Return to the Main Document

3. NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT

3 (3227)
Comment- EIS000959 / 0003
We are strongly opposed to the nuclear industry’s ongoing effort to establish a "permanent" high-level nuclear waste facility at Yucca Mountain for the following reason:

The dump will have far reaching consequences that no one can predict for tens of thousands of years.

Response
Congress tasked the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE or the Department) with the goal of finding a permanent, safe, deep-geologic-disposal site for spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste from commercial and defense-related nuclear energy programs and investigating the safety of candidate sites. The goal of deep geologic disposal is to isolate these materials from the near-surface environment for as long as possible. To achieve that end, DOE has instituted a process to utilize both natural and engineered systems to ensure that the proposed Yucca Mountain Repository would contain the waste as long as possible. The site characterization studies indicate that the repository would meet the technical criteria to provide this long-term isolation of the waste material with safety. These studies examined the present conditions in and near Yucca Mountain and the geologic history of the site to determine the most important characteristics in relation to long-term waste disposal.

The EIS describes and analyzes the means by which the geology of Yucca Mountain and the engineered systems designed to contain the waste would work together to provide maximum protection for the waste in the repository. It evaluates the safety measures that are part of the repository design and presents the calculations that analyze the effectiveness of that design. DOE used computer models to simulate the long-term performance of the repository. As a result of this evaluation, DOE would not expect the repository to exceed the prescribed radiation exposure limits during the 10,000-year period after closure. Further, DOE estimates that the average peak dose to a hypothetical individual from the repository would be less than the dose received from natural background radiation.

3 (6065)
Comment - 010242 / 0008
The Supplement states, "DOE invites comments on its intention not to address the Draft EIS design in the Final EIS." There was no "Draft DEIS design." In our view, the design information presented in the Draft EIS should be presented in the Final EIS as part of the full scope of the bounding alternatives considered. And the Final EIS must include a preferred design that is derived from among all the alternatives evaluated. The potential impacts of the DEIS design alternatives were presented in the DEIS, and the Supplement advances the analyses of those potential impacts through the use of Primary Impact Indicators, resulting in impact values that, in nearly all cases, are greater than those presented in the DEIS. The DEIS potential impact analyses form the basis of the impact values presented in the Supplement, and must be included in the Final EIS as part of a comprehensive analysis of potential impacts of all design alternatives considered.

Response
In the Draft EIS, DOE evaluated a preliminary design based on the Viability Assessment of a Repository at Yucca Mountain (DIRS 101779-DOE 1998) that focused on the amount of spent nuclear fuel (and associated thermal output) that DOE would emplace per unit area of the repository (called areal mass loading). Areal mass loading was represented for analytical purposes in the Draft EIS by three thermal load scenarios: a high thermal load of 85 metric tons of heavy metal (MTHM) per acre, an intermediate thermal load of 60 MTHM per acre, and a low thermal load of 25 MTHM per acre. DOE selected these analytical scenarios to represent the range of foreseeable design features and operating modes, and to ensure that it considered the associated range of potential environmental impacts within the framework of a design whose central feature was areal mass loading.

Since it issued the Draft EIS, DOE has continued to evaluate design features and operating modes that would reduce uncertainties in or improve long-term repository performance, and improve operational safety and efficiency. The result of the design evolution process was the development of the flexible design that DOE evaluated in the Supplement to the Draft EIS and in this Final EIS. This design focuses on controlling the temperature of the rock between the waste emplacement drifts (as opposed to areal mass loading) by varying other parameters such as the heat output per unit length of the emplacement drift and the distances between waste packages. Within this design framework of controlling the temperature of the rock, DOE selected lower- and higher-temperature operating modes to represent the range of foreseeable design features and operating modes, and to ensure that it considered the associated range of potential environmental impacts. DOE has not identified a preferred operating mode, however, because it would resolve many of the issues related to how it would operate a repository only in the context of developing the detailed design for a possible License Application.

This Final EIS does not include thermal load scenarios, primarily because the design has evolved from one that focuses on areal mass loading (amount of spent nuclear fuel per unit area) to one that focuses on controlling the temperature of the rock. This flexible design offers reduced uncertainties in long-term repository performance, and improvements in operational safety and efficiency over a thermal load design.

3 (7346)
Comment - EIS001957 / 0007
Uncertainties underlying the proposal are not adequately disclosed. For instance, Section 5.2.3.5 obscurely states that confidence in models to predict radionuclide concentration reduction through both saturated and unsaturated zones is low, and that the significance of this uncertainty to the estimated repository performance is high. Importance of the uncertainty factors is not sufficiently discussed throughout. To foster uninformed readers’ understanding of the proposal (and its effects), we urge that the many uncertainty factors—preventing scientists from saying much of anything with a high degree of confidence about overall safety—be clearly set forth in the beginning of the Summary and in the Findings.

Response
DOE prepared the Summary in accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations (40 CFR 1502.12) to summarize the major conclusions of the EIS, areas of controversy, and issues to be resolved. Section 5.2.4 of the EIS discusses uncertainties in the context of possible effects on the long-term performance impact assessment. DOE acknowledges that the results of analyses often have associated uncertainties and has described such uncertainties throughout the EIS. Further, as discussed in Section 2.5, to ensure an understanding of the status of its information, DOE has identified the use of incomplete information or the unavailability of information to identify uncertainties in the data or analytical approaches.

3 (9195)
Comment - EIS001924 / 0018
The uncertainty analysis presented in section 5.2 of the DEIS is not clearly written. It would have been helpful to have created a diagrammatic explanation of the handling of the uncertainties involved. This is the linchpin of the document, since an informed decision of the proposed action rests firmly on the DOE’s understanding of the repository functioning, geology, transportation cask performance, etc., which has associated uncertainties. How is the public to evaluate the DOE’s understanding of the project if it cannot gain a firm grasp of the uncertainties within?

Response
DOE acknowledges in Section 5.2.4 of the EIS that there is a level of uncertainty associated with estimating impacts, especially over thousands of years. With regard to the long-term performance assessment of the repository discussed in Section 5.2, DOE considered the uncertainties associated with societal changes and climate, currently available data, and models and model parameters.

As discussed in Section 2.5 of the EIS, to ensure an understanding of the status of its information, DOE identified the use of incomplete information or the unavailability of information to identify uncertainties in the data or analytical approaches. DOE acknowledges that the results of analyses often have associated uncertainties and has described such uncertainties throughout the EIS. In such instances, the EIS describes the basis for assumptions made for purposes of analysis. The Department chose the assumptions (and analytical methods) to represent conservatively the reasonably foreseeable impacts that could result from implementing the Proposed Action.

With regard to the presentation of information, DOE has taken a number of steps to make the EIS as understandable as possible to a wide range of readers. For example, the EIS includes explanatory text boxes, summary tables, illustrations, and comparative information to highlight potential environmental impacts.

3 (11326)
Comment - 010148 / 0003
In this document from what I’ve seen so far very important errors could have been corrected in the Supplement but were not, such as there’s a green piece of paper back on the Citizen Alert table back there, a brand new article that apparently the NRC just randomly took 20 figures out of the Department of Energy’s calculations and found out that oh, ten were wrong, including the 120 millirem doses at 550,000 years, right in the middle of the calculations errors in the NRC that they picked out. What else is wrong? This is just a random picking. The Department of Energy should withdraw this entire monstrosity. When you all know what you’re doing, start again. We deserve better. And I think the Department is actually capable of better on that.

Response
DOE placed considerable effort into preparing a quality EIS. While some typographical and other minor errors could exist, the Department believes that the overall quality of the Final EIS is sufficient.

3 (11552)
Comment - 010396 / 0001
We support Citizens Alert and the positions they have taken on the draft and supplement to the draft EIS noted above. The positions of Citizens Alert are adopted herein and made a part hereof for all purposes.

Response
See DOE’s responses to comments from Citizen Alert.

3 (12962)
Comment - 010249 / 0016
Response to DOE request for comment on whether or not the FEIS should include analysis referring to the DEIS design

Yes. The benefit of the additional design information in the SDEIS is that it provides an expanded design envelope, not simply a different design envelope. In keeping with the step-wise repository development process recommended by NAS [National Academy of Sciences], DOE should maintain a wide range of design options. This would preserve the opportunity to return to a higher temperature design concept should future information warrant such a change. In considering the FEIS, decision-makers should focus on the fact that all of the designs considered thus far in the NEPA [National Environmental Policy Act] process have been estimated to be in compliance with the recently finalized EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] standard. The decision that will be made based on this information is about whether or not the Yucca Mountain site is suitable for a repository, not about which specific repository design is most suitable.

Response
In the Draft EIS, DOE evaluated a preliminary design based on the Viability Assessment of a Repository at Yucca Mountain (DIRS 101779-DOE 1998) that focused on the amount of spent nuclear fuel (and associated thermal output) that DOE would emplace per unit area of the repository (called areal mass loading). Areal mass loading was represented for analytical purposes in the Draft EIS by three thermal load scenarios: a high thermal load of 85 metric tons of heavy metal (MTHM) per acre, an intermediate thermal load of 60 MTHM per acre, and a low thermal load of 25 MTHM per acre. DOE selected these analytical scenarios to represent the range of foreseeable design features and operating modes, and to ensure that it considered the associated range of potential environmental impacts within the framework of a design whose central feature was areal mass loading.

Since it issued the Draft EIS, DOE has continued to evaluate design features and operating modes that would reduce uncertainties in or improve long-term repository performance, and improve operational safety and efficiency. The result of the design evolution process was the development of the flexible design that was evaluated in the Supplement to the Draft EIS and is evaluated in this Final EIS. This design focuses on controlling the temperature of the rock between the waste emplacement drifts (as opposed to areal mass loading) by varying other parameters such as the heat output per unit length of the emplacement drift and the distances between waste packages. Within this design framework of controlling the temperature of the rock, DOE selected these lower- and higher-temperature operating modes to represent the range of foreseeable design features and operating modes, and to ensure that it considered the associated range of potential environmental impacts. DOE has not identified a preferred operating mode, however, because many of the issues related to how a repository would be operated would be resolved only in the context of developing the detailed design for a possible License Application.

This Final EIS does not include thermal load scenarios, primarily because the design has evolved from one that focuses on areal mass loading (amount of spent nuclear fuel per unit area) to one that focuses on controlling the temperature of the rock. This flexible design offers reduced uncertainties in long-term repository performance, and improvements in operational safety and efficiency over a thermal load design.

3 (13168)
Comment - 010243 / 0015
In addition to its illegality, the construction of such a [surface aging] facility would require a separate EIS process. Certainly, it must be acknowledged that any additional surface facilities necessary to implement the new proposed action would require a separate EIS process. Indeed, as is the case with the Private Storage Facility in Utah, proposed for the Skull Valley Goshute Reservation, it would require a separate EIS. Ideally, the EIS processes for the DEIS and the SDEIS would have been programmatic in nature, and more comprehensively addressed all of the environmental issues inherent in what the DOE recognizes as "the largest public works project in history."

Response
The Council on Environmental Quality regulations state that an agency should analyze "connected actions" in one EIS. Connected actions are those that automatically trigger other actions that might require EISs, cannot proceed unless other actions are taken previously or simultaneously, or are interdependent parts of a larger action and depend on the larger action for justification. For this reason, in this Final EIS DOE has incorporated the surface aging facility into its analyses (as it has done for all such facilities germane to the Proposed Action).

3.1 Draft EIS - Presentation

3.1 (11)
Comment - 8 comments summarized
Commenters suggested specific corrections for maps and for information or terminology used with the maps. One commenter noted that the Draft EIS indicated there would be ingestion from groundwater 5 kilometers (3 miles) from the repository but goes on to point out that the 5-kilometer location is well within the repository boundary and would not be a viable access point.

Several commenters identified problems with the EIS depiction of the repository location and boundaries. One commenter noted that Figure 3-2 [Section 3.1.1.2] of the Draft EIS shows Yucca Mountain too far north. Another noted that Figure 1-6 [Section 1.4.1.] does not show the withdrawal area accurately. Commenters indicated the EIS should provide clear information on repository size and include map scales.

Two commenters indicated that the boundaries shown for the Nevada Test Site and Death Valley National Park were not accurate. Another commenter stated that the 3.5-square-kilometer (870-acre) repository operations area described in the Draft EIS does not agree with the description of disturbed land and repository subsurface areas listed in Table 8-4 [Section 8.1.2.1]. Commenters suggested adding features to the legend for Figure S-17 [Section 5.4.1.1]. One commenter suggested using the term "government administered," rather than "government owned," when referring to lands controlled by an agency of the Federal Government.

Response
Section 5.3 of the Draft EIS acknowledged that no people lived or accessed groundwater at the 5-kilometer (3-mile) distance downgradient from the repository. It also acknowledged that groundwater at this location is more than 100 meters (330 feet) deep and, therefore, is not accessible economically. DOE analyzed the distance with a hypothetical maximally exposed individual largely because the then-proposed Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standard (40 CFR Part 197) identified the 5-kilometer distance as a compliance point. Since then, EPA has recognized that the long-term analysis need not consider points closer to the repository than the boundary of the controlled area. In 40 CFR Part 197, EPA defines the accessible environment as any point outside the controlled area, and allows the controlled area to extend no farther south in the predominant direction of groundwater flow than 36 degrees, 40 minutes, 13.6661 seconds north latitude. The point of compliance is where the maximum concentration of a contaminant plume would cross the boundary. This is approximately 18 kilometers (11 miles) downgradient from the repository site and is near the junction of U.S. 95 and State Route 373 (an area formally called Lathrop Wells and now called Amargosa Valley). This is the closest point at which DOE estimated human health impacts from groundwater pathways in this Final EIS.

In response to these comments, DOE has:

DOE has concluded that it is not necessary for the Final EIS to analyze a hypothetical individual at locations closer than approximately 18 kilometers (11 miles) to the repository because it is unreasonable to assume that anyone would reside in this area because:

3.1 (12)
Comment - 12 comments summarized
Commenters indicated they thought the EIS and EIS Summary were well organized, fairly represented the potential impacts associated with repository actions, and made effective use of graphics.

Response
DOE acknowledges the opinions of the commenters and their views on the EIS.

3.1 (15)
Comment - 24 comments summarized
Commenters said that DOE "obfuscated" the information in the EIS through confusing cross-references and redundancies in presentation, thus making the EIS hard to read and understand. Commenters said that the EIS, and in particular the Summary, should be rewritten in a reader-friendly manner or in a manner that can be better understood by the nonscientific community. Some commenters cited the Council on Environmental Quality guidance on page limits and indicated the EIS was too long. However, one commenter stated that the document’s length was appropriate given the complexity of the issues. Some commenters believe the EIS should be written in "plain English."

Response
DOE has taken a number of steps to make the EIS as understandable as possible to a wide range of readers. For example, the Final EIS includes a Readers Guide in addition to a number of explanatory text boxes, summary tables, illustrations, and comparison information that stresses and highlights potential environmental impacts. In addition, Chapter 14 of the EIS is a comprehensive glossary of technical terms. Further, technical appendixes comprise a substantial portion of the document volume. To reduce the number of pages in the main volume of the EIS, and help focus the reader on the most important material, DOE provided more technical discussions in these appendixes.

The EIS exceeds the page guidelines suggested in 40 CFR 1502.7, but the subject matter is complex and covers a range of issues.

3.1 (16)
Comment - 9 comments summarized
Commenters took issue with what they categorized as the tentative, imprecise, or qualitative use of terms to describe or compare the potential impacts described in the EIS. Some of the commenters deemed the terminology not appropriate because the EIS should be definitive and certain in its science. More explanations should be included for complex tables and charts. Commenters also stated that a spot check for consistency from one chapter or section to another revealed many errors and that the entire EIS should undergo a good quality control process and the inconsistencies eliminated. Similarly, commenters stated that the EIS should clarify, reference, and present text, tables, and figures consistently.

Response
Many sections of the EIS (for example, transportation-related health effects and air quality impacts from construction) provide quantitative estimates of potential impacts if there was enough information to support calculations and impacts that were likely to be of greater concern. In some cases DOE used quantification if it was appropriate from a scientific perspective to describe analysis results in terms of what would be likely to occur rather than what would absolutely occur. This is because the analysis estimated the future performance of engineered and natural systems over a long period. In contrast, some EIS comparisons are qualitative rather than quantitative (for example, see Section 3.1.10), either because the analytical techniques are not quantitative in nature or because the impacts would be of less concern.

For the Final EIS, DOE scrutinized the information in the Draft EIS to eliminate inconsistencies and ensure accuracy. Information was compared on a resource-by-resource (for example, land use) basis between the Summary, relevant sections of the Final EIS, and the Comment-Response Document. Thus, for example, DOE compared land-use impacts described in the Summary to similar information in Chapters 4 (construction, operation and monitoring, and closure), 8 (cumulative impacts), and 10 (unavoidable adverse impacts) to ensure consistency. Next, the Department compared its discussions of land-use impacts to its responses to the comments in this Comment-Response Document to ensure that the entire Final EIS is as consistent as possible.

3.1 (17)
Comment - 3 comments summarized
Commenters stated that the glossy paper on which the EIS is printed is very hard on their eyes and that some commenters must shift the pages to reduce glare. They would like the EIS to be printed on nonglare paper. Because of the size and weight of the two-volume Draft EIS, DOE should separate the Final EIS into several smaller booklets, so they are easier to handle, or make it less repetitive.

Response
DOE elected to use color in the Draft EIS Summary to convey certain information more effectively, as in the figures and supplemental information in text boxes; the Department used black-and-white print for the rest of the Draft EIS. DOE printed the Summary on coated (glossy) paper because this paper holds color better than nonglossy paper, and used nonglossy paper for Volumes I and II. The Supplement to the Draft EIS was printed on nonglossy paper.

For the same reasons, DOE elected to use color in the Final EIS Summary and to print the Summary on glossy paper. The remainder of the document does not use color and, therefore, has been printed on nonglossy paper.

DOE has published the Final EIS, which contains responses to public comments on the Draft EIS and the Supplement to the Draft EIS and provides new information and analyses, in four separate "books." These include the Readers Guide and Summary, Volume I (Chapters 1 through 15), Volume II (appendixes), and Volume III (this Comment-Response Document). The outline of Volume I is consistent with the requirements of the Council on Environmental Quality; Volume II provides additional details in support of the information in Volume I; and Volume III provides DOE responses to public comments on the Draft EIS and the Supplement to the Draft EIS.

3.1 (19)
Comment - 5 comments summarized
Commenters stated that the Table of Contents, List of Figures, and List of Tables were difficult to read, in part because of the format. One commenter requested an index; another stated that the index provided in the Draft EIS was too brief.

Response
DOE has reformatted the Table of Contents, List of Tables and List of Figures to improve readability. Changes include reformatting chapter and appendix headings, increasing space between individual entries, and modifying the line formatting (including the use of bold type). Chapter 15 of the EIS contains an Index.

3.1 (21)
Comment - 7 comments summarized
Commenters noted inconsistencies or issues related to information presented in the Draft EIS for the alternative rail corridors. Commenters stated that while the Summary shows two railroad routes going through Pahrump, Pahrump is not shown on the map. Another commenter noted differences in the rail routes on two different maps. The commenter went on to question impacts on the operation of the Cortez Mine, Placer Dome, and other mining claims.

One commenter noted a discrepancy in the length of the Valley Modified rail corridor as listed in Section L.3.2 and the text box in Section S.4.2.2 of the Draft EIS.

A commenter indicated that the Union Pacific Railroad now owns both of the northern routes, and the Burlington Northern has shipping privileges on the northern route. Section 2.1.3.3 of the Draft EIS states that the Southern Pacific Railroad owns one of the northern routes and that the Union Pacific owns the other northern route and the southern route.

One commenter stated that State Route 318 intersects U.S. Highway 93 rather than State Route 375, as stated in Section 3.2.2.2.4.

One commenter suggested replacing the railroad figure in Section 6.2.1 of the EIS with the map of national rail routes distributed by DOE at the public hearing held in Chicago. Another commenter stated that the railroad routes shown in that figure did not seem proximate to eight sites in New Jersey and Maine.

Response
DOE has studied the information in the EIS to eliminate inconsistencies and ensure the accuracy of information related to alternative rail and heavy-haul truck corridors. Specifically, DOE modified transportation figures to include Pahrump and other geographic features.

DOE is aware of the Cortez Gold Mines operation in Crescent Valley, as well as other mining operations and claims. Sections 8.1.2.3 and 8.4.2 discuss the Cortez Gold Mines and describe possible impacts. At this time, however, more detailed information is not available for each particular transportation alternative. As indicated in Section 9.3.1, DOE would develop mitigation measures if construction and operation of facilities could result in (1) impacts to publicly used lands, (2) direct and indirect land loss, and (3) displacement of capital improvements.

Gold Acres and Tenebo are historic reference points in the vicinity of the Carlin Corridor. To avoid confusion, they have been deleted from the list of communities in the EIS.

Based on a review of the official map of the State of Nevada, State Route 318 intersects with State Route 375, which in turn intersects with U.S. Highway 93.

DOE used the railroad maps displayed at the public hearings for their scale and depth of detail. DOE has added tables to Appendix J of the EIS to list transportation impacts for each state, and has added maps for each route analyzed (see Section J.4).

3.1 (22)
Comment - 5 comments summarized
Commenters provided suggestions and noted inaccuracies in the EIS information on geology and hydrology. One commenter suggested that the term "groundwater" should be two words and that the terms "saturated zone" and "aquifer" should be defined. Another commenter believed that the reference to an average unsaturated-zone thickness (page 10-2 of the Draft EIS) is inaccurate. A commenter stated that the definition for "hydrographic area" seems to imply groundwater basins and hydrographic areas do not equate. The commenter suggested that the definition should come earlier in Chapter 3. One commenter stated that pages related to geologic and hydrologic information in Chapter 3 were missing from the Draft EIS.

A commenter identified an inconsistency in reported centimeters between pages 10-2 and pages 3-44 of the Draft EIS. Another commenter suggested including maps showing the location of surface water in relationship to transportation corridors, flow and discharge information, uses of permitted waters, recharge, and floodplain information.

A commenter questioned why, on the groundwater flow basins figure in Section 3.1.4.2.1, there is a question mark on the groundwater flow arrow from the Amargosa Desert area toward Death Valley National Park. The commenter stated that this is different from Figure 3-32 from D’Agnese, et al., which provides essentially the same information.

One commenter stated that the section labeling and content for Section 3.1.3.1, Physiography (Characteristic Land Forms), is confusing. The commenter suggested that the information on selection of repository host rock and potential for volcanism should be numbered subsections under the main section, 3.1.3, Geology, and not a subsection of Physiography.

Response
DOE recognizes that both "groundwater" and "ground water" are in common usage. DOE has elected to use the single-word form in keeping with agency convention.

As described in the Glossary (Chapter 14 of the EIS), "aquifer" is a type or subset of "saturated zone." Aquifer is "a subsurface saturated rock unit (formation, group of formations, or part of a formation) of sufficient permeability to transmit groundwater and yield usable quantities of water to wells and springs." Saturated zone is "the areas below the water table where all spaces (fractures and rock pores) are completely filled with water." The text has been revised to improve consistency in the use of groundwater area terminology. In addition, text has been added to better describe the relationship between basins and hydrographic areas as used in the EIS. Boundaries of hydrographic areas often do not precisely match those of groundwater basins and the finer division of sections because hydrographic areas generally reflect topographic divides (mountains and valleys) that, in some cases, do not correspond to divides based on groundwater movement. Hydrographic area designations are important because they are the basic units used by the State of Nevada in its water planning and appropriations efforts.

Because of the large areas involved, DOE has not provided maps with the level of detail requested in this comment. However, Section S.13 of the EIS presents color maps of the transportation corridors in considerably more detail than presented in the Draft EIS. DOE provided hydrographic information for each transportation scenario discussed in Chapter 6.

With regard to the use of an average unsaturated zone thickness in Chapter 10, DOE believes this is appropriate for discussions of impacts in the EIS. DOE has left the text in Section 10.1.1.3 as "about 300 meters (1,000 feet)." DOE believes that 1,000 feet is the appropriate conversion for "about 300 meters," because 980 feet would imply more accuracy (more significant numbers) than intended. One commenter correctly noted that "0.31" inch on page 10-2 of the Draft EIS should have been "0.3" inch to be consistent with page 3-44. DOE has modified the text in both locations as appropriate. DOE has removed the question mark from the referenced figure (Figure 3-15 of the Final EIS) to be consistent with Figure 3-32 in D’Agnese et al. (DIRS 100131-1997).

The purpose of Section 3.1.3.1 is to provide a broad overview of regional and site geology. The sections that follow address more specific issues of particular concern or interest to the public (that is, faulting and seismic activity) or that are a definite change of topic (mineral and energy resources). DOE agrees that the topics identified in this comment could be in numbered sections, but made an editorial decision to not put them at the same level as topics with individual section numbers.

3.1 (337)
Comment - EIS000055 / 0001
Provide a larger-scale version of EIS Fig 2-33, pg 2-53.

Response
The Final EIS contains a larger version of that Figure in Section 2.1.3.3.3.2.

3.1 (440)
Comment - EIS000077 / 0001
On page 1-16, Amargosa Valley is located in the wrong place on the map.

Response
DOE has checked the location of Amargosa Valley the figure in Section 1.4.1 and has concluded that the location is correct as shown.

3.1 (584)
Comment - EIS000127 / 0001
The first comment is that it seems deliberately inadequate and deliberately deceptive, starting with the cover. As it was said before, it’s not spent fuel, it’s irradiated fuel.

From this statement all the way through, it’s an inadequate and incomprehensible document, mostly.

Response
In passing the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, as amended (this EIS refers to the amended Act as the NWPA), Congress directed DOE to evaluate the potential for disposing of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste in a geologic repository at Yucca Mountain. The Act provides the following definition: "The term ‘spent nuclear fuel’ means fuel that has been withdrawn from a commercial nuclear reactor following irradiation, the constituent elements of which have not been separated by reprocessing." In using this term, DOE follows the statute that governs the proposal.

DOE has taken a number of steps to make the EIS as understandable as possible to a wide range of readers. For example, the EIS includes numerous explanatory text boxes, summary tables, illustrations, and comparison information that stress and highlight potential impacts. In addition, Chapter 14 of the EIS is a comprehensive glossary of technical terms.

3.1 (650)
Comment - EIS000124 / 0009
Whatever’s in the Summary should at least be indicative with what is in the rest of the document.

Response
The Summary to the EIS stresses the major conclusions, areas of controversy, and issues to be resolved, and focuses on information and impacts of relevant significance. DOE prepared the Summary to be consistent with regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR 1502.12) and Departmental guidance on the preparation of summaries.

3.1 (1478)
Comment - EIS001521 / 0012
Page S-52, S.4.2 TRANSPORTATION, first paragraph--Reference to Figures 13 and 14 should be to Figures S-13 and S-14.

Response
Thank you for you comment. DOE has corrected the figure callouts in Section S.4.2 of the EIS.

3.1 (1479)
Comment - EIS001521 / 0016
Page 2-26, Figure 2-16--The low-thermal-load (l-t-l) expansion is not detailed in the text or figures in the Summary, pages S-14 through S-21. It is mentioned in the "THERMAL LOAD" blockout [text box], page S-14, that l-t-l conditions would cause an increase in the subsurface area and excavation of the repository, but the fact that the l-t-l build-out would more than double the size of the repository design is not mentioned. This expansion would encounter a greater number of faults, perhaps differing hydrogeologic conditions, and create additional radiological hazard scenarios, etc. These are very important l-t-l factors that deserve much more attention in the Summary.

Response
DOE has substantially revised the Summary for the Final EIS.

In May 2001, DOE issued a Supplement to the Draft EIS that analyzes the environmental impacts of the flexible design, which could be operated in a range of modes, from higher- to lower-temperature. The flexible design was carried forward to the Final EIS. The underground emplacement area for a lower-temperature mode (the environmental impacts of which are presented in the Final EIS) could be as large as the area associated with the low thermal load scenario presented in the Draft EIS.

DOE has identified candidate emplacement areas that could accommodate a larger underground footprint. These areas were identified in consideration of fault locations and geotechnical characteristics of potential host emplacement areas. Please refer to the Science and Engineering Report (DIRS 153849-DOE 2001) for additional information.

3.1 (2207)
Comment - EIS000620 / 0001
I would like to go on record as saying we need an alternative study to the proposed rail line. The members of Crescent Valley got together, and we found 60 unanswered questions in one hour. We feel that a rail line is inconsistent with the growth of this community. We found towns named that aren’t here, and we found towns that were here that weren’t really referred to.

Response

DOE cannot respond to unanswered questions without specific details, such as the reference to correct or incorrect town names in the EIS. With regard to a rail line being inconsistent with community growth, DOE has identified a number of areas in Crescent Valley that the proposed transportation corridors could affect. At this time, however, more detailed information is not available on the parcels of land that could be affected. As indicated in Section 9.3.1 of the EIS, DOE would develop mitigation measures if construction and operation of repository-related facilities could result in (1) impacts to publicly used lands, (2) direct and indirect land loss, and (3) displacement of capital improvements.

3.1 (2716)
Comment - EIS001005 / 0005
In conclusion, I just want to simply state: The information contained in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement clearly demonstrates how hazardous and insecure the entire process of disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high level radioactive waste is, beginning with the containers, through transportation and final repository.

Response
The introduction to Chapter 1 of the EIS explains the purpose of and need for the proposed repository at Yucca Mountain for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste.

In preparing the EIS, DOE has been continuously aware that it was analyzing design and disposal processes that would occur over long periods, and transportation scenarios that would represent nationwide activity. The primary focus of the Proposed Action analysis is to provide security against hazards to ensure that the spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste would not adversely affect public health and safety and the environment.

The EIS presents a balanced, informative analysis of the Proposed Action, hazards involved in the proposal, and efforts to minimize potential risks from those hazards. The EIS also presents opposing views on analytical issues, uncertainties that might exist in some results, and areas for further study.

3.1 (3064)
Comment - EIS000619 / 0004
On page 3-114 of the draft, it states that Native Americans live in the vicinity of two of the candidate rail corridors, Jean and Valley Modified, and this statement should be corrected to acknowledge that the Western Shoshone Dann sisters live in Crescent Valley in the vicinity of the proposed Carlin route.

Response
DOE has modified the statement referenced in this comment to indicate that Native American communities are present in at least two of the candidate rail corridors. In addition, DOE has added text to indicate that Western Shoshone families own land in Crescent Valley near the Carlin Corridor.

3.1 (3592)
Comment - EIS000715 / 0001
The DEIS is unacceptable and should be rewritten. The DOE is nonchalant about the potential impacts on the desert environment from the Yucca Mountain Project. The DEIS, by scattering and obfuscating information throughout the report, makes it difficult for those who care about this environment to form a clear picture of the overall impacts to desert lands and species.

Response
DOE has endeavored to use a plain and readable style that conveys information on technical issues. The EIS material on the desert environment reflects well over a decade of research by DOE and its contractors. The EIS presents information on the desert environment in all pertinent chapters. Chapter 3 describes the desert environment, including lands and species, potentially affected by the proposed project. Chapters 4 through 6 discuss potential impacts from various phases and segments of the proposal. Chapter 7 discusses potential consequences for the desert environment if DOE took no action to construct and operate a repository. Chapter 8 includes analyses of the potential for cumulative impacts to the desert environment from the repository added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Chapter 9 discusses mitigation measures DOE is considering to reduce the potential for impacts to the desert environment. In addition, DOE has entered consultations with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on the potential of the proposed project to affect the desert tortoise, a reptile species protected under the Endangered Species Act.

3.1 (3997)
Comment - EIS000724 / 0001
The Department of Energy’s DEIS is simply unacceptable and should be rewritten. Not only does this report fail to adequately address the numerous public health, safety, and environmental issues associated with the Yucca Mountain Project, but it also buries the reader in a jumble of confusing cross-references and redundancies. This obfuscation makes it difficult, if not impossible, for interested parties to navigate the three-volume report and to provide specific and clear comments to the DOE regarding the improvement of the DEIS. The incomprehensibility of the DEIS deters all but the most determined citizens from participating in this important decision-making process. The lack of clarity in the EIS also makes it difficult for policy makers to make informed choices about the nuclear waste policy of the United States because it is nearly impossible to form a clear picture of the risk involved with a nuclear waste repository.

One example of this obfuscation appears in Section 6.3.2, "Impacts of Nevada Rail Transportation Implementing Alternatives." In the space of the five introductory paragraphs, the reader is referred to one figure, two chapters, four sections, one appendix, and six reference documents. In addition, the section is set up in sections that first explore impacts common to all of the alternatives, then impacts of each separate alternative. The DEIS does not specify which alternative it prefers, and it does not show the total impacts for any of the alternatives (that is, the reader is left to figure out how the common impacts and the separate impacts will accumulate). This is only one of many examples throughout the DEIS where information is presented in a confusing and frustrating manner.

Response
DOE has taken a number of steps to make the EIS as understandable as possible to a wide range of readers. For example, the EIS now includes a Readers Guide in addition to a number of explanatory text boxes, summary tables, illustrations, and comparison information that stress and highlight potential environmental impacts. Chapter 14 of the EIS is a comprehensive glossary of technical terms.

With regard to the presentation of information and content, DOE believes the EIS provides a balanced, informative analysis of impacts. In addition to presenting the results of the DOE analyses of the impacts of the proposed repository, the EIS describes opposing views on a number of analytical issues and uncertainties that exist in some technical areas, and identifies where further studies are needed or are under way.

With regard to the comments on Chapter 6 and specifically Section 6.3.2, DOE recognizes that the discussion of transportation issues is complex and covers a range of issues that could have effects nationwide and in Nevada. Section 6.3 of this Final EIS includes a summary table to assist the reader in understanding potential impacts across the range of alternatives. In addition, this Final EIS identifies mostly rail as the preferred transportation mode in Nevada.

3.1 (4220)
Comment - EIS001521 / 0091
Page I-16, Table I-11--Footnote references c and d appear to be reversed. "Solubility in repository water by EQ3 simulation" should reference Wolery, 1992, EQ3 code version, Version 7.0; and "EQ6 simulation of Alloy 22 corrosion" should reference Wolery and Daveler, 1992, EQ6 code, Version 7.0. Also, as noted in the References on page I-116, both are listed as code Version 7.0, not Version 7.2b as shown in footnotes c and d. Should additional references for code Version 7.2b be added to the References and referred to here?

Response
In the Draft EIS the footnotes were reversed. DOE used Version 7.2b, which is the latest version available. The latest documentation is as referenced for Table I-11 in the Draft EIS. However, this table is not in the Final EIS, and the footnotes no longer appear. DOE has corrected the appropriate references in the text.

3.1 (4263)
Comment - EIS001521 / 0014
Page 1-16, Figure 1-6--This figure should appear in the Summary on or near pages S-32 and S-33, in S.4.1 YUCCA MOUNTAIN SITE AND VICINITY, for reader clarification in understanding the size and extent of the land-withdrawal area.

Response
DOE agrees with this comment and has included a similar figure in Section S.4.1 of the EIS.

3.1 (4265)
Comment - EIS001521 / 0015
Page 2-15, Figure 2-9, and Page 4-2, Figure 4-1--These two identical milestone figures do not correlate well (or they don’t appear to) with page S-19, Figure S-9 (showing expected sequencing) in the Summary. As examples, Figures 2-9 and 4-1 show construction beginning in 2005 whereas Figure S-9 shows NRC [Nuclear Regulatory Commission] construction authorization sometime between 2005 and 2010; Figures 2-9 and 4-1 show waste emplacement completion during 2033 and it appears on Figure S-9 that emplacement operations would end sometime between 2033 and 2110; and Figures 2-9 and 4-1 indicate that repository closure would be sometime between 2116 and 2125, but Figure S-9 seems to show that closure would be during 2125 (since that year is bracketed). These time schedules should be easily interpretable and relate from one to another, they are important!

Response
DOE has made the figure in the Summary consistent with the figures in Chapter 2 and 4 in the Final EIS.

3.1 (4308)
Comment - EIS001160 / 0118
Page 10-5, Section 10.1.2.1 Land Use, Paragraph 1, last sentence. The text here states "Most of the land along the corridors under consideration is government owned." White Pine County recommends that DOE use the term government-administered to describe land managed by the Bureau of Land Management.

Response
DOE has modified the language in the EIS from "government owned" to "government administered or controlled" when it refers to lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management. This section number has been changed to 10.1.3.1 in the Final EIS.

3.1 (4480)
Comment - EIS001632 / 0081
Page 14-8, definition of "controlled area": This definition is inconsistent with how this term is used in 40 CFR Part 191 (see 50FR 38085, September 19, 1985) and in proposed 40 CFR Part 197 (64 FR 47013, August 27, 1999). The definitions in EPA’s [the Environmental Protection Agency’s] rules limit the controlled area size to no more than five kilometers from the repository footprint. (There is an additional option in proposed 40 CFR Part 197 with which this definition is also inconsistent.) EPA recognizes that the size of the controlled area for physical control purposes during the active institutional control period might be different than the area used for performance assessment purposes, but if so, the distinction should be clarified on page 14-8 and in the appropriate places in the final EIS.

Response
This comment is correct. DOE has modified the definition of "controlled area" in the Glossary (Chapter 14) to be consistent with 40 CFR Part 197.

3.1 (4517)
Comment - EIS001521 / 0001
Page S-14, S.3.1.2 Performance Confirmation. Construction, Operation and Monitoring, and Closure, second paragraph--(Performance confirmation) The statement, "...activities would continue until after the closure of the repository," is confusing. It sounds as if the activity will stop at some point in time. Simply say the activities will continue "following" the closure.

Response
In accordance with Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations (10 CFR Part 63), the performance confirmation period would extend until the beginning of repository closure operations. DOE modified Section S.3.1.2 of the EIS to clarify the end of performance confirmation.

3.1 (4518)
Comment - EIS001521 / 0002
Page S-17, Figure S-7--Label East Main, Exhaust Main and West Main as Drifts for clarity; and show the actual location of the north portal, as is done for the south portal.

Response
DOE has modified that figure in Section S.3.1.2 of the EIS Summary to indicate that the West, Exhaust, and East Mains are drifts, and to show the North and South Portals consistently.

3.1 (4519)
Comment - EIS001521 / 0003
Page S-33, first paragraph--Devils Hole appears to be "east" of Ash Meadows, not "south" as so stated (see page S-34, Figure S-17).

Response
DOE has corrected the text to reflect the relationship between Ash Meadows and Devil’s Hole.

3.1 (4520)
Comment - EIS001521 / 0004
Page S-33, second paragraph--Lathrop Wells is not on page S-34, Figure S-17, nor should it be, as the community name no longer exists. During the late 1980’s the community name was changed from Lathrop Wells to Amargosa Valley, which is shown on page S-34, Figure S-17. Lathrop Wells should not be referred to here or elsewhere in the DEIS.

Response
DOE has made global changes to the EIS and deleted references to Lathrop Wells except in an historical context.

3.1 (4565)
Comment - EIS001521 / 0079
Page 4-103, second paragraph--(Potential for Flooding) Because the actual location of the waste-retrieval and storage area is unknown (or at least ill defined), whether or not the facility would be affected by a pmf [probable maximum flood] event is not discernable. The approximate location of the waste-retrieval and storage area will have to be plotted on page 3-34, Figure 3-12, (and referenced) before the accuracy of this statement can be ascertained.

Response
DOE would not construct and operate critical facilities in floodplain zones. The figure in Section 3.1.4.1.2 of the EIS shows the approximate boundary for the regional maximum flood, which is essentially synonymous with the probable maximum flood. As site characterization activities conclude, DOE will plot appropriate adjustments, if any, to floodplain maps.

3.1 (4576)
Comment - EIS001521 / 0090
Page A-34 through Page A-35, A.2.3.2.2 Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, first paragraph— "...treatment as well as alternative terminologies...," I assume, is referring to alternative technologies. If not, please explain.

Response
"Technologies" was the correct term. DOE has, however, deleted the material in question.

3.1 (4711)
Comment - EIS001230 / 0006
One final note: the INEEL CAB [Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory Citizens Advisory Board] commends DOE on the detailed descriptive information about SNF [spent nuclear fuel] and HLW [high-level radioactive waste] (including quantities and characteristics) as compiled in Appendix A to the Draft EIS (and cited references). Such a compilation is a significant improvement over other DOE environmental documentation and Integrated Data Base reports. The data should be incorporated into other databases, such as the one currently being prepared to support DOE’s stewardship planning.

Response
Thank you for your comment. The information cited in this comment is available to the DOE Stewardship Planning Program.

3.1 (5158)
Comment - EIS001444 / 0011
Section 11-1, Page 11-2, Table 11-1, item 15
Table appears to say that a right-of-way reservation would be needed to allow construction of the facility; this is incorrect. While right-of-way reservations are appropriate for site characterization studies, and for transportation routes, the actual facility would be on land withdrawn from operation of the public land laws for that express purpose. Other places in the EIS talk about a land withdrawal for the facility site.

Please note that paragraph 2 under FLPMA [Federal Land Policy and Management Act] (page 11-4) references Table 11-1, item 14, not item 15.

Section 11-2-8 (Use of Land & Water Bodies), Page 11-16
Taylor Grazing Act paragraph: The Taylor Grazing Act is NOT the authority for rights-of-way, or for withdrawals.

Rights-of-way, including right-of-way reservations to Federal agencies, are authorized by Title V of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA). Section 507 of FLPMA specifically addresses rights-of-way for Federal agencies.

Section 204 of FLPMA authorizes withdrawals.

Section 11.4 (Federal Regulations), Page 11-21, Table 11-3
43 CFR 4100 contains regulations pertaining to grazing administration.

Regulations for rights-of-way are found at 43 CFR Subpart 2800. Right-of-way reservations to Federal agencies are specifically addressed at 43 CFR 2807.

Response
This comment is correct that land withdrawal is required for the repository site. DOE has corrected the table at the beginning of EIS Chapter 11.

DOE has changed the reference in Section 11.1 of the EIS on the Federal Land Policy and Management Act to item 17, right-of-way reservations.

The discussion of the Taylor Grazing Act in Section 11.2.8 has been modified to state that regulations implementing that Act are codified in 43 CFR Part 4100. The comment is correct that 43 CFR Part 4100 deals with grazing administration. In the table in Section 11.4, the correct title for 43 CFR Part 4100 has been changed to "Grazing Administration, Exclusive of Alaska." Also in that table, the citation for Right-of-Way Reservation, 43 CFR Part 2800, has been changed, and the reference to 43 CFR Part 3600, Free Use Permit, has been changed to 43 CFR Part 3620. Incorrect references in the text have also been changed.

3.1 (5321)
Comment - EIS001887 / 0053
Page 1-13; Section 1.3.2.4 - Environmental Protection and Approval Standards for the Yucca Mountain Site

While the Yucca Mountain Draft EIS is not intended as a site suitability document, it must nevertheless address the site’s ability to meet established health, safety, and environmental standards. The performance of the site in relation to such standards is, itself, a measure of impact on the physical and human environment. The final EIS must evaluate Yucca Mountain against the proposed Environmental Protection Agency radiation protection standards and must demonstrate that the Yucca Mountain site can meet the 15 millirem annual release standard and the 4 millirem groundwater protection standard. Failure to meet these EPA standards would constitute a significant project impact and would lead to the disqualification of Yucca Mountain as a candidate site.

Response
The Environmental Protection Agency promulgated radiation protection standards for the proposed repository (40 CFR Part 197) after DOE published the Draft EIS. Chapter 11 of this Final EIS describes the regulations and Chapter 5 provides comparisons (results of performance assessments) to the standards as appropriate.

3.1 (5323)
Comment - EIS001887 / 0054
Page 1-16; Figure 1-6 - Land Withdrawal Area Used for Analytical Purposes

The expanded map is not correct. The locations of the Lathrop Wells Road, its intersection with Highway 95, and Amargosa Valley are incorrect. The Lathrop Wells road exits the southern boundary of Area 25 of the Nevada Test Site and proceeds south to Highway 95, just west of the intersection with State Road 373 at Amargosa Valley.

Response
DOE has modified that figure, in Section 1.4.1 in the EIS, to show Lathrop Wells Road exiting the southern boundary of Area 25 of the Nevada Test Site and proceeding south to U.S. 95, just west of the intersection with State Route 373 at Amargosa Valley.

3.1 (5328)
Comment - EIS001887 / 0056
Page 1-20; Section 1.4.3.3 - Site Recommendation

The terms used in Sec. 114(a) of the NWPA should be used in describing the requirements for recommending the site:

Bullet 2 – "waste form" not "material forms"; and "form" not "forms";

Bullet 5 – "waste form" not "material form"; and "analysis seem to be sufficient" not "are sufficient"

Response
DOE has made the suggested changes to what is now Section 1.4.3.7.

3.1 (5455)
Comment - EIS001660 / 0012
The DEIS fails to include summary tables showing, for example, latent cancer fatalities (LCFs) for all alternatives and scenarios in one table, using consistent units. In Volume I alone, the reader must consider over 700 pages of text and almost 300 tables, making summary-level comparisons difficult if not impossible.

Response
The summary in Sections S.11.1 and 2.4 of the Draft EIS and the Final EIS summarize impacts for each alternative, including latent cancer fatalities. In addition, DOE has added in Section 2.4 a table listing a simple comparison of the health and safety impacts of the Proposed Action and the No-Action Alternative. Given the scope and complexity of the subject matter covered in this EIS, it is difficult to present all the information in a concise manner. DOE has made a number of modifications to the EIS to improve the structure and readability of the document, which include bold type in the Table of Contents, and a "crosswalk" showing where information listed in the Summary tables can be found in the EIS.

3.1 (5565)
Comment - EIS001887 / 0194
Page 3-99; Section 3.2.2 - Nevada Transportation

The description of the affected environment is also deficient because it does not include specific information for all specific communities and Native American reservations potentially affected by the shipment of spent fuel and HLW [high-level radioactive waste]. Such information should be included for every community along highway routes, main line rail routes, rail spur alternatives, and heavy-haul truck routes.

Response
DOE characterized the affected environment in the identified region of influence in Nevada at the county rather than community level. DOE believes that the EIS provides the environmental impact information necessary to make certain broad transportation-related decisions, namely the choice of a national mode of transportation outside Nevada (mostly rail or mostly legal-weight truck), the choice among alternative transportation modes in Nevada (mostly rail, mostly legal-weight truck, or heavy-haul truck with use of an associated intermodal transfer station), and the choice among alternative rail corridors or heavy-haul truck routes with use of an associated intermodal transfer station in Nevada. The Department would conduct future analyses consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act to determine potential impacts of specific routes and transportation operations in a specific area.

3.1 (5704)
Comment - EIS001887 / 0319
Page 6-19; Figure 6-8 - Map of U.S. Interstate Highway System

Figure 6-8 should be replaced with the map of national truck routes distributed by DOE at the Draft EIS Public Hearing in Chicago on February 1, 2000. (See Attachment X)

Response
DOE used the national truck route map at the public hearings because of its scale and depth of detail. That map includes detail not presented in the EIS, but reproducing it in the EIS is not feasible. However, DOE has revised this and other national maps to show only the routes analyzed, and provided greater detail in relation to transportation in Nevada.

3.1 (5768)
Comment - EIS001887 / 0373
SECTION 12. REFERENCES

There were twenty-seven important references regarding biological, ecological, and soil resources cited in the Draft EIS. Of these, three were professional publications reflecting work of the State of Nevada. There are other State of Nevada professional publications not included among the references cited in the Draft EIS. Among DOE’s twenty-four other references are ten reports issued by TRW regarding environmental information for the Yucca Mountain Project. Of these, four are Environmental Baseline Files that draw upon additional sources of information. A key DOE citation in the Draft EIS is "TRW 1999k, Environmental Baseline File for Biological Resources." Section 4 (Opposing Views) and Section 5 (Major Issues and Data Needs) of TRW 1999k are attached to these comments. Section 4 identifies six opposing views to DOE’s field studies raised by the State of Nevada and the NWTRB [Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board]. These are key issues regarding Yucca Mountain biological and ecological programs, which are not disputed in the Draft EIS. This is consistent with the earlier comment on the Draft EIS for page 3-59 that DOE failed to use an integrated ecosystem approach, thereby negating many of its field studies for the biological and ecological resource aspects of the Draft EIS. As noted in the comments on Section 1.5 of the Draft EIS, there are many publications concerning EIA [environmental impact assessment] and NEPA [National Environmental Policy Act] processes that should have been used as guidance by the DOE, cited, and referenced in the Draft EIS.

Response
DOE has reviewed the references cited in the EIS and in some instances has modified the reference list to show an original source document rather than an engineering or environmental baseline file. However, in most cases the Yucca Mountain Project references are appropriate because these are the documents in which DOE has synthesized information from other sources.

For the Final EIS, DOE has provided a reference list at the end of each chapter and has eliminated the reference list provided as Chapter 12 in the Draft EIS.

3.1 (5994)
Comment - EIS001879 / 0020
The statement "Drilling continues at a rate of about two wells a year (Buqo, 1999, page 34)" is incorrect and does not accurately reflect the referenced citation which states, "To date, about 7,000 domestic wells have been drilled in Pahrump Valley and new wells continue to be drilled at the rate of about 700 wells per year" (Buqo, 1999, pp. 35-36). The EIS needs to be revised to accurately reflect the information presented in this and any other source documents.

Response
DOE has modified the EIS to reflect the annual drilling rate described in Buqo (DIRS 103099-1999). New wells continue to be drilled at the rate of about 700 per year (DIRS 103099-Buqo 1999).

3.1 (6001)
Comment - EIS001879 / 0028
p. I-8

The Draft EIS states "Based on decay equilibrium calculations for the first 1,000,000 years after repository closures, the error from neglecting all other nuclides is about 5 percent of the total radiological dose rate (DOE 1998a, Appendix C, page C6-2 and Figure C6-1)". The reference citation is incorrect and should be changed to TRW 1998s.

Response
The text and reference cited in this comment no longer appear in the EIS.

3.1 (6003)
Comment - EIS001879 / 0029
The EIS should cite original source documents when citing references rather than citing DOE NEPA [National Environmental Policy Act] documents that summarize the information. Secondary citations of this type are numerous throughout the Draft EIS and make the task of verifying the content of the Draft EIS more difficult and very time consuming. The EIS should be revised to cite only original source documents and not intermediate DOE documents, especially when referring to data and other technical information.

Response
DOE has reviewed the references cited in the EIS and in many instances has modified the reference list to show the original source document rather than an engineering or environmental baseline file. However, in a few cases, an EIS reference to other than an original source document may be appropriate because these are the documents in which DOE has synthesized information from other sources.

3.1 (6400)
Comment - EIS001632 / 0001
EPA commends DOE for what is generally a well-organized and plain English document on a highly complex subject.

Response
Thank you for your comment.

3.1 (6452)
Comment - EIS001632 / 0017
Page 2-80, Table 2-8 [Section 2.4.4.1]: It appears that the dose equivalent listed in this table for the maximally exposed member of the public (2.4 rem) is an annual value. If so, EPA [the Environmental Protection Agency] assumes this value is listed in error. While EPA does not have transportation standards, compare this value to the limit for exposure to individuals of 0.015 rem per year (40 CFR Part 191) during the post-closure period of a repository.

Response
The value of 2.4 rem listed in the table in Section 2.4.4.1 of the EIS would be the dose to a hypothetical person assuming that exposure would be limited to 100 millirem per year. DOE has added a footnote to the table to include this information. Section 6.2.3.1 contains more information.

3.1 (6454)
Comment - EIS001632 / 0019
Page 2-81, Section 2.4.4.2, final bullet: This item should refer to the Section 6 discussion of assessing impacts on cultural resources of Native Americans.

Response
The purpose of the bullet in Section 2.4.4.2 referred to in this comment is to identify salient conclusions that can be drawn from the information in the summary table in that section. For this reason, DOE has not included modifications or references to other sections in the Final EIS.

3.1 (6620)
Comment - EIS001878 / 0022
Description of rail facilities and operations vague, incomplete. Because the Carlin rail corridor would pass directly through Eureka County, because the effects of such a corridor could affect the livelihoods of numerous residents, and because the DOE says a decision will be based on this DEIS, a complete description of the proposed action is important to Eureka County. (pp. 2-43 to 2-50) The maps of transportation routes in Nevada are so small that they created confusion in public meetings in the County. For example, attendees could not tell from the map on p. 2-48 which side of the Crescent Valley town site the rail line would be on.

In October 1998, the DOE provided Eureka County with rail alignment maps prepared by a contractor, at a scale of one centimeter equals one kilometer. It is the County’s understanding that these maps were the basis of much of the rail corridor information in the DEIS. However, the maps in the DEIS (pp. 2-48, 6-59) are different and, therefore, misleading.

Response
A relatively short section of the Carlin Corridor crosses Eureka County from Beowawe through Crescent Valley. For its transportation analysis, DOE developed a list of assumptions to determine projected economic and demographic changes in Nevada from the construction and operation of the proposed repository. The analysis used a four-region model: Clark County, Nye County, Lincoln County, and the Rest of Nevada (including Eureka County).

For railroad construction, the analysis nominally assigned workers to base camps according to an even split by the number of camps. The analysis assumed that all railroad construction workers would commute weekly from Clark County to trailer camps outside Clark County and eat in local restaurants 5 days a week for about 46 weeks. Operations workers would live in the county where the route branched off the main line, with the exception of the Carlin routes, for which they would live in Elko County.

DOE has not provided maps in the level of detail requested in this comment. However, Section S.13 of the EIS presents color maps of the transportation corridors in considerably more detail than presented in the Draft EIS.

3.1 (6688)
Comment - EIS001632 / 0085
Page I-49, fourth full paragraph: The document described in the final sentence should be referred to as Federal Guidance Report No. 11.

Response
The text and reference cited in this comment do not appear in the Final EIS.

3.1 (6690)
Comment - EIS001632 / 0086
Page I-111, last reference. Please replace the authors’ names in the first column with the EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] report number.

Response
The reference format that DOE used in the EIS is consistent with document traceability requirements the Department established for the Yucca Mountain Project. The Environmental Protection Agency report number is part of the reference text.

3.1 (7016)
Comment - EIS001887 / 0202
Page 3-129; Section 3.2.2.2.4 - Biological Resources

The second paragraph under the section dealing with the "Caliente Route" states that SR 375 intersects US 93; in fact, it is SR 318 that intersects US 93.

Response
The text has been changed to indicate that State Road 318 intersects with State Road 375 from the north, just west of where U.S. 93 veers east to Caliente.

3.1 (7179)
Comment - EIS001337 / 0068
Page 2-5 Figure 2-4. This figure should include a rail to legal-weight truck alternative.

Response
Section J.2.1 discusses a rail-to-legal-weight truck scenario. Rail-to-legal-weight truck is not one of the defined alternatives for transporting waste. Therefore, the Department has not modified the figure.

3.1 (7189)
Comment - EIS001337 / 0079
Page 2-59 Section 2.2. In addition to serving as a baseline, the text here should also recognize that the No-Action Alternative is a choice that could be selected for implementation by the Secretary of Energy in a subsequent Record of Decision.

Response
The purpose of No-Action scenarios 1 and 2, as defined in the EIS, is for use in the analysis and to provide a basis for comparison to the Proposed Action. Section 113(c)(1) of the NWPA directs the Secretary of energy to evaluate the suitability of the Yucca Mountain site for an application for authority to construct a repository at the site. If the Secretary decided not to recommend the Yucca Mountain site, the NWPA provides a process for DOE to follow. Section 113(c)(3)(F) of the Act states that if the Secretary at any time determines that the Yucca Mountain site is unsuitable for development as a repository, the Secretary, within 6 months, is to report to Congress "recommendations for further action to assure the safe, permanent disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste..." (See Section 2.2 and 7.1 of the EIS.)

3.1 (7218)
Comment - EIS001337 / 0095
Page 3-115 4th paragraph. The second sentence in this paragraph appears to be incomplete.

Response
DOE has deleted the incomplete sentence.

3.1 (7226)
Comment - EIS001337 / 0104
Page 4-4 3rd full paragraph. A fourth bullet needs to be added for Rail to Legal-Weight Truck. Such a scenario must be considered in the FEIS.

Response
This comment suggests adding a bullet describing a rail-to-legal-weight-truck scenario in Section 4.1 of the EIS, in the subsection on Repository Analytic Scenarios. This subsection discusses cask-receiving scenarios. Section J.2.1 of the EIS now discusses the DOE evaluation of a scenario in which all waste would arrive in Nevada in legal-weight truck casks on railcars and would transfer to legal-weight trucks to continue to Yucca Mountain.

3.1 (7248)
Comment - EIS001832 / 0002
This DEIS is important to all Americans, who are concerned about responsible management of nuclear waste. However, the scope and credibility of DOE’s effort and the strength of its results are apparent only through an exhaustive review of this 833-page document, its 12 appendices, and numerous references. Those who are experienced in nuclear and geologic science, and endeavor to undertake such a review, will benefit from the exhaustive scientific research to demonstrate that a safe repository can be built at Yucca Mountain. However, the public may find themselves confused by the overwhelming amount of information presented in this document.

To reduce the potential for confusion and to provide decision-makers with a clear and concise analysis of the environmental impacts of the proposed action, we make the following recommendations. The final EIS should explain the key steps leading up to its preparation in order to place the document in its proper context. The final EIS should summarize the analytical and scientific processes that led to its results. The final EIS should synthesize results to place both radiological and non-radiological risks in perspective by giving readers a basis for comparison.

Response
Thank you for your suggestions. DOE has substantially revised the EIS. Section 1.3 describes much of the background and basis for this EIS. The NWPA establishes a process leading to a decision by the Secretary of Energy on whether to recommend that the President approve Yucca Mountain for development of a geologic repository. As part of this process, the Secretary of Energy is to:

If the Secretary recommends the Yucca Mountain site to the President, the NWPA requires that a comprehensive statement of the basis for the recommendation, including the Final EIS, accompany the recommendation. DOE has prepared this Final EIS so the Secretary can consider it, including the public input on the Draft EIS and the Supplement to the Draft EIS, in making a decision on whether to recommend the site to the President.

With regard to the analytical and scientific processes that led to the conclusions reached in the EIS, Appendixes F, G, H, J, K, L, and I provide in-depth discussions of the more technical disciplines and the models and methodologies that DOE used.

Chapter 3 of the EIS describes the affected environment and establishes the environmental baseline for each environmental discipline. Section 2.4.1 compares the estimated incremental impacts associated with the Proposed Action to those for the No-Action Alternative.

3.1 (7257)
Comment - EIS001832 / 0004
People are naturally concerned about radiation and the handling of radioactive wastes. This concern has spawned a proactive safety culture in this nation’s nuclear energy industry that is unmatched in any industry. The industry, decision-makers, and the public, set a high standard for demonstrating radiation safety. It is not enough to simply tell the nation that radiation exposures due to a proposed repository at Yucca Mountain will be low. DOE must explain how it reached this conclusion in a way that is credible, trustworthy and easy to understand. It is important that the sound technical and scientific processes that have led to the development of this DEIS be clearly communicated [to] and understood by the public as well as decision-makers.

To better inform the public on the validity of the analyses presented, this document needs to describe how those numbers were calculated. It needs to discuss the following aspects of the work that went into preparing this document:

Response
Appendix F of the EIS describes the details for estimating health impacts from Yucca Mountain Repository operations. Appendix I provides details on the long-term consequences of repository performance. Both appendixes provide a description of assessment methods and models. Descriptions of how DOE performed the analyses in terms of the uncertainties or how the uncertainties influenced the conclusions occur throughout the EIS (see Section 2.5 for an overview of how DOE addressed uncertainties). Chapter 13 contains a list of preparers. DOE and the independent Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, which was created by Congress in the NWPA, reviewed the EIS.

3.1 (7298)
Comment - EIS001957 / 0005
The draft EIS is well-written—as far as it goes—and represents considerable work on the part of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and its contractors concerning potential environmental impacts arising from operating a proposed long-term high-level nuclear waste storage facility at the Yucca Mountain site.

Response
Thank you for your comment.

3.1 (7365)
Comment - EIS001957 / 0012
Section 3.1.1.1 Regional Land Ownership -- This section indicates the NPS [National Park Service] manages Death Valley NP [National Park] (approximately 22 miles southwest of Yucca Mountain). However, Figure 3-1 does not show the correct boundary for Death Valley NP (it depicts the pre-1994 boundary of the former Death Valley National Monument). Additional lands now administered by NPS could potentially be affected by the release of contaminants from the proposed repository. This greater effect must be assessed in the final EIS.

Response
DOE has modified the figure in Section 3.1.1.1 of the EIS to show the current boundary of Death Valley National Park.

3.1 (7467)
Comment - EIS001969 / 0014
Page 3-14, Section 3.1.3.1 Physiography (Characteristic Land forms).

This section label and content are confusing. The unnumbered subsections on Site Stratigraphy and Lithology, Selection of Repository Host Rock, and Potential for Volcanism at the Yucca Mountain site should be numbered subsections under the main section 3.1.3, Geology, and not the subsection of Physiography, to which they have little relation.

Response
The purpose of Section 3.1.3.1 is to provide a broad overview of regional and site geology. The purpose of the subsections that are part of Section 3.1.3.1 is to address specific issues of particular concern or interest to the public (such as faulting and seismic activity) or that are a definite change of topic (for example, mineral and energy resources). DOE agrees that it could put the topics identified in the comment in separately numbered sections, but made an editorial decision not to do so.

3.1 (7474)
Comment - EIS001969 / 0016
"Paleozoic and Precambrian" need to be substituted for "pre-Cenozoic" in order to correspond with the wording in the referenced Table 3-6, page 3-19.

Response
DOE has revised the text of Section 3.1.3.1 of the EIS such that the parenthetical explanation "(that is, Paleozoic and Precambrian)" follows the reference to Pre-Cenozoic.

3.1 (7508)
Comment - EIS001969 / 0019
Page 3-22, Figure 3-7, General bedrock geology of the proposed repository Central Block area.

This figure is inaccurate and does not correctly correspond to Figures 3-8, 3-10, or the original geologic map (Day and others, 1998). The following changes and/or additions need to be made:

  1. The configuration of the Drill Hole Wash fault needs to be mapped as shown in Figure 3-10.

  2. The Ghost Dance fault needs to continue to the southwest and not abruptly terminate as shown [in] this Figure (see Figure 3-10).

  3. The zone of intense faulting between the Bow Ridge and Ghost Dance faults is missing. This zone connects with the Dune Wash fault. These faults are shown in the cross-section (Figure 3-8).

  4. The small intra block faults need to be included in the Figure because the contacts are drawn incorrectly without them. Figure 3-8 cannot be reconciled with Figure 3-7 without these mapped faults.

  5. For clarity, the cross-section line in Figures 3-7 and 3-8 should be named A-A’, not B-B’, because there is only one cross section on these maps.

  6. Because no lower block is shown, the "upper block" text needs to be deleted from the "Proposed drift boundary" in the Legend.

Response
DOE has updated the general bedrock geology figure in Section 3.1.3.1 in the EIS as described in the comment to show additional faults in the repository block area. The figure is now consistent with the simplified geologic cross-section figure that follows it.

This comment suggested that the cross-section line in these figures should be named A-A’, not B-B’. DOE has made this modification.

DOE provided the upper block label in the figure to help the reader identify the area shown because the EIS discusses other blocks.

3.1 (7509)
Comment - EIS001969 / 0020
Page 3-23, Figure 3-8, Simplified geologic cross-section of Yucca Mountain, West to east.

The mismatch of contacts between units, which appears as wiggles, is incorrect. The Figure needs to show these contacts correctly.

Response
The maps in Chapter 3 of the EIS depicting fault information are simplified and show only selected faults. However, DOE has added more faults to the general bedrock geology in Section 3.1.3.1 to make it more consistent with the cross-section figure that follows.

3.1 (7519)
Comment - EIS001969 / 0024
Day and others 1996 should be changed to 1998, both here [Section 3.1.3.2] and in the References (page 12-8).

Response
DOE has updated the subject reference.

3.1 (7525)
Comment - EIS001912 / 0054
Throughout Chapter 3 DOE repeatedly referenced other EISs or other documents for more specific information. In certain circumstances, the referenced information is important to the review of the action. It is questionable whether DOE has met the intent of 40CFR1502.21. Reference by incorporation is made when the effect will be to cut down on bulk without impeding agency and public review.

Response
DOE has summarized reference material pursuant to 40 CFR 1502.21. Because of the size or complexity of the supporting documents, the reader might need to pursue additional information in a DOE Reading Room or other location.

3.1 (7541)
Comment - EIS001969 / 0029
Page 3-27, Figure 3-10, [Section 3.1.3.2] Mapped faults at Yucca Mountain and in the Yucca Mountain vicinity.

In the legend, the strike-slip fault symbol should have arrows showing relative sense of lateral motion (as on map), as well as an explanation of the strike-slip symbol. As it is, the legend only shows the dip-slip component on these faults.

Response
DOE has changed the legend on the mapped faults figure in Section 3.1.3.2 to label the arrows in the figure as strike-slip faults.

3.1 (7559)
Comment - EIS001969 / 0031
Page 3-29, Section 3.1.3.3 Modern Seismic Activity.

The seismicity map with faults needs to be shown here as a numbered Figure.

Response
During EIS preparation, DOE decided to omit a seismicity map in favor of a simpler presentation. The Department made this decision with the understanding that more detailed seismic information is available in the Yucca Mountain Site Description (DIRS 151945-CRWMS M&O 2000). With regard to showing faults on a seismic map, seismic events do not correlate with mapped surface traces or Quaternary faults, as indicated in Section 3.1.3.3 of the EIS.

3.1 (7617)
Comment - EIS001912 / 0078
Section 6.1.2.6 needs more complete descriptions of the terms in the tables of this section.

Response
The EIS Glossary (Chapter 14) contains definitions of "maximally exposed individual" and "latent cancer fatality."

3.1 (7638)
Comment - EIS001928 / 0005
First, we would like to thank DOE for including summary documents, especially for voluminous EIS’s. The summary document makes the EIS more reader-friendly and probably elicits more reader interest than the daunting, multi-volume EIS proper. However, one problem that might crop up in using a summary is that the reader might submit questions and comments that would have been clarified in the main document. But, if time constraints or other reasons preclude a thorough study of the EIS, then the reader will be left with the questions raised by issues presented in the summary document. Therefore the first suggestion I would like to make is that the authors cross-reference material in the summary to the applicable sections and page numbers in the EIS. Granted, with only two volumes in the Yucca EIS, this is not as big of a problem, but for EIS’s with 6-8 volumes and about as many appendices, a cross-reference system would be very valuable.

Response
DOE has added pointers to the summary tables in Section 2.4 of the EIS to show where a reader can find information in the summary tables.

3.1 (7640)
Comment - EIS001928 / 0006
pg. S-2 - last sentence - add Tribes to "state and local government consultations". Tribes should stand alone and not be lumped into the category of "local government".

Response
In the Final EIS, DOE has included tribes as a separate category along with state and local governments when discussing consultations.

3.1 (7797)
Comment - EIS001227 / 0001
The three documents contain several scores of maps which appear in the Figures. Forty-one of the maps include boundary lines which supposedly enclose the U.S. Department of Energy’s Nevada Test Site (NTS) which is both adjacent to and a part of the Yucca Mountain study site. As of the release date of the draft EIS the displayed boundary lines in all 41 maps were in error according to the public land use and administration records that are maintained by the U.S. Department of Interior’s Bureau of Land Management (DOI/BLM) which serves as the official keeper of this country’s public land use records. The boundary discrepancies were far from trivial since they involved a total of approximately 144,640 acres (~58,536 hectares; ~87.26 sq. Km.), or 3.7 times the area occupied by Washington, D.C. A listing of the faulty figures appears at the bottom of the reference citations.

Long after the DEIS was issued, on October 5, 1999, Public Law No: 106-65 was signed by President Clinton. (1) Not until then did the boundaries, depicted in the 41 maps in the draft EIS, resemble those described in Pub.L. 106-65. The following comments address the draft EIS accuracy at the time of its issuance.

The public lands which make up the NTS are withdrawn from general public use under provisions contained in four Public Land Order [PLO] notices that are contained in the National Archive’s Federal Register. (2) These lands remain withdrawn for nuclear explosive testing purposes despite the fact that the nuclear testing program was terminated almost seven years ago.

The NTS area depiction, in the Yucca Mountain Draft EIS, should have excluded the approximately 106,240 acre area that is commonly referred to as "Pahute Mesa." This is the baseball cap shaped area adjacent to the northwest corner of the legally defined NTS boundary. An approximately 38,400 acre rectangular block of land that includes the northeast corner of the NTS should have appeared in the Draft EIS documents. If any of the boundary exclusions or falsification was justified for purposes of protecting the national security, that fact should have been clearly stated in the EIS. The general public, and the public’s elected representatives, should have been informed of such actions, along with the statutory basis behind the decision to falsify the map boundary depictions.

On 6 November 1986 the Military Lands Withdrawal Act [MLWA] of 1986 was enacted. Associated with that Congressional act was a map and supporting legal boundary descriptions. (3) The map and legal description indicated that the "Pahute Mesa," area was assigned to the Air Force and not to the DOE for conducting nuclear explosion tests. The map indicated that the lands, described in PLO 1662, remained assigned to the U.S. DOE as part of the NTS. The recently issued Final Legislative Environmental Impact Statement reaffirmed the fact that Pahute Mesa remains assigned to the Air Force as an integral part of the NAFR [Nellis Air Force Range] and PLO 1662 lands remain assigned to the DOE’s NTS. (4)  The DOE should have no excuse for not depicting the NTS boundaries correctly since the correct map appears in the DOE’s own Final EIS document that recently analyzed the NTS. (5) These last two references were cited in the Yucca Mountain Draft EIS Reference section. For well over three years I have been submitting formal comments to the DOE, urging them to render the NTS maps correctly. (6)  It has become obvious that the DOE has no intention of following the existing laws in this regard. According to the DOI/BLM public records the Pahute Mesa and PLO 1662 lands have been illegally used for over 35 years by the DOE and the Air Force. (7) The congressional act, that enacted the MLWA of 1986, superseded any agreements the DOE may have had with the Air Force in regards to the use of Pahute Mesa.

For decades the DOI/BLM has issued maps that depict the NTS according to its public land use records. (8) For decades the Nevada State Department of Transportation has distributed tens of thousands of complementary official highway maps which also depict the NTS properly. (9) Despite the issuance of all these official maps the DOE continues to act on its own by filling tons of its official reports with bogus depictions of the NTS.

Under pressure from State Regulatory Officials, the DOE and the Air Force have formulated the recently issued plan for the renewal of the Nellis Air Force Range (NAFR) so that land administration changes will occur upon the passage of a Congressional Act. (Ref. 4, see Alternatives 1B and 2B maps). These changes will likely make moot the last 35 years of illegal land use by shifting the land administration so it conforms with DOE’s depiction and use of the NTS. The congressional legislation is crafted by the Air Force in such a way that the vast majority of the voting members of Congress will have no idea that their actions will shift the administration for large segments of withdrawn public lands between powerful and secretive executive agencies.

The DOE is supporting this plan since it will get it out of some potentially very hot water. The maps in the Yucca Mountain Draft EIS should have conformed with the existing public records maintained by DOI/BLM and should not have been based upon congressional legislation which is still pending.

  1. Pub.L. 106-65, Div. C, Title XXX, Subtitle A,
    § 3011 (b) (1) (A-C), Oct. 5, 1999, 113 Stat. 886-887.
    § 3012 (a-c), 113 Stat. 890.

  2. PLO 805, February 12, 1952, Federal Register, February 19, 1952, Pages 1522-1523, (17 FR 1522/1523)

    PLO 1662, June 20,1958, Federal Register, June 26, 1958, Page 4700, (23 FR 4700)

    PLO 2568, December 19, 1961, Federal Register, December 23, 1961, Page 12292, (26 FR 12292)

    PLO 3759, August 3, 1965, Federal Register, August 7, 1965, Page 9881, (30 FR 9881)

  3. "Nellis Air Force Range Withdrawal – Proposed," January 1985, Military Lands Withdrawal Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-606, Nov. 6, 1986, as amended) [Section 1(b)(2) and Section 2]

    "Legal Description of Nellis Air Force Range Withdrawal; NV," January 13, 1987, Bureau of Land Management, Federal Register, January 26, 1987, Page 2772-2773 (52 FR 2772-2773)

    "Withdrawal and Reservation of Lands; Nevada," September 20, 1988, Bureau of Land Management Federal Register, September 20, 1988, Pages 38099-38100, (52 FR38099-38100) ["Groom Mountain Addition"]

    "Withdrawal of Public Land to the United States Air Force; Nevada," April 10, 1995, Bureau of Land Management, Federal Register, September 29, 1988, Pages 38099-38100 (60 FR18030) [White Sides addition]

  4. "Renewal of the Nellis Air Force Range Land Withdrawal: Legislative Environmental Impact Statement," Air Combat Command, U.S. Department of the Air Force, U.S. Department of Defense, Nellis Air force Base, Nevada. [Volume 1, page 1-15, Figure 1-1. NAFR Location Map, and page 1-14, Table 1.2-2, NAFR History

  5. "Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Nevada Test Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada," DOE/EIS-0243-F, Nevada Operations Office, Las Vegas, Nevada. [Volume 1, page 4-8, figure 4-3. NTS land withdrawals and Memorandum of Understanding; page 4-9, Figure 4-3 (continued). Legend for NTS land withdrawals and Memorandum of Understanding]

  6. Public Comments on the "Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Nevada Test Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada (DOE/EIS 0243), January 1996, by Vernon J. Brechin, April 29, 1996.

  7. Master Title Plats, U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Nevada State Office, Reno, Nevada.

  8. "State of Nevada," Surface Management Status map, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Nevada State Office, Reno, Nevada, 1990.

  9. "Nevada: 1999 Official Highway Map," Map Section, Room 206, Nevada Department of Transportation, Carson City, Nevada 89712, 1999.

Response
DOE believes that this comment refers to two parcels of land with a total area of approximately 580 square kilometers (225 square miles) (the comment’s presentation of spatial equivalencies might be inaccurate). The first parcel, known as Pahute Mesa, is part of Public Land Order 99606, which was withdrawn for the use of Nellis Air Force Base but has been used historically by the Nevada Test Site for underground nuclear weapons testing under a Memorandum of Understanding. This parcel is in the upper northwest corner of the Nevada Test Site. The second parcel, known as the Groom Range, is part of Public Land Order 01662, which provided land for nuclear testing activities by the Atomic Energy Commission (a DOE predecessor agency). This parcel has been used historically by Nellis Air Force Base for flight operations under an understanding with the Nevada Test Site. The land transfer referred to in the Legislative EIS (accomplished by recent legislation) was a transfer of jurisdiction to match actual use with ownership. That is, Pahute Mesa was transferred to the Nevada Test Site and the Groom Range was transferred to the Air Force. This transfer entails no change in activities from those evaluated in the EIS and does not affect the analysis of potential impacts.

When preparing the EIS, DOE was aware of the pending legislation. President Clinton signed the bill into law somewhat less than halfway through the EIS public comment period.

Regarding the concern over the accuracy of maps at the time of publication, the gist of the comment appears to be that the maps reflect uses but not jurisdictional control as of August 1999, and that they were accurate in all respects as of the time of the comment. The comment does not challenge the accuracy of the maps and provides no basis for altering them.

Comments on the political process and administration of land withdrawals at the Nevada Test Site and Nellis Air Force Range (now called the Nevada Test and Training Range) are outside the scope of this EIS.

3.1 (7856)
Comment - EIS001227 / 0005
Increase Conceptual Impact Scope

In the Final EIS, the maps showing the surface contamination and the 921 underground detonation sites should display "Pahute Mesa" as described in the public records of the BLM [Bureau of Land Management]. If it remains recorded as an integral part of the U.S. Air Force’s Nellis Air Force Range (NAFR), it should be shown as such. That means that approximately 70 of the pockets of nuclear explosion debris could still exist outside the legal boundaries of the NTS [Nevada Test Site] despite DOE’s frequent insistence that they have not detected underground contamination beyond the NTS boundaries. A series of maps that displays the locations of the underground detonation sites should also display predictions of the plume extent for various radionuclides for 50, 100, 1,000, 10,000 and 100,000 years from the year 2000. The Final EIS should include a similar set of maps that covers the potential migration of radionuclides away from buried waste canisters in Yucca Mountain. Predicted plume extent maps for the NTS are likely available since DOE contractors have spent several years developing the computer models. The general areas that may be impacted by underground nuclear detonations should be rendered on NTS maps that consist of the legal boundaries. These potentially contaminated areas are shown in the 1996 NTS EIS on Page 4-82, Figure 4-22. Location of underground testing areas and number of tests on the NTS. The diagram of the typical test sequence and cross-section, provided in Figure 4-23, should also be provided in the Yucca Mountain Final EIS. The location of the plutonium dispersal experiments is displayed in Figure 4-29 on page 4-97. The approximate areas where surface plutonium contamination exceeds 10pCi/g [picocuries per gram] [are] displayed in Figure 4-30 on page 4-98.* These contamination plots should be provided in the Yucca Mountain Final EIS.

Note: Plutonium-239 contamination levels of greater than 2.5 pCi/g can, in some situations, be considered as requiring clean-up actions by the EPA [Environmental Protection Agency].

* "Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Nevada Test Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada," DOE/EIS-0243-F, Nevada Operations Office, Las Vegas, Nevada. [Volume 1, page 4-8, figure 4-3. NTS land withdrawals and Memorandum of Understanding; page 4-9, Figure 4-3 (continued). Legend for NTS land withdrawals and Memorandum of Understanding]

Response
DOE has modified the figure in Section 3.1.1.2 of the EIS to show the location of Pahute Mesa. Because groundwater plumes associated with the Nevada Test Site have not been mapped in the requested detail, DOE performed a conservative analysis that did not rely on an exact plume from the Test Site to estimate its contribution in the future (see Section 8.3.2.1). Because the Nevada Test Site EIS is readily available, DOE has not reproduced information from that document, but has included pertinent information by reference. DOE recognizes that plutonium-239 levels higher than 2.5 picocuries per gram can, in some situations, require cleanup actions.

3.1 (7933)
Comment - EIS001903 / 0004
Figure S-9 [Section S.1.3.1.2]. The connections between dates and items below the time line should be clarified. For example, the figure makes it appear that emplacement begins sometime between 2010 and 2031 and ends sometime between 2033 and 2110. This is inconsistent with text references for emplacement beginning in 2010 and ending 2033.

Response
DOE has revised the figure in Section S.3.1.2 to show the analyzed timeline for the project phases more clearly.

3.1 (7935)
Comment - EIS001903 / 0006
Table 1-1 [Section 1.5.1]. The table contains a list of related environmental documents. The Purpose and Need section of this EIS should also identify relevant legal agreements. These include the 1995 court settlement between the State of Idaho, DOE, and the Department of Navy. This settlement specifies several deadlines related to removal of wastes from the INEEL [Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory]. The INEEL is also subject to a Consent Order signed October 31, 1995, which makes the INEEL Site Treatment Plan a legally binding agreement.

Response
The NWPA describes the national concerns that form the purpose and need for the Proposed Action (see Chapter 1). The Idaho agreements mentioned in the comment do not address locations to which DOE would transport spent nuclear fuel subject to the Consent Order when it leaves Idaho, and do not expand on the underlying need for the action.

The purpose of the table in Section 1.5.3 in the EIS is to list National Environmental Policy Act documents that provided the bases for decisions associated with the monitored geologic repository program and investigations of Yucca Mountain as a potential repository site. Although DOE intends to abide by the requirements of settlement orders and compliance agreements (see Chapter 7), the EIS does not consider whether implementing the Proposed Action would satisfy any terms of such agreements.

3.1 (7939)
Comment - EIS001903 / 0007
Table 1-1 references a "Draft EIS, Idaho High-Level Waste and Facilities Disposition (in preparation)." This document is now complete and the title is: Idaho High-Level Waste and Facilities Disposition Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DOE/EIS-0287D) (EIS-2000-001), dated December 1999.

