8.1 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions
This section identifies past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions with impacts that could combine with impacts of the Proposed Action. It describes these actions and their relationships to the Proposed Action that could result in cumulative impacts (see Table 8-1 for a summary). Sections 8.2 through 8.5 [8.2, 8.3, 8.4, 8.5] present the cumulative impacts from the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions identified in this section.8.1.1 Past and Present Actions
The description of existing (baseline) environmental conditions in Chapter 3 includes the impacts of most past and present actions on the environment that the Proposed Action would affect. This includes site characterization activities at Yucca Mountain. The impacts of past and present actions are, therefore, generally encompassed in the Chapter 4, 5, and 6 analyses of potential environmental impacts of the Proposed Action because the baseline for these analyses is the affected environment described in Chapter 3. Two past actions that are not addressed in the Chapter 3 environmental baseline were identified for inclusion in the cumulative impact analysis in Sections 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4past DOE activities at the Nevada Test Site (nuclear weapons testing, etc.) and past disposal of low-level radioactive waste at the Beatty Waste Disposal Area. Resources identified where past Nevada Test Site activities could add to impacts from the Proposed Action include air quality, groundwater, public health and safety, and transportation. For the Beatty Waste Disposal Site, the analysis included potential cumulative impacts from past transportation of waste to the Beatty site and from potential groundwater contamination. Other actions that are presently occurring also have a component that is reasonably foreseeable as a future action. These are discussed in Section 8.1.2.8.1.2 Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions
This section describes the reasonably foreseeable future actions that the cumulative impacts analysis considered. The analysis included cumulative impacts from the disposal in the proposed repository of all projected spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste as well as Greater-Than-Class-C waste and Special-Performance-Assessment-Required waste as reasonably foreseeable future actions (Inventory Modules 1 and 2; see Section 8.1.2.1). Sections 8.1.2.2 and 8.1.2.3 describe other Federal, non-Federal, and private actions that could result in cumulative impacts. This chapter does not discuss cumulative impacts for the No-Action Alternative. Chapter 7, Section 7.3, describes those impacts. Chapters 2 and 7 contain details on the No-Action Alternative and on continued storage of the material at its current locations or at one or more centralized location(s). DOE gathered information on Federal, non-Federal, and private actions to identify reasonably foreseeable future actions that could combine with the Proposed Action to produce cumulative impacts. The types of documents reviewed included other EISs, resource management plans, environmental assessments, Notices of Intent, Records of Decision, etc. Consultations with Federal agencies, state and local agencies, and Native American tribes (see Appendix C) also contributed to the information used in the cumulative impact analysis.8.1.2.1 Inventory Modules 1 and 2
Under the Proposed Action, DOE would emplace in the proposed Yucca Mountain Repository as much as 70,000 MTHM of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. Of the 70,000 MTHM, approximately 63,000 MTHM would be commercial spent nuclear fuel. The remaining 7,000 MTHM would consist of approximately 2,333 MTHM of DOE spent nuclear fuel and approximately 8,315 canisters (4,667 MTHM) containing solidified high-level radioactive waste (commercial and defense-related). To determine the number of canisters of high-level radioactive waste included in the Proposed Action waste inventory, DOE used an equivalence of 2.3 MTHM per canister of commercial high-level radioactive waste and 0.5 MTHM per canister of defense high-level radioactive waste as discussed in Appendix A, Section A.2.3.1. DOE has consistently used the 0.5-MTHM-per-canister equivalence since 1985. Using a different approach would change the number of canisters of high-level radioactive waste analyzed for the Proposed Action. Regardless of the number of canisters, the impacts from the entire inventory of high-level radioactive waste are analyzed in this chapter. In addition, the 70,000 MTHM inventory would include an amount of surplus plutonium as spent mixed-oxide fuel or immobilized plutonium. Inventory Modules 1 and 2 represent the reasonably foreseeable future actions of disposing of all projected commercial and DOE spent nuclear fuel and all high-level radioactive waste as well as Greater-Than-Class-C waste and Special-Performance-Assessment-Required waste in the proposed repository (see Figure 8-1). Under Inventory Module 1, DOE would emplace all projected commercial spent nuclear fuel (about 105,000 