEONARD: Thank you.

MODERATOR BROWN: Marla Painter? Good. Welcome.

MS. PAINTER: Thank you.

MODERATOR BROWN: Frank Villella and William Price are the next folks signed up.

MS. PAINTER: Boy, did I have a different experience from you. I was checked at multiple security places, so must be you have a special something going on. With them.

This -- I have been waiting for this moment for over 20 years. Because at every other hearing over the last 20-whatever years -- I have lost track -- we were told that our comments would not be recorded or considered unless they were specifically about the information they needed to fulfill that particular stage of the process. In particular, the environmental impact statement process.

Now that whole process is shown to be a total waste of time, because they're not even considering the probably flawed, but still all in all, they're not considering the environmental impact statement in making the site recommendation. So it was a total farce all along, just as we had expected.

The other thing that's funny is that for years, we begged whoever was hired to put on these meetings to allow us to have the speaking podium turned toward the audience, and not toward the DOE officials. So finally, they're doing that now. And I have no interest in talking to most of the folks out here, because they know where it's at. They're willing to stay here until 12:00 at night to state their opinion.

And I'm really not interested in talking to you guys, because I know you're liars, and I know you've lied to me for years, and I know that you don't really care what happens. You're just bureaucrats.

But you, I'm interested in talking to. Because I hope that you get at least three minutes with the Secretary. I don't know how under, under, under, Undersecretary you are, but I hope you get at least three minutes, and I hope that you can honestly give him the gist of the feeling here, both pro and con, and I hope that you do it honestly, and I hope that you just don't cover it over in order for him to feel comfortable, because I know that's what happens with aides and their bosses.

This is so unforgivable, that you would do this to us, after all of these years of public involvement. That this is the one time that people had to tell the Secretary -- whoever that Secretary might be -- how we have been cheated and lied to and how this process is flawed. And I have read every document. I have -- believe me, I have been in this game on every level, and the people who don't know this, you really need to find out more. You really need to look into it.

It's really a travesty, and it will go down as such in history. And it is true that it's not going to look good on Bush's record if he's running over people and arresting people by the hundreds, maybe the thousands in Nevada if those shipments ever might come here. I don't believe they will. We also have the courts and we have Congress. But if they ever were to.

My whole entire adult life, much of it has been dedicated to stopping what I thought was an unjust and a lying project. I just couldn't stand by and let it happen.

The guy who said we're all interested in money, I wish I had been more interested in money. I have might have more money now. Instead, this was more important. And if it's that important to people like me and many, many, many others, to whom it's equally important, and for whom their whole lives have been dedicated to stop this lie, we're not going to. We're not going to stop easily in our opposition to it. Because we even love the people who hate us. I love this anti- thing. Well, I'm Auntie Marla. Lot of anti-s around here, and we're all good women, and if we're anti-, we're aunties, I guess.

So I would appreciate it if you would give an honest appraisal of what you've heard and seen this night. And I must say, I thought you probably had checked out a long time ago. I'm glad to see you're still here. Because this is amazing this many people are here after midnight to speak their minds. And I even respect the people whose opinions I don't understand at all. I don't know where they've been the last 20-some odd years, but that's their opinions. I'm glad that we're all here tonight. This is quite a remarkable event. So. See you guys next time.

(APPLAUSE)

MODERATOR BROWN: Frank Villella. William Price? Michael Spence. Okay. Following Michael would be Vic Skaar. Dan Cardiff. Welcome.

MR. SPENCE: Hi. Well, my name is Michael Spence, and I live in North Las Vegas. And I'm not going to waste anybody's time. It's past my bedtime.

Yucca Mountain has been the topic of a discussion for many years. And I feel the waste has to go somewhere, and Yucca Mountain is the most logical place to store it. As a Nevada resident, of course, everybody says not in my backyard, but if your backyard is the best place for it, then, well, I say let's benefit from it.

As we all know, the economy is on a very big downslide. The Yucca Mountain Project will secure jobs and even create many new jobs for Nevadans at the site and along the routes. If we stop this, that would put a lot of people out of work and add to our economic downslide. And I have been out of work, and believe me, I wouldn't wish that on anybody.

As I stated before, I feel that we as Nevada residents should be compensated for taking on the risk factors involved with the Yucca Mountain Project. And I just jotted down a few. Pay our school taxes, cut our federal income tax in half or pay it all. Whatever. Pay our Social Security taxes. Or my best option, is give Nevadans a risk factor check. Monthly or quarterly.

It doesn't have to be money. But that's what works for me, and I know it works for a lot of people is money.

Let's face it, everywhere you go, there are risks, and if the waste is transported here, and stored in Yucca Mountain properly and safely, will that affect my everyday life? No. No, it won't. But I would sure like to have some compensation as a Nevada resident because of the risk factors. Whether it comes by planes, trains or automobiles, there should be stipulations in place to where the EPA and other agencies concerned should be permitted to call spot inspections of the routes and facilities to ensure everything is being done safely and properly. And following procedures.

Oh, wait, look. That just created some more jobs, didn't it?

The worst thing that could happen is that all these protests do nothing, the waste comes here, the Nevada residents get nothing for it. And that would be the worst thing that would happen. So please don't let this happen. I implore you to stop wasting time, money and effort on this futile topic, and start focusing on working out a compensation package for Nevada residents. For the good of the economy, for the good of the community, for the good of the United States, please, let it come. Thanks for your time.

MODERATOR BROWN: Thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

MODERATOR BROWN: Vic Skaar? Don Cardiff? Natalie Johnson?

MS. JOHNSON: I'm here.

MODERATOR BROWN: Following Natalie, we have Susan Jones, and Jane Feldman.

MS. JOHNSON: Good morning to you all. Many of us came on the 5th of September, and it's now the 6th of September, and we're still here.

My name is Natalie Johnson. I just want to introduce myself. I work at the Michael Calaghan Federal Hospital. Up by Nellis Air Force Base. The reason I point that out is because I work in the medical field. I am not a nurse, I'm not a doctor. But I see a lot of the kids that come in there from our gentlemen and our ladies who served in the war, and the Persian Gulf. We have a lot of sick babies. A lot of sick children with diseases you couldn't even imagine people could have. And I point this out because something happened in our atmosphere. Something got destroyed in our atmosphere, and it projected. How it projected, I don't know. I'm not a scientist. And I'll never -- I'm a mom. And I have children. And I'm concerned and I'm scared.

I thought about leaving a lot earlier today, and this evening. But I thought, no, this morning when I got up and I heard it on the news, after two days of hearing that this meeting was going to be tonight, I told my husband, I said, "Honey, I really want to go to that meeting." And he said, "Well, why don't you?" And that was in my heart. I said, I am a part of history that's going to happen, and I need to be here.

So I decided when I went to my dental appointment before I went to work this morning at 7:15, I would poll everybody I spoke to today and ask them how they felt, because I knew they couldn't make this meeting tonight. My dentist, and the people I had seen in the office, all felt it should not come here.

Something's wrong. Something's wrong with this. And I polled the people that I went to work with at the Michael Calaghan Federal Hospital, and they said the same thing, something's not right, something shouldn't be coming here. In April of this year, I took my father back home to our state of West Virginia. A beautiful area. The highest point in West Virginia we live. The air is so pure, and from kids on up, we just got our spring water. And we get it fresh from this mountain. Comes right down and we go get water every day.

So many people looked at me when I took my father back home in April to bury him beside my mother, who both died of cancer, and I looked at the people in our church, and I looked at their faces, and they said to me, "Too much cancer. What's happening?" And the only thing I could think of in my heart and my soul are the people I knew at the Michael Calaghan Federal Hospital who came to me who lived downrange here in the Sandy Valley, every other home they would say, somebody has cancer there.

And I can only think how, in the '50s, I was not here. I came in 1985 with my husband, and he was in the military at that time. I could only think that as our atmosphere kept, molecules kept moving, some wind picked it up and took it to my beautiful hills of West Virginia and it landed on a tree there, and the tree had water and the water had to go to the ground. And the cows came by and the cows ate it and the cows gave milk. And the milk and so on and so on. And my parents died of cancer.

I don't know what else to say. This is a terrible thing, it's a terrible byproduct that we have for something that happened in World War II. And now we're going to suffer with this and what to do with it. I don't know what to say.

Should it be here in our state? I feel no. If it's being contained in a container somewhere, then let it stay in that container somewhere. And let our scientists keep studying, as this scientist was here earlier tonight, find out how we can do something about it. I speak as a mom. And I speak as most of us in our hearts speak. It's a scary situation we're in. I thank you all for being here tonight. And letting us come here. But it was a little bit too short knowledge. Thank you, sir.

(APPLAUSE)

MODERATOR BROWN: Susan Jones.

MS. JONES: Yes. Hello. I'm glad you're still here. It's been a long night.

I didn't know before I came here that we were going to be competing with DOE officials and representatives for speaking time, or I might not have come.

I'm a retired school teacher with eight years in Lyon County and Clark County. Because -- and I am a retired school teacher at my age because of a disability I contracted while I was teaching in, unbeknownst to me, viral outbreak area in Northern Nevada. Similar to Gulf War illness. It's still going on. It's spread all over the country and all over the world. Before moving to Nevada, I was extremely fit and healthy. And I seldom went to the doctor.