Response
DOE has modified the EIS to note that it has issued the Idaho High-Level Waste and Facilities Disposition Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DIRS 155100-DOE 1999).

3.1 (7946)
Comment - EIS001903 / 0010
Table 11-2. DOE Order 435.1 should be added to this table and Order 5820.2A possibly deleted. Other parts of the EIS may also require modification to be consistent with the new Order.

Response
DOE approved Order 435.1 after issuing the Draft EIS. The table in Section 11.3 now lists this Order, which replaces and cancels Order 5280.2A.

3.1 (7952)
Comment - EIS001903 / 0014
Section J.1.4.1.2, p. J-51, paragraph 1. "Idaho National Environmental and Engineering Laboratory" should be "Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory."

Response
DOE has changed "Idaho National Environmental and Engineering Laboratory" to "Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory" as appropriate in the EIS.

3.1 (8121)
Comment - EIS001653 / 0076
Section 6.1.2.6 needs more complete description of the terms in the tables of this section.

Response
The Glossary (Chapter 14 of the EIS) contains definitions of key terms in the cited tables, such as "lost workday cases," "recordable cases," "latent cancer fatalities," and "maximally exposed individual." Section F.1.1 discusses radiation and human health. Section F.2 discusses occupational health and safety impacts.

3.1 (8357)
Comment - EIS001873 / 0042
P.3-105. The fact that the Meadow Valley Wash flows to the Colorado River should be included.

Response
The purpose of the table in Section 3.2.2.1.3.1 in the EIS is to identify the surface-water resources nearest each candidate rail corridor. It is not to provide a comprehensive description of the flow patterns of each surface-water body listed.

3.1 (8703)
Comment - 010005 / 0001
I’m duly impressed with the fact you sent me not one (1), but two (2) copies of the "Supplement to the DEIS, et al," coupled with the parallel fact that, however inexplicably, my name is not included among the roster of recipients on the distribution list in the rear pages of the report.

Response
Distribution lists provided in EISs typically include Congressional Representatives, Federal Agency Managers, Local Officials, State Governors, and Public Interest Groups. The Distribution List provided in Appendix D to this EIS is a subset of the much larger mailing list, which includes members of the general public. DOE compiles its mailing lists from many sources, including signup sheets at public hearings, mail received during public comment periods, and information requests from individuals and organizations. DOE makes every effort to ensure that all interested individuals and organizations are on the mailing list, and regrets any inconvenience caused by duplications.

3.1 (8847)
Comment - EIS002087 / 0001
Previously I indicated under appendix G 12-13 states that copies of DEIS was sent to all governors and states, but not to tribes within those states except by request. That statement actually is somewhat true. However, reading, examining the section in the EIS, it states here that Native American groups, and I think that that should probably be clarified to say Native American tribes or any tribes or whatever, because groups can mean organizations or what have you. So I would recommend that that change be indicated in there. And that’s on actually D-1, in the very introduction.

Response
DOE has changed the term "Native American groups" to "Native American tribes", as appropriate, throughout the EIS.

3.1 (8850)
Comment - EIS002087 / 0002
On page D-12 it identifies all the different Native American groups. And for the Las Vegas Indians, it has the title for Mr. Jesse Leeds, his organization – chairperson, was the official title. His particular position is Chairman of the Board. So I would recommend that that be changed and this be consistent with all the other accurate titles that are placed there for everyone else.

Response
In Appendix D of the EIS, DOE has changed Mr. Leeds’ position to read "Chairman of the Board of Directors."

3.1 (9176)
Comment - EIS001924 / 0008
The DEIS is full of imprecise language like "very unlikely," "sufficient quantity," probably would," etc. How are we to make a sound decision on a project of enormous scope as Yucca Mountain when we can’t be certain of the science contained within.

Response
Many sections of the EIS provide quantitative estimates of potential impacts if there was enough information to support calculations. However, even if the analysis used quantification, it is appropriate from a scientific perspective to describe results in terms of what would be likely to occur or what could occur rather than what would absolutely occur. This is because the analysis estimated the future performance of engineered and natural systems over a long period. Further, DOE believes it is appropriate to use conditional language (could, would, should, etc.) to describe the estimated impacts of a proposed action, such as the repository, that has not received approval to proceed.

Some EIS comparisons are qualitative rather than quantitative, and in some cases the interested reader will need to consult the EIS references because of the size or complexity of the supporting documents. Information on the references is available in the DOE Reading Rooms listed in Appendix D and on the Internet (http://www.ymp/gov). In the Final EIS, DOE has attempted to provide a more consistent application of qualifying statements.

3.1 (9193)
Comment - EIS001924 / 0016
Much of the information is not clearly laid out resulting in miscommunication. For example, Table S-1 in the Summary DEIS, which also appears in the DEIS, is intended to be an overview of the impacts of the preferred action and no-action scenarios. However, there are numerous figures listed in the table without a sample calculation as to how they were arrived at or a convenient reference to the appropriate page of the DEIS that explains the calculation. Further, numbers are used along a row which have different definitions and should not be compared directly, but this is not explained either. As a result the table gives little useful information directly, and would tend to create a confusing picture of the impacts except possibly to those who manufactured the DEIS.

Response
The summary table 2-7 in Section 2.4 of the Final EIS now provides a cross reference to the specific sections from which the impacts are summarized. It is not feasible, however, to provide sample calculations in these tables. The reader can refer to the appendixes for discussions of the methodologies DOE used to estimate the potential impacts discussed in the EIS. DOE has reviewed and modified the information in the summary tables to ensure consistency across alternatives.

3.1 (9196)
Comment - EIS001924 / 0019
Citizen Alert recommends that the DOE use a focus group approach in the future composed of average citizens of various professions and trades to review the document before general release. In this way many … problems with readability will be resolved before the formal process begins and more effective public comment and involvement will ensue.

Response
Thank you for your suggestion and observations on the readability of the EIS. DOE has taken a number of steps in the Final EIS to improve its readability, such as improving the structure of the Table of Contents, providing standardization of qualifying terms and accident descriptions, adding words to the glossary, and clarifying text where lay terms could replace technical jargon.

3.1 (9410)
Comment - EIS001888 / 0105
Other databases are similarly flawed. In 1998, Clark County received geographic data files from DOE that were being used for the proposed implementing alternatives through Nevada to Yucca Mountain. Cartographers from Clark County’s Geographic Information Systems Department found that the files provided by the DOE incorrectly located major transportation features (e.g., Interstate 15).

Response
The geographic data files referred to in this comment were coarse preliminary data sets DOE provided to Clark County for the purpose of early communication. The Department knew these files required corrections and did not use them in the preparation of the EIS. DOE used corrected geographic data sets in the EIS preparation.

3.1 (9898)
Comment - EIS001888 / 0445
[Clark County summary of comments it has received from the public.]

One commenter hinted the DOE was not "environmental conscious" by failing to use recycled paper products.

Response
DOE printed the Draft EIS, the Supplement to the Draft EIS, this Final EIS, and related documents with soy ink on recycled paper.

3.1 (10003)
Comment - EIS001295 / 0002
My first comment is on the definition of "disposal" in the glossary, stating that it is "isolation of the waste from the accessible environment". In my opinion, this definition should require isolation from the environment as a whole, not just the environment which the DOE allows us access to, and this includes the accessibility of that environment when there is no longer a DOE or anyone alive who knows what the DOE is.

Response
The Glossary (Chapter 14 of the EIS) provides two definitions for "environment" that relate to the definition of "disposal." The first of these is a general definition that applies to "environment" as used in the comment:

"environment
(1) Includes water, air, and land and all plants and humans and other animals living therein, and the interrelationship existing among these…."

Under the Proposed Action, the waste would be emplaced in the land mass of the planet. It would be incorrect to say that the waste would be entirely separated from the environment. The purpose of the Proposed Action is to emplace waste in a part of the overall environment that would make it inaccessible to people.

3.1 (10627)
Comment - EIS001906 / 0010
The DEIS fails the NEPA [National Environmental Policy Act] requirement for an Environmental Impact Statement that is "concise, clear, and to the point" (40 CFR Sec. 1502.2(b). Volumes I and II of the DEIS ramble on for hundreds of pages, but it is extremely difficult or impossible to find succinct passages which analyze and summarize environmental impacts. NEPA regulations state: "most important, NEPA documents must concentrate on the issues that are truly significant to the action in question, rather than amassing needless detail" [40 CFR Sec. 1500.1(b)]. Instead, the DEIS is padded with multiple complex scenarios instead of a coherent single Proposed Action, and completely worthless No Action alternatives instead of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project. NEPA Regulations also state under the heading Writing: "Environmental Impact Statements shall be written in plain language and may use appropriate graphics so that decisionmakers and the public can readily understand them" [40 CFR Sec. 1502.8]. Clearly, this section of NEPA regulations [was] ignored.

Two examples of DOE’s practice of obscuring important information will be given. In the section Unavoidable Adverse Impacts: Hydrology 10.1.1.3, one has to wade through nearly two pages of narrative to reach the gist of the Unavoidable Adverse Impact: "Eventually, groundwater with varying concentrations of different radionuclides would reach locations in the hydrologic (groundwater) region of influence where the water could be consumed" (DEIS, p. 10-3).

This buried statement should have been accompanied with a map clearly depicting groundwater contamination reaching the affected areas, such as wells in the Amargosa Valley and springs in Death Valley. Radioactive contamination of the springs in Death Valley will directly [affect] the health of Timbisha Shoshone tribal members, many of whom live in Death Valley.

Another example can be found in the down-played reference to [chlorine]-36 studies buried (with no reference in the index or contents) on pp. 3-46 to 3-47 in the DEIS. Page 3-47 of the DEIS states: "About 13 percent of the samples (31 samples) had high enough [chlorine]-36-to-total-chlorine ratios to indicate the water originated from precipitation occurring in the past 50 years (that is, nuclear age precipitation)" (DEIS, p. 3-47). This means that in some places, surface water has rapidly reached the unsaturated zone level where the nuclear waste would be placed.

This in itself is a disqualifying condition according to the current DOE General Guidelines for the Recommendation of Sites for the Nuclear Waste Repositories, 10 CFR Part 960: "Disqualifying Condition: A site shall be disqualified if the pre-waste-emplacement groundwater travel time from the disturbed zone to the accessible [environment] is expected to be less than 1,000 years along any pathway of likely and significant radionuclide travel" [10 CFR 960 Sec. 960.4-2-1(d)].

Not surprisingly, the DOE is currently proposing to change these guidelines so that such a disqualifying condition would be deleted in relation to site suitability. At the time the DEIS was published, the DOE had not decided to propose the new guidelines. Issuing the new guidelines for public comment at the same time as the DEIS places an unfair burden on the Timbisha Shoshone Tribe as well as the general public.

On p. S-65 of the DEIS Summary it is stated under the heading Areas of Controversy: "DOE obtained and evaluated the best information available to prepare this EIS. However, some information is from ongoing studies (such as the chlorine-36 studies used to assess the rate and quantity of water that flows from the surface to the groundwater) and, therefore, is incomplete or unavailable" (DEIS, p. S-65). Yet the DOE uses other ongoing studies and a high level of incomplete or uncertain information to determine its conclusions. If the ongoing studies question the viability of Yucca Mountain as a nuclear waste repository, then they are excluded as a potential environmental impact. This creates a very biased DEIS.

Response
DOE has taken a number of steps to make the EIS as understandable as possible to a wide range of readers. For example, the Final EIS includes a Readers Guide in addition to a number of explanatory text boxes, summary tables, illustrations, and comparison information that highlight potential environmental impacts. In addition, the EIS contains a comprehensive glossary of technical terms (Chapter 14). While DOE acknowledges the EIS exceeds the page guidelines in 40 CFR 1502.7, the subject matter is complex and covers a range of nationwide issues.

Concerning the presentation of information, DOE believes the EIS provides a balanced, informative analysis of impacts. In addition to presenting the results of the analysis of the proposed repository, the EIS describes responsible opposing views on a number of analytical issues and uncertainties that might exist in some technical areas, and identifies areas where further studies are necessary or are under way.

DOE disagrees with this comment’s assertion of DOE obscuring important information in the EIS. Chapter 5 and Appendix I are devoted entirely to potential long-term impacts to groundwater and health impacts to individuals and populations, along with the location of groundwater wells. Sections S.4.1.4, 3.1.4.2.1 and 5.3 describe and contain figures of the potentially affected groundwater basins. Quantitative estimates of potential long-term impacts to individuals and populations within 80 kilometers (50 miles) of the repository are in Chapter 5.

DOE recognizes that a small fraction of the groundwater might flow through fractures in the relatively impermeable Precambrian rocks in the southeastern end of the Funeral Mountains toward spring discharge points in the Furnace Creek area of Death Valley. Sparse potentiometric data indicate that a divide could exist in the Funeral Mountains between the Amargosa Desert and Death Valley. However, DOE believes that even if part of the flow from Yucca Mountain mixes with the carbonate pathway that supplies the Furnace Creek springs, it would be too little to have a noticeable effect on the chemistry of the springs. Considering the small fraction of water that would infiltrate through the repository footprint, compared to the total amount of water flowing through the basin (approximately 0.3 percent), and the large distances involved [more than 60 kilometers (37 miles) from the source], the potential impacts of any component of the flow from Yucca Mountain in this long and complicated flowpath would be very small.

DOE also recognizes that studies of chlorine-36 suggest that there might be rapid pathways through the unsaturated zone. The chlorine-36 studies, as described in Section 3.1.4.2.2 of the EIS, have shown that in some locations there are relatively fast pathways (less than 50 years) for water infiltrating Yucca Mountain to reach the depth of the proposed repository. These results, however, must be viewed in their proper context regarding the question of whether waste can be stored safely at Yucca Mountain. Overall, most of the water that infiltrates Yucca Mountain moves much more slowly through the matrix and fracture network of the rock. Only a small fraction has moved through the connected portion of the fracture network with relatively fast travel times. Carbon isotope data from water extracted from the matrix correspond to residence times as long as 10,000 years. The elevated values of bomb-pulse chlorine-36 detected in the subsurface correspond to increases of between about two to eight times the amount of naturally occurring background chlorine-36. This background signal is the amount observed in the regional aquifers and the matrix waters of rocks in the unsaturated zone. Furthermore, even elevated bomb-pulse values represent exceedingly minute increases in the amount of chlorine-36. Naturally occurring ratios of radioactive chlorine-36 to the other isotopes of chlorine (chlorine-35 and -37) are on the order of one chlorine-36 atom to approximately 2 trillion other chlorine atoms. Their detection is more a tribute to the precision of the analytical methods used in this study (accelerator mass spectrometry) than it is an indication of an unsuitable environment for the emplacement of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. To ensure the correct interpretation of this subtle chemical signal, studies are under way to determine if independent laboratories and related isotopic studies can corroborate this detection of elevated amounts of chlorine-36.

Another important factor regarding the safety of emplaced waste concerns whether percolating water would actually come in contact with waste packages. The process of drift excavation would create a capillary barrier that would divert percolating water around the drift opening, further reducing the amount of water potentially capable of contacting waste packages. DOE is conducting a series of experiments to determine the seepage threshold, which is the amount of water necessary to overcome the capillary barrier caused by excavation. Results to date suggest that the amounts of percolating water at the waste-emplacement level could be insufficient to exceed the existing capillary barrier.

Additional evidence of the overall lack of observable fluid flow in the subsurface is the fact that throughout the excavation of more than 11 kilometers (6.8 miles) of tunnels (Exploratory Studies Facility and cross drifts) and testing alcoves, only one fracture was moist. No active flow of water was observed. Analysis of the moisture from this fracture detected no bomb-pulse chlorine-36. Only background levels of chlorine-36 were evident, indicating old water. Further observations from testing alcoves that are isolated from the effects of tunnel ventilation for several years confirm the lack of observable natural seepage at the repository level. In summary, despite encountering millions of fractures in the course of excavation activities, there is scant evidence that even modest quantities of water penetrate to the depth of the repository horizon.

Section 112(a) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 requires the Secretary of Energy to issue general guidelines for use in recommending potential repository sites for detailed characterization. DOE issued these guidelines in 1984 (10 CFR Part 960). The guidelines described DOE policies that were applicable to the three sequential stages of the siting process in the Act (preliminary site screening, nomination of sites, and site selection for recommendation to the President). DOE published proposed amendments to the guidelines in 1996 to reflect the prevailing scientific view on how to evaluate the suitability of the Yucca Mountain site for the development of a nuclear waste repository (61 FR 66158, December 16, 1996). Because Congress had by this time required DOE to focus only on Yucca Mountain, the proposed DOE amendments dealt with provisions of the guidelines applicable to the site recommendation stage. In November 1999, DOE revised its 1996 proposal (64 FR 67054, November 30, 1999).

DOE revised its proposal for three primary reasons:

  1. To address comments that criticized the omission of essential details of the criteria and methodology for evaluating the suitability of the Yucca Mountain site.

  2. To update the criteria and methodology for assessing site suitability based on the most current technical and scientific understanding of the performance of a potential repository, as reflected in the DOE report, Viability Assessment of a Repository at Yucca Mountain (DIRS 101779-DOE 1998).

  3. To be consistent with the then-proposed site-specific licensing criteria for the Yucca Mountain site issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission has since promulgated these criteria at 10 CFR Part 63), and the then-proposed site-specific radiation protection standards issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (the Agency has since promulgated these standards at 40 CFR Part 197).

In 2001, DOE promulgated its final 10 CFR Part 963 guidelines to establish the methods and criteria for determining the suitability of the Yucca Mountain site for the location of a geologic repository. These final guidelines are essentially the same as those proposed in 1999.

With regard to disqualifying conditions at Yucca Mountain, the 1984 DOE site suitability guidelines included explicit disqualifiers to guide the Department’s assessment of multiple sites under consideration for repository development. At that time, failure to meet the qualifying condition of any guideline was a basis for disqualifying a site. Under the NWPA, Congress directed DOE to focus only on Yucca Mountain and, as discussed above, directed the Environmental Protection Agency and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to promulgate standards to protect public health and safety. Failure to meet the Environmental Protection Agency standards or the Nuclear Regulatory Commission criteria for licensing would disqualify the Yucca Mountain site. Chapters 1, 5, and 11 of the EIS contain more detail about the final regulations at 10 CFR Part 63 and 10 CFR Part 963.

DOE’s original 1984 site suitability guidelines (10 CFR Part 960) have been superseded by Yucca Mountain-specific guidelines (10 CFR Part 963) promulgated by DOE in 2001. Even though 10 CFR Part 960 no longer applies to Yucca Mountain, DOE believes that information and analyses do not support a finding that the site would have been disqualified under the groundwater travel time disqualifying condition at 10 CFR 960.4-2-1(d). Under that condition, a site would be disqualified if the expected groundwater travel time from the disturbed zone (the area in which properties would change from construction or heat) to the accessible environment would be less than 1,000 years along any pathway of likely and significant radionuclide travel. The definition of groundwater travel time in 10 CFR 960.2 specifies that the calculation of travel time is to be based on the average groundwater flux (rate of groundwater flow) as a summation of travel times for groundwater flow in discrete segments of the system. (In this case, the geologic and hydrologic subunits comprising the unsaturated and saturated zones.) As a practical matter, this definition provides for the consideration of the rate at which most of the water moves through the natural system to the accessible environment.

As part of its site characterization activities, DOE has undertaken various studies to identify and consider characteristics of the unsaturated (above water table) and saturated (water table) zones, such as the flow of water and transport of radionuclides, that are relevant to analyzing groundwater travel times. DOE also has considered physical evidence such as the chemistries and ages of water samples from these zones. Because of the inherent uncertainties in understanding such natural processes as groundwater flow, DOE has developed numerical models to represent an approximation of these processes and to bound the associated uncertainties.

Based on these models, which incorporate the results of these studies and available corroborating physical evidence, DOE estimates that the median groundwater travel times would be about 8,000 years, and average groundwater travel times would be longer. These models indicate that small amounts of water potentially moving in "fast paths" from the repository to the accessible environment could do so in fewer than 1,000 years. However, the models and corroborating physical evidence indicate that most water would take more than 1,000 years to reach the accessible environment. Given this, DOE believes that the site would not have been disqualified under the groundwater travel condition at 10 CFR 960.4-2-1.

The Department continues to evaluate fast paths through the mountain through experimentation and verification of chlorine-36 sampling described in Section 3.1.4.2.2 of the EIS. DOE developed the EIS using the best available information for hydrochemical and geochemical characterization. Many experiments are under way, and the EIS contains some of the resulting data.

3.1 (11430)
Comment - EIS002277 / 0001
On the Volume II, J-69, Page J-69, they talk about a small fraction of the accidents could generate forces capable of damaging the casks. Again, "could generate."
Another adjective. Adjectives do not belong in engineering documents.

Response
The EIS is not an engineering document. Its purpose is to present information on scientific and engineering topics that is understandable to a wide range of individuals. When discussing estimated impacts over a long period, the language used in the EIS is acceptable from a general understandability perspective and from a scientific perspective. DOE does not wish to imply a level of accuracy greater than that supported by the data and analytical techniques that are available.

3.1 (11450)
Comment - 010096 / 0008
Table S-2 – For some impact parameters addressed in Table S-2 a range of impacts are provided and for [others] a single impact estimate is offered. A range of impacts should be offered for all impact parameters included in Table S-2.

Response
The summary tables in Section 2.4 of the Final EIS provide a range of impacts for various resources where such an approach facilitates the summarization of information. A range of impacts also is presented for aspects of the Proposed Action for which options remain under consideration. For example, DOE has reported the range of impacts associated with the seven lower- and higher-temperature operating mode scenarios analyzed.

3.1 (11736)
Comment - 010379 / 0004
Your team is doing a great job on a tough job.

Response
Thank you for comment.

3.1 (11807)
Comment - EIS001888 / 0594
Maps in the DEIS fail to depict urban Clark County properly since they give the incorrect impression that a route using the beltway does not pass near urban Clark County. These maps also depict Las Vegas as a point, without illustrating the great expanse of urbanized Clark County. All of these concerns contribute to the impression that the report was prepared disregarding the most basic research standards and current information.

Response
DOE is unclear about which maps concern the commenter. In general, the Department believes the EIS acknowledges the urban nature of Clark County and Las Vegas in its presentation of socioeconomic parameters in Chapter 3. However, DOE has modified several figures throughout the EIS that show the Las Vegas metropolitan area to include updated detail (see, for example, the map in Section S.3.1.3 that shows potential legal-weight truck routes to Yucca Mountain).

3.1 (11809)
Comment - EIS001888 / 0596
The DEIS’ maps fail to depict urban Clark County properly. The maps in the DEIS give the incorrect impression that a route using the beltway does not pass near urban Clark County. The maps in the DEIS depict Las Vegas as a small point, without depicting all of urbanized Clark County. All of these concerns contribute to the impression that the report was prepared in an amateurish way that disregarded the most basic standards for research.

Response
DOE is unclear about which maps concern the commenter. In general, the Department believes the EIS acknowledges the urban nature of Clark County and Las Vegas in its presentation of socioeconomic parameters in Chapter 3. However, DOE has modified several figures throughout the EIS that show the Las Vegas metropolitan area to include updated detail (see for example, the map in Section S.3.1.3 that shows potential legal-weight truck routes to Yucca Mountain).

3.1 (12650)
Comment - EIS001227 / 0003
Promotional Map

On Page 8-11 is Figure 8-3 [Section 8.1.2.2]. Potential locations of proposed cumulative activity associated with VentureStar® at the Nevada Test Site [NTS]. This map is a reference to private corporation plans for use of portions of the NTS. The VentureStar® space launch facility plans involve the Nevada Test Site Development Corporation, Kistler Aerospace Corporation and Lockheed Martin Corporation. Numerous references to Figure 8-3 appear on page 8-74. Here a listing of seven categories of activities [appears] that have resulted in radioactive contamination or have the potential to result in radioactive and nonradioactive contamination. Item number 2. Underground Nuclear Testing, indicates that approximately 800 underground nuclear test locations appear in Figure 8-3. Not a single site appears on that figure. Item number 6. Crater Disposal., indicates that the location of the Area 3 Radioactive Waste Management Site appears in Figure 8-3. It does not. Item number 7. Greater Confinement Disposal., indicates that the location of the Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Site appears in Figure 8-3. It does not.

Each of the seven items should be shown on properly rendered maps of the Nevada Test Site that are of identical scale. In addition numerous other existing and proposed contaminating activities should be added to the list and shown on maps. This includes the Spill Test Facility which regularly releases massive quantities of toxic chemicals into the environment of Frenchman Flat and into the U.S. Fish and [Wildlife] Service, Desert National Wildlife Range. The experimental facilities at the Ula "LYNER Complex" site, that host the subcritical test program should be included. The Big Explosives Experimental Facility (BEEF) needs to be listed and shown as well since it is expected to be a source of heavy metal toxins, beryllium and radioactive material releases. The Yucca Mountain Draft EIS should also have included proposed experimental facilities such as the "Fire Experiment Facility" that may be located at Frenchman Flat.

According to a reference (Nakos, 1998) in the Environmental Assessment report, planning for this project began over seven months before the release of the Draft EIS.

Response
As suggested by this comment, DOE has corrected references to figures in Chapter 8 and clarified the text with regard to what the figures show. The EIS does not show the locations of individual underground tests, but the figure in Section 3.1.1.2 does show the areas of the Nevada Test Site where the tests occurred. Areas 3 and 5 of the Test Site host the Crater Disposal Site and the Greater Confinement Disposal Site, respectively, and are now shown on that figure. The figure in Section 8.1.2.2 now shows the proposed Venturestar® site.

3.1 (12764)
Comment - EIS001969 / 0030
Page 3-28, Table 3-8 [Section 3.1.3.2], Characteristics of major faults at Yucca Mountain.

Define the late Quaternary in years for clarity.

Response
DOE believes that it has made the table in Section 3.1.3.2 of the EIS more accurate by removing the word "late" from the column heading related to Quaternary displacement.

3.1 (12765)
Comment - EIS001521 / 0017
Page 3-6, Figure 3-1--Following this page, the Chapter 2 pages 2-65 through 2-88 are repeated; followed by a repeat of Chapter 3 pages 3-1 through 3-6; and pagination resumes with page 3-39. Therefore, Chapter 3 pages 3-7 through 3-38 (containing much of the geologic and hydrologic information in the Affected Environment chapter) were missing from the copy of the DEIS that I received. Hopefully this was not the case for too many copies of the DEIS that were mailed out. The missing pages were copied from the DEIS www-site, and hopefully others had access to this site. Given that about 30 pages were omitted from Chapter 3 in the copy of the DEIS that I received, a final qc [quality control] run-through was needed prior to mailing.

Response
 A bindery error, as described in the comment, affected a very small number of Draft EIS copies. To the extent possible, DOE identified recipients of those copies and forwarded a replacement copy to each. DOE regrets any inconvenience this error caused.

3.1 (12787)
Comment - 010329 / 0002
Also, I’d like to see Amargosa Valley more on the maps. We’re never on the map. I don’t know why that is, but we never seem to make the map. I’d really appreciate if in the future in these things this community can be more considered.

Response
DOE acknowledges that in some places in the EIS it identified Amargosa Valley as Lathrop Wells. In the Final EIS DOE has made global changes and deleted references to Lathrop Wells as a community except in an historical context.

3.1 (13298)
Comment - 010317 / 0003
The Draft EIS was rather vague in describing the Site-Related Terms as appears in the inset box at the top of page l-14. On this same page is Section 1.4.1 Yucca Mountain Site which is also short on specifics of the lands that are proposed to be withdrawn from the public domain for, essentially, forever. Some more specifics appear in Section 3.1.1 Land Use and Ownership. Unfortunately, detailed descriptions of the various administrative boundaries are lacking though there are notes suggesting that more details can be obtained from the administrating agencies. The FEIS should include, in the appendix, specific cited references to all the land use agreements, right-of-way reservations, permits, claims, and Public Land Orders involved in the ongoing and proposed Yucca Mountain repository operations. A developmental history of the legal manipulation of the lands used for this repository should also be presented in this appendix. Each of the existing Public Land Orders, that are involved, should be cited along with the purpose for which the land was withdrawn. Any overlapping withdrawals should be fully explained.

Response
As discussed in Sections 3.1.1 and 4.1.1 of the EIS, regulations promulgated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission require that land for the repository be either under the jurisdiction and control of DOE or permanently withdrawn and reserved for its use (10 CFR 63.1210). The size of the potential withdrawal area is based on compliance with the Environmental Protection Agency’s radiation-protection standards for Yucca Mountain (40 CFR Part 197). For this reason, the boundary of the potential withdrawal area shown in the EIS extends to the southern boundary of the Nevada Test Site, approximately 18 kilometers (11 miles) south of the repository site. This would be the southern boundary of the controlled area as defined in 40 CFR Part 197. As mandated by the Environmental Protection Agency, DOE used a conservative controlled area (a subset of the land withdrawal area) to extend control toward the closest populated area, the Town of Amargosa Valley, Nevada, thus preventing future encroachment as the basis for analysis in this EIS. The final identification of a controlled area boundary would be defined during the licensing process conducted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (consistent with the controlled area requirements of 40 CFR Part 197) if there was a decision to construct a repository at Yucca Mountain. DOE has revised Section 3.1.1.3 of the EIS to provide a clearer explanation of the rationale for the size of the potential land withdrawal area.

As described in Section 3.1.1.3 of the EIS, the size of the potential land withdrawal is about 600 square kilometers (230 square miles or 150,000 acres). All but 1 square kilometer of the area is under the control of three Federal agencies: DOE, the U.S. Department of Defense, and the U.S. Department of the Interior. The remaining 1 square kilometer is private land at the southern end of the withdrawal area. There are no State or tribal lands within the withdrawal area.

About two-thirds of the withdrawal area is already withdrawn from use by the general public for DOE operations at the Nevada Test Site and for U.S. Air Force operations at the Nevada Test and Training Range (formerly called the Nellis Air Force Range). The remaining one-third of the withdrawal area is public land administered by the Interior Department’s Bureau of Land Management.

DOE believes that EIS adequately analyzes the impacts of the location and size of a potential withdrawal for the repository. If Congress does ultimately withdraw land for the repository, the information requested by the commenter would be compiled as part of the withdrawal legislation.

3.1 (13538)
Comment - 550012 / 0001
The boundary line coordinate points of the Proposed Land Withdrawal Area should be provided in the FEIS. Those coordinates should be provided in the Nevada State Plan, Central, Datum: NAD 27 and in universal coordinates that are specified in degrees.

Response
 The extent of the proposed land withdrawal is shown in Figures 1-6 and 3-8 of the EIS. DOE identified this area to comply with regulations issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission concerning land ownership and control for a repository at Yucca Mountain (10 CFR Part 63). The safety of the repository requires DOE to demonstrate with reasonable assurance that the long-term performance of the repository can meet the environmental radiation-protection standards established by the Environmental Protection Agency.

If Yucca Mountain site was approved for a repository, the dimensions of the actual land withdrawal could be different than those proposed by DOE in the EIS. For this reason, DOE did not consider it necessary to include in the EIS precise legal descriptions of the boundaries of the proposed withdrawal. Current ownership and use of the proposed withdrawal area is described in Section 3.1.1.3 of the EIS.

3.1 (13538)
Comment - 550012 / 0002
An appendix in the FEIS should provide the formal legal description of the Nevada Test Site boundaries as well as the legal description of the presently configured Nellis Air Force Range.

Response
If the Yucca Mountain site was approved for a repository, the dimensions of the actual land withdrawal could be different than those proposed by DOE in the EIS (see Figures 1-6 and 3-8). For this reason, DOE did not consider it necessary to include precise legal descriptions of the boundaries of the proposed withdrawal described in the EIS, nor legal descriptions of the boundaries of the Nevada Test Site and the Nellis Air Force Range.

3.2 Draft EIS - Adequacy

3.2 (9)
Comment - 20 comments summarized
Commenters stated that the National Environmental Policy Act infers that a goal of national environmental policy is to work toward sustainable resources and economics through ecosystem management. Commenters questioned the lack of an ecosystem management approach in the Draft EIS and raised the following issues: The Draft EIS gives an overly broad view of the National Environmental Policy Act that focuses on procedure and avoids the intent, purpose, substance, and spirit of the Act. The Draft EIS is insufficient because it does not have a unifying environmental goal and a strategy for DOE to achieve that goal, and because an interdisciplinary impact analysis methodology that relied on an ecosystem approach was not used. Such an approach is mandated by the National Environmental Policy Act and required by the Federal Ecosystem Management Initiative. The Draft EIS should have used a comprehensive and integrated holistic approach that was based on natural ecosystem and landscape boundaries; evaluated impacts on long-term ecosystem function, integrity, and biodiversity; and considered humans in the natural environment. Predictive simulation models of the natural ecosystem that considered global climate change and extended far into the future should have been used. An ecosystem approach also requires open, meaningful stakeholder involvement and regional land use planning and coordination. DOE has refused for many years to adopt these and other aspects of ecosystem management. Commenters felt that, because an interdisciplinary ecosystem approach was not used, impacts on sustainable development could not be evaluated properly and impacts were evaluated in a piecemeal fashion.

Response
DOE believes that the assessment methodology it used in the development of the EIS is sufficient for evaluating potential impacts of the Proposed Action. This methodology relied on interdisciplinary collaboration and included the concept of ecosystem management when applicable and appropriate, as suggested by the Federal Ecosystem Management Initiative and the Council on Environmental Quality (see for example, Incorporating Biodiversity Considerations into Environmental Impact Analysis Under the National Environmental Policy Act (DIRS 155275-CEQ 1993).

As described in Chapter 1 and elsewhere, the EIS supports the unifying national environmental goal of the NWPA: to dispose of the Nation’s spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste in a manner that ensures that these materials do not adversely affect public health and safety and the environment for this or future generations. The EIS evaluation of the environmental impacts that could occur under the Proposed Action is an important part of the national strategy for achieving that goal.

Consistent with Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR 1502.7), DOE used an interdisciplinary approach to evaluate the impacts. When appropriate, analysts from different disciplines collaborated to fully understand and evaluate potential impacts. For example, the assessment conducted to evaluate the environmental consequences of long-term repository performance (Chapter 5 of the EIS) was a complex evaluation that required the collaboration of many disciplines including hydrology, geology, health physics, biology, and engineering. The resulting predictive simulation model of the natural ecosystem considered global climate change (see Section 5.2.4.1) and predicted impacts as far as 1 million years into the future. DOE did not conduct piecemeal evaluations; rather, it organized the EIS into separate sections and subsections for each discipline or segment of the environment to explain the evaluation results most clearly.

DOE incorporated applicable principles of ecosystem management, such as those discussed by the Council on Environmental Quality (DIRS 155275-CEQ 1993), in the EIS analysis methodologies. The Department believes these methods were sufficient for evaluating impacts on the ecosystem, including those on sustainable development of resources summarized in Chapter 10 of the EIS. As described in Section 3.1, the regions of influence considered for each resource area were based on potential impacts to a resource or system, not on political boundaries. Therefore, the evaluations used appropriate natural ecosystem and landscape boundaries. Impacts on long-term ecosystem function, integrity, and biodiversity were evaluated at appropriate scales and levels of organization. For example, the evaluation of the impacts of repository construction on biological resources concentrated primarily at the species level of ecological organization because impacts to biological resources would be localized and most likely to occur at that level. Section 4.1.4 of the EIS states that the removal of vegetation from the relatively small area required for the Proposed Action and the very small impacts to some species would not affect regional biodiversity or ecosystem function. Potential long-term effects of repository performance on biological resources were evaluated on the larger scale of the hydrological basin and required interdisciplinary collaboration with hydrologists. Interrelationships between humans and ecosystems were considered throughout the EIS. For example, the evaluation of long-term repository performance in Chapter 5 considered the effects of groundwater contamination on people who relied on that important resource. Chapter 5 also considers the influence of human intrusion of the repository on the ecosystem.

DOE believes that its approach to stakeholder involvement and regional land-use planning and coordination is consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act, Council on Environmental Quality and DOE regulations, and the needs of ecosystem management. DOE has conducted meetings to inform the public of progress and plans on the Yucca Mountain Project since the Project’s inception. The DOE Nevada Operations Office has participated in regional land use planning activities, such as development of right-of-way reservations, with regional land management and resource management agencies. As indicated in Appendix C of the EIS, interactions between DOE and other Federal agencies during the development of the EIS were extensive and consistent with the regulatory framework mandated by 40 CFR 1502.25 and 10 CFR 1021.341(b).

DOE has adopted and incorporated applicable aspects of ecosystem management in the Yucca Mountain Project, consistent with DOE Policy 430.1, "Land and Facility Use Planning." For example, the Department has conducted extensive studies of the ecosystem at and around Yucca Mountain for many years, and has used the results of those studies to make decisions necessary to maintain or improve ecosystem integrity and diversity and in the development of the EIS to predict future impacts of the Proposed Action. In addition, DOE has coordinated with Federal and state agencies to ensure protection of the ecosystem (for example, with the Fish and Wildlife Service to protect desert tortoises and with the National Park Service to protect pupfish).

3.2 (32)
Comment - 3 comments summarized
Commenters stated that DOE should have prepared a programmatic EIS for the repository project and then tiered (linked) separate EISs to it for the Yucca Mountain repository facilities, the rail corridor selection, the selection of national and Nevada highway and rail routes, and the selection of an intermodal transfer facility, as appropriate. This approach, according to the commenters, would have enabled DOE to deal more directly and effectively with the wide range of uncertainty presented by each aspect of the program.

Response
Congress, in Section 111(b) of the NWPA, acknowledged "the Federal responsibility, and a definite Federal policy, for the disposal of … waste and spent fuel."

DOE has developed the information about environmental impacts that could result from either the Proposed Action or the No-Action Alternative for the Secretary of Energy’s consideration in determining whether to recommend Yucca Mountain as the site of this Nation’s first monitored geologic repository for spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. In making that determination, the Secretary would consider not only the potential environmental impacts identified in this EIS, but also other factors as provided in the NWPA.

As part of the Proposed Action, the EIS analyzes the potential impacts of transporting spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste to the Yucca Mountain site from 77 sites across the United States. This analysis includes information on such matters as the impacts of truck and rail transportation nationally and in Nevada, as well as impacts in Nevada of alternative intermodal (rail-to-truck) transfer stations, associated routes for heavy-haul trucks, and alternative corridors for a branch rail line.

DOE believes that the EIS adequately analyzes the environmental impacts that could result from the Proposed Action. DOE also believes that the EIS provides the environmental impact information necessary to make broad transportation-related decisions, namely the choice of a national mode of transportation outside Nevada (mostly rail or mostly legal-weight truck), the choice among alternative transportation modes in Nevada (mostly rail, mostly legal-weight truck, or heavy-haul truck with use of an associated intermodal transfer station), and the choice among alternative rail corridors or heavy-haul truck routes with use of an intermodal transfer station in Nevada.

DOE has identified mostly rail as its preferred mode of transportation, both nationally and in the State of Nevada. At this time, however, the Department has not identified a preference among the five candidate rail corridors in Nevada.

If the Yucca Mountain site was approved, DOE would issue at some future date a Record of Decision to select a mode of transportation. Therefore, for example, if mostly rail was selected (both nationally and in Nevada), DOE would then identify a preference for one of the rail corridors in consultation with affected stakeholders, particularly in Nevada. In this example, DOE would announce a preferred corridor in the Federal Register and other media. No sooner than 30 days after the announcement of a preference, DOE would publish its selection of a rail corridor in a Record of Decision. A similar process would occur in the event DOE selected heavy-haul truck as its preferred mode in Nevada. Other transportation decisions, such as the selection of a specific rail alignment within a corridor, would require additional field surveys, State and local government and Native American tribal consultations, environmental and engineering analyses, and NEPA reviews.

3.2 (51)
Comment - 58 comments summarized
Commenters stated that the DOE failure to consider a range of alternatives violates the National Environmental Policy Act and presents the public and decisionmakers with no real comparative analyses of other possible alternatives. Commenters stated that just because the NWPA says that DOE "need not consider" other alternatives, this should not prohibit DOE from doing so. Other alternatives suggested for evaluation were disposal at other sites, onsite storage at current sites, transmutation, interim storage at existing sites and/or one or more centralized locations, volume reduction and consolidation at existing sites, other available technologies for storage, and alternatives to minimize impacts.

Commenters stated that the National Environmental Policy Act requires an analysis of all reasonable alternatives, and could include those that are beyond the jurisdiction of DOE or that might require new legislation. One commenter stated that the Draft EIS included an analysis of a larger inventory of nuclear waste than is currently allowed under law and asked that the Final EIS acknowledge that emplacement of the larger volume of waste would require a change in legislation and "is an abandonment of the original 1982 compromise of geographic equity envisioned as part of our Nation’s nuclear waste policy." Commenters stated that the No-Action Alternative was unreasonable because, as DOE recognizes in the EIS, the scenarios evaluated for purposes of analysis would be unlikely.

One commenter stated that the Draft EIS effectively satisfies the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act and the NWPA.

Response
The NWPA [Sections 114(f)(2) and (3)] provides that DOE need not consider in the EIS the need for a geologic repository or alternatives to isolating spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste in a repository (see Section 1.5 of the EIS). In addition, the EIS does not have to consider any site other than Yucca Mountain for development of a repository. For these reasons, this EIS does not analyze alternatives other than the Proposed Action and No-Action Alternative.

Prior to the passage of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (Public Law 97-429, 96 Stat. 2201), Congress based its decision to pursue geologic disposal, in part, on the Final Environmental Impact Statement, Management of Commercially Generated Radioactive Waste (DIRS 104832-DOE 1980). In that EIS, DOE examined the environmental impacts that could occur from the implementation of various technologies for the management of spent nuclear fuel. That EIS evaluated mined geologic disposal, very deep hole waste disposal, mined cavity disposal from rock melting, island-based geologic disposal, subseabed disposal, ice sheet disposal, well injection disposal, transmutation, and space disposal. In its Record of Decision (46 FR 26677, May 14, 1981), DOE announced its decision to pursue mined geologic disposal repositories.

The NWPA prohibits the Nuclear Regulatory Commission from authorizing the emplacement of more than 70,000 metric tons of heavy metal (MTHM) until a second repository is in operation. However, in response to comments received during the EIS scoping process (see Section 1.5.1.1 of the EIS), DOE evaluated the disposal of more than 70,000 MTHM as a reasonably foreseeable future action. The cumulative impacts discussion in Chapter 8 acknowledges that the emplacement of more than 70,000 MTHM would require legislative action by Congress unless a second licensed repository was in operation.

DOE analyzed the No-Action Alternative to serve as a basis for comparing the magnitude of potential environmental impacts of the Proposed Action (see Chapter 7 of the EIS). Under the No-Action Alternative, and consistent with the NWPA, DOE would terminate activities at Yucca Mountain and undertake site reclamation to mitigate significant adverse environmental impacts. In addition, DOE would prepare a report to Congress containing DOE’s recommendations for further action to ensure the safe, permanent disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste, including the need for new legislative authority. Under any future course that would include continued storage at the generator sites, commercial utilities and DOE sites would have an obligation to continue managing these materials in a manner that protected public health and safety and the environment. However, the future course that Congress, DOE, and the commercial utilities would take if Yucca Mountain was not approved remains uncertain.

DOE recognizes that a number of possibilities could be pursued, including continued storage of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste at existing sites and/or one or more centralized locations, study and selection of another location for a deep geologic repository, the development of new technologies, or reconsideration of alternatives to geologic disposal. One such possibility, the proposed Private Fuel Storage Facility for commercial spent nuclear fuel on the Reservation of the Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians, is proceeding through the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s licensing process for the construction and operation of an independent spent fuel storage installation. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued a Draft EIS and a Safety Evaluation Report concerning the Private Fuel Storage Facility, and has conducted other licensing-related actions such as evidentiary hearings. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has yet to issue a Final EIS or a decision on whether to grant a license. The cumulative impacts of these and other reasonably foreseeable actions are included in Section 8.4 of the EIS.

In light of these uncertainties, DOE decided to illustrate the possibilities by focusing the No-Action analysis on the potential impacts of two scenarios – long-term storage of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste at the current sites with effective institutional control for at least 10,000 years, and long-term storage with no effective institutional control after about 100 years. Although neither of these scenarios would be likely, DOE selected them for analysis because they provide a basis for comparison to the impacts of the Proposed Action and because they reflect a range of impacts that could occur.

DOE believes that the EIS adequately analyzes the potential environmental impacts that could result from either the Proposed Action or the No-Action Alternative. This belief is based on the level of information and analysis, the analytical methods and approaches used to represent conservatively the reasonably foreseeable impacts that could occur, and the use of bounding assumptions where information is incomplete or unavailable, or where uncertainties exist.

3.2 (55)
Comment - 10 comments summarized
Commenters believe that DOE should identify its preferences for elements of the Proposed Action calling for the identification of a preferred alternative, a preferred scenario, and a preferred transportation mode. Commenters state that the EIS should provide an analysis of why a particular alternative or scenario is preferred, and should include a final plan.

Response
In the Draft EIS (see Section 2.6), DOE indicated its preferred alternative was to proceed with the Proposed Action to construct, operate and monitor, and eventually close a repository for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste at Yucca Mountain. DOE has now identified mostly rail as its preferred mode of transportation, both nationally and in the State of Nevada. (See Section 2.6 of the Final EIS.)

At this time, DOE has not identified a preference for a specific rail corridor in Nevada. The Department would identify a preferred corridor only if the Yucca Mountain site was approved under the NWPA, and then only after consultation with affected stakeholders, particularly the State of Nevada. DOE would announce its preferred corridor in a Federal Register notice, and would announce any decision to select a rail corridor in a Record of Decision it would issue no sooner than 30 days after the announcement of a preference.

DOE has not identified other preferences under the various scenarios presented in this Final EIS. Many of the issues relating to how a repository would be operated and how the spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste would be packaged would be resolved only in the context of developing the detailed design for a possible License Application.

3.2 (59)
Comment - 24 comments summarized
Commenters stated that the Draft EIS is not capable of supporting a decision by the Secretary of Energy to recommend the Yucca Mountain site to the President as a geologic repository. The document fails to analyze a sufficient range of alternatives; ignores comments raised during scoping; analyzes incomplete, imagined plans and scenarios; or has too many uncertainties. Therefore, DOE cannot use the document as the basis for choosing a specific design for submittal to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for licensing. As DOE acknowledges in the Draft EIS, field surveys, state and local government consultations, environmental and engineering analyses, and additional National Environmental Policy Act reviews will be necessary. This demonstrates that the EIS is not complete. Decisions are being based on an inadequate geologic site and the use of nonexistent, untested transportation and storage casks on unknown routes. Neither members of the public nor Congress can make a decision when DOE does not know the repository design, how much waste is going to go into the repository, or how it is going to get there.

Similarly, the EIS cannot support DOE decisions on transportation modes and routes. In particular, commenters stated that the analysis of transportation impacts in Nevada fails to include a broad range of implementing alternatives and, thus, is insufficient for making modal, corridor, and route decisions. In addition, the floodplain analysis is insufficient for corridor and route selection. A new EIS is required before DOE can make these decisions.

Response
DOE believes that the EIS adequately analyzes the environmental impacts that could result from either the Proposed Action or the No-Action Alternative. This belief is based on the level of information and analysis, the analytical methods and approaches used to represent conservatively the reasonably foreseeable impacts that could occur, and the use of bounding assumptions where information is incomplete or unavailable, or where uncertainties exist.

For the same reasons, DOE believes that the EIS provides the information necessary to make decisions on the basic approaches to transporting spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste (such as rail or truck shipments), as well as the choice among alternative rail corridors in Nevada. However, follow-on implementing decisions, such as the selection of a specific rail alignment in a corridor, or the specific location of an intermodal transfer station or the need to upgrade heavy-haul truck routes, would require additional field surveys; State, local, and Native American government consultations; environmental and engineering analyses; and National Environmental Policy Act reviews.

As discussed in Section 2.1.1 of the Draft EIS, the Proposed Action included the then-current design for the repository and for the construction, operation and monitoring, and closure of the repository. However, since the publication of the Draft EIS, DOE improved its understanding of the interactions of potential repository features with the natural environment, and the advantages of a number of design features (such as titanium drip shields) to enhance waste containment and isolation. DOE published a Supplement to the Draft EIS that focused on the most recent design enhancements (called the flexible design), including various operating modes to manage heat generated by emplaced spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste.

The NWPA requires DOE to use casks certified by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission when transporting spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste to a repository. The Commission certifies that a cask meets the requirements of 10 CFR Part 71, which prescribes cask testing. As part of its detailed technical review, the Commission decides what level of physical testing or analysis is appropriate and necessary for each cask design. If the applicant for a certificate fails to demonstrate compliance with the regulations, the Commission will not issue a certificate. Therefore, if full-scale testing is necessary, it will occur before the Commission issues a certificate of compliance.

DOE developed implementing alternatives and analytical scenarios to ensure that it considered the range of reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts that could result from the Proposed Action. In developing the scope of the Proposed Action, DOE considered the comments and information received and modified the analytical approach to the EIS accordingly (see Section 1.5).

For the EIS, DOE used information from a broad range of studies to obtain or evaluate the information needed for the assessment of Yucca Mountain as a monitored geologic repository. In addition, the Department received input from a number of organizations including universities, other Federal agencies, the State of Nevada, counties, municipalities, other local governments, and Native American tribes. Section 2.5 of the EIS indicates that the results and conclusions of these studies and associated analyses often have associated uncertainties. Uncertainties could be the result of assumptions, the complexity and variability of the process, the use of incomplete information, or the unavailability of information. In such instances, the EIS describes the uncertainties associated with the results.

If information is incomplete or unavailable or if uncertainties exist, analysts commonly identify assumptions to enable their evaluations to proceed. In such instances, the assumptions (and analytical methods) in the EIS conservatively represent (that is, tend to overestimate) the reasonably foreseeable impacts that could occur from the Proposed Action or the No-Action Alternative.

For example, in Section G.1.1 of the EIS, the total nonradiological air quality impacts are the sum of the calculated maximum concentrations, regardless of wind direction. This conservatively maximizes air quality impacts. As another example, DOE based the estimated radiological impacts from the transportation of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste on the maximum allowable radiation dose rate from the side of a transport vehicle. DOE applied this type of approach to conservative estimates of impacts to other resources, as discussed in the EIS.

As noted, DOE would undertake additional field surveys; State, local, and Native American government consultations; environmental and engineering analyses; and National Environmental Policy Act reviews for certain transportation-related implementing decisions, such as the selection of a specific rail alignment in a corridor.

3.2 (64)
Comment - 119 comments summarized
Many commenters said that the No-Action Alternative is not reasonable because neither scenario would ever be seriously considered, much less implemented. The resulting impacts from the two No-Action scenarios are, therefore, overstated and, by comparison, make development of a repository at Yucca Mountain seem safe and reasonable. Commenters stated that if an alternative is not reasonable then the comparison is not reasonable. Therefore, comparing the impacts of the No-Action Alternative to the impacts of the Proposed Action is meaningless and in violation of the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act and its Council on Environmental Quality implementing regulations.

Some commenters said DOE should develop reasonable No-Action Alternatives such as centralized or regional interim storage, onsite above-ground monitored storage, and waste encapsulation. Others said the No-Action Alternative should assume that the waste would remain at the generator sites and that the utilities would continue to manage it. Using 10,000 years for the No-Action Alternative seemed arbitrary to some. They suggested instead that the No-Action timeframe should be the foreseeable future, and it should consider the development of new technologies, as well as onsite waste storage buildings that would last much longer than 100 years. Some commenters stated that DOE is obligated to rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives, even if these alternatives are outside the scope of what Congress has approved or funded. In this way the findings of the EIS can serve as the basis for modifying the Congressional mandate to dispose of nuclear waste in a mined geologic repository. Others said that DOE should have developed and evaluated the No-Action Alternative to a level of detail that is equivalent to the Proposed Action. Similarly, some commenters said the impacts of the No-Action Alternative should be examined on a site-specific basis, rather than using representative sites and mathematical models. Others said that the impact analyses for the No-Action Alternative did not go far enough in evaluating social, economic, and political impacts. The unbalanced treatment of the Proposed Action and the No-Action Alternative, in the view of some, cripples informed decisionmaking. Still others said that the NWPA describes a process that would occur if the Yucca Mountain site was determined to be unsuitable. Therefore, DOE should have developed a "best guess" as to the type of nuclear waste program that would replace Yucca Mountain, and then evaluate it under the No-Action Alternative. This could be some form of at-reactor storage for 50 to 100 years combined with waste-reduction technologies, followed by a process to site and construct storage and disposal facilities.

Some commenters stated that leaving waste at current storage facilities is not reasonable because the facilities were never intended to become permanent storage sites, and if the No-Action Alternative was implemented it would result in unacceptable health effects. These commenters stated that if waste was left at current storage locations, this action would be contrary to the NWPA, which requires DOE to dispose of the waste in a repository.

Response
In the NWPA, Congress acknowledged that the Federal Government is responsible for the permanent disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste (see Section 1.3.2 of the EIS). To that end, Congress directed the Secretary of Energy to determine whether to recommend approval of the Yucca Mountain site to the President. In that connection, the NWPA does not direct DOE to examine any other methods of storage or disposal or continuing storage at existing sites because this is not the policy of the Federal Government. The NWPA does, however, direct DOE to prepare an EIS to accompany any Site Recommendation to the President. In that connection, the NWPA specifies that DOE need not consider in the EIS the need for a repository, alternatives to geologic disposal, or alternative sites to Yucca Mountain (see Section 1.5 of the EIS). Although the NWPA does not require an evaluation of alternatives to a repository in this EIS, DOE evaluated a No-Action Alternative to provide a basis for comparison to the Proposed Action.

With regard to the reasonableness of the No-Action Alternative, DOE considered guidance in the Council on Environmental Quality’s "Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ’s National Environmental Policy Act Regulations" (46 FR 18026, March 23, 1981). This guidance defines the No-Action Alternative as "… no change from current management direction or level of management authority…." For this reason, DOE believes that continuing to store spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste at 77 commercial and DOE sites is an appropriate conceptual descriptor of the No-Action Alternative.

As stated in Section 2.2 and Chapter 7 of the EIS, if Yucca Mountain was not approved, DOE would terminate activities at the site and undertake site reclamation activities. In addition, DOE would prepare a report to Congress, with DOE’s recommendations for further action to ensure the safe, permanent disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste, including the need for new legislative authority. Under any future course that would include continued storage at the generator sites, commercial utilities and DOE would have to continue managing spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste in a manner that protected public health and safety and the environment. However, the future course that Congress, DOE, and the commercial utilities would take if Yucca Mountain was not approved is uncertain.

DOE recognizes that a number of possibilities could be pursued, including continued storage of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste at existing sites and/or one or more centralized locations, study and selection of another location for a deep geologic repository, the development of new technologies, or reconsideration of alternatives to geologic disposal. One such possibility, the proposed Private Fuel Storage Facility for commercial spent nuclear fuel on the Reservation of the Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians, is proceeding through the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s licensing process for the construction and operation of an independent spent fuel storage installation. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued a Draft EIS and Safety Evaluation Report concerning the Private Fuel Storage Facility, and has conducted other licensing-related actions such as evidentiary hearing. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has yet to issue a Final EIS or a decision on whether to grant a license. The cumulative transportation impacts of these and other reasonably foreseeable actions were included in Section 8.4 of the Final EIS.

However, in light of these uncertainties, DOE decided to illustrate the possibilities by focusing the analysis of the No-Action Alternative on the potential impacts of two scenarios—long-term storage of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste at the current sites with effective institutional control for at least 10,000 years, and long-term storage with no effective institutional control after about 100 years. Although neither of these scenarios is likely, DOE selected them for analysis because they provide a basis for comparison to the impacts of the Proposed Action and because they reflect a range of the impacts that could occur. For example, the impacts associated with the first 100 years of effective institutional control (Scenario 1 or 2 of the No-Action Alternative) enable direct comparison to the impacts of the Proposed Action during the first 100 years after the repository was closed.

DOE’s assumption of a loss of institutional control after approximately 100 years is based on a review of generally applicable Environmental Protection Agency regulations for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste (40 CFR Part 191), Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations for the disposal of low-level radioactive material (10 CFR Part 61), and the National Research Council report on standards for the proposed Yucca Mountain Repository (DIRS 100018-National Research Council 1995), which generally discount the consideration of institutional control for periods longer than 100 years in performance assessments for geologic repositories. As noted above, assuming no effective institutional control after 100 years provides a consistent analytical basis for comparing the No-Action Alternative to the Proposed Action.

Chapter 7 and Appendix K of the EIS contain additional information about the No-Action Alternative scenarios.

In determining the most appropriate approach to examining the human health impacts from the No-Action Alternative, DOE considered the mechanisms that would most affect the release rate of the radionuclide inventory at the 77 DOE and commercial sites. The release rate would depend primarily on the interactions between environmental conditions (rainfall, freeze-thaw cycles) and engineered barriers (see Section K.2.1.6 of the EIS). Rather than perform 77 separate analyses, DOE chose to simplify its approach by dividing the country into five regions, each region containing a single hypothetical site that would store all spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste existing in that region. However, to ensure that the regional analyses reflect actual conditions, DOE used the spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste inventories, engineered barriers and environmental conditions for each of the sites in each region. Weighting criteria also were developed such that the results of the analyses for the hypothetical sites were representative of the sum of the results of each actual site, if they had been analyzed independently.

In addition, because the purpose of the No-Action Alternative is to provide a basis for comparison with the Proposed Action, DOE has tried to be consistent with the analyses of the Proposed Action, as appropriate. Regarding long-term analyses, for example, Section K.1 notes that DOE did not want to influence the results to favor the Proposed Action, and thus used assumptions for the No-Action Alternative that minimized predicted impacts. Section K.4 of the EIS discusses examples of these assumptions and their effects on the outcome of the impact analyses. Based on the above, DOE believes that the environmental impacts of the No-Action Alternative discussed in Chapter 7 and Appendix K are not overstated.

3.2 (69)
Comment - 12 comments summarized
Commenters stated that DOE should examine a worst-case accident during transportation and at the repository. Some commenters suggested that a worst-case analysis was required given global warming and other future climate changes, and the use of arbitrary cultural and economic scenarios in the analysis of long-term performance of the proposed repository. Others said a worst-case scenario should include varying assumptions about the critical group population, and that impacts to resources such as land use, water use, population growth, and loss of property values cannot be dismissed. One commenter asked what the EIS considered to be the worst-case accident and how it assessed the impacts.

Response
Worst-case scenarios are by their very nature extremely unlikely to occur and, thus, their analysis would not prove helpful to decisionmakers. Thus, for example, not even the Council on Environmental Quality regulations require the analysis of worst-case accident scenarios. This requirement was withdrawn in 1986 (51 FR 15618, April 25, 1986).

The EIS analyzes a variety of accident scenarios that could occur during the operation of the repository, one of which is the maximum reasonably foreseeable accident, an earthquake event, as discussed in Section 4.1.8.1. Sections 6.2.4.2.1 and 6.2.4.2.2 discuss the maximum reasonably foreseeable accident scenarios related to transportation by truck and rail, respectively. These extremely unlikely events represent potential accident scenarios with the largest consequences that could reasonably be expected to occur.

DOE also considered the potential impacts of an aircraft crash into a shipping cask (Section J.3.3.1). No credible releases of radioactivity from the cask would be expected.

For the long term, the EIS examines impacts from an undisturbed repository and from various disruptive events such as a human intrusion, volcanic disturbance, or nuclear criticality. DOE prepared these analyses, which focused on environmental impacts that are predictable (impacts to humans and biota) in the long term, consistent with Environmental Protection Agency regulations (40 CFR Part 197). The Environmental Protection Agency regulations indicate, for instance, that DOE should not estimate future changes to society, the biosphere (other than climate), human biology, or changes in human knowledge or technology. Rather, these factors should remain constant over time and should be considered as they exist at the time of assessment. In contrast, however, these standards require DOE in its performance assessment to vary factors related to geology, hydrology, and climate based on cautious, but reasonable, assumptions of the changes that could affect the proposed repository over the next 10,000 years. Chapter 5 and Appendix I of the EIS discuss assumptions, analytical techniques, the bases for the analyses, and the results of these analyses.

3.2 (75)
Comment - 18 comments summarized
Commenters stated that the purpose of the National Environmental Policy Act is to protect, restore, and enhance the environment. These commenters believe that the proposal to construct and operate a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain violates these policies. They also believe that the document gives a view of the National Environmental Policy Act that focuses on procedure and avoids the intent and spirit of the Act. In addition, there is no indication that DOE followed applicable guidance in conducting the environmental impact assessment process or in preparing the Draft EIS. New guidelines and techniques for improving the National Environmental Policy Act process, such as those suggested by Salk, Tolbert and Diskerman, Caldwell, and Clark and Canter, appear not to have been used. The Draft EIS seems to have been prepared without proving that DOE can permanently dispose of nuclear waste in a manner that protects public health and safety and the environment.

Response
The National Environmental Policy Act seeks to promote an understanding of the environmental consequences of Federal actions before agencies take action. The statute does not prohibit activities that could harm the environment; rather, it requires Federal agencies to disclose the extent of such environmental harm, and any environmental benefits, to the public and to agency decisionmakers. DOE believes that this EIS adequately describes the type and magnitude of potential environmental impacts that could occur if it constructed, operated and monitored, and eventually closed a repository at the Yucca Mountain site.

Preparers of the EIS considered guidance documents issued by the Council on Environmental Quality and the DOE Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance. For example, DOE’s Recommendations for the Preparation of Environmental Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements (DIRS 104601-DOE 1993) and the Council on Environmental Quality’s Considering Cumulative Effects Under the National Environmental Policy Act (DIRS 103162-CEQ 1997) were considered in the preparation of the entire EIS and Chapter 8, respectively. In addition, preparers consulted guidance and methods documents germane to the resource of interest (see for example, DIRS 103242-EPA 1995). DOE is aware of and has reviewed many of the documents cited by the commenters, and has, in effect, used their suggested methods in the preparation of the EIS. For example, Salk, Tolbert, and Diskerman (DIRS 152242-1999) offers eight tools that address problem definition and problem assessment. As examples, Tool 1 offers insights into implementing early project planning, planning the work effort, and creating multidisciplinary teams; and Tool 4 provides tips to identify issues of concern to stakeholders such as early notification and effective solicitation of stakeholder concerns. DOE used such tools in the preparation of the EIS, and in the scoping and public comment processes.

The Secretary of Energy will determine whether to recommend to the President approval of the Yucca Mountain site for development of a repository. As discussed in Section 2.6, this recommendation would be made, in part, in consideration of potential environmental impacts identified in this EIS and of the factors and comments provided through public input on the Draft EIS and the Supplement to the Draft EIS. If the Secretary made such a recommendation, and in accordance with the NWPA, the President would determine whether to recommend the site to Congress. If the site was approved, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission would decide, on the basis of a License Application prepared by DOE, whether and under what conditions the Department could dispose of nuclear waste in a manner that protects public health and safety and the environment.

3.2 (80)
Comment - 179 comments summarized
Commenters stated that the Draft EIS is inadequate, does not provide sufficient information, and is substantively and legally deficient. Some commenters stated that the document does not conform to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the NEPA implementing regulations promulgated by the Council on Environmental Quality, or DOE’s NEPA implementing regulations. Some commenters noted that the Yucca Mountain Repository program is unprecedented in its scope, but that DOE treats it in the Draft EIS as just another Federal program. Other commenters stated that the Federal Government requires a level of detail from private industry for projects on Federal lands, but then exempts itself from that same level of detail in the EIS.

Commenters identified deficiencies and inadequacies in general, but without technical, analytical, or regulatory specificity. Rather, they concluded that the Draft EIS was insufficient and inadequate, and recommended that DOE withdraw the Draft EIS and issue for public comment a revised or supplemental draft that would meet the requirements of the NWPA, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Atomic Energy Act, and all other statutes pertaining to present and future health, safety, and quality of the environment.

On the other hand, some commenters stated that the Draft EIS was comprehensive and that DOE’s analysis demonstrates that the Federal Government is adequately studying the science and examining the impacts that a geologic repository at Yucca Mountain would have on the environment. Further, some commenters thought that the scope of the document was appropriate, and stated that DOE has done a complete job of trying to evaluate potential risks to the public and workers in both the handling of the waste at the facility and the transportation aspects. One commenter stated that the Draft EIS has overstated potential impacts in several respects and that, without the use of conservative assumptions, the impacts would have been much smaller, if not zero.

Response
DOE believes that the EIS is consistent with NEPA and NWPA requirements. The level of information and analyses, the analytical methods and approaches used to represent conservatively the reasonably foreseeable impacts that could occur, and the use of bounding assumptions to address incomplete or unavailable information or uncertainties provide a meaningful assessment of environmental impacts consistent with the applicable requirements.

As discussed in Section 1.5.1 of the EIS, DOE initiated public scoping in 1995, eventually holding public meetings in 15 locations across the country. The purpose of this process was to determine the scope of the EIS and to identify significant issues this EIS would analyze in depth. The Draft EIS was the outcome of this process.

DOE agrees that the scope of the Yucca Mountain Project and, thus, the EIS is complex and has unique features. In recognition of this complexity, DOE has analyzed a variety of implementing alternatives and scenarios under a Proposed Action to construct, operate (including transportation) and monitor, and eventually close a repository at Yucca Mountain. These alternatives and scenarios reflect potential repository design and operating modes, waste packaging approaches, transportation modes, and corridors/routes for shipping spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste to the Yucca Mountain site from 72 commercial and 5 DOE sites around the nation. DOE included a No-Action Alternative that analyzed two scenarios to provide a basis for comparison with the Proposed Action and reflect the range of impacts that could occur.

For both the Proposed Action and No-Action Alternative, the EIS evaluates the affected environments and estimates potential environmental impacts in regions of influence for the resource areas. DOE selected these regions and resource areas for analysis consistent with Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR 1502.15) that indicate that the data and analyses should be commensurate with the likely importance of the potential impact. Thus, the EIS addresses the various potential environmental impacts in proportion to their potential significance. Clearly insignificant or minor impacts are addressed in less detail.

In the EIS, DOE used the best available data and information from a broad range of studies to obtain or evaluate the information needed for the assessment of Yucca Mountain as a monitored geologic repository. These include, for example, reports and studies sponsored by DOE, other Federal agencies, the State of Nevada, universities, the National Academy of Sciences, and affected units of local government (see Chapter 3 for more information).

Further, as discussed in Section 2.5 of the EIS, DOE identified the use of incomplete information or the unavailability of information to identify uncertainties in the data or analytical approaches. In addition, the Department acknowledges that the results of analyses often have uncertainties and has described such uncertainties throughout the EIS.

To resolve some of the uncertainties and to provide information on the repository design that became available after publication of the Draft EIS, DOE published in May 2001 the Supplement to the Draft EIS and made it available for public review. While aspects of the design evolved from those in the Draft EIS, the basic elements of the Proposed Action to construct, operate and monitor, and eventually close a geologic repository at Yucca Mountain remained unchanged. For this reason, the Supplement focused on the most recent design enhancements, including various operating modes to manage heat generated by emplaced spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste.

DOE considered each public comment it received in its development of this Final EIS. In response to comments, DOE has modified the EIS in a variety of ways, including clarifications or changes to the text, new or more recent information (such as 2000 Census data and population projections), and modified analyses (such as those for transportation impacts in which it modified the characteristics of the representative commercial spent nuclear fuel and accident source terms). DOE also modified the EIS to include new information obtained since it issued the Draft EIS. The Department obtained such information from site characterization activities and design evaluations, including, for example, updated radon emanation data and the most recent design features.

3.2 (84)
Comment - 47 comments summarized
Commenters stated that in developing the EIS, DOE largely ignored information, analyses, and issues presented by counties, communities, the State of Nevada, and other entities during the scoping period for the EIS. Some commenters stated that DOE should adopt the views, analyses, and mitigation measures identified by counties and other entities near the Yucca Mountain site, rather than simply referencing or otherwise presenting them in the EIS as opposing views. Several commenters submitted information and lists of plans, resolutions, and technical documents they believe DOE should incorporate or reference in the Final EIS. Commenters said the EIS is largely unresponsive to issues of most concern to the communities. Commenters point to information provided during the scoping process that addressed the lack of emergency response capabilities in the communities, pointed out the need for DOE to identify adverse impacts that could not be mitigated and those that could cause a loss of tourism, called for analysis of the effects of volcanism and transportation on individual communities, and identified local economic and demographic models. Commenters said that, without an evaluation of this information for each community, DOE decisions will be invalid.

Response
As discussed in Section 1.5.1 of the EIS, DOE received input during the scoping process from the public and a number of organizations. DOE considered the comments and information received during scoping, issued a summary of scoping comments (DIRS 104630-YMP 1997), and modified the analytical approach to the EIS accordingly. In addition, DOE identified comments and information it believes are unrelated to the scope or content of the Proposed Action (such as the constitutional basis for disposal in Nevada) or would have resulted in uncertain or speculative analyses that would not have been meaningful to any decisionmaker.

As discussed in Section 2.5 of the EIS, DOE received input from a number of organizations including universities, other Federal agencies, the State of Nevada, counties, municipalities, other local governments, and Native American tribes. This input included documents that present research or information that in some cases disagrees with the views DOE presented in the Draft EIS. DOE reviewed these documents and evaluated their findings for inclusion as part of the EIS analyses. If the information represented a substantive view, DOE made every effort to incorporate that view in the EIS and to identify its source. If the view was not incorporated in the analyses, DOE attempted to identify and address that opposing view. For example, in Section 3.1.4.2.2, DOE recognized the view by several investigators that the water table near Yucca Mountain has risen in the past to much higher than present-day levels, and in Section 3.1.5, DOE recognized the opposing view that there was no systematic interdisciplinary environmental program to characterize potential irreversible alterations prior to the initiation of site characterization.

DOE has modified the EIS by incorporating by reference and using new information as appropriate (for example, see Section 3.1.7.1, where more recent state- and local-based population information has been incorporated).

3.2 (90)
Comment - 34 comments summarized
Commenters stated that the Draft EIS evaluated preliminary or conceptual designs that did not represent the more recent design (that is, identified by DOE after publication of the Draft EIS) and might not have bounded the impacts as claimed, either because of the preliminary nature of the designs or because of design uncertainties. A detailed final design and complete details that describe the Proposed Action, including relevant transportation-related information, are needed. Commenters questioned the feasibility of, or the ability to implement, these designs, although some believe the designs are feasible. For these reasons, commenters argued that the Draft EIS was flawed or premature, and the ability of the public to comment on the designs and to judge their environmental impacts and the degree of waste isolation was compromised. These commenters also said that DOE has not limited itself to choosing a design among those analyzed, and that the final or preferred design that would be used in a possible License Application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is needed for decisionmaking. All aspects of this final design (for example, cask handling and retrieval, concrete drift lining) must be analyzed in the Final EIS or in a revised Draft EIS according to the commenters.

Conversely, other commenters believe that a final design is not necessary for decisionmaking and that DOE should identify the role of the EIS in future design evolution. Others suggested that a future EIS might be needed to assess the final design.

Response
DOE noted in the Draft EIS (in Section 2.1.1.5, for example) that the analyzed designs were preliminary and were likely to evolve in various ways. Since it issued the Draft EIS, DOE has continued to evaluate design features and operating modes that would reduce uncertainties in or improve long-term repository performance, and improve operational safety and efficiency. The result of the design evolution process was the development of the Science and Engineering Report flexible design. This design focuses on controlling the temperature of the rock between the waste emplacement drifts (as opposed to areal mass loading) but the basic elements of the Proposed Action to construct, operate and monitor, and eventually close a geologic repository at Yucca Mountain remain unchanged. DOE evaluated the flexible design in a Supplement to the Draft EIS, which was released for public review and comment in May 2001.

Aspects of the design presented in the Supplement to the EIS (as well as this Final EIS) are likely to continue to evolve, particularly in relation to the means of controlling heat generated by spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. Under Section 114(a) of the NWPA, DOE must provide a description of the proposed repository, including preliminary design specifications, as part of any Site Recommendation. If the Yucca Mountain site was approved, a more refined flexible design would be determined only at the time of License Application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. That design probably would continue to change as a result of the License Application process. In this event, DOE would evaluate future repository design revisions in accordance with its regulations to determine whether it would conduct further National Environmental Policy Act reviews.

DOE based the design details discussed in the EIS (such as waste handling and treatment, underground ventilation, and waste confinement) on requirements and practices that have been in use for several decades in the mining and commercial utility industries and at DOE sites. Even the more unusual aspects of the design, such as titanium drip shields and Alloy-22 disposal containers, would take advantage of the fabrication experience of commercial vendors that design and build radioactive waste transport packages and other specialty equipment for commercial nuclear utilities. Based on this experience, DOE is confident that the designs under consideration would protect worker and public health and safety and the environment.

DOE analyzed various alternatives and scenarios (such as waste handling facilities, heat management scenarios, and transportation implementing alternatives and scenarios) that comprise elements of the Proposed Action. The purpose of these scenarios and implementing alternatives, which reflect potential design considerations, waste packaging approaches, and modes for transporting spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste to the Yucca Mountain site, was to: (1) provide the full range of potential environmental impacts; (2) reflect potential decisions, such as the mode of transport, that the EIS would support; and (3) retain flexibility in the design of the repository to maintain the ability to reduce uncertainties in or improve long-term repository performance, and improve operational safety and efficiency.

To construct the analytical basis for evaluation of repository impacts in the Final EIS, DOE used widely accepted analytical tools, coupled with the best available information, and cautious but reasonable assumptions where uncertainties exist, to estimate potential environmental impacts. This included applying conservative assumptions to the set of reasonable operating scenarios identified in the Yucca Mountain Science and Engineering Report (DIRS 153849-DOE 2001) to ensure that the EIS did not underestimate potential environmental impacts and to accommodate the greatest range of potential future actions. DOE believes that the EIS adequately analyzes each design element investigated, the resulting short- and long-term environmental impacts, and mitigation measures. Further, the analyses incorporate conservative assumptions that tend to overestimate impacts, as identified in the EIS. For example, in Section G.1.1 the total nonradiological air quality impacts were the sum of the calculated maximum concentrations regardless of wind direction. This conservatively maximized air quality impacts. This type of approach to estimate impacts conservatively was applied to all other resources, as appropriate.

Because of the various implementing alternatives and scenarios analyzed as well as the conservative nature of the analyses, DOE believes that the analyses represent a realistic upper bound of environmental impacts that could occur from the implementation of the Proposed Action.

DOE has modified Chapter 9, which identifies actions that DOE would consider to reduce or mitigate adverse impacts to the environment, to reflect the designs analyzed in the Final EIS.

3.2 (336)
Comment - EIS000056 / 0002
In total, the United States has implemented a policy of permissible pollution upgradient of the communities of Amargosa Valley and Pahrump and absolute preservation of the groundwater quality and quantity in the areas downgradient of these communities. Nye County, in their water resource planning efforts is between the proverbial rock and a hard place. Yucca Mountain will perpetuate the policy of permissible pollution and will further reduce the quantity of water that is available to meet future water demands in the County.

Under 40 CFR 1508.18(b)(3) NEPA [the National Environmental Policy Act] mandates that the impacts of federal policies must be evaluated in an EIS. The Yucca Mountain EIS must be revised to address the impacts of these contrasting federal water resource policies.

Response
Based on the results of analyses in Chapter 5 of the EIS on the long-term performance of the proposed repository at Yucca Mountain, which considered the effects of existing fractures and future earthquakes, DOE believes that the repository would operate safely. The Department recognizes that some radionuclides and potentially toxic chemicals would, after long periods, enter the environment outside the repository. Nevertheless, modeling of the long-term performance of the repository indicates the combination of natural and manmade barriers would keep such releases within the regulatory limits established by 40 CFR Part 197.

DOE recognizes the importance of water to the inhabitation and development of land in Southern Nevada. The EIS points out that groundwater availability is a concern in many areas that the repository or associated transportation actions could affect. Section 3.1.4.2.1 notes that current water appropriations for the Amargosa Desert are higher than some estimates of perennial yield for that area (though actual withdrawals are much less). The EIS identifies hydrographic areas classified as "Designated Groundwater Basins" (see Section 3.2.2.1.3.2). The State of Nevada places this designation on hydrographic areas where permitted groundwater rights approach or exceed the estimated annual recharge, and the water resources are being depleted or require additional administration, including State declaration of preferred uses (municipal and industrial, domestic supply, agriculture, etc.). The table in Section 3.2.2.1.3.2 indicates that the Las Vegas Valley and Amargosa Desert are Designated Groundwater Basins, and that the Jackass Flats area, from which DOE would withdraw water for the proposed repository is not. However, Section 4.1.3.3 of the EIS recognizes that groundwater withdrawn at Jackass Flats would to some extent reduce the amount of and flow that would reach downgradient areas. In addition, it indicates that the Amargosa Desert would be the first areas to experience such an impact and that the amount of water required by the repository would be very small in comparison to the amount already being withdrawn in that area. Chapter 8 of the EIS analyzes a reasonable range of possible cumulative impacts to water resources.

3.2 (436)
Comment - EIS000080 / 0007
Risks are based upon models instead of measurements. The data is only now being selected to go in and put into the models so that they can come up with a meaningful result, and when we go back, there was a peer review process that looked at the Department of Energy’s models and came back with very scathing comments, in fact, talking about a deluge of models in a drought of data and pseudo-sophisticated models and that sort of thing.

So these models are being used to come up and say here’s what the risk is. I don’t put much faith in those models, and I think that uncertainty should be much more clearly stated in the EIS.

Response
Because much of the concern over risk from the proposed repository extends to the distant future, DOE must base portions of its risk analysis on modeling results. DOE acknowledges in the EIS that there is a substantial amount of uncertainty associated with estimates of long-term repository performance. DOE handled this uncertainty in two ways. First, where the uncertainty was considered very important to the outcome, DOE used conservative assumptions that tended to overstate the risks that would be obtained by a more realistic model. Second, DOE used ranges of data in a probabilistic sampling routine to produce ranges of results that reflected the effect of the range of inputs. This ensures that the long-term performance estimates are conservative.

Section 5.2.4 of the EIS discusses uncertainties associated with the analysis of long-term repository performance, including the uncertainty due to currently unavailable data and the uncertainty associated with models and model parameters.

Furthermore, Congress created the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board as an independent organization to evaluate the technical and scientific validity of site characterization activities related to the packaging and transportation of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste (NWPA Section 503).

3.2 (476)
Comment - EIS000069 / 0008
The Draft EIS does not identify in precision and with certainty many, many issues that are of concern to Nye County. The transportation corridors, the mitigation efforts. How can we expect to go forward? How can the nation expect this valley and these folks and these residents here in this valley, 1,500 people who have chosen to live here because they like to be here, how can this country expect them to bear this burden and to go forward in future generations and prosper and be happy in this valley with the vague, imprecise and inadequate information that’s contained in this document?

Response
For each alternative, the EIS evaluates the affected environment and estimates potential environmental impacts in regions of influence for a variety of subjects. DOE selected these regions and subjects consistent with Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR 1502.15) that indicate that the data used and analyses undertaken should be commensurate with the likely importance of the potential impact. Thus, DOE has addressed the environmental impacts in proportion to their potential significance. The EIS discusses clearly insignificant or minor impacts with less detail. DOE believes that the methods and approaches used, along with bounding assumptions to address incomplete or unavailable information or uncertainties, represent conservatively the reasonably foreseeable impacts that could occur. For these reasons, DOE believes that the EIS adequately analyzes each element of the Proposed Action (such as waste handling facilities, heat management scenarios, transportation implementing alternatives and scenarios).

3.2 (544)
Comment - EIS000102 / 0005
Some of the models that were used to draw conclusions about risk or the safety considerations for the repository are ill founded.