MTHM), all DOE spent nuclear fuel (about 2,500 MTHM), and all high-level radioactive waste (approximately 22,280 canisters). Inventory Module 2 includes the Module 1 inventory plus other radioactive material that could require disposal in a monitored geologic repository (commercial Greater-Than-Class-C waste and DOE Special-Performance-Assessment-Required waste). The estimated quantities of these other wastes are about 2,000 cubic meters (71,000 cubic feet) and about 4,000 cubic meters (140,000 cubic feet), respectively. Appendix A contains further details on these inventories. The following paragraphs summarize the differences in repository facilities and operations to receive, package, and emplace the additional materials in Inventory Module 1 or 2. The information on Modules 1 and 2 in this section is from CRWMS M&O (DIRS 104508-1999, DIRS 104523-1999, and DIRS 102030-1999) unless otherwise noted. Table 8-2 summarizes the increased number of shipments that would be required to transport the Module 1 or 2 inventory to the repository. As for the Proposed Action, the estimated numbers of shipments were based on the characteristics of the materials, shipping capabilities at the commercial nuclear sites and DOE facilities, the assumption that there would be one shipping cask per truck or railcar (a train would normally use multiple rail cars and ship more than one cask), various cask designs, and the transportation mode mix (mostly legal-weight truck or mostly rail). Appendix J contains additional details on Inventory Module 1 and 2 transportation requirements. The following are the major differences between the repository facilities and operations for Inventory Modules 1 and 2 and those for the Proposed Action, which are described in Chapter 2:8.1.2.2 Federal Actions
The following paragraphs describe reasonably foreseeable future actions of Federal agencies that could result in cumulative impacts in addition to those from Inventory Module 1 or 2. Nellis Air Force Range8.1.2.3 Non-Federal and Private Actions
The following paragraphs describe reasonably foreseeable future actions of non-Federal and private agencies or individuals that could result in cumulative impacts. This EIS considers the Cortez Pipeline Gold Deposit projects described below to be private actions even though they require the approval of the Bureau of Land Management. Cortez Pipeline Gold Deposit Projects8.2 Cumulative Short-Term Impacts in the Proposed Yucca Mountain Repository Region
This section describes short-term cumulative impacts during the construction, operation and monitoring, and closure of the repository in the regions of influence for the resources the repository could affect. DOE has organized the analysis of cumulative impacts by resource area. As necessary, the discussion of each resource area includes cumulative impacts from Inventory Module 1 or 2; from other Federal, non-Federal, and private actions; and from the combination of Inventory Modules 1 and 2 and other Federal, non-Federal, and private actions. Table 8-5 summarizes these impacts. The impacts listed for the Proposed Action in Table 8-5 include the combined effects of the potential repository and transportation activities. There would be essentially no difference in the design and operation of the repository for Inventory Modules 1 and 2. As described in Appendix A, the radioactive inventory for Greater-Than-Class-C waste and for Special-Performance-Assessment-Required waste is much less than that for spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. The subsurface emplacement of the material in Inventory Module 2, in comparison with the inventory for Module 1, would not greatly increase radiological impacts to workers or the public (DIRS 104523-CRWMS M&O 1999, p. 6-44). For the surface facilities, the number of workers and the radiological exposure levels would be the same for Inventory Modules 1 and 2 (DIRS 104508-CRWMS M&O 1999, Tables 6-1, 6-2, 6-4, and 6-5). Therefore, DOE did not perform separate analyses for Modules 1 and 2 to estimate the short-term impacts. This section identifies the short-term impacts as being for Modules 1 and 2, indicating that the impacts for the two modules would not differ greatly. DOE performed quantitative calculations for long-term impacts for both modules (see Section 8.3.1). The conclusion from these quantitative estimates was that the long-term impacts for Modules 1 and 2 would not differ greatly. In estimating the potential impacts considered in this EIS, DOE consulted various documents, including resource plans, other National Environmental Policy Act documents, and technical documents. If appropriate, DOE has cited these documents in the discussion of each technical discipline. Based on comments received during scoping and on the Draft EIS, DOE considered the Special Nevada Report from September 1991 (DIRS 153277-SAIC 1991, all) for inclusion as a source of technical information for the EIS. The Special Nevada Report, which was mandated by the Military Lands Withdrawal Act of 1986, contains a description of defense-related activities (as identified in 1991) along with estimates of potential impacts from those activities. However, the cumulative impacts analysis in this chapter considered the agencies that report representsthe Department of the Air Force, Department of the Navy, and Department of the Interior. Evaluations of the cumulative impacts of repository activities and other agency activities included review of a number of documents that are more current than the Special Nevada Report, including National Environmental Policy Act documents prepared by the Federal agencies listed throughout Section 8.1. Therefore, based on these more recent reports, DOE believes this report does not provide additional insight into projections of future impacts and, therefore, did not use it in its analysis of cumulative impacts.8.2.1 Land Use and Ownership