My interests in this matter is equal to that of all Nevadans. The question of safety. In 1994, I believe, I took advantage of an invitation-only post-grad course at UNLV. It was free.

We had other incentives, as well as the good number of credits if we were chosen to take the course. It seemed to be quite easy to be chosen. I was especially interested, because of the subject matter. Nuclear waste. I had been interested in the nuclear issues since I was a teenager.

I wrongly assumed this was a National Science Foundation grant class. As did others that attended. From the first hour, the first day, we elementary, junior high and high school science teachers from all parts of Nevada were immersed in nuclear power issues, lectures and discussions of projects. Everything we heard seemed to be pro-nuclear power, without any lectures with opposing views or data. I was suspicious. By the third day, we finally questioned our UNLV professor about who had underwritten all the costs of this concentrated course. He told us, why, Yucca Mountain, of course. I was shocked. So were other people in the class.

Then Yucca Mountain personnel were in our classes lecturing about the safety issues being raised about the proposed site. I asked many, many questions. Several of us grad students voiced a protest over the secrecy of the fact that Yucca Mountain had paid for our classes. About the fourth or fifth day of these day-long classes, we were taken on a field trip to Yucca Mountain. We went through the required orientations, promoting Yucca Mountain as an unquestionably safe site. It was clear for me that we were taking this class for free. Why we were taking this class for free? It was to make us as teachers proponents for Yucca Mountain. We were supposed to take this back to our classrooms and spread the word. Yucca Mountain is safe.

We went there, they told us it was, it was like the nuclear testing of, well, above and below ground. Nevadans believed in it, and officials didn't rally against it. Because you told them it was safe. That's why people were sitting on their houses here watching the atomic bombs go off. You told them it was safe. We went through many parts of the Yucca Mountain Project Department, as well as a hike to the top of this long flat hill -- and it isn't a mountain, it's a hill. I would call it. They called it Yucca Mountain.

My first view looking out over the test site was the amount of relatively young -- excuse me, I'm getting nervous -- cinder cones or volcanic-looking emissions surrounding the entire site. I knew from watching and reading the news that two prestigious geologists and hydrologists had been fired at the site when their studies concluded the site was not safe for the next 10,000 years. The federal requirement for the site said it had to be.

We went into the trench dug to study possible seismic or ground water issues. This was one site that the hydrologists had been fired over. Not being very knowledgeable, but having some geology courses, myself and my fellow students saw the trench and noticed that, yes, there had been an upwelling of water. It was very obvious, even to the untrained eye. There had been an upwelling of water, and it flowed to the surface.

MODERATOR BROWN: About a minute.

MS. JONES: I am sorry, I will try to get this through.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Keep going.

MS. JONES: Anyway, so we were told, no, absolutely we were wrong. We just didn't know. Well, there were lots of scientists among us and they did know. And this hydrologist had been fired because of his opinion. But, oh, no, said our Yucca Mountain personnel, assigned to us. Can't you see that the water seeped down into the earth? No, I couldn't. There was a little vent, and then it spread out. Just like when water runs down the mountain and spread out at the bottom of the mountains. He said -- I remember his exact words.

Oh, I spoke to this hydrologist for a long time, not the one that was fired but one that was still working there in the lab. And I said, "Well, how's your ground water testing going? What's it like? Can I see some of the results?" He said, "It's never been tested for radioactive elements." I was rocked back on my heels at this disclosure. I knew prior that radioactive waste would never reach the ground water. They told us it wouldn't reach the ground water. Hmm. This hydrologist that they fired didn't think so. Needless to say that although there was much bragging and boasting about the billion and a half dollars already spent on PR, and that they had 4 billion more to spend, ha, ha, ha, on our bus trip, and I did keep a journal of this class for remembrances, in case my memory failed, because of my disease.

One last note, if you please. We learned against -- we learned a great deal about half life of all the nuclear power waste and just how hot it remains for thousands of years. When we saw a film of just how it was going to be stored, we saw that the canisters were going to be stored 16 feet apart from each other. This was very hot nuclear material, 16 feet apart. Casks. They haven't found a material that can hold the radio waste -- radioactive waste that's so high-level. So, I said, "Why are you storing it so close together?" They could not give me an answer. They did not give me an answer.

Finally, because of our protests, Chris Brown, the head of Citizen Alert at the time, came in to speak to us about the other side of the issue. He refuted much of what was being taught to us, scientifically, to our entire class. When asked how we could trust DOE after what we knew about Three Mile Island, just one example, the DOE representative actually stated there was never anything in Three Mile Island except a small radiation emission. We all knew that they had critical mass meltdown at Three Mile Island. How can we trust you?

(APPLAUSE)

MODERATOR BROWN: Jane Feldman.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Got tired of waiting and left.

MODERATOR BROWN: Okay. Claude Smith. Jennifer Viereck?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: It's almost morning. We can call on the recorder to take over when he needs to take a break.

MS. VIERECK: I have been asked to mention that I am number 66. I'm also auntie, as you can see. I have wonderful nieces and nephews all over the country and enjoy them very much.

My name is Jennifer Viereck. I am the Director of the public interest group HOME. That stands for Healing Ourselves and Mother Earth. I am a resident of Tecopa and Inyo County, California.

While Yucca Mountain has mainly been framed as a Nevada issue, our county is only 18 miles away from the mountain. Our water is immediately impacted by any runoff from Yucca Mountain, and portions of the Nevada test site already contaminated. I have already registered in writing to the Secretary of Energy our concerns about the violations of First and Fifth Amendment rights concerning the scheduling of this, the Amargosa and the Pahrump hearings.

I have followed this issue closely since 1987, to the detriment of my family and other responsibilities. I have traveled to many hearings at my own expense. I have struggled through tomes, I have learned to discuss topics completely unknown to me. Hydrology, seismology, geology, and so on.

I would like to be able to give you an educated response tonight to the suitability of the proposed Yucca Mountain Site. However, I am unable to do so for the following reasons:

First and foremost, despite repeated requests from myself and others, the United States has never at any time, in court or out, provided proof of ownership for the land surrounding Yucca Mountain. The most recent legal precedent for this is a case brought before the International Court of the Organization of American States, which last year decided against the United States. It upheld the United States' treaty with the Western Shoshone Nation, ratified in 1863, known as the Treaty of Ruby Valley.

In light of this, all current activities at Yucca Mountain appear to be trespass actions against the Western Shoshone Nation. Iraq was bombed for the same thing.

Secondly, even if you ignore this treaty completely, the State of Nevada has refused to give water rights to a project so clearly against the public interest. How can that proceed without water?

Thirdly, despite repeated requests from numerous entities, including myself, no comprehensive study has been done on the enormous impacts of massive waste transportation. During the draft environmental impact hearings, I asked questions at three different hearings. DOE staff present were unable to provide answers and said they would mail me responses. Later, I made inquiries. I was told my requests would only be processed after the final EIS was out. So neither my comments nor my requests for more information have yet been addressed. And the final EIS is not available to us.

So I am unable to reasonably evaluate the Yucca Mountain Site for suitability at this time.

During the supplemental DEIS in Amargosa in May, I again raised issues and questions. As a member of the CAB for Inyo County, California, that SDIS document was based on a number of highly speculative design components such as future storage ponds and above-ground storage facilities not previously considered. These would legally require substantial scientific study of surface water, earthquake impact, containment research, et cetera, as well as technical review and public hearings. I asked the DOE at that time to consider a USGS water report in the EIS which directly pertains to the effects the project would have on my community. Again since the final EIS is not complete, and my concerns much not yet been addressed, I am unable to reasonably evaluate site suitability.

When the EPA radiation standards for Yucca Mountain were considered, I and many others raised important concerns about demographics, dose calculations, and the arbitrary period of time under consideration. The standards were issued without addressing these concerns, resulting in several lawsuits. Since these lawsuits are not resolved, we do not know the final outcome on the radiation standards. I am therefore unable to reasonably evaluate site suitability.

In regards to the existing site suitability guidelines, it seems assured that the Yucca Mountain Project could not meet them. However, the evaluation for the purpose of these hearings is based on proposed new guidelines, apparently hoping to change the rules to fit the shortcomings of the site. Since these new guidelines are not yet law, but the legal guidelines were not used, I am unable to reasonably evaluate site suitability.

MODERATOR BROWN: You have one half minute.

MS. VIERECK: Furthermore, other critical information is not yet available, such as the study of metal Alloy-22, key to the containment of the waste itself. Or, the NRC's criteria for providing a license. Therefore, I cannot reasonably evaluate site suitability.

And lastly, as to the documents specific to this hearing today, I have been unable to obtain a copy at all. When first made aware of the August 21st announcement, I contacted DOE and was told the document was not yet available. Several days later, I was told that the copies were all gone. I received a CD a few days ago, but I am not capable of printing a 377-page book by myself. For serious review, I need something that I can bookmark, notate, and share with members of my community. Since I have not even seen the document, I can't reasonably evaluate it.

So let's encapsulate the few things that we do know and see where we stand. Under existing legal site suitability guidelines, DOE's own research for the past 20 years says that this site could not safely contain high-level waste. The demographic data on which the DOE based its dose estimates is over 10 years old, and was seriously flawed then. In the fastest growing population area of the United States. Under existing DOE studies, the water on which this precarious desert environment depends for life cannot be definitively protected. Vast documentation exists proving that all existing -- all existing DOE sites leak. Many of them on a genocidal level.

