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: Mary Cox Daniel, CCR No. 710
P R O C E E D I N G S
MS. FELDMAN: My name is Jane Feldman, J-A-N-E, F-E-L-D-M-A-N.
I'm submitting comments for the Toiyabe chapter of the Sierra Club. My comments are signed by our chair, Ellen Pillard, E-L-L-E-N, P-I-L-L-A-R-D. T-O-I-Y-A-B-E. Toiyabe -- I just have a page and a half and I'll read this and then turn this in.
It's addressed to Ms. Wendy Dixon of the Department of Energy, the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management.
We say: Dear Ms. Dixon, Nevadans are concerned about the continuing effort to place high-level nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain. Storing dangerous nuclear waste in the Nevada desert where it will remain for 10,000 years is unacceptable to most Nevadans, but we weren't asked when the Federal government decided to study the Yucca Mountain site. We have been repeatedly assured that science would decide this question.
Now, before the final Environmental Impact Statement has been released, the Department of Energy is holding public hearings on Yucca Mountain as the sole nuclear repository in the country.
Since 1986, the Sierra Club has opposed the storage of nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain. The list of our concerns is long.
First, the entire approach to the project is flawed. There is no good science when only one site, Yucca Mountain, is being studied. An Environmental Impact Statement requires that alternatives be reviewed. In this case, no other locations have been considered, and even the two scenarios of the No Action Alternative in the DEIS are unreasonable and infeasible.
A second concern is transportation. The DOE's proposal for transporting nuclear waste takes nuclear waste through 43 states and could jeopardize 50 to 60 million people. With the recent serious toxic spill in a Baltimore tunnel, a railroad toxic spill in the Midwest, and several toxic spills in eastern cities, this is a major issue. One nuclear accident in the transportation of this waste could jeopardize the health and safety of all nearby communities.
One of the most serious issues that has been raised by the scientific work at Yucca Mountain is ground water contamination. The hydraulic relationships between the lower carbonate aquifer and the volcanic units and the alluvian units beneath and down gradient of the aquifer are poorly understood. Will there be contamination in the Amargosa River? Will that contamination spread to other aquifers? Without clear answers to these questions, locating the nation's high-level nuclear waste in irretrievable underground tunnels in the Nevada desert is unacceptable.
We are concerned with health modeling, population modeling, and the dose calculations, and the cumulative long-term and perceived risk calculations. We are concerned that engineering barriers are necessary, when we were supposed to be able to rely on geologic barriers alone for protection. There has been no field testing of the system for rod retrieval. We are concerned about the additive risks of placing a new Superfund site at a place that is already a Superfund site.
The government would like to cast this as a Nevada problem, but it is truly a national issue. The Sierra Club with its 750,000 members nationwide recognizes this and is working to stop the unsafe transportation and storage of nuclear waste in Nevada..
We would like to thank Senator Harry Reid for his longtime hard work to stop Yucca Mountain. Senator John Ensign and Nevada Governor Kenny Guinn also deserve thanks for joining in this critical battle to protect our communities and our environment.
Sincerely, Ellen Pillard, Chair, Toiyabe Chapter, Sierra Club.
MR. WAYMIRE: Stuart, S-T-U-A-R-T, last name is Waymire, W-A-Y-M-I-R-E.
In the early '90s, I spent a number of years writing a book on Yucca Mountain researching the background of the opposition. While there is both pro and negative arguments for Yucca Mountain or, in fact, for technological innovation, what I did find was that the roots were disturbing in that there is a political emphasis on decentralists theory which is anarchist theory which comes out of the Nader groups. I've done a book called, "Yucca Mountain, The Battle For National Energy Policy." I will be presenting that on a website too. The address is www.alcoveweb.com. However, there will be a website devoted to it in the future. This will go through and outline where a lot of the money was spent. For example, $15 million to socioeconomic studies that went out the state of Nevada. The fact that there were no socioeconomic review. The peer review was done by someone from out of state. A number of other, 350 pages of other inconsistencies. So my conclusion is that this is beyond a technical issue and has become a political issue, very much to the detriment of the U.S. and to our energy policy.
And that's my statement. That's good enough.
A. Barbara, B-A-R-B-A-R-A, Gerhardt, G-E-R-H-A-R-D-T.
I'm just an everyday, ordinary citizen, elementary schoolteacher, and quite adamantly opposed to the Yucca Mountain repository. I oppose the repository itself, just on the basis of the time limit that studies say everything is safe for it, I don't think is reliable or credible, that it's rather -- what's the word -- I'm blanking out on the word -- but just that we, as humans, think we know more than nature to assume that this is going to be safe, when in the past many times what man has done has not been safe and has created enormous problems. I'm also equally opposed to any shipping of the waste, the hazards on the roadways, trains, rails, whatever, seem almost greater than the repository itself and concern me greatly. Once again, it gets back to credibility of the United States government and the statistics that they choose to relate to the public, well-known fact that when they did the above-ground testing here at the test site, they told citizens of the area, go out on your roof, take a look at it. Quite a sight. And in the interim, many people have died. I have a friend who died of downwind cancer at the age of 38, highly attributable to being exposed to the downwind drafts. So for many reasons, but quite simply, because voicing my opinion as opposed.
MR. LEWONDONSKI: My name is Scott Lewondonski, L-E-W-O-N-D-O-W-S-K-I.
I've been observing this debate for better than 20 years now and it seems that it all boils down to politics and my concern is the people who are making these decisions and influencing those who make the decisions are doing it for political reasons and not because it's the right thing to do and if there is any way I can urge some of those people to make the decisions based on what's the right thing to do, then that's what I'm here for. I hate to see something like this be determined because of politics. I guess that's about all I got to say. Thanks.
MR. GRATRIX: Bob Gratrix, G-R-A-T-R-I-X.
I'm a Las Vegas resident. I just wanted to say that I'm opposed to the slipslod manner by which the site selection was made, the process for certifying it for licensing has been conducted. I feel that my rights as an American citizen have been violated and taken away because I don't think that I'm getting a fair chance for my opinion to be heard in this matter and that I think that the DOE is going about this process all wrong because they started with a conclusion and they're doing everything that they can to make it fit the, the facts fit the conclusion that they already have selected. So that's my statement. Thanks again.
MR. COFFEE: My name is Frank Coffee, C-O-F-F-E-E.
I'm for the repository, although I would like to see an economic analysis such that we as residents of the Southern Nevada would be able to get some compensation or, for that matter, all the residents of Nevada, because we are taking something that people don't want to put in their state's backyard and put it in ours. I recognize this is a proven safe way to store. However, there is one caveat. I've heard of transmutation and I would like to see a cost analysis on that to see if that is another viable way to store materials and to concert them so the storage time is less and the radiation hazard is less.
MR. SMITH: Claud Smith, C-L-A-U-D, S-M-I-T-H. I'm Claud T. Smith, retired Las Vegas resident for the past 35 years.
I'm a former employee of EGG Las Vegas operations. I, too, have reservations about the safety of storing nuclear waste in my state. I do, however, realize that this state has been the site for the safe testing of the advises for the defense of the United States government. I believe that given the safety record by the Department of Energy and others, test-related entities, that our safety will not be compromised by the storing of waste at Yucca Mountain. When dealing with hazardous waste such as this, it is academic for me to say that the safe handling procedure for the transport and storage of the material will not be done safely. I simply don't know. I can only say that barring several minor incidents, we conducted testing of devices for the nation's defense for approximately 40 years. That, to me, speaks for itself. That's all I have to say.
MR. CLARK: I'm Major General Retired Tony Clark.
I'm the Solicitor General of the State of Nevada. I'm with the Nevada Attorney General's office. On behalf of the Nevada Attorney General, I'm appearing to strenuously object to this hearing to consider the possible recommendation of Yucca Mountain as a site for the country's first high-level nuclear waste repository. Without the benefit of final siting guidelines or Final Environmental Impact Statement as a foundation for its tentative decision, the Department of Energy is, in effect, depriving the public of the opportunity to provide meaningful input into a decision which has potentially huge impacts for Nevadans and for the nation as a whole.
The Nevada Attorney General has repeatedly sought clarification of the United States Department of Energy's intentions concerning this hearing to consider a Preliminary Site Suitability Evaluation for the proposed high-level nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain. Notice of this hearing published in the Federal Register on August 21 of this year does not make clear whether the noticed hearings and ensuing public comment period constitute Nevada's entire opportunity to appear here and submit comments addressing the proposed Yucca Mountain site recommendation as required by section 114 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act.
To date, the Department of Energy has not issued its final site guidelines for the proposed Yucca Mountain repository, nor has DOE issued its Final Environmental Impact Statement for the protect. DOE is apparently relying on documents that by its own acknowledgement are preliminary, namely the Yucca Mountain science and engineering report and the Preliminary Site Suitability Evaluation report.
It is the Nevada Attorney General's position that any hearing conducted before the siting guidelines are finalized and a final EIS is issued, it is premature and invalid under the act. The public and the state simply cannot provide meaningful comments to a project of this scope and magnitude based upon preliminary documents which do not reflect the final proposal within the context of applicable siting guidelines and a final EIS, evaluating the environmental impacts of the largest public works project in history.
Under no set of circumstances do we believe that this hearing comports with section 114 of the act and the clear mandate that DOE shall provide for public hearings to consider a site recommendation. Moreover, it is particularly inappropriate to limit in any way the opportunity of Nevada's Governor and Legislature under section 114, subparagraph 1F of the act to comment on the final site recommendation and report once they are issued by DOE. On behalf of the state of Nevada, I respectfully protest this hearing and request that DOE comply with the provisions of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. Thank you.
MS. PRICE: Sara Price, S-A-R-A, P-R-I-C-E.
I just wanted to formally protest the hearing, that it's not in compliance with established law, that it's time constraints and hour, location are entirely unreasonable and don't afford a real opportunity for comment, not to mention, you know, substantively that Yucca Mountain is not the appropriate place for a nuclear waste repository.
MS. HANSON: Barbara, B-A-R-B-A-R-A, Hanson, H-A-N-S-O-N.
I'm definitely opposed to the Yucca Mountain. I think man is very arrogant thinking that they have all the answers for everything. They can't even get the studies with the correct answers and here they are saying, you know, that this is going to be good for 10,000 years. Who are they to say? I mean, we're only people. I mean, people make mistakes and I think this is going to be a doozer. That's about it. Thank you.