Response
DOE developed its models and data input processes to reflect processes that could affect waste isolation and determine environmental impacts. These models and data have undergone independent reviews, and the results of the reviews have been used to effect improvements in the models and data input processes. For this reason, DOE believes that it has used its models and data to reflect appropriately the potential health and safety impacts from the Proposed Action and No-Action Alternative.

3.2 (592)
Comment - EIS000127 / 0009
This EIS needs to decide a design and follow it. Follow it through. You can’t throw out all these possibilities and then pick a different one later.

Okay. Here’s what I was looking for. In the actual Environmental Impact Statement, we have a different picture. This one shows three blocks and three sets of tunnels, not just the one that’s shown in the draft. This is in the impact statement. This is the appendix to the impact statement.

This picture and some of the others show blocks labeled up to block 8, and this is what it might look like under the low thermal load design.

It’s not even in the impact statement, let alone in the draft that people are supposed to read. That’s illegal.

Response
DOE noted in the Draft EIS (see Section 2.1.1.5, for example) that the analyzed designs were preliminary, and that it was investigating various design options and features to improve repository performance and to reduce associated uncertainties. The Supplement to the Draft EIS, which DOE prepared to provide updated information to the public, focused on a more recent base design (called the flexible design) that included various heat management scenarios.

DOE believes that the EIS is consistent with National Environmental Policy Act requirements. The level of information and analyses, the analytical methods and approaches used to represent conservatively the reasonably foreseeable impacts that could occur, and the use of bounding assumptions if information was incomplete or unavailable or if there were uncertainties, provide a meaningful assessment of environmental impacts consistent with the regulations.

The design presented in the Supplement and the Final EIS will continue to evolve, particularly the means of controlling the heat generated by spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. Under Section 114(a) of the NWPA, DOE must provide a description of the proposed repository, including preliminary design specifications, as part of any Site Recommendation [42 U.S.C. 10134(a)]. If the Yucca Mountain site was approved, a more refined design, which by regulation would have to be selected from among the design features and options considered in the EIS, would be determined only at the time DOE submitted a License Application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The design probably would continue to evolve as a result of the License Application process.

With regard to the repository blocks, the commenter apparently is referring to figures that describe the underground layouts of the three thermal loads in Section 2.1.2.2 of the Draft EIS and the layout figures in Appendix I (Figures I-2 through I-7). These figures show layouts for the Proposed Action (Figures I-2, I-4, and I-6) and for Inventory Modules 1 and 2 (Figures I-3, I-5, and I-7). The layouts for the Proposed Action are the same as those described in Section 2.1.2.2. Section 8.2 analyzes the inventory modules. Based on provisions of the NWPA, which prohibits the Nuclear Regulatory Commission from authorizing the disposal of more than 70,000 metric tons of heavy metal, DOE could dispose of only the Proposed Action inventory as shown in Figures 2-14 through 2-16 (which are the same as Figures I-2, I-4, and I-6).

3.2 (629)
Comment - EIS000159 / 0002
The premise of this draft EIS is flawed. While the concept of building a nuclear waste dump that is destined to leak is preposterous; this draft EIS is premature since it does not analyze the actual design. The only two other options examined in this draft EIS are unrealistic and thus do not provide for reasonable comparisons.

Response
The Department acknowledges that it cannot build a containment system that can provide perfect containment forever. This EIS provides the DOE’s best estimate of the impacts that could occur when the containment system inevitably degraded. The EIS confirms that the Proposed Action would be expected to result in release of radioactive contamination to the environment beginning sometime after 10,000 years after repository closure. However, the EIS also shows that these releases under the Proposed Action would not exceed environmental protection standards (40 CFR Part 197) within 10,000 years of repository closure, standards specifically enacted to ensure the safety of future generations.

DOE noted in the Draft EIS (see Section 2.1.1.5, for example) that the analyzed designs were preliminary, and that it was investigating various design options and features to effect a predicted improvement in repository performance and to reduce associated uncertainties. The Department published the Supplement to the Draft EIS in May 2001, which focused on a more recent design that includes various heat management scenarios. DOE believes that the EIS adequately analyzes each element (for example, waste handling facilities, heat management scenarios, transportation alternatives and scenarios) of the Proposed Action.

As discussed in Section 2.2 of the Final EIS, if the Yucca Mountain site was not approved, the future course that Congress, DOE, and the commercial nuclear power utilities would take is uncertain. A number of possibilities could be pursued, including centralized interim storage or the study of another location for a geologic repository. However, it is speculative whether the Nation would pursue such a course. In light of these uncertainties, DOE decided to illustrate one set of possibilities by focusing its analysis of the No-Action Alternative on the potential impacts of two scenarios. DOE recognizes that neither of these scenarios would be likely to occur in the event of a decision not to develop a repository at Yucca Mountain. However, the Department chose the two scenarios for analysis because they provide a baseline for comparison to the impacts from the Proposed Action and they reflect a range of impacts that could occur.

3.2 (630)
Comment - EIS000159 / 0003
The draft EIS downplays or ignores important and relevant scientific data. In its rush to win approval of the Yucca Mountain dump, DOE downplays or ignores important data about rainwater and groundwater flow and contaminant transport. For example, DOE claims that the data on Chlorine 36 are "incomplete" yet a study on this issue was published in September, 1997.

Response
As discussed in Section 2.5 of the EIS, DOE has received input from many organizations, universities, other Federal agencies, the State of Nevada, counties, municipalities and local governments, and Native American tribes and groups. Their input included research or information that in some cases disagrees with the views that DOE presented in the EIS. DOE reviewed these documents, evaluated their findings, and identified and addressed them in the EIS. If the information represented a credible view, the Department incorporated that view in the EIS analysis and identified its source.

The 1997 U.S. Geological Survey study referred to in this comment noted the occurrence of chlorine-36 in tunnels at the Yucca Mountain site at higher-than-natural concentrations, suggesting that the chlorine-36 source might have been from above-ground tests of nuclear weapons on the Nevada Test Site during the 1950s and 1960s. The chlorine-36 present in the unsaturated zone at Yucca Mountain arises mostly from ocean testing in the Pacific during the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s, not from surface testing at the Nevada Test Site during the same time period. The chlorine signature occurs throughout the world, and is still widely found in low infiltration areas (deserts). Data gathered on the presence and distribution of these isotopes led to improved models of vadose zone hydrology for Yucca Mountain that recognize the possibility of more rapid movement of infiltrating water. These improved vadose zone hydrology models were used in the Draft EIS. The Final EIS includes results based on further improvements to these models.

3.2 (637)
Comment - EIS000141 / 0001
The final EIS must, therefore, address not only the more traditional effects of a large and complex project -- impacts to the environment, to public health and safety, to area populations, and to state and local economies -- but the final EIS must also address those impacts of the program which derive from the highly controversial nature of the activity and the fact that the program involves the handling, movement, and storage of nuclear waste materials. This project will impact not only the host state and host community, but also thousands of communities and millions of citizens located along highways and rail lines that would be used to ship deadly nuclear materials from the facilities where they were generated to the Yucca Mountain repository.

Response
DOE acknowledges the Proposed Yucca Mountain Project is controversial among certain members of the public. The EIS evaluates the affected environments and estimates potential environmental impacts in regions of influence for a variety of subjects and addresses a number of issues such as perceived risk and stigma (see Appendix N of the EIS), uncertainties, the repository design, and associated transportation activities. DOE has selected the regions of influence and subjects for analysis consistent with Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR 1502.15), which require that data used and analyses undertaken should be commensurate with the likely importance of the potential impacts. Therefore, DOE has addressed environmental impacts in proportion to their potential significance. Insignificant or minor impacts are addressed in less detail. Sections 3.1 and 3.2 contain more information on the regions of influence for repository- and transportation-related subjects, respectively.

3.2 (906)
Comment - EIS000116 / 0005
We suggest to you that the models that you’ve used to calculate safety or, to put it another way, the models that you’ve had to calculate risk, radiologic exposure, transportation risks and risks to the groundwater in many instances have been based on insufficient data, and those models in some cases have been criticized by national peer review groups as being insufficient and based on inadequate data.

Response
DOE believes that the EIS is consistent with National Environmental Policy Act requirements. The level of information and analyses, the analytical methods and approaches used to represent conservatively the reasonably foreseeable impacts that could occur, and the use of bounding assumptions if information was incomplete or unavailable and if there were uncertainties, provide a meaningful assessment of environmental impacts consistent with the regulations.

The EIS, which DOE prepared using the best available data, analyzes a variety of implementing alternatives and scenarios. These alternatives and scenarios reflect potential repository design and operating modes, waste packaging approaches, and transportation options for shipping spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste to the Yucca Mountain site.

For the Proposed Action, the EIS evaluates the affected environment and estimates potential environmental impacts in regions of influence for each of a variety of resource areas. DOE used information from a broad range of studies to obtain or evaluate the information needed for the assessment of Yucca Mountain as a monitored geologic repository. These include, for example, reports and studies sponsored by DOE, other Federal agencies, the State of Nevada, and affected units of local government. In addition, DOE identified the use of incomplete information or the unavailability of information to identify uncertainties in the data or analytical approaches.

DOE acknowledges that the results of analyses often have associated uncertainties, and has described such uncertainties throughout the EIS.

3.2 (940)
Comment - EIS000260 / 0003
The EIS, which is now under review, should recognize the human, economic and environmental conditions in our area [Southeast Inyo County; Death Valley National Park area] and address the concerns raised before you today.

Response
The EIS describes potential environmental impacts to the regions of influence, including Inyo County, in Chapters 4 through 8 and Chapter 10 of the EIS.

3.2 (979)
Comment - EIS000230 / 0008
The DEIS is a seriously flawed document in regards to geology and hydrology and is already out of date given the recent seismic activity and the data gathered from it. All work should stop until it is known thoroughly that the Yucca site is safe or not. Currently it does not appear safe nor can it be made safe.

Response
The EIS devotes a substantial amount of description and analysis to geology and hydrology. Without specific reasons for the commenter’s concern that the EIS does not address these issues adequately, DOE cannot offer a more specific response.

DOE recognizes that the results and conclusions of some of the analyses in the EIS have associated uncertainty. To provide better understanding, the EIS contains descriptions of uncertainties associated with its results and conclusions.

3.2 (983)
Comment - EIS000242 / 0004
Nye County maintains that this proposal for a repository at Yucca Mountain, should it go forward, must be done in a manner that is safe, with no added risk to the residents of Nye County.

Response
Section 1.3 of the EIS discusses the site approval process established by the NWPA, which requires the Secretary of Energy to gather data about the Yucca Mountain site and to determine whether to recommend the site for approval for a License Application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for repository development. The Secretary’s specific duties are to physically characterize the site; hold public hearings in the vicinity of the site; prepare a description of the site, including waste forms and packaging and site safety; and determine whether to make a recommendation to the President on whether to approve the site for development as a repository. If the President considered the site qualified for application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a construction authorization, he would submit a recommendation to Congress. The Governor or Legislature of Nevada can object to the site; however, this objection could be overridden if Congress passed a joint resolution of repository siting approval and the President signed it into law. Performance confirmation activities, which would consist of tests, experiments, and analyses to evaluate the adequacy of information in any License Application, would continue until the beginning of repository closure operations (see Section 2.1.2.4 of the EIS).

3.2 (995)
Comment - EIS000235 / 0001
The Lincoln County/City of Caliente repository oversight program has adopted the following goals: to understand and minimize risk; to understand and minimize impacts; and to understand and maximize benefits of DOE radioactive waste management activities in Nevada. I believe these goals should also be driving the federal government’s radioactive waste management activities. I agree with these goals and am concerned that the DEIS does not provide adequate information to enable the County and City or DOE and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to accomplish such goals. The Final EIS should provide adequate information to enable accomplishment of each of these three goals.

Response
The EIS contains considerable information on the short- and long-term impacts and risks of the repository on the State of Nevada, including Lincoln County. DOE believes that the information in the EIS can assist Lincoln County in meeting the goals stated in the comment.

3.2 (1031)
Comment - EIS001886 / 0002
The EIS is fundamentally deficient

Both of DOE’s "no action" scenarios are straw men designed to orient the decision to "yes" for Yucca [Mountain]. Scenarios need to be plausible at least.

Inadvertent human intrusion is more likely to occur into or near the repository location because of the scarcity of groundwater resources in Nevada and possibly because of mineral deposits in the general area. The impact of … inadvertent human intrusion needs to be more carefully considered. It is unlikely that barriers and markers would endure for thousands of years. While there are instances of monuments enduring for thousands of years, there are many more instances of monuments disappearing altogether. The EIS needs to have a more realistic assessment of inadvertent human intrusion problems and a fuller description of the potential impacts not only on the hypothetical intruders, but also on other members of the public, after the intrusion has occurred.

The "no action" Scenario 1 of institutional control for 10,000 years on site is absurd and without historical foundation. The second "no action" alternative assumes on site storage for 100 years and loss of control after that. It assumes that society will take no action to protect the plutonium or the waste. This is equally absurd, given that huge quantities of weapons-usable plutonium are present in the waste and that the radiation barrier to the recovery of the plutonium will be sharply reduced after a few hundred years due to the decay of cesium-137 (half-life: about 30 years).

DOE recognized in its EIS that these scenarios are unlikely and that society would consider other ways of handling this problem. It dismissed these as "speculative" (p. S29). This is a deeply flawed argument. First the DOE’s "no action" scenarios are not truly "no action". Both scenarios would require the US government to take control of the waste and put in place institutional and other control measures. It will likely have to build new storage facilities. The true "no action" alternative would be to leave the fuel in the control of the utilities, where it is today. There are a number of downsides to this, as there are to every alternative. A scenario having downsides is not a bar to its consideration under NEPA [National Environmental Policy Act]. On the contrary, a part of the objective is to illustrate both the advantages and disadvantages, so an environmentally sensible decision can be made.

IEER [Institute for Energy and Environmental Research] believes that the EIS should consider the no action alternative of leaving control on-site with utilities, which may then be expected to minimize their liabilities in various ways, instead of the two spurious and entirely implausible scenarios that it has set up. Moreover, the calculation of the impacts of these scenarios is highly speculative. In IEER’s view it is so speculative as to be without significant scientific merit. It cannot provide a rational basis for decision-making in a NEPA document.

Further, the EIS needs to consider the possibility that Yucca Mountain is found unsuitable in a more realistic framework other than a "no action" alternative. It is not speculative to say that alternative means of management and disposal would be considered if Yucca Mountain were found unsuitable. Some of these means are well-known and documented in the literature. For instance the 1983 National Research Council report on geologic isolation examined a number of different geologic types and locations. As another example, IEER has published an entire plan of research and development so that alternatives may be considered within the framework of sound science and long-term management goals. The IEER plan is an integral part of these comments and is attached.

DOE should create a set of realistic alternatives in case Yucca Mountain is not found suitable. IEER recognizes that DOE cannot examine another specific repository due to legal restrictions placed upon it. However, as IEER’s alternative waste management plan has shown, much can be done to define alternative paths to long-term management without considering other specific repository locations.

*National Research Council, Commission on Physical Sciences, Mathematics, and Resources, Board on Radioactive Waste Management, Waste Isolation Systems Panel, A Study of the Isolation System for Geologic Disposal of Radioactive Wastes. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1983.

Response
While Section 114(a) of the NWPA directs DOE to prepare an EIS to accompany any Site Recommendation to the President, it specifies that the EIS need not consider the need for a repository, alternatives to geologic disposal, or alternative sites to Yucca Mountain. Although the NWPA does not require the EIS to evaluate alternatives to the repository, DOE chose to evaluate a No-Action Alternative to provide a basis for comparison with the Proposed Action.

Under the No-Action Alternative, and consistent with the NWPA, DOE would terminate activities at Yucca Mountain and undertake site reclamation activities to mitigate any significant adverse environmental impacts. In addition, DOE would prepare a report to Congress, with the Department’s recommendations for further action to ensure the safe, permanent disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste, including the need for new legislative authority. Under any future course that would include storage at the generator sites, commercial utilities and DOE would have to continue managing spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste in a manner that protected public health and safety and the environment. However, the future course that Congress, DOE, and the commercial utilities would take if Yucca Mountain was not approved is uncertain.

DOE recognizes that a number of possibilities could be pursued if Yucca Mountain is not recommended, including continued storage of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste at existing sites and/or one or more centralized locations, study and selection of another location for a deep geologic repository, the development of new technologies, or reconsideration of alternatives for geologic disposal. The environmental considerations of these possibilities have been analyzed in other documents.

In light of these uncertainties, DOE decided to illustrate the possibilities by focusing the analysis of the No-Action Alternative on the potential impacts of two scenarios – long-term storage of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste at the current sites with effective institutional control for at least 10,000 years, and long-term storage with no effective institutional control after about 100 years. Although the Department agrees that neither of these scenarios is likely, it selected them for analysis because they provide a basis for comparison to the impacts of the Proposed Action and because they reflect a range of impacts that could occur.

With regard to the reasonableness of the No-Action Alternative, DOE considered guidance in the Council on Environmental Quality’s "Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ’s National Environmental Policy Act Regulations" (46 FR 18206, March 23, 1981). This guidance defines the No-Action Alternative as "…no change from current management direction or level of management authority…" For this reason, DOE believes that continuing to store spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste at 77 commercial and DOE sites is an appropriate description of the No-Action Alternative.

Concerning human intrusions, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Environmental Protection Agency have specified the way to analyze human intrusion in their regulations for Yucca Mountain. The regulations describe a stylized calculation that attempts to minimize speculation as to why humans would intrude into the repository. Human intrusion into the repository is an issue because the future behaviors of humans cannot be predicted. For the Final EIS, DOE used a conservative assumption that human intrusion could occur at about 100 years postclosure. This assumption would tend to overestimate the consequences because the waste materials would become less toxic with time. The EIS also contains results from an intrusion occurring at 30,000 years to simulate an intrusion at a time when the intruder might not detect the waste packages because of their weakened state. Section 5.9.1 of the Final EIS discusses the human intrusion scenario analyses and results.

3.2 (1121)
Comment - EIS000270 / 0002
The omissions and uncertainties that appear throughout this document, with respect to information essential to the evaluation of the environmental impacts of this proposed federal action, render it arbitrary and capricious in the judgments of the Department as to what can be ignored or dismissed, and therefore unacceptable.

Response
DOE used information from a broad range of studies to obtain or evaluate information needed for the assessment of Yucca Mountain as a monitored geologic repository. As discussed in Section 2.5 of the EIS, DOE identified the use of incomplete information or the unavailability of information to identify uncertainties in the data or analytical approaches. In such instances, the EIS describes the basis for the analyses, including assumptions, the use of preliminary information, or conclusions from draft or incomplete studies.

The EIS acknowledges that the results of some analyses have associated uncertainties. Uncertainties could be the result of the complexity and variability of the process, the use of incomplete information, or the unavailability of information. The Department describes such uncertainties throughout the EIS.

3.2 (1134)
Comment - EIS000270 / 0019
Factors that give rise to public concerns about and opposition to approval of the Yucca Mountain site include:

Failure to include in cost-benefit analyses all costs to the affected populations and to the environment of potential failures of control.

Response
DOE assumes that this comment, when referring to "failure of control," means a loss of institutional control. Chapter 5 of the EIS addresses potential human-health impacts from radioactive and nonradioactive materials that the proposed repository at Yucca Mountain could release to the environment during the first 10,000 years after closure. As indicated in Section 2.4, DOE does not expect long-term impacts to the public and the environment after repository closure and decommissioning (50 to 300 years after waste emplacement) to be significant.

Sections 2.1.5 and 2.2.3 of the EIS discuss cost estimates for the Proposed Action and the No-Action Alternative, respectively. However, DOE has not performed a specific cost-benefit analysis because it is not necessary to support decisionmaking. The Department believes that the EIS provides sufficient information about potential impacts to the public health, safety, and the environment to support decisionmaking.

3.2 (1137)
Comment - EIS000270 / 0023
Factors that give rise to public concerns about and opposition to approval of the Yucca Mountain site include:

Ignoring or outright dismissing critical comments and recommendations of the State of Nevada, local government officials, and members of the public, as well as those of independent scientists, throughout the history of the program and the development of this DEIS.

Response
DOE identified opposing views from organizations or individuals, as described in Section 2.5.3 of the EIS. Sources of information that contained such views included reports from universities, other Federal agencies, the State of Nevada, counties, municipalities, other local governments, and Native American tribes. DOE reviewed the information to determine if it addressed issues analyzed in the EIS; differed from DOE positions; was based on scientific, regulatory, or other information supported by credible data or methods that related to the impacts analyzed in the EIS; and had significant basic differences from the data or methods used in the analyses or to the impacts described in the EIS. The EIS discusses opposing views that met these criteria.

3.2 (1148)
Comment - EIS000087 / 0005
I don’t see the preliminary evaluations being conducted in a manner where it could be called it was done right or correct.

Response
In the EIS, DOE used information from a broad range of studies conducted over many years to obtain or evaluate the information needed for an assessment of Yucca Mountain as a monitored geologic repository. DOE also used information provided by the State of Nevada, units of local government, and other organizations. As discussed in Section 2.5 of the EIS, some of the studies are ongoing, some of the information is incomplete, and there are uncertainties. However, the EIS describes the basis for the analyses, including assumptions, the use of preliminary information, or conclusions from draft or incomplete studies. Without more specific reasons for the commenter’s belief that the evaluations are incorrect, DOE cannot offer additional response to address the concern.

3.2 (1152)
Comment - EIS000261 / 0001
Federal agencies must integrate the NEPA [National Environmental Policy Act] process with other environmental laws and list in the DEIS all federal permits, licenses and other entitlements needed by the proposed action. To the fullest extent possible agencies are encouraged to integrate the NEPA processes with the review process established by these other laws (40 CFR 1502.25(a)). These include Section 4(f) of the Transportation Act of 1966 (49 U.S.C. 303), the Comprehensive Environmental Response and Liability Act of 1980 (43 U.S.C. 9601), and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (42 U.S.C. 692).

Context and significance of the proposed action including unique characteristics, degree of controversy, cumulative and related effects are not adequately addressed in the DEIS (40 CFR 1508.27).

Response
The introduction to Chapter 11 of the EIS lists the permits, licenses, and approvals that would be necessary for the repository. Moreover, Chapter 11 describes the Federal and state laws and regulations, Executive Orders, DOE Orders, and Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations that are applicable to the repository.

Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR 1500 to 1508) require an agency to assess the environmental impacts of each alternative under consideration in terms of their context and intensity. Context means that the significance of an action is analyzed in terms of societal impacts as a whole, or in terms of the affected region or locality. Significance varies with the setting of the action (for example, site-specific or the Nation or region as a whole).

Consistent with these regulations, the EIS evaluated the affected environments and estimated potential environmental impacts in regions of influence for a variety of subjects. To identify the regions of influence, DOE considered whether potential impacts would be of a local, regional, or national character. Sections 3.1 and 3.2 contain more information on the regions of influence for repository- and transportation-related subjects, respectively.

The intensity of an impact refers to its severity. Judgments of severity must consider, in part, whether the action or impact would be beneficial or adverse; would affect public health or safety; would affect unique geographic characteristics; would be highly controversial or uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks; could establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects; could result in significant cumulative impacts; and would have the potential for adversely affecting cultural resources or endangered or threatened species and their habitats, and for violating relevant Federal, state, or local laws or requirements. In the EIS discussions of short- and long-term impacts (Chapters 4 through 8 and 10), DOE based its identification of the intensity of potential impacts on these factors.

3.2 (1240)
Comment - EIS000226 / 0003
Page 29 of the County/City EIS Scoping Report points out the need for the DEIS to consider distributional equity. Nowhere in the DEIS could we find any consideration of the inequitable distribution of risk and related impacts which will accrue to south-central Nevada.

Response
As discussed in Section 1.5.1 of the EIS, DOE received input from the public and a number of organizations during the scoping process. DOE considered that input, and modified the analytical approach to the EIS as appropriate. In addition, DOE identified comments and information, such as those on distributional equity, that it believes are unrelated to the scope or content of the EIS, or comments for which analyses would be uncertain and speculative. (Section 1.5.1 has been modified accordingly.)

3.2 (1242)
Comment - EIS000226 / 0005
If the DOE renders any decisions based upon the content within the DEIS, such decisions will be made without sufficient knowledge of the consequences of such actions upon the residents, visitors, institutions and environment of Lincoln County and the City of Caliente. The DOE’s failure to consider issues of concern to Lincoln County and the City of Caliente will preclude effective minimization of risk, minimization of impacts and maximization of benefits. DOE is encouraged to prepare a Final EIS, which addresses concerns raised in scoping by Lincoln County and the City of Caliente and which presents viable proposals for mitigation and compensation of impacts.

Response
The EIS examines socioeconomic impacts to Lincoln County in Sections 4.1.6 (for the repository) and 6.3 (for waste transport in Nevada). With regard to mitigation of impacts, any decision to provide assistance under Section 116 of the NWPA would be based on an evaluation of a report submitted by an affected unit of local government or the State of Nevada that documented probable economic, social, public health and safety, and environmental impacts, as described in Chapter 9.

3.2 (1268)
Comment - EIS000144 / 0003
You don’t have any fundamental understanding of the climate, hazards (both in terms of terribly fickle and unpredictable weather for seven months of each year, and equally unpredictable wildlife), and that you have willful pride and drive that enable you blindly to put the square peg of nuclear waste, both high and low level, into the round hole of Yucca Mountain, in spite of much evidence that it is a very poor storage site, due to potential volcanism and leakage into the groundwater from the fault zones, to say nothing of leakage due to the inability of mankind to make a container that is guaranteed to last 10,000-plus years.

Why haven’t you addressed problems of climate, lack of training of personnel to handle such emergencies locally, lack of proper highways to carry such hazardous waste, lack of attention to what will happen to the local economy in terms of stigma after a nuclear spill? (I’ll bet tourists don’t flock to Chernobyl.) What will happen to the environment at the Great Basin National Park if there is a nearby plutonium leak? How many people in what radius from the accident will die because of air and water-borne contamination in the event of such a leak?

You don’t address these, because it is easier to sell the project from a stance of wishful thinking and denial. I hope that’s your reason. I’d hate to think that once again, officials of the atomic bureaucracies see people on the transport routes, passing through Nevada, and natives as being expendable--expendable for at least twenty-seven years, while you haul waste over America.

Response
DOE has conducted a broad range of studies to obtain or evaluate information for the assessment of Yucca Mountain as a monitored geologic repository. In addition, the Department used input from a number of organizations including universities, other Federal agencies, the State of Nevada, counties, municipalities, other local governments, and Native American tribes and groups, as appropriate.

Appendix I of the EIS discusses the climate changes DOE considered in the repository performance analysis. With respect to emergency planning, Sections M.6 and M.7 describe the implementation of Section 180(c) of the NWPA. Consistent with Section 180(c), DOE would provide technical assistance and funds to states for training public safety officials of units of local government and Native American tribes through whose jurisdictions spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive would travel. DOE would institute this training before beginning shipments to the proposed repository. Based on comments received on the Draft EIS, DOE reexamined the issue of perceived risk and stigma and concluded that while stigmatization can be envisioned in some scenarios, it is not inevitable or measurable (see Section 2.5.4 and Appendix N of the EIS). Any stigmatization that could occur would likely be an aftereffect of unpredictable events such as a serious accident. As a consequence, DOE did not attempt to quantify any potential impacts from risk perception or stigma in this EIS, and did not incorporate risk perceptions or stigma as factors in reaching the results and conclusions set forth in this Final EIS.

DOE also recognizes that some information remains unavailable and might be incomplete and that uncertainties exist (see Section 2.5 of the EIS). Where information is unavailable or uncertainties exist, analysts identified a range of conservative assumptions. In such instances, the assumptions (and analytical methods) conservatively represent (that is, tend to overestimate) the reasonably foreseeable impacts that could occur from the Proposed Action and the No-Action Alternative.

3.2 (1299)
Comment - EIS000236 / 0007
Lincoln County and the City of Caliente recognize however, that many compelling reasons exist to move waste to a central repository, not the least of which may be to achieve long-term health and safety benefits. The fact remains that if waste is brought to Nevada, risks will be minimized or eliminated at existing storage sites and concentrated in south-central Nevada. Table 2-7 of the DEIS indicates that during the emplacement phase of the repository, risks will be highest along the transportation corridors used to move waste to Yucca Mountain. Lincoln County and the City of Caliente see this shifting of risks from current storage sites to Nevada as a question of equity, one that is not addressed at all within the DEIS. At a minimum, the Final EIS should provide an estimate of the cost and risk benefits which will accrue to the Nation by moving waste to Nevada.

Response
DOE believes that the EIS presents the requested information. The EIS compares the environmental consequences of the Proposed Action to construct, operate and monitor, and eventually close a repository to those of the No-Action Alternative, in which the materials would remain at the current storage sites. For example, Sections 2.1.5 and 2.2.3 provide cost estimates for the Proposed Action and the No-Action Alternative, respectively.

3.2 (1373)
Comment - EIS000432 / 0001
The biggest problem I have with the proposed draft is that with many of the situations involving any impact on the environment or people it uses words such as "unlikely." This seems to tell me that you are not really sure what will happen. If this is the case then I think you must wait and do more studies and tests. Granted, nothing is going to be a hundred percent positive for results but there is too much "maybe" or "small amounts" and "unlikely."

It doesn’t seem to me like there is enough information on the different issues to begin. The possibilities talked about in the draft seemed toned down or even sugar coated. I think the potential for disaster is much greater then estimated in the draft. Radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel can cause significant irreversible damage to the environment. I think there should be more time spent on something that has to last for thousands of years.

Response
DOE recognizes that the results and conclusions of some of the analyses have associated uncertainties, and describes these throughout the EIS.

3.2 (1390)
Comment - EIS000417 / 0002
In addition, many nuclear weapons were tested in this vicinity (both underground and atmospheric). Would this have a negative impact on the stability of geologic structures in which the YMP [Yucca Mountain Project] would be constructed.

Have these issues been adequately addressed in the draft EIS.

Response
The only impact that past or potential future weapons testing on the Nevada Test Site could pose to the repository would be ground motion associated with energy released from the detonation of a weapon (DIRS 103273-Walck 1996). The ground motion would be similar to the motion caused by an earthquake. Direct effects on the rock at Yucca Mountain in the form of fractures have not occurred from past weapons testing. The repository would be designed to withstand earthquakes that could generate ground motions of far greater magnitude than ground motions produced by weapons testing.

3.2 (1393)
Comment - EIS000418 / 0003
Another question raised in the effect of nearby nuclear weapons testing (as late as the previous decade) on the stability of geologic structures in this region. I did not notice any reference to this issue in the DEIS, and was wondering if it had been considered at all.

Response
The only impact that past or potential future weapons testing on the Nevada Test Site could pose to the repository would be ground motion associated with energy released from the detonation of a weapon (DIRS 103273-Walck 1996). The ground motion would be similar to the motion caused by an earthquake. Direct effects on the rock at Yucca Mountain in the form of fractures have not occurred from past weapons testing. The repository would be designed to withstand earthquakes that could generate ground motions of far greater magnitude than ground motions produced by weapons testing.

3.2 (1394)
Comment - EIS000294 / 0001
The scope of this EIS is obviously not accurate, compared to the impacts that this project apparently will have. I’ve heard my colleagues who generate nuclear waste clearly state that if the repository program does not go forward, their reactors will close. And if that is the case, then the continued operation of nuclear reactors has to be included in this environmental impact statement, and all the attendant risks and health impacts that go along with nuclear power generation. So clearly, if reactor closure is tied to Yucca Mountain, we have to put that squarely on the table and include that in this analysis.

Response
The continued viability of nuclear power, as identified in this comment, is beyond the scope of this EIS. The approval and development of the Yucca Mountain site as a repository would affect commercial nuclear powerplants only to the extent that spent nuclear fuel would be packaged and removed from storage for transport to the repository. The continued generation of electricity by these powerplants would be determined by other factors, including their ability to maintain a Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to operate, rate structures as set by state public service commissions, ability to maintain sufficient profitability, supply and demand, and others. The Commission has addressed the impacts of the operation of commercial nuclear powerplants in its environmental reviews of the applications submitted by the utilities to construct and operate the plants.

3.2 (1516)
Comment - EIS000442 / 0002
DOE [assumption] that the NWPA provides a road map for the EIS has resulted in essentially a myopic viewpoint of the locally prevalent and important issues associated with implementing the NWPA.

Nye County believes that the Draft [Environmental] Impact Statement should adequately assess most of the NWPA, not just the repository specific action, construction, operation, transportation, closure. The EIS must also evaluate the NWPA implementation activities as might be associated with the mitigation, quality and compensation.

By failing to address these aspects of the NWPA implementation, the EIS does not accurately portray the president, secretary and the public in the range of potential impacts of nature and the human environment. Some of the specific inadequacy of the Draft EIS includes alternatives evaluated. The DOE’s selection of the alternatives fails to meet the intent of the NEPA, even as qualified by the NWPA.

Response
The NWPA does not require DOE to evaluate alternatives to the repository. However, DOE chose to evaluate a No-Action Alternative to provide a basis for comparison with the Proposed Action. DOE believes that the inclusion of a No-Action Alternative in the EIS provides a better understanding of the expected impacts from the repository. With regard to mitigation, and technical and financial assistance, DOE would evaluate requests for assistance pursuant to Section 116 and 180 of the NWPA.

3.2 (1639)
Comment - EIS000520 / 0004
I am firmly convinced that this is a recipe for disaster for the following reason:

There is absolutely no guarantee that the proposed area will still be geologically stable over 10,000 years. I refuse to believe any so-called science that makes that claim. Therefore, the government is playing roulette with people’s futures, whether in the immediate (through transport accidents -- or terrorism), the "near" future (100 years when the casks degrade) or long-term (over 10,000 years of geologic uncertainty). It is not right that we put this problem on the shoulders of our descendants.

Response
DOE recognizes that the results of the EIS analyses often have some associated uncertainty. For example, differing views on the likelihood of volcanism near Yucca Mountain result from uncertainty in the volcanic hazard assessment. To address these uncertainties, DOE has performed analyses, conducted extensive volcanic hazard assessments, considered alternative interpretations of the geologic data, and consulted with recognized experts. In 1995 and 1996, DOE convened a panel of recognized experts from other Federal agencies (for example, the U.S. Geological Survey and national laboratories) and universities (for example, the University of Nevada and Stanford University) to assess uncertainties associated with the data and models used to evaluate the potential for disruption of the proposed repository by volcanic activity. To enable understanding of the status of the findings, the EIS describes such uncertainties. For example, Chapter 5 describes the analysis of repository long-term performance. Section 5.2.4 describes the uncertainties associated with predicting impacts over thousands of years, including such things as societal and climatic changes, and uncertainties because of currently unavailable data and the models and model parameters used to predict long-term performance.

3.2 (1742)
Comment - EIS000469 / 0004
Many critics have cited your lack of data and yet, as I understand the CEQ [Council on Environmental Quality] guidelines, they suggest a good environmental impact statement ought to be about as a benchmark, 150 pages. You have provided 1500 almost. So it is hard to imagine that there is much missing.

A strategy does seem to be emerging from opponents within Nevada, such as Senator Bryan, who spoke earlier today and issued a press release you should all know, so it will be in the morning headlines in the Las Vegas papers, about a lack of specificity in transportation, and I think some of this is inclined to instill fear among the 44 other states about the unknowns or, as Mr. Halstead [said], the things DOE won’t tell you.

Well, I think you have provided an adequate analysis in terms of the generic information from which each of those departments of transportation -- in my state, the Commonwealth of Virginia, I’m sure the DOT people are looking at that document, and they could very easily take the worst-case approach and assume all 70,000 tons are traveling through our infrastructure and analyze it accordingly.

Response
Thank you for your comment.

3.2 (1810)
Comment - EIS000332 / 0009
Additionally, the DEIS fails to consider alternatives that are currently being pursued (e.g., interim storage and Goshute Reservation in Utah), but evaluates alternatives that are illegal and do not meet DOE’s mandate to accept wastes. For example, DOE includes as part of the action proposal, analysis of the full DOE-responsible radiologic inventory through 2046 as part of the cumulative impact evaluation. The EIS must acknowledge that this scenario, which has not been proposed, would require additional legislation, at a minimum, and is an abandonment of the original 1982 compromise of the geographic equity envisioned as part of our Nation’s nuclear waste policy.

Response
The NWPA states that this EIS does not have to consider (1) the need for a geologic repository, (2) the time at which a repository could become available, and (3) alternatives to isolating spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste in a repository (see Section 1.5 of the EIS). DOE does not propose to develop an interim storage site and, thus, did not evaluate interim storage in the EIS. (As noted in Chapter 7, the EIS analyzed continuing storage at existing sites and/or one or more centralized locations in other contexts.)

Since the publication of the Draft EIS, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has published the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Construction and Operation of an Independent Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage Installation on the Reservation of the Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians and the Related Transportation Facility in Tooele County, Utah (DIRS 152001-NRC 2000). That EIS evaluates the potential construction of an interim storage facility that the Commission would license for storage of commercial spent nuclear fuel. DOE recognizes that interim storage at the Goshute Reservation facility is a reasonably foreseeable future action and has included this action as part of the cumulative impacts analysis in Chapter 8.

Chapter 8 of the EIS acknowledges that the disposal of more than 70,000 metric tons of heavy metal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste would require legislative action by Congress unless a second repository was in operation.

3.2 (1844)
Comment - EIS000365 / 0005
I would ask you to broaden the diversity of the people working on the EIS within the Department of Energy. I think that your shortsightedness results partly from a lack of understanding of the lifeways of people that you’re proposing to affect. And thank you very much for the opportunity to comment.

Response
DOE recognizes the importance of cultural diversity in the preparation and review of documents such as EISs. In relation to this EIS, the Department understands that an appreciation of environmental conditions, lifestyles, and other factors in areas near the proposed repository and transportation regions is important to the derivation of estimates of potential environmental impacts from the Proposed Action and No-Action Alternative. The Department used information and analyses (such as population and demographics) prepared by "local sources" such as the State of Nevada, counties, and Native Americans. (DOE also has relied on local input in soliciting public comments during the scoping process and during hearings on the Draft EIS and the Supplement to the Draft EIS. For this reason, DOE believes that the EIS reflects information and attributes important to the potentially affected populations.

3.2 (1924)
Comment - EIS000477 / 0004
Although I am only mentioning a few issues concerning the use of the Yucca Mountain site, it is my intent that there needs to be a more thoughtful process before any actual shipments or storage of radioactive materials is made. A more extensive study of the geological, ecological, human genetic, and mechanical effects and consequences of this facility (especially since it will be around 10-to-the-35th [power] years) need to be addressed and explained to the local population. In a democratic republic the ultimate decision rests with the majority, but who wants it in their backyard? Those individuals affected need to be heard.

Response
Section 1.3 of the EIS discusses the site approval process established by the NWPA, which requires the Secretary of Energy to gather data about the Yucca Mountain site and to determine whether to recommend the site for approval for a License Application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for repository development. The Secretary’s specific duties are to physically characterize the site; hold public hearings in the vicinity of the site; prepare a description of the site, including waste forms and packaging and site safety; and make a recommendation to the President on whether to approve the site for development as a repository. If the President considered the site qualified for application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a construction authorization, he would submit a recommendation to Congress. The Governor or Legislature of Nevada can object to the site; however, this objection could be overridden if Congress passed a joint resolution of repository siting approval and the President signed it into law. Performance confirmation activities, which would consist of tests, experiments, and analyses to evaluate the adequacy of information in any License Application, would continue until the beginning of repository closure operations (see Section 2.1.2.3 of the EIS).

3.2 (1985)
Comment - EIS000515 / 0002
The EIS seems to pay little attention to the prevention of human error.

Response
DOE recognizes that it is difficult to eliminate the potential for human error on any project. The Department developed the designs evaluated in the EIS to reduce that potential. Sections 4.1.8.1 and 4.1.8.2 of the EIS evaluate credible radiological and nonradiological accidents, respectively, that could occur at a repository. Section 6.2.4 describes transportation accidents. If there was a decision to construct and operate a repository at Yucca Mountain, employees would be required to conduct their work in accordance with applicable Nuclear Regulatory Commission and DOE safety requirements.

3.2 (2081)
Comment - EIS000883 / 0006
Incomplete health impact assessment.

Response
DOE believes that the analysis of health impacts associated with the construction and operation of a repository at Yucca Mountain as presented in the EIS is sufficient.

3.2 (2224)
Comment - EIS000622 / 0006
I think we need to really look at the National Environmental Policy Act which specifies clearly that it’s to be used to look at whether something will protect or enhance the environment and not to justify a decision that’s already in process or being made. There has been no other site looked at or no other method to isolate the waste that we’re talking about. And it seems to be a political decision. I think this is illegal, and I think it needs to be addressed a lot more clearly.

Response
The purpose of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is to promote an understanding of the environmental consequences of Federal actions prior to their implementation. The Act provides Federal agency decisionmakers with a process to consider potential environmental consequences (beneficial and adverse) of proposed actions. In general, the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA require that an agency examine the reasonable alternatives to the Proposed Action. However, in 1987, Congress amended the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and specified that it is not necessary for this EIS to consider the need for a repository, alternatives to geologic disposal, or alternative sites to Yucca Mountain. Section 1.5 of the EIS describes the environmental impact analysis process and its application to the proposed repository at Yucca Mountain.

3.2 (2236)
Comment - EIS000566 / 0003
The draft document is bogus and shameful, particularly because it doesn’t study anything that’s actually going to happen or that might happen. They do not talk about what the design of the repository will be, and they do not talk about what the transportation routes will be. Those are two very important parts of this project, wouldn’t you say? And yet, they won’t specifically speak in the EIS to those two parts of it.

Response
The Supplement to the Draft EIS, which DOE distributed to the public for comment, provides updated information to the public, with further information provided in Chapter 2 of the Final EIS. Chapter 6 and Appendix J discuss the design of the transportation system at Yucca Mountain, in Nevada, and across the country in terms of alternative transportation modes (rail, heavy-haul truck, legal-weight truck). DOE believes that the level of information in the EIS on the design of the repository and the design of the transportation system is sufficient to estimate environmental impacts.

3.2 (2284)
Comment - EIS000586 / 0002
So what problems may arise for Nevada and Clark County residents because of a deficient and incomplete EIS? Picture such an EIS supporting the decisions that need to be made by federal officials. This is the federally mandated document in which these officials expect to see a complete picture, one that addresses all the impacts of concern to us, like the conflict of designation of transport routes with local government plans and development plans.

For example, the City of Las Vegas is designing and planning a very large town center which would be cut in half by one of the proposed routes.

The City of North Las Vegas is negotiating to obtain 7500 acres of land for urban development near the proposed beltway that has also been mentioned as a potential route.

Response
DOE believes that the EIS adequately analyzes the issues associated with the construction, operation and monitoring, and closure of a repository at Yucca Mountain, including the potential for a heavy-haul truck route through parts of the Las Vegas Valley. In Chapter 8 of the EIS, the Department considered potential cumulative impacts which were based, in part, on reviews of available plans and studies for projects within the region. The Department, however, cannot estimate the potential impacts of activities that are speculative or in the idea stage because to do so could misrepresent the cumulative impacts of the Proposed Action.

3.2 (2337)
Comment - EIS000638 / 0004
The other thing that really concerns me, especially after hearing the presentations, is how many times I heard the word assume. Is that so many parts of the details of this project, the devil is in the details. We assume this, we assume that, we don’t know yet. It’s a concept. We assume. I think we all know the joke about assuming. And I think it’s very true in this case.

Response
The EIS acknowledges in Section 2.5 that the results and conclusions of analyses often have associated uncertainties. Uncertainties could be the result of the complexity and variability of the process, the use of incomplete information, or the unavailability of information. DOE describes such uncertainties throughout the EIS.

If information is incomplete or unavailable or if there are uncertainties, assumptions often enable analyses to proceed. In such instances the assumptions and analytical methods conservatively represent (that is, they tend to overestimate) the reasonably foreseeable impacts that could occur from implementing the Proposed Action.

3.2 (2379)
Comment - EIS001833 / 0001
An environmental impact statement is an inadequate document to fully assess the impacts of a project of this magnitude. Therefore, I request that a full environmental impact report [EIR] be done and submitted for review. This request is fully justified by existing law under NEPA [the National Environmental Policy Act] and the California law known as CEQA [the California Environmental Quality Act]. The new document should address the cumulative impacts of transporting high and low-level nuclear waste at the same time by railroad and truck, if indeed it needs to be transported at all. In addition, the document should address the pros/cons of leaving the waste on site (high level) versus transporting all over the country. Why is one site for all waste better than keeping it onsite or taking it just short distances to be stored?

It seems to me the risks from accidents in transports would be substantially reduced by shorter distances. If this is not true, then it should be proven in an EIR.

Additionally, the [EIR] should identify ALL locations that waste will be coming from, power plants, foreign as well as domestic, hospitals, research laboratories, universities, military sites, both foreign and domestic, and any other sites not identified but that the DOE would consider qualified for disposal in this project.

Response
DOE believes that this EIS is consistent with Council on Environmental Quality and DOE regulations on the implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act, and adequately analyzes the environmental impacts of the Proposed Action and the No-Action Alternative. The California Environmental Quality Act applies to actions that the State of California must approve.

DOE would not transport high- and low-level waste in the same shipments.

Chapter 8 of the EIS describes cumulative impacts from the transportation of radioactive materials. Chapter 6 and Appendix J describe transportation accident analyses. Chapter 1 and Appendix A identify the sources of spent nuclear fuel, high-level radioactive waste, Greater-Than-Class-C waste, and Special-Performance-Assessment-Required waste.

3.2 (2394)
Comment - EIS000763 / 0002
The Draft EIS provides a reasonable assessment of the risks associated with the implementation of disposal at the Yucca Mountain Site. It recognizes that there are risks and impacts and quantifies them. I believe, in many cases, due to the efforts to be conservative or error on the high side, it significantly over estimates the risks.

I suggest several items for the redraft of the EIS:

The major radiation risk to the off-site population, in the next thousands of years, is from the release of natural radon-222 from the repository formation.

The dose estimates should focus on realistic scenarios for both operations and accidents. The focus should be on best-estimate doses, with reduced emphasis on upper range doses and extremely low probability accidents.

Response
Section 4.1.2 of the EIS states that radiological air quality impacts could occur from releases of radionuclides, primarily naturally occurring radon-222 and its radioactive decay products, from the rock into the subsurface facility and then into the ventilation air during all phases of the proposed repository project. Section 4.1.7 describes radiological impacts to the public from these releases. These releases of radon would last only while the repository was open, which could last more than 300 years under the flexible design operating modes. When the repository was closed, radon releases would cease. Estimates of routine releases used the best current estimates of future repository characteristics and operating parameters. The EIS analyzed a spectrum of accidents, from high-probability/low-consequence accidents to low-probability/higher consequence accidents.

3.2 (2451)
Comment - EIS000717 / 0002
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement does not describe the proposed project in a way that allows for a reasonable analysis of its impacts. The document contains a number of design alternatives and options from which DOE will presumably choose. All of the design alternatives admittedly and inevitably result in releases of radionuclides from the repository into Nevada’s groundwater. The end result will be contamination of both drinking water and water used for agriculture. The Draft EIS simply does not inform the public what the future risks of the repository are to people and the environment.

Response
DOE acknowledges that the Draft EIS is complex, involving various implementing alternatives and scenarios. In recognition of this complexity, DOE analyzed a variety of alternatives and scenarios that would implement a Proposed Action to construct, operate (including transportation) and monitor, and eventually close a repository at Yucca Mountain. These alternatives and scenarios reflect potential repository design and operating modes (for example, thermal load scenarios, approaches to heat management) and waste packaging approaches (for example, canisters, disposal containers). Since the publication of the Draft EIS key aspects of the design (such as disposal container components and use of drip shields) have changed in ways that would be important to repository performance and reduction in uncertainties. To provide the updated information to the public, DOE published a Supplement to the Draft EIS that focused on the most recent design enhancements (called the flexible design), including several heat-management scenarios. DOE believes that the EIS adequately analyzes each element of the Proposed Action (such as waste handling facilities, heat management scenarios and transportation implementing alternatives and scenarios).

DOE has organized the EIS to present information, methods of analysis, and results of analyses in a clear and concise manner. For example, Chapter 5 discusses the consequences of long-term repository performance to humans and the environment, and Appendix I provides supporting information. Together, Chapter 5 and Appendix I discuss the locations of the reasonably maximally exposed individual and the population of concern for which impacts were estimated, and the waterborne and airborne radiological consequences for the various thermal load scenarios (among other aspects). The results of these analyses indicate that releases would be below applicable standards.

3.2 (2504)
Comment - EIS000764 / 0001
I believe that the DOE DEIS provides a comprehensive evaluation of the environmental impacts associated with the construction and operation of the proposed Yucca Mountain repository. Specifically, it is clear that the proposed facility can be constructed and operated to adequately provide for the protection of the public health and safety. Additionally, it serves to underscore the need for such a facility and that there are clear and convincing benefits to the construction of a central repository as opposed to the distributed long-term storage of commercial spent nuclear fuel among sites.

Response
Thank you for your comment.

3.2 (2505)
Comment - EIS000694 / 0004
You know the NRC [Nuclear Regulatory Commission], EPA [Environmental Protection Agency], and DOE, they’re all federal agencies, so they got to prove their credibility. There’s been an awful lot of study going on on Yucca Mountain.

A lot smarter people than I am have read it, reviewed it and agreed with it. The National Sciences Academy of professors. They say this is the route to go.

You know, this is the first repository DOE has done. This is the first repository NRC has licensed. This is the first standards EPA has had to set for a repository.

We got to give them folks some credit. They’ve done a lot of work trying to put this thing together and make it acceptable.

Response
Thank you for your comment.

3.2 (2538)
Comment - EIS001060 / 0008
We want a moratorium on any further plans or hearings until the entire State of Nevada has been archeologically and environmentally [studied] to prove Nevada is a suitable nuclear dumpsite and waste land!

Response
Congress, through enactment of the NWPA, assigned DOE the responsibility for evaluating the suitability of the Yucca Mountain site as a geologic repository for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste.

3.2 (2959)
Comment - EIS000727 / 0007
The DEIS finds that all the calculated risks are statistically insignificant, and thus do not require mitigation or compensation. This raises questions about the scientific validity of the YM [Yucca Mountain] Project. How can there be no major impacts to people or to the environment when a project of this scope and magnitude has never been attempted before?

Response
Section 2.4.1 of the EIS states that, although generally small, environmental impacts would occur under the Proposed Action. DOE would reduce or eliminate many such impacts with mitigation measures or implementation of standard Best Management Practices. The Department recognizes that it cannot ignore potential risks and that mitigation actions are a possibility.

DOE agrees that there is often a difference between calculated and perceived risk. However, the Department has focused its analyses on impacts that it can estimate. It is now up to the decisionmakers and regulators who represent the public to make informed decisions about the future of the project. The EIS presents probabilistic results showing the statistical risks for all of the impacts analyzed (see Table 5-4). In addition, the EIS includes an extensive discussion of uncertainties in the results (see Section 5.2.4). In general, the estimated impacts would be small, especially when measured against environmental and health standards. This does not mean that DOE takes the impacts lightly. A repository at Yucca Mountain would be a major, first-of-its-kind project and DOE recognizes the need for comprehensive analyses.

3.2 (3000)
Comment - EIS001067 / 0001
The last statement under Section S.8 is unacceptable. The DOE MUST be committed to research and development of additional measures to improve the long-term performance of the repository. Anything less is unacceptable. At least TRY to find better ways to mitigate the adverse effects of this thing for future generations.

Response
This comment is correct in that DOE has evaluated ways to improve the long-term performance of the repository, and would continue to perform such evaluations if the Yucca Mountain site was approved. DOE has modified the text in the Final EIS to clarify this fact.

3.2 (3083)
Comment - EIS000735 / 0011
The EIS indicates DOE’s preferred alternative is to proceed with [the] proposed action to construct, operate, monitor, and eventually close a geologic repository for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste at Yucca Mountain. How can DOE possibly arrive at a preferred alternative when there are no transportation routes designated.

Response
To indicate distinctions among available transportation modes in Nevada, and to define the range of potential impacts associated with each transportation mode, the EIS analyzes three transportation options for waste shipments to Yucca Mountain in Nevada—rail, legal-weight truck, and heavy-haul truck. The heavy-haul truck option would require an intermodal transfer facility to transfer the waste from railcars to the heavy-haul trucks.

DOE’s preferred waste-transport mode in Nevada is rail. The selection of a specific rail alignment in a corridor would require additional field surveys, State and local government consultations, environmental and engineering analyses, and National Environmental Policy Act reviews.

3.2 (3085)
Comment - EIS000735 / 0013
The analysis in the EIS appears to find many more potential impacts related to the no-action alternative than those connected with the preferred alternative.

Response
Section 2.4 of the EIS contains a comparison of the impacts between the Proposed Action and the No-Action Alternative. Based on this comparison, readers and decisionmakers can draw their own conclusions.

3.2 (3270)
Comment - EIS000602 / 0002
I didn’t read the study. It’s big. It’s got lots of paper. But in my opinion, I feel like it is kind of like a quick fix. We’re going to say we need to fix this, and not really look into what’s going to happen.

I just find a lot of lawsuits in the future for this because it does feel like it’s unfinished, it is an unfinished report. Unfinished in that I like the points where it didn’t have the flaws. What are the flaws? What about if it doesn’t work?

Response
The Federal Government would be responsible for the proposed repository in perpetuity. If, at some time in the future after the repository had been closed, there was a determination that the repository was not performing adequately, the Federal Government would take appropriate actions to protect public health and safety and the environment.

3.2 (3330)
Comment - EIS001123 / 0001
Our Coalition had a speaker to our last [monthly] meeting and was informed of many discrepancies that are in the large volume of information that was written. It seems to me that the Energy Department has not done all the studies that should be done to make sure that everyone across the whole United States would be safe from any leakage of the nuclear waste.

Please give us some consideration and do more studies before making a final decision on Yucca Mountain.

Response
With regard to the adequacy of studies at Yucca Mountain, DOE believes that the EIS adequately analyzes the environmental impacts that could result from the Proposed Action.

3.2 (3587)
Comment - EIS000550 / 0001
I guess my big comment is that being familiar with much of the science that’s going on at Yucca Mountain, I feel secure in the knowledge that it’s good science, it’s solid science, and it is revealing a lot to us.

Response
Thank you for your comment.

3.2 (3764)
Comment - EIS001029 / 0007
We need many more years of study to understand the geology of Yucca Mountain so that the citizens of Nevada can be protected from the radioactivity that is already there.

Response
Past underground testing of nuclear weapons has contaminated parts of the Nevada Test Site with radioactive materials. Extensive geologic and hydrologic studies at Yucca Mountain and on the Test Site have demonstrated that these materials have not migrated very far from the original points where the weapons were detonated.

3.2 (3898)
Comment - EIS000654 / 0001
I feel that the proposed action does not represent a solution to the problem of nuclear waste in America. In order to find a solution to that problem, real alternatives need to be addressed. This may not be entirely the fault of the DOE, but of the political process, but in order for a solution to be found, it is necessary to look at all of the alternatives, including reprocessing, transmutation, so forth. Also, I feel it is the fault of this process that basic uncertainties remain as to the nature of the problem, the quantity of waste to be disposed of, for example. Also the question of whether or not a second repository would eventually be needed as originally proposed.

What we don’t know about it, the Environmental Impact Statement, one large area of inadequacy in the document that I feel is the number of areas where conclusions have not been reached where the document simply states that additional studies would need to be done. In fact, the Environmental Impact Statement does not even adequately describe the Yucca Mountain proposal or how the site would be managed over the closure.

Response
The NWPA does not require DOE to evaluate alternatives to a geologic repository at Yucca Mountain. However, DOE chose to evaluate a No-Action Alternative to provide a basis for comparing the magnitude of potential environmental impacts of the Proposed Action.

The Proposed Action of this EIS is to construct, operate and monitor, and eventually close a geologic repository for the disposal of 70,000 metric tons of heavy metal (MTHM) of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste at Yucca Mountain. During the scoping period, DOE received comments that noted the potential existence of more than 70,000 MTHM of these materials and encouraged DOE to evaluate the total projected inventory. In addition, some commenters requested that the EIS evaluate the disposal of radioactive waste types that might require permanent isolation, such as Greater-Than-Class-C low-level waste and Special-Performance-Assessment-Required waste. For these reasons, DOE included a range of waste volumes and waste types in Chapter 8 of the EIS. The NWPA, however, requires the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to include in any construction authorization a prohibition against the emplacement of more than 70,000 MTHM in the first repository until a second repository is in operation.

DOE believes that the EIS adequately analyzes the environmental impacts that could result from either the Proposed Action or the No-Action Alternative. This belief is based on the level of information and analysis, the analytical methods and approaches used to represent conservatively the reasonably foreseeable impacts that could occur, and the use of bounding assumptions where information is incomplete or unavailable, or where uncertainties exit. DOE acknowledges that the results of analyses often have associated uncertainties, and has described such uncertainties throughout the EIS.

3.2 (3961)
Comment - EIS001106 / 0022
The issue of significant effects is problematic for the YMP [Yucca Mountain Project] because of the complexities involved. Among these are the context and intensity of an action and the threshold of disturbance to result in an environmental impact. Additional considerations include the degree of controversy involved, unknown risks associated with human health, and impacts being reasonably foreseeable.

Considerations such as thresholds, context, intensity, and long periods of time for effects to occur have not been articulated in the YMP DEIS. Consideration of the spectrum of hazards and risks of impacts and the feasibility of mitigation measures over long frames of time also is absent from the YMP DEIS.

Response
DOE disagrees with this comment. Consistent with Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR 1508.27), the Department considered thresholds, context, intensity, and duration in reaching conclusions on the significance of short- and long-term impacts to the natural and human environment from the implementation of the Proposed Action or the No-Action Alternative. These impact-related conclusions occur throughout Chapters 4 through 8 and Chapter 10 of the EIS, and Chapter 9 describes management actions that DOE would consider to reduce or mitigate adverse impacts.

3.2 (3992)
Comment - EIS000724 / 0006
For fifty years, this country has shied away from confronting the problems that the nuclear age has caused, and it is vital that we insist upon looking these problems in the face, finding sound solutions, and honestly characterizing the results of our decisions. If the DOE would draw an honest picture of the decision it has already made with regard to Yucca Mountain, this country would see that it is the wrong decision. If the DOE really believes that Yucca Mountain is safe, then it should do a full and honest analysis, which would require a complete rewrite of the DEIS.

Response
DOE could not pursue the use of Yucca Mountain as a repository until the Secretary recommended approval of the site to the President and the President and Congress, if necessary, approved the site. The Secretary will consider information from the site characterization program, the results of the environmental analyses in this EIS, and public input before making a determination whether to recommend the site to the President.

3.2 (4091)
Comment - EIS001374 / 0002
The DEIS fails to address the fact that as time passes, and as more is learned about the nature of the proposed Yucca Mountain site as well as the nature of the material it proposes to store, the worse it looks. With more knowledge, the probability that the facility will fail increases. The probability increases that failure will occur sooner rather than later, and that failure will be more rather than less destructive to biological systems, including humans. This general conclusion is based on increasing knowledge of the following physical characteristics:

We make no claim that this list is exhaustive, but it serves to document the point that as people learn more about the "show-stopper" problems with Yucca Mountain, rather than stopping the show and rethinking the "repository philosophy," standards are relaxed. Now, instead of being a permanent repository to contain radionuclides for the required period of time, Yucca Mountain is a "planned release" facility that at best will result in the long-term low-level exposure of untold numbers of people. And DOE is ignoring the evidence about the biological consequences of long-term low-level exposure, including the work of Dr. Abram Petkau. None of this is acceptable, and a repository under these conditions will not be allowed to operate.

Response
DOE has found no evidence to suggest that, as it gathers more information, the likelihood increases that the repository would fail. Rather, the physical, chemical, and biological information gathered by DOE and its contractors over the past few decades suggests that Yucca Mountain could be a suitable site for a repository.

The EIS addresses opposing views or views that differ from those of DOE if those views were based on scientific, regulatory, or other information supported by credible data and analytical methods. For example, Section 3.1.4.2.2 discusses opposing views on the nature of the groundwater system at Yucca Mountain. Opposing views on other subjects are discussed elsewhere in the EIS.

3.2 (4106)
Comment - EIS001476 / 0002
And as a scientific background, this document bothers me greatly because there are so many instances of imprecise language. That’s not really good to be using in scientific studies. Things like "unlikely" and "probably" and "maybe" and "computer models," and not a lot of facts are presented here. There’s a lot of supposition, and this is what we’re going to base this on. That bothers me a great deal.

Response
Section 2.5 of the EIS acknowledges that the results and conclusions of analyses often have associated uncertainties. Uncertainties could be the result of analyzing complex variables, using incomplete information, or the inability to obtain unavailable information. In these instances, DOE describes the uncertainties associated with the results and conclusions throughout the EIS.

When information is incomplete or unavailable or uncertainties exist, assumptions are often used to enable analyses to proceed. In such instances the assumptions and analytical methods conservatively represent (that is, tend to overestimate) the reasonably foreseeable future impacts that could occur from the Proposed Action and the No-Action Alternative.

3.2 (4224)
Comment - EIS001160 / 0040
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires federal agencies to consider "connected actions." Construction and operation of a repository at Yucca Mountain will result in spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste being transported through Nevada (and in all likelihood by legal-weight truck in the short-term). The prospect of transportation of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste through the Las Vegas Valley will likely trigger a decision by the Governor of Nevada to designate alternative routes. Therefore, the FEIS must consider the impacts of State of Nevada identified alternative routes as a connected action pursuant to NEPA.

Response
The EIS broadly defines the Proposed Action to encompass activities at commercial and DOE sites to prepare for spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste transport; the transport of these materials; and activities that would be necessary for the construction, operation and monitoring, and eventual closure of the repository. In addition, DOE identified other specific actions, such as the manufacture of shipping casks and disposal containers, that could not occur unless it developed the repository. DOE believes it has analyzed the scope of the Proposed Action in accordance with Council on Environmental Quality regulations.

The National Environmental Policy Act requires Federal agencies to analyze impacts that are reasonably foreseeable, not speculative. Consistent with the Act, the EIS analyses used current regulations governing highway shipments and historic rail industry practices to select existing highway and rail routes to estimate potential environmental impacts from waste transportation. Although Nevada has designated a state routing agency to the U.S. Department of Transportation, the State has not designated alternative preferred routes for Highway Route-Controlled Quantities of Radioactive Waste.

3.2 (4238)
Comment - EIS001160 / 0053
The DEIS conveys preconceived notions regarding the safety and efficacy of transportation of high-level nuclear waste and [its] subsequent storage at the Yucca Mountain site. Recognizing that transportation of hazardous materials and especially radioactive products has an excellent track record in the United States, and moreover that many great minds have established proven protocols to handling these products, White Pine County recommends that the results of this DEIS be reviewed by an independent technical group to ensure that analyses are appropriate and that all measures to effectively manage risk have been considered. While admittedly a costly measure, because of the nature of the material involved and longevity of the impact, a second study, ordered by the Congress of the United States, by another agency or group, might well be undertaken in an effort to confirm or dispute the findings in this report. At the very least, a group of experts in the various fields associated with this report, not associated with the Department of Energy or even the NRC [Nuclear Regulatory Commission] should be assembled and charged with the task to carefully review this document with the understanding that their comments would be accepted, utilized and indeed exercised even after the February 9, 2000 comment period expired.

Response
Title V of the NWPA established the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board as an independent organization in the Executive Branch. The Board is responsible for evaluating the technical and scientific validity of activities undertaken by the Secretary of Energy, including activities related to the packaging or transportation of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. Members of the Board are appointed by the President after being nominated by the National Academy of Sciences.

The Draft EIS and the Supplement to the Draft EIS were available for review by any person or group that requested a copy. DOE has considered all comments on the Draft EIS and the Supplement and, where appropriate, modified the EIS.

3.2 (4271)
Comment - EIS001160 / 0079
Page 1-24, Section 1.5.2 indicates that calculations were verified independently. The FEIS should indicate the nature of the independent verification (who was involved).

Response
The cited statement is a general observation on the process to verify and validate calculations used in the EIS. Chapter 13 lists the preparers, contributors, and reviewers in the EIS process.

3.2 (4650)
Comment - EIS001462 / 0001
I am a working nuclear chemical engineer, and I’ve read the statements and the summaries.

This EIS has addressed existing concerns and projected concerns for permanently siting a disposal facility at Yucca Mountain. The process has taken an extraordinary amount of time and effort. In fact, DOE has failed to meet opening date of objectives.

Response
DOE cannot comment on the issue of when or where it would take title to spent nuclear fuel currently in storage at reactor sites around the Nation because these issues are the subject of ongoing litigation. However, DOE is completing its program of investigations and evaluations of the Yucca Mountain site to enable the Secretary of Energy to determine whether to recommend the site to the President for development as a geologic repository for spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste.

3.2 (4709)
Comment - EIS001230 / 0004
Full Analysis

According to the "Purpose and Need for Action," in the Draft EIS, this EIS is being prepared to support DOE decision-making related to the Federal Government’s responsibility for permanent disposal of all SNF [spent nuclear fuel] and HLW [high-level radioactive waste]. Therefore, the INEEL CAB [Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory Citizen’s Advisory Board] recommends that each alternative include a full description of what would be done to manage the entire inventory of SNF and HLW, including any portions that would not be disposed at the geologic repository for any reason. In addition, the description of impacts under each alternative should include those impacts that would result from ongoing management of those wastes (any not disposed at the geologic repository) at their present locations.

Response
The EIS evaluates a Proposed Action to emplace 70,000 metric tons of heavy metal in the proposed geologic repository in accordance with the requirements of the NWPA. The future course that Congress, DOE, and the commercial utilities would take if Yucca Mountain did not receive a recommendation as a repository site is uncertain. Chapter 8 of the EIS evaluates potential environmental consequences of disposing of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste generated through 2046, for which DOE retains ultimate responsibility, at Yucca Mountain. However, disposal of more than 70,000 metric tons of heavy metal would require legislative action by Congress unless a second repository was in operation. Chapter 7 analyzes continued storage of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste at the 77 commercial and DOE sites where it is currently located.

3.2 (4799)
Comment - EIS001535 / 0002
Your risk assessment fails to adequately account for human error.

Response
DOE incorporated human error into the analyses for each resource area as appropriate. For example, the transportation analyses in Chapter 6 relied on accident rate information that reflects human error and other factors such as mechanical failure. As another example, the EIS analyzed potential accident scenarios at the repository that are based on human-initiated events (see Section H.2.1). For other areas, such as biological and cultural resources, impact estimates were determined primarily by loss or change of habitat and loss of individuals that is not attributable to human error, although indirect impacts from human activities (for example, accidental damage to cultural resources) were considered.

3.2 (4812)
Comment - EIS000938 / 0007
Page I-14, Section I.3.2.1, Identification of Waterborne Chemically Toxic Materials, Last Paragraph, Last Sentence: "...while there are radiological limits set for plutonium, no chemical toxicity benchmarks have been developed. Therefore, because of this lack of data to analyze chemical toxicity, plutonium was not analyzed for the chemical screening." Question? Can the Secretary of DOE sign off on this DEIS without knowing the result of the analysis? These questions must be answered.

Response
Although DOE was unable to analyze for chemical toxicity of plutonium because there are no established chemical benchmarks, it factored plutonium’s radioactive nature into the potential long-term human health impacts of the proposed repository. Section 2.5 of the EIS acknowledges that some information is incomplete or not available, and it identifies where DOE has used incomplete information to identify uncertainties in the data or analytical approaches. In addition, the EIS describes the relevance and importance of the incomplete or unavailable information and the assumptions and preliminary information used in the analysis. DOE has done this to help the reader understand the results or conclusions and their context. If the Secretary of Energy, the President, or Congress believed that these uncertainties were substantial enough to delay the program, a decision to put the project on hold could occur at any time during the approval process.

3.2 (4851)
Comment - EIS001215 / 0002
The draft EIS is another part of a piecemeal and confusing decision making process. Other EIS’s conducted by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) indicate Hanford’s high-level waste will go to a national repository. The Yucca Mountain EIS does not support that conclusion. DOE must reconcile these divergent decision-making documents and should involve the states and tribes in this effort.

Response
This comment is correct in that the Record of Decision for the Tank Waste Remediation System, Hanford Site EIS (62 FR 8693, February 26, 1997) indicates that DOE would dispose of high-level radioactive waste in a national repository. That Record of Decision, however, did not make a determination on disposal and did not specify the Yucca Mountain site as the national repository. The analyses in this EIS include the high-level radioactive waste from the Hanford Site.

3.2 (4922)
Comment - EIS001510 / 0007
The DEIS is problematic in its entirety because the project is based upon the assumption that environmental conditions will remain relatively unchanged in the next 300 years, yet this is a factor over which we, as humans, have no control. The report seems to neglect several features of the surrounding area which may render it even more dangerous when radioactive waste is placed into the mountain, such as its previous volcanic activity and the likelihood of earthquakes. When dealing with a substance as potentially lethal as radioactive waste, assumptions that there will be no significant, unpredictable changes in the future environment pose a very serious threat to public health.

Response
This comment is correct in that the short-term impact analyses assumed, for the most part, that environmental conditions would remain unchanged for the foreseeable future. For some resources (for example, biological, soils, cultural), conditions would be unlikely to change in such a way that impacts could be predicted. Impacts to these resources would depend primarily on the amount of habitat disturbed from the construction, operation, and closure of the repository. For other conditions, such as socioeconomics, estimated changes in population can reflect future trends. DOE has modified Section 3.1.7 of the EIS to reflect changes in population through 2035. For still other conditions, impact analyses can be based on future predictions. For example, the EIS analyzes the potential impacts from a variety of accidents, such as a seismic event, which has a probability of occurring of greater than or equal to 1 in 10 million during the operating life of the repository (see Section 4.1.8, for example). DOE assessed the potential for volcanic activity and found that the probability of an event intersecting the repository would be below the frequency of a credible event. In addition, DOE considered the impacts of a regional event (ash fall), and concluded that such events would not affect repository structures. Section H.2.1.3 contains more information.

3.2 (5175)
Comment - EIS001443 / 0004
Our evaluation of the project and DOE’s mandate under the NWPA reveal that DOE has failed to effectively and objectively exercise [its] authority and obligation under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to develop and analyze realistic project alternatives on a level equal to that provided for the proposed repository. Treatment of cumulative impacts and indirect effects under NEPA are also seriously compromised.

Response
The EIS evaluated the Proposed Action to construct, operate and monitor, and eventually close a repository. Under the NWPA the EIS is not required to consider alternatives to isolating spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste in a repository. However, to provide a basis for comparison with the Proposed Action, the EIS analyzes a No-Action Alternative, under which spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste would remain at 72 commercial and 5 DOE sites across the country.

The EIS analyses (especially Chapters 4, 6, and 7) considered direct and indirect effects of the Proposed Action, consistent with Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 CFR 1508.8). Chapter 4 considers the direct impacts caused by implementing the action. Chapter 6 discusses the impacts of transportation. Chapter 5 considers the impacts of long-term repository performance, indirect impacts that would occur later but are still reasonably foreseeable. Because of the need to evaluate impacts that would occur far in the future (10,000 years), some EIS analyses had to use incomplete information. The EIS identifies the use of incomplete information or the unavailability of information to identify uncertainties in the data or analytical approaches.

The analysis of cumulative impacts in Chapter 8 of the EIS evaluated the impacts of repository activities coupled with the impacts of other Federal, non-Federal, and private actions consistent with Council of Environmental Quality requirements (40 CFR 1508.7). The analysis considered past and present actions (such as activities at the Nevada Test Site and the Beatty Waste Disposal Area) and reasonably foreseeable future actions such as activities at the Nellis Air Force Range and the continued operation and expansion of a gold mine and processing facility. Table 8-1 lists the activities DOE considered in analyses of cumulative impacts.

3.2 (5185)
Comment - EIS001443 / 0010
CEQ [Council on Environmental Quality] regulations concerning treatment of direct and indirect project effects require that indirect effects, which are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance but are still reasonably foreseeable be analyzed by the EIS (40 CFR 1508.8). The DEIS fails to address a number of impacts which DOE may view as indirect effects of the project. These impacts are discussed in detail in later sections of this commentary. By way of example, the most obvious effect of the project -- which DOE apparently considers indirect and unworthy of analysis at this time -- is the extensive transportation campaign necessary to move nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain. Operation of the proposed repository unquestionably includes the creation of new risks accruing to transportation of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste to the repository site from locations all across the United States. The transportation campaign required to move waste into Yucca Mountain is later in time, generally further removed in distance and unquestionably foreseeable, yet the DEIS does not attempt to quantify the impact of the transportation campaign or develop the range of transportation alternatives necessary to compare risks to human populations and infrastructure. Even if the Department of Energy considers the transportation impacts associated with development and operation of the repository indirect effects of the project, the DEIS must include meaningful analysis of indirect effects of the project if the DEIS is to be considered a credible attempt to comply with NEPA [the National Environmental Policy Act]. The NEPA exemptions provided DOE by the NWPA do not include exemption from addressing such effects.

Response
DOE considered the potential environmental impacts associated with all elements of the Proposed Action in the EIS, including transportation activities. Chapter 6 of the EIS addresses the potential impacts of transporting spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste to a repository at Yucca Mountain. Appendix J contains more information on transportation impacts.

The Secretary of Energy will consider the potential impacts associated with the transportation of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste when determining whether to recommend Yucca Mountain to the President as the site of this Nation’s first monitored geologic repository. Although no transportation decisions would be made unless and until the site was designated, DOE believes that the EIS provides the information necessary to make decisions on the basic approaches (for example, mostly rail or mostly truck shipments), as well as the choice among alternative rail corridors in Nevada. DOE would prepare additional National Environmental Policy Act studies and documentation for the specific alignment of a rail route in an identified corridor.

3.2 (5238)
Comment - EIS001887 / 0004
The comments contained in the following Parts of this document present, in both general and specific terms, compelling evidence that DOE’s Draft EIS is both legally and substantively deficient in numerous ways. In addition, the State of Nevada contends that the procedures used by DOE to notify those people potentially affected by the Proposed Action and to solicit public input as required by NEPA [National Environmental Policy Act] are likewise deficient and in violation of NEPA statutory provisions and implementing regulations.

The State of Nevada asserts that the Draft EIS fails to appropriately reflect the unique nature and scope of the Yucca Mountain program. It does not adequately assess impacts associated with the repository and related activities, and it is not in compliance with either the letter or spirit of NEPA. The State formally reiterates its assertion that a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for the high-level radioactive waste (HLW) program should have been, and still should be, prepared. The unique, first-of-a-kind nature, complexity, and unprecedented time scale of the federal HLW program require the preparation of a PEIS, with project-specific EISs for related program elements tiered to the PEIS. The HLW program is simply too massive in scope and overwhelming in complexity for DOE to attempt to use a single EIS as the vehicle for assessing impacts and making programmatic decisions. By preparing a narrowly focused, non-programmatic EIS such as the Draft released for comment (and then indicating that it will be the basis for some program decisions and not for others), DOE is circumventing the intent of the National Environmental Policy Act.

After an extensive review of the Draft EIS and associated reference materials, the State of Nevada finds the document so inadequate and deficient as to require its withdrawal and the immediate announcement by DOE of the intent to prepare a new programmatic EIS sufficient to evaluate program-wide impacts and support program-level decisions that are reasonable and defensible. PEIS development process should begin with a new scoping process designed to actively and meaningfully obtain public input on the content and nature of the data and analyses necessary to define alternatives at the program level and to identify and assess potential impacts to the physical and human environment.

The impacts associated with the proposed high-level radioactive waste repository at Yucca Mountain, thousands of miles distant from the majority of U.S. nuclear power reactors, will affect the State of Nevada as well as at least 42 other states, hundreds of cities, and thousands of communities located along highways and rail lines that would be used for waste transportation. The program that the PEIS must address is unprecedented for a federal project in its scope, time frame, and the geographical area it encompasses. It is also unique in that the EIS must assess not only the more traditional effects of a large and complex project -- impacts to the environment, to public health and safety, to area populations, and to state and local economies -- but the EIS must also address those impacts that derive from the highly controversial nature of this activity and the fact that the program involves the handling, movement, storage, and disposal of extremely hazardous nuclear materials. It is the nuclear nature of this undertaking that makes it different from more traditional federal projects and requires an EIS that fully examines a broader range of impacts (including those related to risk, risk perception, and stigma) in Nevada as well as in states and communities through which spent nuclear fuel and HLW must pass en route to a Yucca Mountain repository.

The existing Draft EIS fails to undertake this type and level of analysis. DOE must reconsider its entire approach to NEPA compliance and commit itself to a producing a comprehensive and adequate programmatic environmental impact statement. Schedule pressures and perceived political imperatives should not be permitted to obstruct the implementation of a truly adequate NEPA process and decision documents that must provide justification and guidance for a ten thousand year program.

Response
DOE agrees that the scope of the Yucca Mountain Program (and the EIS) is highly complex and has many unique features. In recognition of this complexity and of the EIS-related provisions of the NWPA, DOE analyzed a variety of alternatives and scenarios that would implement a Proposed Action to construct, operate and monitor, and eventually close a repository at Yucca Mountain. These alternatives and scenarios reflect design considerations, waste packaging approaches, and modes, routes, and corridors for transporting spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste to Yucca Mountain from 77 commercial and DOE sites. DOE also analyzed a No-Action Alternative with two scenarios that provide a basis for comparison with the Proposed Action and reflect the range of impacts that could occur.

The Proposed Action and No-Action Alternative, involving various implementing alternatives and scenarios, are complex (and relatively costly to analyze). In recognition of this complexity, DOE organized the EIS to present information, methods of analysis, and results of analyses as clearly and concisely as possible. For example, Chapter 5, which presents the environmental consequences of long-term repository performance, consists of sections that address the important elements of the evaluations—the inventory for performance analysis calculations, an overview of the repository system, locations for which DOE estimated impacts, waterborne radiological consequences, atmospheric radiological consequences, consequences from chemically toxic materials, consequences from disruptive events, nuclear criticality, consequences to biological resources and soils, and a summary. Appendix I contains more detailed information.

For each alternative, the EIS evaluates the affected environments and estimates potential impacts in regions of influence for a variety of subjects. DOE selected these regions and subjects for analysis consistent with Council on Environmental Quality regulations that indicate that the data and analyses should be commensurate with the likely importance of the potential impact (40 CFR 1502.15). Thus, the Department addressed the various environmental impacts in proportion to their potential significance. The EIS uses less detail to address clearly insignificant or minor impacts.

In the EIS, DOE used information from a broad range of studies to obtain or evaluate the information needed for the assessment of Yucca Mountain as a repository. These include, for example, reports and studies sponsored by DOE, other Federal agencies, the State of Nevada, and affected units of local government (see Chapter 3 for additional information).

Further, as discussed in Section 2.5 of the EIS, DOE identified the use of incomplete information or the unavailability of information to ensure reader understanding, in accordance with Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR 1502.22). In addition, the EIS acknowledges that the results and conclusions of analyses often have associated uncertainties (see Section 2.5) and describes such uncertainties and associated results as appropriate.

To resolve some of the uncertainties and provide information about the repository design that became available after publication of the Draft EIS, DOE published a Supplement to the Draft EIS. The Supplement focused on the most recent design enhancements, including various operating modes to manage the heat generated by emplaced spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. DOE believes that the EIS adequately analyzes each element of the Proposed Action (such as waste handling facilities, heat management scenarios, and transportation implementing alternatives and scenarios).

The National Environmental Policy Act. The purpose of the National Environmental Policy Act is to promote an understanding of the environmental consequences of major Federal actions before agencies take action. The Act does not prohibit activities that harm the environment; rather, it requires Federal agencies to disclose the extent of such environmental harm, and the environmental benefits if any, to the public and agency decisionmakers. DOE believes that this EIS appropriately describes the type and magnitude of environmental impacts that could occur if it was to construct, operate and monitor, and close a repository at Yucca Mountain.