It is also well documented that the DOE has consistently lied and covered up since its inception to advance its own agenda. The United States has been unable to prove title to the land, land already poisoned by over 50 years of nuclear weapons detonation.

Like the gift of smallpox blankets, this project appears to be a racist attack on the Western Shoshone people, unprecedented in human history. For all the above reasons, I must emphatically ask that Secretary Abraham refuses to recommend the Yucca Mountain Site for any further consideration. That taxpayer monies not be depleted further on this essentially criminal enterprise, that reparations be made to the Western Shoshone Nation for the violations committed thus far, and responsibility taken for full mitigation of the site as much as possible.

I understand that the DOE has been trying to fulfill a morally corrupt mandate imposed on it by Congress, in 1987, to solely study this site for high-level waste disposal. I have spoken with project employees over the years and asked them how they can be a part of it. They assured me that they were supplying objective scientific information, and privately concurred in the last few years that responsible review would terminate this project prior to site recommendation.

Well, here we all are. However, we all have to go forward from this point. We need to return our nation to a sane and responsible path in containing this deadly poison that we have created. I pray that all of you at DOE have the moral courage to do the right thing, and if you don't, we will find a way to stop you. Thank you all for your time.

(APPLAUSE)

MODERATOR BROWN: The Court Reporter is going to require a bit of a break. I think we've been going for an hour and a half or so. The Court Reporter needs around 10 minutes, but we may be able to get a replacement in here sooner than that. So why don't we take a break, and I'll let you all know when we can reconvene as soon as possible.

The next folks who are signed up are Scott Lewandowski, Stuart Weymeyer, and I believe is it Saunnie Michael or Michael? So those folks are on tap. We'll take a quick break and, I'll let you know as soon as we can reconvene. Thanks a lot.

(Recess)

MODERATOR BROWN: We have a new Court Reporter. Welcome. Thanks for joining us. I would like to call Scott Lewondonski. Is Scott in the room? Okay. Stuart Waymire. I think it's Saunnie Michelle or Saunnie Michael. Ron Clair.

VOICE FROM AUDIENCE: He's here, but he's in the bathroom.

MODERATOR BROWN: I'll call the person after him. When Ron arrives, let me know. Thanks. Barbara Gerhardt.

I can't read the writing here. It's Joseph Mivigua, possibly. Does that sound at all familiar to someone out there? Okay.

Marietta Nelson. Is this Ron Clair?

MR. CLAIR: Yes, sir.

MODERATOR BROWN: You're next.

MR. CLAIR: Thank you.

Ron Clair. I was looking at you folks. Looks like we lost one of our panelists here. She's on her way.

I've been watching you a good bit of the night and I've always been trained to take notes and I'm surprised you guys -- I don't know -- a couple of you guys have been taking notes. I notice the young lady had a whole binder there. I guess you're going to review this stuff tomorrow. But my point is --

MODERATOR BROWN: Tomorrow has already arrived.

MR. CLAIR: I have one point to make on this. It's kind of important. I noticed this gentleman make a note when he saw the young lady, Susan Jones, I think it was, made a comment that tickled his fancy and he wrote something down and I think maybe it might be a good idea for you guys to once in a while, if you see something very important, you might make a note. I hate to tell you what to do, but I've always gone to meetings with paper in hand and I always make notes. I thought maybe that I would just reprimand you a little bit.

How can the Department of Energy be so dumb? I don't know. We must have an awful lot of smart people here. We seem to know all the answers. But it's amazing how the Department of Energy can be so stupid. I don't understand this. The general public seems to know all the answers and we tell them what we want and they don't listen.

This great country of ours is supposed to be by the people. Another gentleman a little bit before me, maybe five or 10 back, talked about the law and let the law handle it. Well, that's a bunch of baloney. The law is the people. And we are the people. And we want to be heard. And we're the ones that make the decisions. We tell you people and we tell our Congressmen and Senators what to do. We saw them on the screen a little bit ago. Agreed, that they know what to do. They tell the government what to do. They are the government. We are the government. It's important that we be heard.

It's rather obvious to me tonight that everybody here, almost everybody, the consensus is 95 percent or more, want certain things done. We don't want, as Mayor Goodman said, the crap put here. We should be talking about solutions. I think we should be talking about solutions.

How dumb can the DOE be? I mean, let's talk about solutions. I haven't heard a lot about solutions tonight. I jotted a couple down. Somebody said let's do it right the first time. And then I think the gentleman, if I'm not mistaken, went on to say that the right thing to do is to put the junk here. Well, I don't think that's the right thing to do. The right thing to do is do the right thing.

Why not leave the junk where it is? The least expensive thing is to leave it where it is and let the 110 sites or 43 states, whatever it is, leave them control what they're going to do with their junk. Not give us their junk. We'll take care of the junk that we cause perhaps. Let's hope so. But why move it all over the country putting people in jeopardy when the most economical thing is to just leave it where it is and bury it or whatever? That's what we're going to have to do with ours.

I've got a comment here. I hope the Department of Energy -- I don't know how they cannot get the message that we're trying to tell them -- I hope that they may fear us. We're the people. Giving our liberty, giving us liberty to control our own state's destiny. I don't think the government is supposed to tell states what they're supposed to do. I think the states are supposed to tell the government what to do. I mean, the states should have some rights.

I've got to mention something that Thomas Jefferson said. I may have it all jammed up and not quite exactly true, the right way he said it. He said, when the people fear the government, it's called tyranny. Well, tyranny is absolute power and, well, we have a lot of tyranny coming our way from our form of government. He said -- I repeat -- when the people fear the government, it's called tyranny. When the government fears the people, it's called liberty. That's what we want and I still say: How dumb can the DOE be? Thank you very much.

MODERATOR BROWN: Bob Gratrix. I know that he had, I thought fairly recently, indicated that he was about -- let me, if somebody can find him, if he happens to be out in the lobby. He did leave? Okay. All right.

Lori Brown.

VOICE FROM AUDIENCE: She left.

MODERATOR BROWN: Okay. Homer Johnson.

MR. JOHNSON: Right here.

MODERATOR BROWN: We have a winner.

MR. JOHNSON: Homer Johnson.

I'm an activist. I consider myself an American activist. I get involved in union activity, political activities, workers rights activities, and I've been involved in this issue for quite a while and this is my fourth time speaking before -- I don't know if it's the same people every time -- but before this board.

And I think it's a travesty what has happened this time. Every time I come early, I help set up tables, I sign in early, and every time I wind up here in the wee hours of the morning speaking to an empty room except for the people that care enough to come here at this hour. And I think it's a shame and I think you need to get it right next time, if there is another time.

Right now, you know, I was going to say to stretch, but you just had a stretch. I had a teacher one time that made sure we did that because it gets the blood flowing, makes sure you're thinking properly. If everybody is thinking properly right now, then --

(BLOWS WHISTLE)

I use this whistle on picket lines, rallies, when there is danger to let people knowing there is danger. There is danger right now in Nevada. Not only in Nevada, but in the states all across the United States, where this stuff is going to be coming from and across. And it's a shame, it's a shame that it's happening.

I come from Knoxville, Tennessee. Oakridge is 30 miles from where I live. My grandfather died of cancer from working there and I'm ashamed of the union people that come up here and they say, oh, I've worked there for 30 years and nothing has happened to me. Well, you better hope it doesn't happen to you because it's a travesty to your whole family when it happens. My dad right now is battling cancer because he worked at Oakridge. I worked at Oakridge one day. They put a monitor on me. And they didn't say, "This is if there's a leak." They said, "This is to monitor how much radiation you get and when it turns green, you got to go home." That's what they told me. The DOE says it's safe. It's not that safe. Anybody who thinks it is, they're wrong.

Now, I'm running for Congress and it's a big joke to a lot of people. I might not make it in 2002. I might make it in 2004. But I guarantee it, those Congressmen in Washington better watch out because Homer's coming to Washington and he's going to be mad as hell when he gets there. Thank you.

MODERATOR BROWN: Reverend Billy Hawkins.

Teresa Morrow.

I believe it's Andy Harris. Hi.

MR. HARRIS: Good morning. My name is Andy Harris.

I'm a resident of the state of Nevada, Clark County. I live in the city of Las Vegas. I've got a simple concept that I want to convey to you folks and to our colleague there from the state Washington, D.C. to carry back, is that: No nuclear garbage in our Yucca Mountain at all, bottom line.

I am vehemently opposed to the DOE using Yucca Mountain as a nuclear garbage dump. Your insane idea to dump thousands of tons of man's most deadly waste are our land is utter stupidity. I challenge president George W. Bush wacker -- and he's wacking, he's trying to wack Nevada at this point in time -- his Vice President, DOE Secretary Abraham, Senator Murkowski and their lap dogs from the Nuclear Energy Institute, including Bob money-grubber List, former Governor here in our state, to personally come to Nevada and listen to the voices of the men, the women, and the children to whom Nevada's home.

Intelligent and concerned adults understand a nuclear garbage dump is not environmentally safe, nor a long-lasting answer to this problem. Technology holds the answer, not dumping your nuclear garbage in Nevada.