MS. BRIGGS: My name is Charlene Briggs. C-H-A-R-L-E-N-E, B-R-I-G-G-S.
My comments are: Nevada will be the nation's nuclear waste repository. It's a done deal. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 require utilities generating spent fuel and high-level radioactive waste to pay for the cost of disposing of its waste. The Secretary of Energy/the government, entered into fee for service contracts with the utilities for disposing of this waste. In return for this service, the utilities paid annual fees to cover the entire cost of safely storing this waste. Now the utilities are threatening and will sue the government if action is not taken soon. It will happen. It's a done deal. Any obstacle that Nevada causes to delay the repository will be a most exercise in our freedom to speak and voice in opposition, better known as the second amendment to the Constitution.
Nevada has an opportunity to play an important role in this done deal and must trust the findings and recommendations of the scientific academy. Everyone, not just you, but the entire world wants this waste to be transported and discarded safely. The magic word, transportation, transporting the waste to Nevada concerns me more than storing it in Yucca Mountain. Has the government or the Department of Transportation, the Department of Energy, and all the other entities involved in this endeavor, prepared guidelines for moving it from the 78 commercial nuclear power plants in 35 states to Nevada?
MS. BROWN: Lori, L-O-R-I, Lipman, L-I-P-M-A-N, last name Brown.
I've lived here 25 years, long enough to remember that the scientists who concluded Yucca was not suitable was fired; long enough to remember the internal memo which is disclosed that the dump is a public relations project, not a scientific study. Shame on the DOE for asking or telling Nevadans to sell their health and safety.
MR. HRUDICKA: Jim Hrudicka, H-R-U-D-I-C-K-A.
Well, I didn't actually rehearse anything. It seems as though with all the flaws that have been uncovered in the site selection, that we would revert to the original question of whether it was safe to put this stuff underground for hundreds of thousands of years and expect it to stay in that place. I can't imagine why this plan got started in the first place. Since it's completely impossible that engineering soil containment would last that length of time. If the stuff were left in an available site so that it could be retrieved, I wouldn't really have very many problems with it. But to bury it where it can't be retrieved by any technology that we have at the moment, seems insane.
MS. FERGUSON: My name is Maryann, M-A-R-Y-A-N-N, Ferguson, F-E-R-G-U-S-O-N.
I'm a resident of Nevada. My comment would be is: I'm opposed to the Yucca Mountain dump site. Don't make Nevada the dump site for the rest of the country. If we pass it, I will move to one of the other 49 states. I don't believe that it's tested thoroughly enough for researched enough. I believe my legal rights have been trampled upon and I think that with over 40 million tourists coming to our state and in this coming decade or this decade that we're in, that I think it's irresponsible of us to consider building something of this magnitude within 100 miles of a city of this proportion.
MS. FROST: Debra, D-E-B-R-A, Frost, F-R-O-S-T.
If this passes and Yucca Mountain actually does come into being, I will be moving out of the state. I will be taking my kids with me. I would highly encourage anyone to leave. There is no way they could ever convince me that they could do this safely. They're saying that those receptacles are good for 10,000 years. They have no way of proving that. We've been lied to in the past. I'm not going to fall for it. I think it's a shame that Nevada, if it happens, would sit still and let it happen. Every state should be responsible for their own waste. That's it.
MR. DAVIS: David Davis, D-A-V-I-D, D-A-V-I-S.
I'm a Nevada resident for 10 years. I just want to say I'm in favor of nuclear storage in Nevada. Nevada has a long history of working with nuclear power and I feel that it's in Nevada's best interest to continue that by having storage here. And to have a "not in my backyard" attitude at this point is hypocritical. That's it.
MR. SHUPP: My name is Jim Shupp, S-H-U-P-P.
I'm a former Nevada test site worker. I worked out there for 11 years. During the 11 years I worked out there, we heard about Yucca Mountain on a daily basis. This goes back to 1990. I left in 1990. And it seemed to me it was a slam-dunk deal back in the '80s, that just about everybody knew this was coming and I think politics has played a big part of why it's not here already and I think that since it's going to be here, the money they put in was the only feasible place for this, according to the surveys, is Yucca Mountain and I think they should go ahead with it and I think it's safe. I just want to go on record saying I'm for it.
MS. SCHOLES: My name is Bella, B-E-L-L-A, last name, S-C-H-O-L-E-S.
I would just like to comment that I do not think that Yucca Mountain is suitable for nuclear waste storage. It's got earthquake faults. It's an earthquake -- it has the faults with it. I'm really concerned about the transportation of it. I have small children. I was born in Las Vegas. My children were born in Las Vegas. I -- it makes me nervous that I'm going to have to sell my home and move if they put this here and I don't think it's fair to me being, my family being second generation here. I think if there is an accident, the tourism, it's going to kill the tourism for the state. How many people visit Chernobyl? I'm really disappointed that the Department of Energy is going to put almost 2 million peoples' lives at risk by storing it in an unsuitable area.
MR. BLOCKEY: Dean Blockey, D-E-A-N, B-L-O-C-K-E-Y.
I'm against nuclear waste because the transportation is too dangerous coming back and forth.
MR. McGOWAN: My name is Tom McGowan, Las Vegas resident, M-C-G-O-W-A-N, Thomas.
It's abundantly evident on multiple action grounds that it is scientifically technologically impossible to guarantee the safe secure and human intrusion impervious transporting storage of high-level nuclear waste to an underground geologic repository via any combination of natural and design engineered artificial barriers, statistical, problematic modeling and institutional controls over any substantially endearing term, either Yucca Mountain, Nevada, or elsewhere nationally, or anywhere on the planet.
Since January of 1990, and thereafter repeatedly to date, I have personally submitted this irrefutable factual information to, quote, unquote, you, as well as to the NAS/NRC, the U.S. NRC, the U.S. EPA, the NWTRB, the NTS/CAB, and the directors of the National SSABs and all nuclear waste pertinent federal, state, regional and local entities and agencies, apparently to no avail, since you adamantly choose to persist in a limited special interest of expediency-driven state of denial in furtherance of a wholly subjective agenda ensured adversely impacted upon human and all other species of organic life as well as the natural environment requisite to sustain life on historically unprecedented human and universal scale, continuing for the rest of geologic time and thereas particularly causal of the extinction of human consciousness itself. Exclamation point.
Consequently absent, you immediately and henceforth refrain from any and all activities pertinent to the underground storage of high-level nuclear waste and absent you immediately report to and strongly recommend the Secretary of Energy, the President, and Congress of the United States to repeal the Nuclear Waste Policy Act as amended, herein the act, in entirety with full prejudice and in perpetuity, you will be duly charged and vigorously tried as herein specified and set forth. The official generic, quote, unquote, you inconclusively are engaged in a prior knowledgeable, willful, deliberate, intentional and malicious conspiracy to commit mass genocide on historically unprecedented human and universal scale intergenerationally and for the rest of geologic time. You will stand accountable, responsible and liable in accordance with applicable law before an international tribunal consistent with the legal principle of international jurisdiction and notwithstanding identification in terms of rank and station and/or sovereign national allegiance.
My response to the letter and enclosed query from the acting director of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, OCRWM, Dr. Lake Barrett, dated 28 August, 2001, consists of 18 pages and will be submitted in writing to the office of DOE/OCRWM within the next few days.
I hereby request the entirety of my oral and written statement, legal stenographer transcribed copy, written text of my comments in the instant subject meeting and hearing as well as the entire written verbatim text, my response to the letter and query from Lake Barrett be included in the official public record of the minutes of the hearing meeting pursuant to timely distribution, the Secretary of Energy, the President and Congress of the United States, all nuclear waste pertinent federal agencies and private entities, the nuclear waste-pertinent nations of the world and the human and universal public, intergenerationally and in perpetuity.
Thank you for this opportunity to address the public record, submitted as transcribed by Mary Daniel, public record, contractor with the DOE, Nevada, and today's date, Wednesday, 5 September, 2001, the ides of September.
MS. CHRISTY: Renee Christy. R-E-N-E-E, C-H-R-I-S-T-Y.
I've been a resident of Nevada for 18 years. I have seen how the nuclear energy industry has been trying to force this down our throats and it's wrong. We don't produce any nuclear energy in Nevada. There are other processes that are being used in Europe that could easily be imported to the United States that are much safer than transporting nuclear waste across the country. There is no reason to use a recently active volcano that sits on top of our water table that would cause us great harm in our development as a community if it was ever to leak, and the reality is there is no such thing as foolproof. That's it.
MS. McKENNA: My name is Betty Plaza McKenna, B-E-T-T-Y, P-L-A-Z-A, M-C-K-E-N-N-A.
It is a joke among the United States Department of Energy, the Yucca Mountain project developers, and the politicians in Washington that Nevada was chosen as the site to store low-level radioactive materials and do nuclear testing because no one from Nevada showed up when the site was picked. Well, as you can see, a lot of people showed up today. I'm not naive enough to believe that anything I say today in front of this forum is going to change any of your minds in going forward with your future plans because when it comes down to it, there really isn't a more suitable site in the whole country because your scientists haven't come up with a better plan or do not choose to look at alternatives.
The Nevada test site has already created a location for us to ensure that our nuclear weapons are still operable so that we can protect our country. It has also provided a dumping ground for all of the country's low-level radioactive materials to be stored. But now the stakes are much higher because we're now talking about storing high-level radioactive materials and with that, we inherit a lot of risk that none of your reports talk about.
In your own reports, you state that the DOE scientists are still studying the site to determine whether it is suitable or not. So your own scientists are not even sure and that's after spending $6 billion. By all your reports, seems to me that the people of the Amargosa Valley and Nye County are expendable. They may be to you, but not to me. And neither are any of the men and women you will be transporting in from Clark County.
By going on the tour of the test site, most of the selling points of this new project is that if there are any problems, it will be in about 30 or 40 years. I don't know if the scientists or the DOE's employees or any of the Yucca Mountain project developers have any grandchildren, but I do. And so do many of the people that are out here today. This is not an inheritance I would like to leave behind like what's happening now in Marion, Ohio, and other parts of the country.