The ownership, management, and use of the analyzed land withdrawal area described in Chapter 4, Section 4.1.1 for the Proposed Action would not change for Inventory Module 1 or 2. The amount of land required for surface facilities would increase somewhat for Module 1 or 2 because of the larger storage area for excavated rock and additional ventilation shafts for the larger required repository. This would have no substantial cumulative land-use or ownership impact. To identify and quantify cumulative impacts for land use, DOE used a twofold approach. Actions that occurred within a 50-mile (80-kilometer) radius of the repository were reviewed for potential contributions to land use impacts. Second, actions that could affect transportation corridors were reviewed for their potential land use impacts. This second group of impacts is discussed in Section 8.4.2.1 (see Table 8-4). Section 8.1 lists several actions that have the potential for land use impacts. DOE reviewed those actions to identify land areas that could be affected and has quantified, where possible, the amount of land that is subject to new uses. DOE identified how the land use would be converted (for example, undisturbed federal land to commercial use) and any restrictions that might affect the length of time the land would be used. As discussed in Chapter 3, Section 3.1.1.1, the Federal Government manages approximately 240,000 square kilometers of land in Nevada, approximately 190,000 square kilometers of which are managed by BLM and available for public use. The land transfer/usage indicated in Table 8-6 represents approximately 340 square kilometers of additional land that is currently scheduled for removal from public use. In addition approximately 430 square kilometers would require removal from public use as the result of the potential development of a repository and transportation corridor. The total land removed from public use would represent less than 0.5 percent of BLM land and approximately 0.3 percent of the total Federal lands of Nevada. The largest change in land use is associated with the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act. Although the Bureau of Land Management could convey as much as 110 square kilometers (27,000 acres) to private and commercial use, only about 17 square kilometers (4,200 acres) had been transferred as of April 30, 2001. As stipulated by the Act, the Bureau has recommended acquiring about 23 square kilometers (5,800 acres) of environmentally sensitive lands throughout the State of Nevada that would be transferred from commercial and private use to general Bureau use. Several land use conversions could result in commercial or private use of Federal lands. In addition to those lands transferred under the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act, lands would be leased or transferred for the Ivanpah Cargo Airport, the Moapa Paiute Energy Center, the Cortez Mine, and the Desert Space Station Science Museum. These changes in land use would permit orderly development of public lands. The projects that would occur on the Nevada Test Site and the Nellis Air Force Range would result in no net change in land use because the lands are already removed from the public use and are designated for development. Some of the lands that would be transferred to the Timbisha Shoshone Nation could have some associated commercial use; however, this use would be consistent with the designations for the areas, and developments would be restricted to maintain the natural resources of the land. In addition to the cumulative changes to land use and ownership, DOE considered potential conflicts with plans and policies issued by various government entities in the vicinity of the proposed Yucca Mountain Repository. In particular, DOE reviewed a number of documents issued by or in conjunction with Nye County and communities in Nye County. In general, the local governments have expressed goals that would minimize the conversion of private lands to public use. At this time DOE is not aware of any direct operational conflicts between the proposed repository and Nye County planning efforts because the Department does not foresee a need to expand the withdrawal area or for the conversion of private lands in the vicinity of the repository. Transportation-related issues are discussed in Section 8.4.2.1.8.2.2 Air Quality
8.2.2.1 Inventory Module 1 or 2 Impacts