"Sound science" is the Washington, D.C. Republican administration's favorite political buzzwords. We've heard it over and over and over again. What does it mean? What does it stand for? Why do they use it all the time? Well, it's a smokescreen used to mean one thing -- screw Nevada. And that's all it means. Nothing else. There's nothing behind it.

Nevadans, these people, at DOE are not our friends. You can take that to the bank. They don't care about our best interests. They only answer to their moneyed political bosses. They will not tell you the total truth. You can't bank on that one.

So it's time to send the message out, to wake up, Washington, D.C., wake up. Wake up, Department of Energy. Nevadans are not fools. We're outraged at your dangerous and life-threatening swindle of the public trust. No nuclear garbage in our Yucca Mountain.

MODERATOR BROWN: Joe Lamb.

MR. LAMB: Good morning. Ladies and gentlemen of the panel, my name is Joe Lamb. I'm a citizen and resident of Nevada.

If you were going to build a house, Doctor, would you build your house on a foundation of six inches or a foundation of three feet? That's a question. Can you answer that? Would you build it on six inches or three feet?

DR. DYER: I guess it depends, sir.

MR. LAMB: It depends? That's the political answer I expected from you people.

Ladies and gentlemen, our state is blessed with a problem. The crust of the Earth in the state of Nevada is only 20 miles thick. The crust of the rest of the Earth across the United States is 60 miles thick. So I ask you: Why would you build a repository on crust that's only 20 miles thick and also geologically active as opposed to building it on crust that is 60 miles thick and not active? Hello? Are we here? Are you listening, sir, from Washington? I'm glad you are because these people aren't.

MODERATOR BROWN: In fairness, I think in order to save time, we're asking that the --

MR. LAMB: Okay, I'm just --

MODERATOR BROWN: Okay.

MR. LAMB: Now, if this stuff is so safe and it is so great and is so safe and it can't hurt anybody, bury it under the White House. Okay?

Now, we have a million and a half people here and you're going to put a repository 70 miles from a million and a half people? And you think we're going to lay down and roll over and say fine, wonderful, we'll take it. I got a solution for you. Strap it on the nose of a Saturn rocket and fire it into the sun. What would it cost us? A couple million dollars? There's your solution, boys, because the radiation in outer space will far exceed any of the plutonium that we can ever produce. Therefore, fire it into the sun. That's the biggest nuclear reactor we've got. Therefore, it solves our problems. It's in nobody's backyards and it's gone. And also start studying repossessing. That's your answer, because, gentlemen, ladies, you're in for a bear fight here because we ain't going to take it.

Thank you very much. Appreciate your time. Come back and see us.

MODERATOR BROWN: Frank Coffee made his statement to the Court Reporter, but if he is still here and wishes to make a further statement -- okay.

John Lynch.

Tony Clark also spoke to the Court Reporter.

I know some people said they wanted to do both. Okay.

Austin Barnett.

Don Reed.

Charlene Briggs, I think, also spoke to the Court Reporter.

Don Robertson.

Herman Roth.

Terry Robertson. Good.

And I have, I believe, Merle Roth after Terry.

MS. ROBERTSON: Terry Robertson, fourth generation Nevadan.

Thanks for the whistle a few minutes ago because I think we all needed it to wake us up. I hope that everybody that needs to listen is listening now.

I've been coming to meetings like this since 1982 and I would just like you all to know that the DOE set standards way back then for how they were going to treat the citizens of Nevada and, by darn, that's one standard they have not changed in all this time. They're still treating us disrespectfully. They have dishonored the people that had to leave tonight. And parents with children had to go home at 10:00. It's a travesty. It should not happen. Three hours for us to talk about one of the most important things that's going to happen in our state.

But I'd like to take you back down history lane. The three of you sitting at the table, does the name Paul Laxalt mean anything to you at all? They're shaking their heads "yes" because way back when, Paul Laxalt had the state of Nevada in his hands and he slapped them together and helped produce the reason we're here tonight.

And the first night that I talked was at a meeting run by his lackey, Barbara Vukanovich, if you remember her. And as we were so eloquently speaking against the dump, she approached the podium and said -- it's been a long time, so I hope I'm quoting her accurately, anyone that would like to call her and ask her if I've quoted her accurately, I'll be glad to give you my number so you can call and see if I did it right -- "If you're going to continue to come to the microphone to speak about the Yucca Mountain repository, then I must ask that you call it 'the repository' during your remarks."

Well, that -- you're all being so kind tonight and so sweet. You know, it started off a little ranky here, but I wish you could have heard the language in that room that night in the North Las Vegas City Council hall as we all tried at once immediately to tell Ms. Vukanovich what she could do with the word "repository."

So here we are 19 years later and, you know, you just wonder. They've not listened to us at all. And the fact of the matter is, all of you who know all of this science and have been up here so nicely talking about it, it hasn't got a damn thing to do with the science. It was politics that got us into this mess. And in 1982, you didn't see any politicians standing at the podium saying it's not going to come because they were all standing in the closets wondering what the heck to do because the Nevada Legislature back then in la-la land had even passed a resolution asking the United States government to see that the dump, the dump came to Nevada.

And it was people, people like the people that had to leave this meeting tonight that would not take yes for an answer, that made the turnabout in the politicians you saw speak hear tonight. The only one we had leading the fight was Senator Bryan. None of them were leading the fight that spoke tonight and most of them lived here back then, except Dario. It was the people. And the people should be allowed to speak, all of them. Not in three hours, but in two days. It's a public hearing. And we should have that opportunity, all of us. Thank you.

MODERATOR BROWN: Merle Roth.

Louis, Bensay or Benezet. All right. Good.

MR. BENEZET: It's now a little past 1:00 and I'm rather tired. My mood has changed from outrage to exasperation to exaustion as the evening has progressed, so I suppose one positive aspect of this whole process is that you have a mellower Mr. Benezet to deal with.

I was one of the people that was shouting at the speakers and the podium when I came in. What ticked me off when I walked through the door out here was seeing the consultants that work for the Nuclear Waste Program for Lincoln County, funded by the DOE. Three of them were out in force, employees of Robison & Seidler. Aside from myself, I don't believe there was anybody else from Lincoln County despite the fact we paid the firm of Robison & Seidler to help us monitor the Yucca Mountain program. They didn't think it was worth their effort to notify anybody in Lincoln County about these hearings. Of course, that's also partly the DOE's fault for not giving enough time frame between their announcement in the Federal Register and the actual hearing dates. It's inexcusable. Other counties have done better. Eureka County sent out mailings to all their citizens to make sure that people that far away knew what was going on.

The reason I mention it, which you may not feel it's worthy of mention, but we've heard different kinds of comments tonight and they've fallen into the comments of those who seem to be for the dump and those who seem to be against it and those who have spoken tonight for the dump have repeatedly used the same expressions. One of the expressions I heard tonight was, the anti-s are focusing on the process. And this is a tactic that intervenors use.

I heard the same exact words from Mr. Paul Seidler one day at a nuclear waste meeting in Lincoln County when I asked him if he would mind telling me, giving me a client list for the Robison & Seidler firm. He said he declined to do that and our chairman of the Nuclear Waste Committee didn't press him on it. Then he made that statement and I heard the identical statement from Bill Vasconi tonight and it should be no surprise that Robison & Seidler, who works for Lincoln County, also works for the study committee, which is Mr. Bill Vasconi's committee. Robison & Seidler has also in the past worked for the Nuclear Energy Institute, and Paul Seidler is on the transportation committee of the energy community's alliance, who you also heard here to tonight.

There should be no surprise that all these people made it to the hearing and spoke early on. Robison & Seidler works for Esmeralda County and they showed up in force. Those of you who were prepared and coached to give the line that Robison & Seidler give them to give. Seidler used to work for HHOC. Now they're representing the counties in the oversight of the Yucca Mountain Project. They're speaking for us citizens addressing the impact of what affects us. Instead, they're manipulating the scene so the message that comes out of these hearings comes from the people who are supporting the program and not from those of us who are against it.

I am delighted that citizens in Lincoln County have been so effective that they thought it worthwhile not to let us know about these hearings because had this been a couple years ago, you would have seen a group from Lincoln County here going through the same song and dance that the folks from Esmeralda County were going through tonight. This is nothing against the folks from Esmeralda County.

I have been infuriated over the way in which the process has been manipulated by people with a lot more influence and money than the average citizens is able to bring to bear on this. But that doesn't mean that I'm ready to stop.

I came to Pioche in 1980. I was not new to Lincoln County. I've been a visitor as a kid. My mother was actually born there. When I arrived in Pioche, a thread in my life began which has lasted ever since and that thread is Citizen Alert. Since 1987, I've been on and off the board of directors of Citizen Alert. I am not a would-be activist seeking a cause. I didn't have to look for it. It was in my backyard.

When I arrived in Pioche, we were in the middle of MX country and we needed help. We needed somebody who was out there giving information to ordinary people so they could know what to do when they went to public hearings and said, what's this going to do to us, to be right in the middle of a major missile base when we thought we were moving to the country?