So now, all that remains in my mind are a lot of questions. What are you going to do to subsidize the roads and all of these trucks that will be destroying our roads on a daily basis? What are you going to do to control and clean up the air pollution created by all the extra traffic? What are you going to do when some of your employees start having defective babies? What are you going to do when you leave a widow in the streets because her husband dies prematurely and you all already know that this is already happening. What are you going to do to ensure that proper funds are in place to compensate the lives you ruin? What are you going to do to ensure that the inherent dangers in cleanup expenses do not become a problem for the Nye County or Clark County taxpayer. What are you going to do when you have a nuclear disaster? Notice I didn't say "if," I said "when." Who will supply all the body bags all the way up to San Bernardino?
The test site is surrounded by fault lines. There are seven volcano heads in the site and around it. It has a military target practice range. So we all know that it's just a matter of when. It is the State of Nevada and its citizens that will be mostly affected if we become the country's high-level radioactive materials dumping site. As a citizen of Las Vegas, North Las Vegas, and Clark County, I would like to see this decision put to us in a ballot and if we decide to turn down your request to store high-level radioactive materials in the state of Nevada, you should abide by it and your scientists should come up with a better plan. Our state and its citizens are not disposable. So I say let's vote on it.
MS. FRAIRE: Bari, B-A-R-I, F-R-A-I-R-E.
My statement is that I am opposed to them to the use of Yucca Mountain. I just want to say that I'm opposed to nuclear waste being stored at Yucca Mountain facility. I'm opposed to it coming through our county. I'm opposed to it. On behalf of my child, my son, and the future of our area, Nevada, I just want to state for the record that I am, as a citizen of Las Vegas, opposed to the use of that facility for that purpose.
MR. O'CLAIR: Lucas Michael O'Clair, O-C-L-A-I-R.
I don't want the facility here. And I don't want a truck to be driving with the nuclear waste across town and it gets in a car crash and then it leaks, then it gets all over the road. And if it gets into our water, we could get cancer.
MS. ELLIS: Nancy Jane Ellis, N-A-N-C-Y, J-A-N-E, E-L-L-I-S.
I'm against the Yucca Mountain project as a site for nuclear storage. I think nuclear energy is a wonderful idea, but I think it's unsafe at the time. I think as we developed the atomic bomb during World War II, I think if there were a moratorium on the use of nuclear energy, it would mandate that a means of safe storage and use could be found. And I think this would be the best road to take now. In regard to the current waste, a safe means must be developed and I do not think Yucca Mountain is the safe place to store it.
MS. KOHEN: Deborah, D-E-B-O-R-A-H, last name K-O-H-E-N.
I'm very, very strongly opposed to the shipment of nuclear waste to Nevada. We don't even have a nuclear power plant here. Why should we be the place where other states are sending their nuclear waste? It sends a message to everyone else in the country that they can go ahead and use the worst technology available to them and they don't have to take any responsibility for the mess it makes because they can ship all the bad stuff somewhere else, somewhere they don't care about, somewhere where they don't value. And I think that we should be encouraging people to take responsibility for the things they create and that all nuclear waste should stay where it's produced and maybe those states will ask themselves twice whether they want to be powered by nuclear versus some other kind of power. Also, I consider the Earth to be a living planet and I would like for it to stay alive and I don't think that we human beings who act like cockroaches so often have the right to bury poison in Earth.
MS. WARNER: Mary Warner, M-A-R-Y, W-A-R-N-E-R.
I'm opposed to storing nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain. This is a growing part of Nevada and also growing part of Southern California. It's highly populated and I think it's very dangerous. I think the shipment of nuclear waste is dangerous. And I think that, again, that the states who choose to use nuclear power should be responsible for the storage and containment of the waste that's generated.
MR. JACKSON: My name is Terrence Jackson.
I've lived in Las Vegas area for 48 years. I came here when I was a little boy. When I was a little boy, I used to watch the nuclear tests. We'd get up on the roof and watch the bombs go off. I guess I was lucky in that the bombs, the radiation blew towards Utah and the people in Utah are the ones who had to suffer for what we did there. I had an uncle that worked at the test site, so I'm a very familiar with what's gone on out there. My uncle died of cancer. I think it is a very dangerous thing to have nuclear waste in this state and I think all the studies have shown that it's dangerous.
But what I think that is even worse than the dangers is the process that we're seeing here today. When you talk about a hearing, you talk about a process where both sides are heard equally and when you talk about a hearing, you usually talk about a chance to present evidence and a chance to cross-examine evidence to find out the biases of witnesses and most of the witnesses that we've seen who have testified for the nuclear waste dump, it's clear have a bias.
My job for the last 26 years has been to be an attorney. I've practiced law for 26 years. Any attorney would have a chance to cross-examine the witnesses that testified here, would have been able to bring out the bias of the witnesses that testified for the nuclear dump here with ease. But the way the process was set up was brought up by a number of people here. The way the process was set up here, people alluded to the fact that they put this in an obscure location, they put it on the far edge of town, they put it in a small building where numerous people couldn't get in.
Numerous people wanted to make comments. I came here early and was told when I got here that it would be after midnight before I got to speak. I'd like to speak in front of a lot of people and tell them exactly what I thought of this, but I'm taking advantage of this. I appreciate this opportunity to speak to the Court Reporter. But I know this. I know that people rarely read transcripts. Having been an attorney for 26 years, transcripts are filed away and I doubt this transcript will ever be read. It might be read by some obscure functionary, but it has maybe 1/10th or 1/100th the impact as if I had an opportunity to speak in the public hearing. That's what the First Amendment is about.
And to give the opportunity to speak to these people that come from other states, these people that are paid lobbyists, getting money from the nuclear industry to come in here and pack the hearing and put their propaganda out was just the most viable excuse for a public hearing I've ever seen. You could sense the anger build in the audience as one paid flunky after another got up before the group. It almost, it got very close to a riot, but there were, most of the people, I think, were intelligent people who were not the kind of people that are angry, hateful people, but the kind of stuff they were hearing from the people that wanted the nuclear waste here was the kind of thing would anger people.
I was really angry at the process. Fortunately, those people that have some power in Nevada, all of Nevada's elected officials, Republican and Democrats, appear to be united against the nuclear dump. I hope they stick with that. I was proud of Nevada elected officials. Even the ones that I disagreed with politically spoke out strongly against nuclear dump and I hope that they stick with that.
I urge all Nevada citizens to come out against this and I think, as some people have expressed, the arrogance of the DOE was absolutely unmitigated today. Just from the moment that I got to the stand out here to register, I could sense almost a hostility from the DOE.
One thing that shocked me -- right outside this door is a table for Nevada for Nuclear Waste, right in this air conditioned building, right next to where they're taking testimony is a table for the paid lobbyists of the people passing out propaganda for the nuclear waste lobby, where the people that oppose nuclear waste are out in the 100-degree heat outside. Now, if this is supposed to be a neutral space for a hearing, to have, to invite these people in here to give them a table inside this building, seems to violate every type of principle of due process.
The whole hearing from the beginning was basically, as was brought out in the rally before the hearing, a kangaroo court. It was like a Prosecutor does in front of a Grand Jury. He decides that he's going to indict someone and he puts the evidence on that he wants to put on. There is no attorney present. There is no chance to confront or cross-examine witnesses. There is no chance for a Defendant to bring out evidence in his behalf.
And the people that want to speak here, the people that want to present their side don't have a chance to speak because they've been told, you can speak at midnight, you can come back after midnight if you want to speak. I'm here with my mother, who has lived here for 48 years. She's 80 years of age. I really don't want to wait until midnight or 1:00 in the morning. I have to take my children to school in the morning at 5:00 in the morning tomorrow. I have to get up with them, so I don't want to stay until 1:00 in the morning to speak.
But I am angered that they allowed people from out of state, paid propagandists when the nuclear power energy to have so much time at this hearing. This was clearly a show basically what they used to have in the Soviet Union, show trial so that they could put on their propaganda and they did not give the people opposed an adequate time. Thank you.
MR. TADLOCK: My name is Joe Tadlock, T-A-D-L-O-C-K.
I'm a 36-year resident of Las Vegas. I have a wife and two kids that I'm raising here. I'm a former construction worker at the Nevada test site, two and a half years on the weapons site, a little over five years in construction at the Yucca Mountain project. I've heard during that time and since then a lot of bovine refuse from both sides of the nuclear issue.
Like the gentleman before me who wishes to discuss paid lobbyists in favor of nuclear energy, I have witnessed paid protestors bust into this state from colleges out of state that when I've discussed with them why they were here and what they were protesting, their comments to me were, "We were paid and we were on a break from school and it sounded like fun." Yet, the news media portrays them as concerned citizens of Nevada, which they're not.
My interest in this issue is purely for serious science. Having worked up at the Nevada test site, I come here tonight and I see signs in the parking lot saying Nevada is not a nuclear wasteland, that we don't want nuclear waste out here. Those people have not set foot on a Nevada test site.
I hear a lot of what may be, but I don't hear addressed what is. What is, is that the Nevada test site is a nuclear wasteland and it has been for over 40 years. I would like someone to tell me what useful purpose that piece of land will ever serve for anything else other than nuclear-related issues. Is Steve Wynn going to fill some of those craters with lakes and put hotels around them? No. Are the Indians going to move back on that property? Unlikely. It is contaminated forever and cannot serve any other useful purpose that I know of. If it can, I'm certainly open to anyone to tell me.
In my opinion, we do have serious nuclear waste issues in this country. I'm not so far convinced that a safe route has been proposed to bring that stuff here if, in fact, it does come here. But if through serious science the Yucca Mountain project is deemed safe and if there can be a safe route of transportation constructed to bring it here, then I would be in full favor of it because I take a view myself not only as a citizen of Nevada, but as a citizen of the country at large and this is a national issue.
I don't want to see anyone's backyard be contaminated, but our backyard already has been contaminated. That's the way things are. We can try to delude ourselves and call it a pristine wilderness, but it's not.
I had a point I wanted to make and I'm trying to remember what it was. I guess that's pretty much it. I have seen the state of Nevada stonewall progress out there in the study phase. They'll tell the media that they want to cooperate with the study, to bring this to a hard scientific conclusion, but that's not the case. I understand there is a lot of opposition to that, to the project in Nevada and that's fine, but if this project is going to be deemed scientifically safe or unsafe. Then everyone has to cooperate to make sure that that study can be completed. And I'm not seeing that.
