With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". more than sufficient to give Goedhart standing to sue in his own right. The claimed injury to his ground-water supply is neither hypothetical nor conjectural. Indeed, EPA itself acknowledges that “[t]he boundaries of the town [of Amargosa Valley] include all of the area where the highest potential doses from a repository at Yucca Mountain are anticipated.... ” Final Background Information Document at 8-13. Although ra-dionuclides escaping from the Yucca repository may not reach Goedhart’s community for thousands of years, his injury is “actual or imminent,” for he lives adjacent to the land where the Government plans to bury 70,000 metric tons of radioactive waste - a sufficient harm in and of itself. See La. Envtl. Action Network v. United States EPA, 172 F.3d 65, 67-68 (D.C.Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). In addition, this harm is “fairly traceable,”

A: holding an organization had standing because some of its individual members did
B: recognizing standing for an environmental group based on the adverse effect of an international commerce commission decision on its members
C: holding that an environmental group established constitutional standing where its members lived near a landfill into which an epa regulation allegedly would permit certain hazardous wastes to be deposited
D: holding that industry groups and various agencies conclusions that certain cyanidecontaining wastes were hazardous provided fair notice to support criminal conviction under rcra despite the defendants claim that the regulation required a specific standardsbased test
C.