A few years later, a group of us battled a proposal for a toxic waste incinerator to be located within two miles of the town of Pioche, about a half mile from my own dwelling. Again, Citizen Alert helped us organize leaflets to the community so we could let people know about what was going on.

When I was coming down today, I looked through a stack of papers in my car to see what I would bring into the room today and I have here Citizen Alert, silver anniversary, 25 years, a voice for the land and people of Nevada. And I want to remind Bill Vasconi and Paul Seidler and anybody else who wishes to listen, that there is an alternative to saying it's inevitable, we've got a deal for dollars. There is the alternative is Citizen Alert and it has been tremendously effective.

This battle has been going on for 25 years. Citizen Alert was founded when two women read an article in a paper that said -- this was in 1974 -- that the AEC proposes a Nevada test site as a nuclear waste disposal site. They pooled their resources and they went to the hearing. Where was the hearing? The hearing was in Salt Lake City. The sites that were being considered, under consideration for housing all the nation's nuclear waste and all the military nuclear waste were the Nevada test site, Idaho National Laboratories, and Hanford, Washington.

You know, it's not rocket science. The theory was, we own the land already, we've already contaminated it and made victims of the people out of there and gotten away with it. We can do all we want with those guys. They made it to the hearing and they spoke up. They pointed out that the EIS that had been prepared for the project was inadequate and they succeeded in having it withdrawn. It was a major victory.

In 1982, we had the Nuclear Waste Act. In the beginning of the process that we're in right now, a process which is either coming to an end or reaching a major milestone at this time. We've gone through the whole process of participating as citizens in monitoring a supposedly scientific solution to the problem of solving the nation's nuclear waste. And yet, as much as we have committed ourselves to this process and participated in it, and I myself have attended hearings, I've attended hearings on the PEIS, the DEIS for the Yucca Mountain program and this hearing tonight.

MODERATOR BROWN: We still have 40 names left.

MR. BENEZET: I'll try to wrap up.

MODERATOR BROWN: Thanks very much.

MR. BENEZET: We finally reached the point where I think it's clear that what we knew from the very beginning has always been the case. Yucca Mountain was singled out before it was ever evaluated scientifically. Science has always had to be manipulated to make the foregone conclusion fit whatever evidence they were able to come up with. They've continually revised the criteria under which the site would be selected.

It's, for example, if we were, as Nevadans, on trial for having committed a major crime, we would go into court with some confidence that they would have to prove us guilty in order for us to actually end up in jail. That's not the way this system works. There is no criteria under which Nevada escapes under the DOE rules. But there is one thing that remains after this process is complete and that is Citizen Action. Citizen Action will never die and it will hopefully eventually stop this program dead. Thank you.

MODERATOR BROWN: Desiree Kicker.

I believe it's Denise Duarte, made a statement to the Court Reporter.

John Medlin.

Looks like Paul Colbert.

Brent Burger.

Harry Mortenson.

Brian Greenspan.

Kalynda Tilges. After Kalynda, there is Wayne King and Steve Chase are the next in order.

MS. TILGES: By the way, it's 20 after 1:00 and I'm number 105. If your podium is not short enough, I'll be grabbing a chair.

My name is Kalynda Tilges. K-A-L-Y-N-D-A, T-I-L-G-E-S.

Some of you people may recognize me as a Nuclear Issue Coordinator for Citizen Alert here in Las Vegas. That's not how I'm speaking to you tonight. I'm speaking to you as a 30-plus-year Nevada resident, a mother, a grandmother, and a damn angry person. I will honor what you said. I will call this, I will stop calling this a dump and I will call it what it is -- a nuclear waste suppository. This is a travesty.

Hi. Hi, Lake, how are you? You're still up.

MR. BARRETT: Washington time, too.

MS. TILGES: And coherent. This is good.

The studies aren't even done. I don't know if very many people know that the guidelines that this whole charade is being based on are not even finalized yet. The guidelines, the legal guidelines that are in place would have disqualified Yucca Mountain a long time ago.

I realize that you all don't give a damn what I have to say and I want people out there to realize that Nevada and the entire country has been a victim of psychological warfare for 20 years. Go to sleep. Don't fight because it makes the job for the Department of Energy much easier. That is not inevitable. You may ask why I'm even up here. Even though I haven't seen much in the last few years, I still believe in democracy.

And I have kids at home and if there is any TV cameras here, kids, I know you're still up watching me, don't worry about school tomorrow. I'll write you a note. It will be excused. This is the greatest civics lesson you'll ever get.

I would like to commend the Department of Energy on a 100 percent success rate. And that is contamination of every site it's ever got its hands on. There is a reason why there are Worker Compensation bills going on in Congress. It's to try to buy off the people who died because they were lied to.

The projects's head scientist, Mark Peters, testified in front of the Technical Review Board and validated this to me, that when their scientists do an experiment or a test, if they get the results they expect the first time, they do not retest. Anyone here remember their high school science? Is that valid science to you? No, it's not.

I've got my points all mixed up.

So once again, as I've told many people here, to the Department of Energy, to our government, it's people -- I actually like all of you, I really do. I'd like to go party with you sometime. I think you'd be a hell of a lot of fun. Besides I know you make bank and you can buy drinks. As professionals, I respect a few of you. As an agency, I'm disgusted, ashamed, and afraid of all of you.

I used to think that sound science would buy the trick because sound science would create good jobs, but I realize now that if you grease enough scientists' palms, they'll give you scientific data to prove the moon is made out of green cheese. Talk about NIMBYism. I can think of no greater NIMBYism than the people across the country wanting to dump on Nevada. I have never said, "Not in my backyard." I say, "Not in anybody's backyard."

People on the webcast, I want you to understand that in order for the waste to get to Nevada, it has to travel through your backyard, through your front yard, through your state. It's not going to be magically transported here. Your property values will go down. Your homeowner's insurance does not cover it. Pull out your policy and check it out. I have a fistful of them in my office. I'll be glad to send you copies.

And so to say to some of the people that have been out here talking about, let's negotiate, I'm sorry, my children and my grandchildren's lives cannot be bought at any price. I don't care.

What I'm going to close with on those notes is that -- I formally call at this point for the department -- I formally state that the Department of Energy is a rogue agency and should be abolished for gross incompetency and held accountable for fraud and murder.

Thank you.

One more thing. This is my 8-year-old son's testimony. I wouldn't let him come tonight because I was afraid of what the nuclear industry goons may start. He made this sign by himself for our demonstration on the strip. By the way, don't think it will be the last. I promise you, it's just a start. It says, "Nevada is not a wasteland. Nuclear power, no thanks." We don't have it. We don't plan on having it. We're not stupid enough and I request the DOE take their project and go home.

MODERATOR BROWN: Wayne King. And Steve Chase. Kish Marler to follow.

MR. KING: My name is Wayne King.

I am a Nevadan. I've lived here for over 40 years. Like the gentleman said earlier, I came here because my father was looking for the money. He needed a job. He needed to make a living for six kids. He brought them to Las Vegas. I was 12 years old. My father worked the test site until he retired. He's still alive today. It didn't kill him. He's 78 years old. He was hit with radiation twice. He doesn't have cancer.

I have six children. Most of them live in Las Vegas, all but one. I have 19 grandchildren that all live in Las Vegas. And I want to see Yucca Mountain come to Las Vegas, come to Nevada. Yucca Mountain is a project that will bring jobs. It's going to happen somewhere. This state deserves it. We've earned the right to have it. We've done the testing. We have the property that's already been ruined with the testing. It's not good for anything else.

It's good for Nevada and it can bring roads to Nevada, schools to Nevada, training. I'm a teamster. I've driven over a million and a half miles accident-free. There is a lot of them just like me. We know how to transport stuff safely. It can be transported safely. Chicken little is not falling on my head.

I still trust part of my government. I've worked the test site. I've worked for contractors who have been at the test site. I'm still alive. I don't have cancer. It's not all doom and gloom. We've made a lot of money off the test site, this valley has.

Harry Reid got up here, started bad-mouthing everything at the test site. I worked for his brother. I'm not going to stand up here and take up somebody else's time like other people have done, but I do support Yucca Mountain and I hope it gets done.

MODERATOR BROWN: Thanks very much. Steve Chase. And to be followed by Kish Marler, and I think Robert Lucia.

MR. CHASE: I'm Steve Chase. I'm a resident of Las Vegas and a business owner. I am a father. I was a teamster at one time myself. And a culinary worker member. And I'm glad that your father is still alive. But some of them aren't. And my father's one of them, actually. And he died of cancer. But it wasn't necessarily specifically from this.

I don't have any great prepared statement like many of the people have. I'm amazed that I'm even here. I'm thankful for the publication of this event, not from the minuscule legal requirements of them, but of that which I saw in the newspaper, and I just felt that since this might be the last opportunity. I wanted to make it abundantly clear to my government that they do not have my permission to put nuclear waste anywhere in our country, and certainly not here. They do not have permission to create any more of it.

The problem that we're dealing with here, and the only thing I can think of that hasn't been spoken of too much, there have been very many good reasons to not put it here already spoken. The only reason the people that I've heard who have spoken in favor of letting it be here have been people who have cited monetary issues and the fact that they personally haven't suffered or that their family members or their businesses would benefit from it. Those are the only reasons that I have heard in favor of having it here.