I think DOE obviously paints a very optimistic picture of the study and its opponents are painting a pessimistic picture and somewhere in between there is some hard science that isn't getting out. I guess if I had something to complain about, that would be it, is that the citizens of Nevada are getting a lot of hype. But from what I've seen, based on what is the Nevada test site is good for nothing else but for nuclear usages. I'm not necessarily happy about that, but that's the way it was long before I got here. So I think we need to make the most constructive use of what's here as things are now. Thanks. That's all.
MS. CLARK: Juanita Clark. J-U-A-N-I-T-A, C-L-A-R-K.
I'm here on behalf of 13,800 residents in Charleston Neighborhood Preservation Corporation, which is a city of Las Vegas neighborhood group. We do not want nuclear waste from other states. We feel that it needs to be stored where it's developed and that monies rather than studying someplace else to store it, the moon, the ocean, space, Nevada, be used on recycling or whatever term the Federal Government deems they would like to call it, or the high scientists would deem they would like to call it. That's all.
MS. LAW: Martha Law, L-A-W.
I'm a Las Vegas resident since I was born here. I'm 32 years old. I would like to see that the Secretary not recommend this site to the President for the reasons that studies haven't been completed. It seems to me that any results that are unsatisfactory have been thrown out and the process has been continued. It seems the me that this process couldn't continue with the fact that there is no Final Environmental Impact Statement and that the, I guess it's the Nuclear Regulatory Commission guidelines have not been set for this site.
I would see it, see the country and the DOE deal with this problem as proving the storage containers on site would make me as a Nevadan feel much safer if this product, the waste, was kept on site with storage containers that are going to be used here possibly proven onsite storage. I would also think that in the transportation study, that the communities involved on the route in the community I live in, which is Inyo County, California, southern Inyo County, doesn't have an emergency plan at all for breach of a container for any possible incident with the trucks. So assuming that's the situation for all communities on the transportation route, that if the public is not aware or has made preincident plans, that this process should not continue. That's about it.
MS. MARTINEZ: My name is Mary Elizabeth Boyer Martinez, B-O-Y-E-R.
I'm a Las Vegas -- I came to Las Vegas in 1952. I don't want the Federal Government in our state. I don't want your poison in our state. And I don't want your scientists in our state. You have no jurisdiction. This is a republic. We are a state sovereign. We tell the Feds what to do. You think, Mr. DOE leader, and all your friends, that you have jurisdiction. That would only be because you claim to be a part of the corporate structure, which means the money people. You don't belong here. Get out of our republic. I don't want your poison. You can't define the problem by science. The problem is not science. The problem is jurisdiction. You want to ram your Federal corporate garbage down the people's throats. Don't forget, in a republic, the people are the boss. Get out.
MR. POPP: My name is Louis Popp, P-O-P-P.
Department of Energy, Mr. Spencer Abraham: I don't have your resources to make this complaint, but I have some honest facts about the Nevada test site even before they were storing and handling radioactive materials.
In the year of 1967, I, along with my wife, visited Mercury, Nevada, many times. One of my former employees, who happened to be a cook, was the top cook at the commissary at the test site at that time.
We gathered information, my wife and I, about the exposure of radiation and discovered that many of the male workers, who I knew quite a few, who were assigned to the underground and as past records have proved, many came down with cancers and leukemia. My own wife was diagnosed with carcinoma of the breast in 1973. I, not satisfied with allopathic protocols, chemo, radiation, et cetera, I visited Spain, England, France, Italy, Israel, and Germany. I later ended up in Hanover, Germany, and my wife was under the care of Dr. Hans Neiper, a noted radiologist himself, who quit doing radiology and instead started to proceed with natural approaches. I at the time was the Vice President of the Committee for the Freedom of Choice in Cancer Therapy based in Los Altos, California. When I visited those countries, I did discover that they had more success with their modalities including a non-toxic approach, as well as a prevention program, even though they had a socialized health program supported by their individual governments.
My wife survived nine and a half years, even though we refused chemo, radiation, and radical mastectomies. In 1979, American oncologists were not recommending lumpectomies as yet.
I help legalize laetrile, which is also referred to as amygdalin -- that's the generic name of it -- which is a product, a natural product derived from the apricot kernal, which is inside the stone or the pit. And I had a success rate far better with the laetrile that was given through the approval of the Federal Judge in Oklahoma by the name of Federal Judge Luther Bohanon, which brings to mind one of our prominent doctors, Mr. Abraham. Dr. Elias Ghanem died of cancer just ten days ago at the age of 62, after having been diagnosed with rib cancer problems. He only survived about two and a half years from the time that he was first diagnosed. I would like to investigate, and I think I will, and learn if he did have any chemo and radiation. In my honest opinion, I would say 30 to 40 percent of most cancer patients who get chemo and radiation die of one or the other, instead of just the cancer tumors themselves.
At age 80 -- that's how old I am -- I could tell you many facts and stories, but I don't feel you deserve my experience and knowledge. Have fun, Spencer Abraham. By the way, I hail from Mt. Clemens, Michigan -- which is where Mr. Abraham is from, too, you know, he's from Michigan -- where I owned and operated mineral bath health businesses, which were hotels.
When you visit the test site, make sure you wear the proper attire.
Signed, Louis Popp. I own acreage about 24 miles from the Mercury test site gate entrance. Now you know why I'm a little concerned. End of story.
MS. DUARTE: My name is Denise Duarte. D-E-N-I-S-E, D-U-A-R-T-E.
I'm a native Nevadan of three generations. My grandfather was exposed to the above ground tests in Nevada and I had the horror of watching him slowly die. He never once said an unkind word in his life, nor did he blame the government. But he knew that's what caused his cancer. He eventually could not bear illness. After years of surgery and hospitalization, he put a gun to his chest and ended his pain. I will not forget what he went through or what our family also had to suffer through with him. It was a horror once done.
To allow nuclear waste in the Yucca Mountain would be to recreate that same horror again for my family and for all the citizens of this state as well as the nation wherever the nuclear waste is transported. The very fact that the DOE and the manner in which they held this hearing and other hearings and how they have tried to mislead and have indeed misled the citizens of this state makes me not believe any of their scientific reports, especially when there are other reports that are independent and contrary to their findings.
I consider myself to be a patriotic citizen in this United States of America and being a good citizen is not heard of very often now days. It does have meaning. However, I do have to question why I continue to believe in a country when my own government would force such exploitation fraught and terrorism on its own people. Thank you.
MS. CHOWNING: Vonne, V-O-N-N-E, Chowning, C-H-O-W-N-I-N-G.
I don't have any prepared speech or anything. I am an elected official, a State representative an Assemblywoman of the state of Nevada. I represent district 28, which is part of Las Vegas and part of North Las Vegas.
I've been a state representative for 12 years. During those 12 years, I've had several opportunities to send surveys and questionnaires through the mail and talk face to face with thousands and thousands of Nevadans, my constituents, whom I'm very proud to represent.
I would say out of the entire 12 years of all the surveys, I've never had one person who has voiced their support for the nuclear waste for the Yucca Mountain repository. Overwhelmingly, their voices say no. And that's why I'm here tonight. I proudly bring their voices as they cannot come here personally. I represent people who primarily are service workers in the hotels and they are working. They're washing dishes. They're cleaning rooms. They're dealing cards. They're cleaning the floors. Or they are people who are trying to get their babies to sleep. They cannot be here tonight.
I am appalled at the manner in which this so-called public hearing is being held because the people that I represent cannot come to a facility such as this. I personally had a very difficult time coming here and it is not accessible nor personable to the public. And yet, the message that is being sent is: Trust us; we are your friends; we are doing what is best for you. And even this is the true voice of what they are doing to us and that is shutting us out, making us feel as uncomfortable as possible, and trying to hide what they are doing to us.
I also am the daughter of a person who worked at the Nevada test site for many, many years and I feel that the exposure to radiation shortened his life. He was told to trust the people who were his employers. All of his associates with whom he worked have died. Most of them died a very excruciating death and it was because of the exposure to radiation. That is another reason why I am opposed to the nuclear waste being buried in my state, because it's been shown that we cannot trust these people.
I also am the chairwoman of the State Assembly Transportation Committee. As such, I've had lots of research that has been presented to me and what I have been told is that the means of transportation will be mainly via railroad and the trucks that will come off the rail car will be more than 200 feet long, approximately 14 to 20 feet wide. They will be in Caliente, Apex, or Jean. When those trucks come off the rail, the only defense that our state has is to have Nevada Highway Patrol officers escort these trucks to keep the trucks from the general populous. You can imagine how horrifying it would be for a private citizen who is traveling on the road to encounter a massive vehicle such as this.
And we've also been told that the low-level nuclear waste that is being transported now in our state never goes over the Boulder Dam, never goes through the Spaghetti Bowl, never goes through the cities. Again, we are told to trust the Department of Energy. However, last year at least eight shipments did go through the Spaghetti Bowl, did go over the Boulder Dam, and yet they were not supposed to. How did that happen? The Department of Energy apologized for that. They didn't know how it happened. It wasn't supposed to. I am told that the drivers prefer to go through the Spaghetti Bowl because it's a shortcut.
Now, that's low-level waste that is plenty hazardous, very, very dangerous to our populous. And the mother who is taking her kids to school, the man who is going to work or the woman who is going to work, is traveling along the road never knowing that low-level nuclear waste is traveling right next to them. But remember -- that wasn't supposed to happen. It's for this and many reasons that I am highly opposed to this nuclear waste being forced down our throats.
I came here originally as a young girl in August of 1950. I've been proud to call Nevada my home. I've been proud to raise my children and now my grandchildren here. And I never, ever expected that something as drastic as this would be shoved down my throat. I'm here as a person, as a Nevadan, as a proud representative of approximately 40,000 Nevadans to voice my strong opposition to the nuclear waste coming to our state and also to the manner in which this so-called public hearing is being put forth. Thank you.
MS. KINDER: Marge, M-A-R-G-E, Kinder, K-I-N-D-E-R.
I'm opposed to the nuclear waste repository here in the state of Nevada and I think we should look to more recycling like France and Europe to find out how they handle theirs. We have a much larger country and we should be able to learn from our neighbors, European neighbors, and not just assume that Nevada is a dump site. Thank you.
MR. FISH: My name is Robert Fish, F-I-S-H.