This section addresses potential nonradiological and radiological cumulative impacts to air quality from emplacement in a repository at Yucca Mountain of the additional quantities of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste above those evaluated for the Proposed Action, Greater-Than-Class-C waste, and Special-Performance-Assessment-Required waste (that is, Inventory Modules 1 and 2). It compares potential nonradiological and radiological cumulative impacts to applicable regulatory limits, including the new U.S. Environmental Protection Agency National Ambient Air Quality Standard for particulate matter with a diameter of less than 2.5 micrometers. Chapter 3, Section 3.1.2.1, discusses the current status of this standard. Sources of nonradiological air pollutants at the proposed repository could include fugitive dust emissions from land disturbances, excavated rock handling, and concrete batch plant operations and emissions from fossil-fuel consumption.8.2.2.1.1 Nonradiological Air Quality
The construction, operation and monitoring, and closure of the proposed Yucca Mountain Repository for Inventory Module 1 or 2 would result in increased releases of criteria pollutants (nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, and particulate matter) and cristobalite as described in the following sections. The types of activities producing these releases would be the same as those described for the Proposed Action (see Chapter 4, Section 4.1.2). Construction. The repository construction phase for Inventory Module 1 or 2 would produce the same levels of gaseous pollutants and cristobalite but slightly higher air concentrations of particulate matter, as listed in Table 8-7. The air concentrations would still be small fractions of the applicable regulatory limits. Operation and Monitoring. Table 8-8 lists estimated air quality impacts from criteria pollutants and cristobalite for Inventory Module 1 or 2. The concentrations in this table are for the period of continuing surface and subsurface development and emplacement activities. During the subsequent monitoring and maintenance activities these concentrations would decrease considerably. All concentrations are comparable to those produced under the Proposed Action. All concentrations would be small fractions of the applicable regulatory limits for Module 1 or 2. Because the development of the emplacement drifts for Module 1 or 2 would take additional time compared to the Proposed Action, these releases of criteria pollutants would occur over a longer period than those from the Proposed Action. In general, the values in Table 8-8 for operation and monitoring are smaller than the values in Table 8-7 for construction because there would be more land surface disturbance during construction. Closure. Continuing the closure of the repository for either Inventory Module 1 or 2 would produce comparable, but slightly lower, concentrations of gaseous pollutants, particulate matter, and cristobalite than those estimated for the Proposed Action. The concentrations would still be small fractions of the applicable regulatory limits (see Table 8-9). With Inventory Module 1 or 2, the amount of backfill required to close the ramps, main tunnels, and ventilation shafts would be larger than that for the Proposed Action, and the size of the excavated rock pile to reclaim would be larger. However, the duration of the closure period for Inventory Module 1 or 2 would increase over that of the Proposed Action, resulting in minor changes in the air concentrations between the Proposed Action and Inventory Module 1 or 2.8.2.2.1.2 Radiological Air Quality
Inventory Module 1 or 2 would require more subsurface excavation and a longer closure phase leading to increased radon releases compared to the Proposed Action. The increased quantity of spent nuclear fuel that repository facilities would receive and package would also result in additional releases of krypton-85 from failed spent nuclear fuel cladding but, as for the Proposed Action, naturally occurring radon-222 and its radioactive decay products would still be the dominant dose contributors. The following paragraphs discuss the estimated radiological air quality impacts in terms of the potential radiation dose to members of the public and workers for the construction, operation and monitoring, and closure phases of Inventory Module 1 or 2. For these estimates, workers exposed through the air pathway would be noninvolved workers. Construction. Table 8-10 lists estimated doses to members of the public and workers for the construction phase. These values resulting from radon releases during the 5-year construction phase would be similar to those for the Proposed Action because the subsurface volume excavated would be about the same. Operation and Monitoring. The doses from krypton-85 from receipt and packaging activities during operation and monitoring would be very low. Dose to the public would be only a fraction (0.00003 or less) of the dose from naturally occurring radon-222 and its radioactive decay products, as discussed below. Similarly, the dose to Yucca Mountain workers from krypton-85 would be