But I don't think a price can be put on the lives. I don't think there is any way of counting the cost. It's like for an alcoholic to take one drink. The price of the bottle is only the down payment. There's no way of counting the cost.

There's no science good enough to assure us that this can safely be done. The people who unleashed the weapons in the first place, many of them realize that after the fact. They have tried to stop it.

Very little has been spoken this evening about the alternatives to this entire thing. They've said how wonderful it is that 20 percent of our energy comes from nuclear power, and I would imagine if this gets going, the industry would prefer to have it be a higher percentage because they can say, look, now we have a safe place to put it. That's not true. And there are alternatives.

The money, the Department of Energy should be spending money developing wind power, solar power, geothermal power. We should be encouraging people to conserve energy, to use less, instead of building larger houses and consuming more. Thinking that somehow is an improvement in life. It's not. I have had a substantial amount of money at times, and I have been poor at times. But I'm considerably more wealthy now than at an earlier time in my life when I had more money, because I believe I now understand that wealth is not money.

The few people of whom I hope, I want -- that are simply coming to these things because they care about their brothers and their future and they care about their children and their children's children, are the ones that hopefully will swing the balance. The ones who may, when the time comes, find it necessary to lay their life down for their brother in front of a train. You know, what more noble thing could be done? And it's just amazing to me that we're here, in spite of the fact that the only reason that this is happening is because of the legal requirement that only the minimum portions of it are being kept.

They don't really want to hear us. But I do know that when I'm face to face with someone, it's impossible for them not to hear. So I do hope and pray that some sort of change will occur in the hearts of those people who have the power to make these choices. I know I'm not that person.

It's not really much of a democracy. I hope that some kind of a change will happen, even if you have to quit your job and they'll immediately put somebody else in your place who will do what you're supposed to do. That will still be a tremendous victory if you're able to do that, if you're able to tell the truth.

I commend the gentleman, the doctor here who apparently told the truth to our mayor when he looked him face to face and said can you assure me that this is absolutely safe? And he said, no. I can't do it. No one can do that.

It's ridiculous to even think that an accident won't happen. Many examples have already been given of how every site that you have has been contaminated. There have been accidents in other countries and in parts of our own country that are publicized. There may be others we don't know about.

It's an extremely dangerous source of power. The whole idea of nuclear energy is the problem. It's not about what to do with the waste. That's the thing that we in this country, we do all the time. We like just use it now. Who cares about the rest?

MODERATOR BROWN: You're at the 5-minute mark.

MR. CHASE: Already said more than I thought I would, but I want to make it abundantly clear you do not have my permission to do that. I'm an American citizen, and I can trace myself back to the signing of the Declaration of Independence, which is not as good as the Indian people before, but it's an embarrassment to me to be an American when we're doing the things we're doing to the world and showing arrogance that we have. Of thinking that what we do is, who cares? I mean it's not just the Nevadans that are being stepped on here. It's all of us, stepping on the whole world. We're all Indians here tonight.

I don't know anyone in the room -- if there is anyone -- who are actually in favor of it being here, who aren't thinking of some kind of monetary position. No one's spoken that way that I know of. And the most of us are here, and we have no monetary gain at all, and we're all opposed to it, so please take that message back, sir.

I know the policemen that are here tonight, I hope they get to hear some of this, because they're also just regular citizens. I'm just a regular citizen from the street, and if you polled us here in Nevada, you would have what, many, very high percentage would be opposed to it. Probably nationwide, a high percentage would be opposed to it. We're not that unthinking. But you don't want to do that, do you? You want to cram it down our throats anyway. I hope you don't. Because ultimately we all have to answer for our actions, and there is an authority much higher than our government to whom we have to answer. Thank you for letting me share.

(APPLAUSE)

MODERATOR BROWN: Kish Marler. I believe it's Jim Blockey? Bobby Ferer. Ivonne Nellis. Atef Elzeftany.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: He's gone.

MODERATOR BROWN: Bella Sholes? Ed Wrenn. Good. Okay, after Ed we have Richard Hall and Robert Ruppert.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: What number are we?

MR. WRENN: We are 118.

MODERATOR BROWN: We are 118.

DR. WRENN: Well, they said it would be after midnight, and they were right. Well, thank you everybody for staying up. Later. I've spoken to emptier rooms before. Giving the last paper at the Health Physics Society Meeting of the whole week, I knew everybody in the audience. They were all good friends or were intense enemies, either way. My name is MacDonald E. Wrenn. I have a PhD in environmental health sciences and nuclear engineering from New York University.

I am here at my own expense. I am not employed by any of the protagonists here. Since April 16th, I turned 65, and officially retired from my position as Professor of Pharmacology at the University of Utah School of Medicine. I read about the meeting two days ago in the internet edition of the "Las Vegas Review Journal," which I read every day. And thought a little bit and said, I ought to go to that, because I was a member of the American Physical Society Study Group on Nuclear Fuel Cycles and Waste Management. And we produced a big thick report which I could not rest from the University of Nevada at Las Vegas library, because it's bound with four other reports about this thick, and it's one of their precious copies in the basement. They will hardly let you get your hands on it even. But they will let you take it on the first floor. They'll bring it up for you, they won't let you go to the basement yourself. Which is fine with me. Since I don't climb stairs too well any more.

I mentioned that's there, because some of you might want to go read it. Here's the author page, 12 physicists who had migrated into fields, like allied fields, like the ones I did, radiobiology, and we had two geologists, two physicists who had become geophysicists, geologist, physicists, really, and so on, and we, we had the job -- I'm going to try and read -- boy, the print was really little in that issue. I didn't think it was so little back in 1978.

(LAUGHTER)

Okay. The study was undertaken under the auspices of the American Physical Society, as an independent evaluation of the technical issues in the use of fissionable materials and nuclear fuel cycles, together with their principle economic and environmental health and safety implications. Processing was also examined.

Now this was in 1976 that we had this committee going. We spent the summer at Los Alamos. We had a third of a million dollars from the National Science Foundation to do the study. If we needed to talk to anybody in waste management, we brought them there. So we were not short on either money or brains. It was a very brilliant committee, if I may modestly say so. But I, I just reread the chapter on, Chapter 7 on high-level and TRU waste management, very well written, and I've pulled out just a few items which I thought I would bring up to the group for your consideration.

I do not speak for the study group, as it was disbanded upon completion of the task to avoid anybody speaking for it. We let the report speak for it, but I have lifted some sections from the report, or done my best to paraphrase them. Without changing any of the importance. It speaks to a lot of the concerns and even ideas that have been brought up here tonight by various of the participants.

MODERATOR BROWN: You've got about a minute left.

DR. WRENN: Okay. My position, I do support the DOE process to place a long-term spent reactor fuel repository at the Nevada test site. I believe the decision should be made on the basis of science and engineering, not politics. That's true science and engineering. I will list the reasons.

I believe the orderly management of our nuclear power reactor spent fuel is long overdue. The benefits will be for us, our children, our grandchildren, the State of Nevada, the United States, and the world. Economic benefits to the state include long-term addition of some financial stability to the Beatty area, which has suffered severely from the economic dislocations caused by the shutdown of gold mining activities there. Replace nuclear power generation on a surer foundation. Help the U.S. deal on a more orderly manner with the problem of dwindling fossil fuel reserves and other resources. Restore citizens' faith in the ability of the federal government to management waste for the long-term, and alternatively, government has said it's too important to be taken on by any other organization. Restore the credibility of the U.S. government abroad and nuclear energy and energy development.

If the U.S. Senate had not overwhelmingly rejected the Kyoto Treaty limiting CO₂ emissions to the atmosphere, supplementation would require shutting down all coal-burning electricity generating plants in the United States. And if global warming continues, we may yet face a curtailment in fossil-generated electricity. Then it would be advantageous to have the nuclear generating option to mitigate widespread economic disemployment and distress. By the way, there are half a dozen papers in the literature that show that generating electricity by nuclear energy is the safest of all the alternative of the fossil fuels.

MODERATOR BROWN: If you can just give concluding statement.

DR. WRENN: I have a couple of other statements I've got, but I'll just read the ones that are important. The committee felt that the hydrologic -- the only credible way for significant amounts of radioactivity to eventually leave a repository site is by hydrogeologic transport. Okay. And this was after a great deal of thought. And the rate of transport of the radionuclides is much lower than the convection rate of water flow, except for tritium 3 which is limited amount in fuel and it would remove with the water being a, an isotope of hydrogen.

I tried my talk out on a freshman student at Mojave College this morning. And she liked a little trick I'm going to give you quickly. Which helps with back-of-the-envelope calculations. You multiply the half life by a factor of 3.3, which anybody can do with a calculator. You don't need to be a physicist now to do this. That gives you the tenth life, the time over which 90 percent of the radioactivity in a given isotope will decay. After two tenth lives, there's only 1 percent of the activity left. Six tenth lives, one 1-millionth. In fuel, spent fuel the longest live nuclides from fission are cesium 137, strontium 90, half life of 30 years, tenth life of a century. That makes for simple calculations. For reprocessed waste which are devoid of the long life activities. Every century, 10 percent. Now you can do the calculations yourself. Excuse me for --

MODERATOR BROWN: If you can add the rest of that, you can submit that for the record.

DR. WRENN: I will submit a written copy for the record.