Public Involvement. As discussed in Section 1.5.1 of the EIS, DOE conducted public scoping in 1995, eventually holding 15 public meetings around the country. The Department used this process to determine the scope of the EIS and to identify the major issues it would analyze in depth. The Draft EIS was the outcome of this process. After issuing the Draft EIS, DOE held 21 public hearings in communities around the State of Nevada and across the country that transportation activities could affect. Consistent with Council on Environmental Quality and DOE regulations on the National Environmental Policy Act, the Federal Register published a notice of these meetings. In addition, DOE advertised the meetings in local newspapers. The Department recognizes that it was not always successful in providing several days notice in the newspapers. In addition, the public comment period for the Draft EIS lasted more than 6 months, giving commenters sufficient time to review the document and to submit comments. In May 2001, DOE issued the Supplement to the Draft EIS, which it distributed to more than 4,000 stakeholders in Nevada and nationwide. These stakeholders were encouraged to submit comments during a 45-day comment period, which was later extended to 57 days. In June, during a review of its mailing records, the Department discovered that had inadvertently not sent the Supplement to the Draft EIS to about 700 stakeholders who had requested and received a copy of the Draft EIS. DOE announced this oversight and sent the Supplement to the Draft EIS to these stakeholders, and provided them an opportunity to submit comments during a separate 45-day comment period. Despite the respective deadlines, DOE has considered to the extent practicable all comments received in the development of the Final EIS.

Need for a Programmatic EIS. The NWPA requires DOE to prepare an EIS to examine the impacts that could occur as a result of constructing and operating a geologic repository for high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel at Yucca Mountain. DOE believes that this EIS adequately analyzes the impacts that could result from either the Proposed Action or the No-Action Alternative. DOE might need to prepare subsequent, project-specific National Environmental Policy Act documents before it could site, build, and operate a branch rail line or intermodal transfer station. In that regard, this EIS is an assessment of the impacts of the repository program, to which DOE would tier (link) other documents.

An earlier EIS (DIRS 104832-DOE 1980) analyzed environmental impacts that could occur if DOE developed and implemented various technologies for the management and disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. It examined several alternatives, including mined geologic disposal, very deep hole disposal, disposal in a mined cavity that resulted from rock melting, island-based geologic disposal, subseabed disposal, ice sheet disposal, well injection disposal, transmutation, space disposal, and no action. The 1981 Record of Decision for that EIS (46 FR 26677; May 14, 1981) announced the DOE decision to pursue the mined geologic disposal alternative for the disposition of spent nuclear fuel and high level radioactive waste.

Risk perception and stigma. The EIS addresses potential risks to human health and the environment as a result of the proposed siting, construction, operation, and closure of a repository at Yucca Mountain. While stigmatization can be envisioned in some scenarios it is not inevitable or measurable. Any stigmatization that could occur would likely be an aftereffect of unpredictable events such as a serious accident. However, because of the comments received on this subject, DOE reexamined the relevant literature and assessed the state of research into the perception-based impacts and stigma effect (see Section 2.5.4 and Appendix N of the Final EIS).

3.2 (5260)
Comment - EIS001887 / 0018
For the low thermal load repository, the Draft EIS would include Area 5, in order to provide sufficient underground emplacement area. Area 5 has not been the object of site characterization and, therefore, should not be included in the Draft EIS or repository planning until it has been characterized. The Secretary’s site recommendation is to be made at the completion of site characterization according to the NWPA. In the case of the low thermal load alternative design, site characterization has not been completed in a portion of the area included in the Proposed Action. If the low thermal load alternative is to be considered a reasonable alternative, which it must if it is included in the Draft EIS, this Draft EIS should be deferred until after characterization of Area 5 is satisfactorily completed.

Response
This comment is correct in that there was less site characterization information available for Area 5 than for the Upper and Lower Blocks (see Figure 2-16 of the Draft EIS). This information was most relevant to analyses for long-term performance. The Draft EIS assumed that information available for areas adjacent to Area 5 was sufficient for purposes of analysis. Section I.4.2.3 of the Draft EIS discussed this assumption. Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR 1502.22) require a Federal agency to identify the use of incomplete information or the unavailability of information to identify uncertainties in the data or analytical approaches. DOE complied with this requirement, as demonstrated by the information in Section I.4.2.3 of the Draft EIS.

Based on the evolving nature of the repository design, as discussed in the Supplement to the Draft EIS, DOE has revised the EIS to discuss the most recent design scenarios (higher- and lower-temperature repository operating modes). The analyses of these scenarios included assumptions similar to those made about Area 5 for the low thermal load scenario in the Draft EIS. As with the Area 5 analysis, DOE believes that the information available for adjacent areas is sufficient to help in the determination of impacts. This Final EIS does not address the high, intermediate, and low thermal load scenarios in detail because the repository design has evolved beyond them.

3.2 (5331)
Comment - EIS001887 / 0059
Page 1-21; Section 1.5.1 - Notice of Intent and Scoping Meetings. The State of Nevada reiterates its objection to the manner in which the scoping process for the Draft EIS was handled, both in Nevada and elsewhere. In comments on the proposed scope of the Yucca Mountain EIS in 1995, the State found that the notices of the scoping meetings did not adequately describe the Proposed Action and its implications for people along transportation routes. DOE failed to indicate the true national scope of the high-level waste program and deliberately chose not to make people aware of the potential transportation routes through their communities - and the consequent risks from spent nuclear fuel (SNF) and HLW [high-level radioactive waste] shipments - as part of the notices for scoping meetings. Failure to adequately inform potentially affected citizens of possible consequences of the Proposed Action for their communities created a situation where public participation in the EIS scoping process was suppressed, as evidenced by the poor turnout at most of the EIS scoping meetings. In effect, DOE disenfranchised people throughout the country who stand to be substantially affected by the proposed repository program and who were not afforded adequate opportunity to participate in the initiation of the NEPA [National Environmental Policy Act] process.

In addition to DOE’s failure to adequately notice the scoping Draft EIS hearings, the information contained in the original Notice of Intent (NOI) and DOE’s informational presentations at the beginning of each scoping meeting misrepresented and, in certain instances, distorted the Yucca Mountain program and its possible impacts. For example, no information was provided on the possible unfavorable conditions present at the Yucca Mountain site. The implementation alternatives contained in the NOI failed to include any discussion of the relationship between thermal load, the space required for waste emplacement, and the capacity constraints at the Yucca Mountain site. Inadequate information was provided on the relationship between regional (i.e., Nevada-specific) and national transportation impacts and analyses, and misleading information was provided regarding transportation regulations, waste volumes required to be transported, and the possible modes and routes for SNF and HLW transportation.

The inadequate meeting announcements and the incomplete information presented led to a recommendation by the State that DOE extend the scoping period and initiate new scoping meetings. DOE rejected the State’s recommendation and proceeded with development of the Draft EIS.

The fact that the repository project description "evolved" significantly from the time of the scoping meetings in 1995 to the issuance of the Draft EIS in August 1999 created a situation wherein the "project" that was presented in scoping materials and hearings is now unrecognizable in the Draft EIS. The conceptual design for the repository in 1995 relied primarily on the geologic environment for waste isolation, while the "evolved" design of this Draft EIS places primary waste containment emphasis on engineered barriers, with little or no credit taken for the isolation capabilities of the Yucca Mountain geology. In addition, the three thermal load scenarios specified in the 1995 scoping materials and carried forward into the Draft EIS no longer reflect the thermal conditions postulated for the current preferred repository design.

For all these reasons, the original scoping process and scoping meetings should be considered inadequate as well as irrelevant to the current state of the proposed repository program. DOE should be required to re-scope the project and reissue the Draft EIS using the information obtained from the new public scoping process, as required under NEPA.

Response
The Council on Environmental Quality guidance for the scoping process identifies the following objectives: (1) identify the concerns of the affected public and the agency; (2) facilitate an efficient EIS preparation process; (3) define the issues and alternatives that the EIS will examine in detail, and simultaneously devote less attention and time to issues that cause no concern; and (4) save time in the overall process by helping to ensure that draft EISs adequately address relevant issues, reducing the possibility that new comments will cause the agency to rewrite or supplement a statement. DOE believes that its scoping process was consistent with these objectives.

DOE believes that its approach to the public involvement process during the development of the EIS is consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act, Council on Environmental Quality and DOE regulations, and DOE guidance on public participation during the preparation of EISs. As discussed in Section 1.5.1 of the EIS, DOE conducted the public scoping process from August 7 through December 5, 1995. To encourage broad participation, before beginning the scoping period DOE notified stakeholders, the media, Congressional representatives, the Office of the Governor of Nevada, affected units of local government, Native American tribes, and Federal agencies of its plan to prepare the EIS and its approach to the scoping process. The Department held meetings to discuss the Proposed Action and alternatives, the schedule of scoping meetings, and the means by which DOE intended to solicit public comments. A series of information releases notified stakeholders of the opportunity to comment. Press releases and public service announcements were submitted to newspapers and radio and television stations. DOE representatives met with local television, radio, and newspaper reporters before each meeting to provide information about the repository program, the EIS, and the scoping process. Information about the repository program was inserted in utility bills, and informational flyers and fact sheets were distributed at each scoping location and by request.

At the beginning of each scoping meeting DOE described the repository program, the EIS, and the scoping process. The public was encouraged to ask questions and to discuss particularly important aspects of the program with DOE and with members of the technical staff. The formal public comment portion of the meeting began after the question-and-answer period. At each meeting DOE set up a separate information room containing exhibits and handouts about the repository program and the EIS, and technical representatives were present to answer questions and discuss issues.

The repository design has evolved to reflect ongoing evaluations and other influences such as public comments and design and performance-related reviews by external organizations, such as the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board. In May 2001, DOE issued the Supplement to the Draft EIS, which it distributed to more than 4,000 stakeholders. The Supplement focused primarily on matters involving repository design, and the Department held three public hearings in Nevada during the comment period.

On this basis, DOE considered all comments and information received during scoping, issued a summary of scoping comments (DIRS 104630-YMP 1997), and modified the analytical approach to the EIS accordingly. DOE also identified the comments and information that it believed to be unrelated to the scope or the content of the Proposed Action (see Section 1.5.1). In the Final EIS, Section 1.5.1 explains that some scoping comments were not addressed in the EIS because they would result in analyses that would be uncertain or speculative and, thus, would not be meaningful.

3.2 (5333)
Comment - EIS001887 / 0061
Page 1-24; Section 1.5.3 - Relationship to Other Environmental Documents

This section includes the 1996 Final EIS for the Nevada Test Site (NTS) but does not mention the important DOE-NTS Resources Management Plan that should have been used as the model for the Yucca Mountain environmental assessment. This issue, essentially involving the use of ecosystem management, is further discussed in Attachments F, G, H, I, J, K, and L.

Response
DOE believes that the assessment method used in the preparation of the EIS is appropriate and sufficient for evaluating potential environmental impacts of the Proposed Action and the No-Action Alternative. Contrary to the suggestion in this comment, DOE incorporated principles of ecosystem management, such as those discussed by the Council on Environmental Quality, in the analysis methods.

For example, DOE evaluated impacts on long-term ecosystem functions, integrity, and biodiversity at appropriate scales and levels of organization. The evaluation of potential impacts of repository construction on biological resources concentrated primarily on the species level of ecological organization because the impacts would be localized and most likely to occur at that level. Section 4.1.4 of the EIS concludes that the removal of vegetation from the relatively small area required for the implementation of the Proposed Action and the impacts to some species would not affect regional biodiversity or ecosystem function.

3.2 (5340)
Comment - EIS001887 / 0066
Page 2-6; Section 2.1.1 - Overview of Implementing Alternatives and Scenarios

Since titanium drip shields are required for all repository design scenarios discussed in the Draft EIS, DOE must also address resource impacts and costs associated with the acquisition and manufacture of the drip shields.

Response
The design evaluated in the Draft EIS did not include drip shields. Since DOE issued the Draft EIS, key aspects of the design (such as disposal container components and the use of drip shields) have changed in ways that would be important to repository performance and reduction in uncertainties. DOE published the May 2001 Supplement to the Draft EIS, which focuses on the most recent design enhancements. Section 3.1.15 of the Supplement and Section 4.1.15 of the Final EIS discuss the offsite manufacture of titanium drip shields. The use of drip shields is incorporated into the costs shown in Section 2.1.5.

3.2 (5342)
Comment - EIS001887 / 0065
Page 2-6; Section 2.1.1 - Overview of Implementing Alternatives and Scenarios

It appears that DOE has chosen to segment the Proposed Action into various transportation and repository development activities. Such activities are further subdivided into a national and a Nevada-specific transportation program. The transportation program includes the off-site manufacture of shipping casks and disposal containers, construction of a potential rail line to Yucca Mountain, and development of heavy-haul truck capabilities using one or more intermodal (rail to truck) waste transfer facilities. For repository development, DOE has divided activities into surface and sub-surface repository construction. Such segmentation is incompatible with the requirements of a comprehensive assessment of impacts and, in the absence of a Programmatic EIS and tiered EISs for related program components, may be in violation of NEPA [the National Environmental Policy Act].

Because of the multitude of uncertainties associated with these activities, along with the evolving nature of the program, the Draft EIS depends on an analytical environmental impact process that "bounds" impacts likely to result from the Proposed Action. This bounding analysis supposedly incorporates assumptions so conservative that they overstate the risks and thereby fully address the multitude of program impacts and uncertainties. While this approach is typically used for Programmatic EIS documents, this Draft EIS is not a Programmatic EIS.

There are also outstanding and potentially significant non-programmatic issues that are part of the Proposed Action that must be specifically evaluated in the Draft EIS. These issues should not be misrepresented as programmatic alternatives evaluated through a "bounding analysis." For example, Navy spent fuel in storage at the Idaho National [Engineering and Environmental] Laboratory will be shipped by rail to a geologic repository. Consequently, either rail access to Yucca Mountain will be developed or an intermodal waste transfer facility and heavy-haul trucks will be required to move Navy spent fuel to a Yucca Mountain repository. Since the Draft EIS is not a programmatic document and fails to evaluate the impacts of moving Navy fuel to Yucca Mountain, supplemental NEPA documents must be prepared to assess such impacts. To do otherwise misrepresents the NEPA process.

Response
The NWPA establishes a Federal policy for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste.

Council on Environmental Quality regulations indicate that an agency is to determine the scope of an EIS by considering three types of actions—connected actions, cumulative actions, and similar actions. Connected actions are defined, in part, as those that cannot or will not proceed unless other actions occur previously or simultaneously, or are interdependent parts of a larger action and depend on the larger action for their justification. Consistent with these definitions, DOE broadly defined the Proposed Action to encompass (1) the transport of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste from generator and storage sites to the proposed repository and (2) activities necessary for the construction, operation and monitoring, and eventual closure of a repository.

DOE identified other actions, such as fabrication of shipping casks and disposal containers, that could not proceed unless DOE developed the repository. The EIS analyses identified fundamental differences between the elements of the Proposed Action (for example, transportation versus subsurface emplacement), and reflected their temporal and geographic differences (for example, long-term repository performance impacts versus short-term operational health and safety impacts). For these reasons, DOE believes that it has developed and analyzed the scope of the Proposed Action without segmentation and consistent with Council on Environmental Quality regulations.

DOE also believes that the information and analyses of the EIS are appropriate given:

As discussed in Section 2.5 of the EIS, uncertainties could be the result of the complexity and variability of the process being analyzed, the use of incomplete information, or the unavailability of information. DOE describes such uncertainties throughout the EIS. Thus, in some instances, such as if information is incomplete or unavailable or uncertainties exist, the Department identified assumptions to enable analyses to proceed. In such instances DOE chose the assumptions and analytical methods to represent conservatively, rather than bound, the reasonably foreseeable impacts that could occur from the Proposed Action and the No-Action Alternative.

DOE cannot predict with certainty the mode of transportation (rail or truck) from commercial and DOE sites for each shipment of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. If the repository was developed, the Department would use legal-weight truck and rail transportation and would determine the number of shipments by either mode as part of future transportation planning efforts (see Section 2.1.1.3 of the EIS). For this reason, the EIS evaluates two national transportation scenarios (mostly truck and mostly rail) that encompass the potential range of impacts to human health and the environment. Both scenarios include rail shipments of naval spent nuclear fuel.

Based on the above, DOE believes that the EIS adequately analyzes environmental impacts from the Proposed Action. DOE also believes that the EIS provides the necessary information on which to base decisions about basic approaches (for example, mostly rail or mostly truck shipments), as well as the choice among candidate rail corridors or intermodal transfer stations and associated heavy-haul truck routes in Nevada. The Department of the Navy evaluated rail shipments of naval spent nuclear fuel in Department of the Navy Final Environmental Impact Statement for a Container System for the Management of Naval Spent Nuclear Fuel (DIRS 101941-USN 1996).

DOE recognizes that future National Environmental Policy Act reviews could be necessary. As more information about proposed transportation activities becomes available, follow-up implementing decisions would require additional field surveys, State and local government consultations, environmental and engineering analyses, and National Environmental Policy Act reviews. Follow-up implementing decisions could include the selection of a specific rail alignment in a corridor. As described in Section 2.1.3.2.1 of the EIS, part of the mostly legal-weight truck scenario includes the shipment of naval spent nuclear fuel that would be shipped to Nevada by rail. These shipments incorporate approximately 300 shipments over a 24-year operational period. The EIS assumed that these shipments would use the services of a commercial intermodal operator. The EIS also assumed that DOE would not build an intermodal transfer station to handle naval spent nuclear fuel shipments. Naval spent nuclear fuel shipments, equating to approximately 16 casks per year, would then be shipped from the intermodal transfer point to Yucca Mountain by heavy-haul truck, as described in Section 6.3.3.1. It is the Department’s opinion that sufficient information on the mostly legal-weight truck transportation shipping scenario is provided in the EIS to support current decisionmaking.

3.2 (5437)
Comment - EIS001887 / 0133
Page 2-74; Section 2.4.1 - Proposed Action and No-Action Alternative

This section of the Draft EIS concludes that "analyses showed that the environmental impacts associated with the Proposed Action would be small..." This statement is not supported by the data and assessments in the Draft EIS. As discussed in comments relative to Sections 4, 5, and 6 of the Draft EIS (below), data that DOE ignored and/or analyses they failed to undertake clearly indicate that the impacts associated with the Proposed Action could be substantial. These impacts would affect people and the environment in Nevada and in cities and communities across the country and would be costly in monetary terms and in terms of human health, safety, and well-being.

Response
DOE believes, based on the analyses in the Draft EIS, the Supplement to the Draft EIS, and this Final EIS, that the environmental impacts from the implementation of the Proposed Action would generally be small. This belief is based on the following:

3.2 (5466)
Comment - EIS001887 / 0148
Page 3-1; Section 3.1 - Affected Environment at the Yucca Mountain Repository Site at the Conclusion of Site Characterization Activities

Section 3.1 defines the affected environment as it was at the end of site characterization. The documentation is in several environmental baseline files. This approach ignores and circumvents the issue that an environmental baseline did not exist prior to site characterization and, therefore, no impacts of that phase could be evaluated. Thus, for the Draft EIS, the affected environment was as it stood after being impacted by site characterization, with the absence of a true, undisturbed baseline as intended by NEPA [National Environmental Policy Act] regulations. The importance of pre-disturbed baseline information in the Environmental Impact Assessment and NEPA processes is discussed in Attachments A, B, D, E, F, and G.

Response
The NWPA distinguishes between site characterization as a preliminary decisionmaking activity not subject to an EIS. As such, the baseline environment from which DOE estimated impacts under the Proposed Action is the environment that will exist at the conclusion of site characterization. An annual Site Environmental Report describes the environmental impacts of site characterization. DOE has prepared these publicly available reports since 1991.

3.2 (5481)
Comment - EIS001557 / 0001
The presentations from the DOE this morning demonstrated that there has been a tremendous amount of work and effort that has gone into this, but there still remains numerous technical and legal and political questions that call into question whether or not these shipments will ever take place.

Response
DOE agrees that the process to develop a repository established by the NWPA is ongoing (see Section 1.4), and that preconstruction testing and performance confirmation activities will continue into the future (see Section 2.1.2 of the EIS). In addition, the satisfaction of applicable regulations related to construction authorization and a license to possess nuclear materials would be a future activity if the site was approved.

3.2 (5583)
Comment - EIS001887 / 0207
Page 4-1; Section 4.1 - Short-Term Environmental Impacts of Performance Confirmation, Construction, Operation and Monitoring, and Closure of a Repository

The Draft EIS fails to adequately reflect the unique and highly controversial nature of the Yucca Mountain program and the impacts that are likely to derive from the Proposed Action. In the time line presented in Figure 4-1, there are a number of decision points that will generate considerable public and intergovernmental conflict. A decision to recommend Yucca Mountain for development as a repository in 2001, for example, will inject considerable conflict into the relationship between the State of Nevada and the federal government. This conflict will have implications that will be manifest in a number of ways, including possible considerable legal costs to the State and the federal government. As part of the analysis in Section 3, the Draft EIS should have examined impacts related to the conflict-inducing nature of the project.

As written, Section 3 treats the proposed Yucca Mountain repository as just another federal program, with no attention paid to the one-of-a-kind, controversial, extremely long duration, and extraordinarily complex program that is characterized by irreducible uncertainties in almost every aspect of its design and implementation. The overly general, off-the-shelf impact assessment contained in Section 3 is entirely inadequate and inappropriate for a program of the type and complexity presented by the Proposed Action. Nevada continues to believe, as stated in the State’s Scoping Comments on DOE’s 1995 Notice of Intent, that DOE should have prepared a programmatic EIS for the repository project and then tiered separate EISs to it for the Yucca Mountain repository facilities, the rail spur corridor selection, the selection of Nevada and national highway and rail routes, and the intermodal transfer facility. Such an approach would more accurately reflect the complex and interconnected nature of the various elements of the program and allow DOE to better assess and address environmental impacts program wide. It would also have enabled DOE to deal more directly and effectively with the wide range of uncertainty presented by each aspect of the program.

Response
DOE recognizes that construction and operation of a repository at Yucca Mountain could result in conflict between the State of Nevada and the Federal Government. However, the nature and form of such conflict in relation to environmental concerns are highly uncertain and the Department cannot estimate them with any degree of reliability. Thus, DOE did not consider conflict in the EIS.

Regarding the need for a Programmatic EIS, the NWPA established a Federal policy for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. DOE prepared this EIS to examine impacts that could occur as a result of constructing, operating (including transportation) and monitoring, and eventually closing a geologic repository for spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste at the Yucca Mountain site. DOE believes that the information in the EIS on impacts of the Proposed Action is consistent with NWPA requirements. DOE also believes that the EIS provides the information necessary to make decisions on basic transportation modes (for example, mostly rail or mostly truck shipments), as well as the choice among candidate rail corridors or intermodal transfer stations and associated heavy-haul truck routes in Nevada. This determination is based on: (1) the level of detail and analysis of the repository design, and transportation and other aspects of the Proposed Action, (2) the analytical methods and approaches used to represent conservatively the reasonably foreseeable impacts that could occur, and (3) the use of conservative assumptions if information was incomplete or unavailable and if there were uncertainties.

Furthermore, DOE acknowledges (see the Foreword to the EIS) that it could need to undertake additional National Environmental Policy Act reviews before selecting a particular rail alignment.

3.2 (5637)
Comment - EIS001887 / 0259
Page 4-102; Section 4.2.1.2.3 - Impacts to Hydrological Resources from Retrieval

Under the scenario described in the Draft EIS, the impacts to surface water and groundwater from retrieval will be confined to short-term effects such as runoff rate changes, drainage, infiltration rate changes due to the existence of the above ground storage facility, and demand for water. Because the Draft EIS, as written, does not postulate any alternative but to leave the waste at Midway Valley indefinitely, the document should assess the impacts associated with contamination of surface and subsurface water as storage canisters and systems fail over long periods of time. Such an analysis should assess the radiological risks and health effects to populations using water from aquifers contaminated over long periods of time.

Response
As discussed in Section 4.2.1 of the EIS, retrieval and storage of the materials would be consistent with the NWPA and all applicable regulations. For this reason, DOE would maintain storage canisters and systems such that they would not fail in the manner suggested by this comment. Although the development of specific alternatives for the ultimate disposition of these retrieved materials is speculative, DOE would develop alternatives based on Congressional and Presidential direction.

3.2 (5647)
Comment - EIS001887 / 0265
Page 5-2; Section 5 - Environmental Consequences of Long-Term Repository Performance

It is incorrect to assert that the evaluation of the No-Action Alternative can be used to inform the Secretary of Energy’s decision on whether to recommend the Yucca Mountain site to the President for development of a repository. The No-Action Alternative scenarios are not reasonable scenarios, and the Draft EIS acknowledges this situation in Section 1.4.3.4. Therefore, the NEPA [National Environmental Policy Act] analysis is insufficient, and the Secretary’s use of the analysis in making any decision would be improper.

Response
DOE analyzed the No-Action Alternative to serve as a basis for comparison to the magnitude of potential environmental impacts of the Proposed Action, because the future course that Congress, DOE, and the commercial utilities would take if Yucca Mountain was not approved is uncertain. DOE chose the two No-Action scenarios for analysis because they represent a range of impacts that could occur. DOE did not want to influence the results of the No-Action analysis to favor the Proposed Action and, therefore, used assumptions for the No-Action scenarios that minimized predicted impacts. Section K.4 of the EIS discusses examples of these assumptions and their effect on the outcome of the impact analysis.

3.2 (5793)
Comment - EIS001622 / 0002
Inadequate Scoping Process and Failure to Provide a Complete and Accurate Project Description

The DEIS is too narrow in scope and does not provide a complete description and analysis of the proposed project including shipment routes and modes, number and characteristics of shipments, and a route-specific analysis of potentially impacted populations and environment from these shipments.

Before an agency prepares an EIS, NEPA regulations require "an early and open process for determining the scope of issues to be addressed and for identifying the significant issues related to a proposed action." (40 CFR 1502.7) As part of this process, DOE must "invite the participation of affected Federal, State, and local agencies, any affected Indian tribe,...and other interested persons (including those who might not be in accord with the action on environmental grounds..."(Id.)). DOE did not conduct an adequate scoping process. Although DOE held 15 public scoping meetings across the country including one in Sacramento, the DEIS does not reflect the scope of issues raised at these meetings.

For example, Daniel Nix, representing California and the Western Interstate Energy Board High-Level Waste Committee, testified at the scoping hearing in California that it is "crucial...that DOE conduct route and mode-specific analyses of transportation impacts as part of the Yucca [Mountain] EIS." He further recommended that DOE should 1) perform an integrated modal analysis that incorporates realistic potential routes, 2) allow for state involvement in the designation of routes, 3) identify and describe DOE’s modal choice, 4) state DOE’s intentions regarding full scale cask testing, 5) develop highway and rail routing policies, 6) develop policies regarding Section 180 (c) assistance, and 7) recognize the proximity of Death Valley National Park to the Yucca Mountain site and give special consideration to the need for regional groundwater impact evaluations. However, the scope of impacts evaluated in the DEIS [is] limited and [does] not reflect the explicit requests by California for analyses related to potential groundwater and route-specific transportation impacts in California. If proper scoping had occurred, states’ concerns expressed early to DOE presumably would have determined the rage of actions, alternatives, and impacts to be considered in the EIS.

Response
As discussed in Section 1.5.1 of the EIS, DOE conducted the scoping process from August 7 through December 5, 1995. To encourage broad participation, before initiating the scoping period DOE notified stakeholders, the media, Congressional representatives (in several states including California), affected units of local government, Native American tribes, and Federal agencies. Comments and information were received from the public and a number of organizations. In determining the scope of the EIS, DOE considered the relevant Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR 1501.7), which indicate that a Federal agency is to identify and eliminate from detailed study issues that are not significant or that have been covered by earlier reviews. The regulations also state that the agency should narrow the discussion of why these issues would not have a significant effect on the human environment or provide reference to their coverage elsewhere.

DOE considered all comments and information received during scoping, issued a summary of scoping comments (DIRS 104630-YMP 1997), and modified the analytical approach to the EIS accordingly. In addition, DOE identified comments and information it believed to be unrelated to the scope or content of the EIS. DOE has modified Section 1.5.1.1 of the EIS to explain that it did not address some scoping comments because they would result in analyses that would be uncertain or speculative, such as those related to risk perception or stigmatization.

DOE has not selected a transportation mode or route and has not determined the process or timetable for selecting a transportation mode or route. Section 2.1 of the Final EIS identifies rail as the preferred mode of transportation, both nationally and within the State of Nevada. If Yucca Mountain was selected as the site for a geologic repository, then DOE would begin the process of making transportation decisions, including the selection of a rail corridor.

Transportation activities conducted by DOE would use casks certified by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The regulations, which must be met prior to certification, are the radiological performance standards that assure public health and safety. Although DOE would use casks designed by others, the designs and applicable quality assurance activities would be certified by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

With respect to emergency planning, Sections M.6 and M.7 of the EIS describe the implementation of Section 180(c) of the NWPA. Under these requirements, DOE would provide technical assistance and funds to states for training public safety officials of appropriate units of local government and Native American tribes through whose jurisdictions DOE would transport spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste.

3.2 (6017)
Comment - EIS001879 / 0042
The Cumulative Effects analysis introduces a speculative new action alternative, based on public scoping comments, that is not currently under consideration by any branch of government. Nye County applauds the Department’s responsiveness, but would like to know: If DOE considers scoping comments to be a reasonable basis for developing and evaluating an alternative, then why were Nye County, Affected Units of Local Government, and other local scoping comments dismissed from further consideration and evaluation?

Response
The cumulative impacts analysis (Chapter 8 of the EIS) included past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions; it did not introduce another action alternative. Consistent with Council on Environmental Quality regulations, the analysis identified impacts on the environment from the incremental impacts of the Proposed Action when added to past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Section 1.5.1, which addresses the scoping process, indicates that DOE did not include certain views and concerns in the EIS if they were not related to the scope or content of the Proposed Action.

3.2 (6034)
Comment - EIS001898 / 0004
The DEIS discusses five components relating to: 1) construction of the repository and waste handling facilities; 2) preparation of SNF [spent nuclear fuel] and HLW [high-level radioactive waste] at 77 sites for transport; 3) transportation of the SNF and HLW to Yucca Mountain by use of a National transportation network and a transportation network in the State of Nevada; 4) repository operations, including packaging, waste emplacement, monitoring and closure; and 5) mitigation and monitoring. The NRC [Nuclear Regulatory Commission] recognizes the utility in DOE preserving, to the maximum extent practicable, design flexibility and therefore understands why DOE has presented a number of options for public consideration for each of these components. However, the DEIS does not identify a preferred option for each component. Further, it does not provide an integrated description of a clearly defined Proposed Action (comprised of the various components) and of the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental effects of the integrated action. As a result, it is not clear that DOE has bounded the environmental impacts that could arise from the repository. As it prepares the FEIS, we request that DOE prepare an in-depth analysis of a clearly defined Proposed Action, or, at the least, to provide sufficient information and analysis of the various options that it has retained as to demonstrate that the environmental impacts of the repository are bounded.

Basis:

The DEIS describes numerous options for the various components of the repository system. For example, in Appendix F, two potential configurations of waste packaging for shipment were analyzed: uncanistered and canistered. In Chapter 6, two "National-level" transportation scenarios were analyzed (mostly truck and mostly rail) and eleven Nevada transportation alternatives were considered. Additionally, three potential thermal load scenarios and three waste volume options for the repository were considered in Chapters 4 and 5.

Given the number of components and options within those components, the repository system could consist of one of the numerous possible permutations. The DEIS does not select among the various options to identify a single, integrated Proposed Action. Moreover, the DEIS does not present an integrated overall description and impact assessment of any complete combination for the Proposed Action, and it is not clear that the analyses of the various components presented in the DEIS bound the impacts that could result from the Proposed Action, once one is selected. Instead, descriptions and impacts are treated separately, discussed separately, with conclusions drawn separately. Although NRC recognizes the importance of DOE’s retaining flexibility to make changes in its design, and of obtaining public input in the selection among the available options, the FEIS should contain sufficient information and analysis of the various options to cover the Proposed Action that is ultimately selected and to allow a reasonable assessment of the impacts of that Proposed Action.

Concerns identified in this comment are linked to comments on cumulative impacts (see Comment 2), transportation in Nevada (see Comment 3), and mitigation (see Comment 4).

Recommendation:

In the interest of improving its analyses, the NRC recommends that, to the extent choices among options have been refined, DOE identify its Proposed Action in the FEIS. Further, the NRC suggests that DOE use its refined description of the Proposed Action to complete the assessment of the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the Proposed Action, making bounding assumptions when necessary or appropriate. At the least, if DOE chooses to retain flexibility in the FEIS, it should show that the indirect, direct and cumulative impacts of the eventual selection have been bounded by the assessments presented in the FEIS.

Response
In the Draft EIS and the Supplement to the Draft EIS, DOE analyzed a variety of scenarios that offer a range of options for implementing the Proposed Action to construct, operate (including transportation) and monitor, and eventually close a repository at Yucca Mountain. These scenarios, which reflect potential design considerations, waste packaging approaches, and modes for transporting spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste to the Yucca Mountain site, considered the range of the environmental impacts likely to result from the Proposed Action.

In the Final EIS, DOE has identified and analyzed a range of operating modes from higher- to lower-temperature. The lower-temperature analytical scenario considered six cases. Chapter 2 of the EIS and other related sections of the Final EIS have been revised to reflect this refinement in design selection, which basically is an establishment of design fundamentals such as drift layout, drift spacing, depth and location of emplacement areas, and location of ventilation raises. The Final EIS describes a design for the repository with variations on the operating mode. The key parameters defining the flexible operating modes are package spacing, drift temperatures, length of active ventilation, and age of the fuel being emplaced. The range of variances in these parameters basically determine the extent of the repository design that will be utilized for emplacement of 70,000 metric tons of heavy metal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste; the higher-temperature operating mode would require only the main central segment of the repository; the lower-temperature operating mode could use that segment and the western extension, and could possibly require use of the entire available emplacement area. DOE has focused its analysis on a more clearly defined proposal, and demonstrated that the environmental impacts of the construction and operation of the proposed repository would not be likely to exceed the upper range of the estimated impacts.

DOE believes that the information in the EIS on the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts that could result from the Proposed Action is sufficient. This belief is based on the level of information and analysis, the analytical methods and approaches used to represent conservatively the reasonably foreseeable impacts that could occur, and the use of "bounding assumptions" if information is incomplete or unavailable and if uncertainties exist.

For the same reasons, DOE believes that the EIS provides the information necessary to make decisions on the basic approaches to transporting spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste (such as mostly rail or mostly truck shipments), as well as the choice between alternative rail corridors in Nevada. However, follow-up implementing decisions, such as the selection of a specific alignment in a corridor, the specific location of an intermodal transfer station, or the need to upgrade heavy-haul truck routes, would require field surveys, State and local government consultations, environmental and engineering analyses, and National Environmental Policy Act reviews.

3.2 (6073)
Comment - EIS001898 / 0019
No Action Alternative: The DEIS presents two scenarios, both of which DOE recognizes as unlikely, as a baseline to address the uncertainty associated with the management of SNF and HLW in the absence of a Yucca Mountain repository. Scenario 1 is a status quo of maintaining storage facilities continuously for the next 10,000 years. Scenario 2 proposes that these storage facilities would be maintained for 100 years, after which the 77 sites would be left without further management. Scenario 2 is not reasonable and, therefore, DOE should explain that it includes this scenario only to allow comparison with the analysis of the postclosure performance of the potential repository, which similarly is based on the highly unlikely and unreasonable assumption that institutional controls will be maintained only for 100 years.

Basis:

Scenario 2 assumes that, after a 100 year period, the Federal Government would permit SNF and HLW to be abandoned. This is not a reasonable assumption. The Federal Government would continue to control licensed material and HLW under its authority for as long as necessary for public health and safety considerations.

Recommendation:

DOE should explain the basis for its identification of Scenario 2 as a potential no-action alternative.

Response
DOE recognizes that neither No-Action scenario is likely to occur (see Section 2.2 and the introduction to Chapter 7 of the EIS). However, they were identified to provide a basis for comparison to the Proposed Action and because they reflect a range of potential impacts that could occur from the continued storage of material at these sites. For example, the impacts associated with the first 100 years of effective institutional control (either Scenario 1 or Scenario 2 of the No-Action Alternative) enable a direct comparison to the impacts of the Proposed Action during the first 100 years after closure of the repository. For purposes of analysis and to be consistent with the Proposed Action, Scenario 2 does not assume credit for institutional control after approximately 100 years. Under this scenario storage facilities and spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste would degrade, and radioactive material would eventually enter the accessible environment. This assumption is based upon a review of generally applicable Environmental Protection Agency regulations for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste (40 CFR Part 191) and the National Academy of Sciences review of standards for the proposed Yucca Mountain Repository (DIRS 100018-National Research Council 1995). Each of these references generally discounts the consideration of institutional control for longer periods of performance assessments for geologic repositories.

Section K.4.1.1 of the EIS discusses the uncertainties associated with changes in societal values that could lead to the loss of institutional controls. Although these conditions might be difficult to imagine happening in the United States, they are not unlike what has occurred recently in the former Soviet Union and Germany prior to the end of World War II. The evaluation of Scenario 2 was not included in the EIS as a scare tactic. In fact, DOE took extreme care to avoid overestimating any impact from the No-Action Alternative. By intentionally using a realistic best estimate modeling approach (see Section K.1) and by not including all potential human exposure pathways (see Section K.3.1), DOE concludes that the impacts of such a scenario might have been underestimated by several orders of magnitude (Section K.4).

3.2 (6119)
Comment - EIS001654 / 0012
Page S-9. Proposed Action Scope Needs Clarification

The statement "The Proposed Action would include the transportation of spent fuel...to the site" seems to be at variance with the opening sentence in the section on "Decisions Related, etc." on page S-2. We suggest this be clarified in the FEIS and that the multi-stage approach to NEPA [National Environmental Policy Act] reviews for transportation described in our earlier comment (NARUC [National Association of Regulatory Commissioners] ES-1) be followed.

Response
As stated in the EIS, DOE proposes to construct, operate and monitor, and eventually close a geologic repository at Yucca Mountain to dispose of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. The Department does not see any variance in meaning between the descriptions of the Proposed Action in Section S.3.1 of the Summary, and has not modified the text.

As discussed in the Foreword and Section 1.1, DOE believes that the EIS provides the necessary information to make transportation-related decisions on basic approaches (for example, mostly rail), as well as a choice among candidate transportation corridors. Follow-on implementing decisions such as the selection of a specific rail alignment would require additional National Environmental Policy Act reviews.

3.2 (6333)
Comment - EIS001613 / 0003
My request is that an alternative plan is developed which accurately and adequately takes into account the safety of U.S. communities and the members of the communities surrounding Yucca Mountain.

Response
DOE believes that its Proposed Action features elements that would protect public health and safety and the environment in accord with applicable regulations of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Environmental Protection Agency. The Department recognized that, since the publication of the Draft EIS, key aspects of the repository design (such as disposal container components, use of drip shields) changed in ways that would be important to repository performance and reduction in uncertainties. To provide updated information to the public, DOE published a Supplement to the Draft EIS that focused on the most recent design (called the flexible design), including various heat management scenarios. The results of the analyses, discussed in Chapter 5 of the EIS, demonstrate that releases from the repository would be within applicable standards.

3.2 (6406)
Comment - EIS001632 / 0003
EPA devoted considerable attention to the no-action alternatives and noted the public controversy about how realistic these are.

Section 2.2, page 2-59: This section describes the no-action alternative (no further site characterization at Yucca Mountain) and lays out two scenarios for this alternative: (1) wastes are stored at current locations and monitored/maintained for 10,000 years; or, (2) wastes are maintained for only 100 years, after which they are assumed to be abandoned. The Draft EIS acknowledges (page 2-60) that should there be a decision not to proceed with the repository, neither of these scenarios is likely; rather, the scenarios were chosen to provide a basis of comparison with the proposed action.

EPA agrees that while aspects of the no-action alternatives are speculative, they do provide a basis for comparison with the preferred alternative for the purposes of NEPA. We caution DOE, however, that should the U.S. decide not to proceed with constructing and operating the repository at Yucca Mountain, DOE would need to do a full examination of alternative solutions and their environmental impacts, within the confines of any national legislation.

Response
DOE agrees with the Environmental Protection Agency’s assertions regarding future actions should the United States decide to not proceed with construction and operation of a repository at Yucca Mountain. As stated in Section 2.2 of the EIS, if Yucca Mountain was determined to be unsuitable or was not approved by the President or Congress, DOE would prepare a report to Congress. This report, required by the NWPA, would contain DOE recommendations for further action to ensure the safe, permanent disposal of spent-nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste, including the need for new legislative authority. Other than this action, the future course that Congress, DOE, and the commercial nuclear utilities would take is uncertain. Several possibilities could be pursued, including centralized interim storage or the study of another location for a deep geologic repository. However, it would be too speculative to say that any of these actions would be pursued.

3.2 (6514)
Comment - EIS001774 / 0014
Why hasn’t the DOE considered the economic, environmental and public safety impacts of the Yucca [Mountain] site?

Response
Chapters 4 through 8 and 10 of the EIS discuss the economic, environmental, and public safety impacts of the Proposed Action.

3.2 (6617)
Comment - EIS001878 / 0020
Related Environmental Documents. The list of related environmental documents in the table in Section 1.5.3 is extremely narrow with respect to the transportation aspects of the proposed action. The DOE has failed to utilize a vast body of available environmental documentation on land use, mining, wildlife, wild horses, public lands, agriculture, and other topics of particular concern to Eureka County. Nor does table include an important recent NEPA [National Environmental Policy Act] document, the FEIS, Proposed Fallon Range Training Complex Requirements, Naval Air Station Fallon, Nevada (Department of the Navy and Bureau of Land Management, January 2000). Through consultation with the Navy and the BLM [Bureau of Land Management], the DOE should have been aware of this FEIS. Finally, the Cortez Pipeline Gold Deposit project is located in east central Nevada, not western Nevada.

Response
The table in Section 1.5.3 of the EIS lists environmental documents that formed a basis for decisions associated with a geologic disposal program and investigation of Yucca Mountain as a potential repository site. DOE has changed the title of the table to clarify its purpose. The Fallon Naval Air Station EIS mentioned in this comment does not fit the purpose of that table.

DOE has revised Table 1-1 to indicate that the Cortez Pipeline Project is in north-central Nevada.

3.2 (6728)
Comment - EIS001377 / 0002
As an architect, I’m frequently involved in the review or creation of an EIS, and have come to believe that the process itself is vulnerable to manipulation because it allows the lead agency, in this case the DOE, to write the EIS, conduct the public meetings, to create, summarize and shape the "scientific data" and spin public input to reach predetermined outcomes, such as your DOE "Proposed Action." This is like allowing the fox to guard the chicken coop.

As a taxpayer, I protest the use of our collective public money being used to fund this EIS which leaves primary stakeholders, such as the local indigenous peoples, with no representation on the EIS staff, or direct involvement in the scoping of the study or creation of possible alternatives to the DOE proposal to store nuclear waste on their traditional homelands.

Because DOE shapes the study, we the public won’t see information included in the EIS that would not support the DOE Proposed Action. For example, why don’t the figures such as S-21 realistically illustrate both the predicted spills during handling and transport, as well as the likely contamination of the groundwater, the downstream distribution and effects through animal, plant and human uptake? The figures and the text are sanitized to present a picture of optimal project management which even your statistical models cannot support.

Response
The funds used to study the Yucca Mountain site and to prepare this EIS came primarily from the Nuclear Waste Fund, which is funded by ratepayers of nuclear utilities, not by U.S. taxpayers, although Federal tax dollars would fund the portion of the cost attributed to the management and disposal of materials that DOE produced and owns. Further, DOE involved its stakeholders, including Native American tribes and other affected individuals and governments, in the scoping of the EIS. Chapter 1, Section 1.5.1 describes the DOE scoping process.

Congress directed in the NWPA that an EIS accompany any recommendation of the Yucca Mountain site to the President. The NWPA states that the EIS does not have to consider the need for a geologic repository, the time at which a repository could become available, alternatives to isolating spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste in a repository, and any site other than Yucca Mountain for development of a repository. Under the Act, the EIS is one of many documents the Secretary of Energy would consider in determining whether to recommend Yucca Mountain to the President for development of a repository.

Sections 4.1.8, 6.2.4, and 8.2.8 of the EIS discuss potential environmental impacts associated with nonroutine events (accidents during preconstruction testing and performance confirmation, construction, operation and monitoring, and closure activities; transportation accidents; and cumulative impacts associated with accidents, respectively).

3.2 (6732)
Comment - EIS001377 / 0005
The DOE Draft EIS fails to protect our Mother Earth by excluding information which describes the place occupied on the chain of continuing production and use of nuclear materials which this proposed facility will only stimulate.

Response
Through the passage of the NWPA, Congress determined that DOE should evaluate the Yucca Mountain site as a potential location for a monitored geologic repository. The extent to which the construction and operation of a repository for spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste could encourage the development of nuclear energy or increase the production of nuclear weapons is speculative and, therefore, DOE did not consider it in the EIS.

3.2 (6733)
Comment - EIS001377 / 0006
Action Required-EIS Process Design and Scoping

  1. Public meetings must be held nationwide prior to issuance of a 2nd Draft EIS created through national scoping.

  2. DOE funding for an "Alternative Options and Recommendations" study must be included in the next round of the Draft EIS. Stakeholders from the local indigenous tribes, environmentalists, and anti-nuclear activists, as well as representatives from the communities along the proposed transport routes must be included in creating the Alternative Options and Recommendations study.

  3. The revised Draft EIS needs to determine to what extent the creation of a national repository will directly stimulate the continued mining of uranium, production, handling and transport of lethally toxic and unstable materials, the research, development, testing and use of nuclear energy for weapons of mass destruction, and for the production of domestic energy. How many more metric tons of replacement nuclear material will this national repository inspire to be created?

  4. The revised DOE Draft EIS must compare costs for the DOE Proposed Action which includes the continued mining, production, use and storage it will stimulate vs. the complete termination of production and use of nuclear materials and their replacement in the production of domestic energy by alternative methods such as solar and wind generated power.

Response
DOE published for public review a Supplement to the Draft EIS that focused on the most recent repository design, including various heat-management scenarios. The Supplement provided an assessment, related to the thermal loads analyzed in the Draft EIS, of how impacts would probably change in the short and long terms.

In developing the scope of the Supplement, DOE evaluated new information to determine if there were substantial changes or important new circumstances or information affecting the Proposed Action that would be relevant to environmental concerns or to the Proposed Action or its impacts. Because of the relatively limited scope of the Supplement and in accordance with Council on Environmental Quality and DOE regulations, DOE did not hold scoping meetings.

In general, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Council on Environmental Quality regulations implementing NEPA require an agency to examine all reasonable alternatives to a proposed action. Case law interpreting these provisions and guidance issued by the Council on Environmental Quality and DOE state that an alternative can be reasonable even if it is outside the jurisdiction of the agency or would need Congressional action for implementation. However, in 1987, Congress amended the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and specifically altered the requirements for complying with NEPA for a proposed repository at the Yucca Mountain site. In particular, the 1987 amendments state that the EIS is not required to consider the following (see Section 1.5 of the EIS):

Because the extent to which the development of a repository would affect the mining of uranium, use of "toxic and unstable materials," weapons development, and domestic energy production cannot be known with certainty, any such analysis would be speculative. The Council on Environmental Quality regulations do not require speculative analysis.

3.2 (6752)
Comment - EIS001377 / 0011
The revised Draft EIS must further explore the No Action Scenarios that offer alternative options to a centralized repository, and which also insure Corporate participation in clean-up for commercial sites. Corporate profits-not consumer rate hikes, must pay for clean-up and long-term storage at commercial sites.

Response
The NWPA makes it the policy of the Federal Government to determine if geologic disposal at Yucca Mountain would be safe. The NWPA does not direct DOE to examine any other methods of storage or disposal, or continuing storage at existing sites, because neither is the policy of the United States. Further, the NWPA specifies that it is not necessary for the EIS to consider the need for a repository, alternatives to geologic disposal, or alternative sites to Yucca Mountain.

Although the NWPA does not require DOE to evaluate alternatives to the repository, DOE chose to evaluate a No-Action Alternative to provide a basis for comparison with the Proposed Action. Consideration of the source of funds for the continued storage of spent nuclear fuel or for the cleanup of commercial utility sites is not necessary for an examination of potential impacts from the No-Action Alternative.

3.2 (6756)
Comment - EIS001377 / 0015
A current editorial from our local paper which is critical of the DOE role in the cleanup of our local nuclear reservation at Hanford, Washington along the once beautiful Columbia River. The editorial assumes that the DOE Proposed Action in Yucca Mountain is a done deal. Where did they get that impression?

Response
The NWPA established a process for determining if the Yucca Mountain site should be approved for development as a repository. Pursuant to the NWPA, DOE could not pursue the use of Yucca Mountain as a repository until the Secretary of Energy recommended approval of the site to the President and the President and Congress, if necessary, approved the site. The Secretary will consider information from the site characterization program, the results of the environmental analyses, and public input in determining whether to recommend the development of the Yucca Mountain site as a geologic repository to the President.

3.2 (6889)
Comment - EIS001522 / 0016
There are a number of ethical shortcomings in the DEIS. Some of the most important of these shortcomings are that the DEIS violates considerations of environmental justice, ignores duties to future generations, and relies on the DOE to secure the safety of the proposed facility.

Response
The purpose of the National Environmental Policy Act is to promote an understanding of the environmental consequences of Federal actions before an agency takes action. The statute does not prohibit activities that could harm the environment; rather, it requires Federal agencies to disclose to the public and to agency decisionmakers the extent of such environmental harm and any environmental benefits.

DOE believes that the EIS accurately describes the type of environmental impacts that could occur if DOE constructed, operated, and eventually closed a nuclear waste repository at the Yucca Mountain site. Further, the EIS addresses disproportionately high and adverse impacts to minority populations and low-income populations, consistent with Executive Order 12898 (see Section 4.1.13, for example). The document also addresses human health impacts that could occur far into the future, recognizing that decisions made by this generation could affect future generations (see Chapter 5).

DOE is a signatory to an international agreement titled The Environmental and Ethical Basis of Geological Disposal of Long-Lived Radioactive Wastes, a Collective Opinion of the Radioactive Waste Management Committee of the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (DIRS 150579-NEA 1995), which considers the onsite disposal of certain nuclear waste to be morally unethical. This agreement includes a strategy for the isolation of radioactive wastes from humans and the environment, and seeks to ensure that any future releases of radioactive substances to the environment be at a level that would not be unacceptable today. (The agreement qualifies acceptable level to be "concentrations insignificant when compared, for example, with the natural background of radioactivity.") In addition, the agreement states that, in pursuing the reduction of risk from a geologic disposal strategy for radioactive wastes, current generations should keep in perspective resources deployment in other areas where there is potential for greater reduction of risk to humans or the environment, and consider whether resources might be used more effectively elsewhere. DOE views this as a clear warning to not pursue risk reduction in radioactive waste management to an extreme degree, given the greater risks society faces from other activities affecting the environment.

The NWPA places direct responsibility for the different aspects of a repository, including safety, with DOE. The Act also provides that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and independent agency, will exercise continuing regulatory oversight of DOE’s activities.

3.2 (7010)
Comment - EIS000439 / 0005
Not only is the project inadequately described for purposes of assessing the impacts required as required by the National Environmental Policy Act, but what it proposes also violates the intent of the NWPA that disposal of spent fuel and high-level waste be accomplished through geologic disposal.

Response
As discussed in Section 1.3.2 of the EIS, Congress made the decision to focus on the Yucca Mountain site as a geologic repository. The 1987 amendments to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act directed the Secretary of Energy to perform site characterization activities only at Yucca Mountain, and if the site was suitable, to make a recommendation to the President on whether to approve the site for development as a repository. A Final EIS must accompany any approval recommendation.

DOE believes that the EIS presents information sufficient to estimate potential impacts from the Proposed Action to construct, operate and monitor, and eventually close a repository at Yucca Mountain. The Department analyzed a variety of alternatives and scenarios to implement the Proposed Action. These alternatives and scenarios reflect potential repository design and operating modes (for example, thermal load scenarios, approaches to heat management), waste packaging approaches (for example, canisters, disposal containers), and transportation options for shipping spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste to the Yucca Mountain site. The selected analytical methods and approaches conservatively represent the reasonably foreseeable impacts that could occur. DOE used conservative assumptions if information was incomplete or unavailable and if there were uncertainties.

3.2 (7013)
Comment - EIS000439 / 0006
The State of Nevada believes that the Draft EIS systematically underestimates radiological, social and economic impacts of spent fuel and high-level waste.

Response
DOE believes that the EIS presents information sufficient to estimate potential impacts from the Proposed Action to construct, operate and monitor, and eventually close a repository at Yucca Mountain. The Department analyzed a variety of alternatives and scenarios to implement the Proposed Action. These alternatives and scenarios reflect potential repository design and operating modes (for example, thermal load scenarios, approaches to heat management), waste packaging approaches (for example, canisters, disposal containers), and transportation options for shipping spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste to the Yucca Mountain site. The selected analytical methods and approaches represent conservatively the reasonably foreseeable impacts that could occur. DOE used conservative assumptions if information was incomplete or unavailable and if there were uncertainties.

3.2 (7030)
Comment - EIS001337 / 0001
The Board of Lincoln County Commissioners and the Caliente City Council expect DOE to give full consideration of all comments to the DEIS presented within this document. The County and City anticipate that these and other comments offered in response to the DEIS will warrant important changes to the draft document. In the event that substantive changes to the draft are necessary, the County and the City request that DOE consider reissuing the DEIS for further review and comment. Lincoln County and the City of Caliente will not hesitate to pursue all avenues afforded by federal and state law to ensure that repository impact issues important locally are fully addressed within the final environmental impact statement and subsequent Record of Decision. The County and City will be particularly interested to see that negative aspects of the repository system are indeed identified and that the FEIS and Record of Decision include substantive commitments to mitigation. Given that the repository and attendant transportation systems are not desired by any state in the Nation, but are being imposed on Nevada and its locales, Lincoln County and the City of Caliente believe that the FEIS and Record of Decision must include commitments by DOE to seek to compensate Nevada for the unwanted burden of hosting the Yucca Mountain project.

Response
DOE has reviewed each of the more than 11,000 comments identified in more than 2,300 letters, facsimiles, emails, and oral presentations it received on the Draft EIS as well as the approximately 1,900 comments received on the Supplement to the Draft EIS. Many comments resulted in changes to the EIS that expanded on or clarified the descriptions of the existing environment, impact analyses, and management actions to mitigate environmental impacts. In addition, DOE performed new analyses and, as appropriate, described them in this Final EIS.

DOE recognized that since it published the Draft EIS, key aspects of the design had changed in ways that would be important to repository performance and reduction of uncertainties. To provide updated information to the public, DOE published the Supplement to the Draft EIS, which focused on the most recent design. This Final EIS incorporates the results of public comments on the Supplement.

With regard to a Record of Decision, Section 114(a)(1) of the NWPA authorizes the Secretary of Energy to determine whether to recommend approval of the Yucca Mountain site to the President for development as a repository for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. A comprehensive statement of the basis for the recommendation, including a Final EIS, would have to accompany such a recommendation. However, the decision to approve the site rests not with the Secretary, but with the President and Congress, if necessary. Because the President and Congress would make this decision, DOE does not anticipate issuing a Record of Decision if the Secretary recommended the site to the President.

DOE regulations (10 CFR 1021.331) require preparation of a Mitigation Action Plan if mitigation measures are identified in a Record of Decision. Because DOE does not anticipate issuing a Record of Decision regarding any approval recommendation, it might not prepare a Mitigation Action Plan. However, the Yucca Mountain site, if approved in accordance with provisions of the NWPA, would be subject to licensing by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. DOE, in submitting its application to build and operate the repository, would identify relevant commitments, including those identified in the Final EIS, to the Commission for its consideration, and could reasonably expect a comprehensive set of mitigation measures or conditions of approval to be part of the licensing process.

DOE anticipates that the project plan and design will continue to evolve, creating additional opportunities for mitigation and potentially eliminating the need for some mitigation measures currently under consideration. Chapter 9 of the EIS, which provides DOE’s list of commitments available at this time, describes management actions that DOE would consider to reduce or mitigate adverse impacts to the environment that could occur if it implemented the Proposed Action. Chapter 9 states that Section 116 of the NWPA requires the Secretary to provide financial and technical assistance to mitigate impacts of the development of a repository and the characterization of the site. The Section 116 mitigation assistance review process and the EIS process are distinct from one another and the implementation of one does not depend on the implementation of the other.

DOE would base its final determinations on mitigation measures on the submittal of its License Application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and on the Commission’s response to the application. Other measures, such as those requested by this comment (for example, compensation for hosting the repository), would be the subject of a separate process described by the NWPA (see Section 11.1 of the EIS).

3.2 (7046)
Comment - EIS001337 / 0009
[Lincoln] County and [the] City [of Caliente] recommended that the comparative evaluation of alternatives for accomplishing deep geologic disposal should also capture the range of uncertainty attendant to such options. In this way, the DEIS could facilitate decision-making under conditions of uncertainty. While uncertainty is addressed to varying degrees throughout the DEIS, a summary assessment of the uncertainty associated with the various alternatives is not included within the DEIS. The FEIS should include such a summary assessment.

Response
Section 2.5 of the EIS acknowledges that the results of analyses often have associated uncertainties and has described such uncertainties throughout the EIS. Uncertainties could be the result of the assumptions being used, the complexity and variability of the process being analyzed, the use of incomplete information, or the unavailability of information. DOE believes that a summary assessment of uncertainties associated with the various alternatives and scenarios, as suggested by this comment, is not necessary for estimating their impacts.

3.2 (7101)
Comment - EIS001106 / 0036
Section 3.1 defines the affected environment as it was at the end of site characterization. The documentation is in several Environmental Baseline Files. This approach ignores and circumvents the issue that a true, pre-disturbance baseline did not exist for site characterization to evaluate the impacts of that phase. Thus, for the repository DEIS the affected environment was just that; as it stood after having been impacted by site characterization with an absence of a true, undisturbed baseline, as intended by the NEPA [National Environmental Policy Act] regulations.

Response
The NWPA treats site characterization as a preliminary decisionmaking activity not subject to an EIS. As such, the baseline environment from which DOE estimated impacts under the Proposed Action is the environment that will exist at the conclusion of site characterization. An annual Site Environmental Report describes the environmental impacts of site characterization. DOE has prepared these publicly available reports since 1991.

3.2 (7130)
Comment - EIS001887 / 0417
Valid EIA [environmental impact assessment] requires reliable scientific and technical methods and information not always present at the time. Identifying such shortcomings is a responsibility that is part of good environmental documentation. This enables subsequent study when and where needed to resolve important uncertainties within a reasonable time frame and circumstantial situations and to mediate unforeseen consequences. Identifying where more information is needed is particularly relevant in cases of uncertainty arising from expert opinion where sufficient hard data and sound information are lacking for impact prediction. Agencies need to be clear about such issues and about the techniques used for predicting and assessing impacts in the face of uncertainty, especially regarding future cumulative impacts. This is a benefit from having scientists and other technical experts involved in EIA for NEPA [National Environmental Policy Act] that have been trained to fully comply with NEPA and not just to provide scientific information. In the numerous cases where sound information is missing from the YMP [Yucca Mountain Project] DEIS, the shortcomings should be recognized and a framework set forth for resolving the difficulties and uncertainties created. Included in the framework should be the concept of monitoring and mitigating unforeseen consequences. At times, uncertainty in EIA can be lessened if the methods and techniques followed for environmental documentation are clearly set forth. This is lacking in the YMP DEIS and should be resolved. Also needed is information regarding standard practices used for impact assessment and prediction. Lack of such insights is an indication in the DEIS that sound interdisciplinary expertise in EIA was not assembled for the YMP. Experts trained not just in their respective disciplines are needed, but sound training and experience in EIA also is essential.

Response
DOE obtained and evaluated the best information available to prepare this EIS. However, the Department acknowledges in the EIS that some information is from ongoing studies and, therefore, is incomplete or unavailable, that the interpretations of results might differ among researchers, or that the use of different analytical methods might produce different results or conclusions. In addition, the complexity and variability of the natural system at Yucca Mountain, the long periods evaluated, and the lack of completeness and unavailability of information have resulted in a degree of uncertainty associated with analysis results.

Consistent with regulations issued by the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR 1502.22), Section 2.5.1 of the EIS describes the use of incomplete or unavailable information to identify uncertainties in the data or analytical approaches. This section also describes the basis for the analyses, including assumptions, the use of preliminary information, and conclusions from draft or incomplete studies. DOE continues to study issues that are relevant to an understanding of what could happen in the future at Yucca Mountain, and the potential impacts associated with its use as a repository. As a result of these continuing studies, this Final EIS includes information that was not available for the Draft EIS.

3.2 (7146)
Comment - EIS001337 / 0043
In scoping comments to the EIS, Lincoln County and the City of Caliente observed that the potential for development and operation of repository system components within Lincoln County had already demonstrated the ability to bear upon local politics. The County and City recommended that the DEIS include an evaluation of possible impacts upon local politics. To enable said analysis, the County and City called upon DOE to include a baseline assessment of the local political landscape within the DEIS. The DEIS gives no consideration to the potential for the Yucca Mountain project to be disruptive to or create political divisiveness within local political institutions.

Response
Section 1.5.1 of the EIS discusses the scoping process and indicates how DOE modified the scope of the EIS in response to public scoping comments. DOE does not believe it would be appropriate for the Department to speculate on how the repository could influence the political structure of a given community. Although information on the social fabric of a community could be useful to the Department in its public outreach program, it would be difficult to achieve the "accurate scientific analysis" set forth at 40 CFR 1500.1(b) for elements such as political structure, leadership capabilities, and perceived risks. Also, addressing such variables could be misconstrued as an attempt to influence local leadership, social institutions, and family structures. DOE has taken this position in awareness of the current revision that are underway for the Guidelines and Principles for Social Impact Assessment issued by the Interorganizational Committee on Guidelines and Principles for Social Impact Assessment.

3.2 (7163)
Comment - EIS001337 / 0054
To ensure that the repository EIS focused upon those issues posing the most threat to existing environmental conditions, [Lincoln] County and [the] City [of Caliente] recommended in comments to the scope of the DEIS that DOE seek to categorize prospective impacts as to their probability of occurrence and their degree of consequence. The County and City reasoned that this course of action would help to encourage a draft NEPA [National Environmental Policy Act] compliance document, which was most responsive to issues perceived important by stakeholders. In their comments, the County and City referenced their study of potential repository system impacts, which addressed socioeconomic effects. (18) The DEIS does not include a categorization of impacts as to their probability of occurrence and their degree of consequence. As a result, the DEIS lends no indication as to where efforts to mitigate impacts should be initiated to afford greatest benefit.

(18) Intertech Services Corporation, The Yucca Mountain High-Level Radioactive Waste Repository and Lincoln County: Characterization of Socioeconomic Impacts Framework for Assessment of Effects, prepared for Lincoln County and the City of Caliente, October 1994.

Response
The National Environmental Policy Act and regulations promulgated by the Council of Environmental Quality to implement that Act require Federal agencies to analyze potential beneficial and adverse impacts of their proposed major actions on the human and natural environments. As discussed in Section 1.5.1 of the EIS, DOE initiated the public scoping process for this project in 1995, eventually holding 15 public meetings around the country. The purpose of the process was to determine the scope and identify the significant issues for in-depth analysis in the EIS. This EIS is the outcome of the process.

For each alternative, the EIS analyses evaluated the affected environments and estimated potential impacts in regions of influence for a variety of environmental resource areas. DOE selected these regions and subjects consistent with Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR 1502.15) that indicate that the data used and analyses undertaken should be commensurate with the likely importance of the potential impact. DOE addressed impacts in proportion to their potential significance, and addressed clearly insignificant or minor impacts in less detail.

Categorizing impacts by their probability of occurrence or their degree of consequence would not provide information beyond that already in the EIS. Further, the relative importance of consequences to particular resource areas is likely to vary among stakeholders.

3.2 (7174)
Comment - EIS001337 / 0065
Page 1-23 1st full paragraph. This section implies that only Nye County responded to DOE’s request for documents setting forth perspectives and views on a variety of issues of local and regional concern. In fact, in response to [the] DOE request representatives of Lincoln County and the City of Caliente met with DOE and DOE contractor staff in Las Vegas and spent several hours presenting a variety of documents prepared by and/or for the County and City reflecting issues of local and regional concern. In addition, the County and City provided DOE and DOE contractor staff with diskettes containing economic impact models developed by the University of Nevada for Lincoln County. DOE was encouraged to utilize all of this information in preparing the DEIS. Lincoln County and the City of Caliente provided this briefing and related documents with the specific understanding that they were responding to DOE’s request for perspectives and views. The County and City are very concerned that DOE has not used the variety of information provided to it as evidenced by the lack of specific references to only one document provided by the County and City (ETS 1989).

Response
DOE acknowledges that Lincoln County and the City of Caliente provided a variety of documentation, and has utilized these materials as appropriate in this EIS.

3.2 (7222)
Comment - EIS001337 / 0102
Page 4-3 1st full paragraph. The first sentence of this paragraph should end with "and Congress authorizes construction and appropriates funding to build the repository." As written, the sentence misleads the reader to believe that all that is needed is NRC [Nuclear Regulatory Commission] approval.

Response
The purpose of Chapter 4 is to describe short-term environmental consequences that could result from implementing the Proposed Action, which is to construct, operate and monitor, and eventually close a geologic repository at the Yucca Mountain site. Section 1.1 of the EIS explains the use of the term "proposed repository" throughout the EIS and that DOE could not pursue the use of Yucca Mountain as a repository until a Presidential site designation became effective.

Several factors are germane to the construction and operation of a repository. In addition to a license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Congressional authorization and budgetary authority, DOE must comply with its directives, complete a final design and specifications, let contracts for various services, and more. DOE believes that that the addition of the suggested language is unnecessary and adds little meaningful information to the overall understanding of the process.

3.2 (7258)
Comment - EIS001832 / 0005
This DEIS effectively looks at a comprehensive range of impacts, both radiological and non-radiological, for the proposed action as well as the two "no action" alternatives. A summary of these impacts is presented in Table S-1. For the proposed action, impacts in 13 different categories are characterized either quantitatively or qualitatively. Quantitatively evaluated impacts are assigned numerical values in terms of latent cancer fatalities while qualitatively evaluated impacts are described as, "low," "small," "within regulatory limits," "slight," or "not disproportionately high." The public and decision-makers must sort through this array of varyingly described data points, assign meaning to each individual characterization, and integrate these into some overall conclusion regarding the overall impact of … building and operating a repository at Yucca Mountain.

While a better understanding of each of these impacts can be gained by reviewing the document’s hundreds of pages and references, in the final analysis, no straightforward yardstick is offered for interpreting the impacts. No basis for comparison is offered other than the no action alternative and, while this is helpful in illuminating the societal benefit of the proposed action, it does not provide a sense of perspective for the risks associated with each of the 13 categories of impacts described. Perspective on the impacts is important to assure understanding.

Response
To analyze potential environmental impacts that could result from the implementation of the Proposed Action, DOE compiled information about the environments that action could affect. The Department used this information to establish the baseline against which it measured potential impacts. Chapter 3 of the EIS describes (1) environmental conditions that will exist at and near the Yucca Mountain site after the conclusion of site characterization activities (Section 3.1); (2) environmental conditions along the candidate transportation corridors in Nevada that DOE could use to ship spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste to the site (Section 3.2); and (3) environmental conditions at 72 commercial and 5 DOE sites that manage spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste (Section 3.3). Each of the 13 impact categories mentioned in this comment is described in Chapter 3. DOE believes these descriptions provide the perspective the commenter correctly believes is required for understanding the full range of potential consequences.

With regard to the qualitative descriptions applied to some impact categories (low, small, within regulatory limits, slight, not disproportionately high), DOE has attempted to normalize these descriptions in this Final EIS. In the cases cited, the terms are for the most part synonymous. In performing qualitative assessments, DOE based its conclusions on professional judgments related to the magnitude and context of potential changes in elements of the affected environment. The yardstick can vary based on the nature of the discipline under consideration. To use land use as an example, if the Proposed Action could result in departures from existing uses and mitigation could not remedy the conflict, the effects could be significant. On the other hand, the impacts could be small if land use changes could be avoided through judicious alignment of a branch rail line, for example, or through mitigation.

3.2 (7263)
Comment - EIS001832 / 0011
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement does not address the tremendous environmental benefits of the proposed action.

This is a unique DEIS in that it is an important step on the way to a national policy decision to be made at the highest levels. As such, it is important that DOE describe the impacts of building and operating a repository in the proper context. One aspect of context that is missing in the DEIS is a recognition that there are broader environmental issues associated with building a repository that relate to the importance of this decision to the future of nuclear energy and its societal benefits. At the present time, 103 operating nuclear plants supply approximately 20 percent of our electricity and also provide the following environmental benefits.

The industry recognizes that it is not possible to predict what effect a repository at Yucca Mountain would have on the prospects for future nuclear electric power generation. However, it can be said with certainty that those prospects and the environmental benefits that come with them would be stronger if the repository is built at Yucca Mountain. Clearly, the loss of even a small fraction of the environmental benefits of nuclear power would far outweigh the environmental impacts of the building a repository at Yucca Mountain.

We further recognize that it is well beyond the scope of this EIS to attempt to evaluate the [effects] that taking, or not taking, the proposed action might have on future nuclear power generation. We are not requesting that DOE do this. Yet, the existence of broader environmental benefits should, at a minimum, be recognized in the Final EIS.

Response
DOE acknowledges that the construction and operation of a repository could affect issues such as those listed in this comment. However, the extent of the effects cannot be determined with relative certainty and, thus, any such analysis or discussion would not be meaningful in the context of this EIS.

3.2 (7268)
Comment - EIS001832 / 0016
Repository Design Enhancements currently planned by DOE will further reduce the impacts of the proposed action from what has been indicated in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

From the numerous hearings that DOE has held on this EIS, the Department has received a number of comments that this DEIS is based on a preliminary design. It is entirely appropriate that DOE issue this EIS at this point in the Yucca Mountain decision-making process. However, DOE should clarify the distinction between NEPA [National Environmental Policy Act] documentation -- which is input to a forthcoming national policy decision -- and design documentation, which is engineering work related to the design development process that would occur after a decision is made (depending on the decision). This engineering work will be extensively and publicly evaluated in the NRC [Nuclear Regulatory Commission] licensing process that will follow if Yucca Mountain is selected. The NEPA [National Environmental Policy Act] process should not be confused as a substitute for the NRC licensing process.

To this end, DOE should add a concise description of the NEPA process and the role it plays in this decision-making to the EIS summary. In doing so, DOE should point out that it is to the advantage of all interested parties, including those currently questioning the use of preliminary design information, to have the opportunity to provide input to the process early on -- before the design has been finalized.

Response
Section S.1 of the EIS discusses the National Environmental Policy Act process and Section S.2.2.2 discusses the Site Recommendation and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission licensing process. Chapter 1 elaborates on these processes.

3.2 (7293)
Comment - EIS001957 / 0004
We firmly believe that a supplementary environmental impact analysis effort must be conducted. This additional analysis must address hazards to National Park System units, and equally important, the potential economic impacts of decreased tourism in this part of California and Nevada should mishaps occur.

Response
In May 2001, DOE issued the Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic Repository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada to present the latest repository design information and the corresponding environmental impact analyses. The Final EIS addresses the potential impact from transporting spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste to the proposed repository including an analysis of the effects on access to recreational areas in Section 6 of the Final EIS. The discussion of the specific impacts of rail corridor implementing alternatives in Section 6.3.2.2 of the Final EIS addresses recreation management areas and wilderness areas that could be crossed depending on the selected rail corridor. DOE did not attempt to quantify any potential for impacts from risk perceptions or stigma (such as the effect on tourism) since any such stigmatization would likely be an aftereffect of unpredictable future events, such as serious accidents, which may not occur. DOE concluded that while in some instances risk perceptions could result in adverse impacts on portions of a local economy, there are no reliable methods whereby such impacts could be predicted with any degree of certainty.

3.2 (7359)
Comment - EIS001106 / 0027
Adaptive management: Often uncertainty can be reduced through environmental monitoring and adaptive management based on the resulting information. Such a tack should be followed during development and the useful lifetime of the YMP [Yucca Mountain Project] as well as far into the future. This is because initial assumptions about an action change due to new knowledge, social values and human needs change over time, and significant changes can occur in the environment. Intentions and plans for such changes, based on a framework of integrated EIA [environmental impact assessment], should be included in the DEIS but are not. This is unacceptable given the certainty of long-term environmental and health consequences associated with the program.

Response
If DOE were to construct and operate a repository at Yucca Mountain, it would develop an environmental monitoring program consistent with applicable laws, regulations, and DOE directives. In addition, it would monitor repository performance and would continue geotechnical testing. If the results of this monitoring indicated the need for changes in repository and site management, DOE would implement such changes.

3.2 (7366)
Comment - EIS001106 / 0031
Study design and analysis: The ecological study design and the methodology adopted for EIA [environmental impact assessment] analysis for the YMP [Yucca Mountain Project] were flawed due to the inability to conduct credible replication of the ecosystem. Standard statistical techniques based on reliable replicates and controls do not apply in such cases.

Response
DOE did not attempt to replicate the ecosystem, as suggested by the comment, because the expense for such an effort would not be commensurate with the level of the likely impacts. This approach is consistent with regulations issued by the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR 1502.15), which state that data and analyses in an EIS should be commensurate with the importance of the impact, with less important material summarized, consolidated, or simply referenced. By doing this, the EIS concentrates on important issues.

Section 4.1.4 of the EIS describes potential impacts to plants and animals from a repository at Yucca Mountain. The analysis determined that the magnitude of impacts to biological resources would be low to very low (see Section 4.1.4.3).

3.2 (7420)
Comment - EIS001912 / 0020
Furthermore, 40CFR1502.22(a) states, "essential information, if it is obtainable, must be included in the EIS." On page 2-86 clearly states that some information in the DEIS is incomplete and that some may not be available until after the DOE has issued the FEIS. These statements are not consistent with the requirements of 40CFR1502.22(a).

Response
DOE used the best information available to prepare this EIS. However, the Department acknowledges in the EIS that some information is from ongoing studies and is, therefore, incomplete or unavailable and that the interpretations of results might differ among researchers, or the use of different analytical methods might produce different results or conclusions. In addition, the complexity and variability of the natural system at Yucca Mountain, the long periods evaluated, and the lack of completeness and availability of information have resulted in a degree of uncertainty associated with analysis results.

As discussed in Section 2.5 of the EIS, DOE identified the use of incomplete information or the unavailability of information to identify uncertainties in the data or analytical approaches. In addition, DOE acknowledged (see Section 2.5) that the results of analyses often have associated uncertainties. Such uncertainties are described throughout the EIS as appropriate. In addition, to resolve some of the uncertainties and provide information to the public about the repository design that became available after the publication of the Draft EIS, in May 2001 DOE published the Supplement to the Draft EIS. The Supplement focused on the most recent base design (called the flexible design), including various heat-management scenarios. DOE believes that the EIS adequately analyzes each element of the Proposed Action (such as waste handling facilities, heat management scenarios, and transportation implementing alternatives and scenarios). The design information presented in the Supplement was carried forward to the Final EIS.

3.2 (7426)
Comment - EIS001912 / 0023
Pg. 2-10 Section 2.1.1.5 2nd Para. states, "This assessment.....found that the changes in the environmental impacts for the design options would be relatively minor in relation to the potential impacts evaluated in the EIS." This simply is not the case. The statement is untrue at best and is misleading. At the time the DEIS was issued, DOE did not have the analytical capabilities to predict such performance. This section needs to be rewritten to indicate the limitations for performance assessment or the DEIS should be reissued once DOE has improved capabilities in place to evaluate design alternatives.

Response
Section 2.1.1.5 of the Draft EIS refers to the analyses in Appendix E. In that section DOE acknowledged the continuing investigation of design options for possible incorporation in the final repository design. Appendix E described the design features and alternatives, and presented a qualitative assessment of factors associated with each that could cause changes to the environmental impacts discussed in Chapters 4 and 5 (impacts based on the design discussed in Chapter 2).

Since the publication of the Draft EIS, DOE acquired an improved understanding of the interactions of potential repository features with the natural environment and the advantages of a number of design features to enhance waste containment and isolation. In May 2001, DOE published a Supplement to the Draft EIS to provide the updated information to the public. The Supplement assessed the potential short- and long-term environmental impacts from the implementation of the most recent design enhancements, including various operating modes to manage heat generated by emplaced spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. This Final EIS, which incorporates the results of the Draft EIS and the Supplement, demonstrates the range of environmental impacts that would be reasonably likely to occur from the implementation of the base design and its various features and options.

3.2 (7456)
Comment - EIS001912 / 0032
Scenario 2 is unrealistic in that it assumes no institutional control at a point where institutional control would continue at Yucca Mountain.

The No-Action Alternative (Scenario 1 and 2) essentially describes interim above ground storage conditions at the reactor sites. Would this same situation apply to waste held above ground at a centralized DOE facility. If not, why not. It is also likely that DOE will have to take title to the waste if a repository does not open. Would DOE allow for loss of institutional control?

Page 2-60 1st paragraph states, "DOE recognizes that neither of these scenarios is likely to occur in the event there is a decision not to develop a repository at Yucca Mountain." Contrary to the statements further down in the paragraph, these scenarios are not realistic and neither is the No-Action Alternative.

Response
Scenario 2 assumes no effective institutional control after approximately 100 years. The EIS defines short-term impacts as those that would occur until and during the closure of the repository (approximately 100 years following the start of emplacement) and long-term impacts as those that would occur after repository closure (after 100 years) and for as long as 10,000 years as discussed in Section 2.4 of the EIS. Section 2.4 of the EIS contains a general comparison of the Proposed Action and No-Action Alternative (Section 2.4.1), potential short-term impacts (Section 2.4.2), long-term impacts (Section 2.4.3), and transportation impacts (Section 2.4.4), including a table that compares the impacts associated with the Proposed Action and No-Action Alternative for these two time periods. For purposes of analysis, the same situation was assumed to occur at Yucca Mountain. Assuming no effective institutional control after 100 years provides a consistent analytical basis for comparing the No-Action Alternative and the Proposed Action.

DOE based the choice of 100 years on a review of generally applicable Environmental Protection Agency regulations for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste (40 CFR Part 191), Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations for the disposal of low-level radioactive material (10 CFR Part 61), and the National Research Council report on standards for the proposed Yucca Mountain Repository (DIRS 100018-National Research Council 1995), which generally discount the consideration of institutional control for longer periods in performance assessments for geologic repositories.

As discussed in the EIS (see Chapter 1 and Sections 2.2 and 2.3), DOE analyzed the No-Action Alternative, or maintenance of the status quo, to serve as a baseline for comparing the magnitude of potential environmental impacts of the Proposed Action. Under the No-Action Alternative, and consistent with the NWPA, DOE would terminate activities at Yucca Mountain and undertake site reclamation to mitigate any significant adverse environmental impacts.

3.2 (7798)
Comment - EIS001653 / 0002
DOE provides no substantive details about the proposed action and no-action alternatives. Instead, the DEIS attempts to use inclusive boundary analysis to substitute for Missing information and design attributes which have not been proven to work. Unfortunately, without a performance assessment capability, DOE cannot establish boundaries for various design alternatives. Although we recognize the need to maintain some flexibility for the final repository design, the description of the action in the DEIS is done in very generic terms and fails to adequately describe the waste management system associated with Yucca Mountain.