a fraction (0.00001 or less) of the dose to those workers from radon-222. The annual dose from krypton-85 would be the same as that for the Proposed Action, but would occur for 38 years of spent nuclear fuel handling activities rather than 24 years. Table 8-11 and Table 8-12 list doses to individuals and populations for operation and monitoring, respectively. In all cases, naturally occurring radon-222 would be the dominant contributor to the doses, which would increase because of the larger repository required for Inventory Module 1 or 2. Average annual doses would be higher to members of the public and higher to noninvolved workers during the 38 years of development and emplacement activities when the South Portal would be open and used for exhaust ventilation. The analysis estimated collective doses for public and worker populations for the 100 to 338 years for operation and monitoring, including the 38 years of development and emplacement activities and 62 to 300 years of monitoring and maintenance activities. The dose to the maximally exposed member of the public is for 38 years of operations and 32 years of monitoring (that is, a 70-year lifetime). The dose to the maximally exposed noninvolved worker is for 50 years at the South Portal during development, emplacement, and monitoring activities. Closure. Table 8-13 lists estimated doses to populations and maximally exposed individuals during the closure phase. Radiation doses would increase over those for the Proposed Action not only because of the larger excavated volume but also the longer time required for closure (12 to 23 years) in comparison to 10 to 17 years. Summary. Based on the analysis of radiological air quality impacts from repository construction, operation and monitoring, and closure for Inventory Module 1 or 2, the estimated maximum annual dose to the maximally exposed individual member of the public would be 0.99 millirem for the lower-temperature operating mode during development and emplacement activities in the operation and monitoring phase. DOE compared the estimated annual dose to the Preclosure Public Health and Environmental Standard found at 10 CFR 63.204, which is 15 millirem per year to a member of the public. The dose would be about 6.6 percent of this standard. The radiation dose is 0.3 percent of the annual 340-millirem natural background dose to individuals in Amargosa Valley. Section 8.2.7 discusses human health impacts to the public that could result from radiation exposures during construction, operation and monitoring, and closure for Inventory Module 1 or 2.8.2.2.2 Cumulative Impacts from Inventory Module 1 or 2 and Other Federal, Non-Federal, and Private Actions
This section addresses potential nonradiological and radiological cumulative impacts to air quality from activities at the repository for the Proposed Action or Inventory Module 1 or 2 and other Federal, non-Federal, and private actions that would coincide with repository operations and potentially affect the air quality within the geographic boundaries of repository air quality impacts. To identify and quantify potential cumulative impacts on air resources from other actions, the Department used a 50-mile (80-kilometer) radius around the proposed repository as the region of influence. However, because of the distances involved and the dispersion afforded by distance and different wind directions, the potential for overlap of plumes from multiple actions would be greatest for those actions that are in close proximity to each other (that is, a few miles). Beyond that, the degree of plume overlap is less certain and indeed may not exist.8.2.2.2.1 Nonradiological Air Quality
Construction, operation and monitoring, and closure of the proposed Yucca Mountain Repository would have very small impacts on regional air quality for the Proposed Action or for Inventory Module 1 or 2. Annual average concentrations of criteria pollutants at the land withdrawal boundary would be 1 percent or less of applicable regulatory limits except for PM10, which the analysis estimated would be as much as 6.5 percent of the regulatory limit at the land withdrawal boundary. This estimate does not consider standard dust suppression activities (such as wetting), so actual concentrations probably would be much lower. DOE has monitored particulate matter concentrations in the Yucca Mountain region since 1989; gaseous criteria pollutants were monitored from October 1991 through September 1995. Concentrations were well below applicable National Ambient Air Quality Standards (see Chapter 3, Section 3.1.2.1). In 1990, DOE also measured ambient air quality in several Nevada Test Site areas for short-term concentrations of sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, and PM10 (DIRS 101811-DOE 1996, Volume I, pp. 4-146 and 4-148). The measurements were all lower than the applicable short-term (1-hour, 3-hour, 8-hour, and 24-hour) limits. Pollutant concentrations related to Nevada Test Site activities would be well below ambient air quality standards and would not increase ambient pollutant concentrations above standards in Nye County (DIRS 101811-DOE 1996, Volume I, p. 4-146). Therefore, DOE expects the cumulative impacts from proposed repository and Nevada Test Site operations to be very small. Other actions discussed in Section 8.1 would be unlikely to have cumulative impacts with the repository because they are sufficiently far away that plumes would have limited potential for overlap. Further, the responsible agencies would take measures for each action to minimize regional air impacts. Repository activities would have no effect on air quality in the Las Vegas Valley air basin, which is a nonattainment area for carbon monoxide and PM10, because the Las Vegas Valley air basin lies approximately 120 kilometers (75 miles) southeast of the proposed repository site.8.2.2.2.2 Radiological Air Quality