In my opinion, there is too much misinformation about the Yucca Mountain project that is being disseminated by many opponents of this project.
I have lived in Nevada for over ten years and have been continually amazed at the scare tactics and misinformation concerning the transportation of spent nuclear fuel and the mode of disposal depicted by opponents of this project.
These are the facts as I perceive them. After years of study, testing, and analysis, scientists and engineers have reported in tables 4-1 and 4-2 of their Preliminary Site Suitability Evaluation, that the Yucca Mountain site will likely meet and probably exceed, in some cases by orders of magnitude, the radiation protection standards recently set by the Environmental Protection Agency and the performance objectives proposed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Both the EPA and the NRC are independent Federal regulators.
For about three years, between 1988 and 1991, I worked for a company in Lynchburg, Virginia, and participated in the development and design and testing of a transportation cask for spent nuclear fuel. During that period of time, I had the opportunity to interact with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on a regular basis and experienced firsthand the strict standards to which transportation casks are designed and developed and constructed.
Now that the scientists have released their preliminary findings, some are saying that transportation is the problem. The facts and the experience do not support this assertion.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations at 10CFR71 have set very strict and rigorous design guidelines, quality assurance procedures, and testing requirements for transportation casks for spent nuclear level and high-level waste.
Transportation casks have been designed and tested to withstand severe hypothetical accident conditions without releasing their radioactive contents.
Many, many shipments of spent nuclear fuel have occurred in this country without an incident of radioactive material release that resulted in injury or harm.
Our economy is inextricably connected to the economy of all other states. No state is an island. If opponents succeed in stopping the Yucca Mountain Project with their scare tactics and misinformation about so-called transportation issues, the United States could lose the approximately 20 percent of our electrical generating capacity, that is currently supplied by nuclear power plants around the country. This could have severe consequences on the economy of the entire United States. And the citizens of Nevada will be the losers along with everybody else in this country.
For all of these reasons, I think the Secretary of Energy should go forward with recommending Yucca Mountain as a suitable site for further development and licensing with the NRC as a safe repository for this nation's spent nuclear fuel and other high-level nuclear waste.
Thank you for your consideration of this very serious matter. A concerned citizen.
MR. YARBRA: Joseph, J-O-S-E-P-H, Yarbra, Y-A-R-B-R-A.
I just want to start off by saying that death is a fact of life. Things live and they die. Sometimes not by choice. Things happen. Sometimes we can intervene and sometimes we can't. The situation has me very torn because both parties present a good case. I feel for both constituents on that. But the situation still remains: What are we going to do with the problem? It amazes me that humankind can create such destruction, but yet they never think about what they're going to do with the stuff that gets destroyed. I think this problem is bigger than the state of Nevada, or Utah. It's a nation thing and it needs to be addressed as a nation. People need to band together and come up with a solution of how we're going to treat this situation. Thank you.
MS. WRIGHT: Deanna Wright, D-E-A-N-N-A, W-R-I-G-H-T.
Please do not endanger our families. You, the U.S. government, thought that the Nevada test site was safe. Put families out there to live and only now decades later do we know and you admit that the whole project was far more dangerous than was ever thought to be. Not only does the movement process of the waste worry me tremendously, I worry about the things, the natural elements, the processes, the people, and the countless other problems that can and will go wrong. What about all the information we don't know that we could find out in 25, 50 or 100 years from now? Please do not put Nevada's people at high risk again. Find another state to do its part in this nuclear age. Why ship this dangerous waste cross-country? Find somewhere closer to its home for this waste to be stored. There are countless reasons why this is not the best or only solution. I also find it very disturbing that only Yucca Mountain is being studied. Why? Why not do more than one study at a time so that those precious years are not lost if the top priority site is found unsuitable? And then I put -- no, no, no waste at Yucca Mountain.
MR. TILLOTSON: Scott, S-C-O-T-T, Tillotson, T-I-L-L-O-T-S-O-N.
My statement is: Do Nevadans actually have a voice or a say in whether or not this becomes a reality? And it seems to me that by and large that the public is not, not given information as to what's really going on. I don't know that anybody is really getting that information and it seems like there is just no, very little public notification and a lot of people don't, I think, realize what's about to happen.
The information is not available. It is available, I suppose, if people are going out hunting for it, but it's not like it's any kind of front page news. Everything else seems to take front page news and this is a very serious matter and it seems like, it's not like, well, here's the information -- like there is a shark attack, it's front page news. But something like the whole country's waste is being left in Nevada and does anybody even know it's happening? It seems like I speak to so many people, I don't even realize what's going on. I don't know. It seems like it's very hush-hush, let's just quietly do this and it doesn't seem like people who live in this state have a voice or an opinion in the matter. They just decided this is what's being done. I guess that's it. And I disagree with it. I don't think Nevada should be the home of waste for the whole country. It doesn't seem to be the democratic way. Doesn't seem to be a fair way. Thank you.
MS. AVERETT: T-E-N-N-I-L-L-E, Averett. A-V-E-R-E-T-T.
I'll probably just start by just saying I disagree with it. I don't have, like he said, there is no knowledge of it. I mean, yeah, you see here or there, we even did the protest with the Shundahai network and nobody, you could talk about it. Everybody says the same thing. There is not anybody really saying this is what's going to happen and they don't really care. Nobody really cares about it. So I don't know if people think Las Vegans are stupid or people in Nevada, we'll just do it in Vegas, who cares? But I don't agree with that.
I think if they are going to put it here, then they need to tell us more about it. We need to tell us why it's going here. If we're not creating it, then why does it go here? There is not an island somewhere they can't put it on? I don't appreciate living here, born and raised here. I'm 24 years old and I'm at the child-bearing age. I don't want my kids to not be able to drink the water, not be able to play in the yard because it's contaminated. That's just ridiculous. It shouldn't be like that and I wish I could do something, but I'm only one person and I'm not very bright or whatever. I can't go to the legislators and say this is what I think and they're going to listen to me. But I just want everybody to know I don't think it's right. That's all I wanted to say.
MR. TARAS: Robert Taras, T-A-R-A-S.
I'm concerned that the trace of the money that has been supporting this project and the money that will come out of this project once nuclear waste is being transported here has not really been made available to the public in economic impact of the route, as well as the cities along the route, because I believe that big money in terms of big corporations and big organizations are funding this project to go through against the will of the common people, little people, public, along the route, as well as in the cities that are affected during this. So I would like these, the economic impact of this to be more investigated before the Yucca Mountain site is designated for approval. Thank you.
MR. BROWN: Paul Brown.
I'm against the nuclear waste dump being sited in Nevada. I think we're putting all our faith in science and scientists are not infallible. I think scientists' infallibility blew up along with the Challenger space shuttle. I think the dump site is unsafe. I think transporting it across the country is unsafe. If we cannot guarantee that it is, the site itself is safe, there is no way we can guarantee the transportation is safe.
MR. ROBERTSON: Don Robertson, Las Vegas.
Number one, I'd like to say that I've heard politicians, I should just say, other people say that the government doesn't want to listen to what the people of Nevada have to say. It's hard for them to listen to what the citizens have to say because it's fronted, I mean, the front end is crowded with politicians. We've already heard what they have to say. And so we, TV and in the press, and we have to listen to them again down here.
And a lot of people here who are pro Yucca Mountain have to work tomorrow and construction jobs start at 5:00 and 6:00 in the morning and they have to go home and go to sleep, so they can't wait until their number finally comes up. But I've noticed a lot of them say that, why should -- that other states should keep their waste where the water tables are only six feet down and run through the eastern half of the United States. That sounds reasonable. The other states that have nuclear plants, is nuclear power only for their state or is it helping other states? And does this state get any nuclear power? And if it does, well, then, we should share in the waste. And if we don't have Yucca Mountain, then we should distribute this plant in our backyards, you know, six inches down.
And as far as the statement made, $60 billion that the government, it was said we are spending -- this is the state of Nevada. State of Nevada isn't spending that. It would cost the state of Nevada the same no matter where it was. This is government money.
But would we benefit? We would benefit immensely in employment and -- to backtrack a little bit -- this person said that they should spend money on studying if we can recycle, or they are, science is working on that, but it's not ready yet and we have to do something in the meantime. So, and we have blowed up bombs here, hundreds of them. This isn't a bomb going off. This is burying it. There's a big difference.
As far as the seismic point, if an earthquake of that magnitude, I don't think there would be the state of Nevada left anyway. As far as risk goes, if you drive on the highway, you get in a wreck, do they quit making cars? Do they shut down making highways, flying planes? There's a plane wreck. Do they shut down the airlines?
Other states have taken risks. Look at the missile, the states that have all the missile silos. They were targets when we had a nuclear crisis. They took risks for the rest of the United States, as far back as World War II, Detroit was the only place that made cars, trucks, tanks, they were the number one target. They didn't complain.
So I think Nevadans ought to take their share. I'm a Nevadan. Since we're the number one -- and employment I'm talking about, to benefit from it. You can't slip out the door without taking a risk. Can you? Anything can happen. You know, you get struck by lightning. The odds are better, I think, if they really studied it. If we want a perfect safe world, or safe community, we're not going to find it. This is the wrong planet for that. It's not going to happen in this country, this state, or this planet.
MR. FETTERS: Members of the committee, my name is Jack Fetters. I'm a Nevada State Legislative Director for the United Transportation Union. I represent approximately 250 railroad engineers and conductors in this state.
As a Nevadan, I have followed the Yucca Mountain problem with great concern. I love this state. But the question that looms largest, in my mind, is the safe transportation of this nuclear material. Not once have I heard or read about the problem of fatigue in the railroad industry as it pertains to hazardous material. The United Transportation Union has always believed that one of the significant solutions to the fatigue issue is to hire and train enough people to cover the number of employees who need rest and time off. Some of the carriers feel that the only time that any employee should have time off is when they think the employee should be off and that should be only at the railroad's convenience. Many railroad operating employees are working seven days a week. Some are working eight, nine or ten shifts in the seven days. One railroad has a stated policy that they expect each employee to work a minimum of six days per week. I could give the committee many instances of the difficulty faced by our members because the railroads simply refused to hire and train a sufficient number of people to cover the service.