Response
The NWPA establishes a process leading to a decision by the Secretary of Energy on whether to recommend the Yucca Mountain site to the President for development of a geologic repository. As part of this process, DOE must undertake site characterization activities at Yucca Mountain to provide information and data needed to evaluate the site and prepare an EIS. The Department has an ongoing site characterization program of investigations and evaluations to assess the suitability of the Yucca Mountain site as a potential geologic repository and to provide information for the EIS. The program consists of scientific, engineering, and technical studies and activities. DOE used information from the program in preparing the EIS.

3.2 (7842)
Comment - EIS001653 / 0031
Pg. 2-87 1st Par states, "The analysis in the EIS did not identify any potential environmental impacts that would be a basis for not proceeding with the proposed action." This is not the purpose of the DEIS. The proposed action is to construct, operate and eventually close a repository. The analysis of the DEIS needs to focus on the implementation of the proposed action. Can DOE implement the proposed action and not merely proceed with it?

Response
In the context of the cited paragraph, "proceeding" with the Proposed Action and "implementing" the Proposed Action are the same.

3.2 (7858)
Comment - EIS001227 / 0006
Final Waste Management PEIS Applicability?

In several sections of the Draft EIS, reference was made to the Final Waste Management PEIS (DOE 1997b).

The adequacy of portions of a source DOE NEPA [National Environmental Policy Act] report was challenged in federal court and one result is that this Final PEIS now lacks site restoration components.

An employee of a DOE contractor that was reviewing data for the PEIS claimed that quality was lacking. The results of those charges can be seen on the GAP web site.

Generally, this PEIS has had a lengthy and troubled history which leads to question of its adequacy.

Response
Litigation regarding the Final Waste Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (DIRS 101816-DOE 1997) has been resolved. DOE referred to that document in this EIS because it addressed the treatment and storage of high-level radioactive waste.

3.2 (7888)
Comment - EIS001653 / 0046
Section 3.2.2.1. The Baseline Description in the DEIS does not provide for the following:

- Outdoor recreation use
- Appropriate visual analysis including visual characteristics of surrounding lands
- Specific land uses residential, commercial, agricultural
- Mining claims and activity-patented mining claims
- Grazing-allotment, name of permit holder, season of use, total aums [AUMs – animal unit-months]

Land use maps showing types of ownership and uses along the routes should be included in the DEIS. Simply referencing other BLM [Bureau of Land Management] documents is not sufficient. Lander County is not in the Tonopah Resource Area. All of the aforementioned resources and uses need to be shown on maps with discussion of various resources. Did any DOE staff or contractors actually visit the areas along proposed routes? Please identify the resource expert and the type of site visits made.

Response
DOE has modified the baseline descriptions for land use to reflect additional coordination with the appropriate Bureau of Land Management regional offices (see Section 3.2.2.1.1 of the EIS). The modified material includes the identification of notable recreation areas and usage. Section 3.2.2.1.8 contains information on the visual characteristics of surrounding lands. DOE used Bureau of Land Management visual resource management classifications as a surrogate to assess a corridor’s scenic sensitivity. Because the Bureau controls the majority of lands within the 400-meter (0.25-mile)-wide rail corridors, and prepares environmental assessments based on visual resource management classifications, DOE incorporated this approach for consistency and for purposes of comparison. The EIS discusses views from selected locations in each candidate rail corridor.

The EIS does not discuss land uses for specific areas or tracts of land because DOE believes it can make decisions on the relative merits of each corridor using current information. More definitive information is not available at present on specific tracts of land that could be required or specific areas where access to lands could be impaired. DOE would minimize restrictions to or control of land used for recreation or mining and could develop specific mitigation measures to alleviate potential impediments to continued use of lands.

With regard to grazing land and animal unit-months, DOE expects that, after construction of a branch rail line, operational impacts would be less even though the line could divide some grazing lands. Input received from the Bureau of Land Management indicates that dividing grazing lands would result in a small loss of animal unit-months in large allotments but would probably not affect ranch operations. The loss of animal unit-months in small allotments could affect a permittee’s operation. The Bureau indicated that a branch rail line dividing an allotment into separate pastures could provide an opportunity to rotate use, enabling new grazing management options. This could benefit livestock and vegetation management.

Incorporating information by reference is consistent with Section 1502.21 of the Council on Environmental Quality regulations. The information in the EIS is, in part, from referenced documents. DOE provided the references to assist readers in obtaining additional information. Chapter 13 lists all the individuals who contributed to the preparation of the EIS.

3.2 (7895)
Comment - EIS001227 / 0007
DOE Control Over Technical Review Process

Appendix Section 13.2, pages 13-7 and 13-8, provided a listing of reviewers. Only organizations and general offices were provided. The Final EIS should provide a listing of the personal names and work addresses of the reviewers. In looking over the list of preparers I noticed virtually all of them would likely have a strong vested interest in seeing that the proposed repository at Yucca Mountain is approved and put into operation. This represents a major conflict of interest in the preparation of the Draft EIS. The preparation and review of the Final EIS should involve a selection of individuals who clearly have no stake in the outcome of the EIS review process.

A panel of independent experts should be established to determine the individuals who should perform future reviews of the EIS. A major selection criteria should be that these individuals should have no vested interest in the outcome of the repository analysis.

Response
Chapter 13 of the EIS contains a list of individuals who filled primary roles in the preparation of this EIS. DOE directed the preparation of the EIS with primary support and assistance from Jason Technologies Corporation. Consistent with Council on Environmental Quality regulations [40 CFR 1506.5(c)], neither Jason Technologies Corporation nor any of its subcontractors has a financial interest or other interest in the outcome of the project.

Title V of the NWPA established the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board as an independent organization in the Executive Branch. The Board is responsible for evaluating the technical and scientific validity of activities undertaken by the Secretary of Energy, including activities related to the packaging or transportation of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. Members of the Board are appointed by the President after being nominated by the National Academy of Sciences. Board members have no financial interest or other interest in the outcome of the Yucca Mountain Project.

3.2 (7898)
Comment - EIS001653 / 0050
Throughout Chapter 3 DOE repeatedly references other EISs or other documents for more specific information. In certain circumstances, the referenced information is important to the review of the action. It is questionable whether DOE has met the intent of 40 CFR 1502.21. Reference by incorporation is made when the effect will be to cut down on bulk without impeding agency and public review.

Response
Without greater specificity it is difficult to understand the circumstances referred to in this comment. In any event, DOE believes that the EIS adequately analyzes the environmental impacts that could result from either the Proposed Action or the No-Action Alternative.

3.2 (7995)
Comment - EIS001672 / 0002
Out of the research that I have done about the Yucca Mountain, it seems as though your organization has not researched the history of the land around Yucca Mountain. So before you contaminate our land, do some research on our land, and for once think of someone other than yourselves.

Response
Chapter 3 of the EIS discusses information relevant to land use and naturally occurring resources at and near the Yucca Mountain site. DOE believes it has provided enough information to determine potential environmental impacts from the Proposed Action in a manner that is proportional to their potential significance. The EIS addresses clearly insignificant or minor impacts in less detail (see Chapter 4).

3.2 (8002)
Comment - EIS000817 / 0057
This choice of the thermal load directs everything else as far as spacing, ventilation, etc. Why hasn’t this decision been made by now? How can you evaluate an EIS that has made no major decisions?

Response
A primary purpose of an EIS is to be a tool to assist in decisionmaking. The Council on Environmental Quality regulations encourage agencies to integrate the National Environmental Policy Act process with other planning at the earliest possible time to ensure that planning and decisions reflect environmental values, to avoid delays later in the process, and to head off potential conflicts. As discussed in the Foreword and Section 1.1 of the EIS, DOE developed the information about potential environmental impacts from the Proposed Action and the No-Action Alternative. Any recommendation by the Secretary, as required by the NWPA, must include a description of the proposed repository, including preliminary engineering specifications for the facility. These preliminary specifications will provide information relevant to the management of heat in the repository.

3.2 (8083)
Comment - EIS000406 / 0007
Observations made by technical oversight groups call into question whether DOE currently has the ability to predict performance and hence the potential environmental impacts of the repository. If this is the case, we question whether the DEIS in its current form could support the decision by the Secretary of Energy to recommend the site to the President and congress. Unfortunately, it appears that the completion of the EIS process is being driven more by schedules than the ability to support decisions with strong technical analysis. For this reason, DOE needs to consider reissuing a draft EIS when the ability to predict performance can support the environmental impact analysis and ultimately a decision to recommend the Yucca Mountain site for geologic disposal. Furthermore, the analysis in the DEIS cannot be based upon conceptual designs, particularly when such concepts (design alternatives) have not been utilized or proven to work.

Response
This comment is correct that oversight groups have concerns about various aspects of the Total System Performance Assessment. For example, the most recent report of the Total System Performance Assessment Peer Review Panel (DIRS 102726-Budnitz et al. 1999) provided many observations and suggestions for improving the assessment tools. The Panel concluded, however, that the overall performance assessment framework and the approach used to develop the Total System Performance Assessment were sound and followed accepted methods.

Since the publication of the Draft EIS, DOE published the Supplement to the Draft EIS, which focused on the most recent design enhancements, including various operating modes to manage heat generated by emplaced spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. The Supplement and this Final EIS report repository performance results based on assessment tools that reflect improvements due to the observations and suggestions of the Peer Review Panel. DOE believes that the level of information provided for each element of the design (such as waste handling facilities, heat management scenarios, and transportation implementing alternatives and scenarios), as well as the improved performance assessment tools, is sufficient to provide a meaningful assessment of environmental impacts.

3.2 (8084)
Comment - EIS001653 / 0063
Pg. 4-1 to 4-60 describes the activities but makes little or no judgment about the significance of impacts. There needs to be more conclusions about the information in the DEIS.

Response
DOE believes that it has appropriately characterized the significance of impacts to resource areas.

3.2 (8090)
Comment - EIS001653 / 0066
To be consistent with the no-action alternative (scenario 2), the DEIS must describe impacts from the loss of institutional control. The analysis of the contingency must also describe the costs to manage waste in this form indefinitely and who would be responsible for the cost. Maintaining waste on-site at Yucca Mountain would be similar to the no-action alternative-deep geologic storage would be the preferred option.

Response
The analyses performed to determine the environmental consequences of long-term repository performance (see Chapter 5 of the EIS) are comparable to those performed for Scenario 2 of the No-Action Alternative in that DOE took no "credit" for effective institutional control after 100 years following closure of the repository. This was to ensure there was no undue reliance on institutional control in making long-term safety estimates because of uncertainty about future societies and to not burden future generations unduly. In these analyses, DOE would dispose of the wastes and close the repository, which would then be subject to natural and human-induced features, processes, and events that could affect the release of radionuclides and toxic chemicals. Sections 2.1.5 and 2.2.3 of the EIS contain cost estimates of the Proposed Action and the No-Action Alternative, respectively. However, DOE did not perform a cost-benefit analysis because it is not necessary to support current decisionmaking. DOE believes that the EIS adequately analyzes potential impacts to public health, safety, and the environment.

3.2 (8110)
Comment - EIS001653 / 0069
DOE has recently dropped the high thermal load alternative as a possible final design option for Yucca Mountain. If this is true why did the DEIS consider it to be a viable thermal load alternative? Is the analysis in the DEIS with respect to the high thermal load alternative still accurate? What can DOE say about the accuracy of other design scenarios and the boundary analysis?

Response
As discussed in Section 2.1.1.5, the designs analyzed in the Draft EIS were preliminary and likely to evolve in various ways. DOE believed that ongoing site characterization and design-related evaluations would demonstrate a continued improvement in waste isolation (repository performance) and a reduction in associated uncertainties. However, DOE recognized that, since the publication of the Draft EIS, key aspects of the design (such as disposal container components, use of drip shields) have changed in ways that would be important to repository performance and reduction in uncertainties. To provide updated information to the public, DOE published a Supplement to the Draft EIS, which focused on the most recent design (called the flexible design), including various heat-management scenarios. This design is consistent with that in the Science and Engineering Report: Technical Information Supporting Site Recommendation Consideration (DIRS 153849-DOE 2001). DOE believes that the EIS adequately analyzes each element of the Proposed Action (such as waste handling facilities, heat management scenarios, and transportation implementing alternatives and scenarios). This information was carried forward to the Final EIS.

3.2 (8134)
Comment - EIS000817 / 0079
P. 2-69 -- The fact that this EIS analyzes disposal of all of the projected waste that could go to Yucca Mountain shows that this is in fact a consideration. This flies in the face of all the promises made to limit the site to 70,000 MTHM [metric tons of heavy metal]. You are acting in bad faith with the general public and the State of Nevada by putting this analysis in here, and it breeds distrust of any further DOE promises in the future.

Response
Under the Proposed Action, DOE would place 70,000 metric tons of heavy metal (MTHM), comprised of 63,000 MTHM of commercial spent nuclear fuel and 7,000 MTHM of DOE spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste, in a geologic repository at the Yucca Mountain site. This overall inventory includes approximately 50 metric tons (55 tons) of surplus weapons-usable plutonium as spent mixed-oxide fuel and immobilized plutonium. During the scoping period, DOE received many comments that noted the existence of more than 70,000 MTHM of these materials and encouraged DOE to evaluate the impacts of placing the total projected inventory at Yucca Mountain. For example, presently operating commercial nuclear powerplants, DOE, and the Navy could generate approximately 107,500 MTHM of spent nuclear fuel eligible for disposal by 2046 if the Nuclear Regulatory Commission extended all commercial nuclear powerplant licenses. In addition, some commenters requested that the EIS evaluate the disposal of radioactive waste types that might require permanent isolation, such as Greater-Than-Class-C low-level waste and Special-Performance-Assessment-Required waste. For these reasons, Chapter 8 of the EIS evaluates the cumulative environmental impacts that could occur from the disposal of this material at the Yucca Mountain site.

3.2 (8442)
Comment - EIS001397 / 0010
There are several plans put forth in the DEIS for the design of this facility. The summary only shows a single block of storage drifts in multiple diagrams. However, in the document itself, plans are suggested for up to eight blocks within the mountain. This is very misleading. If the DOE is not sure of the final design yet, then this discussion is premature. We cannot be expected to analyze a proposal that is incomplete at this time.

The same is true of proposed transportation routes and railways that have yet to be built. It is premature to expect public evaluation when the DOE has yet to make up its own mind. The final EIS must contain clear and complete plans for all aspects of this project. Any additional developments that are not explicitly addressed in this EIS, such as all transportation routes and rail route construction, must go through the entire DEIS review process at whatever point in the future they are fully developed and presented.

The important issue at stake, and the focus of the National Environmental [Policy] Act, is the survival of life on this planet and its life forms, not expedience for nuclear utilities and governmental departments.

Response
With regard to repository blocks, this comment apparently refers to figures that describe the underground layout of the three thermal loads in Section 2.1.2.2 of the Draft EIS and to figures in Appendix I (Figures I-2 through I-7). These latter figures show layouts for the Proposed Action (Figures I-2, I-4, and I-6) and for Inventory Modules 1 and 2 (Figures I-3, I-5, and I-7). The layouts for the Proposed Action are the same as those shown in Section 2.1.2.2, and Chapter 8 contains the analysis of the inventory modules. Based on provisions of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, which prohibits the Nuclear Regulatory Commission from authorizing the disposal of more than 70,000 metric tons of heavy metal, DOE could dispose of only the Proposed Action inventory as shown in Figures 2-14 through 2-16 (which are the same as Figures I-2, I-4, and I-6).

The Draft EIS discussed (see Section 2.1.1.5 for example) ongoing site characterization activities and design evaluations, and the potential for resulting changes to the design. Since the publication of that document, DOE acquired an improved understanding of the interactions of potential repository features with the natural environment, and the advantages of a number of design features (such as titanium drip shields) to enhance waste containment and isolation. DOE published the Supplement to the Draft EIS to provide the updated information to the public. While aspects of the design evolved from those in the Draft EIS, the basic elements of the Proposed Action to construct, operate and monitor, and eventually close a geologic repository at Yucca Mountain (such as transportation of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste) remained unchanged. For this reason, the Supplement focused on the most recent design enhancements, including a range of operating modes to manage heat generated by emplaced spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. It is important to recognize that these design enhancements could continue to evolve. If the Yucca Mountain site was approved, a more refined and improved design would only be determined at the time of license application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. This refined design would be likely to continue to improve because of the license application process. Consistent with Council on Environmental Quality and DOE regulations, design modifications would be subject to future National Environmental Policy Act review.

As discussed in the Foreword to the EIS, DOE believes that the EIS provides the information necessary to make transportation-related decisions regarding the basic approaches (for example, mostly rail or mostly truck shipments), as well as the choice among alternative transportation corridors. The level of information and analyses, the analytical methods and approaches used to represent conservatively the reasonably foreseeable impacts that could occur, and the use of bounding assumptions if information was incomplete or unavailable and if there were uncertainties, provide a meaningful assessment of environmental impacts consistent with the regulations. However, follow-on implementing decisions, such as selection of a specific rail alignment within a corridor, would require additional field surveys, state and local government consultations, environmental and engineering analyses, and National Environmental Policy Act reviews.

3.2 (8548)
Comment - EIS002256 / 0003
There are two studies outstanding that we believe are important for really examining the viability of Yucca Mountain that haven’t been completed yet. One is a fluid inclusion study which should be completed sometime -- I think by the end of this year or the beginning of next year. And also there’s another study which involves satellite information on seismic stretching around the Yucca Mountain area, which would, I believe, also be completed sometime next year.

The fluid inclusion study is one which indicates the possibility of thermal water up-welling into the repository. This could be a very significant impact to the immediate area around Yucca Mountain as well as further away from Yucca Mountain.

It is indicated in the DEIS, but the time as to when the last potential thermal up-welling occurred has not been clearly defined, at least by science.

Like I said, it mentions -- and that’s what this study is for -- it clearly defines whether it was thermal water that up-welled into the repository cavity. And so we want these studies completed before recommendations go to the president and for final public comment, as well as the satellite studies indicate movement around the project. In fact, as of November of 1988, the information at that time indicated that the crust was moving at 20 times the rate previously thought.

So we thought this study also should be completed before the final recommendation is made and for full public comment on that as well. So we believe that certainly with those two studies, along with other information that I commented on earlier that the DEIS is definitely deficient in that regard.

Response
Section 3.1.4.2.2 of this EIS discusses the DOE perspective on the likelihood of significant changes in the water table and the potential for groundwater intrusions to the level of the proposed repository. Independent experts contracted by DOE to review the available information and reports concluded that a warm-water upwelling to the repository level had not occurred. DOE agrees, however, that more research is needed.

In any event, DOE recognizes that information remains incomplete and unavailable (see Section 2.5.1 of the EIS). Consistent with Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR 1502.22), the Department concluded that sufficient information was available to assess the range of impacts that could result from either the Proposed Action or the No-Action Alternative. The Secretary of Energy has not yet determined whether to recommend the Yucca Mountain site to the President for development as a repository.

3.2 (8582)
Comment - EIS000817 / 0185
P. H-7. There is no detailed design of the Waste Treatment Building? Then how can you do this draft EIS?

Response
As discussed in Appendix H of the EIS, DOE considered the analyses and supporting information used in the Waste Management Programmatic EIS (DIRS 101816-DOE 1997) to aid in identifying potential accident scenarios and in evaluating radionuclide source terms. The Department based the information in this EIS on high- and low-level waste handling and treatment experience at various DOE sites. Those sites have stored, packaged, treated, and transported these wastes for several decades and have compiled an extensive database of information relevant to accident assessments (such as safety analysis reports and unusual occurrences). Thus, although a detailed design for the Waste Treatment Building is not yet available, DOE is confident that the accident analyses discussed and analyzed in this EIS reflect actual waste handling and treatment experience and, therefore, are sufficient for identifying potential environmental impacts. DOE has modified Appendix H to provide the basis for the use of accident-related information from the Waste Management Programmatic EIS.

3.2 (8625)
Comment - EIS001256 / 0016
The EIS fails to provide for the protection of all components of the biosphere (that is, the protection of the environment for its own sake).

Response
The purpose of the National Environmental Policy Act is to promote an understanding of the environmental consequences of Federal actions before an agency takes action. The statute does not prohibit activities that could harm the environment; rather, it requires Federal agencies to disclose the extent of such environmental harm, and any environmental benefits, to the public and to agency decisionmakers. The EIS describes the type and magnitude of environmental impacts that could occur if there was a decision to construct, operate and monitor, and eventually close a geologic repository at the Yucca Mountain site.

3.2 (8660)
Comment - EIS001579 / 0001
In that very lengthy and detailed technical analysis of Yucca Mountain, I find that’s one of the major limitations of it, that we are not looking at the moral responsibility to future generations adequately.

I also feel that my students are ready to consider alternatives to the nuclear power industry and also to nuclear arms, and I would like us to consider more alternatives than just the action and no action. I learn that we get trapped into some old modes of thinking. Students are very good at pointing that out to me. So if we get ourselves trapped into action and no action, I think we are heading for trouble.

I was also reminded of that trap and also the need for change, and certainly change in their lifetimes is going to be accelerating much less over the next thousand years. As I was reading two reports that came out in the last couple weeks, in the January 14th issue of Science there was a report about a plutonium oxide, not just plutonium dioxide being formed, but plutonium oxide, that the ratio of oxygen to plutonium might be greater than two, or something less than three, and in the words of the researcher, the author of that report, they talked about the idea that plutonium dioxide is only -- an outcome of plutonium oxidation was a sacred cow.

Though other researchers have seen hints of the higher oxide, they couldn’t reconcile their data until now. Slow reaction times make the newly discovered oxide easy to miss. The researcher came out of Los Alamos. Such reaction times become relevant if buried nuclear waste is to remain stable until the next millennium.

If water is present, the hydrogen gas could build up in sealed containers. Moreover, these oxides dissolve easily in water, explaining why plutonium migrates through the ground more quickly than had been expected. This is very important input for people who modeled these migration processes. I would ask that this EIS statement go back and look at that.

Also an article in the January 25th New York Times, which summarized the work which has come out of Russia and has also been presented in conferences in Oxford and is now being repeated again by people at Los Alamos.

For decades the Mandarins of American science assumed that the phase, the delta phase of plutonium, to be a kind of Rock of Gibraltar on which the American nuclear arsenal could be erected, and expected to weather centuries of storms and service. Now, they note this plutonium instability could sharply cut the lifetime of weapon cores, in theory reducing them from perhaps 70 years to as little as 20 years.

Again, a lot of change [is] coming along very quickly that we have to be ready to adapt to. And that’s the part of this EIS statement in its great length, its great detail and great analysis, I think is not prepared to help us handle. I would ask that we begin to include that in the statement.

Response
Recognizing that decisions made by this generation could affect future generations, the EIS addresses potential human health impacts that could occur far into the future. In addition, the EIS notes that, under the No-Action Alternative, the obligation to store spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste continuously in a safe configuration would become the responsibility of future generations.

The extent to which this Nation should consider options other than nuclear energy is beyond the scope of this EIS. Even if there was a decision to shut down all nuclear powerplants in the country immediately (representing 20 percent of current power production), DOE would still be responsible for the permanent disposal of the spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste that has been generated to date.

DOE prepared an EIS (DIRS 104832-DOE 1980) that analyzed the environmental impacts that could occur if it developed and implemented various technologies for the management and disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. That EIS examined numerous alternatives, including mined geologic disposal, very deep hole disposal, disposal in a mined cavity that resulted from rock melting, island-based geologic disposal, subseabed disposal, ice sheet disposal, well injection disposal, transmutation, space disposal, and no action. The 1981 Record of Decision for that EIS (46 FR 26677; May 14, 1981) announced the DOE decision to pursue the mined geologic disposal alternative for the disposition of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. In addition, the NWPA directs DOE to study only the Yucca Mountain site as a potential geologic repository. This EIS follows that directive.

With regard to hydrogen buildup, based on the requirements for shipping casks and waste packages, no water would be permitted inside canisters. Thus, generation and buildup of hydrogen from radiolytic decomposition of water would not occur. In addition, the greatly reduced radiation fields from fuel, which must be cooled 5 years prior to shipment, would limit the generation of hydrogen even if water were present. The radiolytic gases produced from decay of the waste would be a small fraction of the total pressure of the system.

3.2 (8899)
Comment - EIS001198 / 0001
I understand that the NWPA required a technically adequate and final EIS to accompany a site recommendation and license application which can be adopted, to the extent practicable, by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). What is the definition of "technically adequate?"

Response
This EIS is consistent with Council on Environmental Quality regulations on the preparation of environmental impact statements (40 CFR Parts 1500 to1508), as well as DOE regulations that implement the National Environmental Policy Act. DOE believes that the procedural and technical aspects of the EIS are adequate.

3.2 (8909)
Comment - EIS000869 / 0035
Paragraph 2 [of Section S.11.2], the unavailability of information and differing interpretations of data, as stated in paragraph two, is a glaring omission throughout this report. Until this information is available and with a consensus of opinion regarding the interpretation of this information, I believe that the Yucca Mountain site should be put on hold.

Response
DOE acknowledges in the EIS that some information is incomplete or not available, and that views and conclusions might exist that differ from those of DOE. The EIS identifies where there is incomplete information, the unavailability of some information, results and conclusions that differ from DOE’s, and uncertainties associated with analytical results. In addition, the EIS describes the relevance and importance of the incomplete or unavailable information and then describes the assumptions and preliminary information used in the analysis. DOE has done this to help the reader understand the results or conclusions and their context. If the Secretary of Energy, the President, or Congress believed that these uncertainties were substantial enough to delay the program, a decision to put the project on hold could occur at any time during the approval process.

3.2 (8984)
Comment - EIS001040 / 0021
Why hasn’t DOE considered the economic, environmental and public safety impacts of the Yucca site?

Response
Chapters 4 and 5 of the EIS describe the short- and long-term impacts, respectively, of constructing, operating and monitoring, and closing a repository at Yucca Mountain. Chapter 6 describes the impacts of transporting the waste to Yucca Mountain from the current storage sites.

3.2 (9039)
Comment - EIS001866 / 0003
On page S-20 in the Summary of the DEIS in the highlighted box, it states, "... the current level of repository design is insufficient to meet information needs for a License Application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The design will continue to evolve through the submittal of the License Application." The public cannot meaningfully comment on an "evolving design" or any other part of the proposed action that is not a firm decision. And it is clear to the Task Force that attempts to show computer-modeled compliance with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards will drive all design decisions -- not public input.

Response
DOE noted in the Draft EIS (see Section 2.1.1.5, for example) that the analyzed designs were preliminary, and that it was investigating various design options and features to effect a predicted improvement in repository performance and to reduce associated uncertainties. The Department published the Supplement to the Draft EIS, which focused on a more recent repository design (called the flexible design) that included various heat-management scenarios. DOE believes that the EIS adequately analyzes each element of the Proposed Action (such as waste handling facilities, heat management scenarios, and transportation implementing alternatives and scenarios).

DOE acknowledges that it will continue to use the results of computer-based models, in part, to help shape the repository design. However, the Department will also continue to consider public input to the EIS process and other aspects of the Yucca Mountain Program and to the development of the design.

3.2 (9110)
Comment - EIS001937 / 0002
The scope of the site characterization, as represented in the draft EIS, has been framed such that certain potentially problematic aspects of the project have not been included. I am not referring to elements of need, timing, alternatives to isolating spent nuclear fuels and radioactive wastes in a repository, or alternative sites, as, under the Nuclear Waste [Policy] Act (NWPA), the Department of Energy (DOE) is not required to consider these aspects in the draft EIS.

I have two concerns regarding the issue of omissions. First, without explanation of the proper place or time where and when "the views and concerns not related to the scope of content of the Proposed Action," will be addressed, there is a danger in approving the document as it is currently proposed. It could appear that one unequivocally approves the project in entirety, when [its] entirety is not actually presented. Granted, the document makes these exclusions clear, but it does not indicate or acknowledge their validity. Secondly, without explaining the reason for the omission of the elements of need, timing, alternatives to isolating spent nuclear fuels and radioactive wastes in a repository, or alternative sites, the public clearly is only providing comments on a portion of the proposed action.

Response
The NWPA states that the EIS need not consider the need for a geologic repository, the time at which a repository could become available, and alternatives to isolating spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste in a repository. In addition, it addresses the issue of potential alternative sites by indicating that the EIS does not need to consider any site other than Yucca Mountain for repository development (see Section 1.5).

With regard to the concern that the public is only providing comments on a portion of the Proposed Action, DOE believes that it has provided a complete description of the Proposed Action and that comments submitted on the Draft EIS or the Supplement to the Draft EIS could be helpful to the Department in its preparation of the Final EIS. In the event Yucca Mountain is ultimately authorized and the project moves forward, DOE would submit a license application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The Commission’s licensing process would afford the public additional opportunities to review and comment on the specific design elements of the proposed Yucca Mountain Repository. In the event DOE incorporates additional design modifications subsequent to the submittal of the License Application, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s licensing process would provide additional opportunities for the public to comment on the repository.

3.2 (9141)
Comment - EIS001971 / 0001
Our citizen’s group C.U.R.E. has remained active trying to keep abreast of developments. Through our experience, we gained a vastly expanded understanding of "our back yard," which continues to apply to Prairie Island and extends, as far as we can tell, to Utah and even to Nevada. We remain deeply concerned about the standards and criteria applied to any site, timely promulgation of rulings, environmental impacts, and the siting of nuclear waste on Native American lands. We continue to look to state and federal agencies for the cohesive analysis of possible nuclear waste scenarios that is so critical to a successful and responsible long term waste management program. Unfortunately, the D.E.I.S. for Yucca Mountain, despite its cost, bulk and data, does not seem to have put us any closer to this goal.

Response
Chapter 11 of the EIS discusses the status of the Environmental Protection Agency and Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations, as well as other relevant statutes and requirements germane to the construction, operation and monitoring, and eventual closure of a repository at Yucca Mountain (the Proposed Action). Chapters 4 through 8 and 10 discuss potential environmental impacts from the Proposed Action and the No-Action Alternative. Sections 3.1.6, 3.2.2.1.5, 3.2.2.2.5, and 4.1.5 discuss Native American lands.

3.2 (9230)
Comment - EIS001888 / 0032
The DEIS is insufficient and incomplete with regard to National Environmental Policy Act requirements, Executive Order 12898, and professional practice because the DEIS:

Response
As discussed in Section 1.5.1 of the EIS, DOE received input during the scoping process from the public and a number of organizations. DOE considered the comments and information received during public scoping, and modified the analytical approach to the EIS accordingly. DOE also identified those comments and information unrelated to the planned scope or the content of the Proposed Action such as the constitutional basis for disposal in Nevada, or those comments that would have resulted in analyses that would be uncertain or speculative such as those related to risk perception or stigmatization, and loss of tourism. Section 1.5.1 has been modified accordingly. Based on the results of the scoping process, DOE analyzed a variety of alternatives and scenarios that would implement a Proposed Action to construct, operate (including transportation) and monitor, and eventually close a repository at Yucca Mountain. These alternatives and scenarios reflect potential design and operating modes, waste packaging approaches, and transportation options for shipping spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste to the Yucca Mountain site from 77 commercial and DOE sites around the Nation.

DOE believes that its approach to the public involvement process during the development of the EIS is consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act, the Council on Environmental Quality and DOE regulations, DOE guidance on public participation, and Executive Order 12898 during the preparation of EISs. A Federal Register notice announced the release of the Draft EIS. Before each hearing, DOE placed advertisements in local newspapers, including Spanish language newspapers, and distributed public service announcements and press releases to more than 175 local and national stakeholders and media outlets to publicize information that would be accessible to the general public and to minority and low-income communities.

3.2 (9273)
Comment - EIS001938 / 0008
The DEIS contains numerous information gaps. There are references throughout the document to incomplete or unavailable information, information which is essential to ensuring that [the] DEIS contains a thorough and accurate review of the project.

The DEIS is rife with examples where scientific information is either incomplete, unavailable, or in dispute. The failure of DOE to fully acknowledge and resolve such controversies makes the document vulnerable to legal challenge.
As an example, the DEIS fails to address the safety of the repository containers in the instance of seismic activity. In fact, the DEIS states that the "DOE needs to complete additional investigations of ground motion site effects before it can produce the final seismic design basis for the surface facilities." The same section indicates that there may be higher crustal strain rates than would be predicted by reviewing the area’s Quaternary volcanic and tectonic history. In other words, the DOE indicates that there may be a need for additional studies and those that have been done could have significantly underestimated the potential volcanic and seismic hazards at the site. If a problem results from the fact that this project is being sited in a geologically active system, protected National Park, NWR [National Wildlife Refuge] and Wilderness resources are downstream and are likely to suffer from contamination from a leak at the repository site. Even if the chances of such an accident are small, the impact would be so profound that this risk mandates thorough analysis and scrutiny.

Another example of incomplete information is the need to more thoroughly understand the groundwater resources and relationships between Yucca Mountain and the aquifer underlying DVNP [Death Valley National Park] and environs. As noted [above], the DEIS fails to acknowledge the existence of other hydrological information which may contradict DOE-generated information. There is little question that additional study will be necessary to fully understand the groundwater flow system, and this basic knowledge will be required to accurately determine the potential environmental impacts of utilizing Yucca Mountain as a repository for high-level radioactive waste. Effective modeling must also consider a response of the flow system to a number of likely variables, including continued development, increased groundwater withdrawals, variations in precipitation, and groundwater recharge. Absent that kind of data and analysis, the DEIS will not be able to conclusively determine potential environmental impacts, and is therefore incomplete.

In sum, the DEIS contains numerous references to incomplete or unavailable information. Repository functions are based on computer models and like much of the analysis in this document, the data are incomplete and are being fed into untested models. There is sufficient scientific uncertainty surrounding the proposed project that additional study needs to be conducted. The controversial nature of the scientific studies conducted regarding the project (i.e., varying results and interpretations) also warrants further discussion in the revised DEIS.

NEPA [National Environmental Policy Act] case law is instructive in this regard. An EIS must provide sufficient detail and analysis to fulfill the requirement of NEPA to "ensure that environmental information is available to public officials and citizens before decisions are made and before actions are taken." 40 CFR 1500.1(b). NEPA requires the federal agency to "consider every significant aspect of the environmental impact of a proposed action" Vermont Yankee Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council [NRDC], 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978), and to ensure "that the agency will inform the public that it has indeed considered environmental concerns in its decision making process." Baltimore Gas and Electric Company v. NRDC, 462 U.S. 87, 97 (1983).

CEQ [Council on environmental Quality] regulations place specific requirements on federal agencies when NEPA review is based on incomplete or unavailable information:

"When an agency is evaluating reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts on the human environment or in an environmental impact statement and there is incomplete or unavailable information, the agency shall always make clear that such information is lacking.

(a) If the incomplete information relevant to reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts is essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives and the overall cost of obtaining it are not exorbitant, the agency shall include the information in the environmental impact statement.

(b) If the information relevant to reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts cannot be obtained because the overall costs of obtaining it are exorbitant or the means to obtain it are not known, the agency shall include within the environmental impact statement:

(1) A statement that such information is incomplete or unavailable; (2) a statement of the foreseeable significant adverse impacts on the human environment; (3) a summary of existing credible scientific evidence which is relevant to evaluating the reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts on the human environment, and (4) the agency’s evaluation of such impacts based upon theoretical approaches or research methods generally accepted in the scientific community."

40 CFR 1502.22

The aforementioned provision requires the "disclosure and analysis of the costs of uncertainty [and] the costs of proceeding without more and better information." Southern Oregon Citizens Against Toxic Sprays, Inc. v. Clark (SOCATS), 720 F.2d 1475, 1478 (9th Cir. 1983). "On their face these regulations require an ordered process by an agency when it is proceeding in the face of uncertainty." Save Our Ecosystems v. Clark, 747 F.2d 1240, 1244 (9th Cir. 1984).

Thus, 40 CFR 1502.22 imposes three mandatory obligations on the DOE in the face of uncertainty: (1) a duty to disclose the uncertainty; (2) a duty to complete independent research and gather information if no adequate information exists (unless the costs are exorbitant or the means of obtaining the information are not known); and (3) a duty to evaluate the potential, reasonably foreseeable impacts in the absence of relevant information, using a four-step process. The DOE has failed to meet the requirements of 40 CFR 1502.22 in the face of uncertainty regarding many of the foreseeable environmental impacts of the proposed project.

The Ninth Circuit Court determined that "Section 1502.22 clearly contemplates original research if necessary" and held that "NEPA law requires research whenever the information is significant. As long as the information is ... essential or significant, it must be provided when the costs are not exorbitant in light of the size of the project and the possible harm to the environment." Save Our Ecosystems, 747 F.2d at 1244n.5. See also SOCATS, 720 F.2d at 1479 (40 CFR 1502.22(a) requires the BLM [Bureau of Land Management] to independently assess the safety of the herbicides it uses if existing data is inadequate). Although NEPA does not mandate substantive results, its action-forcing procedural provisions "are not highly flexible, [and] establish a strict standard of compliance." Calvert Cliffs Coordinating Comm. V. United States Atomic Energy [Commission], 449 F.2d 1109, 1112 (D.C. Cir. 1971).

The duty to delay finalization of NEPA documentation when faced with incomplete or unavailable information ensures that agencies comply with NEPA’s central purpose -- "to obviate the need for speculation by insuring that available data is gathered and analyzed prior to the implementation of the proposed action." Save Our Ecosystems, 747 F.2d at 1248-49. NEPA "envisions that program formulation will be directed by research results rather than that research programs will be designed to substantiate programs already decided upon." Id. See also 40 CFR 1500.1(b) (NEPA procedures ensure that environmental information is available to public officials and citizens before decisions are made and before actions are taken).

Response
As discussed in Section 2.5 of the EIS, some of the analyses relied on incomplete information. DOE identified the use of incomplete information or the unavailability of information in accordance with Council on Environmental Quality regulations. In these instances, the Department described the basis for the analyses, including assumptions, the use of preliminary information, or conclusions from draft or incomplete studies.

DOE acknowledges (see Section 2.5) that the results of analyses often have associated uncertainties, which could be the result of the assumptions used, the complexity and variability of the process being analyzed, the use of incomplete information, or the unavailability of information. To enable an understanding of the status of its findings, the EIS describes any uncertainties associated with the results.

An uncertainty identified in the Draft EIS was the potential for changes to the design due to ongoing site characterization activities and design evaluations. Since the publication of the Draft EIS, DOE has acquired an improved understanding of the interactions of potential design features with the natural environment, and the advantages of a number of design features to enhance waste isolation and containment. As a result, in May 2001 DOE published the Supplement to the Draft EIS. The Supplement focused on the most recent base design enhancements, including various operating modes to manage heat generated by emplaced spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste.

DOE continues to study issues relevant to an understanding of what could happen in the future at Yucca Mountain and the potential impacts associated with its use as a repository (see Section 2.1.2.3, for example). As a result, this Final EIS includes information that was not available for the Draft EIS. Ongoing studies will continue to improve the Department’s understanding of the potential interactions of repository features with the natural environment, and the advantages of design features to enhance waste containment and isolation and to further reduce uncertainties.

DOE believes that the information in this Final EIS on impacts that could result from either the Proposed Action or the No-Action Alternative is consistent with National Environmental Policy Act requirements. The level of information and analyses, the analytical methods and approaches used to represent conservatively the reasonably foreseeable impacts, and the use of bounding assumptions if information was incomplete or unavailable and if there were uncertainties, combine to provide a meaningful assessment of impacts consistent with the regulations.

3.2 (9291)
Comment - EIS001888 / 0016
Because of the lack of compliance with NEPA [National Environmental Policy Act] requirements, consideration of important individual and cumulative impacts, and inclusion of affected groups in the process, the DEIS is inadequate and incomplete. Therefore, the DEIS does not provide enough scope and detail to allow for meaningful mitigation planning.

The rationale for this statement takes into account the following points. The Draft EIS:

Response
The NWPA specifies that it is not necessary for this EIS to consider the need for a repository, alternatives to geologic disposal, or alternative sites to Yucca Mountain. Although the NWPA does not require DOE to evaluate alternatives to the repository, DOE chose to evaluate a No-Action Alternative to provide a basis for comparison with the Proposed Action. With regard to the reasonableness of the No-Action Alternative, guidance in the Council on Environmental Quality’s "Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ’s National Environmental Policy Act Regulations" (46 FR 18026, March 23, 1981) states that the No-Action Alternative is "...no change from current management direction or level of management authority..." Therefore, DOE believes that continuing to store spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste at its current locations is an appropriate description of the No-Action Alternative.

As discussed in Section 1.5.1 of the EIS, DOE received input during the scoping process from the public and a number of organizations. DOE considered the comments and information received during scoping, and modified the analytical approach to the EIS accordingly. In addition, DOE identified comments and information it believes to be unrelated to the planned scope or the content of the Proposed Action, such as the constitutional basis for disposal in Nevada, or those comments that would have resulted in analyses that would be uncertain or speculative (such as risk perception or stigmatization, and loss of tourism). Section 1.5.1 has been modified accordingly. Based on the results of the scoping process, DOE analyzed a variety of alternatives and scenarios that would implement the Proposed Action. These alternatives and scenarios reflect potential design and operating modes, waste packaging approaches, and transportation options for shipping spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste to the Yucca Mountain site from 77 commercial and DOE sites around the Nation.

DOE believes that its approach to the public involvement process during the development of the EIS is consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act, the Council on Environmental Quality and DOE regulations, and DOE guidance on public participation during the preparation of EISs. Planning for the public comment period began during the scoping period for the EIS at which time DOE indicated that the public comment period on the Draft EIS would be at least 180 days. DOE later extended this period nearly three weeks to further accommodate comment submittal after additional hearings were scheduled. A Federal Register notice announced the release of the Draft EIS at which time more than 2,400 copies were mailed to stakeholders including members of Congress, state and territorial governors, state legislators, Federal agencies, interest groups, and members of the public. Since release of the Draft EIS, a cumulative total of more than 3,400 copies of the document have been distributed. Before each hearing, DOE placed advertisements in local newspapers, including Spanish-language newspapers, and distributed public service announcements and press releases to more than 175 local and national stakeholders and media outlets to publicize information that would be accessible to the general public and to minority and low-income communities.

3.2 (9305)
Comment - EIS001888 / 0030
Clark County staff met with 19 Town Advisory Boards/Citizens’ Advisory Councils, representatives from local jurisdictions and other groups to exchange information and receive comments on the Draft EIS. It is clear from the comments recorded that not only county officials, but also citizens, are very concerned about the negative impacts that the Yucca Mountain Program may have on Southern Nevada.

Specific issues raised in the comments include the need to acknowledge and assess the impacts on Native Americans, and more fully consider public safety, environmental impacts, environmental justice, funding to local governments, effects on land use, perception-based impacts of DOE activities, performance assessment, interaction of the repository program of local and regional plans, public participation, regulatory standards, schedule [and] licensing, socioeconomic impacts, storage, and transportation issues.

Response
DOE believes that the EIS is consistent with National Environmental Policy Act and NWPA requirements. The scope and level of information and analyses, the analytical methods and approaches used to represent conservatively the reasonably foreseeable impacts that could occur, and the use of bounding assumptions to address incomplete or unavailable information or uncertainties provide a meaningful assessment of environmental impact consistent with applicable requirements.

Chapter 3 and 5 of the EIS provides estimates for the short- and long- term impacts of the repository for a wide range of environmental disciplines, including public health and safety, socioeconomics, environmental justice, and land use. Chapter 6 provides comparable analyses for transportation actions. The long-term impacts described in Chapter 5 are based on the total system performance assessment. Chapter 8 of the EIS estimates the cumulative impacts of the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions. Impacts where applicable are compared to regulatory standards. With regard to perception-based impacts, DOE acknowledges that stigmatization can be envisioned in some scenarios but stigma is not inevitable or measurable. Consequently, DOE addressed but did not attempt to quantify any potential for impacts from perception or stigma in this EIS. The EIS also describes the public participation process and the decisionmaking process including the potential licensing of the repository by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (see Section 1.5.1 and 1.3.2.3 of the EIS, respectively).

Local financial and technical assistance would be based on the evaluation of requests for assistance from affected units of government pursuant to Sections 116 and 180 of the NWPA.

3.2 (9325)
Comment - EIS001373 / 0001
My first comment will be presented as a question: Is Congress above the laws that they previously enacted? I am not an expert in legislative issues and procedures, but I provide the following commentary regarding this question.

The 1982, the NWPA was structured in such a manner to meet the 1969 NEPA [National Environmental Policy Act] requirements. Environmental documents and procedures prepared and performed up to the 1987 amendment to the NWPA clearly demonstrated an environmental approach that was in line with the spirit and intent of the NEPA requirements. However, the 1987 Congressional amendment to the NWPA appears to be a blatant attempt to bypass NEPA procedures and consequently, I believe that this DEIS is flawed and remiss in meeting the intent of the NEPA process.

In simple terms, I believe that one of the principal purposes of the NEPA process is to provide a procedure to select that option for achieving the desired outcome through the minimum disruption to ALL the environmental considerations upon its implementation. Is that the case for the evaluation performed in this DEIS? From my perspective, this does not appear to be true.

As indicated in the Federal Register/Vol. 64 No 229/Tuesday, November 30, 1999, page 67058 Section II D. 1987 Amendment to NWPA: "...In sum, Congress made clear its intent for DOE to focus its resources on investigating Yucca Mountain, and only Yucca Mountain, as a potential site for a high-level radioactive waste repository."

I believe that this Congressional action is in direct violation of NEPA procedures. The Council for Environmental Quality Regulations for Implementing NEPA Sec. 1502.14 Alternatives including the proposed action, reads as follows:

"This section is the heart of the environmental impact statement. Based on the information and analysis presented in the sections on the Affected Environment (Sec. 1502.15) and the Environmental Consequences (Sec. 1502.16), it should present the environmental impacts of the proposal and the alternatives in comparative form, thus sharply defining the issues and providing a clear basis for choice among options by the decisionmaker and the public. In this section agencies shall:

  1. Rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives, and for alternatives which were eliminated from detailed study, briefly discuss the reasons for their having been eliminated.

  2. Devote substantial treatment to each alternative considered in detail including the proposed action so that reviewers may evaluate their comparative merits.

  3. Include reasonable alternatives not within the jurisdiction of the lead agency.

  4. Include the alternative of no action.

  5. Identify the agency’s preferred alternative or alternatives, if one or more exists, in the draft statement and identify such alternative in the final statement unless another law prohibits the expression of such a preference.

  6. Include appropriate mitigation measures not already included in the proposed action or alternatives."

Based on the above CEQ guidelines, I see two major flaws with this DEIS (if indeed Congress must abide by the law):

  1. The lack of discussion of other potential site locations
  2. The lack of discussion of alternatives to the proposed action aside from the No Action option
In summary, the NEPA process was ignored and essentially circumvented by the 1987 Congressional amendment to the NWPA. From that point forward, the process has been flawed and contrary to the intent of NEPA. The present process is nothing more than a political charade -- using the terminology of the NEPA procedures and process, but clearly with the preconceived decision as to where the repository will be located -- Yucca Mountain.

Response
The NWPA includes four provisions relevant to the EIS. The Secretary of Energy is not required to consider (1) the need for a geologic repository, (2) the time at which a repository could become available, (3) alternatives to isolating spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste in a repository, and (4) the need to consider any site other than Yucca Mountain for repository development (see Section 1.5 of the EIS).

Within this framework, DOE has prepared this EIS consistent with Council on Environmental Quality and DOE regulations. DOE believes that the EIS appropriately describes the types and magnitudes of environmental impacts that could occur if it constructed, operated and monitored, and eventually closed a geologic repository at the Yucca Mountain site.

3.2 (9351)
Comment - EIS001373 / 0002
The last sentence on page S-2 in the Summary indicates that additional environmental and engineering analyses and National Environmental Policy Act [NEPA] reviews will be performed as part of future efforts for transporting the waste to the Yucca [Mountain] site. Again, it appears that this is an attempt to manipulate the NEPA process to achieve the desired outcome.

On the one hand, DOE is advocating a Total System Performance Assessment (TSPA) approach for characterizing the Yucca site. On the other hand, it is viewed as completely acceptable to decouple environmental considerations as to how the waste will actually get to the site with certainty (with regards to meeting other federal, state, and local regulations and obtaining the proper permits and approvals). This rationale appears to be very self serving -- when it’s to our (DOE) advantage, use the TSPA approach; when it’s not, then it can be rationalized that any additional and necessary environmental analyses can be performed independent of the Yucca site environmental impact analysis.

The environmental impacts associated with dealing with the nation’s high-level nuclear waste problem cannot be fragmented into a series of separate and independent actions and still meet the intent of NEPA. To illustrate this point, suppose that the Yucca site is found to be completely acceptable through this questionable DEIS process and then it turns out that due to transportation problems a large percentage of the waste cannot be transported to the site, then what happens? Such a situation would not occur if the NEPA process was properly followed and the site, which minimized all environmental considerations, is selected -- whether it is Yucca Mountain or some other location.

Response
DOE has made no decision on the proposed monitored geologic repository at Yucca Mountain. After the completion of this Final EIS, the Secretary of Energy will determine whether to recommend to the President development of a repository at Yucca Mountain. If the Secretary made such a recommendation, the President would then decide whether to recommend the site to Congress.

The Secretary of Energy will use the information in the EIS and other information to determine whether to recommend Yucca Mountain to the President as the site for the proposed repository. In making this determination, the Secretary will consider short- and long-term environmental and human health risks from the construction and operation of the repository and from transportation of nuclear waste to the repository. The Secretary will also consider issues such as long-term risk and cost.

DOE believes that the EIS provides the information necessary to make transportation-related decisions about the basic approaches (for example, mostly rail or mostly truck shipments), as well as the choice among candidate rail corridors in Nevada. DOE has committed to prepare additional National Environmental Policy Act studies and documentation for the specific alignment of a rail route in an identified corridor.

DOE considered the potential environmental impacts associated with all elements of the Proposed Action in the EIS. To enhance understanding, DOE described the proposed repository in terms of surface and subsurface facilities, and assessed the impacts of each. Further, because transportation of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste is a necessary component of the Proposed Action, the EIS includes an analysis of transportation impacts. To present a more focused description of impacts in Nevada, the EIS discusses Nevada Transportation separately. DOE included all elements and phases of the Proposed Action in the EIS and analyzed the potential impacts associated with each.

3.2 (9387)
Comment - EIS001888 / 0100
Another example is found in the public health sections. By insisting that the DEIS is not an emergency planning document, the DOE avoided preparing any estimates of the costs necessary to mitigate the impacts of emergency planning, response, evacuation and cleanup. This approach is consistent with other DOE impact assessments (notably the Nevada Test Site EIS), but does not conform to best practice in the field of impact assessment. While this approach may have facilitated speedy preparation of the DEIS, it did not result in a thorough analysis of the impacts of the program and violates the letter and spirit of NEPA [the National Environmental Policy Act].

Response
The preparation of cost estimates, as suggested by this comment, would require a level of information that is not available. For example, the details associated with the development and implementation of emergency response plans would not be available until about 4 years before the first shipments of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste (if the site was approved). Furthermore, cost estimates of evacuation and cleanup would be highly uncertain and would require speculation to develop. The magnitude of the cost would depend on a host of factors including, for example, the amount of material released, weather conditions that would dictate in part the spread of contamination, surrounding land use (for example, urban setting versus farmland), population, and others. For these reasons, DOE believes the development of such costs is unnecessary.

3.2 (9479)
Comment - EIS001888 / 0147
[Clark County summary of comments it has received from the public.]

Requests for a review of the effects of past DOE (and predecessor) activities in Southern Nevada have not been addressed in the DEIS, however others asked that DOE address inequalities and the "political" aspects of the issue but these were similarly not addressed in the DEIS.

Response
As part of the cumulative impacts analysis in Chapter 8 of the EIS, DOE evaluated past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. As discussed in Section 1.5.1, DOE received input during the scoping process from the public and a number of organizations. DOE considered the comments and information received during scoping and modified the EIS analytical approach accordingly. DOE also identified comments and information that it believed were unrelated to the scope or the content of the Proposed Action, such as the constitutional basis for disposal in Nevada, political inequities, or those comments that suggested analyses into areas that cannot be measured, such as those related to risk perception or stigma. DOE has modified Section 1.5.1 of the EIS accordingly.

3.2 (9737)
Comment - EIS001888 / 0322
For more than a decade, Clark County has recorded comments pertaining to the Yucca Mountain Project and [its] potential impacts on Clark County. The comments date back to 1988. From the very beginning, great concern has been expressed by Clark County officials, staff, citizens and other commenters. Specific issues raised in the comments include: the need to acknowledge and assess the impacts on Native Americans; cumulative impacts; issues to be addressed in the EIS; emergency response considerations; environmental impacts; environmental justice; funding; land use; perception-based impacts of DOE activities; performance assessment; planning considerations; public participation; regulatory standards; schedule [and] licensing; socioeconomic impacts; storage; transportation; and trust issues.

From the comments recorded, it is clear that not only Clark County, but also its citizens, are very concerned about the negative impacts that the Yucca Mountain Program could have on Southern Nevada.

Response
DOE believes that the EIS is consistent with National Environmental Policy Act and NWPA requirements. The scope and level of information and analyses, the analytical methods and approaches used to represent conservatively the reasonably foreseeable impacts that could occur, and the use of bounding assumptions to address incomplete or unavailable information or uncertainties provide a meaningful assessment of environmental impact consistent with applicable requirements.

Chapter 3 and 5 of the EIS provides estimates for the short- and long- term impacts of the repository for a wide range of environmental disciplines, including public health and safety, socioeconomics, environmental justice, and land use. Chapter 6 provides comparable analyses for transportation actions. The long-term impacts described in Chapter 5 are based on the total system performance assessment. Chapter 8 of the EIS estimates the cumulative impacts of the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions. Impacts where applicable are compared to regulatory standards. With regard to perception-based impacts, DOE acknowledges that stigmatization can be envisioned in some scenarios but stigma is not inevitable or measurable. As a consequence, DOE addressed but did not attempt to quantify any potential for impacts from perception or stigma in this EIS. The EIS also describes the public participation process and the decisionmaking process including the potential licensing of the repository by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (see Section 1.5.1 and 1.3.2.3 of the EIS, respectively).

Local financial and technical assistance would be based on the evaluation of requests for assistance from affected units of government pursuant to Sections 116 and 180 of the NWPA.

3.2 (9738)
Comment - EIS002070 / 0002
NCCRG [North Carolina Citizens Research Group] has read over the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s comments [on the DEIS] and when the NRC says you have defects in your analysis of something nuclear, you can have very high confidence that you do.

Response
DOE has responded to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission comments on the Draft EIS in this Comment-Response Document.

3.2 (9741)
Comment - EIS001888 / 0325
[Clark County summary of comments it has received from the public.]

Others asked that DOE address inequalities and the "political" aspects of the issue but they were not addressed in the DEIS.

Response
As discussed in Section 1.5.1 of the EIS, DOE received input during the scoping process from the public and a number of organizations. DOE considered the comments and information received during scoping, and modified the analytical approach to the EIS accordingly. In addition, DOE identified comments and information that it believes to be unrelated to the scope or the content of the Proposed Action, or comments for which analyses would be uncertain and speculative (such as inequalities). Section 1.5.1 has been modified accordingly.

3.2 (9761)
Comment - EIS001888 / 0345
[Clark County summary of comments it has received from the public.]

The Action Alternatives should include (or not include) other activities besides the construction, operation (including transportation), and closure of the repository. Other activities included: (1) impacts of construction of shipping containers and waste packages, (2) infrastructure development, (3) future construction and operation of new and existing power plants, (4) additional SNF [spent nuclear fuel] and HLW [high-level radioactive waste] generation because on-site storage space will become available, (5) global activities associated with foreign research reactor SNF transfer, and (6) no longer generating SNF as part of the action alternatives. One commenter stated that future operation of new and existing reactors and construction of new reactors should not be part of the action alternatives.

Response
As discussed in Section 1.5.1 of the EIS, DOE received input during the scoping process from the public and a number of organizations. DOE considered the comments and information received during scoping, and modified the analytical approach to the EIS accordingly. The EIS analyzes connected actions, such as those associated with the manufacture of shipping casks and disposal containers. DOE also identified comments and information that it believes are unrelated to the scope or content of the Proposed Action, or comments for which analyses would be uncertain and speculative. DOE has not analyzed actions that are not directly related to or connected to the Proposed Action. Thus, the EIS does not cover future construction and operation of powerplants, or terminating the generation of spent nuclear. Section 1.5.1 has been modified accordingly.

In the Draft EIS and the Supplement to the Draft EIS, DOE analyzed a variety of scenarios and implementing alternatives that it could in implement to construct, operate, and monitor, and eventually close a repository at Yucca Mountain. To enable an improved understanding of the potential environmental impacts from a more specifically defined Proposed Action in the Final EIS, DOE has identified its preferred alternatives, simplified aspects of the Proposed Action, and modified its analyses and presentation of information to illustrate the full range of potential environmental impacts likely to occur under any foreseeable mode of transportation or repository design and operating mode.

3.2 (9762)
Comment - EIS001888 / 0346
[Clark County summary of comments it has received from the public.]

Three commenters stated that the description of baseline conditions described in the EIS should be those conditions that existed prior to the start of site characterization.

Response
The NWPA distinguishes between site characterization as a preliminary decisionmaking activity not subject to an EIS. As such, the baseline environment from which DOE has examined impacts under the Proposed Action is the environment that will exist at the conclusion of site characterization. An annual Site Environmental Report for Yucca Mountain describes the environmental impacts of site characterization. DOE has prepared these publicly available reports since 1991.

3.2 (9768)
Comment - EIS001888 / 0353
[Clark County summary of comments it has received from the public.]

Several commenters provided "broad" or general recommendations as to how the EIS process and document preparation should proceed. One said that the EIS should be organized by issues, rather than a traditional organization by subjects (air quality, geology, etc.), and rely on stand-alone technical reports for each issue. Another requested that the implementation plan include a list of decisions that the EIS needs to support, along with a discussion of the factors that DOE will use to make comparisons among all decision choices. Other commenters requested that the EIS be part of a comprehensive risk management process (independently prepared and acceptable to stakeholders), and reflect scoping comments from the NTS [Nevada Test Site] site wide EIS and the Multi-Purpose Canister EIS, and that all commitments for mitigation be included in the Record of Decision.

Response
As discussed in Section 1.5.1 of the EIS, DOE received input during the scoping process from the public and a number of organizations. DOE considered the comments and information it received and modified the information bases and analytical approach to the EIS accordingly. The Department provided responses to those comments in a summary of public scoping comments (DIRS 104630-YMP 1997). In addition, DOE identified comments and information it believed to be unrelated to the EIS scope or to the Proposed Action, or comments for which analyses would be uncertain and speculative. Section 1.5.1 has been modified accordingly. As requested by comments, DOE based the EIS discussions of the decisions to be made (see the Foreword, for example) in part on the information and analyses in the EIS. However, DOE developed the EIS format in accordance with the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality, rather than using the format suggested by those comments. Although it is unclear what this comment means by a "comprehensive risk management process," the EIS provides an assessment of short- and long-term public and worker risk from exposure to radionuclides and toxic chemicals.

With regard to the Record of Decision, Section 114(a)(1) of the NWPA authorizes the Secretary of Energy to determine whether to recommend approval of the Yucca Mountain site to the President for development as a repository for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. A comprehensive statement of the basis for the recommendation, including a Final EIS, would have to accompany such a recommendation. The decision to approve the site rests not with the Secretary, but with the President and Congress, if necessary. Because the President and Congress would make this determination, DOE does not anticipate issuing a Record of Decision on the determination to recommend if the Secretary recommended the site to the President.

Because DOE does not anticipate issuing a Record of Decision, it might not prepare a Mitigation Action Plan. However, the Yucca Mountain site, if approved in accordance with provisions of the NWPA, would be subject to licensing by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. DOE, in submitting its application to construct and operate the repository to the Commission, would identify relevant commitments, including those identified in the Final EIS, to the Commission for its consideration, and could reasonably expect a comprehensive set of mitigation measures or conditions of approval to be part of the licensing process.

3.2 (9773)
Comment - EIS001888 / 0357
[Clark County summary of comments it has received from the public.]

In general commenters recommended that the EIS address general policy issues relevant to the NEPA [National Environmental Policy Act] process, management of that process, and impacts due to site characterization activities at the Yucca Mountain site. The EIS must present a thorough description of the natural, social, economic, and as-built aspects of the project that are sufficient to enable delineation of subarea (i.e., specific community) impacts (including probability of occurrence and degree of consequence). Commenters indicated that preparation of the EIS required the development of a structure (or plan) for data collection, analysis, and research that is comprehensive, and relies on related project activities. Sufficient data should be collected so as to minimize, if not avoid, uncertainties and, thus, the 5-year time frame allotted for completion of the EIS should not be a requirement, but rather a guideline. This requires an interdisciplinary approach to: (1) acquire empirical baseline information; (2) acquire empirical information about potential adverse impacts; (3) reduce uncertainties through risk analysis; and (4) develop adequate plans for monitoring, managing and mitigating potential impacts for up to 1 million years. Commenters suggested that the extent of uncertainty must be identified in the EIS.

Response
As discussed in Section 1.5.1 of the EIS, DOE received input during the scoping process from the public and a number of organizations. DOE considered the comments and information received during scoping, and modified the analytical approach to the EIS accordingly. In addition, DOE identified comments and information it believes to be unrelated to the scope or content of the Proposed Action, or comments for which analyses would be uncertain and speculative. Section 1.5.1 has been modified accordingly.

DOE believes that the EIS provides the appropriate information and analyses identified in this comment. Section 1.5 of the EIS discusses the National Environmental Policy Act process, Chapter 2 describes proposed repository design features, and Chapter 3 contains a resource-by-resource discussion of the affected environment. Section 2.5 discusses uncertainties and the use of incomplete or unavailable information to identify uncertainties in the data or analytical approaches. DOE acknowledges that the results of analyses often have associated uncertainties and has described such uncertainties throughout the EIS.

3.2 (9775)
Comment - EIS001888 / 0359
[Clark County summary of comments it has received from the public.]

Commenters requested that alternatives in the EIS address all phases (e.g., construction, transportation, operation, retrieval, closure) and major activities (e.g., emplacement, construction methods, backfill, ownership and management of transportation systems, maintenance). Some commenters suggested that alternatives be developed based on reducing exposure risk and uncertainty, increasing safety, and enhancing economic benefit.

Response
DOE believes the information and analyses presented in the EIS represent conservatively the reasonably foreseeable impacts that could occur for all actions and phases associated with the proposed Yucca Mountain Repository. Since the publication of the Draft EIS, DOE has improved its understanding of the interactions of potential repository features with the natural environment, and the advantages of a number of design features such as titanium drip shields to enhance waste containment and isolation. The flexible design incorporates elements that would also reduce some of the uncertainty associated with the long-term performance of the repository. DOE published the Supplement to the Draft EIS in May 2001 to provide the updated information to the public

3.2 (9904)
Comment - EIS001888 / 0450
[Clark County summary of comments it has received from the public.]

Some commenters felt that the NEPA [National Environmental Policy Act] process was costly; others felt the process only served to provide environmental extremists a method to delay or halt important projects. Some commenters felt that the ultimate decision on the repository should be left up to a national vote.

Response
The NWPA requires that a Final EIS accompany any recommendation by the Secretary of Energy to the President to approve the Yucca Mountain site.

3.2 (9929)
Comment - EIS001860 / 0009
The decision to use geologic disposal is 20 years old. In the last 20 years waste management experts have come to the belated realization and open admission that the environment is always degraded by dumps and that all dumps inevitably fail.

When the decision to go with geologic disposal of nuclear waste was made 20 years ago, other methods, such as transmutation and recycling, were inadequately explored before this decision was reached. The Draft EIS does not address this issue adequately.

Response
DOE prepared this EIS to describe the potential beneficial and adverse environmental effects of the Proposed Action and the No-Action Alternative. The Department recognizes that knowledge about other technologies for the management of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste has advanced during the past 20 years (see the discussion on transmutation in Section 9.1.3, for example). However, this Nation’s policy, as established by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, is to dispose of these materials in a geologic repository.

3.2 (10172)
Comment - EIS002092 / 0003
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement does not describe the proposed project in a way that allows for reasonable analysis of its impacts. The document contains a number of design alternatives and options from which the Department of Energy will presumably choose. All of the design alternatives admittedly and inevitably result in releases of radionuclides from the repository into Nevada’s groundwater. The end result will be contamination of both drinking water and water used for agriculture. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement simply does not inform the public what the future risks of the repository are to people and to the environment.

Response
DOE recognizes that the Proposed Action, which involves various implementing alternatives and scenarios, is complex. The implementing alternatives and scenarios reflect potential repository design and operating modes (such as thermal load scenarios and approaches to heat management) and waste packaging approaches (such as canisters and disposal containers). DOE also recognizes that since the publication of the Draft EIS key aspects of the design (such as disposal container components and the use of drip shields) have changed in ways that would be important to repository performance and reduction of uncertainties. For this reason, DOE published a Supplement to the Draft EIS that focused on the most recent design enhancements, including various heat-management scenarios. This information was carried forward to the Final EIS. The Department believes that the level of information provided for each element of the Proposed Action (such as waste handling facilities, heat management scenarios, and transportation implementing alternatives and scenarios) is sufficient to provide a meaningful assessment of environmental impacts for review by the public.

DOE has organized the EIS to present information, methods of analysis, and results of analyses in a clear and concise manner. For example, Chapter 5 discusses the consequences of long-term repository performance to humans and the environment, and Appendix I provides supporting information. Together Chapter 5 and Appendix I discuss the locations of the reasonably maximally exposed individual and the population of concern for which DOE estimated impacts, and the waterborne and airborne radiological consequences for the thermal load scenarios (among other aspects). The results of these analyses indicate that releases would be below applicable standards.

3.2 (10208)
Comment - EIS001479 / 0009
I agree with Cynthia that the people that are working on this are human beings as well and that they will be able hopefully to look at all the aspects of the decision that they’re making and the effect that it will have on other people, and that we can have a lot more democracy in the decision making about this.

Response
As discussed in Section 2.6 of the EIS, the Secretary of Energy would consider not only the potential environmental impacts and public comments on the EIS, but also other factors in determining whether to recommend the Yucca Mountain site to the President. Factors could include those identified through public input, but others as well, including:

3.2 (10220)
Comment - EIS001888 / 0582
[Clark County summary of comments it has received from the public.]

Commenters expressed general support for the NEPA [National Environmental Policy Act] process, specifically the information distributed to the public, the process for preparing an EIS, and the need to consider the potential for environmental impacts. Some said they would support the project if it proved to be the best option. Others emphasized that the public would never be for the project, but a decision must be made.

Response
Thank you for your comment.

3.2 (10787)
Comment - EIS000144 / 0008
How does the U.S., be it the NRA, EPA [Environmental Protection Agency], or AEC [Atomic Energy Commission] build 10,000 years of accountability into this project? Surely you recognize, given the mega changes in society now, that guaranteeing responsibility over such a period is not possible. Ten thousand years ago, after all, mankind had just begun the age of agriculture.

Response
DOE assumes that "the NRA" means the NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission).

The commenter correctly recognizes that societal uncertainty makes an assignment of responsibility for 10,000 years impossible. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Environmental Protection Agency have also recognized this fact and, although they encourage the maintenance of monitoring and physical oversight for as long as possible, they recognize that projecting society’s willingness and ability to provide such a function for more than 100 years into the future is not reasonable. The fact that there can be no assurance of institutional responsibility or control for 10,000 years is the principal reason for the selection of a deep geologic repository as the way to deal with these materials. Such a repository would provide passive control of the materials rather than relying on perpetual institutional control. The disadvantage to this is that we must accommodate uncertainty to project the behavior of the system.

3.2 (10815)
Comment - EIS000290 / 0001
The DEIS findings demonstrate that proposed actions of constructing and operating a repository at Yucca Mountain result in relatively small and acceptable environmental impacts when compared to the no-action alternatives evaluated. Leaving used nuclear fuel at reactor sites on an indefinite basis is not an alternative, and it is not sound national policy. We must take responsibility for disposing of used nuclear fuel and not leave it for other generations to deal with. The conclusion that the impact of the proposed actions are small was reached by DOE without taking into account that there are additional benefits associated with the continued viability of nuclear power and in spite of DOE’s overestimation, in my opinion, of a number of environmental consequences associated with the proposed action.

Response
The NWPA limits the responsibilities of the Secretary of Energy specifically to characterization and evaluation of the Yucca Mountain site as a geologic repository. Therefore, the EIS analyses did not consider the benefit of the continued viability of nuclear power, as identified in this comment. As discussed in Section 1.3.2 of the EIS, under the NWPA DOE is responsible for providing permanent disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. Therefore, the indefinite storage of these materials at the current sites is not a viable option, and DOE considered it only for purposes of analysis.

DOE believes that the implementing alternatives and analytical scenarios used to evaluate the Proposed Action and No-Action Alternative ensure that it considered the associated range of the potential environmental impacts from either alternative.

3.2 (10882)
Comment - EIS001632 / 0005
Page 2-6 indicates that there are many uncertainties about the final design of the repository and several of its components:

"This EIS describes and evaluates the current preliminary design concept for repository surface facilities, subsurface facilities and disposal containers."
"Plans for the repository would continue to evolve during the development of the final repository design and as a result of the NRC licensing review."

"For these reasons, DOE developed implementing alternatives and analytical scenarios to bound the environmental impacts likely to result from the Proposed Action."

Page 2-10 states:

"DOE continues to investigate design options ... for final repository design; Appendix E identifies design features and alternative design concepts that DOE is considering for the final design (for example, smaller waste packages, a waste package design using two corrosion-resistant materials ... )... DOE has assessed each of the design options still being considered for the expected change it would have on short- and long-term environmental impacts and has compared these impacts to the potential impacts determined for the packaging, thermal load and transportation scenarios evaluated in the EIS... DOE has concluded that the analytical scenarios and implementing alternatives evaluated in this EIS provide a representational range of potential environmental impacts the Proposed Action could cause."

The continuing site characterization and data collection raise questions about whether a supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) is needed once the final design and waste content are determined. CEQ regulations (sec. 1502.9) require a supplement to a draft or final EIS when there are substantial changes to a proposed action relevant to environmental concerns or where there are significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impact.

If the Department’s subsequent analysis of design choices indicates that the draft EIS/final EIS bounded the potential impacts, a supplemental may not be needed. However, even if a supplemental is not strictly required by NEPA, a supplemental or other document subject to public review and comment may be advisable given the potentially significant changes in final design and waste content. At a minimum, the final EIS must describe the changes from the draft EIS and update the discussion of impacts on the environment and public health. Examples of areas of uncertainty which lead to this conclusion are given below in the comments referring to pages 2-6, 2-10, 2-32, 2-37 (Section 2.1.2.4), and 2-81.

Response
As the Environmental Protection Agency notes, the Draft EIS evaluated the preliminary design concept described in the Viability Assessment of a Repository at Yucca Mountain (DIRS 101779-DOE 1998) for repository surface facilities, and disposal containers (waste packages). DOE noted in the Draft EIS (in Section 2.1.1.5, for example) that the analyzed designs were preliminary and were likely to evolve in various ways. Since it issued the Draft EIS, DOE has continued to evaluate design features and operating modes that would reduce uncertainties in or improve long-term repository performance, and improve operational safety and efficiency. The results of the design evolution process was the development of the Science and Engineering Report flexible design. This design focuses on controlling the temperature of the rock between the waste emplacement drifts (as opposed to areal mass loading), but the basic elements of the Proposed Action to construct, operate and monitor, and eventually close a geologic repository at Yucca Mountain are unchanged. DOE evaluated the flexible design in a Supplement to the Draft EIS, which was released for public review and comment in May 2001.

Aspects of the design in the Supplement to the EIS (as well as this Final EIS) are likely to continue to evolve, particularly in relation to the means of controlling heat generated by spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. Under Section 114(a) of the NWPA, DOE must provide a description of the proposed repository, including preliminary design specifications, as part of any Site Recommendation. If the Yucca Mountain site was approved, a more refined flexible design would be determined only at the time of License Application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. That design probably would continue to change as a result of the License Application process.

In this Final EIS, DOE varied design parameters to create lower- and higher-temperature operating modes in such a way to provide the range of potential environmental impacts. DOE believes that the EIS adequately analyzes each design element investigated, the resulting short- and long- term environmental impacts, and mitigation measures. Further, the analyses incorporate conservative assumptions that tend to overestimate impacts, as identified in the EIS. For example, in Section G.1.1 of the EIS the total nonradiological air quality impacts were the sum of the calculated maximum concentrations regardless of wind direction. This conservatively maximized air quality impacts. This type of approach to estimate impacts conservatively was applied to all other resources, as appropriate.

Because of the various implementing alternatives and scenarios analyzed as well as the conservative nature of the analyses, DOE believes that the analyses represent a realistic upper bound of environmental impact that could occur from the implementation of the Proposed Action.

3.2 (10903)
Comment - EIS001912 / 0003
DOE provides no substantive details about the proposed action and action alternatives. Instead, the DEIS attempts to use inclusive boundary analysis to substitute for missing information and design attributes which have not been proven to work. Unfortunately, without a performance assessment capability, DOE can not establish boundaries for various design alternatives. Although we recognize the need to maintain some flexibility for the final repository design, the description of the action in the DEIS is done in very generic terms and fails to adequately describe the waste management system associated with Yucca Mountain.

Response
DOE believes that the EIS adequately analyzes each element of the Proposed Action (such as waste handling facilities, heat management scenarios, and transportation implementing alternatives and scenarios) and the No-Action Alternative. The Department bases this belief on: (1) the level of detail and analysis accorded the repository design and transportation aspects of the Proposed Action, (2) the analytical methods and approaches used to represent conservatively reasonably foreseeable impacts that could occur, and (3) the use of conservative assumptions if information is incomplete or unavailable and if there are uncertainties (as discussed in Section 2.5). The design elements discussed in the EIS are based on similar requirements and practices that have been in use for several decades in the mining and commercial utility industries and at DOE sites. Even the more unusual aspects of the design, such as titanium drip shields and Alloy-22 disposal containers, would take advantage of the fabrication experience of manufacturers that design and construct radioactive waste transport packages and other specialty equipment for commercial nuclear utilities. Based on this experience, DOE is confident that the designs under consideration can be built and operated in a manner that would protect worker and public health and safety and the environment.

With regard to the DOE performance assessment capability, the most recent report of the Total System Performance Assessment Peer Review Panel concluded that the overall performance assessment framework and the approach used to develop the Total System Performance Assessment were sound and followed accepted methods (DIRS 102726-Budnitz et al. 1999). The Supplement to the Draft EIS and this Final EIS discuss repository performance results based on assessment tools that reflect improvements due to the observations and suggestions of the Peer Review Panel.

3.2 (10909)
Comment - EIS001927 / 0032
It’s hard to believe, but DOE has proceeded with this DEIS even though the exact repository design remains to be determined. How environmental impacts can be assessed without that basis covered is hard to understand.

It’s akin to DOE proceeding full speed ahead with the EIS while claiming that the exact routes of high-level radioactive waste transportation to Yucca Mountain has yet to be determined. Or DOE assuming that repository casks will remain intact for thousands and thousands of years. Or DOE assuming that the groundwater will dilute contamination to safe levels, even though DOE doesn’t even know for sure the direction of groundwater flow. How then can the DOE claim there will be no significant impacts to public health or the environment from this Proposed Action? How can it know? What are its findings based on?

Response
The Site Recommendation (should the Secretary of Energy recommend Yucca Mountain to the President) would be accompanied by several supporting documents, including this Final EIS. Only if the President determined the site was qualified, and the Congress approved the site in the event the State of Nevada objected to the recommendation, would DOE submit a License Application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Therefore, it is possible the repository design could further evolve. DOE believes, however, that the information submitted with any Site Recommendation, including this Final EIS, would provide an accurate representation of the design DOE would expect to use based on current information, should the repository receive authorization to proceed. DOE expects any additional design changes would result in further reductions in the uncertainties associated with long-term performance and would measure estimated releases against the Environmental Protection Agency’s environmental standards at 40 CFR Part 197 and Nuclear Regulatory Commissions licensing criteria at 10 CFR Part 63.

In the Draft EIS and the Supplement to the Draft EIS, DOE analyzed a variety of scenarios and alternatives that could be implemented to construct, operate and monitor, and eventually close a repository at Yucca Mountain. These scenarios and implementing alternatives reflect potential design modifications and waste packaging approaches. The intent was to provide the full range of potential environmental impacts and to maintain flexibility in the design of the repository to maintain the ability to reduce uncertainties in or improve long-term performance, and improve operational safety and efficiency. Many of the issues relating to how a repository would be operated and how spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste would be packaged would be resolved in the context of developing the detailed design for a possible license application. DOE cannot predict with certainty how these issues would eventually be resolved. However, to enable an improved understanding of the potential environmental impacts from a more clearly defined Proposed Action, DOE has identified its preferred alternatives, simplified aspects of the Proposed Action, and modified its analyses and presentation of information to illustrate the full range of potential environmental impacts likely to occur under any foreseeable repository design and operating mode.

As DOE has acknowledged, the flexible design could evolve further. In that event, DOE’s License Application would be "as complete as possible in the light of information that is reasonably available at the time of docketing," as stipulated in 10 CFR 63.24. Part 63.24 contemplates the possible necessity for updating the application after license submittal for a number of reasons, including possible changes resulting from "research programs carried out to confirm the adequacy of designs, conceptual models, parameter values, and estimates of performance of the geologic repository." The commenters should be aware that in the event DOE does further modify the repository design, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission licensing and related National Environmental Policy Act processes would provide a number of opportunities for the public to comment on DOE’s application and possible updates.

3.2 (11330)
Comment - EIS002267 / 0004
The DEIS ignored potential impact categories important to our economy, the stigma effects on tourism, land-use conflicts, potential property loss along routes, unfunded mandates on local government to create and maintain programs. Although there is credible evidence that shows that such impacts may occur, they have also failed to include minorities and low-income groups in the scoping, interactive, and hearing processes.

Response
Since DOE published the Draft EIS, it has reexamined the relevant literature and assessed the state of research on perception-based impacts and stigma effects. The Department reevaluated the independent reviews conducted by the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board and others, and identified and reviewed relevant published studies. DOE has concluded that while stigmatization can be envisioned in some scenarios, it is not inevitable or measurable. Any stigmatization that could occur would likely be the aftereffect of unpredictable events such as a serious accident. Consequently, DOE addressed but did not attempt to quantify potential impacts from risk perception or stigma in the EIS.

The NWPA mandates funding to the State of Nevada and affected units of local government so they can participate in the process of characterizing and selecting a site for a geologic repository. In addition, the NWPA requires DOE to provide financial and technical assistance to the State and affected units of local government to mitigate impacts of the development of a repository and site characterization. The NWPA authorizes the State and any affected unit of local government to collect an amount equal to the amount that the State or local government would receive if authorized to tax site characterization activities. If DOE built and operated a repository at Yucca Mountain, the State and local governments would also be able to collect an amount equal to the taxes imposed on non-Federal real property and industrial activities. Financial assistance would come primarily from the Nuclear Waste Fund, which is funded by contributions from nuclear utility ratepayers, although Federal tax revenues would fund the portion of the costs attributed to the management and disposal of Federally produced and owned materials.

Appendix M of the EIS contains information on emergency response in the event of an accident and compensation for injury to life or property, and information on potential impacts to Native American communities along transportation routes. Section 4.1.3 and other sections of this EIS discuss Environmental Justice issues. DOE has held regular interactive discussions with representatives of Native American tribes and organizations and has held special sessions to provide Native Americans the opportunity to comment on the Draft EIS and Supplement to the Draft EIS.