Past activities at the Nevada Test Site are responsible for the seepage of radioactive gases from underground testing areas and slightly increased krypton-85 levels on Pahute Mesa in the northwest corner of the Nevada Test Site (see Figure 8-2). Some radioactivity on the site is attributable to the resuspension of soils contaminated from past aboveground nuclear weapons testing (DIRS 101811-DOE 1996, Volume I, p. 4-149). Current Nevada Test Site defense program activities have not resulted in detectable offsite levels of radioactivity. As discussed in Chapter 3, Section 3.1.8.2, estimated radiation doses to the public during 1999 were 0.12 millirem to the maximally exposed individual [a hypothetical resident of Springdale, Nevada, which is about 14 kilometers (19 miles) north of Beatty (see Figure 8-2)] and 0.38 person-rem to the population within 80 kilometers (50 miles) of Nevada Test Site airborne emission sources (DIRS 146592-Black and Townsend 1998, p. 7-1). The radiation dose estimates from repository construction, operation and monitoring, and closure (see Tables 8-10, 8-11, 8-12, and 8-13) would add to these estimates assuming the exposed individuals and population were the same (they are not). Conservatively adding the 1999 maximally exposed individual dose from the Nevada Test Site to the highest estimated average annual dose to the maximally exposed individual from repository operations (hypothetical individual located at the southern border of the land withdrawal area) (2.2 millirem) resulted in a cumulative dose of 2.3 millirem. DOE compared the estimated annual dose to the Preclosure Public Health and Environmental Standard found at 10 CFR 63.204, which is 15 millirem per year to a member of the public. The dose would be about 15 percent of this standard. This dose would also represent 0.68 percent of the annual 340-millirem natural background radiation dose to individuals in Amargosa Valley. Conservatively adding the 1999 Nevada Test Site and highest estimated annual repository population dose (42 person-rem) results in a cumulative dose of 42 person-rem. No latent cancer fatalities to the population would be expected from this cumulative exposure (see Section 8.2.7). Chapter 3 discusses potential radiological doses from past weapons testing at the Nevada Test Site. Residents who were present during the periods when such testing (in particular, atmospheric weapons testing from the 1950s to the early 1960s) occurred could have received as much as 5 rem to the thyroid gland from iodine-131 releases. Using a tissue weighting factor of 0.03 as specified in International Commission on Radiological Protection Publication 26 (DIRS 101075-ICRP 1977, all) this equates to an effective dose equivalent of about 150 millirem. Because of the length of time since atmospheric weapons testing ended, essentially all of this dose has already occurred. This dose would apply only to those residents who lived in the region of influence during the period of atmospheric weapons testing. DOE has not added this dose to the maximally exposed individual dose, but has included this information here so long-term residents in the region of influence can evaluate their potential for impacts from past nuclear weapons testing. (DOE has also included this information in the air quality portion of Table 8-60.) The only other activity identified in the 80-kilometer (50-mile)-radius region of influence that could affect radiological air quality is a low-level radioactive disposal site near Beatty, Nevada, which was officially closed on January 1, 1993. The physical work of a State-approved Stabilization and Closure Plan ended in July 1994. Custodianship of the site has been transferred to the State of Nevada. Monitoring is continuing at the site to ensure that any radioactive material releases to the air continue to be low (DIRS 102171-NSHD 1999, Section on the Bureau of Health Protection Services).8.2.3 Hydrology
8.2.3.1 Surface Water
Potential impacts to surface waters from the Proposed Action would be relatively minor and limited to the immediate vicinity of land disturbances associated with the action (see Chapter 4, Section 4.1.3.2, and the floodplain/wetlands assessment in Appendix L). Surface-water impacts of primary concern would include the following:8.2.3.2 Groundwater
8.2.3.2.1 Inventory Module 1 or 2 Impacts
