let me just say first of all that everything you heard from the former attorney for the nrdc is just nonsense. the reason it's nonsense is because he doesn't know. nobody knows. that's why we have a policy -- we have a review of these procedures. that's why we have nepa. that's why the national environmental policy act is in place. that many of my friends across the aisle view as the foundational environmental law. it requires federal agencies to evaluate the environmental impacts of projects before the project can be approved. the corps is in the process of doing that. i don't know if you're worried that the outcome might not be like you like. but if everything you said is true, then they certainly won't permit it. to be clear, i'm not advocating for or against this particular project. i don't know enough about it. but what i am saying is congress should stay out of the process of individual reviews. setting the press dents of injecting political -- precedent of injecting political opinions into the nepa process means any project in the future will be subject to the whims of the maj

fetis. >> thank you for the opportunity to present nrdc views. chairman murkowski started the hearing perfectly when she said we're in the same place. we trust this can be a new beginning, more than 80,000 metric tons of spent fuel in more than half our states and reactors moving to decommissioning, we need to reset the problem. this will not solve the current steal mate, won't lead to workable solutions. we oppose it in current form. more than 50 years congress offered and passed bills to restart the yucca licensing process. s 1234 sefrs any meaningful link between storage and disposal, excludes nevada from the process it sets up. this won't work. in such efforts failed in tennessee, kansas, nevada, utah, everywhere else. other attempts to restarts litigation and controversy. the likely result is the continued stalemate. seven years ago the blue ribbon commission asserted we can't keep doing the same thing. congress must create a process that allows a host state to demonstrate consent, or for that matter, nonconsent. rather than spend valuable t

also, the nrdc has challenged the f.c.c. in court and i was actually in d.c. to hear the oral arguments in the court of appeals. they are challenging the f.c.c. order on the basis of the fact it was a major order that didn't undergo review an environmental review. furthermore, the order itself didn't undergo review and the order allowed for that review to be by passed each time these are cited and the idea is that the reason for any review is to determine which of these facilities do present a public-health and safety risk and which don't. and the idea is it's not for the fcc to determine that, that's the reason we have this flexible need for review system to determine that may pose a risk. i'm going back to my conclusion which i'm not able to make which is the approval of this permit should be overturned because as stated in march of 2018 it does not satisfy the tier b compatibility standards. it's too tall. the equipment is too distracting and cluttering and this is the determination from march 2018. it's specifically says it is too tall and it says that the

also, the nrdc has challenged the f.c.c. in court and i was actually in d.c.o hear the oral arguments in the court of appeals. they are challenging the f.c.c. order on the basis of the fact it was a

let me just say first of all that everything you heard from the former attorney for the nrdc is just nonsense.