3.2 (11334)
Comment - EIS001106 / 0028
In the numerous cases where sound information is missing from the YMP [Yucca Mountain Project] DEIS, the shortcomings should be recognized and a framework set forth for resolving the difficulties and uncertainties created. Included in the framework should be the concept of monitoring and mitigating unforeseen consequences. At times, uncertainty in EIA [environmental impact assessment] can be lessened if the methods and techniques followed for environmental documentation are clearly set forth. This is lacking in the YMP DEIS and should be resolved. Also needed is information regarding standard practices used for impact assessment and prediction. Lack of such insights is an indication in the DEIS that sound interdisciplinary expertise in EIA was [not?] assembled for the YMP.

Response
Section 2.5.1 of the EIS describes the use of incomplete or unavailable information to identify uncertainties in the data or analytical approaches. This section describes the basis for the analyses, including assumptions, the use of preliminary information, and conclusions from draft or incomplete studies. DOE continues to study issues that are relevant to an understanding of what could happen in the future at Yucca Mountain, and the potential impacts associated with the site’s use as a repository. As a result of these studies, the Final EIS contains information that was not available for the Draft EIS.

If DOE was to construct and operate a repository at Yucca Mountain, it would develop an environmental monitoring program consistent with applicable laws, regulations, and DOE directives. In addition, it would monitor repository performance and would continue geotechnical testing. If the results of this monitoring indicated the need for changes in repository and site management, DOE would implement such changes.

Because DOE does not anticipate issuing a Record of Decision for the determination whether to recommend the Yucca Mountain site, it might not prepare a Mitigation Action Plan. However, the site, if approved in accordance with provisions of the NWPA, would be subject to licensing by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. DOE, in submitting its application to the Commission to construct and operate the repository, would identify relevant commitments for consideration, including those identified in the Final EIS, and could reasonably expect a comprehensive set of mitigation measures or conditions of approval to be part of the licensing process.

DOE anticipates that the repository project plan and design will continue to evolve, creating additional opportunities for mitigation and potentially eliminating the need for some mitigation measures currently under consideration. Chapter 9 of the EIS, which contains DOE’s current list of potential mitigation measures, identifies impact reduction features, procedures and safeguards; and mitigation measures DOE is considering for inclusion in the project plan and design. In addition, Chapter 9 identifies ongoing studies that could eventually influence mitigation measures related to the plan and design.

3.2 (11366)
Comment - EIS002278 / 0003
I think that if we look at some of the other problems, like terrorism and the fact that there will be 40,000 protesters stopping these shipments, there will be many people that will become active because of this. Because we understand that this world is -- we are all connected. And that if people, you know, don’t consider the fact of, you know, each other, that people will become enraged.

I don’t even see any consideration of the amount of lawsuits and the amount of time that that could possibly hold up some of the shipments as has happened in the past.

Response
The purpose of this EIS is to analyze and describe potential environmental impacts associated with a geologic repository at the Yucca Mountain site and with the No-Action Alternative. The extent to which a decision to approve Yucca Mountain as the site for a repository – a decision that the President would make under the terms of the NWPA – might engender public protests and litigation is speculative and unrelated to potential impacts. For that reason, the EIS does not address the potential for such activities. The EIS addresses impacts that could occur as a result of terrorism.

3.2 (11392)
Comment - EIS002284 / 0004
"Should Yucca Mountain be the place for the waste?" Well, after looking at this document, it’s hard to tell. It’s hard to know. And I think this is one point I want to underscore, is that this document should create a focused picture of the action intended here, including a clear sense of … how Yucca Mountain would function as a repository, how it’s intended. And I don’t think this document does that.

Response
Chapter 2 of the EIS describes the Proposed Action for the construction, operation and monitoring, and eventual closure of a repository at Yucca Mountain. Chapter 5 provides the analysis of the ability of the repository to isolate radionuclides and toxic chemicals from the environment for long periods (thousands of years).

3.2 (11411)
Comment - EIS002251 / 0009
Another thing is the cumulative impact section assumes a ten-year extension of reactor life. I always was told that if you assume something, you make an ass out of me and you, which is, I think, basically the basis of the DOE documents.

Response
Section 2.5 of the EIS acknowledges that the results of analyses often have associated uncertainties. Uncertainties could be the result of the complexity and variability of the process analyzed, the use of incomplete information, or the unavailability of information. In these instances, the EIS describes the uncertainties.

If information is incomplete or unavailable or if uncertainties exist, the use of assumptions often enables analyses to proceed. In such instances the assumptions and analytical methods conservatively represent (that is, they tend to overestimate) reasonably foreseeable impacts that could occur from the Proposed Action and the No-Action Alternative.

3.2 (11465)
Comment - EIS002285 / 0001
One of the things that I didn’t see noted too much in this DEIS is the factor of human error. And we are human beings; we make mistakes; we have accidents; we slip and trip and whatever. And because of that, and because of human error, that’s why we had Three Mile Island. That’s why we had these three fellows die at Tokai, because they loaded too much waste, and they blew up that reactor or that processing plant there in Japan -- because of human error. And they are fallible.

We make mistakes, and it happens a lot, and I don’t know how that is counted very well in this DEIS. I would like to see a little bit more on that in the Final Environmental Impact Statement.

Response
DOE incorporated human error into the analyses for each resource as appropriate. For example, the transportation analyses in Chapter 6 of the EIS rely on accident rate information that reflects human error, as well as other factors such as mechanical failure; Section J.1.4.2.1 also discusses the effects of human error on transportation accident impacts. As another example, DOE based the analyses of potential accident scenarios (see Section 4.1.8) on a human-based initiating event (for example, shipping cask drop). For other resources, such as biological and cultural, impacts are determined primarily by loss or change of habitat, or loss of individuals; human error does not typically enter the estimation of impacts, although the analyses considered indirect impacts due to human activities (for example, accidental damage to cultural resources).

3.2 (11714)
Comment - EIS000586 / 0001
The NWPA [Nuclear Waste Policy Act] requires that the Secretary of Energy prepare an EIS consistent with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is required to prepare an EIS to support decisions to license major nuclear facilities. The NWPA requires that the NRC [Nuclear Regulatory Commission] to the maximum extent practical adopt the Department of Energy’s EIS as its own.

However, NRC staff’s preliminary review has already found deficiencies in DOE’s process regarding the no action alternative, consultations with local governments and other entities, description of mitigation measures, analysis of cumulative effects, and environmental justice, description of the transportation system, description of socioeconomic impacts, and cultural impacts, and even the proposed action. This reinforces our belief that the EIS is seriously deficient and incomplete.

Decisions will be supported by the Yucca Mountain EIS during the years 2001 to 2005. The Secretary of Energy will depend on this document to decide whether to recommend to the President that Yucca Mountain be nominated to Congress as the first repository for spent nuclear fuel.

The administration in Congress needs to decide whether to construct, operate, monitor and eventually close the repository. They need to decide what modes of transportation to use and what highway routes, corridors and/or intermodal transfer facilities to use. And they need to base their decisions on good complete information such as should be included in the EIS. And the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has the requirement to decide whether to issue a license to the DOE to construct the repository and a license to operate the repository. So there is a lot riding on this.

Response
DOE has addressed comments on the Draft EIS from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, other Federal agencies, the State of Nevada, Native American tribes, affected units of local government, other organizations, and the public in this Comment-Response Document. The Department has modified the EIS in response to some of these comments.

3.2 (12121)
Comment - EIS001887 / 0420
Where field studies are necessary, suitable experimental design, sampling, and data analysis must be carried out, with or without replication. Methods for ecosystem-level studies involve various assumptions about the system at hand that influence the design and execution of the study. If the ecosystem to be affected is a native one, duplication of it for purposes of statistical replication [is] problematic because no two ecosystems are alike. Extreme care must be taken to choose the appropriate experimental design and analytical model to be used during the EIA [environmental impact assessment] process. In most cases involving a single, unreplicated natural ecosystem, traditional statistical approaches are unsuitable and yield results that are highly questionable. The ecological study design and the methodology adopted for EIA analysis for the YMP [Yucca Mountain Project] were flawed due to the inability to conduct credible replication of the ecosystem. Standard statistical techniques based on reliable replicates and controls do not apply in such cases.

Response
Section 4.1.4 of the EIS describes potential impacts to plants and animals from a repository at Yucca Mountain. Because the analyses determined that the magnitude of impacts to biological resources would be low to very low Section 4.1.4.3, DOE did not replicate the ecosystem, as suggested by this comment. The time and money spent for such an effort would not be commensurate with the significance of the expected impacts. This approach is consistent with regulations issued by the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR 1502.15), which state that data and analyses in an EIS should be commensurate with the importance of the impact, with less important material summarized, consolidated, or simply referenced. This avoids useless bulk and concentrates the analysis on relatively more important issues.

3.2 (12128)
Comment - EIS001887 / 0428
While NEPA [National Environmental Policy Act] regulations amended in May, 1986, eliminated the worst case analysis requirement, it did not eliminate the requirement that agencies evaluate the reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts of an action, even if information is unavailable or incomplete. Rather, it specified that the evaluation must be carefully conducted and based on credible scientific evidence. Furthermore, NEPA regulation (40 CFR 1502) requires disclosure of all credible scientific evidence, including responsible opposing views which are supported by theoretical approaches or research methods generally accepted in the scientific community.

We suggest that to be in compliance with NEPA that the DOE is required to consider effects of credible alternative models in the DEIS. While the DEIS recognizes differing viewpoints regarding groundwater flow (Section 3.1.4.2 and Section 5.2.3.4) and references the State of Nevada funded studies of Lehman and Brown, 1995, there has been no evaluation of the impacts.

Response
The relevant Council on Environmental Quality regulation (40 CFR 1502.9) states that a Draft EIS must disclose and discuss at appropriate points all major points of view on the impacts of the alternatives, and that the Final EIS must discuss responsible opposing views that the Draft EIS did not adequately discuss and present the agency’s responses to the issues. Consistent with these requirements, DOE identified the criteria by which it identified opposing views (see Section 2.5 of the EIS) and then reviewed submitted documents (for example) and evaluated their findings for inclusion as part of the EIS analyses. If the information represented a substantive view, DOE attempted to incorporate that view in the EIS and to identify its source. If it did not incorporate the view in the analyses, DOE attempted to identify and address it.

DOE considered all the comments it received on the Draft EIS and on the Supplement to the Draft EIS. The Department understands that there are qualitative and quantitative ways in which it could disclose and discuss opposing views; however, there are no requirements for analyses, as suggested by this comment.

3.2 (12196)
Comment - EIS001887 / 0442
The Council on Environmental Quality regulations require that the agency preparing the EIS "[i]dentify the agency’s preferred alternative or alternatives, if one or more exists, in the draft statement and identify such alternative in the final statement unless another law prohibits the expression of such a preference" (40 CFR 1502.14(e)). DOE admits that it has not chosen the preferred transportation alternative at this time and that when it does, additional field surveys, state and local government consultations, environmental and engineering analyses, and National Environmental Policy Act [NEPA] reviews will be required. DOE’s own guidance document on the preparation of environmental impact statements also cautions against improper segmentation of connected actions and directs that connected actions should be considered together in a single NEPA document. It specifically recommends that DOE "include transportation activities as part of the proposed action when the transportation activities would be necessary to make the action happen"(Recommendations for the Preparation of Environmental Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of NEPA Oversight). The disposal of waste at the proposed repository cannot happen without transportation. Therefore, DOE should have included a preferred transportation alternative within the Draft EIS and conducted all of the necessary analyses to reach a decision.

Response
Section 2.6 of the EIS states that DOE’s preferred alternative is to proceed with the Proposed Action to construct, operate (including transportation) and monitor, and eventually close a geologic repository for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste at Yucca Mountain. At the time it published the Draft EIS, DOE did not have a preferred mode of transportation. In this Final EIS, DOE identifies mostly rail as its preferred mode in the State of Nevada. If the Yucca Mountain site was approved, and assuming that DOE would issue a Record of Decision identifying mostly rail, DOE would:

At this time, DOE does not have a preference for a particular rail corridor implementing alternative in Nevada. The Department would identify its preference for a corridor in the future in consultation with potentially affected stakeholders, if the Yucca Mountain site was approved.

The identification of a preferred alternative is distinct from a decision to "select" an alternative for implementation. An agency can implement an alternative it has not identified as preferred. This distinction is important, as noted in Section 1.1 of the EIS, which states, "The EIS provides the information necessary for DOE to make decisions regarding basic transportation approaches in Nevada (for example, rail or truck shipments)…".

DOE believes that the information in the EIS on impacts that could result from the Proposed Action is adequate. In addition, the EIS provides the information necessary to make transportation-related decisions on the basic approaches to transporting spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste (for example, mostly rail or mostly truck), and the choice among candidate rail corridors or intermodal transfer stations and associated heavy-haul truck routes in Nevada. These conclusions are based on the following:

3.2 (12198)
Comment - EIS001888 / 0597
There are also methodological and data problems within the DEIS, especially, as they relate to population health risks, uncertainties in site characterization models, and the analysis of environmental justice impacts.

Response
DOE believes that the EIS presents information sufficient to estimate potential impacts from the construction, operation and monitoring, and eventual closure of a repository at Yucca Mountain. Section 4.1.7 of the EIS discusses health risks to populations around the proposed repository, and Section 4.1.13 discusses environmental justice concerns related to the repository. In addition, the EIS acknowledges that the results of some analyses have associated uncertainties. These could be the result of the complexity and variability of the process being analyzed, the use of incomplete information, or the unavailability of information. DOE describes such uncertainties throughout the EIS (see Section 5.2.4, for example) to help the reader understand the results or conclusions and their context.

3.2 (12288)
Comment - EIS001888 / 0412
[Clark County summary of comments it has received from the public.]

Three commenters believe that the EIS should address construction of the exploratory shaft facilities as a de facto repository, although the suitability of the site has not been decided.

Response
The Exploratory Studies Facility was developed to provide access to, and perform site characterization studies on, the subsurface portions of the repository pursuant to the NWPA. The exploratory tunnels would in effect become part of the access route to the subsurface facility and the drifts or cells that would be used for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste, should Yucca Mountain receive authorization to accept waste materials.

3.2 (12347)
Comment - EIS001520 / 0002
It is clear that the nature of environment risks posed by both alternatives, and the uncertainty about those risks, change over time. Tables S-1 and 2-7, which categorize all impacts as either short-term or long-term, should be supplemented by a discussion that explains how the environmental risks of both alternatives progress over time, including the period beyond 10,000 years.

Response
The short-term impact analyses assumed, for the most part, that environmental conditions would remain unchanged for the foreseeable future. For some resource areas (for example, biological, soils, cultural) conditions would not be likely to change in ways in which impacts could be predicted. Impacts to these resources would depend primarily on the amount of habitat disturbed from the construction, operation and monitoring, and closure of a repository. For other resource areas, such as socioeconomics, estimated changes in population could reflect future trends. DOE has modified Section 3.1.7 of the EIS to reflect changes in population through 2035. For still other areas, impact analyses can be based on future predictions. For example, the EIS analyzes the potential impacts from a variety of accidents that have a probability of occurring of greater than or equal to 1 in 10 million during the operating life of the repository (see Section 4.1.8, for example). DOE assessed the potential for volcanic activity and found that an event intersecting the repository would be below the frequency of a credible event. In addition, DOE considered the impacts of a regional event (ash fall) and concluded that repository structures would not be affected. Section H.2.1.3 provides more information. With regard to long-term impacts, Chapter 5 discusses dose estimates to the public up to 1 million years after closure.

3.2 (12533)
Comment - EIS000573 / 0001
I looked through the Environmental Impact Statement. I couldn’t find anything negative.

Now there’s something negative in everything. You are not going to find anything that’s totally positive. But we’re not given the negative aspects. They do not allow us to have the negative aspects because they are afraid we’re going to ruin their program.

So I get up here, I’m trying to voice my opinion. But it’s hard to do because I don’t have all the facts.

Now what we need to do is look into this thoroughly, read the Impact Statement that has all aspects, that shows us exactly what’s going on positive or negative, instead of what’s good about it. There may be good aspects. But I can’t judge that because I don’t see the negative aspects.

Overall, our opinion counts. And to achieve someone’s opinion they need to know both sides. We’re not given both sides.

The DOE comes in here and says this is the spot we’re going to be. This is the spot that we’re going to hold this repository.

Fifteen years ago Nevada was a small state unable to vote. Now we do not have a vote. We’re not allowed to vote. Instead, Congress tells us where we’re going to have this. We don’t make this nuclear waste, but because of Congress we have to take it.

They say it’s not permanent yet. They don’t know if they are going to put it there or not. As it looks, they show us that it’s the perfect spot. Nothing is wrong with it.

They know there’s stuff wrong with it. The earthquakes, volcanic eruptions. They see this, but they don’t show us. Because they want us to think there is nothing wrong.

Now before this goes through, I think we should have an Environmental Impact Statement that gives us both sides so we know what’s really going on.

Response
Section 2.4 of the EIS compares the potential environmental impacts of the Proposed Action and the No-Action Alternative. Although generally small, adverse environmental impacts could occur under the Proposed Action. DOE would seek to reduce or eliminate many such impacts with mitigation measures. The EIS analyses considered earthquakes and volcanoes as potential accident-initiating events. DOE believes that the beneficial effects of constructing and operating the repository would outweigh the adverse effects of taking no action.

3.2 (12675)
Comment - EIS001887 / 0416
Despite state-of-the-art science, uncertainties remain regarding the consequences of most proposed actions because critical factors associated with risks remain unknown. For example, unexpected environmental trends may affect the outcome of impacts. For reasons such as these, a one-time assessment may not suffice as a reliable indicator of outcome. To compensate for such unknown risks, long-term monitoring and revisiting predictions and cumulative impacts are necessary for reliable and effective EIA [environmental impact assessment]. This is known as "adaptive environmental management," a modern-day component of responsible EIA, and is meant to be based on the concept and practice of ecosystem management that includes the human environment. Often uncertainty can be reduced through environmental monitoring and adaptive management based on the resulting information. Such a [tack] should be followed during development and the useful lifetime of the YMP [Yucca Mountain Project], as well as far into the future. This is because initial assumptions about an action change due to new knowledge, social values and human needs change over time, and significant changes can occur in the environment. Intentions and plans for such changes, based on a framework of integrated EIA, should be included in the YMP DEIS, but are not. This is unacceptable given the certainty of long-term environmental and health consequences associated with the program.

Response
As discussed in Sections 2.1.2.3 and 2.1.2.4 of the EIS, DOE would conduct performance confirmation and post-permanent-closure-monitoring programs in accordance with applicable laws, regulations, and Departmental directives. Although DOE has not developed the details of such programs, their intent would be to accomplish multiple goals related to its obligation to protect public health and safety and the environment. DOE has updated these sections of the EIS to reflect the current status of the planning for the performance confirmation and post-permanent-closure-monitoring programs.

3.2 (12753)
Comment - EIS001888 / 0484
[Clark County summary of comments it has received from the public.]

One commenter requested that the EIS discuss the ethics of no action, including the eventual shutdown of the nuclear industry, increased consumption of fossil fuels, impacts to the U.S. economy from diminished supplies of electricity.

Response
DOE analyzed the No-Action Alternative to serve as a basis for comparing the magnitude of potential environmental impacts of the Proposed Action. The scope of this EIS is defined by the NWPA, which instructs the Secretary of Energy to perform site characterization activities at the Yucca Mountain site, and if the site is found suitable, make a recommendation to the President on whether to approve the site for a development as a repository. Analysis of the effects of shutdown of the nuclear industry, increased consumption of fossil fuels, and the impact to the U.S. economy from diminished supplies of electricity is outside the scope of this EIS.

3.2 (12763)
Comment - EIS001898 / 0002
The NRC [Nuclear Regulatory Commission] believes it to be desirable that DOE more clearly define a Proposed Action comprised of a preferred option for each component or a bounding analysis that gives a better understanding of the potential impact of each component. The NRC recognizes the utility of DOE’s preserving, to the extent possible, repository design flexibility. Nevertheless, in the interest of improving the focus of its National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis, the NRC requests DOE to prepare, in the final environmental impact statement (FEIS), an in-depth analysis of a clearly defined Proposed Action, or, at the least, to provide sufficient information and analysis of the various options that it has retained as to demonstrate that the environmental impacts of the repository are bounded. A number of the attached NRC comments relate to the value in defining an integrated Proposed Action.

Response
In the Final EIS, DOE has identified and analyzed a higher-temperature operating mode and a range of lower-temperature operating modes. Chapter 2 and other related sections of the Final EIS have been revised to reflect this refinement in design selection, which basically is an establishment of design fundamentals such as drift layout, drift spacing, depth and location of emplacement areas, and location of ventilation raises. The Final EIS describes a design for the repository with variations on the operating mode. The key parameters defining the operating mode are package spacing, drift temperatures, length of active ventilation, and age of the fuel being emplaced. The range of variances in these parameters basically determine the extent of the repository design that will be utilized for the emplacement of the 70,000 metric tons of waste and fuel; the higher-temperature operating mode would require only the main central segment of the repository; several of the lower-temperature operating modes would use that segment and the western extension, while the "ultra" low-temperature operating modes would require use of the entire planned initial design. In this way, DOE has focused its analysis on a more clearly defined proposal, and demonstrated that the environmental impacts of the construction and operation of the proposed repository would not be likely to exceed the upper range of the estimated impacts. Tables in Chapter 2 of the EIS demonstrate the bounding nature of the flexible operating modes within construct of a fixed design.

3.2 (13069)
Comment - 010248 / 0001
Consistent with its February 2000 comments on the DEIS, the NRC [Nuclear Regulatory Commission] staff believes that DOE’s final environmental impact statement (FEIS) should more clearly define a Proposed Action for each component of the proposed activity.

Basis:
The environmental impact statement development process is intended to address a wide range of possible impacts of this complex geotechnical project. A significant amount of information, including multiple options for key components of the Proposed Action, was presented in the August 1999 DEIS (U.S. Department of Energy, 1999). However, as noted in its February 2000 comments on the DEIS, the NRC staff continues to believe that DOE’s final environmental impact statement (FEIS) should more clearly define a Proposed Action comprised of: (i) a preferred option for each component; or (ii) a bounding analysis that provides a better understanding of the potential impact of each component, as well as their combined impacts. NRC recognizes the utility of DOE’s preserving, to the extent possible, repository design flexibility, as outlined recently in the S&ER [Science and Engineering Report] supporting the DEIS and the SDEIS. However, the DEIS did not identify a preferred option for each component of a possible geologic repository and the SDEIS does not define a preferred option for the design of a repository. Consequently, if is not clear that environmental impacts that could arise from a repository have been bounded.

Recommendation:
In the interest of improving the focus of its National Environmental Policy Act analysis in its FEIS, DOE should prepare an appropriate analysis of a clearly defined Proposed Action, or provide sufficient information and analysis of the various operational approaches to demonstrate that the environmental impacts of the proposed repository are bounded.

Response
In the Draft EIS and the Supplement to the Draft EIS, DOE analyzed a variety of scenarios and implementing alternatives that it could deploy to construct, operate and monitor, and eventually close a repository at Yucca Mountain. The purpose of these scenarios and implementing alternatives, which reflect potential design considerations, waste packaging approaches, and modes for transporting spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste to the Yucca Mountain site, was to: (1) provide the full range of potential environmental impacts of the Proposed Action and No-Action Alternative; (2) reflect potential decisions, such as the mode of transport, that the EIS would support; and (3) retain flexibility in the design of the repository to maintain the ability to reduce uncertainties in or improve long-term repository performance, and improve operational safety and efficiency. The design and operation enhancements presented in the Supplement have been carried forward to the Final EIS.

Many of the issues relating to how a repository would be operated and how the spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste would be packaged would be resolved only in the context of developing the detailed design for a possible license application. DOE cannot predict with certainty how it would eventually resolve these issues. However, to enable an improved understanding of the potential environmental impacts from a more specifically defined Proposed Action, DOE has identified its preferred alternatives, simplified aspects of the Proposed Action, and modified its analyses and presentation of information to illustrate the full range of potential environmental impacts likely to occur under any foreseeable mode of transportation, or repository design and operating mode. Thus, for example, DOE has identified rail as its preferred mode of transport both nationally and in Nevada, and demonstrated through analysis that the mostly truck and mostly rail national transportation scenarios provide the full range of environmental impacts.

In the Final EIS, DOE has identified and analyzed a range of operating modes from higher- to lower-temperature. Chapter 2 of the EIS and other related sections of the Final EIS have been revised to reflect this refinement in design selection, which basically is an establishment of design fundamentals such as drift layout, drift spacing, depth and location of emplacement areas, and location of ventilation raises. The Final EIS describes a design for the repository with variations on the operating mode. The key parameters defining the flexible operating modes are package spacing, length of active ventilation, and waste package loading (principally the age of the fuel being emplaced). The range of variances in these parameters basically determine the extent of the repository design that will be utilized for emplacement of 70,000 metric tons of waste and fuel; the higher-temperature operating mode would require only the main central segment of the repository, several of the lower-temperature operating modes would use that segment and the western extension, while the "ultra" low-temperature operating mode would require use of the entire planned initial design.

3.2 (13370)
Comment - 010296 / 0015
On page 3-1, the DSEIS states, "To evaluate the environmental impacts of the lower-temperature mode, DOE maximized each of the three primary operational parameters in turn, while assigning the remaining two parameters with the corresponding proportional values that enabled meeting the lower-temperature operating mode criteria. The Department expressed the environmental impact results of this evaluation as a range, dependent on the particular operating parameter maximized for the analysis. DOE expects that the environmental impacts for the lower-temperature mode would fall somewhere within the ranges presented for all areas evaluated." This is not correct. DOE did not examine the universe of possibilities, and whether the best, the worst, or some in between scenarios were selected cannot be determined at this time. DOE must perform additional work to support their analysis of potential impacts, and the limitation of the current analyses must be disclosed in the FEIS.

Response
In this Final EIS, design parameters were varied to create seven scenarios to illustrate lower- and higher-temperature operating modes in such a way to provide the range of potential environmental impacts. To demonstrate the nature of this range, DOE has identified primary impact indicators for each environmental resource area. These indicators are the most important contributors to determining the specific impacts for an environmental resource area (short- and long-term impacts are presented in Chapters 4 and 5, respectively.

3.2 (13449)
Comment - 010296 / 0034
Similarly, information on page 2-13 indicates that an onsite landfill would be sited to support repository operations. The FEIS should disclose whether the impacts from the proposed landfill have been identified, and the extent to which additional NEPA [National Environmental Policy Act] review may be required at siting to address site-specific environmental concerns.

Response
A site for the landfill has not yet been identified. DOE would identify an appropriately sized landfill at the repository site for nonhazardous and nonradiological construction and sanitary solid waste, and for similar waste generated during operation, monitoring, and closure of the repository. The EIS analysis assumed the landfill would be at the repository. By doing so, the environmental impacts of these facilities were considered in the EIS. DOE believes that the analyses of these facilities in the EIS are adequate.

3.3 Draft EIS - Public Involvement

3.3 (1)
Comment - 8 comments summarized
Commenters stated that the Draft EIS should have been available in Spanish and in Braille so that the Hispanic community and those with visual impairments could have greater and more effective involvement in the public participation process. Commenters stated that the Draft EIS should be republished in Spanish and Braille and the comment period extended. Commenters also stated that translators should have been at the public hearings to better serve citizens with primary languages other than English and believe that DOE did not make a diligent effort to involve low-income and minority populations in the public participation process.

Response
Between August 7 and December 5, 1995, DOE solicited written and oral comments and held 15 public scoping meetings across the country to enable interested parties to provide comments on the scope of the EIS. During this period, DOE received no comments requesting publication of the EIS in Braille or in languages other than English. In addition, DOE received no such requests during subsequent interagency and intergovernmental discussions. However, in concert with the publication of the Draft EIS, DOE made available two Spanish-language fact sheets about Yucca Mountain and the proposed repository.

DOE representatives also met with 13 Native American tribes and organizations to describe the EIS scoping process and to request tribal involvement in the process. Section 1.5.1 and Appendix C of the EIS discuss the scoping process and the interagency and intergovernmental interactions, respectively, undertaken by DOE to ensure public involvement.

DOE was prepared to provide assistance for those with visual or hearing impairments at the public hearings, if it had received requests before the hearings. DOE received no such requests.
Before each hearing, DOE placed advertisements in local newspapers, including Spanish-language newspapers, and distributed text for public service announcements and press releases to more than 175 local and national stakeholders, and media outlets to publicize information that would be accessible to the general public and to minority and low-income communities.

3.3 (50)
Comment - 321 comments summarized
Overall, commenters were disappointed with the DOE efforts to involve the public in the repository program and specifically the EIS. Many commenters said that the Department failed to educate the public adequately about important issues. Some said that DOE could have better informed the public about the program through the media, schools, and community education programs. Others said DOE should publish project information, create informational materials, and develop unbiased education classes. These efforts would have helped the public better understand the repository program and the issues that surround it.

With regard to public involvement with the EIS, commenters said that the length of the comment period was insufficient because the Draft EIS was very long and complex; others said they were unable to even acquire copies of the Draft EIS. Some said that DOE did not advertise the public hearings on the Draft EIS adequately and that the hearings did not include all places potentially affected by waste shipments. Some said that these shortcomings in the public involvement process would effectively leave the public out of the decisionmaking process. Based on these concerns, some commenters said that DOE should withdraw the EIS or recirculate it to a broader audience.

With regard to public hearings on the Draft EIS, commenters said that the accommodations, such as room size and parking facilities, were inadequate; the format of the meetings (that is, podium and microphone) was intimidating; the notices describing the purpose of the meetings were not clear or were misleading and lacked relevant information (for example, state-specific routes analyzed); and hearing-presentation times were too limited.

Response
DOE believes that its approach to the public involvement process is consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act, Council on Environmental Quality and DOE regulations, and the intent of the NWPA. For this reason, a major element of the Yucca Mountain Project has been to ensure that stakeholders, the media, and the public have an opportunity to participate in the Project, and to acquire information they need to make informed decisions. This effort is focused on building and maintaining relationships with stakeholders and the media through regular interactions for information and educational opportunities.

The Yucca Mountain Project has developed many public information products, including permanent and portable exhibits, information materials, models, audiovisuals, electronic media, publications, and public outreach announcements. These products are available at science centers in Las Vegas, Pahrump, and Beatty, Nevada; on Internet sites operated by the Project and the DOE Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (www.ymp.gov and www.rw.doe.gov, respectively); at public meetings and hearings on topics related to Yucca Mountain; during tours of the Yucca Mountain site; and in response to inquiries and requests for information. The Project provides speakers and technical experts on Yucca Mountain-related topics to technical groups, community groups, professional organizations, schools, and other audiences and has created programs and materials to enhance area educators’ and students’ awareness of issues related to the disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. For more information on public outreach activities, call 1-702-295-1312 or 1-800-225-6972.

With regard to the EIS, DOE believes that the process it used to involve the public in the development of the EIS is consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act, the Council on Environmental Quality and DOE regulations, and DOE guidance on public participation during the preparation of EISs. Planning for the public comment period began during the initial scoping period for the EIS. DOE indicated during the public scoping meetings and in associated documentation that the comment period on the Draft EIS would be at least 180 days because of the national interest in the Yucca Mountain Project and because of the complexity and likely length of the Draft EIS. DOE later extended this period by 19 days to accommodate comment submittals from additional hearings.

It was impractical for DOE to hold public comment meetings on the Draft EIS at every location potentially affected by the transport of the spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. Therefore, the Department selected major metropolitan areas most likely to experience large numbers of shipments if it built the repository, as well as cities close to nuclear power plants. In Nevada, DOE selected hearing locations based on their proximity to Yucca Mountain and to candidate transportation routes, and on the size of the population center. DOE originally scheduled and advertised 16 hearing locations and later added 5 locations to expand public opportunity to comment on the EIS. DOE selected facilities for these hearings after consultation with county representatives, members of Congress, DOE Field Offices, and other stakeholders. The Department made an effort to hold public hearings at locations and times that were most convenient for the general public. Facilities and meeting room accommodations were planned to provide ample seating, and both afternoon and evening sessions were held at locations to accommodate those having conflicting work schedules and to maximize attendance. DOE faxed reminders of the meeting times and locations to local officials at each location to help encourage their participation and that of their constituents. At all hearing locations, literature was available at information tables and DOE personnel were present to answer questions.

A Federal Register notice announced the release of the Draft EIS and DOE mailed more than 2,400 copies to stakeholders, including members of Congress, state and territorial governors, state legislators, Federal agencies, special interest groups, and members of the public. DOE developed the distribution list using its Stakeholder Directory for the National Environmental Policy Act, Yucca Mountain Project databases, and a postcard mailing to more than 4,000 individuals notifying them of the upcoming release of the document. (The public notice materials did not provide technical information such as state-specific routes analyzed, because this information was in the Draft EIS, on the DOE web site, or in associated publicly available documents.) After the release of the Draft EIS, DOE distributed more than 3,400 copies of the document (the Draft EIS was sent to anyone requesting a copy). After DOE announced the initial list of hearing dates and locations, it mailed fliers to each recipient on the EIS distribution list. As DOE added more hearings, it sent three subsequent mailings to these stakeholders to notify them of the additional opportunities to provide comments. DOE made the Draft EIS, references, and other supporting materials available on the Yucca Mountain Project web site (www.ymp.gov) throughout the comment period. DOE also made the Draft EIS available on its NEPA website (http://tis.eh.doe.gov/nepa/).

DOE distributed paper and electronic copies of the Draft EIS to 38 reading rooms in 17 states and the District of Columbia. In addition, DOE shipped an electronic version of the noncopyrighted references on compact disks to these outlets. DOE also placed paper copies of references in the libraries at the University of Nevada-Las Vegas, the University of Nevada-Reno, the Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Office Science Centers at Pahrump and Beatty, Nevada, and DOE Headquarters in Washington, D.C.

Before each hearing, DOE placed advertisements in local newspapers, including Spanish-language newspapers, and distributed text for public service announcements and press releases to more than 175 local and national stakeholders and media outlets to publicize information that would be accessible to the general public and to minority and low-income communities. DOE also conducted three prehearing meetings, one each in Las Vegas, Reno, and Amargosa Valley, to help inform the residents of Nevada about the Draft EIS and the public participation process.

During the 199-day comment period, DOE encouraged stakeholders to offer comments on the document during the public hearings and by mail, facsimile, and via the Internet (the Yucca Mountain Project web site). DOE received oral comments at public hearings in 21 locations across the country. As a result of this effort, DOE identified more than 11,000 comments in more than 2,300 individual letters, facsimiles, emails, and hearing presentations on the Draft EIS.

DOE presented an overview of the Proposed Action, alternatives, and potential impacts at each hearing in a manner to allow sufficient time for individual commenters. Oral comments were initially limited to 5 minutes to permit maximum participation by those in attendance; however, individuals requiring additional time were given the opportunity to complete their remarks on completion of commentary by other participants. The meeting facilitator also demonstrated considerable flexibility by allowing commenters more time than originally scheduled at meetings where relatively few people attended.

Section 1.5 of the EIS had been modified to describe the public involvement process.

3.3 (88)
Comment - 15 comments summarized
Commenters requested that rather than providing generic comment responses, DOE respond to each comment individually and indicate how the comment resulted in a Draft EIS revision to be reflected in the Final EIS before its release.

Response
DOE identified more than 13,000 individual comments in the letters, facsimiles, emails, and oral presentations submitted during the public comment periods for the Draft EIS and the Supplement to the Draft EIS. The Department considered every comment to determine if it needed to perform additional research and subsequent EIS text changes to respond adequately. Because many comments were identical or similar or presented common themes that would cause individual responses to be repetitive, DOE determined that the use of summary comments and responses was appropriate in some cases. The Council on Environmental Quality regulations permit individual and collective assessment and consideration of comments and the use of comment summaries where the number of comments received is voluminous (40 CFR 1503.4). DOE believes this approach allows it to use its resources more effectively and efficiently in responding to all comments. Therefore, the Comment-Response Document identifies each comment by an identification number and addresses every comment individually or in a comment summary. In addition, the Comment-Response Document describes changes made to the EIS in response to comments. The Secretary will consider the Final EIS, including the comments and their responses, in determining whether to recommend approval of the Yucca Mountain site to the President.

3.3 (163)
Comment - 9 comments summarized
Commenters expressed their support for comments provided by Mr. Richard Arnold, who was the spokesperson for the Consolidated Group of Tribes and Organizations.

Response
DOE notes the support for the comments tendered by Mr. Richard Arnold. DOE considered Mr. Arnold’s comments in the development of the Final EIS.

3.3 (875)
Comment - EIS000139 / 0002
DOE has made great strides in communicating with the Affected Units of Local Government (AULG) concerning site characterization decisions and its future license application. We both believe the recent AUG meeting held in Las Vegas was the most open, concise meeting we have attended thus far. We applaud the DOE and its contractors for this effort and hope future meetings can be conducted in this manner.

Response
Thank you for your comment.

3.3 (1649)
Comment - EIS000554 / 0003
Also I wanted to point out that I had ordered a CD-ROM of the DEIS quite a while ago, and much to my surprise, I was unable to print anything out from it. It’s read only from the computer screen. That to me also does not help with the public process. How many people are going to sit down in front of the computer screen and read section by section and not [be] allowed to print any of it?

I did submit a comment, and the response I got was that that was unfortunate, but that’s basically it. So my further comment is as it is unfortunate and can we do something about it. I’d like to see something more acceptable that way.

Response
DOE provided both paper and electronic versions of the Draft EIS to the public for comment. DOE did not believe it necessary to provide an electronic version that would allow printing of the EIS because paper copies were available.

3.3 (3575)
Comment - EIS001260 / 0001
CP&L [Carolina Power & Light] encourages the Department of Energy to consider those comments made by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) on behalf of the nuclear power industry.

Response
DOE notes your support of comments provided by Nuclear Energy Institute. DOE has considered all oral and written comments received in the development of this EIS.

3.3 (4697)
Comment - EIS001438 / 0001
We would greatly appreciate receiving a summary of the findings of your current hearings.

Response
This commenter, the St. Louis Council on Environmental Health and Safety, was added to the Department’s mailing list to receive the Supplement to the Draft EIS and the Final EIS.

3.3 (4774)
Comment - EIS001390 / 0003
I strongly encourage your agency to reconsider and respond with a waste disposal plan that would minimize the danger to all of our communities and provide opportunities for direct citizen involvement in its design and implementation.

Response
DOE has reviewed and considered all comments received on the Draft EIS. DOE recognized that since publication of the Draft EIS certain key aspects of the design (for example, disposal container components, use of drip shields) have changed in ways that are important to repository performance and reduction in uncertainties. To provide updated information to the public, DOE published the Supplement to the Draft EIS that focused on the most recent design enhancements. Responses to public comments received on the Supplement to the Draft EIS are included in this Comment-Response Document.

3.3 (5477)
Comment - EIS000543 / 0007
I also would like to suggest that since we are here for a hearing, and we have those people who are preparing the EIS present, at least in the area someplace, that they probably should be here to listen to these comments directly rather than to read them.

Response
At least one DOE representative who was also a member of the EIS preparation team was present at all times during the public comment hearings, as were contractor representatives.

3.3 (5888)
Comment - EIS001803 / 0005
Further, I am very disappointed to see that those who made the decisions to develop nuclear weapons and nuclear waste are not here to listen to our comments.

Response
DOE has considered all oral and written comments received on the Draft EIS in the development of this Final EIS. The Final EIS, which includes this Comment Response Document, will be available to the decisionmakers, including the Secretary of Energy, the President, and Congress.

3.3 (6322)
Comment - EIS001881 / 0006
DOE should hold hearings on how to start over on the waste program.

Response
DOE is required to establish a schedule for the siting, construction, and operation of a repository that would provide a reasonable expectation that the public and the environment will be adequately protected from the hazards posed by high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel. Thus, the intent of the public comment period was to receive comments on the Department’s proposal (and alternatives) to construct, operate and monitor, and eventually close a repository at Yucca Mountain.

3.3 (6595)
Comment - EIS001878 / 0001
Our [Eureka County] comments consist of the attached document, together with several exhibits. One of our exhibits is the videotape of the DOE’s Draft EIS hearings in Crescent Valley, Eureka County, Nevada on December 9, 1999. Please make the enclosed five (5) videotapes and their contents, including the question and answer sessions, part of our official comments. Our purpose in submitting detailed comments and the videotapes is to ensure that DOE has a full understanding of Eureka County’s concerns about the proposed Yucca Mountain project and the Draft EIS.

Response
The question and answer period preceding the comment period at each hearing was intended to help inform attendees of the purpose and scope of the Draft EIS, and to discuss and clarify any issues of concern. As an information forum, DOE believes that including the questions and answers on the record is unnecessary. In addition, the videotapes mentioned by this commenter provide another means to record comments at the Crescent Valley public hearing. Comments at this hearing were recorded by a stenographer (a transcript), and these comments were identified and responded to throughout this Comment-Response Document as appropriate. Transcribing the videotapes would be duplicative and is unnecessary.

3.3 (6640)
Comment - EIS001878 / 0030
Regarding the transportation aspects of the proposed action, the DEIS fails to satisfy the purpose of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), as expressed in 40 CFR 1500.1(b), because it: fails to make environmental information available to public officials and citizens before decisions are made and actions are taken; fails to present information of high quality; and, therefore, does not allow accurate scientific analysis, expert agency comments, and public scrutiny, which are essential to implementing NEPA.

Response
The purpose of the National Environmental Policy Act is to promote an understanding of the environmental consequences of Federal actions before an agency takes action. DOE believes that the EIS adequately analyzes environmental impacts that could result from the Proposed Action and is consistent with the NWPA and the National Environmental Policy Act. DOE also believes that the EIS provides the information necessary to make transportation-related decisions on the basic approaches to transporting spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste (such as mostly rail or mostly truck shipments), as well as the choice among alternative rail corridors in Nevada. However, follow-on implementing decisions, such as the selection of a specific rail alignment in a corridor, would require additional field surveys, State and local government and Native American tribal consultations, environmental and engineering analyses, and National Environmental Policy Act reviews.

Section 1.5.1 of the EIS discusses the public scoping process that was conducted to determine the scope and significant issues to be analyzed in depth in the EIS. Chapter 6 of the EIS discusses the transportation-related impacts of the Proposed Action, and Appendix J provides additional details in support of the results in Chapter 6. DOE provided the information and results in the Draft EIS, which underwent public review. The Draft EIS has been modified and Appendix M was added in response to public comments. As discussed in Section 2.6 of the EIS, the Secretary will use the information from the EIS process in recommending the site to the President.

3.3 (6730)
Comment - EIS001377 / 0004
By process design, the burden to review and question the DOE Draft EIS falls to individuals and organizations often comprised of interested volunteers who lack legal representation, science consultants, or funding to analyze DOE studies and offer their own preferred alternatives–a point that your Section S.4.1.14-Environmental Justice, fails to reflect.

Individuals and organizations who take time away from families and work to review and comment on the Draft EIS (as opposed to staff who are paid to produce this EIS), have no way of knowing how their comments are weighted against scientific, economic or political interests, or if their concerns are even incorporated in the EIS scoping, draft, final and recommended decision.

Response
DOE’s public involvement program strives to involve and educate the public through a variety of means, such as the use of reading rooms to maintain up-to-date project publications, a speaker’s bureau, publication and distribution of newsletters, other mailings, and the EIS. This information is available to everyone, regardless of economic status or cultural background.

3.3 (6754)
Comment - EIS001377 / 0013
I wish that I could spend more time in commenting on your DOE Draft EIS, and hope that the DOE will acknowledge that every one written comment they receive opposing the DOE Proposed Action represents many unheard voices of affected people, the animals and plants, the air and the water--all the voices of our common home, all the voices of our future.

Response
All oral and written comments received on the Draft EIS have been considered by DOE in the development of this Final EIS. Comments in opposition to the Yucca Mountain Project are included, and responded to, in this Comment-Response Document.

3.3 (7125)
Comment - EIS001106 / 0016
NEPA [the National Environmental Policy Act] is a procedural act rather than a substantive act, and it alone does not determine the outcome of an action. In the case of the YMP [Yucca Mountain Project], the outcome will be influenced by biased interests inside and outside the DOE such as the nuclear industry. Thus, public stakeholders such as the citizens of Nevada may not substantially affect the outcome of the YMP through their comments on the DEIS. Speaking on behalf of the citizens, the influence of the state government in this respect may be more effective but still may be outside the final decisionmaking regarding execution and form of the proposed action for the YMP.

Response
As discussed in Section 2.6 of the EIS, in making a recommendation to the President the Secretary of Energy will consider not only potential environmental impacts and public comments on the EIS, but other factors. Such factors include those identified through public input and others, including the following:

DOE has revised Section 2.6 of the EIS to reflect the basis for the Secretary’s recommendation.

3.3 (8068)
Comment - EIS002177 / 0001
Because of the desire of this office [Senator Richard G. Lugar] to be responsive to all inquiries and communications, your consideration of the attached is requested.

Response
DOE has considered all oral and written comments received on the Draft EIS in the development of this Final EIS. The Final EIS, which includes this Comment-Response Document, will be available to the decisionmakers, including the Secretary of Energy, the President, and Congress.

3.3 (8210)
Comment - EIS000497 / 0002
The Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management’s, OCRWM, record in addressing the concerns of western states has been extremely poor.

Response
In the course of producing this EIS, DOE interacted with a number of Federal, state, and local government agencies and other organizations. The purposes of these interactions have been to:

In addition to the EIS-related interactions, DOE has continued to meet with and discuss issues with government agencies and other organizations. DOE believes that these interactions have been useful in modifying ongoing site characterization efforts, the development of the EIS, and the course of the overall program. Appendix C discusses the results of the EIS-related interactions.

3.3 (8532)
Comment - EIS002256 / 0002
I asked a question during the question-and-answer period regarding the site recommendation process and whether there would be information that would be uniquely given to the president, different from what the public will have a chance to see.

And the answer I got back I thought was not very useful; but nevertheless, it was indicated that there is certainly some doubt of whether it will be unique information or not. So Citizen Alert is concerned about that, that the public has access to all the information that’s going to go to the president and proper comment has been made on all the information.

Response
The Secretary of Energy will make a determination on whether to recommend the site to the President on the basis of a number of different types of information, including that contained in the Final EIS. Any recommendation would be accompanied not by the Final EIS, but also by those other materials designated in Section 114 of the NWPA. These include, for example, a description for the facility, a description of the proposed waste form, an explanation of the relationship between the proposed waste form packaging and the geologic medium of the site, a discussion of the site characterization data that relate to the safety of the site, preliminary comments of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission concerning the sufficiency of information for inclusion in any Department license application and the views and comments of the Governor and legislature of any state or the governing body of any affected Native American tribe. DOE does not anticipate that any of the information related to a determination of site suitability would be sensitive. As a consequence, the site suitability information would be available for public inspection and would be part of the basis for the recommendation to the President.

3.3 (8600)
Comment - EIS001837 / 0005
PARD [People Against Radioactive Dumping] asked to be included on the DOE’s mailing list when PARD’s Director, Ruth Lopez signed up at the DOE’s annual conference in November of 1998. Why did you ignore us and not send us a copy of the Draft Yucca Mountain DEIS or apprise us of its existence? You knew that we were the local grassroots organization in Needles and San Bernardino County, California and Ruth Lopez has even visited your office in Las Vegas. Our organization has not had 180 days to review the DEIS since we only heard about the DEIS after the San Bernardino Sun ran an article about it in January. We need at least until May to review both the DEIS and the 10CFR963 and to have time for our organization to meet and discuss this issue. We would like the DOE to pay for the cost of our review of your plans and for our organizational meeting to discuss the proposal as you apparently pay private organizations to do.

Response
DOE’s records indicate that nine copies of the Draft EIS were mailed to Ruth Lopez on January 18, 2000. However, there was no address on record for People Against Radioactive Dumping (the address has since been added to the mailing list based on this comment). Unless required by provisions of law or in unique circumstances, DOE does not fund organizations to review the Draft EIS during the public comment period.

3.3 (8990)
Comment - EIS001922 / 0018
This DEIS should be redone with close attention paid to the hundreds of comments made on this project because in the end, the people who will have to live near this waste will be the true stewards, and they deserve to have their concerns genuinely addressed.

Response
DOE reviewed and considered each of the more than 11,000 comments identified in over 2,300 individual letters, facsimiles, emails, and oral presentations provided on the Draft EIS. Many of the comments resulted in changes to the EIS that expanded upon or clarified the description of the existing environment and impact analyses; new analyses also were performed and included and were also considered in the preparation of the Supplement to the Draft EIS.

In May 2001, DOE issued the Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic Repository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada, which it distributed to more than 4,000 stakeholders. The Department encouraged these stakeholders to submit comments during a 45-day comment period, which it later extended to 57 days (May to July 6, 2001).

In June, during a review of its mailing records, the Department discovered that it had inadvertently not sent the Supplement to the Draft EIS to about 700 stakeholders who had requested and received a copy of the Draft EIS. DOE announced this oversight, sent the Supplement to the Draft EIS to these stakeholders, and provided them an opportunity to submit comments during a separate 45-day comment period (June 29 to August 13, 2001).

DOE held three public hearings in Nevada during the comment period. It held no hearings outside Nevada because the Supplement focused primarily on matters involving repository design. Commenters were encouraged to submit comments at public hearings and by mail, facsimile, and the Internet during the comment periods. DOE used means comparable to those it used for the Draft EIS (advertisements, releases, and announcements) to notify the public.

DOE considered each public comment it received in its development of this Final EIS. In response to comments, DOE has modified the EIS in a variety of ways, including clarifications or changes to the text, new or more recent information (such as 2000 Census data and population projections), and modified analyses (such as those for transportation impacts in which it modified the characteristics of the representative commercial spent nuclear fuel and accident source terms). DOE also modified the EIS to include new information obtained since it issued the Draft EIS. The Department obtained such information from site characterization activities and design evaluations, including, for example, updated radon emanation data and the most recent design features.

3.3 (9037)
Comment - EIS001866 / 0002
During the scoping meetings citizens were told that their comments would lead to decisions regarding repository design (primarily heat load) and transportation modes. Discussion and comment at those meetings, between the Department representatives and the audience made it clear that members of the public realized that they would not be in a position to influence those decisions.

Response
As discussed in Section 1.5.1, the EIS scoping process was intended to determine the scope and the significant issues to be analyzed in depth in the EIS. DOE has stated in the EIS (see Foreword and Section 1.1) that it has developed the information about potential environmental impacts that could result from either the Proposed Action or the No-Action Alternative. The EIS also indicates that sufficient information is available to make transportation-related decisions regarding the basic approaches (for example mostly rail, mostly truck shipments) as well as the choice among alternative transportation corridors. The Secretary will also consider information, such as data relating to the safety of the site, preliminary comments from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and comments from the State of Nevada, affected Native American tribes, and others. DOE has clarified in Section 2.6 that it would consider not only the potential environmental impacts and public comments on the EIS, but also these other factors in determining whether to recommend the Yucca Mountain site to the President.

3.3 (9047)
Comment - EIS001866 / 0005
All of the deficiencies in the DEIS are due, we believe, to two basic reasons. First, as has been stated for the past six years, "this project is not EISable." According to DOE, it is still just a study. And, in fact, many of the study results are not due until well after significant decisions are made, using the premature EIS. Secondly, the Yucca Mountain EIS is seen by the public as merely a symbol on the DOE schedule that must be completed within a certain time frame in order to keep the project rolling along as projected. The Department must choose how to ... proceed. It must decide whether to do a careful job, allowing for the completion of necessary scientific studies, and public comment on realities instead of concepts. Or will the Department continue to frustrate interested and involved citizens by soliciting their comments at meetings only to allow for the checking off of boxes in order to stay on a predetermined, fast-track schedule? To do the latter is unfair, a subversion of the NEPA process, and clear evidence that the real public involvement is not important to the DOE.

This DEIS must be withdrawn and the process must be postponed until site characterization is completed at the mountain. Then a scoping process can occur that addresses factors required by NEPA and matters where public input is valuable and truly useful. This will allow the writing of a DEIS with well defined decisions, where the rationale in transparent, and the public is allowed and encouraged to effectively do its job.

Response
In the EIS, DOE has used information from a broad range of studies undertaken to obtain or evaluate the information needed for the assessment of Yucca Mountain as a monitored geologic repository. Because some of these studies are ongoing, some of the information remains incomplete. As discussed in Section 2.5 of the EIS, DOE has identified the use of incomplete information or the unavailability of information to identify uncertainties in the data or analytical approaches in accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR 1502.22). In such instances, the EIS describes the basis for the analysis, including assumptions, the use of preliminary information, or conclusions from draft or incomplete studies.

DOE believes that the EIS adequately analyzes the Proposed Action and the No-Action Alternative. This determination is based on: (1) the level of detail and analysis accorded the repository design, and transportation and other aspects of the Proposed Action, (2) the analytical methods and approaches used to represent conservatively the reasonably foreseeable impacts that could occur, and (3) the use of conservative assumptions when information is incomplete or unavailable and when uncertainties exist.

3.3 (9111)
Comment - EIS001937 / 0003
You may find it interesting to know that, recently, I became involved in an email dialogue with a person who represented himself as a technical advisor to a Yucca Mountain citizen’s advisory group. I had posed a question about the transportation plan for the proposed Yucca Mountain repository to a professor of mine at UNLV. My professor forwarded my email to a group of persons, one of whom responded (the alleged technical advisor).

I found the tone and content of this, and several subsequent emails from this individual on this issue, disturbing. It suggests that the project is a done deal and that the public comment process period is merely an annoying inconvenience that is consuming precious time from the schedule. It also suggests an attitude of paternalism by those on the inside.

This individual went on to claim that he knows so much more about all aspects of the project than I do that I couldn’t possibly be enlightened via email. It as only after I revealed that I had worked at the former Nuclear Valve Division of Borg-Warner, Van Nuys, California, from 1976-1980, that this alleged technical advisor apologized for his belittling remarks and confrontational style. (The company manufactured parts and assemblies, including feed-water isolation valves, for nuclear applications. Clients included Three Mile Island, Hanford and the TVA, among others.)

His point seemed to be that the public lacks the knowledge to comprehend the significant points of the issue and that public comment serves only to delay the process.

Response
DOE is unaware of the technical advisor referred to in this comment. However, the Department believes that comments and input by the public and other interested parties have been useful and have assisted in the modification of ongoing site characterization efforts, the development of the EIS, and the course of the overall program. The Final EIS, which includes this Comment-Response Document, is available to the decisionmakers, including the Secretary of Energy, the President, and the Congress.

3.3 (9340)
Comment - EIS001888 / 0056
Federal code requires that agencies "make diligent efforts to involve the public in preparing and implementing their NEPA [Nuclear Environmental Policy Act] procedures" (40 CFR 1506.6(a)). It goes on further to say that they are required "to inform those persons and agencies who may be interested or affected" (40 CFR 1506.6(b), [emphasis added]. However, in the DEIS, DOE does not demonstrate how they have made diligent effort to involve those who may be interested or affected.

40 CFR 25.3, Requirements for RCRA [Resource Conservation and Recovery Act] Public Participation, requires access to the decision-making process by the public. The participation guidelines expect public "access" to the decision-making process, and expect that "dialogue" be created. That is, the agency must assimilate public viewpoints and purposes, and then demonstrate that this assimilation has occurred.

The NWPA states that public participation is "essential to promote public confidence in the safety of [the repository]", so, therefore, "appropriate procedures must be taken to ensure [that the Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Plan and attributes of the site] do not adversely affect public health and safety and the environment for this or future generations."

Public participation under Executive Order 12898, and the DOE Environmental Justice Strategy, which are binding upon the preparation of the DEIS, require that six principles must be implemented:

The Council on Environmental Quality stipulates that these six principles include translation of documents, and the holding of hearings in more than one language if and as needed, and that a Federal agency must ensure that all documents and hearings shall be understandable.* What has been done to implement this requirement of environmental justice? There is no Spanish translation of the DEIS available, reports, notifications and newsletters are not published in Spanish even though the DOE is aware that a significant proportion of the residents of Nevada and along potential transportation routes speak and read Spanish as their first language. Likewise, interpreters were not present at DOE hearings.

More deeply, since ‘understand’ is not confined to ‘use my language,’ we must ask what efforts DOE has made to translate its thoughts, evidence, plans or proposals into standard English as utilized by the majority, lay population? There has been very little such effort to interpret often complex concepts into standard English.

Although some portions of the DEIS show editing, graphics, examples, definitions or illustrations meant to render text more comprehensible, the document is written primarily in the language of DOE management. Even though acronyms are explained, the sense of the reasoning used is not readily apparent to users of standard English. Considerable interpretation is required, to make the document and its many concepts comprehensible and, therefore, capable of analysis and discussion by members of the public.

Further, the CEQ requires that the DOE use facilities that are local to any affected sub-population. This would mean holding meetings in the neighborhoods of any such affected populations. In Clark County, these meetings have been held at Cashman Field or in the adjacent State of Nevada Sawyer Building, or at UNLV all easily reached by those with a car and with time for an afternoon or evening meeting. But, in a practical sense, this means that anyone who wants to be heard by the DOE must have the time and the ability to meet at pre-arranged DOE meeting sites, rather than at neighborhood locations more convenient for those people who would be affected by the project. DOE’ attempt at outreach has failed miserably.

We are, therefore, concerned that DOE made no substantial effort to reach the people who would be most affected by the Yucca Mountain project. To counter this deficiency in outreach, from October 1999 through January 2000, Clark County NWD staff presented information about the DEIS at more than 20 public meetings in Clark County and to a large number of individuals. Almost without exception, we were asked why DOE wasn’t doing more to directly inform the public about the DEIS?

In DEIS Section 1.5.1, DOE indicated that during the scoping process, they invited members of the general public to participate in the process. The Department mailed a series of information releases to Yucca Mountain stakeholders and members of the public notifying them of the opportunity to comment. However, there is no indication of the number of members of the general public or which groups were sent the information.

Section 1.5.1 further noted that during the scoping process, DOE "...submitted press releases and public service announcements to newspapers and television and radio stations; ..." Again, there is no indication regarding which newspapers or television and radio stations were notified. There is no indication that DOE made any attempt to encourage public involvement during the public comment period on the DEIS.

There is also no description of any efforts made to contact the public about the DEIS during the comment period. With a project as important as the Yucca Mountain Program, one that may affect generations of Nevadans, it would have been in the spirit of NEPA to broadly disseminate advertisements, in addition to public service announcements on radio and television. Public service announcements and press releases often only reach a small proportion of the population. Public service announcements, generally, compete for a limited amount of airtime with other community events. There is indeed no guarantee that they will be given any airtime or not relegated to off prime time scheduling. DOE has in fact violated its own Environmental Justice Strategy objectives that require DOE not only to use public service announcements, but also radio, TV, and minority publications to advertise forthcoming hearings or meetings.

One example of the inadequacy of DOE’s public information process occurred at the Salt Lake City DEIS public hearing on January 13, 2000. In the entire State of Utah, notice was published only in the "Salt Lake Tribune." However, there is another major Salt Lake City newspaper, the "Deseret News," which attracts a large, separate readership. As a result, many residents were unaware of the public hearing. It should be noted that there are also a number of other papers in Utah serving major population centers in the Ogden and Provo/Orem areas as well as other cities along potential transportation routes throughout Utah. The poor turnout of citizens at the Salt Lake public hearing is indicative of the meeting notification not being well publicized.

In summary, DOE did not demonstrate that they met the federal requirements to "make diligent efforts to involve the public" in the NEPA process. It appears that DOE has performed the bare in public involvement. Considering that the Yucca Mountain Program could impact a sizable segment of the nation now and for many future generations, more effort should have been made to ensure that those "who may be interested or affected" would know about the DEIS, how it could affect them and how they could participate in the public process.

*Council on Environmental Quality Guidelines, p, 29.

Response
DOE believes that its approach to the public involvement process during the development of the EIS is consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Council on Environmental Quality and DOE regulations on implementing NEPA, and DOE guidance on public participation during the preparation of EISs.

Before publishing the Notice of Intent to prepare this EIS, DOE notified its stakeholders, the media, Congressional representatives, the Office of the Governor of Nevada, affected units of local government in the Yucca Mountain vicinity, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and other Federal agencies such as the Bureau of Land Management and National Park Service, and the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board of its plans to prepare the EIS and its approach to the scoping process. In addition, DOE met with 13 Native American tribes and organizations and provided them the same information.

When DOE published the Notice of Intent, it mailed a series of information releases to Yucca Mountain stakeholders notifying them of the opportunity to comment on the scope of the EIS; sent press releases and public service announcements to newspapers and television and radio stations; and made information about Yucca Mountain, the EIS, and the NEPA process available on the Internet (www.ymp.gov) and in public reading rooms across the country. To reach low-income and minority communities, DOE contacted news publications and radio stations that tend to service these communities to notify them of the scoping meetings and the locations of available information.

In 1995, DOE held 15 public scoping meetings across the country during a 120-day public scoping period. DOE considered each of the comments included in the more than 1,000 documents it received during the scoping process and, in response, included additional information, modified analytical approaches, and evaluated additional implementing alternatives in the Draft EIS. For example, DOE evaluated potential impacts from the transportation and disposal of an expanded inventory, such as Greater-Than-Class-C low-level waste.

During the preparation of the EIS, DOE held discussions with a number of government agencies and other organizations to discuss issues of concern, obtain information for inclusion or analysis in the EIS, and initiate consultations or permit processes. For example, DOE asked the American Indian Writers Subgroup to prepare a document that recorded the viewpoints and concerns of Native Americans about Yucca Mountain and the EIS.

DOE distributed 3,400 copies of the Draft EIS to stakeholders and held 10 public hearings throughout Nevada and 11 public hearings elsewhere across the country during a 199-day comment period. During the comment period, DOE encouraged stakeholders to offer comments on the document during the public hearings and by mail, facsimile, and the Internet.

Before each hearing, DOE placed advertisements in local newspapers, including Spanish-language newspapers, and distributed public service announcements and press releases to more than 175 local and national stakeholders and media outlets to publicize information that would be accessible to the general public and to minority and low-income communities. In addition, in concert with the publication of the Draft EIS, DOE made available Spanish-language fact sheets about Yucca Mountain and the proposed repository.

DOE designed the advertisements and public notices to provide the public with notice of the availability of the Draft EIS, and the opportunities and ways in which stakeholders could participate in public hearings (at specific locations and times) or provide comments by other means. The notices and advertisements introduced the purpose of the EIS by indicating that it evaluates the potential impacts of constructing, operating and monitoring, and eventually closing a repository at Yucca Mountain in Nye County, Nevada, to dispose of our Nation’s spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. They also indicated that the EIS will help Federal officials make informed decisions, and further informed the reader how interested parties could obtain additional information, including copies of the Draft EIS.

DOE generally selected locations for public hearings in Nevada based on their proximity to potential transportation routes and the potential repository site, or based on communities having relatively large populations. Given the impracticality of holding hearings at every location potentially affected by the transportation of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste, DOE selected national hearing locations in the major metropolitan areas most likely to experience large numbers of shipments or at locations close to nuclear power plants.

In May 2001, DOE issued the Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic Repository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada, which it distributed to more than 4,000 stakeholders. The Department encouraged these stakeholders to submit comments during a 45-day comment period, which it later extended to 57 days (May 4 to July 6, 2001).

In June, during a review of its mailing records, the Department discovered that it had inadvertently not sent the Supplement to the Draft EIS to about 700 stakeholders who had requested and received a copy of the Draft EIS. DOE announced this oversight, sent the Supplement to the Draft EIS to these stakeholders, and provided them an opportunity to submit comments during a separate 45-day comment period (June 29 to August 13, 2001).

DOE held three public hearings in Nevada during the comment period. It held no hearings outside Nevada because the Supplement focused primarily on matters involving repository design. Commenters were encouraged to submit comments at public hearings and by mail, facsimile, and the Internet during the comment periods. DOE used means comparable to those it used for the Draft EIS (advertisements, releases, and announcements) to notify the public.

DOE considered each public comment it received in its development of this Final EIS. In response to comments, DOE has modified the EIS in a variety of ways, including clarifications or changes to the text, new or more recent information (such as 2000 Census data and population projections), and modified analyses (such as those for transportation impacts in which it modified the characteristics of the representative commercial spent nuclear fuel and accident source terms). DOE also modified the EIS to include new information obtained since it issued the Draft EIS. The Department obtained such information from site characterization activities and design evaluations, including, for example, updated radon emanation data and the most recent design features.

3.3 (9441)
Comment - EIS001593 / 0003
I think I also have to mention that this hearing, as limited a scope as it is, it’s something of a nuclear college of complexes, where we have a presentation, a question period, a rebuttal period and the only difference is that I think at the college of complexes we have kind of a little rule against speaking on the subject.

Response
The Department has provided an opportunity for the public and interested parties to provide comments on the Draft EIS and the Supplement to the Draft EIS. DOE has considered all oral and written comments received on the Draft EIS and the Supplement in the development of this EIS. The comments made at all the hearings and DOE’s responses are provided in this Comment-Response Document.

3.3 (9500)
Comment - EIS001888 / 0159
[Summary of comments noted by Clark County Nuclear Waste Division staff at various citizens’ meetings.]

Wondered if gaming is involved because their weight behind opposing Yucca Mountain would have greater influence.

Response
The Department is not involved in the gaming industry and therefore cannot comment on any involvement by the industry in opposing or supporting the proposed repository.

3.3 (9750)
Comment - EIS001888 / 0451
[Clark County summary of comments it has received from the public.]

Commenters requested that DOE develop and implement a process that would maximize public involvement during finalization of the alternatives and preparation of the EIS and the Record of Decision. DOE should also provide a means to inform and educate the public of the risks and consequences of developing the repository. This process could be facilitated by developing "citizen advisory boards around transport communities" or public citizen’s action committees. Other commenters requested that DOE "seriously" consider all comments provided.

Response
DOE believes that its approach to the public involvement process is consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act and the Council on Environmental Quality and DOE regulations. The 199-day public comment period and 21 public hearings as well as the distribution of more than 3,400 copies of the Draft EIS illustrate the extensive nature of the public involvement program.

In addition, in the course of producing this EIS, DOE interacted with a number of government agencies and other organizations. The purposes of these interactions have been to:

In addition to EIS-related interactions, DOE has continued to meet with and discuss issues with government agencies and other organizations. DOE believes that these interactions have been useful and assisted in modifying ongoing site characterization efforts, the development of the EIS, and the course of the overall program. Appendix C discusses the results of the EIS-related interactions.

DOE considered all comments it received on the Draft EIS and the Supplement to the Draft EIS in the development of this Final EIS.

Because the NWPA contemplates a recommendation whether to develop a repository at Yucca Mountain from the Secretary of Energy to the President, DOE might not issue a Record of Decision.

3.3 (9765)
Comment - EIS001888 / 0350
[Clark County summary of comments it has received from the public.]

Others said the EIS should discuss how public trust and confidence in the nuclear waste program (including public acceptance of health effects from transporting the waste) and DOE’s management of the program will be achieved.

Response
While DOE notes that some segments of the public lack trust and confidence in the nuclear waste program, this is not a subject that is germane, per se, to an analysis of environmental impacts in an EIS. However, as discussed in Section 2.6, the Secretary of Energy will consider public input (as well as other factors) in developing a recommendation to the President on the suitability of the Yucca Mountain site for development of a geologic repository.

3.3 (9896)
Comment - EIS001888 / 0443
[Clark County summary of comments it has received from the public.]

Many commenters requested that DOE complete the Implementation Plan soon after closure of the scoping period, and that DOE provide a draft Implementation Plan for further review and comment by the public (both as a written document and from additional public meetings). Some commenters requested that the Implementation Plan provide a "comprehensive road map" describing how the EIS will support decision-making. Others requested that the implementation Plan provide a demonstration of the necessary methodology, scientific accuracy, and professional integrity needed to develop the EIS, possibly by involving the Council on Environmental Quality and/or independent peer review. One commenter noted that the Implementation Plan should discuss how DOE will address the inevitable changes in programmatic assumptions and parameters. One commenter suggested that DOE provide the comments from scoping to the affected state agencies and another requested the comments be sent to DOE’s Bartlesville Research Facility.

Response
As discussed in Section 1.5.1 of the EIS, DOE received input during the scoping process from the public and a number of organizations. The Department considered the comments and information received during scoping, and modified the analytical approach to the EIS accordingly. In addition, it identified the comments and information it believes to be unrelated to the scope or content of the Proposed Action, or the comments for which analyses would be uncertain and speculative. Section 1.5.1 has been modified accordingly.

3.3 (9906)
Comment - EIS001888 / 0452
[Clark County summary of comments it has received from the public.]

Commenters said that the public and Native American Tribes had not been well informed about potential activities presented in several DOE ElSs including: the Foreign Research Reactor, Multi-Purpose Canister, Programmatic Spent Fuel Management and Idaho National Engineering Laboratories, Programmatic Waste Management, Nuclear Weapons Nonproliferation Policy, Transfer and Disposition of Surplus Highly Enriched Uranium, Fissile Materials, Uranium Supply and Recycling, and Stockpile Stewardship EISs.

Response
DOE’s approach to conducting the public involvement process is consistent with Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500 to 1508) and commonly includes efforts to reach those segments of the population most affected by and with an interest in the Proposed Action. Regarding this EIS specifically, the outreach program incorporated lessons learned from the scoping meetings for the EIS and other subsequent interactions with the public to help ensure that stakeholders were informed of the hearing schedule and locations. Notification flyers were mailed to those on the EIS distribution list (more than 3,400 individuals). Prior to each hearing, DOE placed advertisements in local newspapers, and text for public service announcements was distributed to local radio and television stations. Press releases also were distributed to more than 175 local and national stakeholders and media outlets.

3.3 (9907)
Comment - EIS001888 / 0453
[Clark County summary of comments it has received from the public.]

Commenters requested that DOE hold meetings in communities within all states and counties through which SNF [spent nuclear fuel] and HLW [high-level radioactive waste] will be transported, asserting that without which, the public’s right to comment is compromised. Commenters also requested that additional scoping meetings be held in Nevada (e.g., Elko, Eureka, Ely, Amargosa Valley), in various other identified communities (e.g., Belen, New Mexico), and in affected Indian communities. Others expressed concern that Yucca Mountain Project scoping meetings were scheduled coincident with other Departmental meetings thereby minimizing public input into the scoping process. These commenters suggested that a formal policy be institutionalized requiring meetings to first be cleared with the hosting site. One commenter noted that scoping meetings should not be held on the Jewish Sabbath.

Response
Given the impracticality of holding public hearings at every location potentially affected by the transportation of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste shipments, DOE selected hearing locations in the metropolitan areas most likely to experience large shipments and in proximity to nuclear powerplants. The selected Nevada locations were those nearest the proposed transportation corridors and the repository site. DOE made every effort to ensure that the times and dates of the hearings did not conflict with other known Yucca Mountain Project-related meetings. If conflicts could not be avoided and individuals could not attend the hearings, there were other means (such as e-mails, facsimiles, and letters) for individuals who wished to submit comments.

3.3 (9909)
Comment - EIS001888 / 0455
[Clark County summary of comments it has received from the public.]

Commenters requested that the scoping process (i.e., meetings, written comments) be restructured to develop a broad-based public consensus process. Some commenters requested that: (1) the scoping period be extended (2 months), (2) the public participate in the identification of impacts, (3) they be allowed to provide pre- decisional input, and (4) the EIS include interviews with Nevada residents previously exposed to radiation. Other options to the scoping meeting format used by DOE were suggested that would allow for: (1) round-table panel discussions; (2) the formation of citizen advisory boards in reactor communities; (3) a shortened introduction, without the use of visual aids, by the DOE speaker; (4) the use of personal recording devices; (5) question and answer sessions exclusively; (6) no limitations on the number of speakers; (7) the elimination of "biased" materials presented by DOE, and improved answers to audience questions; and (8) relocating the microphone to enable speakers to address the audience. One commenter requested written acknowledgment that comments were received by DOE. Some commenters found that parking facilities were inadequate, that meeting rooms were difficult to locate and that e-mail did not work properly, all of which act as a deterrent to public participation.

Response
DOE held 15 scoping meetings across the country between August 29 and October 24, 1995, to allow all interested parties to present verbal and written comments for the EIS. All interested persons, including Federal, state, and local government agencies, Native American tribal organizations, public interest groups, transportation interests, industry and utility organizations, regulators, and members of the general public were notified of this scoping process and given the opportunity to present verbal and written comments. Prescoping briefings and meetings were held for oversight and stakeholder groups, including the Native American tribes, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, and the 10 affected units of local government. The ample opportunities provided throughout the scoping period for public input did not necessitate use of other options to augment this process. As a result of the scoping process, 785 people attending the 15 scoping meetings and 568 submitted comments, which were responded to in the Summary of Public Scoping Comments document published by DOE in May 1997.

3.3 (9918)
Comment - EIS001732 / 0001
The first thing I would like to ask is why are these nuclear industry people, who have such a vested interest, allowed to speak before the citizens who actually live along these routes?

Response
DOE sometimes receives advance requests to speak from individuals who have schedule constraints. The Department attempts to honor such requests.

The order of presentation by commenters at DOE public hearings has no significance in the evaluation of their comments. DOE records every word from each speaker. Experienced analysts review each comment as part of the process of producing the Final EIS.

3.3 (9962)
Comment - EIS002287 / 0003
Ironically, during the Advisory Council on Nuclear Waste conference in Las Vegas, the agenda included the topic of why people or the public distrust risk assessment. It appears to me that the DOE is concerned with public perceptions regarding the proposed Yucca Mountain Repository, its risk assessments, and the DEIS. Hopefully, after this hearing, the DOE will work directly with the Affected Units of Tribal Governments, as designated, as well as all concerned citizens affected by this proposed site.

Response
As discussed in Section C.2.1.4 of the EIS, the Native American Interaction Program began formally in 1987. Twice annually, representatives from the Consolidated Group of Tribes and Organizations have met with DOE to discuss a range of issues. In addition, Native American subgroups have been convened periodically to discuss various issues with DOE. The Consolidated Group of Tribes and Organizations represents 17 individual tribes.

3.3 (10112)
Comment - EIS002168 / 0008
What solutions did your 6-month series of 20 hearings produce?

Response
The public comment period on the Draft EIS produced more than 11,000 comments that were considered by DOE in the development of the Final EIS.

3.3 (10301)
Comment - EIS002094 / 0006
The example of Germany should serve as a warning about what happens when the public is locked out of the decision-making process. The numbers from March of 1997 tell the story. Just six nuclear waste casks, nearly 200 people injured, 500 arrested, 20,000 protesters, 30,000 police, one hundred million dollars. Interestingly, another cross-country peace march is about to begin, and one of the messages that they’re carrying to the people of America is that Yucca Mountain is still targeted as a nuclear waste dump. The question I’d like them to ask people is: Should we change the American flag to have just forty-nine stars and one radiation symbol for Nevada? I thought our pledge of allegiance says: "One nation under God with liberty and justice for all." Not when nuclear wastes are involved, I guess.

Response
Thank you for your comment. DOE has considered all oral and written comments received on the Draft EIS in the development of this Final EIS. The Final EIS, which includes this Comment-Response Document, will be available to the decisionmakers, including the Secretary of Energy, the President, and Congress.

3.3 (10398)
Comment - EIS001927 / 0019
Only under pressure from Members of Congress did DOE publish its maps of projected irradiated nuclear fuel/high-level nuclear waste shipment routes, but not until January 21 – after 17 hearings had already taken place, and only days before the remaining hearings. How was the public supposed to comment on these very significant but well hidden maps? How are members of the public supposed to learn that they live on high-level nuclear waste shipment routes, let alone participate in the public comment process, when DOE hides the maps until just two weeks before the end of the original 180 day public comment period?

Response
The information on the routes used to calculate impacts associated with shipment of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste was and is available in the references to the EIS. Information on these references is available on the Internet (http://www.ymp.gov) and at DOE public reading rooms (see EIS Appendix D for a list of locations).

Section J.1.2.2.1 of the EIS provides numerous tables detailing the location of sources of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste that would be shipped to Yucca Mountain and the miles these materials would travel through various types of populations: urban, suburban, and rural. In January 2000 (during the public comment process for the Draft EIS), DOE posted maps of likely nuclear waste transport routes for each state on the Yucca Mountain Project website (www.ymp.gov). DOE has included these maps in the Final EIS (Section J.4). This is in addition to the route maps that were already included in the Draft EIS (see Section 2.1.3.2 for national routes and Section 2.1.3.3 for Nevada maps). Included on each map is a table of shipments originating in and passing through the state and the impacts within the state from incident-free transportation and accidents for each mode of transportation. In addition, Section J.4 includes the numbers of shipments in each state as well as a state-by-state assessment of the impacts. The routes shown on the maps and used in the analysis are preliminary and are based on the best information available at this time. However, final route and mode selection will not occur for some years and is not entirely within DOE’s control (that is, state and Native American tribal governments have the opportunity to designate "preferred" routes in accordance with 49 CFR 397.103). Thus, the analyzed routes might not be the ones actually used, if the Proposed Action was approved. In addition, DOE expects to interact with all affected stakeholders on routing and related local issues as transportation plans develop. Stakeholders will have an opportunity to provide input to DOE on the proposed routes.

As stated in the EIS (see Section 2.1.3.2.2), a truck carrying a shipping cask of high-level radioactive waste or spent nuclear fuel would travel to the repository in accordance with U.S. Department of Transportation regulations (49 CFR 397.101), which require the use of preferred routes. These routes include the Interstate Highway System, including Interstate beltways and bypasses. Alternative routes could be designated by states and Native American tribal governments following U.S. Department of Transportation regulations (49 CFR 397.103) that require consideration of the overall risk to the public and prior consultation with affected local jurisdictions and with any other affected states. The highway routes that would be used would be selected in accordance with these Federal transportation regulations as described in the request for proposal for Regional Services Contractors as outlined in Section M.3 of the EIS. Once the routes had been identified through the consultation process and agreed to by DOE, DOE would submit them to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for approval.

3.3 (10526)
Comment - EIS002211 / 0006
I request to be on your mailing list. I request receipt of -- the timely receipt of the entire public comment minutes and proceedings of all of your hearings, every one of them all across the country and I request a response to what my request was of you to do where the Congress and the president are concerned.

I want to know what you did, and if not, why not and rest assured that your names will be listed -- I really mean this -- as among those people in our current generations who failed utterly ourselves, each other and all posterity.

Response
The commenter has been added to the Department’s mailing list.

3.3 (10801)
Comment - EIS002043 / 0002
When the Final Environmental Impact Statement is released we request a presentation by the DOE to our Board to discuss how the DOE responded to our specific comments.

Response
Appendix C of the EIS describes the interactions DOE has conducted with government agencies (including Esmeralda County, for example) and other organizations in the course of preparing the EIS. The purpose of these interactions was to discuss issues of mutual concern, obtain information and initiate consultations or permit processes. DOE has continued these interactions during the preparation of this Final EIS for the same purposes and to provide information relevant to the development of responses to public comments on the Draft EIS and the Supplement to the Draft EIS. DOE’s responses to public comments are contained in this Comment-Response Document.

3.3 (10840)
Comment - EIS001516 / 0001
Bluntly stated DOE Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management must consider compliance with National Environmental Policy Act--directly in draft EIS--and indirectly as DOE funding is provided to other entities through ARC (Appalachian Regional Commission). Other entities include Ohio Valley Regional Development Commission which consults and promotes funding to counties in the region of the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant site located in Piketon, Ohio.

As of today’s date, Brown County [Ohio] Economic Development Director Mike Miller "announced and received" permission from the Brown County Board of Commissioners to form a special (forces???) team for economic development during calendar year 2000 in the county. I have no idea what happened to the 600 surveys mailed out on or before February 4, 2000 to selected residents of Brown County. Apparently, that plan has been "put on hold" so that "in-put" from specialists from Brown County can be included in regional planning by the Ohio Valley Regional Development Commission. Compliance with letter and intent of NEPA is mandatory, how the process is implemented is COMPLIANCE OR, IN THIS CASE—LACK THEREOF.

"I think we have put together a team, which can contribute the ideas and concerns necessary for long-term strategic planning, Miller said.