Potential groundwater impacts would be related to the following:8.2.3.2.2 Cumulative Impacts from Inventory Module 1 or 2 and Other Federal, Non-Federal, and Private Actions
Potential impacts to groundwater, as described in Chapter 4, Section 4.1.3.3, and in Section 8.2.3.2.1, for the Proposed Action and Inventory Module 1 or 2 would be small and limited to the immediate vicinity of land disturbances associated with the action. The exceptions to this would be the potential impact from water demands on groundwater resources and potential impacts from contaminants in groundwater. With these exceptions, other Federal, non-Federal, or private action effects would have to occur in the same region of influence to be cumulative with those resulting from the Proposed Action or Inventory Module 1 or 2, and no currently identified actions meet this criterion. The remainder of this discussion addresses potential impacts to groundwater resources from water demand. Section 8.3 addresses long-term impacts of contaminants in groundwater. The discussion of impacts to groundwater resources in Chapter 4, Section 4.1.3.3, includes ongoing water demands from Area 25 of the Nevada Test Site. Area 25 is the proposed location of the primary repository surface facilities. It is also the location of wells J-12 and J-13, which would provide water for the Proposed Action and for ongoing Nevada Test Site activities in this area. The estimated water demand for these ongoing activities is 340,000 cubic meters (280 acre-feet) a year (DIRS 103226-DOE 1998, Table 11-2, p. 11-6). Water demand during emplacement and development activities of the operation and monitoring phase under Inventory Module 1 or 2 combined with the baseline demands from Nevada Test Site activities would exceed the lowest perennial yield estimate under the lower-temperature repository operating modes if certain features were enacted. The highest annual water demand attributed to the lower-temperature operating mode with maximum package spacing, in combination with ongoing Nevada Test Site water demands, would exceed the lowest estimate of perennial yield, but only marginally. The worst-case scenario for repository water demand (maximum spacing and surface aging under the lower-temperature operating mode) added to the Nevada Test Site demand would total about 240,000 cubic meters (600 acre-feet) per year compared to 720,000 cubic meters (580 acre-feet), the lowest estimate of perennial yield for the western two-thirds of Jackass Flats. Besides these exceptions, the combined water demands would be below the lowest estimate of perennial yield. None of the water demand estimates would approach the high estimate of perennial yield for the entire Jackass Flats hydrographic basin, which is 4.9 million cubic meters (4,000 acre-feet) (see Chapter 3, Table 3-11). Potential impacts to groundwater resources from this combined demand would be no different than those described in Chapter 4, Section 4.1.3.3. That is, some decline in the water level would be likely near the production wells, and water elevation decreases at the town of Amargosa Valley would probably be no more than 0.4 to 1.1 meter (1.2 to 3.6 feet) (see Section 4.1.3.3). The reduction in underflow from the Jackass Flats hydrographic area to the Amargosa Desert hydrographic area would be less than the quantity of water actually withdrawn from the upgradient area because there would probably be minor changes in groundwater flow patterns as the water level adjusted to the withdrawals. Groundwater flow models predict the reduction in underflow to the Amargosa Desert would be no higher than 160,000 to 180,000 cubic meters (130 to 150 acre-feet) per year (see Section 4.1.3.3). The Nevada Test Site EIS (DIRS 101811-DOE 1996, pp. 3-18, 3-19, and 3-34) indicates that the potential construction and operation of a Solar Enterprise Zone facility would represent the only action that would cause water withdrawals on the Test Site to exceed past levels. That EIS estimates that this demand would be greater than the highest estimates of the basin's perennial yield. Therefore, cumulative impacts from the Solar Enterprise Zone facility are likely. DOE is considering several locations for the Solar Enterprise Zone facility, one of which is Area 25. If DOE built this facility in Area 25, it would obtain water from the Jackass Flats hydrologic area, and possibly from other hydrologic areas. Cumulative demands on the Jackass Flats hydrographic area could have long-term impacts on water availability in the downgradient aquifers beneath the Amargosa Desert. The groundwaters in these areas are hydraulically linked, but the exact nature and extent of that link is still a matter of study and some speculation. However, the amount of water already being withdrawn in the Amargosa Desert [averaging about 17 million cubic meters (14,000 acre-feet) of water per year from 1995 through 1997 (see Chapter 3, Table 3-11)] is much greater than the quantities being considered for withdrawal from Jackass Flats. If water pumpage from Jackass Flats affected water levels in the Amargosa Desert, the impacts would be small in comparison to those caused by local pumping in that area. A report from the Nye