MODERATOR BROWN: Okay, that's great. Thanks very much.

(APPLAUSE)

DR. WRENN: I wanted to let everybody know, I enjoyed all the speakers on both sides, and I wrote a little something up here that might have been used a little earlier. I said --

MODERATOR BROWN: Let me -- we've still got about 10 or 12 people to go, so if you can submit that for the record, we'll be glad to record that, thanks.

DR. WRENN: I say, let us agree to disagree, and agree not to be disagreeable.

MODERATOR BROWN: Okay.

DR. WRENN: That was pretty fast.

MODERATOR BROWN: Good advice, thank you. Richard Hall? Robert Ruppert Jr. And following Robert, we have Barbara Buckley, and Cory Brobst.

MR. RUPPERT: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Robert Ruppert, and I am a Nevada resident, living here in Las Vegas. Good evening, Dr. Dryer. I'm hoping that the Honorable Spencer Abraham will get a chance to listen to what I have to say, as well as the people that here in the audience.

I am proud to say that I am pleased that so many diverse thoughts have come to be expressed here tonight, both pro and con, and even neutral if there are people that are neutral. I will share the feelings that I am for this project, but I'm going to approach it from a different perspective that I don't think anybody has talked about here tonight.

In the beginning of the creation of everything that we know of, all that exists, all matter, and all anti-matter, came from nuclear decay. Science can prove it. It cannot be refuted. We, as humans, have been given a task here that is so overwhelmingly important, the rest of humanity from generations to come will know that this moment in time, and the decisions that will come down in the near future, will have the greatest consequences of how we conduct our lives.

Nuclear energy is what makes us live. If you laugh at this, you're a fool. If you don't know otherwise, go back to school and take basic science courses. We are blessed in a universe that has given us stars that light up the skies at night, and give life to this planet, and our sun being a nuclear furnace. All the material on this planet came from nuclear decay.

I am proud to have listened to several distinguished professors here, and research scientists, unaffiliated with this project and doing independent research, and I am absolutely in awe that they had had such a disciplined mind to spend the time to work on something that gave them interest, and gave the rest of humanity knowledge. I am very thankful for that.

On the other side of the coin, I appreciate those thoughts from people who may not understand the intricacies of the science involved, for their input is just as valid. I've been absolutely amazed at the sincerity of these people's concerns and fears, because I myself, many years ago, had those same feelings. I decided to go back to school, study geology, was fortunate to have met some wonderful professors, both men and women, who have guided me to think critically about an issue that will have far, far reaching repercussions. Don't ever think that this thing is not important, because the future of this planet's survival for energy usage will be predicated on how well we understand and apply nuclear science and its transmission, reprocessing and eventual disposal, if that so be the case.

MODERATOR BROWN: 30 seconds.

MR. RUPPERT: President Bush, the Congress, distinguished scientists that have worked on this project, there is a task ahead of them that is so important, it's going to have global repercussions. It is my wish and my prayer that the members of this society take a leap of faith and support them in this project, and not let what Franklin Delano Roosevelt said so eloquently back in the 1930s. The only thing you have to fear is fear itself. Thank you very much.

MODERATOR BROWN: Thank you. We have signed up Barbara Buckley.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: State legislator had

to leave.

MODERATOR BROWN: Cory Brobst. Deborah Huck. Duane Hines. Martha Law or Lew.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: She got disgusted and left too.

MODERATOR BROWN: Okay. Marjorie Detraz. Is she here?

MS. DETRAZ: Yes.

MODERATOR BROWN: Okay, good.

MS. DETRAZ: Take a while to get up there because of my knee.

MODERATOR BROWN: That's fine. And Russ Michaelson I believe is following Marjorie.

MS. DETRAZ: I want you to read this. I don't know how many of you are aware of it, but the reason that we have Yucca Mountain to fight is because of the county that I was born and raised in and still live. And Louie Benezet and myself have been fighting this nuclear waste in Lincoln County for 6 1/2 years, and I feel like he's my brother. I'm so proud of his presentation tonight. He's a fine man, very brilliant mind. And if you'd see how he has talked to in these JCCIAC meetings, in fact we both are. This whole thing is purely political. And I kid you not.

In Nevada, there are 17 counties, and our Governor passed a state resolution that Nevada would accept no more nuclear waste. They felt we had taken or turn, so what did we have? A few small politicians in Lincoln County defied the state and offered to be the one who would make it possible for them to bring the nuclear waste from back East to Yucca Mountain. And so how much money, how many people have had to come to these meetings, all of these years, for this very reason. And you heard Louie talk about Robison-Seidler, that's the consultants for our county. And I can't begin to tell you how many billions and billions and billions of dollars they have taken, not only from Lincoln County, but they also serve Esmeralda, White Pine, the other nine counties that are affected. It's purely political.

You know, I, I personally think that it's time for Nevada to go on the offensive. We're not the crooks. We're not the robbers. We're the aggrieved people. You tell me, this defies anything I have ever heard of in my life. If you keep your yard clean, does your neighbor have a right to throw his garbage over in your yard? Well, that's what they want to do. And every time they say not in my backyard, I say, not in my front yard either.

Why do we have to take everybody else's waste? And the thing of it is, folks, we have a brilliant guy who gave us the answer. I found this in the "Review Journal," and it's dated April 14th, 1999. And it's called "Environmentalists Reject Yucca Dump." I put on here, "Attention all Lincoln County and Nevada citizens. This news article is the answer to our prayers and will solve the nuclear waste storage problem. Please read on and be vocal in supporting it." We are not expendable. Protect our families.

And Louie and I are charter members of the Citizens Nuclear Information Committee in Lincoln County. And this is by Arjun Makhijani, who by the way lives in Washington, D.C. He says, instead of a federally chartered non -- now he's talking about this nuclear waste program as they carry it on right now. An alliance of environmentalists offered a plan Tuesday that would eliminate Nevada as a nuclear waste storage site, and take management of highly -- excuse me. And take -- and take -- let's see. Lost my place. A long-term -- thank you very much, I think that would help. Thank you.

And take management of highly radioactive spent fuel away from the Energy Department. I don't think DOE is up to the job of doing this work, said Argen Makhijani, President of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research.

Now this is the solution, folks. Instead, a federally chartered, nonprofit corporation should be appointed to develop a long-term strategy for nuclear waste storage, Makhijani and other environmentalists said. The government would pay nuclear utilities to continue managing waste until their licenses expire. Then the corporation would assume ownership of the spent fuel. Money for the corporation would come from the Federal Nuclear Waste Fund, which is financed by payments from nuclear power rate payers.

Other features of the plan would include research into the seabed and other geological repositories and disposal beneath the earth's crust. What he's saying, folks, is we know it's here, it's a problem, and we have to solve it. But give science a time and a period to do that. It didn't take them 100 -- we know they can keep it right where it is for 100 years. It didn't take the scientists 100 years to produce the atomic bomb. And they're working on it every day. Leave it where it is. The -- a lot of the problem is going to be in the transportation of it. And then again, you go into this political thing.

MODERATOR BROWN: You have about 30 seconds.

MS. DETRAZ: Oh my gosh, this reminds me of Lincoln County. Every time we get in one of these meetings, we're not allowed to say a word until the meeting is over, and then Louie and I each have 5 minutes. And that's it. I think our right of freedom of speech is being violated myself. See, here we -- I drove 150 miles from Caliente to come down to this meeting. And I certainly didn't think I'd be at this time of the morning speaking. And I guess I've used up my time.

Here -- let me just show you this photograph. This is a photograph, and this nuclear train that's going to start hauling the nuclear waste to Idaho is going to start next month, folks. And it says here, right here, it says big government started cleaning up West Valley. It's going to start in West Valley, New York, across all those 43 states, and it's going to be kept in Scoville, Idaho until Yucca Mountain is licensed. I mean, it's just almost a done deal. According to them. Okay?

And get this, though. The government started cleaning up West Valley in 1982 and should complete the project soon. Now listen to this. The waste is being shipped to Idaho where it could be kept in dry storage casks for 30 years. For 30 years. At least until a permanent repository opens. Now if they can keep it there for 30 years, why are we pushing this thing on Yucca Mountain right now? Like it's got to be tomorrow or last week. 30 years. And that's what they're going to do, they're going to haul it across 43 states for 30 years to get it from back East to Yucca Mountain, and all thanks to my county.

I told Lincoln County, you're the Judas Iscariot for the nation. They've been disloyal and unfaithful to Lincoln County, to the state of Nevada, and to the American people, who will be put in jeopardy. Their very lives. Can you imagine how many -- we're talking about billions and billions and billions of human beings over the next 30 years. Think about it, folks. And I have one more thought to leave with you. The blessing of freedom is easily taken for granted, until it is lost. Keep nuclear waste out of Nevada. Thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

MODERATOR BROWN: Thanks very much. Russ Michaelson? Okay. Good.

MR. MICHAELSON: I think we owe a vote of appreciation to the two facilitators who have stood at this podium over there. They've shown a certain amount of courtesy --

(APPLAUSE)

And have had a very difficult job. They've kept the process moving.

However, as a private citizen, I come here not representing anybody. I don't have a job at stake. I don't have a consultant fee at stake. I only come here to represent myself, and I think I'm typical of the state of Nevada.