Miller plans to meet regularly throughout the year with the committee. Public hearings are also planned. (THE LEDGER INDEPENDENT, "BROWN COUNTY ECONOMIC TEAM FORMED," pg. B-1)
Public meetings held without citizen/resident/interested party/citizen access to the decision-making process is meaningless. The order of things—as progressing—in Brown County, Ohio renders the process meaningless. The strategy seems to me to be: get the victims to ask for whatever it is that is already been decided for them anyway, and with strategic tactics convince them—for as long as possible—that somehow the ideas for the strategic plan began with them! Surveys are effective means of determining citizen opinion—re-surveys sound like more "out of bounds after the buzzer." The latest strategy sounds like changing the game already in progress-—when the rules are too confining—-change the rules.

These tactics are definitely tacky, and I believe, illegal. Closed door meetings have been created de-facto by the newly created "strategic team of specialists." What happened to "I want in-put from people" as Mr. Miller said just days ago? Whose two-cents worth is apparent by the interests represented on the newly formed team which certainly appears designed to get the job done.

Solutions as to what to do with DOE legacy nuclear waste and "surplus/excess materials" (produced with intent to save democracy) cannot reasonably be allowed to undo democratic process.

DOE is respectfully requested to address what is happening to the public participation process in order to implement decisions already made in closed access regional planning sessions. DOE has authority and responsibility to address what is going on here.

In closing, it appears that Mr. Miller is somewhat uniquely qualified—-along with the board of commissioners--to address long term strategic planning for Brown County of Ohio. As far as I am aware—neither Mr. Miller nor the commissioners have had opportunity to review (let alone react and respond) to my comments to the agency written on February 1, 2000 and/or February 7, 2000. Could it be that considerable "feedback" has already surfaced locally from the proposal to re-survey of 600 selected recipients derived from Brown County Board of Election voter records??

Response
DOE has considered all oral and written comments received on the Draft EIS in the development of the Final EIS. This EIS, which includes this Comment-Response Document, will be available to the decisionmakers, including the Secretary of Energy, the President, and Congress.

3.3 (10985)
Comment - EIS001115 / 0006
Lack of publicity and information to the potentially directly affected communities along the Yucca Mountain HLW [high-level radioactive waste] transportation corridors provides potential for ‘lapse’ in attention and accountability among local elected officials. Has DOE notified local elected officials, including county Boards of Commissioners, and local mayors along the alternative routing corridors presently being considered by the agency? If DOE has provided notification to mayors, city councils, boards of commissioners, emergency management agencies and fire departments, discussion, and comment have not been well-circulated throughout Southern Ohio and Northern Kentucky using the local news media as a barometer.

Response
Consistent with the Council on Environmental Quality requirements for inviting comments (40 CFR 1503.1), DOE provided copies of the Draft EIS to Federal, state, and local elected and appointed officials and agencies of government; Native American tribes; national, state, and local environmental and public interest groups; and other organizations and individuals listed in Appendix D of the Draft EIS. DOE provided notification of each public hearing through a combination of Federal Register notices, media advertisements, notices to local and national media outlets, notices to key stakeholders (state senators/members of Congress, governors, deputy governors, mayors, and chairs of county commissions), and public service announcements to radio and television stations.

3.3 (11251)
Comment - EIS001887 / 0400
NEPA [National Environmental Policy Act] is not self-executing in that it does not alone determine the outcome expressed by a preferred course of action. Outcomes are influenced by many other considerations including the biases of an agency and organized interests. NEPA is a procedural policy act rather than a substantive act, and it alone does not determine the outcome of an action. In the case of the YMP, the outcome will be influenced by biased interests inside and outside DOE, such as the nuclear industry. Thus, public stakeholders such as the citizens of Nevada may not substantially affect the outcome of the YMP [Yucca Mountain Project] through their comments on the DEIS. Speaking on behalf of the citizens, the influence of the State government in this respect may be more effective but still may be outside the final decision making regarding execution and form of the Proposed Action for the YMP. This is a shortcoming on the part of DOE.

Response
As described in the Foreword and Sections 1.3 and 2.6 of the EIS, the NWPA establishes a process leading to a determination by the Secretary of Energy on whether to recommend that the President approve Yucca Mountain for development of a geologic repository. If the President considers the site qualified for application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a construction authorization, the President will submit a recommendation of the site to Congress. The Governor or Legislature of Nevada may then object to the site. In such a case, site approval could occur only if Congress passed a joint resolution of approval that the President signed into law.

In making the recommendation to the President, the Secretary of Energy will consider not only potential environmental impacts and public comments on the EIS, but also factors identified through public input and other means including, for example:

Section 2.6 has been modified to reflect the basis for the Secretary’s recommendation.

3.3 (11354)
Comment - EIS002271 / 0004
I am going to cut my reading short. I want to say that I concur as an elected official with the commentary provided by San Bernardino County officers, staff, Mr. Robert Laurie of the California Energy Commission representing 13 California state agencies, and Mr. Corbin Harney of the Western Shoshone.

Response
DOE notes your support of comments provided by Mr. Laurie and Mr. Harney. The Department considered all comments it received on the Draft EIS and the supplement to the Draft EIS in the development of the Final EIS.

3.3 (11704)
Comment - EIS001104 / 0001
We have a lot of people that are very interested in this issue. They are hungry for information. And they come to me to get that information. I need to feed them information. And so the message that I would like you to take back is that, yes, at least in Eureka County, in Crescent Valley, there are people who are really concerned, who really care, who really want to know what’s going on. And so as I tell all federal agencies, when you are scheduling meetings, it would be great if you could, federal government, talk to each other so that we do not have meeting conflicts.

Unfortunately, it was the Nuclear Regulatory Commission who yesterday scheduled a meeting on the modal study, already knowing that this meeting was being scheduled for today and that the Austin meeting was scheduled for Tuesday. We were not able to be represented at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s modal study meeting because we had to be here. And Department of Energy was on the calendar first.

There are other times when Department of Energy is on the calendar second, and I’m just saying, there’s got to be enough days in the year so we can get to all of these meetings.

Response
DOE worked closely with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and other groups to minimize schedule conflicts between the different meetings and conferences held on repository and nuclear waste issues. In some cases, these meetings were intentionally scheduled close together so out-of-town participants could attend the different forums. DOE apologizes for any inconvenience or hardship this might have caused those who were unable to attend all scheduled meetings. Minutes or transcripts of individual forums might be available from the sponsoring organizations.

3.3 (12110)
Comment - EIS001887 / 0410
Agencies and their bureaucrats often look at the informational substance of NEPA [National Environmental Policy Act] as an imposition that encumbers and delays the agency’s mission and statutory responsibilities. These same bureaucrats are hostile to having the agency’s expertise and preordained decisions open to scrutiny by NEPA. Agencies also are tempted to reveal as little as possible about their intentions to outsiders and the public. The full-disclosure provisions of NEPA are meant to avoid deception involving an agency’s technical expertise, full intent, and the true cost of projects. Related to the issue of avoiding deception is that NEPA and environmental protection are seen by some agency bureaucrats as being viewed too sentimentally and impractically by the public and other outsiders. Such bureaucratic misconceptions lead to the attitude that NEPA and its documents are too costly and impose unnecessary burdens on moving forward with "serving" the public, as an agency believes it knows best how to do without interference. In the YMP [Yucca Mountain Project] DEIS, DOE has failed to achieve NEPA’s intent that proposed actions be treated with full disclosure and openness. This reflects a reluctance of the bureaucrats involved with the project to have their full intent, costs, and preordained decisions revealed to the public and other outside interests. This holds also for revealing the expertise of those responsible for the EIA process and the DEIS, which these review comments show to be lacking in accordance with standard environmental practice in the private sector.

Response
DOE has fully disclosed information and specifically information related to the Proposed Action and its potential impacts since beginning the development of the EIS. After completing the scoping process and during the course of producing the EIS, DOE interacted with a number of government agencies and other organizations. The purposes of the interactions were to discuss issues of concern, obtain information, and initiate consultations or permit processes. Appendix C of the EIS describes these interactions.

In addition, DOE used information from a broad range of studies it undertook to obtain or evaluate information needed for the assessment of Yucca Mountain as a geologic repository. The Department presents this information in the EIS, and in greater detail in the appendixes. The EIS acknowledges that some of the studies are ongoing. Section 2.5 of the EIS identifies the use of incomplete information or the unavailability of information to identify uncertainties in the data or analytical approaches. Furthermore, the EIS acknowledges that the results of analyses often have associated uncertainties, and describes them throughout the EIS. Finally, the input provided by a number of organizations often presents research or information that in some cases disagreed with the views of DOE. The Department reviewed and evaluated these for inclusion as part of the EIS analyses. If the information presented a substantive view, DOE made every effort to incorporate that view in the EIS and to identify its source. If it did not incorporate the information, DOE attempted to identify and address the opposing views.

For these reasons, DOE believes it has disclosed its EIS and supporting information and analyses for public scrutiny as appropriate.

3.3 (12281)
Comment - 010369 / 0007
Earlier this year, I voiced the above concerns in a letter addressed to Secretary Abraham at the DOE’s Washington DC address. I did not receive a written response then, nor have I at any time received any kind of response to my concerns about Yucca from the DOE. I hope to receive from you a written response that addresses each of the concerns I have voiced, and strongly urge you and all concerned DOE officials to reconsider your support for this project. Please look out for all Americans, not just those employed by or concerned with the nuclear industry.

Response
Letters addressed to the Secretary of Energy were forwarded to the Yucca Mountain Project team to ensure they were considered in the preparation of the EIS. Because of the volume of comments received, DOE could not respond individually to each commenter. DOE identified more than 13,000 individual comments in the letters, facsimiles, emails, and oral presentations submitted during the public comment periods for the Draft EIS and the Supplement to the Draft EIS. The Department considered every comment to determine if it needed to perform additional research and subsequent EIS text changes to respond adequately. Because many comments were identical or similar or presented common themes that would cause individual responses to be repetitive, DOE determined that the use of summary comments and responses was appropriate in some cases. The Council on Environmental Quality regulations permit individual and collective assessment and consideration of comments and the use of comment summaries where the number of comments received is voluminous (40 CFR 1503.4). DOE believes this approach allows it to use its resources more effectively and efficiently in responding to all comments. Therefore, this Comment-Response Document addresses every comment individually or in a comment summary. In addition, the Comment-Response Document describes changes made to the EIS in response to comments. The Secretary will consider the Final EIS, including the comments and their responses, in determining whether to recommend approval of the Yucca Mountain site to the President.

3.3 (12290)
Comment - EIS001207 / 0010
DOE obviously has multiple "primary-drivers" in implementing NEPA [National Environmental Policy Act] process, including the NWPA, International treaty, and other agreements. DOE has obligation to apply the same standards of protection to the natural environment and human health through-out the Yucca Mountain Site Project as are required in other agency actions by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (when appropriate), and the agency’s own regulations and policies. The agency should not rely on "assumption" that state and local decision-making process as implemented necessarily complies with intent or wording of NEPA process, i.e., fully informed participation by the public at the earliest practical stage in the planning process. It would seem that the strategic plan, implemented locally, is more than somewhat selective about who is informed, who is selected to participate, and what decisions are actually being made. The NWPA "selected" the geographic zone where the nation’s first high-level radioactive waste "permanent" repository [siting] process would begin. It seems that the same general political [siting] criteria applies to the process now going on in Brown County of Ohio, i.e., nobody lives there (with sufficient political clout, resources, and stamina to halt the creation of a sacrifice zone). Legitimate business has collation to use legitimate practices, including strategies and tactics. Promoting the victimization of some for the benefit of others does not meet criteria of providing acceptable solution to "fatal flaw" (public opposition) during the [siting] process. DOE has obligation to consider all the implications of the suitability of the site, and the direct and indirect impacts likely to occur resulting from agency actions. Tolerating considerable harm to democratic process in order to save democracy cannot be acceptable solution and DOE should use appropriate regulatory authority to prevent, sanction, and discourage such tactics.

Response
DOE believes that the EIS is consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act and the Council on Environmental Quality and DOE regulations, including the public comment process, and believes that the EIS identifies the reasonably foreseeable direct and indirect impacts from the Proposed Action. DOE is committed to evaluating the suitability of the Yucca Mountain site, based on its suitability regulations (10 CFR Part 963). The Final EIS, which includes this Comment-Response Document, will be available to the decisionmakers, including the Secretary of Energy, the President, and Congress.

3.3 (12327)
Comment - EIS001106 / 0039
In the YMP [Yucca Mountain Project] DEIS, the DOE has failed to achieve NEPA’s [National Environmental Policy Act’s] intent that proposed actions be treated with full disclosure and openness. This reflects a reluctance of the bureaucrats involved with the project to have their full intent, costs, and preordained decisions revealed to the public and other outside interests. This holds also for revealing the expertise of those responsible for the EIA [environmental impact assessment] process and the DEIS, which these review comments show to be lacking in accordance with standard environmental practice in the private sector.

Response
The EIS describes the Proposed Action in a manner consistent with other DOE documents prepared under the National Environmental Policy Act and the current state of the repository design. DOE has not reached any "preordained decisions" about the repository or the results of the EIS analyses. Chapters 1 and 2 of the EIS describe the intent of the EIS and the NWPA. The costs of the Yucca Mountain Project change as the repository design evolves, and Section 2.1.5 describes the estimated cost of the Proposed Action. Chapter 13 contains a list of EIS preparers, contributors, and reviewers, and a short summary of their experience and expertise.

3.4 Supplement to the Draft EIS - Presentation

3.4 (936)
Comment - 010378 / 0003
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the City of Ely does not support page 2-19 of the White Pine County Comments.

Response
DOE believes this comment is directed at White Pine County’s second comment on the Supplement to the Draft EIS, which suggests the use of Pinyon-Juniper biomass from White Pine and Lincoln Counties as an alternative to fuel oil for a central heating plant at the proposed repository. The Department acknowledges the City of Ely’s disagreement with that comment.

3.4 (5712)
Comment - 010124 / 0001
The typical introduction to the document about Yucca Mountain refers to a projection of storing 70,000 or so metric tons of high-level radioactive waste. I think that the DOE would be more honest and forthcoming if it would expand that projection to include some discussion of how much radioactivity that we are really talking about here.

I’d like to suggest three measures of radioactivity. The first one is how much radioactivity in terms of radioactivity that Yucca Mountain would be storing.

The second measure is the atomic bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima back in World War II killed approximately 300,000 people, and to this day people are still dying premature deaths from that bomb.

A typical nuclear power plant generates around a thousand megawatts of electricity. I understand that the rule of thumb is when a 1,000 megawatt nuclear power plant operates at full power for one year, it accumulates the radioactivity equivalent of 2,300 Hiroshima bombs of radioactivity.

If you do a little multiplying here, the projected lifetime of a typical plant is around 40 years, although there’s been quite a few closing a lot sooner than 40 years, if we multiply 40 years times say maybe 50 nuclear power plant we are looking at 2000, 40 times 50, 2000 years times 2,300 Hiroshima bombs. We are looking at oh, around five million bombs of radioactivity. For some reason that doesn’t fit what I remember my old calculation of several years ago of 50 million, but it’s quite a few. Anyway, that’s the second measure of radioactivity.

The third measure is Chernobyl. The Chernobyl plant, the explosion back in ‘86, I remember reading that it cost the Soviet Union and Europe around $300 billion worth of damage. That’s one medium sized nuclear power plant. So a third measure of radioactivity is what would be the equivalent of how many Chernobyls of radioactivity if something happens with the dump up at Yucca Mountain.

A couple days ago I was talking on the phone with a rather knowledgeable scientist that many of you people know, Grant Hudlow. He came back from the Bay Area. He was telling me that he was astounded to learn that after the waste fuel is reprocessed the radioactivity is far more than the radioactivity of the fuel before it is reprocessed. So possibly a fourth measure of radioactivity is to take into account radioactivity that is produced after the fuel is reprocessed.

Response
The commenter suggests that DOE broaden the projection of radioactive impacts in the EIS to include the radioactivity associated with nuclear powerplants, fallout from past nuclear weapon detonations, specifically Hiroshima, Chernobyl, and nuclear fuel reprocessing. Many studies have addressed, in quantifiable terms, the radiation levels in the environment from the nuclear fuel cycle. DOE believes that the baseline descriptions of the affected environment in Chapter 3 capture background levels of radiation that persist in the environment from nuclear facilities such as uranium mines, mills, fuel-processing plants, nuclear powerplants, and DOE complex sites; the transport of nuclear materials; and fallout from past weapons detonations. According to the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Pantex Plant and Associated Storage of Nuclear Components, the estimated dose to individuals from the nuclear fuel cycles is less than 1 millirem per year (DIRS 103218-DOE 1996). That is, the cumulative radioactive fallout from atmospheric weapons tests, emissions of radioactive material from DOE facilities, emissions from mineral extraction facilities, and transportation of radioactive materials contribute less than 1 millirem per year to the average dose to an individual. The cumulative impact assessment in Chapter 8 of the EIS includes past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions in the affected area.

3.4 (7401)
Comment - 010317 / 0012
In the definition for "heavy metal" insert "and/or generated" after "used."

Response
The Department has modified the definition of "heavy metal" in the glossary to read: All uranium, plutonium, and thorium used and or generated in a manmade nuclear reactor.

3.4 (10163)
Comment - 010175 / 0005
It is not clear that the "S&ER [Science and Engineering Report] flexible design" discussed in the SDEIS is the same as that used in the TSLCC [Total System Life-Cycle Cost] document which uses a "Reference System Design" ("capable of emplacing 97,000 MTHM") from a "Project Description Document" not made available to the public. The FEIS should clarify this.

Response
The commenter is correct in noting that the flexible design is not the same as the reference design referred to in the Analysis of the Total System Life-Cycle Cost of the Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Program (TSLCC; DIRS 153255-DOE 2001). The flexible design includes the reference design as the higher-temperature operating mode. The other operating modes of the flexible design, referred to as lower-temperature operating modes, were discussed generally in Chapter 8 of DOE (DIRS 153255-2001). The Life Cycle Analysis for Repository Flexible Design Concepts (DIRS 156900-DOE 2001) is an update to the information provided in the May 2001 TSLCC and is for the full range of the flexible design for 70,000 metric tons of heavy metal. The estimated costs associated with the Proposed Action have been updated in the Final EIS (see Section 2.1.5).

3.4 (11031)
Comment - 010073 / 0017
Figure 2-4 - Figure 2-4 of the SDEIS refers only to direct rail access and heavy-haul access to the site. The text on Page 2-12 refers to legal-weight trucks. It is not clear if DOE anticipates legal weight trucks being used to transport waste directly to the Yucca Mountain site.

Response
Depending upon how a shipment of spent nuclear fuel or high-level waste would be transported from the generator sites, one of three modes of transportation would be used in Nevada: rail, heavy-haul trucks, and legal-weight trucks. Legal-weight truck shipments could continue directly to the repository following routes that satisfy the regulations of the U.S. Department of Transportation (49 CFR Part 397). This could entail taking I-15 to U.S. 95 and then traveling U.S. 95 to the repository. The exact highway routes that would be used in Nevada would be specified in adequate time for cities and counties to prepare for the shipments.

Shipments arriving in Nevada by rail would travel to the repository either directly by rail or would be transferred to heavy-haul trucks at one of three possible locations in Nevada and then travel along highways to the repository. A discussion of these scenarios along with maps of the potential routes is in Section 2.1.3.3 of the Final EIS.

3.4 (11551)
Comment - 010398 / 0001
Thank you for sending me a copy of the Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for a Geologic Repository for the Deposit of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada, for review. The information exhibited in this supplement is overwhelming but quite understandable. The presentation of this material is excellent. My compliments to the staff who worked so diligently to prepare this document in such a concise manner. I know that this was not an easy task.

Response
Thank you for your comments.

3.4 (11853)
Comment - 010165 / 0001
Figure 2-7 in the document talks about the upper and lower block concept. They’re not entirely clear. It would be -- I think it would be better to -- they don’t entirely label which one is what. One of the figure’s captions doesn’t really label which one is which and how they’re actually going to be used. I think there could be a little more clarity on what that really is representing.

Response
The intent of Figure 2-7 of the Supplement to the Draft EIS is to show conceptually how the flexible design subsurface layout differs from each of the three thermal loads presented in the Draft EIS. As can be seen, the flexible design would use part or the entire layout shown in the lower right quadrant of Figure 2-7. The smallest area that DOE would use is the shaded area that corresponds to the possible higher-temperature repository operating mode. DOE would use the full area shown for some of the possible lower-temperature operating modes. The higher-temperature repository operating mode would utilize the upper (primary) block. A low thermal repository would be in the upper and lower blocks and Area 5. DOE acknowledges that Figure 2-7 is complex and understands it must be reviewed with the explanatory text. Section 2.1.5.1 of the Science and Engineering Report provides more detail.

3.4 (12330)
Comment - 010165 / 0003
And Table 3-6 talks about worker years and radiation exposure years. Please define these for the public. I mean, I think I know what it means, but please define that either by showing how you calculate it. I think I commented on this before, show that and make sure it’s clear what that language means.

Response
Table 3-6 of the Supplement to the Draft EIS reports, as primary impact indicators for occupational health and safety, total worker years and exposed worker years. Exposed worker years represent the subset of the total work force that because of their occupation or job classification could be exposed to radiation. In the Final EIS, DOE has eliminated this categorization and presents the potential radiological occupational health and safety impacts as total estimated dose to the individual and worker population over the life of the project.

3.4 (12334)
Comment - 010317 / 0013
In the definitions of "saturated zone" and "water table" insert the word "liquid" before the word "water."

Response
The Department believes that the definition of "saturated zone" and "water table" is sufficiently clear as written in the Glossary.

3.4 (12379)
Comment - 010073 / 0004
Table S-2 - Table S-2 is not consistent in providing a range of impacts for many parameters.

Response
The inconsistencies to which the commenter is referring are not clear to DOE. DOE has attempted to treat each scenario equally and to be consistent in it presentation. Table S-2 of the Supplement to the EIS compares the impacts of the higher-temperature operating mode to impacts of the lower-temperature operating mode (the flexible design described in the Supplement). These operating modes capture the likely range of operating conditions for the repository. Therefore, the impacts described on Table S-2 for each operating mode capture the range of impacts that could reasonably be expected to occur from a repository at Yucca Mountain. Furthermore, Table S-2 compares the range of impacts to the impacts described in the Draft EIS. The updated design information presented in the Supplement was carried forward to the Final EIS.

3.4 (12703)
Comment - 010344 / 0007
Also, speaking about this technical document, people made comments that it’s very hard to understand. One thing NEPA states is that these documents should be written in clear language so that the average person can understand these. The way this is written, just like the draft EIS, it’s basically raw data and raw data isn’t appropriate for these documents.

Response
DOE has taken a number of steps to make the EIS as understandable as possible to a wide range of readers. For example, the EIS includes a number of explanatory text boxes, summary tables, illustrations, and comparison information that stresses and highlights potential environmental impacts. In addition, Appendix B of the Supplement to the Draft EIS and Chapter 14 of the Final EIS is a comprehensive glossary of technical terms.

3.4 (12759)
Comment - 010073 / 0023
Pages 3-4, 3-10, 3-11 - These sections indicate that S&ER [Science and Engineering Report] design fatalities from air quality, occupational health and safety, and accidents will increase from a low of 1.82 to 3.8 deaths. It is not clear if the long-term performance benefits from a latent cancer fatality standpoint are greater than the increase in short-term deaths. In fact, Table 3-14 does not even address latent cancer fatalities. As a consequence, it is not possible within the SDEIS to conclude whether the S&ER flexible design is better from a fatality perspective. This is a critical shortcoming of the SDEIS.

Response
Table S-2 of the Supplement to the EIS compares the range of estimated latent cancer fatalities among the operating modes considered in the flexible design to the estimated latent cancer fatalities described in the Draft EIS. For airborne radiological releases to the public, and for workers at the repository, the range of estimated latent cancer fatalities would be higher for the flexible design than for the design evaluated in the Draft EIS. This increase in estimated latent cancer fatalities is due largely to revised data and analyses. Had these same data and analyses been applied to the design in the Draft EIS, the estimated latent cancer fatalities would likely have been greater than the fatalities reported in the Supplement. The Final EIS has been refined and includes analysis of possible early failures brought on by defects in the waste package. The results show a very small (but nonzero) dose from these failures. See Chapter 5, Section 5.4 of the Final EIS for details.

3.4 (12954)
Comment - 010249 / 0008
Summarize analytical and scientific processes that led to the results.

Inclusion of biographical information on the SDEIS preparers was a positive step in the direction of providing information concerning the technical and scientific foundation underlying the analysis. However, some evidence of the credentials of the larger scientific team that conducted the work behind the EIS should be provided in the FEIS. In addition, general information could be included to describe controls to assure the accuracy of their work, time and resources devoted to the effort, conservative assumptions applied, procedures and internationally accepted scientific practices followed, and peer reviews conducted.

Response
The National Environmental Policy Act process has been structured to provide detached input to the EIS and public scrutiny of the EIS results. An independent contractor was selected to assist DOE in preparing this EIS. Several independent assessments of the EIS have also been performed including, among others, that of the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board and the National Academy of Sciences, to validate its results. Public hearings and public review of both the Draft EIS and the Supplement to the Draft EIS provided interested parties including opponents and proponents of the proposal with the opportunity to examine the assumptions, analyses, and conclusions in drafts and the opportunity to provide input on how these issues and other concerns should be addressed in the Final EIS

Chapter 13 of the EIS contains a list of individuals who filled primary roles in the preparation of this EIS. DOE directed the preparation of the EIS with primary support and assistance from Jason Technologies Corporation. Consistent with Council on Environmental Quality regulations, DOE has identified those contributors who directly supported the preparation of the EIS. In the Final EIS DOE will not list the names of any individuals not directly related to the preparation of the EIS in the list of contributors.

The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 established the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board as an independent organization in the Executive Branch. The Board is responsible for evaluating the technical and scientific validity of activities undertaken by the Secretary of Energy, including activities related to the packaging or transportation of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. The President appoints members of the Board after receiving nominations from the National Academy of Sciences. Board members have no financial interest or other interest in the outcome of the Yucca Mountain Project. Names and qualifications of Board members are a matter of public record.

With regard to the analytical and scientific processes that led to the conclusions reached in the EIS, Appendixes F, G, H, J, K, L, and I provide in-depth discussions of the technical disciplines and the models and methodologies that DOE used.

3.4 (12955)
Comment - 010249 / 0009
Synthesize results and put risks into perspective.

While the DEIS and SDEIS did include summaries of the dose associated with long-term repository performance, more should be done to put the radiological and non-radiological risks into perspective (i.e. providing comparisons against risks associated with other large scale projects).

Response
DOE believes that the comparison of potential impacts to regulatory standards or guidelines, as in the EIS is the appropriate method of putting the repository in perspective. However, DOE has included an enhanced discussion of the risks encountered by individuals in everyday life to the risks associated with radiation exposures in Appendix F of the Final EIS.

3.4 (13011)
Comment - 010334 / 0008
On page D-10 of the Supplemental Draft EIS it mentions Native American groups and under that they have identified tribes, Indian tribes. And because of points in the law and certain requirements, it’s inappropriate to have Indian tribes identified as groups and should be so noted and identified as Indian tribes that they are.

On page D-16 it talks and refers to Indian tribes as tribal organizations. There’s a distinct inconsistency between the word groups and organizations, but still doesn’t specifically address Indian tribes and should be corrected to reflect that.

On page D-10 there is mention that identifies the Las Vegas Paiute Tribe incorrectly as the Las Vegas Indian Paiute Colony and should be corrected to accurately reflect its name as the Las Vegas Paiute Tribe.

Response
DOE has changed the term "Native American groups" to "Native American tribes," as appropriate, throughout the EIS, and has corrected the references to the Las Vegas Paiute Tribe.

3.4 (13030)
Comment - 010311 / 0002
The SDEIS and other Documents are crossed referenced and confusing. It is very time consuming to develop a clear picture of the total project and its impacts, especially TRANSPORTATION.

Response
DOE has taken a number of steps to make the EIS as understandable as possible to a wide range of readers. For example, the EIS includes a number of explanatory text boxes, summary tables, illustrations, and comparison information that stresses and highlights potential environmental impacts. In addition, Appendix B of the Supplement to the Draft EIS is a comprehensive glossary of technical terms, and Chapter 14 is the Final EIS glossary.

3.4 (13299)
Comment - 010317 / 0004
The FEIS should contain proper legal descriptions of all the various boundary lines including the Region of Influence, the Land Withdrawal Areas, the Yucca Mountain vicinity, and the Yucca Mountain site. Hopefully, those legal descriptions will be presented in several ways including the Nevada State Plane Coordinate System, the Universal Coordinate System (in decimal degrees), and in the township and range system. All such description terms should be consistent from one land parcel to another parcel.

Response
The Department believes that the EIS information in the EIS on potential impacts related to the location and size of a potential withdrawal for the repository adequately analyzes the likely impacts of such a withdrawal. If Congress does ultimately withdraw land for the repository, a precise legal description of the area to be withdrawn would be compiled as part of the withdrawal legislation.

3.5 Supplement to the Draft EIS - Adequacy

3.5 (36)
Comment - 31 comments summarized
A number of commenters stated that the Supplement to the Draft EIS failed in that it did not describe a specific or final design. Commenters believe that DOE must have a final design choice to recommend the site to the President and Congress, as well as to apply for a license with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Several commenters expressed concerns that DOE will continue to change the design and, as a moving target, the design and its associated impacts cannot be adequately evaluated or reviewed by the oversight agencies and the public. Similarly, commenters asked how Yucca Mountain, absent a specific design, can be evaluated against Environmental Protection Agency exposure standards. According to one commenter, the Supplement offers no explanation as to how additional impacts from ongoing design change will be addressed from the time the Final EIS is released to the point when construction would begin. Commenters also stated that further design changes should result in a supplement to the Final EIS. One commenter stated the Final EIS should evaluate only the flexible design as the design that most accurately describes the repository DOE proposes to build.

Response
The Secretary of Energy will make a determination on whether to recommend the Yucca Mountain site to the President on the basis of a number of different types of information, including that contained in the Final EIS. Any recommendation would be accompanied not only by the Final EIS, but also by those materials designated in Section 114 of the NWPA. This includes, for example, preliminary engineering specifications for the facility, not a final design.

In the Draft EIS and the Supplement to the Draft EIS, DOE analyzed a variety of scenarios and alternatives that could be implemented to construct, operate and monitor, and eventually close a repository at Yucca Mountain. These scenarios and implementing alternatives reflect potential design modifications and waste packaging approaches. The intent was to provide the full range of potential environmental impacts and to maintain flexibility in the design of the repository to maintain the ability to reduce uncertainties in or improve long-term performance, and improve operational safety and efficiency.

DOE acknowledges in Section 2.1.1.5 of the EIS that it could modify or refine the flexible design further during the License Application process, if the site was approved for development. DOE expects any additional design changes would result in further reductions in the uncertainties associated with long-term performance and would measure estimated releases against the Environmental Protection Agency’s final environmental standards at 40 CFR Part 197 and Nuclear Regulatory Commissions licensing criteria at 10 CFR Part 63.

Many of the issues relating to how a repository would be operated and how spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste would be packaged would be resolved in the context of developing the detailed design for a possible license application. DOE cannot predict with certainty how these issues would eventually be resolved.

However, as DOE has acknowledged in Section 2.1.1.5 of the EIS, the flexible design could evolve further. DOE’s License Application would be "as complete as possible in the light of information that is reasonably available at the time of docketing", as stipulated in 10 CFR 63.24. Part 63.24 further contemplates the possible necessity for updating the application after license submittal for a number of reasons, including possible changes resulting from "research programs carried out to confirm the adequacy of designs, conceptual models, parameter values, and estimates of performance of the geologic repository." The commenters should be aware that, in the event DOE does modify the repository design further, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission licensing and National Environmental Policy Act processes related to the Yucca Mountain Repository would provide a number of opportunities for the public to comment on DOE’s application and possible updates.

3.5 (113)
Comment - 9 comments summarized
Commenters were dissatisfied that the question-and-answer period at each public hearing did not allow more time for questions and that DOE did not include comments made during this period in the public record. Other commenters questioned if DOE would address statements made during the oral presentations as comments on the Draft EIS.

Response
The purpose of the question-and-answer period preceding the comment period at each hearing was to help inform attendees on the purpose and scope of the Draft EIS and the Supplement to the Draft EIS, and to discuss and clarify issues of concern. Because this was an information forum, DOE believes that including the questions and answers as part of an official record was unnecessary. Often, hearing participants presented the comments and questions they made during the question-and-answer period as comments during the comment period so they could be part of the official record. The length of the question-and-answer period was balanced against that of the public comment period; DOE believes it was more important to maximize the period for public comment at each hearing.

All statements made during the comment period were recorded and included as part of the more than 13,000 comments submitted on the Draft EIS and the Supplement to the Draft EIS. DOE has addressed each identified comment either individually or in a summary comment in this Comment-Response Document. Some of these comments reflect changes made to the Final EIS.

3.5 (204)
Comment - 65 comments summarized
Commenters said that the scope of the Supplement was too narrow and did not adequately examine the full suite of impacts associated with the new design, particularly socioeconomic and health impacts from transporting waste to Yucca Mountain. Some said that the Supplement should have compared the risks and impacts of new design features to the design in the draft. Others criticized DOE’s description of impacts in the Supplement as "proportional" to impacts described in the Draft EIS, rather than examining the impacts in detail.

With regard to waste transport, commenters said that the impacts should have been thoroughly analyzed and that a preferred mode and transport route should have been identified in the Supplement. The Supplement should also have considered the use of multipurpose dry-cask storage and transportation systems, as well as the socioeconomic impacts from a prolonged transportation campaign due to an extended period of waste emplacement because of possible requirements for fuel aging. Others said that the Supplement should have examined the risks from transporting drip shields to the site. Some wanted to know if waste transport would be addressed in the Final EIS, while others objected that an examination of waste transport would be deferred to the Final EIS.

Response
The design evaluated in the Supplement to the Draft EIS (the flexible design) incorporates a variety of enhancements to the design evaluated in the Draft EIS. The basic elements of the Proposed Action, however, are unchanged: DOE proposes to construct, operate and monitor, and eventually close, a geologic repository at Yucca Mountain. Because these design enhancements had little effect on other elements of the repository program, the scope of the Supplement was limited to a discussion of the new design and its associated impacts. For example, the transportation of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste to the repository would not be affected by the flexible design or how this design could evolve further. The amount of waste that could be transported to the repository is fixed, regardless of whether the fuel is or is not aged at the Yucca Mountain site. Therefore, waste transport was not evaluated in the Supplement. The flexible design would, however, have different requirements for system components and construction materials. The transportation of these materials and components from manufacturers and suppliers to Yucca Mountain, including the transport of titanium drip shields, could have environmental effects. Furthermore, the flexible design would have different requirements for the transport of workers to the site compared to the design examined in the Draft EIS. Impacts associated with the transport of workers and nonradioactive materials associated with the flexible design are discussed in Section 3.1.14 of the Supplement.

Keeping in mind the analytical exceptions noted in the preceding paragraph, Table S-2 of the Supplement to the Draft EIS compares the impacts described in the Draft EIS to the impacts described in the Supplement. Chapter 3 of the Supplement describes the most important changes that would occur due to the flexible design (radon releases, water use, acreage of new land disturbances, etc.; see Table 3-1 of the Supplement). These changes, scaled accordingly, are, by and large, not substantially different than the impacts described in the Draft EIS (see Table 3-1 of the Supplement). The Department believes that this was a reasonable approach to assessing and reporting the impacts of the flexible design compared to the impacts of the design examined in the Draft EIS.

In the Final EIS, the Department has identified rail as its preferred mode of waste transport nationally and in the State of Nevada, but did not identify preferred routes. At this time--many years before waste shipments could begin—it is impossible to predict accurately which routes could be used. During the interim, state or tribal governments may designate preferred routes, and new rail lines and highways may be constructed or modified. Therefore, for purposes of analysis in the Final EIS, DOE selected potential highway routes in accordance with U.S. Department of Transportation regulations, which require the use of preferred routes (typically Interstate highways or bypasses). Rail lines were selected based on current rail practices, as there are no comparable Federal regulations applicable to the selection of rail lines for the shipment of radioactive materials. For transportation in Nevada, if the Yucca Mountain site was approved, DOE would identify such a preference in consultation with affected stakeholders, particularly the State of Nevada. DOE would announce its preferred corridor in a Federal Register notice. Any decision to select a rail corridor would be set forth in a Record of Decision to be issued no sooner than 30 days after the announcement of a preference.

In Chapter 6 of the Final EIS, DOE has modified and updated several analyses related to the transportation of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste to Yucca Mountain in response to public Comments. For example, DOE has updated its population estimates and impacts in the regions of influence in Nevada to reflect the most recent state and local population data, as well as data from the 2000 Census. In some instances, population estimates and projections from the Nevada State Demographer’s Office were used. The updated population baselines were then used to estimate populations for Clark, Nye, and Lincoln Counties and the Rest of Nevada through 2035. These population projections were then compared and adjusted to the 2000 Census data. In this way, model population projections were calibrated to reflect the most recent available information. DOE used the baseline population for each county in the region of influence and forecasted to the year 2035 to scale impacts from results based on the 1990 census. For example, if a county’s population were estimated to double from 1990 to 2035, DOE assumed that the population along the associated rail corridor also would double; radiological impacts were then doubled accordingly. In certain locales, however, such as around the planned Las Vegas Beltway, local sources of population information were used to better reflect population growth trends.

On a national basis, DOE scaled the 1990 population-based impacts upward in the Final EIS to reflect the relative state-by-state population growth to 2035. The projections were based on 2000 Census data. In general, public health impacts to populations residing along potential transportation routes or rail lines would increase directly with an increase in population (from 1990 to 2035 population estimates), if all other factors relevant to estimating such impacts remained constant. However, some factors, such as the number of anticipated rail shipments and the computer model used to estimate the dose to the public during traffic stops, have changed because of new information or in response to comments. For this reason, the health impacts described in the Final EIS are similar to or, in some instances, less than those reported in the Draft EIS.

In response to public comments, DOE has also included maps in the Final EIS of highway routes and rail lines that were used for analysis. In addition, potential health and safety impacts associated with shipments are provided for each state and tribal nation through which shipments would pass.

3.5 (233)
Comment - 23 comments summarized
Commenters said that the Supplement to the Draft EIS should have addressed the 11,000-plus comments submitted to DOE on the Draft EIS. Some commenters requested that DOE respond to these comments before the Final EIS is released and before a site recommendation is made and that these responses be made available to the public, partly as an aid to counties that are preparing "Impact Assessment Reports" to accompany any site recommendation. Some wanted to know if and when hearings would be held on a site recommendation. Commenters said that responses in the Final EIS would not give the public an adequate chance to review how DOE addressed comments. Some said that DOE should prepare another Supplement that clearly addresses the current proposed undertaking and all the public comments to date, followed by additional public hearings. Others said that the Supplement should have fixed all the discrepancies identified by the public in the Draft EIS (transportation, socioeconomics, dose calculations, etc.) and address comments on the Draft EIS.

Response
The Final EIS includes this Comment-Response Document, which identifies and addresses each of the more than 13,000 comments received on both the Draft EIS and the Supplement to the Draft EIS. In response to public comments, DOE modified the Final EIS in a variety of ways, including clarifications or changes to the text, updating information (for example, using population projections submitted by local governments and baseline information incorporating 2000 Census data), and modifying analyses (such as those for transportation impacts in which the characteristics of the representative commercial spent nuclear fuel and accident source terms were modified). DOE considered comments on the Draft EIS, as appropriate, in the preparation of the Supplement to the Draft EIS. In part, for example, the comments received on the Draft EIS influenced DOE’s description of the flexible design elements presented in the Supplement.

Upon issuance of the Final EIS, the public will have the opportunity to examine the Comment-Response Document and the Department’s response to the public’s comments. This approach is consistent with regulations issued by the Council on Environmental Quality and DOE’s implementation procedures at 10 CFR 1021.

Consistent with the applicable regulations, the Department did not release the Comment-Response Document before issuing this Final EIS or hold hearings on the Comment-Response Document or this Final EIS. Should the Secretary of Energy recommend Yucca Mountain to the President, however, the recommendation would be accompanied by several supporting documents including the Final EIS and the Comment-Response Document. In the event Yucca Mountain was authorized and the project moved forward, DOE would submit a License Application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s licensing process would afford the public additional opportunities to review and comment on the specific design elements of the Yucca Mountain Repository. In the event DOE incorporated additional design modifications subsequent to the submittal of the License Application, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s licensing process would provide additional opportunities for the public to comment on the repository.

3.5 (246)
Comment - 2 comments summarized
Commenters stated that DOE asserted that the range of operational modes and design features described in the Supplement to the Draft EIS serves to bound the potential impacts of the repository, and that the Draft EIS made the same claim for the three general design options evaluated. However, the flexible design features and operational modes described in the Supplement result in an increase, beyond the bounds evaluated in the Draft EIS, in nearly all impacts.

Response
In the Draft EIS, DOE evaluated a preliminary design based on the Viability Assessment of a Repository at Yucca Mountain (DIRS 101779-DOE 1998) that focused on the amount of spent nuclear fuel (and associated thermal output) that DOE would emplace per unit area of the repository (called areal mass loading). Areal mass loading was represented for analytical purposes in the Draft EIS by three thermal load scenarios: a high thermal load of 85 metric tons of heavy metal (MTHM) per acre, an intermediate thermal load of 60 MTHM per acre, and a low thermal load of 25 MTHM per acre. DOE selected these analytical scenarios to represent the range of foreseeable design features and operating modes, and to ensure that it considered the associated range of potential environmental impacts within the framework of a design the central feature of which was areal mass loading.

Since DOE issued the Draft EIS, it has continued to evaluate design features and operating modes that would reduce uncertainties in or improve long-term repository performance, and improve operational safety and efficiency. The result of the design evolution process was the development of the flexible design that was evaluated in the Supplement to the Draft EIS and is evaluated in Section 4.1 of the Final EIS. This design focuses on controlling the temperature of the waste package surfaces and rock between the waste emplacement drifts (as opposed to areal mass loading) by varying other parameters such as the heat output per unit length of the emplacement drift and the distances between waste packages. Within this design framework of controlling the temperature of the rock, DOE selected these lower- and higher-temperature operating modes to represent the range of foreseeable design features and operating modes, and to ensure that it considered the associated range of potential environmental impacts (DOE recognizes that many of the short-term impacts tended to increase over those discussed in the Draft EIS).

In Section 2.1.1.2 of the Final EIS, DOE varied design parameters to create a set of reasonable operating scenarios to illustrate lower- and higher-temperature operating modes in such a way as to provide the range of potential environmental impacts. Furthermore, to not underestimate the environmental impacts that could result from implementing any of the lower- or higher-temperature operating modes, DOE has relied on conservative, yet realistic, assumptions when uncertainties remain. These results are reported in Section 4.1 of the EIS.

3.5 (3778)
Comment - 010388 / 0004
Consider only the S&ER [Science and Engineering Report] flexible design in the Final EIS and not address the viability Draft EIS design.

Response
DOE has decided to focus the discussion in the Final EIS on the flexible design. Therefore, DOE has estimated a range of operational scenarios that reflect the latest information available. DOE has also included a discussion of how the flexible design evolved since the issue of the Draft EIS.

3.5 (6990)
Comment - 010212 / 0008
Chapter 3.1 examines the changes in short-term environmental impacts for eight primary impact indicators for both higher and lower temperature operating modes. While there are changes in most impacts, none seem to us to change the conclusion of the foregoing DEIS that the environmental impacts of the repository are not a basis to not develop and operate the repository. There would be a substantial amount of additional construction to build the lower temperature operating mode repository with commensurate increases in construction impacts and risk of nonradiological accidents, but whether the benefits achieved in long-term performance outweigh those added costs is a judgment that has yet to be made.

Likewise, there are added environmental impacts related to ventilation that were examined but seem to be minimal and would likely be acceptable to obtain the benefits in repository performance.

We note that additional casks are called for in the lower-temperature design along with an aging facility that was not part of the DEIS design. The Supplement does not provide details on that facility. Will there be additional environmental analysis of the aging facility if the lower-temperature mode is selected for the license application design basis?

Response
In the Final EIS, DOE has identified and analyzed one higher-temperature operating mode and six lower-temperature operating modes. Chapter 2 of the EIS and other related sections of the Final EIS have been revised to reflect this refinement in design selection, which basically is an establishment of design fundamentals such as drift layout, drift spacing, depth and location of emplacement areas, and location of ventilation raises. The Final EIS describes a design for the repository with variations on the operating mode. The key parameters defining the flexible operating modes are package spacing, drift temperatures, length of active ventilation, and age of the fuel being emplaced. The range of variances in these parameters basically determine the extent of the repository design that will be utilized for emplacement of 70,000 metric tons of heavy metal of waste and fuel; the higher-temperature operating mode would require only the main central segment of the repository; several of the lower-temperature operating modes would use that segment and the western extension, while the "ultra" low-temperature operating mode would require use of the entire planned initial design.

As discussed in Section 2.6 of the EIS, the analyses did not identify any potential environmental impacts that would be a basis for not proceeding with the Proposed Action.

3.5 (11068)
Comment - 010170 / 0001
The Supplement is little more than an outline, and the public EIS comment process is completely premature. If the repository design is still "evolving" before the ink is dry on the last version, why are we being asked to review it, and why is the EIS process moving forward? This 125-page document outlines in very sketchy format enormous changes to both the design and the entire operation of the proposed repository for many years to come. Entirely new facilities and waste handling processes are barely described, with little mention of relevant studies on environmental impacts. We do not believe that this premature and incomplete approach to the EIS/NEPA [National Environmental Policy Act] process is legal, let alone ethical or responsible to U.S. taxpayers or residents of this region. Is exposing our region to this incomplete plan merely being done to avoid litigation from nuclear utility companies? Future generations and the planet itself deserve far better than that.

Response
DOE prepared the Supplement to the Draft EIS to update information presented in the Draft EIS by focusing on aspects of the design that have changed since the Draft EIS. DOE acknowledged in the Supplement that the central focus of the design has changed from one that relies on areal mass loading (amount of spent nuclear fuel per acre) to one that controls temperature in the rock walls by varying other parameters such as the distance between waste packages. As part of its evaluation, DOE choose primary impact indicators in each environmental resource area and also limited its evaluations to project phases that would result in the highest impacts so as to focus its presentation of the potential environmental impacts. This analysis was based on the best information available to describe the flexible design and its associated facilities. In this Final EIS, DOE has updated and expanded the description of the flexible design and facilities, and performed a complete analysis to describe the range of environmental impacts that could occur under the Proposed Action.

3.5 (11759)
Comment - 010320 / 0002
The introduction of a surface aging facility, "will increase the complexity of the waste handling, increase bare fuel handling activities, increase radioactivity waste generation, and one would expect and it would increase both worker and public risk."

However, it is somehow mitigated since the risk predicted for this new design are predicted to decrease with this new design. That’s a bit confusing. The DEIS needs to explain how this risk is decreased.

Response
DOE has incorporated the surface aging facility into its analyses (as was done for all such facilities germane to the Proposed Action). Contrary to this comment, the Final EIS reports that many of the short-term impacts tended to increase over those discussed in the Draft EIS.

3.5 (12025)
Comment - 010096 / 0005
The SDEIS does not provide a summary analysis of the risk benefit/cost implications of the S&ER [Science and Engineering Report] flexible design versus the design assumed in the DEIS. Without such analysis it is not possible to conclude that the S&ER flexible design results in enhanced protection of public health and safety or at what cost. As such, the SDEIS does not provide a basis for the DOE to select the S&ER flexible alternative over others under consideration.

Response
In determining whether to recommend the Yucca Mountain site, the Secretary of Energy would consider the costs and benefits of not only the potential environmental impacts identified in the EIS, but also other technical, economic, and national policy factors and provided in the Science and Engineering Report (DIRS 153849-DOE 2001) and as dictated by the NWPA.

3.5 (12303)
Comment - 010242 / 0031
This Supplement provides nothing that would change our previously stated conclusion regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic Repository for Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada. We still find the document, including the Supplement, to be legally, procedurally, and substantively deficient, and conclude that it must be withdrawn. The entire National Environmental Policy Act compliance strategy for the proposed Yucca Mountain high-level nuclear waste repository must be reconsidered by DOE. A new scoping process, based on the development of a programmatic environmental impact statement, with tiered EISs to follow, should be implemented when sufficient planning and information are available to support an informed decision by the Secretary of Energy regarding whether to recommend the site to the President for development as a high-level nuclear waste repository.

Response
An earlier EIS (DIRS 104832-DOE 1980) analyzed environmental impacts that could occur if DOE developed and implemented various technologies for the management and disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. It examined several alternatives, including mined geologic disposal, very deep hole disposal, disposal in a mined cavity that resulted from rock melting, island-based geologic disposal, subseabed disposal, ice sheet disposal, well injection disposal, transmutation, space disposal, and no action. The 1981 Record of Decision for that EIS (46 FR 26677; May 14, 1981) announced the DOE decision to pursue the mined geologic disposal alternative for the disposition of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. DOE believes that sufficient information is available to analyze adequately the impacts of constructing, operating and monitoring, and eventually closing a geologic repository at the Yucca Mountain site.

3.5 (12576)
Comment - 010073 / 0001
White Pine County is submitting these comments with the expectation that they will serve to enable the Department of Energy (DOE) to prepare a "legally sufficient" Final EIS which will satisfy the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act and the NWPA. The results will be a document which more fully considers the environmental consequences of constructing and operating the Yucca Mountain repository system. Failure by DOE to adequately address these comments may render the Final EIS legally insufficient.

Response
DOE has responded to all comments received on the Draft EIS and the Supplement to the Draft EIS. Responses can be found in this Comment-Response Document by locating the commenter’s name in the appropriate index table and then turning to the location listed.

3.5 (12809)
Comment - 010299 / 0002
Under the National Environmental Policy Act, the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the proposed Yucca Mt. Repository must show a "Proposed Action," (in this case, "to construct, operate and monitor, and eventually close a geologic repository at Yucca Mountain for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste") as well as alternatives. This Supplement is insufficient because it does not provide specific design alternatives for the Proposed Action. Instead, it describes a range of design features and operational parameters that could be combined to arrive at two alternative designs - "above boiling drift wall temperature" or "below boiling waste container surface temperature." Page 2-20 shows proposed use of an area that hasn’t even been investigated yet. It seems odd to be asked to comment on a design so unresearched. Am I supposed to go research and survey the land myself so I can give my comments? This seems so rushed.

The identified features and parameters in Table 2-1 are said to "bound" the design so the range of potential impacts could be analyzed. It does not identify specific alternatives for which these impacts could be compared. There is no reason to accept this "bounding" approach, since the 1999 DEIS made the same claim, and this Supplement has impacts that are outside THOSE bounds. What will happen with the Final EIS as the design continues to "evolve"?

Response
In the Draft EIS, DOE evaluated a preliminary design based on the Viability Assessment of a Repository at Yucca Mountain (DIRS 101779-DOE 1998) that focused on the amount of spent nuclear fuel (and associated thermal output) that DOE would emplace per unit area of the repository (called areal mass loading). Areal mass loading was represented for analytical purposes in the Draft EIS by three thermal load scenarios: a high thermal load of 85 metric tons of heavy metal (MTHM) per acre, an intermediate thermal load of 60 MTHM per acre, and a low thermal load of 25 MTHM per acre. DOE selected these analytical scenarios to represent the range of foreseeable design features and operating modes, and to ensure that it considered the associated range of potential environmental impacts within the framework of a design whose central feature was areal mass loading.

Since issuing the Draft EIS, DOE has continued to evaluate design features and operating modes that would reduce uncertainties in or improve long-term repository performance, and improve operational safety and efficiency. The result of the design evolution process was the development of the flexible design that was evaluated in the Supplement to the Draft EIS and is evaluated in this Final EIS. This design focuses on controlling the temperature of the rock between the waste emplacement drifts (as opposed to areal mass loading) by varying other parameters such as the heat output per unit length of the emplacement drift and the distances between waste packages. Within this design framework of controlling the temperature of the rock, DOE selected these lower- and higher-temperature operating modes to represent the range of foreseeable design features and operating modes, and to ensure that it considered the associated range of potential environmental impacts (DOE recognizes that many of the short-term impacts tended to increase over those discussed in the Draft EIS).

In this Final EIS, design parameters were varied to create seven scenarios to illustrate lower- and higher-temperature operating modes in such a way to provide the range of potential environmental impacts. To demonstrate the nature of this range, DOE has identified primary impact indicators for each environmental resource area. These indicators are the most important contributors to determining the specific impacts for an environmental resource area (short- and long-term impacts are presented in Chapters 4 and 5, respectively).

DOE is unsure as to the uncharacterized area referred to by this comment; however, all areas associated with the flexible design have been characterized. DOE acknowledges in the EIS that it could modify or refine the flexible design further during the License Application process, if the site was approved for development.

3.5 (12849)
Comment - 010262 / 0002
Under the National Environmental Policy Act, the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the proposed Yucca Mt. Repository must show a "Proposed Action," (in this case, "to construct, operate and monitor, and eventually close a geologic repository at Yucca Mountain for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste") as well as alternatives. This Supplement is insufficient because it does not provide specific design alternatives for the Proposed Action. Instead, it describes a range of design features and operational parameters that could be combined to arrive at two alternative designs - "above boiling drift wall temperature" or "below boiling waste container surface temperature." Page 2-20 shows proposed use of an area that hasn’t even been investigated yet.

If the repository design is still changing why are we being asked to review it? These identified features and parameters (see Table 2-l) are said to "bound" the design so the range of potential impacts could be analyzed. It does not identify specific alternatives for which these impacts could be compared. There is no reason to accept this "bounding" approach, since the 1999 DEIS made the same claim, and this Supplement has impacts that are outside THOSE bounds. What will happen with the Final EIS as the design continues to "evolve"?

Response
In the Draft EIS, DOE evaluated a preliminary design based on the Viability Assessment of a Repository at Yucca Mountain (DIRS 101779-DOE 1998) that focused on the amount of spent nuclear fuel (and associated thermal output) that DOE would emplace per unit area of the repository (called areal mass loading). Areal mass loading was represented for analytical purposes in the Draft EIS by three thermal load scenarios: a high thermal load of 85 metric tons of heavy metal (MTHM) per acre, an intermediate thermal load of 60 MTHM per acre, and a low thermal load of 25 MTHM per acre. DOE selected these analytical scenarios to represent the range of foreseeable design features and operating modes, and to ensure that it considered the associated range of potential environmental impacts within the framework of a design whose central feature was areal mass loading.

Since it issued the Draft EIS, DOE has continued to evaluate design features and operating modes that would reduce uncertainties in or improve long-term repository performance, and improve operational safety and efficiency. The result of the design evolution process was the development of the flexible design that was evaluated in the Supplement to the Draft EIS and is evaluated in this Final EIS. This design focuses on controlling the temperature of the rock between the waste emplacement drifts (as opposed to areal mass loading) by varying other parameters such as the heat output per unit length of the emplacement drift and the distances between waste packages. Within this design framework of controlling the temperature of the rock, DOE selected these lower- and higher-temperature operating modes to represent the range of foreseeable design features and operating modes, and to ensure that it considered the associated range of potential environmental impacts (DOE recognizes that many of the short-term impacts tended to increase over those discussed in the Draft EIS).

In this Final EIS, design parameters were varied to create scenarios to illustrate lower- and higher-temperature operating modes in such a way to provide the range of potential environmental impacts. To demonstrate the nature of this range, DOE has identified primary impact indicators for each environmental resource area. These indicators are the most important contributors to determining the specific impacts for an environmental resource area (short- and long-term impacts are presented in Chapters 4 and 5, respectively).

DOE is unsure as to the uncharacterized area referred to by this comment; however, all areas associated with the flexible design have been characterized. DOE acknowledges in the EIS that it could modify or refine the flexible design further during the License Application process, if the site was approved for development. In that event, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission licensing and National Environmental Policy Act processes related to a repository at Yucca Mountain would provide a number of opportunities for the public to comment on DOE’s application and possible updates.

3.5 (12899)
Comment - 010314 / 0007
I believe the DOE should prepare and release for public comment a Supplement to the DEIS that would compare an analysis of the transportation impacts of consolidating the wastes at Yucca Mountain with the impacts from "No Action" -- that is, from the alternative of storing the wastes at the sites where they have been generated, at least until the time when research will have yielded a technology that can vastly reduce or even eliminate the threats of these wastes to the human environments that lie (underline) en route (end underline) to the interim parking lot and permanent repository, wherever they may ultimately be located.

Response
A Supplement to the Draft EIS was issued for public comment in May 2001. The Supplement focused on the evolution of the repository design. Transportation was not a principal part of the discussion because the design revisions would not fundamentally alter the transportation scenarios presented in the Draft EIS. In the Draft EIS, DOE did compare the potential impacts of transporting spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste to the proposed repository from each of the waste generator sites. DOE also provided, as a basis for comparison, the potential impacts of continued storage at the waste generator sites under Scenarios 1 and 2 of the No-Action Alternative.

3.5 (12956)
Comment - 010249 / 0010
Better explain the concept of primary impact indicators.

In the SDEIS, DOE discusses the primary impact indicators selected to evaluate those parameters used to determine the specific impacts in any environmental resources area. The discussion implies that these primary impact indicators are a new concept, when in fact, these are the parameters that DOE determined to be most important during its evaluation of impacts in the DEIS. In the FEIS, DOE should more clearly state that these primary impact indicators are the same parameters used to evaluate the environmental impacts in the DEIS and comprehensively assess the impacts of the Proposed Action.

Response
DOE selected primary impact indicators in each environmental resource area as the most important contributors or parameters used to determine the potential environmental impacts in a resource area. These indicators are directly proportional to the specific impact, and are generally determined during an intermediate step in the impact calculation or evaluation. DOE used the same primary impact indicators to estimate impacts reported in the Draft EIS, and uses them again in this Final EIS (environmental impacts, rather than indicators, are reported in Chapters 4 through 8, and 10).

3.5 (12957)
Comment - 010249 / 0011
Identify conservatisms.

NEI’s [Nuclear Energy Institute] comments on the DEIS pointed out that, even though the DEIS found the impacts of the proposed repository to be small, it significantly overestimated these impacts in several areas (NEI DEIS comment V). Our review of the SDEIS indicates that this is still the case. While DOE may have a valid reason for doing this (such as helping to assure decision-makers that impacts are bounded), this approach needs to be more clearly explained. Work that DOE is currently performing on identifying and quantifying conservatisms and other uncertainties in its analysis in response to questions raised by the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board could be included in this clarification.

Response
DOE’s approach to impact analysis is to represent conservatively the reasonably foreseeable impacts that could occur under the Proposed Action (see Section 2.1.1.2 of the EIS). DOE has used widely accepted analytical tools, coupled with the best available information, and cautious but reasonable assumptions where information is incomplete or unavailable or where uncertainties exist to estimate potential environmental impacts.

3.5 (13033)
Comment - 010311 / 0005
The SDEIS and the Yucca Mountain Science and Engineering Report are written for a technical audience with too many references to other previous reports. Because of the complex nature of Nuclear Waste processing and storage, the DOE needs to determine what are the main concerns of the Nevadans and the General Public. And, then, write a Public Summary document addressed to the average citizen that includes all the key parameters, not just by reference. The existing reports are too difficult for the average citizen to read. The use of references, without a summary of values, leaves you to feel that the writers are hiding something and telling the public "that the Federal government will take care of them."

I am still looking for the Seismic Design criteria, discussion on Capable Faults to name a few critical issues.

Response
DOE acknowledges that the subject matter of the EIS is very technical and might be difficult for some readers to understand. Because of this concern, DOE has taken steps to make the EIS as reader-friendly as possible. For example, the EIS includes explanatory text boxes, summary tables, many illustrations, and comparisons in table form that stress and highlight potential environmental impacts and important information. Furthermore, the Comment-Response Document, which accompanies this Final EIS, contains a discussion of key issues that have been raised by the public during the EIS process and DOE’s responses to these issues. The Department hopes that these efforts have made the issues surrounding the repository program more understandable to broadest range of individuals as possible.

3.5 (13070)
Comment - 010248 / 0002
The SDEIS provides several new design and operational features proposed to meet thermal criteria. DOE should ensure that sufficient information is provided to enable assessment of the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts.

Basis
In the SDEIS, DOE describes two thermal operational approaches to control temperature at the drift pillars and the waste package surface. For the high-temperature operation mode, at least some portion of the drift pillars would have temperatures above the boiling point of water. The low-temperature operating mode is designed to ensure temperatures below the boiling point at all times and waste package surface temperatures below 85° Centigrade. To achieve either temperature scenario, DOE describes five potential operational approaches: increased drift spacing, increased preclosure ventilation, surface aging of commercial fuel, fuel blending, and variable line loading. Depending on the approaches selected, the operational and monitoring period may extend beyond 300 years, with as long as 50 years allowed for waste emplacement.

NRC recognizes the value of maintaining flexibility in selecting operational approaches to enhance repository performance. However, many combinations of the operational approaches are likely to achieve the overall thermal goals, and each combination is likely to have a different set of impacts. For example, lower rates of ventilation may require larger spacing between waste packages, which may, in turn, lead to a larger repository with a greater volume of excavated rock and an expansion of the repository closer to key features such as the high ground-water gradient area to the north and across an additional fault zone. Similarly, the flexible pre-closure ventilation design could increase radon release through the use of forced ventilation. Without a clear description of the preferred option or without estimating impacts explicitly for each option, there is no basis for concluding that the full range of impacts has been presented in the DOE analyses.

Several of the flexible design operational approaches include new features not considered in the DEIS. In some instances, the SDEIS analyses multiply DEIS impacts by a proportionality constant to obtain impacts associated with the S&ER [Science and Engineering Report] flexible design. Because many of the impacts cited in the SDEIS are the result of new design features (e.g., surface-aging facility, titanium drip shields) and altered time frames in the various flexible operational approaches, an adequate technical basis is required for use of the proportionality constants. For example, it is not clear that the thermal effects imposed by the flexible design would be linear and therefore amenable to quantification based on a proportionality constant. Similarly, impacts from constructing and operating the surface-aging facility may be spread over as many as 50 years, and include the construction of concrete pads covering 200 acres, and fabricating and placing up to 4500 dry-storage canisters and casks on these pads (Mattsson, 2000; U.S. Department of Energy, 2001a, Table 3-l1). These new features are substantive modifications of the DEIS design and individual and cumulative impacts may not scale in a linear fashion.

The full range of impacts of the new operational approaches are not addressed. Waste package emplacement is discussed in detail in the SDEIS (Section 2.3.3.3), but certain potential activities are not discussed. They include, for example: (i) loading dry storage canisters and casks for the SNF aging facility; (ii) removing pallets and waste packages for repair and re-emplacement; (iii) maintaining drifts, waste packages, and other engineered barriers; (iv) moving waste packages to adjust thermal load; (v) retrieving waste packages; (vi) installing and maintaining drip shields; and (vii) constructing and using performance-confirmation drifts. It is also not clear whether the impact assessments include off-normal events, accidents, or other events outside of the base case. For example, the impacts from manufacturing and shipping as much as 60,000 metric tons of fabricated titanium drip shields are not fully addressed, nor is the potential for worker injury or exposure during drip-shield emplacement. The drip shield is a new design feature and is not addressed in the offsite impact analyses included in the DEIS.

Recommendation
The FEIS should include an analysis of impacts associated with all potential operational activities related to a preferred design option. As an alternative, the FEIS could estimate impacts separately for a suite of proposed operational approaches. The specific environmental concerns associated with each primary impact indicator should be identified. The FEIS should also provide a technical basis to demonstrate that the full range of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts has been included in the analyses. In addition, the FEIS should improve the technical justification for the use of linear thermal load proportionality factors.

Response
In the Draft EIS, DOE evaluated a preliminary design based on the Viability Assessment of a Repository at Yucca Mountain (DIRS 101779-DOE 1998) that focused on the amount of spent nuclear fuel (and associated thermal output) that DOE would emplace per unit area of the repository (called areal mass loading). Areal mass loading was represented for analytical purposes in the Draft EIS by three thermal load scenarios: a high thermal load of 85 metric tons of heavy metal (MTHM) per acre, an intermediate thermal load of 60 MTHM per acre, and a low thermal load of 25 MTHM per acre. DOE selected these analytical scenarios to represent the range of foreseeable design features and operating modes, and to ensure that it considered the associated range of potential environmental impacts within the framework of a design the central feature of which was areal mass loading.

Since DOE issued the Draft EIS, it has continued to evaluate design features and operating modes that would reduce uncertainties in or improve long-term repository performance, and improve operational safety and efficiency. The result of the design evolution process was the development of the flexible design that was evaluated in the Supplement to the Draft EIS and is evaluated in this Final EIS. This design focuses on controlling the temperature of the rock between the waste emplacement drifts (as opposed to areal mass loading) by varying other parameters such as the heat output per unit length of the emplacement drift and the distances between waste packages. Within this design framework of controlling the temperature of the rock, DOE selected these lower- and higher-temperature operating modes to represent the range of foreseeable design features and operating modes, and to ensure that it considered the associated range of potential environmental impacts (DOE recognizes that many of the short-term impacts tended to increase over those discussed in the Draft EIS).

In this Final EIS, DOE varied design parameters to create scenarios to illustrate lower- and higher-temperature operating modes in such a way as to provide the range of potential environmental impacts. Furthermore, to not underestimate the environmental impacts that could result from implementing any of the lower- or higher-temperature operating modes, DOE has relied on conservative, yet realistic, assumptions when uncertainties remain.

3.5 (13071)
Comment - 010248 / 0003
The S&ER [Science and Engineering Report] flexible design includes new or modified facilities, land uses, and changes in infrastructure. Environmental impacts from construction and operation of these repository features are not included in the SDEIS. A more thorough impact assessment is necessary for major changes incorporated in the S&ER flexible design.

Basis
The SDEIS (Table S-2) indicates that environmental impacts associated with the S&ER flexible design include potentially significant changes in ground use, radon release, peak electrical power requirements, fossil fuel requirements, construction and demolition debris, and waste generation. Although the SDEIS provides a relatively thorough description of the different approaches to the potential design and operating bounds of the proposed S&ER flexible design, a detailed description of these new facilities and analyses of their environmental impacts has not been included.

Foremost among the new facilities is the proposed separate, at-surface fuel-aging area. As part of the lower-temperature, flexible-design operating mode, DOE has proposed placing younger fuel in a surface-aging area, to allow heat dissipation before underground disposal, as a method of controlling repository temperatures (U.S. Department of Energy, 2001a, p. 2-8). This facility would age as much as 40,000 MTHM (metric tons of heavy metal) of SNF (or about 60 percent of repository-destined waste) over a 50-year period (Id.). Aging time is directly related to potential impacts associated with surface storage of SNF; however, only limited impact analysis of this new design feature has been provided in either the SDEIS or the S&ER. There is a similar concern regarding the proposed blending pool in the waste-handling building with a proposed design capacity of 5000 MTHM (p. 2-15). It is not apparent that DOE has prepared an impact analysis of this major new design feature.

Other examples of new design features that lack adequate descriptions and impact assessments (i.e., land and water use, impact on ground-water quality) include the solar power generating facility, and the wind farm. The environmental impacts of all features of a proposed design, as well as alternatives, need to be identified and evaluated.

Recommendation
DOE should expand the description and environmental impact analyses for major new features of the S&ER flexible design in the FEIS.

Response
In this Final EIS, DOE has updated and expanded the description of the flexible design and associated facilities, as well as performed a complete analysis to describe the range of potential environmental impacts that could occur under the Proposed Action. The tables in Section 2.4 of the Final EIS demonstrate the bounding nature of the flexible operating modes within the construct of a fixed design.

3.5 (13190)
Comment - 010243 / 0037
The SDEIS lacks sufficient verifiable data to be relied upon, properly analyzed, or even commented on in a comprehensive manner. The SDEIS lacks sufficient analysis and full consideration with respect to repository engineering/design, transportation impacts, environmental impacts, and public involvement and procedural considerations. There is serious doubt as to compliance with both NEPA [National Environmental Policy Act] and the NWPA with respect to the proposed "flexible" repository design. Clark County’s position is that sufficient unanswered questions exist to call into question the accuracy, adequacy and appropriateness of the SDEIS.

Response
Although the comment lacks specificity, in general, DOE believes that the EIS is consistent with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act and the NWPA. The level of information and analyses, the analytical methods and approaches used to represent conservatively the reasonably foreseeable impacts that could occur, and the use of bounding assumptions to address incomplete or unavailable information or uncertainties provide a meaningful assessment of environmental impacts consistent with the applicable requirements.

The EIS, which DOE prepared using the best available data, analyzes a variety of implementing alternatives and scenarios. These alternatives and scenarios reflect potential repository design and operating modes, waste packaging approaches, and transportation options for shipping spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste to the Yucca Mountain site. DOE included a No-Action Alternative that analyzed two scenarios to provide a basis for comparison with the Proposed Action and to reflect the range of impacts that could occur.

For both the Proposed Action and the No-Action Alternative, the EIS evaluates the affected environment and estimates potential environmental impacts in regions of influence for each resource area. DOE used information from a broad range of studies to obtain or evaluate the information needed for the assessment of Yucca Mountain as a monitored geologic repository. These include, for example, reports and studies sponsored by DOE, other Federal agencies, the State of Nevada, universities, the National Academy of Sciences, and affected units of local government. In addition, DOE identified the use of incomplete information or the unavailability of information to identify uncertainties in the data or analytical approaches. DOE acknowledges that the results of analyses often have associated uncertainties, and has described such uncertainties throughout the EIS.

3.5 (13192)
Comment - 010246 / 0001
This SDEIS is not sufficient. It does not specify a final design alternative for the Proposed Action, to build, run, monitor, and close permanent burial site for dumping irradiated nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. Rather, the SDEIS lays out a spectrum of design options and repository operations criteria to be mixed and matched to yield two alternative design choices: the first, above-boiling point temperatures at the emplacement tunnel walls; the second, below-boiling point temperatures at the surface of the waste burial cask. The SDEIS claims that these options and criteria are bounding for the eventual final design, that the entire range of possible impacts to the environment and public health can be determined. But how can potential impacts be compared, when the SDEIS fails to identify which specific options will be employed in the actual final design? The original DEIS in the summer of 1999 also claimed to be bounding. However, this SDEIS contains impacts beyond the bounds of the DEIS.

Response
In the Draft EIS, DOE evaluated a preliminary design based on the Viability Assessment of a Repository at Yucca Mountain (DIRS 101779-DOE 1998) that focused on the amount of spent nuclear fuel (and associated thermal output) that DOE would emplace per unit area of the repository (called areal mass loading). Areal mass loading was represented for analytical purposes in the Draft EIS by three thermal load scenarios. DOE selected these analytical scenarios to represent the range of foreseeable design features and operating modes, and to ensure that it considered the associated range of potential environmental impacts within the framework of a design whose central feature was areal mass loading.

Since it issued the Draft EIS, DOE has continued to evaluate design features and operating modes that would reduce uncertainties in or improve long-term repository performance, and improve operational safety and efficiency. The result of the design evolution process was the development of the flexible design that was evaluated in the Supplement to the Draft EIS and is evaluated in this Final EIS. This design focuses on controlling the temperature of the waste package surfaces and the rock between the waste emplacement drifts (as opposed to areal mass loading) by varying other parameters such as the heat output per unit length of the emplacement drift and the distances between waste packages. Within this design framework of controlling the temperature of the rock, DOE selected these lower- and higher-temperature operating modes to represent the range of foreseeable design features and operating modes, and to ensure that it considered the associated range of potential environmental impacts.

Many of the issues relating to how DOE would operate the repository can only be resolved in the context of developing the detailed design for a possible license application. DOE cannot predict with certainty how it would eventually resolve these issues. However, to ensure that the EIS provides the range of potential environmental impacts, DOE selected and varied design parameters to create seven scenarios to illustrate lower- and higher-temperature operating modes. To demonstrate the nature of this range, DOE has identified primary impact indicators for each environmental resource area. These indicators are the most important contributors to determining the specific impacts for an environmental resource area. The short- and long-term environmental impacts are presented in Chapters 4 and 5, respectively.

3.5 (13238)
Comment - 010244 / 0038
DOE has yet to perform a quantitative evaluation of the environmental impacts of variable drift spacing and the Supplement does not identify specific design alternatives or evaluate and compare their potential impacts.

Response
In this Final EIS, design parameters, such as the distances between waste packages and closure duration, were varied to create seven scenarios to illustrate lower- and higher-temperature operating modes. These scenarios were developed in such a way to provide the range of potential environmental impacts. The environmental impacts for each resource area for the seven scenarios are reported as a range (minimum and maximum) in Chapters 4 and 5.

In the development of these scenarios, drift spacing was considered a constant parameter [set to 81 meters (270 feet)]. Although drift spacing could be varied as a means in which to control the temperature of the rock walls (focus on the flexible design), other design parameters are considered equally effective in meeting lower-temperature operating mode goals. In the Supplement to the Draft EIS (Section 2.4) DOE acknowledges that drift spacing could vary and could influence the size of the emplacement area, length of drifts and excavated volume. Drift spacing versus waste package spacing is a design trade-off to achieve lower heat output per unit volume of a repository. DOE concluded that the effect of drift spacing on these related parameters would be less than the effect of waste package spacing in the analytical scenarios. Therefore, DOE treated drift spacing as a constant in its development of the scenarios and consequent analysis in this Final EIS.

3.5 (13242)
Comment - 010266 / 0002
In addressing the proposed behavior of the repository, the DOE provides a range of impacts for the possible repository configurations. In general, however, most of the environmental impacts for the new operating design appear to be greater than the corresponding impacts from the DEIS.

Response
DOE recognizes that many of the short-term environmental impacts reported in the Supplement to the Draft EIS tended to increase over those reported in the Draft EIS. This Final EIS does not include thermal load scenarios from the Draft EIS, primarily because the design has evolved from one that focuses on areal mass loading (amount of spent nuclear fuel per unit area) to one that focuses on controlling the temperature of the rock (flexible design). To ensure that the EIS provides the range of potential environmental impacts under the flexible design, DOE selected and varied design parameters to create seven scenarios to illustrate lower- and higher-temperature operating modes. The short- and long-term environmental impacts are reported primarily in Chapters 4 and 5, respectively.

3.5 (13267)
Comment - 010231 / 0001
Because the Supplement is limited in scope, it does not address the comments EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] made on the draft EIS regarding the national transportation aspects of the project, nor does it provide most of the additional data we requested on the project’s potential environmental impacts.

Response
The Final EIS includes this Comment-Response Document, which identifies and addresses each of the comments received on both the Draft EIS and the Supplement to the Draft EIS. In response to public comments, DOE modified the Final EIS in a variety of ways, including clarifications or changes to the text, updating information, and modifying analyses. The Department considered comments on the Draft EIS in preparation of the Supplement to the Draft EIS (which were appropriately carried forward to the Final EIS). In part, for example, the comments received on the Draft EIS influenced DOE’s description of the Science and Engineering Report design elements presented in the Supplement. The Supplement was limited in scope to "aspects of the design that have changed since DOE issued the Draft EIS" (which did not include transportation).

Consistent with Council on Environmental Quality and DOE regulations, the Department did not release the Comment-Response Document before issuing this Final EIS or hold hearings on the Comment-Response Document or this Final EIS.

3.5 (13268)
Comment - 010231 / 0002
If ongoing scientific studies support the EIS’s bounding information, then the NEPA [National Environmental Policy Act] requirement to disclose the environmental impacts of a project should be satisfied. However, EPA encourages DOE to provide public review of and comment on new information that affects the project’s design and operation.

Response
In response to public comments, DOE modified the Final EIS in a variety of ways, including incorporation of the flexible design (introduced in the Yucca Mountain Science and Engineering Report and the Supplement to the Draft EIS), clarifications or changes to the text, updating information, and modifying analyses. DOE believes that the environmental impacts presented in the Final EIS for the flexible design (and its associated operating modes) bound reasonably foreseeable actions.

In June 2001, DOE conducted three public hearings on the Supplement to the Draft EIS to provide the public with opportunities to comment on the Project’s latest plans for design and operation. In September and October 2001, the Project conducted hearings on key documents that were released in advance of a potential Site Recommendation [the Yucca Mountain Science and Engineering Report (DIRS 153849-DOE 2001) and the Preliminary Site Suitability Evaluation (DIRS 155734-DOE 2001)].

Upon issuance of the Final EIS, the public will have the opportunity to examine the Comment-Response Document and the Department’s response to the public’s comments. This approach is consistent with regulations issued by the Council on Environmental Quality and DOE’s implementation procedures at 10 CFR 1021.

Should the Secretary of Energy recommend Yucca Mountain to the President, however, the recommendation would be accompanied by several supporting documents including the Final EIS and its Comment-Response Document. In the event Yucca Mountain was authorized and the project moved forward, DOE would submit a License Application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s licensing process would afford the public additional opportunities to review and comment on the specific design elements of the Yucca Mountain repository. In the event that DOE incorporated additional design modifications subsequent to the submittal of a License Application, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s licensing process would provide additional opportunities for the public to comment on the repository.

3.5 (13271)
Comment - 010231 / 0005
Page 2-12, Section 2.3.2.1. In the final sentence of the first paragraph, it is unclear why the "basic facilities for personnel support, warehousing, security, a concrete plant for fabricating and curing precast components and supplying concrete for in-place casting, and transportation (motor pool)" are inside the radiation control area (RCA). If such facilities have radiation concerns, the reasons and impacts should be explained.

Response
The description in the Supplement to the Draft EIS should have read: Other support facilities planned for the North Portal Operations Area include basic facilities for personnel support, warehousing, security, and transportation (motor pool). Section 2.1.2.1.1 of the Final EIS reflects this clarification.

3.5 (13353)
Comment - 010182 / 0002
The SDEIS describes two general design options, one which would result in drift wall temperatures rising to above the boiling temperature (higher-temperature operational mode), and one which would keep the waste container surface temperature below 85° C (lower-temperature operational mode). Variable operational modes and design features are discussed that, in combination, could be arranged to meet either of the design options. The SDEIS asserts that the range of operational modes and design features described serves to bound the potential impacts of the repository. The DEIS made the same claim for the three general design options evaluated. However, the flexible design features and operational modes described in the SDEIS result in an increase, beyond the bounds evaluated in the DEIS, in nearly all impacts originally analyzed (extracted from the State of Nevada’s Comments at [Amargosa] Valley, NV public comment meeting on 31 May 2001). Also, Table S-2 is not consistent in providing a range of impacts for many parameters.

Response
In the Draft EIS, DOE evaluated a preliminary design based on the Viability Assessment of a Repository at Yucca Mountain (DIRS 101779-DOE 1998) that focused on the amount of spent nuclear fuel (and associated thermal output) that DOE would emplace per unit area of the repository (called areal mass loading). Areal mass loading was represented for analytical purposes in the Draft EIS by three thermal load scenarios: a high thermal load of 85 metric tons of heavy metal (MTHM) per acre, an intermediate thermal load of 60 MTHM per acre, and a low thermal load of 25 MTHM per acre. DOE selected these analytical scenarios to represent the range of foreseeable design features and operating modes, and to ensure that it considered the associated range of potential environmental impacts within the framework of a design whose central feature was areal mass loading.

Since issuing the Draft EIS, DOE has continued to evaluate design features and operating modes that would reduce uncertainties in or improve long-term repository performance, and improve operational safety and efficiency. The result of the design evolution process was the development of the Science and Engineering Report flexible design (called flexible design) that was evaluated in the Supplement to the Draft EIS and is evaluated in this Final EIS. This design focuses on controlling the temperature of the waste package surfaces and the rock between the waste emplacement drifts (as opposed to areal mass loading) by varying other parameters such as the heat output per unit length of the emplacement drift and the distances between waste packages. Within this design framework of controlling the temperature of the rock, DOE selected these lower- and higher-temperature operating modes to represent the range of foreseeable design features and operating modes, and to ensure that it considered the associated range of potential environmental impacts (DOE recognizes that many of the short-term impacts tended to increase over those discussed in the Draft EIS).

