Las Vegas

Return to the Index

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

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

Reported by:

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

A P P E A R A N C E S

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

P R O C E E D I N G S

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

(APPLAUSE)

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

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

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

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

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Biggest woman.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(APPLAUSE)

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

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Get to the meeting.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MODERATOR LAWSON: Okay.

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

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

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

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

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: We agree with you on that.

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

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

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

(APPLAUSE)

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Point of information?

MODERATOR LAWSON: Yes, sir,.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: How long will this presentation last?

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

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

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

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

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

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

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: You break another agreement.

MODERATOR LAWSON: Dr. Brocoum, please.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(AUDIENCE YELLING)

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

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

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

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: You can read them.

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

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Good.

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

MODERATOR LAWSON: Thank you very much.

(APPLAUSE)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(APPLAUSE)

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

(APPLAUSE)

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

(APPLAUSE)

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

(APPLAUSE)

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

(APPLAUSE)

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

(APPLAUSE)

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

(LAUGHTER)

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

(APPLAUSE)

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

(APPLAUSE)

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

(APPLAUSE)

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

(APPLAUSE)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(APPLAUSE)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(APPLAUSE)

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

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

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

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

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

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

(APPLAUSE)

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

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

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

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

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

(APPLAUSE)

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

(APPLAUSE)

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

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

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: There are two seats down front.

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

(APPLAUSE)

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

(APPLAUSE)

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

(APPLAUSE)

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

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

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

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

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

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

(APPLAUSE)

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

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

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

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

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

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Not here.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: How about Utah?

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

MODERATOR LAWSON: Hold it. Hold it.

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

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

(APPLAUSE)

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

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

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

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

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

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

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Is he a Nevada citizen?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: What's your affiliation?

MODERATOR LAWSON: There is no --

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

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Are you a Nevada resident?

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

MODERATOR LAWSON: Okay.

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

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

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

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Go ahead.

MODERATOR LAWSON: Continue. Continue.

(AUDIENCE YELLING)

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

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

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

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Throw everybody out.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: That's right.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Close the meeting.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Let him finish.

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

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

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Close the whole meeting.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Let him speak.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Go back to Utah.

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

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

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

(APPLAUSE)

Everybody gets a chance to speak.

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

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

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

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes, 20 percent.

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

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: That doesn't compare.

MODERATOR LAWSON: 30 seconds.

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

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: No.

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

(MIXED BOOS AND APPLAUSE)

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

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

MODERATOR LAWSON: Please, go ahead.

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

(APPLAUSE)

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

(APPLAUSE)

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

MODERATOR LAWSON: Excuse me, Mr. Vasconi.

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

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

MODERATOR LAWSON: Okay.

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

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

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

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

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

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: What?

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

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

MODERATOR LAWSON: 30 seconds, please.

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

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Oncology lab.

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

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Time's up.

MR. VASCONI: In conclusion, when the dust

settles --

MODERATOR LAWSON: Okay, okay.

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

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

(MIXED BOOS AND APPLAUSE)

MODERATOR LAWSON: Our next speaker is Dario Herrera.

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

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

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

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

(APPLAUSE)

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

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

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

(APPLAUSE)

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

(APPLAUSE)

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

(APPLAUSE)

MR. HERRERA: Myrna's --

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Who are you?

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

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

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

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

(APPLAUSE)

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

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Stab you in the back.

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

(APPLAUSE)

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

(APPLAUSE)

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

(APPLAUSE)

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

(APPLAUSE)

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

(APPLAUSE)

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

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Go, Oscar.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Give them hell, Oscar.

(APPLAUSE)

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

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

(APPLAUSE)

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

(APPLAUSE)

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

(APPLAUSE)

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

(APPLAUSE)

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

(APPLAUSE)

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

(APPLAUSE)

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

(Recess)

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

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

(LAUGHTER)

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

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Quit mocking it.

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

(APPLAUSE)

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

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

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

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: On money.

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

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Oscar did.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yeah.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Our mayor did that, sir.

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

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: 33 here.

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

(AUDIENCE YELLING)

MODERATOR LAWSON: Please.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Please, let him talk.

Let him talk. Everybody has a right.

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

(MIXED BOOS AND APPLAUSE)

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

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

MODERATOR LAWSON: Number 8.

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

(AUDIENCE YELLING)

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Please, come on.

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

(APPLAUSE)

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

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Resistance.

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

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: He's not here.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Where is he?

MODERATOR LAWSON: Please, come on.

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

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

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: That's right,

otherwise they wouldn't be.

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

MODERATOR LAWSON: Ms. Hanlon over here.

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

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

(APPLAUSE)

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

MODERATOR LAWSON: 30 seconds.

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

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Leave it where it is.

We're Americans.

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

MODERATOR LAWSON: Please quickly.

SENATOR O'DONNELL: Just one more thing.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Time.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Shut up.

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

(APPLAUSE)

Isn't that a great idea?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I'm for that.

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

(APPLAUSE)

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

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

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Nevada.

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

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Be excused if you like.

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

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Take a plebiscite here.

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

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

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

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Why are you here?

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

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

MODERATOR LAWSON: 30 seconds.

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

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

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

(APPLAUSE)

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

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: No, may I --

MODERATOR LAWSON: Is John Wells here?

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

(APPLAUSE)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MODERATOR LAWSON: 30 seconds, please.

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

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

MODERATOR LAWSON: Wind it up.

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

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

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

(APPLAUSE)

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

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

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

(APPLAUSE)

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

(APPLAUSE)

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

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: No.

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

MODERATOR LAWSON: 30 seconds.

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

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: No.

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

MODERATOR LAWSON: Thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

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

(Recess)

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

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

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

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

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

(APPLAUSE)

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

(APPLAUSE)

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

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

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

(APPLAUSE)

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

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: What about Three Mile Island?

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

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

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

MODERATOR LAWSON: Just give the presentation.

MR. McCULLUM: Sorry.

MODERATOR LAWSON: Look --

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

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: From the tobacco industry.

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

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

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

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

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

MODERATOR LAWSON: 30 seconds.

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

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

(MIXED BOOS AND APPLAUSE)

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

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

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

(APPLAUSE)

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

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

(APPLAUSE)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(APPLAUSE)

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

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

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

None of this should be construed as an endorsement of the Yucca Mountain Project. Our goal is simply to be prepared to do whatever is necessary to protect the public health and