Railroad business now is the best it has ever been. With fewer employees doing more work, I, for one, don't understand why, with the significant growth of business, that the railroads have not responded with sufficient personnel. When the railroads finally do begin to hire, and some have, the United Transportation Union is very concerned about the length and quality of training the new hires receive. It is very difficult for a new employee to remember, understand, and apply all the information required and still be a productive employee.
The railroads have endless rules and penalties governing everything concerning the operation of trains. These rules are added, not to promote safety, but to simply overcome the carrier's loss at either the courthouse or some labor tribunal. The UTU supports the licensing or certification of conductors similar to what is already in place for locomotive engineers. This is to ensure that the people called on to perform and comply with the rules, regulations and laws understand what is required of them. There should also be a requirement that there not only be standards for conductors but there also should be a minimum standard for instructors. The life of a railroad locomotive engineer and conductor is one filled with never knowing when you are going to be called on duty and when you will return back to your loved ones. It is a 24/7 job with the carrier expecting that you are rested and ready to go when the phone rings and heaven help all of us if you fall asleep on the job. Unlike the airlines, I have yet to ride a train that has an auto pilot.
MR. HASLEY: My name is Statler, S-T-A-T-L-E-R, Hasley, H-A-S-L-E-Y.
I'm a student of environmental studies. I have spent several years researching and reading about Yucca Mountain within my major and I feel at this time that it is not the appropriate time with the research that has been done to put nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain on the conditions of transportation. Of the studies that I've seen even to other types of facilities have not been adequate and, as such, the economics and other types of reasons, that there just hasn't been enough research to prove that waste transportation is safe and at this time and even economically. Also, I feel that the studies that do hold that much nuclear waste within the area may not be researched enough and the studies aren't sufficient at this time. So I don't approve that there should be nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain. That's pretty much it.
MS. STOCKER: Erin Stocker, E-R-I-N, S-T-O-C-K-E-R.
I believe that bringing nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain would be extremely detrimental to both our state of Nevada, the country, and the land that is so precious and I strongly believe that the research that they say has been done to prove that this is going to be a safe method is completely biased and is not something that should be looked at in a way that they're going to use and I just strongly believe that they should not bring the waste to Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Thank you.
MR. SKAAR: My name is Vic, V-I-C, S-K-A-A-R.
For the record, I'm a retired public health professional. I'm currently an environmental manager, certified in the state of Nevada. Foremost, I'm an American. I'm an American and by choice I happen to live and reside in Nevada, Las Vegas, Nevada. I suspect that most of the people in that hearing room are basically the same as me, Americans who live here by choice, not necessarily born here.
As an American, I support the storage of the government-owned nuclear materials at Yucca Mountain and because of security, this material, this government-owned material, it is not waste material. It is important that the government bring all of this material together under one roof in one warehouse so they have security of the material. It's a retrievable storage in a government facility. It is not a dump. This is a renewable energy source, as has been stated by others. It appears to be the most logical site, not only is it the only site, so therefore, it's quite logical.
Far too much money has been spent to admit defeat and start over. The site is ideal, ideal location. No exposure to the general public. The material is not waste, as I've said before. The site is more of a warehouse than a dump. It should be insulting for this multibillion-dollar site to be referred to as a dump. We understand that that sells newspapers and makes good media hype, but it's not technically correct.
My personal experience -- 35 and a half years ago, I was exposed, ingested plutonium 239 resulting from a broken arrow, which is a military term for a collision or any incident involving a nuclear weapon during the Cold War. A Strategic Air Command B-52, the bomber, KS-135, a tanker, collided over Spain during a refueling incident which went on for 26 years. The four weapons aboard the B-52 were released from the aircraft and floated to the Earth. Two of them landed intact because they had good parachute deployments and they landed intact in a village of Palomares, Spain. One landed on land. The fourth one landed in the water. The other two landed in the village with such an impact from 30,000 feet that the high explosives that detonate the weapon exploded on impact and broke the casing open and the dioxide was released to a windstorm. A plume contaminated some 450 acres.
I was there 73 days and I have documented record, my medical records, if you will, where I was exposed. I am a member of the High 26, which at that time, were selected by those of us with urinalysis on record, that had seven percent or greater of whole body dose recorded. There were 26 of us out of the 700 or so that was there. The record at the time, the officials at the time recommended that we be evaluated during our lifetimes and postmortems thereafter because there were no other comparable exposures to be studied.
I thank God that I'm alive after 35 and a half years and I don't have any evidence of cancer, according to doctors. It took me 16 months after I left the site before my urinalysis returned to normal. There was no detect for plutonium.
I conclude that for those that object to the repository based on human health -- and that term is thrown around by everybody out there -- the most ignorant people will be discussing human health and something called the environment. Well, I would recommend that the folks, the authority for human health issues is the toxicological profiles that are done by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which is the agency for toxic substance and disease registry -- agency for toxic substance and disease registry. It is a division of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. On that staff are also EPA, Environmental Protection Agency scientists. So it is a combination of findings from two agencies, one department and one agency of the Federal Government. It is the authority mandated by Congress that this agency had studied 100 of the most toxic chemicals known to man and plutonium was one of them.
Ionizing radiation, this profile covers all of the ionizing radiation. In this document, if people studied this document, they would realize that there are two overriding concepts of toxicology. One, is the dose makes the poison. And the second is, zero exposure is still equal to zero risk. And since the general public will not be exposed to plutonium, whether it's in transport or whether it's in storage, then we ought to look at human health issues rather than emotional issues.
And there is another aspect of what we've heard tonight. To compare the medical effects on humans from the fallout of the air test, okay, out at the test site, above-ground tests, to compare those medical effects with the plutonium as it would be stored and secured at Yucca Mountain, is like apples and oranges. There is no comparison because there is no fallout from this material. It is just almost inert, if it's handled properly.
Thank you for your interest.
MS. STOCKMAN: My name is Cora Stockman. C-O-R-A, S-T-O-C-K-M-A-N.
I'm a Registered Nurse and I would like to go on record opposing nuclear waste being stored at Yucca Mountain. I feel that transportation is a public health issue. My understanding is that the nuclear waste will be transported through 43 states and they haven't shown scientific proof that this is safe. Also, I'm concerned about contamination of the water supply as well as the surrounding area at Yucca Mountain. Again, the DOE hasn't proven, hasn't given us any proof, scientific proof, that this is safe. I understand that millions of dollars have gone into this project, but I feel the lives of people are worth more than that. Thank you.
MS. VANBOTTEN: My name is Patricia Vanbotten, V-A-N-B-O-T-T-E-N.
I'm a Registered Nurse. I'm opposed to the storage of nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain. I believe the transportation concerns present a public health issue. There is no comprehensive emergency management plan and the transportation casks have not been constructed or tested. The storage area has not been proven to be geologically sound. I believe that democracy lives when the government represents the will of the people. We do not want the nuclear waste in Nevada. Incidentally, I've lived in Nevada for 34 years, in Southern Nevada. If the government sends nuclear waste to Nevada, we have been denied democracy. Thank you.
MS. LANG: My name is Audna, A-U-D-N-A, Lang, L-A-N-G.
I've been a resident of Nevada for 37 years. I'm totally against the storage of nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain for many reasons. Part of it has to do with the fact of earthquakes and, believe me, the area is very prone to it and the proof of that is DOE already knows this with what the seismic activity is at Paiute Mesa and I'm very much aware of what goes on because I sit on the CAB.
I'm not here to speak for the CAB. I'm here to speak for Audna Lang. But they keep seismic equipment out there constantly to keep a track on Paiute Mesa. Paiute Mesa is not that far from Yucca Mountain. You have got a lot of geologic activity out there. There is going to be volcanic activity eventually out there. You are dealing with an area that also has a great deal of water movement and so far, as hot springs areas underneath the ground as well as regular water movement in the area. They have already contaminated a lot of water out at the test site itself. We don't need to contaminate more. The amount of water that is on this planet now is the amount of water that we have to work with period, forever. We have contaminated enough.
Now, I talked to a gentleman by the name of Ralph Smith from WIP and I asked him at the time, is this storage of nuclear waste in salt caverns the safest form of storage available at this present time by scientific study? And Mr. Smith, who was from WIP, said yes, it is, according to the National Academy of Science and Independent Studies performed by scientists worldwide. And I understand perfectly well why it is the safest form of storage available, because the salt layers, when there is seismic activity, or volcanic activity for that matter, they're elastic. They do not break open and spew out what is stored inside of it. They move with the seismic activity.
But unfortunately, those salt caverns, salt layers all sit under very interesting places. One is New Mexico where WIP is and the second one just happens to be Texas. That's where the majority of it is. Now, we could definitely, quote, unquote, recover nuclear waste from salt caverns. It's very easy to dig back out. It is not going to spew out its waste like Yucca Mountain will if it splits open like a damn egg because of seismic activity.
As I said, the geological studies that were done long before Yucca Mountain even came into play showed that that area was not an area you wanted to see anything of this nature stored. The plates in this area of the country are not moving this way. They're not moving over each other in a normal pattern. They're pushing each other up. This was an inland sea originally.
The geologists from this area have said this area is going to go back to a lot of earthquake and probably volcanic action and they don't know when. On top of that, I have a problem with anyone who is arrogant enough to say that they can plan for 10,000 years, to keep something safe and protect people for 10,000 years.
I have a question for you -- and I realize you're with Yucca Mountain, sir. Explain to me how within 10,000 years, you're going to inform people that that site is dangerous as all hell. You'll have things in there that have a half life of over 250,000 years and we both know that, not 10,000. Do you think that language is static? It's going to stay the same for 10,000 years? People are going to understand what they're dealing with in 10,000 years there? How do you expect to -- I mean, the attitude you have is that of a people that built the Titanic. It was unsinkable.
I'm also here to speak for another lady. She's from San Luis Obispo, California. She's very upset about the idea of transferring and moving nuclear waste all over the hell and gone. She lives near Diablo Canyon. It operates Pacific Gas & Electric, the bankrupt owner. The new plant has its bid in for Yucca Mountain and is suing DOE to get it. It's my understanding the state of Nevada is fighting this on proposal.
"We here in San Luis Obispo are not thrilled about it either. Transportation of over 150 tons of radioactive waste from San Luis Obispo County to Port Hueneme via barge, then across the state of California via rail is a scary thought. Opportunities will exist for terrorism and accidents, not to mention the ugly idea of nuke waste on the ocean. We need to quit producing nuclear waste by switching to other sources. Diablo Canyon is a time bomb waiting to happen."