In this Final EIS, design parameters were varied to create seven scenarios to illustrate lower- and higher-temperature operating modes in such a way to provide the range of potential environmental impacts. Furthermore, to not underestimate the environmental impacts that could result from implementing any of the lower- or higher-temperature operating modes, DOE has relied on conservative, yet realistic, assumptions when uncertainties remain.

The summary tables in Section 2.4 of the Final EIS provide a range of impacts for various resources where such an approach facilitates the summarization of information. A range of impacts also is presented for aspects of the Proposed Action for which options remain under consideration. For example, DOE has reported the range of impacts associated with the seven lower- and higher-temperature operating mode scenarios analyzed.

3.5 (13386)
Comment - 010182 / 0027
The Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS) as well as the DEIS are based on what if, analytical, theoretical scenarios.

An evaluation of impacts associated with specific design alternatives should be done.

Response
The flexible design evaluated in this Final EIS focuses on controlling the temperature of the rock between the waste emplacement drifts (as opposed to areal mass loading) by varying other parameters such as the heat output per unit length of the emplacement drift and the distances between waste packages (see Section 2.1.1.2 of the EIS). Within this design framework of controlling the temperature of the rock, DOE selected lower- and higher-temperature operating modes to represent the range of foreseeable design features and operating modes. Design parameters were varied to create seven scenarios to illustrate lower- and higher-temperature operating modes in such a way to provide the range of potential environmental impacts.

DOE has updated and expanded the description of the flexible design and facilities, as well as performed a complete analysis to describe the range of potential environmental impacts that could occur under the Proposed Action.

3.5 (13523)
Comment - 010392 / 0006
The continuing evolving design of the repository does not allow for the presentation of alternative repository design descriptions as required in the Secretary of Energy’s basis for site recommendation. Instead, the Supplement describes a range of possible design features and operational modes that do not reflect the intent of the NWPA which is to describe actual alternative repository designs.

The DEIS Supplement is insufficient because it fails to provide a specific description of alternatives for how the Proposed Action "to construct, operate and monitor and eventually close a geologic repository at Yucca Mountain" could be accomplished. Instead the flexible design alternatives presented are so broad that they cannot be construed as specific descriptions of alternatives. This is equivalent to presenting a restaurant patron with a list of all ingredients in the kitchen and expecting them to know what dishes are on the menu.

Response
DOE is not aware of any requirement that the "Secretary of Energy’s basis for site recommendation" requires a presentation of alternative repository design descriptions. DOE also believes that the Supplement to the Draft EIS is consistent with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act and the NWPA. The level of information and analyses, the analytical methods and approaches used to represent conservatively the reasonably foreseeable impacts that could occur, and the use of bounding assumptions to address incomplete or unavailable information or uncertainties provide a meaningful assessment of environmental impacts consistent with the applicable requirements.

3.5 (13524)
Comment - 010392 / 0007
The Supplement states, "DOE invites comments on its intention not to address the Draft EIS design in the Final EIS." Certainly, even as the design is evolving, the design described in the DEIS is an alternative which should be considered as part of the full scope of bounding alternatives. It would be very helpful to the public to have the draft EIS design addressed in the Final EIS to understand why it is no longer being considered by DOE.

Response
DOE has decided to focus the discussion in the Final EIS on the flexible design. As such, DOE has estimated a range of operational scenarios that reflect the latest information available. In addition, DOE also included a discussion of how the flexible design evolved since the issue of the Draft EIS.

3.6 Supplement to the Draft EIS - Public Involvement

3.6 (245)
Comment - 6 comments summarized
Commenters believe that the Supplement to the Draft EIS is not a standalone document because it continually refers to the Science and Engineering Report; thus, readers must have the Science and Engineering Report to understand the Supplement. Several commenters stated that they had not received all of the relevant background documents or that the documents were not readily available. Commenters also expressed concerns about the overlapping public comment periods for the Supplement and the Science and Engineering Report. In the commenters’ opinion this complicated the overall process, making it much more difficult for people to participate in hearings. Commenters indicated that the overlapping comment periods gave the impression that the site recommendation process for Yucca Mountain is not referencing the EIS process.

Response
Any Site Recommendation to the President would be accompanied by several supporting documents, including this Final EIS and the Science and Engineering Report (DIRS 153849-DOE 2001). DOE prepared each of these documents on a slightly different schedule, but both would be finalized before the Secretary’s determination on site recommendation. Each document has a different perspective and purpose. DOE prepared the Science and Engineering Report to describe the results of scientific and engineering studies completed to date, the waste forms to be disposed of, the repository and waste package designs, and the results of the most recent assessments of the long-term performance of the proposed repository. The Science and Engineering Report provides detailed scientific and engineering information. The EIS, on the other hand, provides a reasonable range of potential environmental impacts associated with the engineering and scientific information provided in the Science and Engineering Report. The Science and Engineering Report provides the operational considerations or bases for estimating the potential impacts of the repository. DOE prepared the EIS consistent with the Council on Environmental Quality regulations, which encourage EISs to be as readable as possible by a broad range of the public and allows for the incorporation of detailed information by reference. The Science and Engineering Report is, therefore, a primary reference document for the EIS. However, DOE believes the Supplement to the Draft EIS does provide meaningful information to the public and has merit as a standalone document. DOE acknowledges the complexity of the Yucca Mountain Project and recognizes that if readers require more information than presented in the EIS, they might need to review other documents.

DOE distributed copies of the Supplement to the Draft EIS and the Science and Engineering Report to individuals on the Yucca Mountain Project mailing lists. These lists include individuals who have specifically requested DOE documents, submitted comments on DOE documents in the past, have corresponded with DOE regarding the Yucca Mountain Project, or have registered and participated in one of DOE’s public meetings regarding Yucca Mountain. DOE has reviewed and updated its mailing lists. DOE apologizes for any oversights that might have occurred in document distribution. DOE attempts to widely announce the availability of its documents and any associated public comment period.

DOE believes that its approach to the public involvement process during the development of the EIS is consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act, Council on Environmental Quality and DOE implementing regulations, and DOE guidance on public involvement. DOE scheduled the public participation period for the Supplement and the Science and Engineering Report based on the respective schedules for those documents and what the Department believed would be an acceptable review period based on the documents’ respective sizes and technical content. Rather than limiting public involvement, the Department believes that extending the comment period for the Science and Engineering Report beyond the closure date for the Supplement, and holding the public meetings for the Science and Engineering Report later than those for the Supplement, provides an increased opportunity to participate in the Yucca Mountain public comment process.

3.6 (257)
Comment - 118 comments summarized
Commenters requested a 3-month (90-day) extension of the public comment period for the Supplement to the Draft EIS. The commenters did not believe the original 45-day comment period was sufficient. Commenters offered the following reasons for the extension: the Department appears to not have taken into account the time required of the public to obtain the document, analyze its content, and compile comments; the technical nature of the document and the summer schedules of the public makes it difficult to comment on a short schedule; and the S&ER [Science and Engineering Report] is needed to understand the SDEIS. Commenters were troubled by DOE’s decision to grant an extension to an exclusive group of stakeholders. The commenters believed this was inequitable. DOE should reopen the comment period to all members of the public with the same deadline.

Commenters stated that because Yucca Mountain is a national issue, public meetings should be held all over the country and include the entire public along the transportation routes. Similarly, commenters stated that those living in more remote areas of Nevada could not attend one of the meetings conducted and suggested more Nevada hearings at specific locations such as Caliente and Tonopah. Some commenters did not like meetings held in casinos and suggested alternative meeting times and formats, such as picnics on Sunday afternoons. Several commenters were concerned that scheduled DOE meetings conflicted with local events such as high school graduations or regularly scheduled town meetings.

Response
DOE believes that its approach to the public involvement process during the development of the Supplement to the Draft EIS is consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act, Council on Environmental Quality and DOE regulations, and DOE guidance on public participation during the preparation of EISs.

In May 2001, DOE issued the Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, which it distributed to more than 4,000 stakeholders in Nevada and nationwide. These stakeholders were encouraged to submit comments during a 45-day comment period, which was later extended to 57 days (May 4 to July 6, 2001).
In June, during a review of its mailing records, the Department discovered that it had inadvertently not sent the Supplement to the Draft EIS to about 700 stakeholders who had requested and received a copy of the Draft EIS. DOE announced this oversight, sent the Supplement to the Draft EIS to these stakeholders, and provided them an opportunity to submit comments during a separate 45-day comment period (June 29 to August 13, 2001). Despite the respective deadlines, DOE has considered to the extent practicable all comments received in the development of this Final EIS.

Because the Supplement focused primarily on matters involving repository design, the Department held three public hearings in communities near the proposed repository (Amargosa Valley, Las Vegas, and Pahrump, Nevada) during the comment periods. Commenters throughout Nevada and nationwide were encouraged to submit comments at the public hearings and by mail, facsimile, and the Internet during the comment periods. DOE used means comparable to those used for the Draft EIS (advertisements, press releases, and public service announcements) to notify the public.

DOE attempts to hold public meetings at locations and times that are most convenient for the general public. Facilities and meeting room accommodations are selected based on a number of factors including accessibility, ample seating, lighting, handicap facilities, and parking. DOE also attempts to minimize conflicts with other meetings and activities in the areas where meetings are going to be held. However, this is not always possible and sometimes the more preferred meeting locations are unavailable and some conflicts are unavoidable. DOE apologizes for any inconvenience or hardship the meeting schedules and locations might have posed for those interested parties who were unable to attend one of the meetings.

3.6 (2755)
Comment - 010174 / 0005
Because the new concept of fuel blending, mixing and re-packaging wastes has huge risks involved, the public needs to know more about the technology to be assured that the proposed plan is adequate for safety and health of workers and the general public. There was little description of this aspect of the plan. We need to be able to review these techniques as used elsewhere, and learn what risks are involved, and what safety measures need to be included in the plan.

Response
The processes planned for the blending of commercial spent nuclear fuel are the same that are currently being used successfully for fuel management at nuclear plants through out the United States. The considerations mentioned in the comment regarding adequate safety for workers and the general public are discussed in the Final EIS. Further information on the blending strategy and potential facilities associated with this activity can be found in Sections 2.2.1 and 2.2.2.2 of the Science and Engineering Report (DIRS 153849-DOE 2001). The interested public will have the opportunity for additional reviews and input on Yucca Mountain activities as part of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission licensing process should the repository receive authorization.

3.6 (11236)
Comment - 010400 / 0001
I am a citizen of the State of Nevada and have serious concerns about the Yucca Mountain area being used as a Waste Depository site. I also have grave concerns about the "process" of keeping the public informed about the dangers to them if the current plan is implemented.

I am asking for:
  1. more hearings on the SDEIS. Hold hearings at all of the locations where the draft EIS hearings took place,
  2. an increase in the comment period of the SDEIS to 90 days,
  3. that site recommendation hearings be held after the release of the final EIS,
  4. that the comment period for the site recommendation be a minimum of six months
Response
DOE believes that its approach to the public involvement process during the development of the Supplement to the Draft EIS is consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act, Council on Environmental Quality and DOE regulations, and DOE guidance on public participation during the preparation of EISs.

In May 2001, DOE issued the Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, which it distributed to more than 4,000 stakeholders in Nevada and nationwide. These stakeholders were encouraged to submit comments during a 45-day comment period, which was later extended to 57 days (May 4 – July 6, 2001).

In June, during a review of its mailing records, the Department discovered that it had inadvertently not sent the Supplement to the Draft EIS to about 700 stakeholders who had requested and received a copy of the Draft EIS. DOE announced this oversight, sent the Supplement to the Draft EIS to these stakeholders, and provided them an opportunity to submit comments during a separate 45-day comment period (June 29 – August 13, 2001). Despite the respective deadlines, DOE has considered to the extent practicable all comments received in the development of this Final EIS.

Because the approximately 70-page Supplement focused primarily on matters involving repository design, the Department held three public hearings in communities near the proposed repository (Amargosa Valley, Las Vegas, and Pahrump, Nevada) during the comment periods. However, commenters throughout Nevada and nationwide were encouraged to submit comments at the public hearings and by mail, facsimile, and the Internet during the comment periods.

The requirements for public hearings associated with the Site Recommendation process can be found in Section 114(a) of the NWPA. The NWPA requires the Secretary of Energy to hold public hearings in the vicinity of the Yucca Mountain site, for the purposes of informing the residents and to receive comments regarding the possible recommendation of the site. Consistent with these requirements, DOE began a 168-day public comment period on May 4, 2001 (that ended on October 19, 2001). During this period, DOE held three public hearings (Las Vegas, Amargosa Valley, Pahrump, Nevada), and field hearing sessions (29 in all) in all counties in Nevada and Inyo County, California.

3.6 (11534)
Comment - 010133 / 0003
I compliment this country for giving the citizens an opportunity to get to the mike and talk about it. You know, in some countries they build a project and then tell the citizens why. In this country we’re going to talk about the whys and then build the project. Maybe that’s fair, but we got to get it done.

Response
Thank you for your comment.

3.6 (11536)
Comment - 010013 / 0002
I wonder how I got on your mailing list.

Response
DOE’s mailing lists for the Yucca Mountain Project are based on past requests for information, past correspondence with the Department, or registration and participation at one of DOE’s public hearings. An individual can contact the Department at the Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Office address shown on page iii of Volume I of this EIS and request that their name be removed from or added to the mailing list.

3.6 (11656)
Comment - 010245 / 0003
The comment period did not take into consideration peoples of learning dysfunctions. The DOE should make accommodations for these peoples. Holding publicized meetings to verbally distribute written information. This would be done by an unbiased outside source, not of DOE employment.

Response
The purpose of DOE public meetings is to provide a communications forum for the EIS and to answer any questions the public may have. DOE attempts to make accommodations for individuals with disabilities. Meeting facilities are selected in part on the availability of handicap friendly services, signers are often provided, and other requests will be considered on a case-by-case basis. For example, in the past DOE has provided audio tapes of public meetings. DOE often procures the services of an independent facilitator to conduct is public meetings.

3.6 (11922)
Comment - 010246 / 0015
The public process associated with this SDEIS has also been very poorly handled by DOE. On May 2nd, just two days before the SDEIS was released, I attended a meeting at DOE headquarters in Washington with officials of the DOE Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. Despite being asked directly whether or not the Science and Engineering Report would be released on Friday, May 4th, the DOE officials denied any knowledge of the SER’s release, which then occurred just two days later. In addition, they made no mention of the completely unexpected SDEIS, to be released just two days later. Is it any wonder that the public becomes so very confused by the DOE Yucca Mountain Project public participation process, when DOE officials fail to communicate basis information even to those members of the public most intimately following the developments?

Response
DOE apologizes for any inconvenience your experience may have caused.

3.6 (12346)
Comment - 010130 / 0004
Also the Department of Energy has a job to disseminate information to the public. If they don’t have the budget for advertising, which is obvious since there’s only about 200 people here tonight and I’ve been waiting for months for a public forum on this project.

I know that everybody in Las Vegas due to their concerns with real estate, due to concerns with the economy, due to their concerns about their children will want to know about this issue when they hear more about it.

So let’s help the Department of Energy disseminate information. Please do everything you can to pass along what you’ve heard tonight and anything helpful to get more people involved.

Response
Thank you for your comments.

3.6 (12789)
Comment - 010331 / 0002
And because I know I’ve been bad-mouthing you all, all night, I do have to be the fair person that I try to be and hold up a copy. This is the size of the public hearing announcement that was in the Las Vegas RJ [Review Journal]. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We’re used to all of this information or less being in a much smaller sized area somewhere around the obituary section.

So you’re trying. I appreciate that very much. And I was going to come and rip you guys up one side and down the other because of not seeing it, until I saw this. And in all fairness, I would like to say good job, guys.

Response
Thank you for your comments.

3.6 (12826)
Comment - 010305 / 0002
I received the May 8-9 NWTRB [Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board] presentations from the Arlington, Va. Conference. Attended the (Unannounced or publicized) meeting of the NWTRB meetings June 20-21 & the peer review and NRC [Nuclear Regulatory Commission] meeting held simultaneously (also not publicized). Who is responsible for getting these invitations out? The results of these meetings is my overall evaluation and thus the title for this report.

Response
DOE cannot respond specifically about how other organizations announce or publicize their meetings. The commenter is encouraged to contact the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission with suggestions or concerns.

3.6 (13013)
Comment - 010334 / 0010
We also believe that the use of the proposed wind generation project as identified on page 3-18 [2-18 of the Supplement to the Draft EIS] under electric power section 12.3.4.4.4 [2.3.2.4.4] it identifies that the DOE is investigating another proposal for renewable energy of a wind generator project. And the tribes here have been or actually are familiar with that project and currently there’s a lot of opposition to the sighting of that project. And understanding that it’s not directly included in this Supplemental Draft EIS, it’s indirectly related in that if there’s consideration of getting power from a place that for a project that has been at this point in time not thoroughly assessed or had adequate Indian involvement. And so with that the tribes have become -- they have stated their opposition to the project until such time as the full determination can be made through systematic ethnographic interviews.

Response
Although a wind farm is not part of the Proposed Action for the Yucca Mountain Repository, DOE is preparing an EIS on a proposal to construct a wind farm to generate electric power at the Nevada Test Site. DOE expects to issue a Draft EIS for that proposal in late 2001 or early 2002, and will consider public comments before making decisions. However, DOE is assessing potential alternative generation facilities that include 545 wind turbine generators on 3 acres of the Nevada Test Site. Chapter 8 of the EIS includes this potential action as part of the cumulative impact assessment. For more information, see the Preapproval Draft Environmental Assessment for a Proposed Alternative Energy Generation Facility at the Nevada Site (DIRS 154545-DOE 2001). DOE is in the process of preparing an environmental impact statement on the subject.

DOE recognizes the importance of preserving the integrity of Native American resources at any site its actions might affect. DOE would continue to consult with Native American tribes and organizations to ensure that any adverse effects would be minimized to the fullest extent possible.

3.6 (13309)
Comment - 010317 / 0005
Though I can understand the reasoning behind the S&ER [Science and Engineering Report] flexible design, which is the primary subject of the DEIS-S report, it appears to violate the President’s Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA [National Environmental Policy Act] regulations involving public involvement. The fact is that the option to operate the repository at a lower temperature than was proposed in the DEIS with numerous added expensive features, means that major changes are being proposed since the DEIS was issued. This has effectively disrupted the NEPA driven public evaluation processes. The effect of this is that the Yucca Mountain characterization science is being turned into a political tool that minimizes public input components. The DOE is effectively rushing the approval process along shortly after it came up with major design changes and while numerous scientific questions are still unanswered. On that basis alone, the approval milestone dates should be extended by at least a year or two.

Response
 The action proposed in the Draft EIS and in the Supplement to the Draft EIS is the same—to construct, operate and monitor, and eventually close a geologic repository at Yucca Mountain. The Department acknowledged the evolution of the repository design by preparing the Supplement to the Draft EIS. The Department believes the actions it has taken are consistent with the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations and appropriately provides opportunities for public involvement.

With regard to unanswered scientific questions, the Department does acknowledge that it is not possible to predict with certainty what will occur hundreds or thousands of years in the future. The National Academy of Sciences, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission also recognize the difficulty of understanding the behavior of complex systems over long time periods. In 10 CFR Part 63 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission acknowledges that "…proof that the geologic repository will conform with the objective for postclosure performance are not to be had in the ordinary sense of the word because of the uncertainties inherent in the geologic setting, biosphere and engineered barrier system. For such long-term performance, what is required is reasonable expectation." In 40 CFR Part 197, the Environmental Protection Agency establishes "reasonable expectation" as a test of compliance, with diminished "weight of evidence" with time. The Agency also recognizes the need for expert judgment in assigning scenario probabilities, selecting simulation models, and assigning parameter distributions. Consistent with the observations of the National Academy of Science, DOE has designed performance assessments on a combination of mathematical modeling, natural analogs, and the possibility of remedial action in the event of unforeseen events.

3.6 (13491)
Comment - 010288 / 0005
This Supplement is insufficient because it does not provide specific design alternatives for the Proposed Action. Instead, it describes a range of design features and operational parameters that could be combined to arrive at two alternative designs - above boiling drift wall temperature or below boiling waste container surface temperature. These identified features and parameters (Table 2-1) are said to bound the design so the range of potential impacts could be analyzed. The Supplement does not identify specific alternatives for which the impacts could be compared. There is no reason to accept this bounding approach, since the 1999 DEIS made the same claim, and the Supplement has impacts that are outside those bounds. What will happen with the Final EIS as the design continues to "evolve"? The Final EIS is supposed to reflect whatever design the Secretary describes as a comprehensive basis for Site Recommendation. This Supplement assumes to use an area which hasn’t even been investigated yet (2-20). Surface facilities as presented could not get a license to operate if this were at a reactor site.

Response
In the Draft EIS, DOE evaluated a preliminary design based on the Viability Assessment of a Repository at Yucca Mountain (DIRS 101779-DOE 1998) that focused on the amount of spent nuclear fuel (and associated thermal output) that DOE would emplace per unit area of the repository (called areal mass loading). Areal mass loading was represented for analytical purposes in the Draft EIS by three thermal load scenarios: a high thermal load of 85 metric tons of heavy metal (MTHM) per acre, an intermediate thermal load of 60 MTHM per acre, and a low thermal load of 25 MTHM per acre. DOE selected these analytical scenarios to represent the range of foreseeable design features and operating modes, and to ensure that it considered the associated range of potential environmental impacts within the framework of a design whose central feature was areal mass loading.

Since it issued the Draft EIS, DOE has continued to evaluate design features and operating modes that would reduce uncertainties in or improve long-term repository performance, and improve operational safety and efficiency. The result of the design evolution process was the development of the flexible design that was evaluated in the Supplement to the Draft EIS and is evaluated in this Final EIS, and in the Preliminary Site Suitability Evaluation (DIRS 155734-DOE 2001). This design focuses on controlling the temperature of the waste package surfaces and the rock between the waste emplacement drifts (as opposed to areal mass loading) by varying other parameters such as the heat output per unit length of the emplacement drift and the distances between waste packages. Within this design framework of controlling the temperature of the rock, DOE selected these lower- and higher-temperature operating modes to represent the range of foreseeable design features and operating modes, and to ensure that it considered the associated range of potential environmental impacts.

Many of the issues related to how a repository would be operated would be resolved only in the context of developing the detailed design for a possible License Application, if the site was approved. For this reason, in this Final EIS design parameters were varied to create seven scenarios to illustrate lower- and higher-temperature operating modes in such a way to provide the range of potential environmental impacts. To demonstrate the nature of this range, DOE has identified primary impact indicators for each environmental resource area. These indicators are the most important contributors to determining the specific impacts for an environmental resource area (short- and long-term impacts are presented in Chapters 4 and 5, respectively).

DOE is unsure as to the uncharacterized area referred to by this comment; however, all areas associated with the flexible design have been characterized. DOE acknowledges in the EIS that it could modify or refine the flexible design further during the License Application process, if the site was approved for development.

3.7 Agency Coordination

3.7 (53)
Comment - 38 comments summarized
While some commenters noted the opportunity provided by National Environmental Policy Act to identify potential impacts of site-specific DOE actions such as the proposed Yucca Mountain Repository, others questioned DOE’s commitment to the spirit and letter of the Act. They contend that DOE’s coordination and interaction with local governments was inadequate—for example, that appropriate entities had not been granted "cooperating agency" status or recognized for their special status—and thus that inaccurate or incomplete information had been presented in the Draft EIS. Similarly, commenters stated that DOE was noncompliant with Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR 1501.6), which require that Federal agencies having jurisdiction serve as "cooperating agencies," and assist the lead agency in the preparation of EIS documents. Others claimed that they had not even been informed of the availability of an EIS. It was recommended that DOE work more closely with all concerned citizens and local and tribal governments that are potentially affected by the Proposed Action to ensure that the Final EIS incorporates more-accurate local information. Several commenters expressed the need to involve the state, local, and tribal governments in the development of transportation plans, and to identify shipping modes, routes, and cask designs.

Response
Beginning with publication of the Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS on August 7, 1995, DOE has been consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act with regard to public involvement in and the preparation of an EIS on the proposed repository at Yucca Mountain. To ensure that stakeholders were made aware of the availability of the Draft EIS, DOE published a Federal Register notice announced the release of the Draft EIS and DOE mailed more than 2,400 copies to its stakeholders. After the release of the Draft EIS, DOE distributed more than 3,400 copies of the document. After DOE announced the initial list of hearing dates and locations, it mailed fliers to each recipient on the EIS distribution list. As DOE added more hearings, it sent three subsequent mailings to these stakeholders to notify them of the additional opportunities to provide comments. DOE made the Draft EIS, references, and other supporting materials available on the Yucca Mountain Project web site (www.ymp.gov) throughout the comment period. Section 1.5.1 of the EIS provides an account of Departmental efforts to encourage public participation as part of the EIS scoping process. This Comment-Response Document describes the public involvement process for the Draft EIS and the Supplement to the Draft EIS, and provides responses to comments DOE received during the public comment periods for those documents.

The Department has handled all requests for "cooperating agency" status in accordance with regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality. Section C.3 of the EIS discusses cooperating agency requests, and Section C.4 provides a brief history of those requests, including the DOE response and the rationale. DOE has held formal meetings twice a year with the affected units of local government and participated in various meetings with Native American tribes. These meetings have included discussions and status briefings on a range of issues of interest to concerned organizations.

As indicated in Sections C.2.1, C.2.3, and C.3 of the EIS, interaction between DOE and other Federal agencies and organizations in connection with preparation of the EIS on the Yucca Mountain project has been extensive. In accordance with regulations (40 CFR 1501.7), DOE invited local governments in Nevada to submit reference documents providing information on issues of concern (see Section C.4).

Because of these meetings and information supplied by units of local government, the State, and others during the public comment period for the Draft EIS and the Supplement to the Draft EIS, DOE has modified the EIS as appropriate. For example, DOE revised population estimates to reflect work performed by Nye County, the Nevada State Demographer and the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (see Section 3.1.7.1 of the EIS). DOE is most appreciative of local input about this significant national initiative, and will continue to engage, and work closely with, authorities to ensure that environmental information on the project is accurate and comprehensive. Consistent with current policy, DOE would consult with appropriate authorities and provide transportation mode, route, and engineering information 4 years before any materials would be shipped to the Yucca Mountain site.

3.7 (57)
Comment - 42 comments summarized
Commenters questioned both the validity and the adequacy of government-to-government consultations between DOE and Native American tribes on issues related to the proposed Yucca Mountain Repository. Prominent among their complaints were insufficient consultations with indigenous people living along the candidate transportation routes and in the vicinity of the Yucca Mountain site, the inadequacy of public hearings as a substitute for government-to-government consultation, the DOE tendency to deal with the Consolidated Group of Tribes and Organizations rather than specific tribal governments, and failure to grant "affected Indian tribe" status to tribes in the study area. Another concern involved the potential for conflict between tribal and neighboring local governments over differences in position about the proposed repository.

One commenter stated that Federal regulations nowhere define "Native American tribes" but deal with recognized "American Indian tribes." This comment relates to the DOE statement that part of the supporting information for the Site Recommendation would include views and comments of affected Native American tribes (see Section 1.4.3.3 of the EIS).

Response
Section C.2.1.4 of the EIS contains a clear expression of the DOE commitment to consultation with Native American tribal governments likely to be affected by DOE decisions, programs, and actions. That commitment is consistent with DOE Order 1230.2, "American Indian Tribal Government Policy," which recognizes the unique relationship between the Federal Government and tribal governments. It is also consistent with a variety of laws and regulations, including the American Indian Religious Freedom Act; the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act; Executive Order 13007, Sacred Sites; and the National Historic Preservation Act, all of which elaborate on that same unique relationship (see Chapter 11). DOE has consulted, and will continue to consult, with tribal governments as sovereign entities that possess authority and responsibility for Native American territory. A major objective of these consultations is to ensure that the EIS addresses the full range of Native American cultural and technical concerns related to the Proposed Action. Moreover, in these consultations DOE makes every effort to avoid compromising the interests of individual tribes and, thus, to minimize conflicts between tribes and tribal groups or other local (nontribal) government entities.

Beginning with the Native American Interaction Program in 1987, DOE has consulted with Native Americans on tribal concerns about the Yucca Mountain Project. Native Americans have expressed general concern about the impacts of the candidate rail corridors, heavy-haul truck routes, and intermodal transfer station locations. Consistent with its trust responsibilities, DOE does not intend to take action, make decisions, or implement programs without consulting affected tribal governments. In all cases, project decisions will incorporate input from affected tribes.

DOE prepared the EIS in accordance with Section 2 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, which defines affected Indian Tribes as "…any Indian Tribe—(A) within whose reservation boundaries a monitored retrievable storage facility, test and evaluation facility, or a repository for high-level waste or spent nuclear fuel is proposed to be located; and (B) whose federally defined possessory or usage rights to other lands outside the reservations boundaries arising out of congressionally ratified treaties may be substantially and adversely affected by locating such a facility: Provided that the Secretary of Interior finds, upon the petition of the appropriate government officials of the Tribe that such effects are both substantial and adverse to the tribe." For this EIS, "Native American" means "Indian" or "American Indian."

3.7 (58)
Comment - 14 comments summarized
Commenters asserted that DOE had not lived up to its trust and fiduciary responsibilities deriving from treaties signed between the United States and sovereign Native American nations. They claim that the United States has typically regarded the notice and consultation requirements of the tribal trust doctrine as unnecessarily burdensome to Federal initiatives affecting tribal governments and peoples. This tendency is seen as contributing to a subordination of tribal self-determination as well as tribal lands, assets, resources, and treaty rights to competing Federal interests. As evidence of that condition, commenters cited the lack of funding necessary for separate tribal assessment of EIS data and conclusions and oversight of repository activities. In addition, several commenters cited the Treaty of Ruby Valley of 1863 and various court decisions as an indication of the breadth of DOE trust responsibilities.

Response
As indicated in Section C.2.11 of the EIS, the Federal Government, through DOE as its agent, recognizes tribal governments as sovereign entities -- in effect, discrete governments -- and interacts with them accordingly on issues of mutual concern. DOE has interacted mainly with the Consolidated Group of Tribes and Organizations, which consists of representatives of the three tribes potentially most directly affected by the Proposed Action: Southern Paiute, Western Shoshone, and Owens Valley Paiute and Shoshone. As is proper for all interactions between separate governments, the representatives of this group were officially appointed by their respective tribal governments to present their tribal concerns and perspectives to DOE.

DOE also understands and takes seriously the Federal trust responsibility toward Native Americans and, thus, the fiduciary relationship that arises in connection with DOE programs or actions that could affect tribal rights and concerns. Consistent with its obligations, DOE has engaged local Native Americans in project-related activities since the initiation of its Native American Interaction Program in 1987. It also has met regularly with tribal representatives on a range of cultural and technical concerns, and has collaborated with them on specific site characterization tasks in various areas including ethnobotany, review of artifact collections, field archaeological studies, and the EIS process. DOE has encouraged the elaboration of Native American perspectives on the Proposed Action and has incorporated into the EIS the potential impacts to historic and other cultural resources identified by Native Americans as important to sustaining and preserving their cultures. DOE also has provided financial assistance to tribes and tribal groups for various purposes. Protection of Native American interests has never been burdensome; it is in fact a benchmark of success in all Yucca Mountain Project initiatives.

DOE recognizes that Native American land claims in Nevada have been an issue of much concern among Native American tribes, especially the Western Shoshone. In addition, DOE acknowledges, for example in Section 3.1.1.4 of the EIS, Western Shoshone disagreement with the Federal Government position on this issue. It is not the role or function of this EIS to address or attempt to resolve disputes over such treaty rights.

3.7 (4744)
Comment - EIS001450 / 0005
Based on the LOC’s [Local Oversight Committee’s] experience in Oak Ridge with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) mitigation plans for local DOE environmental decisions, the CAP [Citizen’s Advisory Panel] strongly recommends that local and tribal governments be consulted during mitigation planning and implementation. Although this is not required by NEPA, it would add an important element of public acceptance to the highly charged political environment surrounding this issue.

Response
As indicated in Section 4.1.13.4 of the EIS, DOE is committed to consultation with specific tribal governments and representatives of the Consolidated Group of Tribes and Organizations to address fully potential impacts of the Proposed Action on Native American cultural resources, sacred sites, and potential traditional cultural properties, and to ensure the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures.

3.7 (5976)
Comment - EIS001879 / 0048
The DOE informed Nye County, in correspondence noted in an EIS appendix, that it is "no different" than any other local government, state, or federal agency potentially affected by the transportation of waste. Nye County invites DOE to explain and clarify this conclusion, given that 14 billion curies of waste will be disposed of in Nye County.

Response
DOE cannot identify the correspondence referred to in this comment. The Department recognizes the unique status of Nye County in relation to the Yucca Mountain Project. For example, in correspondence referenced in Appendix C, DOE states that "The Department recognizes Nye County’s unique status as the potential location for the nation’s first high-level radioactive waste repository."

3.7 (6032)
Comment - EIS001898 / 0003
The assessment of long-term radiological impacts is based on the results of site characterization and the development of models describing repository performance. NRC and DOE have had extensive pre-licensing consultations concerning site characterization and NRC staff has provided comments on these matters. Staff’s comments in these areas were provided to DOE in reports on specific technical issues (e.g., Issue Resolution Status Reports for Key Technical Issues) and in comments on DOE’s viability assessment (VA). These technical comments should be considered during the development of the FEIS.

Response
The Final EIS addresses the relevant technical issues DOE received in comments from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission relative to specific technical issues and the Viability Assessment of a Repository at Yucca Mountain (DIRS 101779-DOE 1998).

3.7 (6619)
Comment - EIS001632 / 0067
Page 9-22: This section refers to the Yucca Mountain Project Native American Interaction Program for promoting a government-to-government relationship with area tribes. Section C.2.5 also discuss DOE’s interaction with tribal governments on the proposed project. Representatives from the "Consolidated Group of Tribes and Organization have met with DOE on a range of issues. The Consolidated Group includes Southern Paiute Tribes, Western Shoshone Tribes, Owens Valley Paiute and Shoshone Tribes, and the Las Vegas Indian Center. EPA commends DOE’s efforts to work with Tribes within Nevada and neighboring states, but we also encourage DOE to inform and reach out to other Tribes which may be affected by waste shipments.

Shipments of spent nuclear fuel and/or DOE high-level radioactive waste may cross Tribal lands in various parts of the country, and if DOE has not already done so, we encourage the Department to commence a government-to- government consultation process with such Federally-recognized Tribes. In order to facilitate public and agency disclosure under NEPA, the final EIS should identify those Tribes which may be affected by the transportation of waste across or close to Tribal land. This discussion should also include any potential effects on tribal resources.

Response
As noted by the EPA, DOE has consulted, and will continue to consult, with tribal governments as sovereign entities that possess authority and responsibility for Native American territory. A major objective of these consultations is to ensure that the EIS addresses the full range of Native American cultural and technical concerns related to the Proposed Action. Moreover, in these consultations DOE makes every effort to avoid compromising the interests of individual tribes and, thus, to minimize conflicts between tribes and tribal groups or other local (nontribal) government entities.

Native Americans have expressed general concern about the impacts of the candidate rail corridors, heavy-haul truck routes, and intermodal transfer station locations. Consistent with its trust responsibilities, DOE does not intend to take action, make decisions, or implement programs without consulting affected tribal governments. In all cases, project decisions will incorporate input from affected tribes.

DOE prepared the EIS in accordance with Section 2 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, which defines affected Indian Tribes as "…any Indian Tribe—(A) within whose reservation boundaries a monitored retrievable storage facility, test and evaluation facility, or a repository for high-level waste or spent nuclear fuel is proposed to be located; and (B) whose federally defined possessory or usage rights to other lands outside the reservations boundaries arising out of congressionally ratified treaties may be substantially and adversely affected by locating such a facility: Provided that the Secretary of Interior finds, upon the petition of the appropriate government officials of the Tribe that such effects are both substantial and adverse to the tribe." For this EIS, "Native American" means "Indian" or "American Indian."

3.7 (7165)
Comment - EIS001337 / 0056
DOE is encouraged to meet with representatives of affected units of local government to review proposed agency responses to comments to the DEIS. Such a meeting would help to ensure that local government comments are understood by the Department and if proposed responses are responsive to the comments. DOE is encouraged to provide individual responses to all comments provided so that commenters can easily ascertain what effect, if any, their comment had on the form of the FEIS.

Response
DOE has offered local governments the opportunity to submit documents providing perspectives of issues associated with the EIS and has held formal meetings twice a year with the affected units of local government. These meetings have included discussions and status briefings on a range of issues of interest to local governments. DOE has obtained additional useful information from cognizant Federal, state, and local agencies and members of the public as part of the public comment process. Feedback at this stage on analytical errors, gaps in the analysis, and alternative mitigation measures is particularly useful to the Department. DOE will continue to conduct meetings with representatives of affected units of local government to gain a better understanding of their issues. DOE determined that preparing summary comments and responses for specific issues avoids duplication of effort and repetitiveness in the comment-response process.

3.7 (7585)
Comment - EIS001969 / 0037
In summary, as DOE continues to further characterize the suitability of the proposed Yucca Mountain site in sufficiently isolating high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel, we look forward to continued coordination on protection of the Department’s trust wildlife and other resources. The Service’s Southern Nevada Field Office is interested and available to provide technical support in development and implementation of monitoring programs for Yucca Mountain operations. The Service’s technical support can be integrated with ongoing groundwater monitoring programs by several other agencies in the vicinity of Yucca Mountain. DOE and USGS [U.S. Geological Survey] have collaborated since 1989 on the Environmental Monitoring Program in order to better understand the hydrology of this area. Monitoring is essential in our view and will help to ensure that any changes in the environment are detected and investigated appropriately. We look forward to working with the DOE on this important national initiative.

Response
DOE acknowledges and appreciates the offer of technical support from the U.S. Department of the Interior and its individual bureaus on the Yucca Mountain Project monitoring programs. Such cooperation will inevitably increase the knowledge base on the local environment and help ensure minimal impacts of the Proposed Action on regional wildlife and other natural resources.

3.7 (8102)
Comment - EIS000406 / 0021
The following issues need to be addressed and thoroughly analyzed concerning direct impacts to Lander County in a detailed manner:

Military overflights and other Federal Agency interactions.

Response
DOE has considered activities of the Nellis Air Force Range in the analysis of cumulative impacts, Chapter 8, of the EIS. The Renewal of the Nellis Air Force Range Land Withdrawal: Legislative Environmental Impact Statement (DIRS 103472-USAF 1999) addresses the potential environmental consequences of the Air Force proposal to continue the Nellis Air Force Range land withdrawal for military use.

3.7 (8615)
Comment - EIS001837 / 0011
I have questioned the BLM [Bureau of Land Management] with regard to their role in the review of the subject DEIS. They claim to have no management authority over the railroad right-of-way. The DEIS needs to address this issue and to identify the roles of the agencies which manage the lands adjacent to and under the railroad tracks. These lands could be directly and indirectly impacted by the accidents, derailments, spills, crashes, mishaps, terrorists attacks, breaches in containers, etc.

Response
The Bureau of Land Management would be involved in land management activities such as approving rights-of-way through any BLM managed public lands that a rail line would traverse. The regulations governing rights-of-way on Federal lands are contained in 43 CFR Subparts 2800 to 2808. Relevant regulations are discussed in Chapter 11 of the EIS.

3.7 (9310)
Comment - EIS001888 / 0038
Such inaction by DOE during the scoping and DEIS process may be a violation of NWPA Section 117, that states that if Nevada [and AULGs--affected units of local government] or a tribe makes a written request for information, the Secretary of Energy has 30 days to answer. If not answered, the request would go to the President. If s/he does not reply in writing within 30 days, the process of site characterization must be suspended until a written answer is provided. This provision has not been implemented nor has it been followed by the Department of Energy.

Response
Section 117(a)(2) of the NWPA requires that upon written request for information concerning site characterization siting, development, design, licensing, construction, operation, regulation, or decommissioning of a repository by the Governor or legislature of such State, or by the governing body of any affected Native American tribe, the Secretary shall provide the requested information or the reasons that the requested information cannot be provided within 30 days. If the Secretary fails to respond in 30 days, the Governor or legislature, or governing body of the Native American tribe, may transmit a formal written objection to the failure to respond to the President. If the President or Secretary fails to respond to such written request in 30 days of the receipt by the President, the Secretary is required to suspend all activities in the State and not renew the activities until the written response to the written request has been received.

The provision does not extend to information requests from affected units of local government. Further, it requires a written objection to the failure of the Secretary to respond to the President. No such written objection has been made to the President by the Governor or the Legislature of Nevada. There are no affected Native American tribes within the meaning of the NWPA [see Section 2.(2)].

The work suspension provision of the NWPA referenced in the comment has not been implemented because the conditions that would have triggered it have not been met.

3.7 (9940)
Comment - EIS001888 / 0468
[Clark County summary of comments it has received from the public.]

The HLW [high-level radioactive waste program] program may cause political conflict between various local government and economic development entities.

Response
The EIS analysis indicated little or no socioeconomic impact in the region of influence for the Proposed Action. It focused on published reports of socioeconomic baseline information, including characterizations of existing community environments, assessments of economic development, and baseline economic and demographic trends. In relation to this comment, the analysis found nothing that would indicate potential conflicts between local governments and economic development organizations.

3.7 (10089)
Comment - EIS001877 / 0014
The Governors strongly encourage the U.S. Department of Energy to work cooperatively with the states in implementing this policy [permanent, safe, geologic disposal]; to ensure the safe storage, transportation and disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste; and to comply with agreements which have been negotiated and entered into by a state’s governor regarding the management, transportation and storage of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. Moreover, the federal government should not site such waste in a state for interim storage without written agreement from the affected states’ governors.

Response
In carrying out its responsibilities under the NWPA, DOE would continue to comply with its terms, including requirements for consultation and cooperation with the concerned state governors and legislatures on implementation of the proposed Yucca Mountain Repository, and with all pertinent agreements thus far concluded with those governors and legislatures. Consistent with Section 117(a)(1) of the Act, such cooperation would extend to all arrangements for interim storage of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste.

DOE does not believe that the siting limitations for interim storage facilities contained in the NWPA constrain the operational flexibility of the proposed repository or, ultimately, the long-term performance of the repository. Therefore, DOE believes that the surface aging facility option constitutes a potential operational element of the proposed repository.

3.7 (11435)
Comment - EIS000409 / 0014
DOT’s [U.S. Department of Transportation] accident rate is wretched. Are their any coordinated plans from the DOE, NRC [Nuclear Regulatory Commission], DOT and the other agencies that are not dependent on some M & O [Management and Operating Contractor] doing the homework?

Response
If the Yucca Mountain site is approved, DOE would coordinate the development and preparation of its transportation plans including emergency response and preparedness with affected states, Indian tribes and appropriate Federal agencies (for example, the U.S. Department of Transportation and Nuclear Regulatory Commission). Contracted services could be used in the development of such plans. At present, DOE anticipates that such planning would commence 4 years before the first shipments of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. Appendix M provides a description of transportation planning.

3.7 (11485)
Comment - EIS002253 / 0001
By the way, it was 1991 when I knew that these casks were going to be coming through this area. So it hasn’t been hidden from anybody. I was never kicked out of a meeting. I never yelled at anybody. I have seen the casks. I [have] seen the films. I have never been prevented from seeing anything that I wanted about Yucca Mountain.

Response
Thank you for your comment.

3.7 (11486)
Comment - EIS002253 / 0002
Nye County has the unique position of having an oversight office. And the oversight office could go to the DOE and say: We don’t believe what you are saying is scientifically valid. And we did that.

And they were very respectful of our wishes, and we showed them, and we came up with new drilling methods for Yucca Mountain. Now, they could have completely ignored us; they could have even said you can’t even have oversight. If everything we have heard in this room by certain people is true, then that never would have occurred. I believe the DOE is on the right track. I don’t swallow everything that they are saying. I don’t think San Bernardino and California should swallow everything that they are saying.

I want to thank the DOE for all the cooperation I have ever had with them. Just keep going with Yucca Mountain; more cooperation with San Bernardino County. We should never have to hear San Bernardino County saying I didn’t know about this. If they didn’t know about it, it was because they ignored, because I know it was there ten years ago, because I was there.

Response
Thank you for your comment. Close cooperation with local jurisdictions is fundamental to DOE policy for the successful development of the agency’s environmental impact analyses.

3.8 Regions of Influence

3.8 (65)
Comment - 19 comments summarized
Commenters said that the DOE-defined regions of influence where impacts could be expected from the Proposed Action were too small, not justified, and represent the viewpoint of a single Federal agency. DOE thereby avoided considering indirect and cumulative impacts that would occur outside these narrowly defined regions of influence. Additional information, particularly data and analyses from Nye County, should have been incorporated into the impact analyses. The end result, in the view of these commenters, is that DOE did not realistically describe the affected environment, and underestimated impacts.

With regard to the repository, commenters said that the analysis of land-use impacts did not consider impacts to non-Federal lands and to non-Federal entities outside the withdrawal area (such as the Town of Amargosa Valley), and that growth trends in Nye County were not accurately portrayed in the Draft EIS. Commenters also said that impacts to water resources should include the entire region of groundwater flow in Nevada and California, and that air-quality and radiological impacts should encompass a 160-kilometer (100-mile) radius [rather than a 80-kilometer (50-mile) radius) and should include Las Vegas, which is downwind of Yucca Mountain.

Similarly, commenters said that the region of influence for waste transport in Nevada and throughout the Nation was too narrowly defined. For example, the analysis of socioeconomic impacts should include the entire State of Nevada (for example, impacts to revenue base, state agencies, and major Nevada industries) and counties through which waste could be transported (particularly Elko County). Impacts to ranches and agricultural operations that be divided by the rail line should be evaluated. Indirect impacts should be examined from waste transfer and transport in Nevada to biological resources, air quality, health and safety, cultural resources and religious sites, and Native American communities. Finally, impacts to all communities in all states along the various waste-transport corridors should be evaluated.

One commenter stated that the region of influence for the No-Action Alternative was grossly overestimated.

Response
Section 3.1 of the EIS defines the regions of influence associated with the proposed repository for the 13 environmental resource areas, such as land use, groundwater, and socioeconomics, for which impacts were described. DOE defined these regions in consideration of the sliding scale approach that recognizes that agency proposals can be characterized as falling somewhere on a continuum with respect to the significance of environmental impacts. Thus, elements of the Proposed Action with a greater potential for significant environmental impact require more analysis than those elements that are likely to generate small impacts. For this reason, DOE defined regions of influence based on geographic areas in which direct and indirect impacts could reasonably be expected to occur.

For example, for the repository-related impact analysis, the region of influence for land use includes all the land that DOE would have to control permanently to operate the repository. The Draft EIS did not identify any land-use impacts outside that area; private land would not be purchased, and access to and use of other Federal and state land outside the withdrawal area would not be restricted or otherwise modified in any way. The region of influence for potential groundwater impacts, on the other hand, extends far beyond the boundary of the withdrawal area because any long-term releases from the repository could affect aquifers in these more distant areas. Similarly, the region of influence for socioeconomics encompass the economies and people of Nye, Lincoln, and Clark Counties where the vast majority of the workforce would be expected to reside. Thus, these would be the counties, if any, that would experience the most socioeconomic impacts. With regard to the region of influence for potential impacts to air quality and potential exposure to radiation, no reasonable impact scenarios were developed to justify expanding the regions of influence beyond those defined in the Draft EIS. DOE believes the regions of influence defined in the Draft EIS are reasonable.

Regarding cumulative impacts, consistent with Council on Environmental Quality and DOE regulations, areas of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions are identified that, together with the Proposed Action, could result in cumulative environmental impacts in the same geographic region or at the same time. So, for example, the environmental impacts of actions at the Nevada Test Site, the Beatty waste disposal area, and gold mining were considered in conjunction with the Proposed Action in determining cumulative impacts. In other words, the regions of influence for cumulative impacts extend beyond the regions of influence defined in Chapter 3 for the repository.

The beginning of Section 6.3 defines the regions of influence for environmental resource areas for which impacts of waste transport were described. DOE defined these regions based on where impacts could reasonably be expected to occur. With regard to socioeconomics, for example, impact analyses considered state expenditures, and counties other than Clark, Lincoln, and Nye were considered collectively. No impacts were identified to any of Nevada’s major industries. The region of influence for land use and ownership considered not only direct impacts of land disturbance, but also potential changes to land ownership and use from waste transport in Nevada. Biological and cultural resources considered not only direct impacts from habitat disturbance, but also possible impacts to such things as regional game migration. Because impacts to resources such as air and water quality, health and safety, and cultural resources are not expected to be large from construction and operation of waste transportation facilities in Nevada, the regions of influence for these resources are correspondingly small.

The region of influence for the No-Action Alternative (Chapter 7) includes areas where reasonably expected impacts in the vicinity of Yucca Mountain would occur if a repository was constructed at Yucca Mountain, and impacts associated with leaving the wastes at their current storage sites for 10,000 years would occur. If the repository was not constructed, DOE believes that there would be reasonably predictable impacts in the Yucca Mountain region and at the existing waste sites throughout the country, as described in Chapter 7. DOE does not believe that this region of influence was overestimated.

With regard to the use of county-supplied data and analyses, DOE has modified sections in Chapters 3, 4, and 8 to reflect this information. For example, Section 3.1.1 has been modified to include the unincorporated Town of Amargosa Valley in the region of influence for land use. Sections 3.1.7 and 4.1.6 have been modified to reflect county-supplied population information. DOE has also modified Section 8.2 accordingly.

3.8 (13530)
Comment - 010392 / 0013
DOE must carefully reconsider the regions of influence and draw them broadly, to reflect the unique nature and vast risks of the proposed action. This should have been addressed in the Supplement.

Response
The regions of influence for the actions presented in the Supplement to the Draft EIS are the same as those described in the Draft EIS. For more information, see 3.8 (65) above.

3.9 Perceived Risk

3.9 (109)
Comment - 219 comments summarized
Many commenters, including the State of Nevada and other affected units of local government, stated that the Final EIS should analyze the impacts of stigma or risk perception and "special effects" on the State of Nevada. Commenters stated that people would avoid places and products associated with nuclear risk or stigma, resulting in decreased property values; less business expansion or new development; location of businesses away from the area; loss of tax revenues; reduced income for existing businesses; loss of new investments; inability to ensure adequate cleanup costs; higher insurance rates; decreased crop, product, and service prices, including effects on the marketability of local specialty agricultural products; decreased business diversification; inability to retain existing businesses; unused infrastructure or infrastructure of questionable value; migration of people from an area; increased population and activity in one county causing a subsequent decrease in neighboring counties; environmental justice impacts due to decreased property values; and an exodus of residents from a contaminated area. Commenters also stated that the perceived risk of serious harm from the proposed repository or transportation activities related to the proposed repository would affect people’s health care systems, quality of life, and spiritual well-being. In particular, commenters stated that the existence of a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, 145 kilometers (90 miles) from Las Vegas, would have a significantly adverse impact on the State’s large tourism and gaming industry. Because much of the State’s economy is based on the tourist and gaming industry, adverse impacts to the industry could have severe socioeconomic effects throughout the State.

Commenters cited studies, some of which were commissioned by the State of Nevada and prepared by recognized experts in their fields, as evidence of the negative effects of perceived risk. The commenters stated that these reports, and the 1986 DOE Environmental Assessment for site characterization activities at the Yucca Mountain site acknowledge the potential for impacts to Nevada’s tourism-based economy and the need for additional research. However, commenters stated that DOE performed no subsequent work and did not analyze these potential impacts in the EIS.

Some commenters stated that, although DOE believes that it is not legally required to analyze perceived risk in a National Environmental Policy Act document, nevertheless DOE has an ethical responsibility to address risk perception, based on the methods and findings in this area that are well established in the peer-reviewed social science literature. According to some commenters, the Draft EIS did not explain why DOE did not perform a perceived risk analysis or why it discusses only socioeconomic impacts in terms of positive impacts such as jobs. Commenters stated that the Final EIS should acknowledge the possibility that stigma effects could occur and explain how DOE decided whether to include an analysis of such effects in the Final EIS.

Commenters also asked that the Final EIS address the psychological and social impacts to community residents, the direct effects on local communities, and the impact of having more strangers present. Further, they stated that the Final EIS should address mitigation measures (compensation for loss of tourism and business and decreasing property values, creation of insurance programs, compensation distribution plans, purchase of private property, business and personal relocation) to offset perceived risks, including the costs of government programs, the process for development of the plans, government liability, the type of Federal facility or program to protect or provide compensation, development of a tourism marketing plan, communication and other response strategies to mitigate behavioral consequences of negative perceptions, and monitoring impacts to land values and development. Some commenters requested compensation for damages, but also noted compensation might not work. Others cited the ‘brownfields" programs of the Environmental Protection Agency and other states that counteract perceived risks of hazardous sites, and stated DOE should look at risk perception work for hazardous wastes. One commenter noted, "[o]nly by undertaking the full range of public responses to high-level radioactive waste can you evaluate the potential socioeconomic impacts from a repository."

Response
During scoping for the EIS, DOE received comments on the need to address perception-based and stigma-related impacts. DOE considered these issues, guided by the results of its own research and that of the State of Nevada, and by relevant conclusions reached by reviews of this subject by the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board (an independent board established by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982) in 1995 and other researchers through about 1997. For the Draft EIS, DOE concluded that analyses of perception-based and stigma-related impacts would, at best, be uncertain or speculative and not meaningful to any decisionmaker.

However, in light of the comments received on the Draft EIS concerning this subject, DOE reexamined the relevant literature and the state of research into perception-based impacts and stigma-related effects. DOE was most interested in those scientific and social studies that directly relate to either the Yucca Mountain Project or other DOE actions such as the transportation of foreign research reactor fuel through the State of South Carolina. A number of these studies have been cited in the comments received on both the Draft EIS and the Supplement to the Draft EIS. For this Final EIS, DOE has also reevaluated the independent reviews by the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board and the State of Nevada, among others, and identified and assessed relevant studies published since DOE published the Draft EIS. Section 2.5.4 of the Final EIS summarizes the Department’s reexamination of perceived risk and the stigmatization of communities. Appendix N contains the complete text of the report generated from DOE’s reexamination: "Are Fear and Stigmatization Likely, and How Do They Matter: Lessons from Research on the Likelihood of Adverse Socioeconomic Impacts from Public Perceptions of the Proposed Yucca Mountain Repository."

DOE assessed qualitatively the likelihood that perceptions of danger and of stigma, regardless of whether they are based on accurate scientific assessments, might result in adverse socioeconomic impacts on Nevada, particularly the Las Vegas Area. DOE believes the research shows that there is a consensus among social scientists that a quantitative assessment is impossible at this time and probably unlikely even after extensive additional research. The implication is not that impacts would probably be large, but simply difficult to quantify. Social scientists do not know enough to identify what would be the level of concern during the operation of a repository. Similarly, the specific links between attitudes and individual decisions that would have socioeconomic impacts cannot be defined. Based on what is known from surveys and analogues, what outcomes seem most likely qualitatively is summarized below:

Effects from Perceptions of the Proposed Repository:

The assessment that substantial adverse socioeconomic impacts from perceptions of the repository are quite unlikely assumes that operations at the facility will not have a major accident or periodic smaller accidents. These events would most likely raise fears about the repository, make the repository salient to people in southern Nevada, result in some social amplification of risk, and perhaps even stigmatize the region. Adverse socioeconomic effects from perceptions of an accident-prone repository might be substantial even with the repository 145 kilometers (90 miles) from Las Vegas. Without accidents, these effects are quite unlikely.

Effects from Transportation of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste:

Absent accidents, two studies report that, at least a temporary decline in residential property values of approximately 3 percent can be expected in transportation corridors in urban areas. Data from other transportation experiences (such as transuranic waste to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant), however, suggest that impacts on property values might be negligible or nonexistent. More research on whether property values have fluctuated with the transportation of radioactive materials would be more conclusive. The research, however, would not allow analysts to know with certainty whether there would be any impacts from perceptions of shipments of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste to a Yucca Mountain Repository, or how long such impacts would persist.

While stigmatization and resulting adverse impacts can be envisioned under some scenarios, it is not inevitable or measurable, and any such stigmatization would likely be an aftereffect of unpredictable future events, such as a series of accidents. As a consequence, DOE did address but did not attempt to quantify potential impacts from risk perceptions or stigma in this Final EIS. DOE also did not address potential change in property values near waste-transport routes because of the reasons summarized above and discussed in Appendix N of the EIS. At present, definitive information is not available on specific tracts of land that could be required for a specific transportation mode or route. For land that would be required or materially affected, however, the Department would fairly compensate landowners pursuant to Federal procedures. Should DOE be required to exercise its right of eminent domain, it would do so pursuant to applicable laws and regulations.

With regard to mitigation, Section 116(c) of the NWPA, states that "the Secretary shall provide financial and technical assistance to [an affected unit of local government or the State of Nevada]…to mitigate the impact on such [an affected unit of local government or the State of Nevada] of the development of [a] repository and the characterization of [the Yucca Mountain] site." Such assistance can be given to mitigate likely "economic, social, public health and safety, and environmental impacts." Within that broad framework, neither Section 116 nor any other provision of the NWPA limits the impacts that are subject to assistance under Section 116 to the environmental impacts considered in this EIS.

As noted above, the impact assistance review process under Section 116(c) of the Act and under the EIS process are distinct from one another, and the implementation of one would not depend on the implementation of the other. Thus, the provision of assistance under Section 116 would not necessarily be limited either by the impacts identified in this EIS or by its findings on such impacts. Any decision to provide assistance under Section 116 would be based on an evaluation of requests for assistance submitted by an affected unit of local government or the State of Nevada pursuant to Section 116 that documented likely economic, social, public health and safety, and environmental impacts. If the proposed repository was to become operational, DOE would enter into discussions with potentially affected units of local government and consider appropriate support and mitigation measures. After a decision on the proposed repository and transportation modes and routes, local jurisdictions would be better able to identify the likely economic, social, public health and safety, and environmental impacts that would be the basis for a request for economic assistance.

Further, consistent with Section 180(c) of the NWPA, DOE would provide technical assistance and funds to states for training public safety officials of appropriate units of local government and Native American tribes through whose jurisdictions DOE would transport spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. Training would cover procedures required for safe routine transportation of these materials, as well as procedures for dealing with emergency response situations. In addition, Sections 116(a) and 117(c)(5) of the NWPA set forth assistance guidelines covering a number of issues, including emergency preparedness and response, state liability arising from accidents, and necessary road upgrading.

3.9 (2495)
Comment - EIS001062 / 0001
In the time we have been living in Crescent Valley, we have learned to love this town for it’s personal interests. We have become parents and made ourselves a permanent home here. Due to how old our trailer is, we cannot move it out of the county. However, if trucks come through here hauling nuclear waste we will feel forced to leave our quiet town for the safety and wellbeing of our child and family. I will feel less threatened personally by a railroad due to traffic accident possibilities. Our quiet, friendly and personal little town will no longer exist. Our school, church, grocery store will suddenly be filled with strangers. This poses another threat all by itself in my eyes. I trust my neighbors. I’ve made Crescent Valley my home for reasons of beauty, trusting friends and neighbors, and the simple little things like being free to let our children out in our yards without fear. Please, for the sake of our families, take the damages into strong consideration. We love our small town and don’t want to lose it. Thank you.

Response
 A relatively short section of the Carlin Corridor would pass through Crescent Valley. Definitive information is not available on specific tracts of land that could be affected. However, DOE estimates that the peak employment associated with the entire Carlin Corridor would total about 170 individuals.

3.9 (5577)
Comment - EIS001887 / 0204
Page 3-134; Section 3.2.2.2.6 - Socioeconomics

The Draft EIS states: "Section 3.1.7 contains socioeconomic background information on the three counties (Clark, Lincoln, and Nye) most involved in the heavy-haul routes." The section referenced contains very little information on the expected future population of these areas during the period of operations. To accurately predict the impact of heavy-haul operations, future population projections are necessary. These projections are required in order to forecast traffic volumes on the affected highways. Without these projections, the impact of operations on the level-of-service for the affected highways cannot be assessed. In the Las Vegas urban area, the area where growth is expected to occur given the proposed construction of urban area bypasses should also be projected. Highway improvements are known to affect growth patterns in urban areas. Without projecting the change in growth patterns associated with the urban bypasses, the projected traffic volumes on these roads cannot be predicted.

The Draft EIS inaccurately concludes that "[t]he candidate heavy-haul intermodal transfer station sites and routes would not appreciably affect counties other than those in which the facilities were located." This statement ignores the fact that heavy-haul transportation and the location of an intermodal transfer facility in Nevada would be primary impacts on public perceptions of risk and the stigmatizing effects of the Proposed Action. Impacts from heavy-haul transport and intermodal facility activities would be statewide. State-level impacts would accrue to State agencies required to respond to, or otherwise deal with, the shipments of waste and the operations of an intermodal transfer facility. The State’s principal economic sector could also be affected, with resulting impacts to State revenues and, due to Nevada’s unique taxation/revenue distribution system, to all seventeen of Nevada’s counties.

See comments relative to Section 4 on the treatment of socioeconomic conditions and impacts in the Draft EIS.

Response
DOE has updated its population estimates in the region of influence to reflect the most recent state and local information, as well as Bureau of the Census 2000 population summary data for Nevada. The updated population baselines were then used to estimate populations for Clark, Nye, and Lincoln Counties and the "Rest of Nevada" through 2035. With regard to the stigmatizing effects of the Proposed Action, DOE recognizes that while in some instances risk perceptions could result in adverse impacts to portions of a local economy, there are no methods whereby such impacts can be predicted with a reasonable degree of certainty. While stigmatization and resulting adverse impacts can be envisioned under some scenarios, it is not inevitable or measurable, and any such stigmatization would likely be an aftereffect of unpredictable future events, such as a serious accident. As a consequence, DOE addressed but did not attempt to quantify potential impacts from risk perceptions or stigma in this Final EIS. (See Section 2.5.4 and Appendix N.)

3.9 (9957)
Comment - EIS001888 / 0482
[Clark County summary of comments it has received from the public.]

Commenters indicated that the EIS analysis of potential socioeconomic impacts should examine impacts during construction (including necessary nationwide transportation infrastructure improvements), operation, closure, and post-closure of the repository (one commenter requested the analysis also be applied to impacts for recent layoffs from the Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Project). They recommended that the analysis include impacts under routine operations and following accidents. Analyses should include potential impacts to: employment, wages, income, population growth, procurement, limited infrastructures (including transportation and traffic), tourism, population growth (negative impacts not related to project employment), schools, business, insurance recovery, property values, local government finances and fiscal conditions, health care costs, loss of economic potential associated with the withdrawal of land for the repository, transportation corridors and any buffer zones, and local politics and intergovernmental relations. One commenter suggested the EIS should assess the technological assets the project might bring to Nevada including projections of supporting science and techno/scientific spin-off development. Others thought the EIS should consider the social impact from the repository project, which may increase public dissatisfaction with their government or alter community cooperation and/or conflict. One commenter suggested the EIS, in evaluating these impacts, should consider multiple construction scenarios, for example construction by a single crew or multiple crews.

Response
DOE estimated the socioeconomic impacts associated with the repository and associated transportation scenarios. In preparing these estimates DOE developed a list of assumptions to determine the estimated economic and demographic change in Nevada by construction and operation of the proposed repository. The REMI computer model used in the generation of these estimates allocated the impacts for four regions. Three of the regions are Clark, Nye, and Lincoln Counties. The fourth region is the Rest of Nevada, an aggregation of the other 14 counties in Nevada. Projections are made through 2035. The estimated costs of the northern portion of the Las Vegas Beltway are included in the estimates.

Although a relatively short section of the Carlin Corridor passes through Crescent Valley, definitive information is not available on specific tracts of land that could be impacted. DOE anticipates that the detailed impacts on grazing or other agricultural lands would be addressed as part of additional National Environmental Policy Act reviews for specific transportation alignment, to the extent necessary, DOE would attempt to reduce impacts by providing fencing, livestock crossings, and access to water supplies.

3.9 (11091)
Comment - EIS001515 / 0003
Competing in the global market place (in Ohio, at least) appears to require retraining of the workforce (through educational institutions) to meet foreign companies needs. One wonders, if such rhetoric is, in fact, government-speak for worker willingness to accept 1950s health and occupational exposure standards in exchange/trade for jobs and economic growth in high-unemployment/depressed regions of Ohio. See "Better Workers Needed to Capitalize on Trade," THE CINCINNATI ENQUIRER, Feb. 9, 2000, pg A-12. Do Japanese corporations consider "whistleblower" employee lawsuits poor etiquette and/or indication of unwillingness to work? It seems highly coincidental to me that days after announced lay off of 850 plant workers by United States Enrichment Corporation at its Portsmouth and Paducah uranium enrichment processing plants, Ohio’s workers are being informed that they must adjust their thinking in order for Ohio to fit Japanese corporate workforce needs, and Ohio’s schools are considered an appropriate forum to get the re-training job done!

DOE investigation at the Paducah plant site is, in my view, not the problem. Delay or investigation has left workers, in rural company towns at both Paducah and Piketon vulnerable to "transition" back to context conditions of the 1950s. DOE must consider the economic/social impacts upon residents and communities in close proximity to the Yucca Mountain site in decision-making. Appalachian regions in Ohio and Kentucky are, I believe, being nudged and conditioned to transition back to "context" of the 1950s, with "company towns and regions" run by private corporations, foreign and domestic.

Response
DOE cannot provide insight into the various retraining programs in the State of Ohio. However, with regard to the consideration of "economical/social" impacts on residents and communities in proximity to the Yucca Mountain site, the Department estimated the incremental socioeconomic impacts at the county level for Clark, Lincoln, and Nye Counties, and the rest of the 14 Nevada counties aggregately for the repository and the transportation corridors and intermodal transfer facilities. The Department used the REMI EDFS-53 Forecasting and Simulation Model. The model segments age, ethnicity, and gender based on 600 cohorts to predict population. The model also calculates births, deaths, and aging. Employment and fiscal change to the economy are derived from inter-industry relationships, labor markets, and national and worldwide economic variables.

3.9 (11179)
Comment - EIS000480 / 0009
You will ruin a beautiful state and more to the point you will ruin Crescent Valley, my home, CARICO LAKE RANCH and our range where we run cattle. We make our living on cattle and have since 1871! We don’t have any other income and you would make our ranch worthless!

Response
A relatively short section of the Carlin Corridor passes through Crescent Valley. Definitive information is not available on specific tracts of land that could be impacted. DOE anticipates that the detailed impacts on grazing or other agricultural lands would be addressed as part of additional National Environmental Policy Act reviews for specific transportation alignments. To the extent necessary, DOE would attempt to reduce impacts by providing fencing, livestock crossings, and access to water supplies.

3.9 (11433)
Comment - EIS001888 / 0473
The DEIS ignores the rapid and substantial changes in Clark County’s land use. The DEIS describes a program that potentially has enormous impacts on the economy of Clark County. In terms of likely land uses, the DEIS ignores substantial projects that should have been addressed. The City of Las Vegas’ plans for growth hinge on development at the interchange of US 95 and the northern beltway. What will be the impact of heavy haul transportation being driven through the heart of the Las Vegas Town center project? Summerlin is the largest planned community in the world. Only one third of it has been constructed. Will land values remain high if heavy haul transportation takes place through this important retirement community? The intermodal sites proposed for Jean and Sloan are in full view of the Hotels located at Jean. The proposed intermodal sites near Apex may forestall any other land uses in the area.

Despite the intense regional growth, the DOE has failed to coordinate with or receive input from Clark County or any of its jurisdictions. Other major concerns that should have received attention in the DEIS are impacts on North Las Vegas due to the acquisition of 7,500 acres by the City of North Las Vegas and the rapid growth of Mesquite, Nevada.

Response
DOE agrees that transportation corridors can influence or potentially conflict with plans within the region. Chapter 8of the EIS acknowledge some of the present and reasonably foreseeable actions planned for the region. At present, definitive information is not available on specific corridor alignments or tracts of land that could be directly affected. DOE would provide detailed information on specific impacts as part of National Environmental Policy Act reviews on any future alignment proposals.

With regard to potential lost jobs, DOE estimated that about 4,700 jobs could be lost under the No-Action Alternative within the region of influence. Approximately 3,200 project-related jobs would be lost after a 1-year decommissioning and reclamation period. Section 7.1.6 of the EIS contains additional information.

From the national perspective, DOE did not analyze the potential socioeconomic impacts to transportation because all spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste shipments would be over existing highways and railroads. The shipments would represent a very small fraction of total national highway and railroad traffic (0.008 percent of truck kilometers and 0.007 percent of railroad kilometers).

With regard to the stigmatizing effects of the Proposed Action, DOE recognizes that while in some instances risk perceptions could result in adverse impacts to portions of a local economy, there are no methods whereby such impacts can be predicted with a reasonable degree of certainty. While stigmatization and resulting adverse impacts can be envisioned under some scenarios, it is not inevitable or measurable, and any such stigmatization would likely be an aftereffect of unpredictable future events, such as a serious accident. As a consequence, DOE did not attempt to quantify potential impacts from risk perceptions or stigma in the EIS. (See Appendix N.)

3.10 Miscellaneous National Environmental Policy Act Comments

3.10 (4)
Comment - 11 comments summarized
Some individuals, tribal representatives, and state clearing houses indicated that they had reviewed the Draft EIS and had no comments. Commenters noted that because of the location of Yucca Mountain in relation to their region, or because the state agencies reviewing the Draft EIS do not produce or regulate nuclear waste, or because the Proposed Action is consistent with their own plans and programs, they had no substantive comments or concerns.

Response
DOE appreciates these replies.

3.10 (610)
Comment - 010066 / 0001
Thank you for the opportunity to review the above-referenced supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed radioactive waste repository at Yucca Mountain. At this time, this Office does not have the technical expertise to evaluate the nature of the environmental impacts that may be expected from the modified design compared to the Draft EIS.

Response
Thank you for your reply.

3.10 (2041)
Comment - EIS000570 / 0001
What I’d like to address is the illusion of democracy I see before me, the illusion that we’re following the NEPA process. What I would just like to speak about right now is the smoke screen, the smoke screen that this is a democratic process.

Response
DOE believes that the EIS is consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act and the NWPA, and presents a balanced informative analysis of the Proposed Action, the hazards involved in the proposal, and efforts to minimize the potential risk from those hazards. In addition to presenting the results of the DOE analysis of the proposed repository, the EIS describes opposing views on analytical issues, uncertainties that might exist in some methodologies and results, and areas in which further studies are needed or are being conducted. As to the democratic nature of the process, Section 2.6 of the EIS indicates that the Secretary of Energy would consider not only potential environmental impacts and public comments on the EIS, but also other factors in the determination of whether to recommend the Yucca Mountain site to the President.

3.10 (6074)
Comment - EIS001580 / 0011
While you understand there is an extremely adversarial relationship between the State of Nevada and the Department of Energy over this project, there are many fine decent human beings who are very hard working and conscientious employees of the Department of Energy, as there are working for the State of Nevada. And I think it is important that we all see that this process is part of a process, a larger process created under the National Environmental Policy Act that is to try and guide our country in making better technical decisions, evaluating the impacts of large facilities, and that it also provides an important forum for citizens like yourselves, effective stakeholders who may work for the utilities and transportation companies.

Response
Thank you for your comment.

3.10 (6503)
Comment - EIS001241 / 0011
The DEIS and EIS process, as well as the resultant recommendations and decisions are obligated by the NEPA to protect, restore, and enhance the environment, including the human environment.

  1. How, in what specific ways, would the storage of nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain repository protect, restore, or enhance the site itself? The area immediately surrounding the site? The region of the site?

  2. How, in what specific ways, would the transporting of nuclear waste enhance the environment (natural and human) along the transportation routes themselves, especially along those routes that at this time have no rail lines whatsoever (such as the proposed Carlin route through Crescent Valley)?

  3. How, in what specific ways, would the process of construction of a rail line enhance the natural environment and the human environment of Crescent Valley and of my home (which is 1/10 to 7/10 miles from the track, depending on the route chosen)?

  4. How, in what specific ways, would a completed rail track running through the valley of Crescent Valley enhance the natural environment? The human environment.

Response
When Congress proposed a geologic repository in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, it clearly intended to address nationwide environmental issues associated with spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. These long-lived highly radioactive materials are currently stored at 77 facilities around the country.

Congress directed DOE to evaluate the suitability of the Yucca Mountain site for a repository and, if appropriate, to prepare both a recommendation to the President on the site and an EIS to accompany the site recommendation. DOE’s responsibility is to study and report on the potential consequences for areas that could be affected by the proposal (including areas mentioned in the comment) so that the public will be informed and decisionmakers would have this environmental information available when making determinations on the proposal.

3.10 (12699)
Comment - EIS001955 / 0001
New York offers no specific comments regarding the technical suitability of the proposed Yucca Mountain site or DOE’s proposed facility design. The site and design must meet all applicable health and safety and environmental criteria established by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. We note also the DOE has concluded that the analyses in the EIS did not identify any potential environmental impacts that would be a basis for not proceeding with the proposed repository at Yucca Mountain.

Response
DOE acknowledges the comment and that, to be approved, the site and design of a geologic repository at Yucca Mountain must meet all applicable health and safety and environmental criteria established by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Environmental Protection Agency.

3.10 (12803)
Comment - 010378 / 0001
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Ely does hereby concur and adopt as its own the comments to the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Yucca Mountain Project submitted by White Pine County in a letter dated June 13, 200l to the Department of Energy.

Response
Thank you for your comments. See DOE’s responses to White Pine County’s comments on the Supplement to the Draft EIS.

REFERENCES

156900   BSC 2001   BSC (Bechtel SAIC Co., LLC) 2001. Life Cycle Cost Analysis for Repository Flexible Design Concepts. TDR-CRW-SE-000017 REV 00. Washington, D.C.: Bechtel SAIC Co., LLC. ACC: MOL.20011120.0951.
102726   Budnitz et al. 1999   Budnitz, B.; Ewing, R.C.; Moeller, D.W.; Payer, J.; Whipple, C.; and Witherspoon, P.A. 1999. Peer Review of the Total System Performance Assessment-Viability Assessment Final Report. Las Vegas, Nevada: Total System Performance Assessment Peer Review Panel. ACC: MOL.19990317.0328.
103099   Buqo 1999   Buqo, T.S. 1999. Nye County Perspective: Potential Impacts Associated With the Long-Term Presence of a Nuclear Repository at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada. Pahrump, Nevada: Nye County Nuclear Waste Repository Office. TIC: 244065.
155275   CEQ 1993   CEQ (Council on Environmental Quality) 1993. Incorporating Biodiversity Considerations into Environmental Impact Analysis Under the National Environmental Policy Act. Washington, D.C.: Council on Environmental Quality. TIC: 241456.
103162   CEQ 1997   CEQ (Council on Environmental Quality) 1997. Considering Cumulative Effects Under the National Environmental Policy Act. Washington, D.C.: Council on Environmental Quality. TIC: 243482.
151945   CRWMS M&O 2000   Yucca Mountain Site Description. TDR-CRW-GS-000001 REV 01 ICN 01. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC:  MOL.20001003.0111.
100131   D’Agnese et al. 1997   D’Agnese, F.A.; Faunt, C.C.; Turner, A.K.; and Hill, M.C. 1997. Hydrogeologic Evaluation and Numerical Simulation of the Death Valley Regional Ground-Water Flow System, Nevada and California. Water-Resources Investigations Report 96-4300. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. ACC: MOL.19980306.0253.
104832   DOE 1980   DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 1980. Final Environmental Impact Statement Management of Commercially Generated Radioactive Waste. DOE/EIS-0046F. Three volumes. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Waste Management. ACC: HQZ.19870302.0183; HQZ.19870302.0184; HQZ.19870302.0185.
104601   DOE 1993   DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 1993. Recommendations for the Preparation of Environmental Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of NEPA Oversight. ACC: HQX.19930623.0005.
103218   DOE 1996   DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 1996. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Pantex Plant and Associated Storage of Nuclear Weapon Components. DOE/EIS-0225. Three volumes. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy. TIC: 242979.
101816   DOE 1997   DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 1997. Final Waste Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Managing Treatment, Storage, and Disposal of Radioactive and Hazardous Waste. DOE/EIS-0200-F. Summary and five volumes. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management. TIC: 232988.
101779   DOE 1998   DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 1998. Viability Assessment of a Repository at Yucca Mountain. DOE/RW-0508. Overview and five volumes. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. ACC: MOL.1998007.0027; MOL. 1998007.0028; MOL.1998007.0029; MOL.1998007.0030; MOL.1998007. 0031; MOL.1998007.0032.
155100   DOE 1999   DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 1999. Idaho High-level Waste and Facilities Disposition Draft Environmental Impact Statement. DOE/EIS-0287D. 4. Idaho Falls, Idaho: Idaho Operations Office. ACC: MOL.20001030.0151.

153255   DOE 2001   DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 2001. Analysis of the Total System Life Cycle Cost of the Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Program. DOE/RW-0533. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. ACC: MOL.20010802.0217.

153849   DOE 2001   DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 2001. Yucca Mountain Science and Engineering Report. DOE/RW-0539. [Washington, D.C.]: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. ACC: MOL.20010524.0272.
154545   DOE 2001   DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 2001. Preapproval Draft Environmental Assessment for a Proposed Alternative Energy Generation Facility at the Nevada Test Site. DOE/EA-1370 Draft. Las Vegas, Nevada: U.S. Department of Energy, Nevada Operations Office. ACC: MOL.20010411.0255.
155734   DOE 2001   DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 2001. Yucca Mountain Preliminary Site Suitability Evaluation. DOE/RW-0540. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. ACC: MOL.20011101.0082.
103242   EPA 1995   EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) 1995. User’s Guide for Industrial Source Complex (ISC3) Dispersion Models, Volume 1 - User Instructions. EPA-454/B-95-003a. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. TIC: 243563.
100018   National
Research
Council 1995

   National Research Council 1995. Technical Bases for Yucca Mountain Standards. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. TIC: 217588.
150579   NEA 1995   NEA (Nuclear Energy Agency) 1995. The Environmental and Ethical Basis of Geological Disposal of Long-Lived Radioactive Wastes, A Collective Opinion of the Radioactive Waste Management Committee of the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency. Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. TIC: 225862.
152001   NRC 2000   NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission) 2000. Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Construction and Operation of an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation on the Reservation of the Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians and the Related Transportation Facility in Tooele County, Utah. NUREG-1714. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. ACC: MOL.20000828.0030.
152242   Salk, Tolbert, and Diskerman 1999   Salk, M. S.; Tolbert, V. R.; and Dickerman, J. A. 1999. "Guidelines and Techniques for Improving the NEPA Process." Environmental Management, 23, (4), 467-476. New York, New York: Springer-Verlag. TIC: 248626.
101941   USN 1996   USN (U.S. Department of the Navy) 1996. Department of the Navy Final Environmental Impact Statement for a Container System for the Management of Naval Spent Nuclear Fuel. DOE/EIS-0251. [Washington, D.C.]: U.S. Department of Energy. TIC: 227671.
103472   USAF 1999   USAF (U.S. Air Force) 1999. Renewal of the Nellis Air Force Range Land Withdrawal: Legislative Environmental Impact Statement. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Air Force. TIC: 243264.

103273   Walck 1996   Walck, M.C 1996. Summary of Ground Motion Prediction Results for Nevada Test Site Underground Nuclear Explosions Related to the Yucca Mountain Project. SAND95-1938. Albuquerque, New Mexico: Sandia National Laboratories. ACC: MOL.19970102.0001
104630   YMP 1997   YMP (Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Project) 1997. Summary of Public Scoping Comments Related to the Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic Repository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada. Las Vegas, Nevada: Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Office. ACC: MOL.19970731.0515.

Previous Section | Next Section