As the 132nd person to sign up asking for speaker time here, I think it's appropriate to note that it's now 2:00 a.m. in the morning, and we've been at this process some eight hours, I believe it is. And over half of the speakers appeared to have left. I think it should be noted that when you report to your Washington senior personnel, that the adequacy of time didn't, even allowing five minutes, certainly was not enough to do it all in one day.

Now I'd like to talk for just a minute about a principle of democracy. In this country, since the founding fathers debated the establishment of our form of government, there was two principles that seemed to be pulling in opposite directions. One is that the rule should be by the majority, whatever the majority decided would be the course of action. The other is that despite the rule of the majority, that the rights of the individual and the rights of the minority should be observed and be given credence to and protected.

We have, of course, just one state here that's being, as dumped upon. The state of Nevada, somewhat 1 1/2 to 2 million people that we have here and the other 5,000, 6,000 a month that move in here. We're a minority, and our rights are not being protected as they should be in a government, a republic such as we have created in this country by the founding fathers, and such we hope to preserve and protect for the future. I think the rights of the people and the will of the people of the state of Nevada should be given very important consideration, and if the people here do not want it, we should not have to take it. I'm concerned about --

(APPLAUSE)

And I -- if we look at the list of speakers or the types of people, we should find there's two general groups that have spoken here tonight. There have been those that have vested interests, because of employment, consultant fees, or profit they hope to make on bringing the dump here. There are those that have been funded by nuclear energy industry or their allies, or those that want to have money.

On the other side of the fence, those that oppose seem to be the people that live here and the people that are in the majority, and the elected representatives of those people who have listened to the people speak know their sentiments and their feelings and have expressed their opposition. Not only here, but continually over the years.

So I think we have to determine the validity of the decision-making process. Should it be by the will of the people, or should it be by those with vested interests? I have a number of relatives, number of friends that are involved in the health care industries and hospitals in Nevada, and in the surrounding states, including the University of Utah Medical School that was mentioned here earlier. And in discussion with them over the last 20 years, about the inflow of patients that come in, particularly the young children. A frequently heard phrase, almost weekly, here's another young child, with leukemia, or cancer, or some disease as a result of nuclear radiation. They are hopeful in that industry, the health industry, that that trend will diminish.

But we are proposing to move nuclear waste around the country without fear that any of it will contaminate anybody. And I think that's a fear that should be given great credence to. Man has not created any invention, any system of transportation, any mechanical, electronic or nuclear device that at some time or another has not failed. Now you can look at train accidents, truck accidents, cars, ships, nuclear submarines, space probes, unmanned space probes, Challengers, and whatever. Every endeavor that man has created or invented sooner or later fails or creates an accident or a hazard. And sooner or later, we will have these accidents and hazards throughout our nation in these. We've seen the maps of the transportation routes, and the, almost the whole country's affected and will be put at risk. When it does not need to be. Storage can be on site. Storage can be in these 100-year containers, while we work out the other problems, the scientific problems.

MODERATOR BROWN: 30 seconds or so.

MR. MICHAELSON: Thank you. I'm concerned that in this 5-minute process that we've all been limited to here, that some very knowledgeable people with scientific backgrounds did not have opportunity to present all of the information they came here prepared to present, on both sides of the question, and particularly on those that were opposed to the nuclear dump. Again, that speaks to the inadequacy of this hearing process, and the need to expand it so that all people can have their input. The process of making these decisions has been spoken somewhat critically as being a political decision. And from a political science class, from a very knowledgeable professor, I learned that political decisions are an attempt to ascertain the will of the people, and make decisions in the best interests of the people. And the best interests of the people of Nevada is that we do not have this repository here. And in the best interests of all the people in all the states and all the routes and all the communities and all the towns and all the railroad sidings, and all of the cities and all the industrial areas that these routes pass through and all these transportation hubs, whether it be Las Vegas, Salt Lake City, Denver, Chicago, whatever, or even the country town, if you like to, nobody wants to have the accident happen in their city or their town.

Now with a million and a half people here, 2 million probably shortly down the road in 10 years, there's about that many people in the Washington, D.C. area. Why not put that nuclear dump within 70 miles of Washington, D.C.? And subject that same number of people to the same risks that they propose, or any other location in the country. It would not be acceptable there. It's not acceptable here. And I think we should all continue our fight to oppose the nuclear repository in the state of Nevada. Thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

MODERATOR BROWN: Okay. That concludes the number of folks who signed up to speak. And I think that, in fact, concludes the number of people who want to speak. I guess it's with great hesitation that I ask if there's anybody else, and I'm not sure there's anybody brave enough to raise their hand at this point. So I guess seeing nobody -- oh, all right. Well, I think the burden of proof is on the speaker here. We'll -- so anyway, welcome. And if you dare, you can identify yourself.

MS. EMBAKLEN: Oh, you bet. I've been waiting for this all night.

MODERATOR BROWN: All right.

MS. EMBAKLEN: Good morning. My name is Kate Embaklen. I am the Executive Director of Citizen Alert, and there's been so many incredible people speaking here tonight that I don't have to go on. I think hopefully you've gotten the point, although people have been knocking on your door for 20 years. Sounds like you haven't got a lot of their points yet. But I actually wanted to just go on the legal record and indicate here that it's 2:10 a.m., Pacific Standard Time here in Nevada, and the room, I would guesstimate we still have 60 to perhaps even 80 people in the room, if we included some press folks, and we got some security people in the back.

Our security people, looks like we only have about four security personnel that are still in the hearing room. Got a few cameras going. Just wanted to describe this scenario for Secretary Abraham.

This is pretty amazing given the fact that this has been a travesty on your part. Shame on you. Shame on you, putting Nevadans through this. Shame on you putting Marge Detraz, from having to drive 120 miles and testify at 2:00 a.m. That's not public process. That has nothing to do with that. And these hearings have been a sham. And that's all I have to say. Thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

MS. DETRAZ: We talk about -- this is from Albert Einstein. As this -- Albert Einstein and Bertrand Russell said that people can scarcely bring themselves to grasp as they individually and those who they love are in imminent danger of perishing, agonizingly, and he's talking about nuclear.

MODERATOR BROWN: Thanks very much. Okay, I'd really like to conclude this. And I'd like to ask Barry to --

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: But it's early. It's Las Vegas.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Can I say something? It will take 10 seconds.

MODERATOR BROWN: Go ahead.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: The article that woman is referring to by Albert Einstein, had directly to do with nuclear weapons.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Well -- it was a --

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: There's a complete difference between nuclear weapons --

MODERATOR LAWSON: Okay, please. I'll let you talk about that in the -- we have several hours before you have to go to work, so plenty of time to talk about it.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: May I ask a question, real brief? I want to know what it would take for a hearing like tonight, and I appreciate very much, Barry, all that you've done tonight, I appreciate Holmes, all that you've done tonight. It is a very difficult position you've been in. What would it take for your position to have been changed so much that you could have gotten out of here at a decent hour and the rest of this hearing could have been continued at another time next week? What does that take? I want to know, because letters haven't done it, phone calls haven't done it. What does that take?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: The people got -- over 100 carloads of people left without getting a chance to comment. Giving them a turn, a fair turn.

MODERATOR LAWSON: The comments have been registered by the Court Reporter.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: No, they weren't.

MODERATOR LAWSON: They have, right now they have been. So that's it.

Now, I just want, before you leave, I just, have a couple of comments. First of all, I want to thank Holmes for taking over what turned out to be three hours. I thought it was going to be an hour and a half. I fully appreciate that. Second, there are so many people that I want too thank. I want to thank everybody who took their time to come early last night and through to this morning, and for people who took the time to make statements. We really appreciate that. I also want to make an observation that, quite honestly I'm a morning person, so if you want to get me at my best, you get me in the morning, and I've heard that there are evening people. And night people. And I saw some today. It's clear that there are some people who don't come to the fore until it is at least 12:00 at night. And it's interesting to have seen that.

We have had two Court Reporters who have been going at it pretty steadily tonight, Mary and Kevin Daniel, and I want to thank them very much. This is not easy.

(APPLAUSE)

And I don't -- I hope you all realize that even though it's over five hours ago we stopped the video teleconferencing, it went without a hitch. And we -- these people put together this whole program in less than five days. And I just -- Tim Brennan is one of the people over here responsible, but there's a whole team who did that in lickety split order and they did a great job. I just thank you for that. That's great.

(APPLAUSE)

We have three panel members here who have been here for the duration, and this is not easy and I appreciate that. And certainly for Bob Card who came in from Washington, is he still here? In any case, Bob, thank you very much for coming. I know everybody appreciates that. And in any case, there's a thank you wall. I just want to remind you that there are two hearings next week, one on the 12th, one on the 13th, at Amargosa Valley and in Pahrump. And I don't think that I have anything else to say, except this -- remember it is quarter past 2:00 in the morning. Be careful driving home. If you feel at all drowsy, go to the side. If you need to have a cup of coffee or something like that, do it. There's a Coke machine or whatever out here. I just want you to be careful driving home. With that, I adjourn this public hearing. Thank you very much.

(APPLAUSE)

(Whereupon, the meeting was adjourned.)

---o0o---

~~Previous Section~~ | Next Section