Look at Three Mile Island.
"Creating another one in Nevada is not the solution. The DOE should hold a hearing in our county and be prepared to hear a recounting no to nuke waste transportation."
What I'm getting at, folks, is simply this: I'm well aware of the fact the scientists are going to do whatever DOE is to do. They've been bought and paid for. Independent scientists are coming out against it. But DOE is not working for we, the people of the United States. They are working for we, the corporate industry of the United States, and somehow or other -- the last time I read the Constitution, it still says, "we, the people of the United States," not "we, the corporations."
I think DOE had better remember who they serve and who the master is here. The master is the people. And too many bureaucrats and too many politicians have forgotten who it is that really is in control of this country in the end.
There is an old saying among the Japanese when World War II broke out: Let the sleeping giants sleep. Guaranteed, you wake up sleeping America, you won't like the consequences. Yes, a lot of people out there are asleep. But I know what happens when you wake them up and they start screaming. Politicians know it, too. And believe me, they'll backtrack in a big, fat hurry because they like their cushy little jobs.
No, I don't like what's going on. I feel this is being rammed down our throats. We did our thing. We've got enough pollution out at the test site that qualifies for the largest, the fund, the big fund itself. There is not enough money to ever clean up the test site. There is not enough technology to clean it up. It is going to be polluted for generations to come. It will probably never get cleaned up.
Haven't we killed enough people with what went on out there? Don't we have enough nuclear workers, enough uranium miners that are all sick and dying? Go down on the Navajo reservation, you want to see sick and dying with the miners that work down there.
We don't want this here. Nobody wants it in their backyard. And right now, it is safer to leave it where it is. And I blame the scientific community for this because they did not take the time to find out what the hell they were going to do with it after they used it. It's called, hello, did you look beyond the end of your nose? No. Are you looking beyond it now? No. You're looking for a short-term fix to satisfy the big energy companies that have nuclear power plants.
But that is not in the best interest of the people. And what about our children, our families, in this valley? Do we have to wind up like the families in southern Utah with their children dying of leukemia like crazy because of the fact of an overflow from a test? Do you think that if that mountain cracks open, there is not going to be exposure coming down here, that it's not going to get into our water supply? You know, water has come up in that mountain. We all know it. You're not going to keep it out.
And if you think there is not going to be earthquakes, go back and talk to the western Shoshone, talk to the Paiutes. There's already been earthquakes out there. They have a saying, "A big snake lived under that mountain." They all avoided it. Because if you woke the snake up, the whole area shook. Native Americans weren't fools. They knew what was going on. They knew big time what was going on.
The Atlanta Health and Disease Control found that out with the junta virus thing. They had to go to the Navajos to find out what was causing it. Don't ignore what they already know. Just because of the language or technology that does not fit today's quote, unquote, technobabble, doesn't mean they don't know what they're talking about. It's also in files of the Ruby Valley Treaty. That land belongs to the western Shoshone and I will back them to the last degree on getting their property back.
So, thank you for listening. I know it doesn't mean a damn thing, but it is the truth. And the only way to truly, truly store that crap is in salt caverns. Whether Mr. Bush likes it or not, it's in his state as well as New Mexico. But then we all know why Nevada wound up the only one that was checked out on this. First Speaker of the House made sure it didn't wind up in Washington because he was from Washington. The second Speaker of the House was from Texas. He made sure it didn't go to Texas before he got fired. That left Nevada. We got screwed. It was not a true scientific decision. It was a political decision because we're a small amount of people here. Well, guess what? We're heading for 2 million in this valley. That's not chopped liver. That's a lot of people. That's a lot of children. As I say, you and no one else can predict for 10,000 years. You're not God.
MS. McCANDLESS: Heather McCandless. H-E-A-T-H-E-R, M-C-C-A-N-D-L-E-S-S.
First, I want to start out by saying that I'm against the Yucca Mountain Project. I want to go back a little bit. When the military decided to test nuclear weapons at the Nevada test site, everyone back there, the government said everything would be okay. Nobody is going to get hurt. You put soldiers out in the desert, had all that radiation come at them. Everything is going to be fine.
Southern Utah and the people throughout the Midwest -- I don't have all the exact specific areas -- but I know that there will be a milk problem and leukemia. But I know southern Utah -- because I have relatives and I spent many summers there -- was greatly impacted. It wasn't known to the people at the time, but now it is known. In recent years, become more and more apparent what's happened to the people in the area. The cancers, the skin cancer, the leukemia, it's just has affected that area greatly.
I'm also greatly concerned about the transportation of the waste across the country. I believe it would only take one accident, one breach of a container to kill, impact the Earth for a long time. Or maybe the spill would just be the end of it for everyone in that area. Is that really what we want to do? I don't think so.
What happens when they test at the Nevada test site once the storage of this nuclear waste is stored there? We don't -- we didn't know at the time how the testing was going to affect 30, 40, 50 years down the road. How do we know now what the testing there is going to do if we test some super-gigantic bomb and it sets off some kind of an earthquake? It's just, it's not safe. It's just really dumb, in my opinion.
As for studying, as for the continuing study of only one site, educated people, when your car is broken or your insurance company tells you you have to get two or three estimates, they don't just say, go to your friend who is going to charge us 10 times more than they should charge for this dent. You have to have multiple places look at it. And here we are only looking at one site in Nevada? I mean, I think that's just completely obscene.
What I want to say to that is: Is this project a done deal? I mean, are they studying one site because everyone knows it's going to pass? That's just wrong. I'm also concerned about, they say the project will be full in approximately 25 years. Then what? They've been studying Yucca Mountain for a long time. I don't know the exact number of years. I'm kind of new to all of this. But what sites are being studied for future dumping areas?
I don't know about you guys, but 25 years to me isn't very long. It just -- as long as we've been looking at the Nevada test site or the Yucca Mountain site and all this, 25 years to me is a drop in the bucket. And so nothing else is going on beyond that? I'm, I spent a lot of time in California and I'm extremely concerned about earthquakes. I've talked to your people out here. They talked about the faults on the sites and moving. Well, what happens when the two faults on the site move and that whole center just careens up into the Nevada sky? Because that's what's going to happen.
We may not be around for that, but those two -- I mean, you're thinking you're putting it in a nice, safe spot because the two fault lines are on the opposite sides and they'll absorb the impact. But at some point, the pressure from those two is going to push that center right now, at least as far as I can see. I'm not a scientist, but it sounds dumb to me.
I've been around the Asilomar earthquake in California, the Whittier earthquake in California, a number of the big ones, and I lived six miles from the epicenter of the Whittier earthquake and you think you're going to die. You have no doubt, but you're going to die. And the Whittier earthquake was pretty bad, but not really that bad.
I mentioned transportation. What kind of concerns me here about some of the people that are for it, they seem to be the people that are in it for the money. People that come to mind are corporations and the teamsters that seem to be in for it. Do they live here? Do they live along the transportation routes? My guess is probably not. They have their families tucked away safely somewhere else.
And that's all I have to say. Thank you very much.
MR. McCRACKEN: I'm Ralph McCracken. M-C-C-R-A-C-K-E-N.
I live in Amargosa Valley, approximately 12 miles from Yucca Mountain. I raise pistachios and alfalfa horses with my wife. It's curious that Congress gave the DOE a set of criteria to evaluate the mountain against, and some of the disclaimers or some of the disqualifying characteristics would be volcanic activity. Well, you have to be a blind man not to look around in the area there and see the cinder cones that are coming up through the valley floor. You have a cinder cone mine just a few miles down the road from it. Go down to the entrance to Death Valley and there is another very obvious cinder cone there. You go up towards Beatty and you look off to the west, another cinder cone.
The water temperature in the wells in Amargosa Valley is very common, 70 degrees. Serious warmth there. Another indicator of volcanic activity. All right. Enough on that part.
Seismic activity. Yes. What was it, about three or four years ago, we had a pretty good one. Shook several of our mobile homes in the valley pretty good and some of them had to be releveled and reset on their stands. Obviously, we are not an area that's immune from seismic activity. And I'm talking to you about things that are within 25 miles of Yucca Mountain. When they bored their test tunnel through Yucca Mountain, it rained after that and the workers in that tunnel found themselves being dripped upon. It's a leaky mountain. It's not impervious to the flow of water.
The DOE has spent a lot of time and money to propose, do rules about Yucca Mountain, rules that would seemingly fit the mountain. I don't recall anywhere in the Congressional activity having asked DOE to do that. They were asked to evaluate the mountain against a set of criteria. I challenge Secretary Abraham to pick up the reins on DOE, to pick up the reins on a runaway DOE, to wade through the DOE documents that have been created and simply report to the President after he independently evaluates this data, comparing it to the original criteria that Congress asked the DOE to evaluate this based on and simply report that this site does not meet the criteria set up by Congress for suitability.
The best or the most suitable of anything comes from a comparison. We have no other sites that have been evaluated, so we can't say this is the best. We could say suitable or unsuitable against a set of criteria, but you can't say this is the best. Secretary Abraham, we want you to remember that, that you can see Yucca Mountain is not suitable, regardless of how much money has been spent to characterize the mountain after the disqualifying characteristics have been identified.
Changing topics again -- the site suitability document on disk was received at my house on August 24th -- pardon me -- it was mailed on the 24th, received on the 28th. There are 468 pages in there and it's a challenge for even an English major in college to process that many changes in this little time, just to read it rather than go for total comprehension of what you're reading, just to go through it physically in that amount of pages in that little time.
In conclusion, I wanted to come out of the site suitability mailing and the size of it is that these hearings are just not timely, just not timely. The draft EIS statement, when it came out, it came out with a summary pamphlet and I feel that that document, the summary, was worked on by somebody who was well-skilled in the art of spin doctoring. My concern there is that a lot of people will have read that document, the summary, and say, yeah, okay, when the final one comes out, I pretty much know what's there already, they're going to dot some Is and cross some Ts. But the impression that's created is some of these routes are pretty good. Look, there are no towns here.
But if you know the area, several of those maps -- the town of Pahrump, which is plain left out, not there, not on the map. And, of course, it looks like a great route because it doesn't go through a town of approximately 20,000 people. The people that read this stuff, I really want them to be alerted to the fact that that probably happened to that document, it could have been done to this document.
My first piece of evidence that it's been done to this document is in a preliminary quick cursory go-through on the site suitability is, it says Amargosa Valley, populated by 900 people. Well, that's major -- it's incorrect. Our last census puts that town at 1,250 people. That's not very old information. It's not hard to come by. It's not hard to verify your numbers in terms of the population of that valley. It's not 900; it's 1,250. And when there is something that's that simply corrected, I hate to think about what else I could find in there, let alone somebody who really understands site suitability when they're looking at it, could find what's wrong. The people, the scientists on both sides, need more time to evaluate this thing and make comments on it.
Thank you for now. That's all I got to say.
MS. HILDEBRAND: Leana, L-E-A-N-A, Hildebrand, H-I-L-D-E-B-R-A-N-D.
I'm here today to actually speak in opposition of the Yucca Mountain Project. I do not believe that it has ever been about sound science. I believe it's been a political move. At the time that Yucca Mountain was actually decided upon, Nevada did not have the political strength that it does at this time. We also were not a million-plus.
I'm a native of Las Vegas, Nevada, born and raised. I plan to raise my family here, but that will also determine on exactly what is decided in these hearings and what the President of the United States perhaps has already decided. My opinion is, it is a political game. It has always been a political game regarding money.
It's very frustrating to me when I hear of people that are trying to negotiate benefits because there is no price that you can place on your own life or that of your children's. And once those negotiations begin or whatever benefits they're discussing, they're moot because in the event of an accident, the only thing we can do is grab our ankles. We forget about Three Mile Island and other contamination spots and Chernobyl.
We seem to forget about things that actually do occur, that radiation is a poison, it's the deadliest substance known to man. The location of the spot has already been contaminated by the test site. We did not know what we know now regarding the radiation poisoning and I find it disturbing that in the newspaper articles that they're discussing the Yucca Mountain hearings. There are also the hearings for the benefit for the test site workers that have received radiation sickness.
I'm here today to oppose it strongly and I am willing to put my life on the line if the trucks do start to roll in. I feel if they do allow them to come in to Nevada, my life, as I know it, is over as it is.
Thank you very much for allowing me the chance to speak. I appreciate it.
MR. VROOM: Paul Vroom, V-R-O-O-M.
I think that the main thing I wanted to put on the record was that the dissemination of information about this meeting, I think that is insufficient. I saw it on the nightly news, but that was, I got nothing in the mail and I think the process should have been made much more, much clearer. Should have been a better effort to make us aware of the entire process of voting on this and our impact potentially on the choice of this site.
Sadly, I'm just getting information now, probably too late, on it. And what little information I have now, what I've tried to glean from some of the DOE people here tonight, it sounds, it certainly sounds intelligent on the pro side. It sounds like there is some good scientific data. However, it sounds like there is still enough of a margin of error from, from what I've learned, to cause a concern.
So having said that, I would like to see a more concerted effort to make the public aware of this process, of the information, the pros and cons, to give us a better opportunity maybe to make an informed decision on this. If we even have an impact at this point. Can you tell me if we do? You're just witnesses to this?
DOE OFFICIAL: We're here to listen to your statement primarily. But there are people outside who can answer your questions, if you'd like.
MR. VROOM: Well, at this point, I'll wrap it up. It would seem to me -- one primarily -- that we need more information as citizens to be able to give our opinion on this matter. And secondly, that there is enough of, enough margins of error to cause me concern to vote against it at this early point.
So that's it. Thanks.
MS. ADAMSEN: Cathey Adamsen, C-A-T-H-E-Y, A-D-A-M-S-E-N.
I'm a mother, a citizen, a human being, and I represent hundreds of thousands just like me who do not want this shipment from hell to ever leave its home. I'm old enough to remember agent orange and the horrors that our government created for our soldiers, some of which are still paying with their health. A blatant disregard for human health.
I am old enough to remember Love Canal and all the humans still to this day suffering. Another example of the government cover-up with no regard to human beings' welfare.
I am old enough to remember Three Mile Island and those fears. Were those cows producing radioactive milk, I wondered at the time? I could not trust our government at the time.
I also am old enough to remember Chernobyl. The worst of it -- it was a shocking wakeup call to all the citizens of our country that, what could happen. And now it can happen here, thanks to our wonderful, caring government.
Yes, nuclear energy means so much more than the humans that it's supposed to help. I live less than a mile from the new beltway that may be a route for these shipments from hell. Now you tell me you want to ship this horrible nightmare across the wonderful country we all love and you say you will not have accidents. There have already been a multitude of serious, deadly accidents on the beltway and it is not even officially open yet. How can we trust you to clean up a spill that happens in the immediate vicinity of thousands of homes and schools that will no doubt happen? The odds are so in favor of this happening, you could take bets.
Who is telling us it's under control? The same government that had its hand in the previously-mentioned fiascos. This has potential to create a thousand times more devastation than Timothy McVeigh did in Oklahoma City. But who will ever be convicted? How do we either trust that the government will put human health and welfare above the almighty dollar? They will not. Big payoffs to our politicians mean more to this country than the health and welfare of our citizens.
I foresee that in the future, nuclear waste will become the nation's next big import and someone will make billions of dollars transporting unwanted waste from foreign countries. Whoever pays the most can have Nevada, the vast wasteland that Washington thinks we are. You must stop and remember what happened in the past and not repeat this gross error. Our very lives depend on it. How many of those Senators and Congressmen are willing to live less than a mile from this caravan coming to a city near you? Probably none.
MR. TARAS: My name is Robert Taras. T-A-R-A-S. This statement is in addition to my earlier statement.
Unlike those who believe that Yucca Mountain will be proven scientifically viable for a nuclear waste storage, I believe quite strongly there is current scientific evidence to render its use immediately obsolete. The United States should use its current classified technology to neutralize nuclear waste from research done in deep black, i.e., covert projects, also known as USAPs, unacknowledged special access projects.
There are scientists and governmental agents who could be excused from their secrecy oaths to bring to the public of this knowledge of zero-point energy research in open hearings before Congress. This research has been proven to provide pollution-free energy sources with by-products of new forms of propulsion. Statements have been made to Dr. Steven Greer, G-R-E-E-R, of the disclosure project and have been made in part to the public during a National Press Club meeting this year on May 9, 2001.
I strongly urge the Secretary of Energy and President Bush to seriously consider these individual statements as potential testimony against the approval of Yucca Mountain in open hearings before Congress. These people are ready and waiting for their opportunity.
I further believe that by covering up and not releasing these research studies and their working models, the current government officials are misleading the American public and its welfare at best and endangering that same welfare by circumventing their Constitutional Rights to this research they -- that is we -- have paid for through taxes. These technologies exist and can provide free energy globally. We, the public, are asked to consider all the evidence and keep an open mind during these Yucca Mountain approval hearings. Yet, I do not believe that the Department of Energy has all the evidence, considering the nature of these deeply covert projects well beyond their reach.
Since these technologies threaten to disrupt the current military industrial complex, which includes multinational oil companies, this research is continually repressed. This is not in the best interest of Nevada, the United States, or the global community.
I feel it is your moral imperative to consider the welfare of all people beyond Las Vegans, Nevadans, and the American people affected by your decision on this matter.
This then also addresses the point I made earlier, namely, that big money, quote, unquote, in the form of current geopolitical organizations, will not tolerate this upset to their control of the current economic paradigm and are covertly applying pressure to have this repository site approved.
Ostensibly, the issue is about science and meeting scientific standard for approval. In fact, it is about global economic power and the maintenance of that power in the hands of a few extra governmental agencies and industry contractors for the U.S. military. Yucca Mountain is but another chess move in the covert USAP power game.
Although the Secretary of Energy, and perhaps even President Bush, may not have the, quote, unquote, need-to-know security clearance to uncover these projects, there are those who have that need to know and who are willing to provide you and the American people with this information so vital to our future. Anything less is a public disservice in your official capacity. Thank you.
MR. PERRY: My name is Dan Perry, P-E-R-R-Y.
I'm a Nevada resident living in Las Vegas. I'm an engineer working in non-related fields. I have no affiliation or potential affiliation with any party involved with the project. The existence and continued creation of spent nuclear fuel are a fact of life in the U.S. That spent fuel is now scattered across the nation at who knows what locations.
The problem with dealing with this material is a national problem. To my awareness at this time, we have not developed a method to completely detoxify the material. When and if we ever do develop the means to detoxify the material, we can bet it will be very expensive.
It seems to me that it is best if we, as a nation, centralize the storage of spent fuel. The material is not something that we can pour down the sink and make it go away. I believe that we should create a single, best practice facility for handling the spent fuel. The location selected for the centralized storage should be in an area where it has minimal impact to both people and the environment.
Personally, I think the atomic test site is probably the best selection for such a site in the entire country. Certainly, there are other possible sites and, yes, we can continue to choose to investigate forever. Investigation is always safe.
Do we, as Nevada residents, think that it is better to place the site, let's say, in the middle of Texas or Washington? What do you think the citizens of those states would think? Do we think that national decisions like this should be made on a political basis by who is in office at the particular time?
Much has been said and will continue to be said of the risks involved in the transportation of the spent fuel. In our homes, we all have somewhat toxic agents that could make our children and our families sick. Some of us have them under our sinks and in or garages and scattered throughout our homes. Do we move them to centralize them to protect our children? Have we ever dropped a bottle of milk? These are the same issues that are involved with the transportation of the material.
There are risks with moving things, but there are also risks with leaving it where it is. We have a good example a few years ago in the handling of our lethal nerve gas that we developed over the years. We set up detoxification facilities for that nerve gas and we had to transport that nerve gas from military facilities throughout the nation to those locations for detoxification. At the time the plan was initiated, there was an uproar about the safety of the transportation. However, the plan went forward and now we live in a safer place.
I feel that we should move forward with the Yucca Mountain Project and as Southern Nevada citizens, we should work with the DOE to ensure the success of the project, which by definition is the safe success of the project.
We are all U.S. citizens and have all reaped the benefits of the creation of this material. It powers our Navy. It reduces our dependence on oil prolonging the availability of diminishing resources. It has reduced our digging up the arctic tundra, drilling off our coasts. We need to directly and positively address the disposal of this waste.
Thank you.
(END OF PROCEEDINGS)
---oOo---
Previous Section | Next Section