County Nuclear Waste Repository Office (DIRS 103099-Buqo 1999, pp. 39 to 53) provides a perspective of potential cumulative impacts with that County as the center of interest. The Nye County report evaluates impacts to all water resources potentially available in the entire county, whereas this EIS focuses principally on impacts to the Jackass Flats groundwater basin (the source of water that DOE would use for the repository) and the groundwater system that could become contaminated thousands of years in the future. Nye County reports that the potential cumulative impacts would include additive contamination as radionuclides ultimately reached the groundwater, constraints on development of groundwater due to land withdrawal, and reduction of water available for Nye County development because of use by Federal agencies (DIRS 103099-Buqo 1999, pp. 49 to 51).8.2.4 Biological Resources
Impacts to biological resources from Inventory Module 1 or 2 would be similar to impacts that would occur as a result of the Proposed Action evaluated in Chapter 4, Section 4.1.4. Those impacts would occur primarily as a result of site clearing, placement of material in the excavated rock pile, habitat loss, and the loss of individuals of some animal species during site clearing and from vehicle traffic. Inventory Module 1 or 2 would require disturbing biological resources in a larger area under each thermal load scenario than would be disturbed under the Proposed Action, primarily because the excavated rock pile would be larger (Table 8-15). Repository construction and the excavated rock pile to support Inventory Module 1 or 2 would disturb up to 5.5 square kilometers of previously undisturbed land. Disturbances would occur in areas dominated by Mojave mixed scrub and salt desert scrub land cover types. These cover types are widespread in the withdrawal area and in Nevada. This disturbed area is larger than that for the Proposed Action and would affect vegetation on approximately 1 percent of the previously undisturbed land within the land withdrawal area. Releases of radioactive materials would not adversely affect biological resources. Routine releases would consist of noble gases, primarily krypton-85 and radon-222. These gases would not accumulate in the environment around Yucca Mountain and would result in low doses to plants or animals. Overall impacts to biological resources from Inventory Module 1 or 2 would be very small. Species at the repository site are generally widespread throughout the Mojave or Great Basin Deserts and repository activities would affect a very small percentage of the available habitat in the region. Changes in the regional population of any species would be undetectable and no species would be threatened with extinction. The removal of vegetation from the small area required for Module 1 or 2 or the local loss of small numbers of individuals of some species due to site clearing and vehicle traffic would not affect regional biodiversity and ecosystem function. The loss of desert tortoise habitat and small numbers of tortoises under Module 1 or 2 would have no impact on recovery efforts for this threatened species. Activities associated with other Federal, non-Federal, and private actions in the region should not add measurable impacts to the overall impact on biological resources. However, as stated in the Nevada Test Site EIS (DIRS 101811-DOE 1996, p. 6-16), cumulative impacts to the desert tortoises would occur throughout the region, although the intensity of the impacts would vary from location to location. The largest impact to the habitat probably would occur in the Las Vegas Valley region. The Clark County Desert Conservation Plan authorizes the taking of all tortoises on 445 square kilometers (110,000 acres) of non-Federal land in the County, and on 12 square kilometers (3,000 acres) disturbed by Nevada Department of Transportation activities in Clark and adjacent counties. The plan also authorizes several recovery units designed to optimize the survival and recovery of this threatened species. Potential land disturbance activities at the Nevada Test Site under the expanded use alternative represent a small amount of available desert tortoise habitat and will not add measurably to the loss of this species (DIRS 101811-DOE 1996, p. 6-16). As discussed in Chapter 4, Section 4.1.4, repository construction activities would involve the loss of an amount of desert tortoise habitat that would be small in comparison to its range. Yucca Mountain is at the northern end of the range of this species. DOE anticipates that small numbers of tortoises would be killed inadvertently by vehicle traffic during the repository construction, operation and monitoring, and closure phases.8.2.5 Cultural Resources
The only identified actions that could result in cumulative cultural resource impact in the Yucca Mountain site vicinity are Inventory Module 1 or 2. The emplacement of either module would require small additional disturbances to land in areas already surveyed during site characterization activities (see Table 8-4). Because repository construction, operation and monitoring, and closure would be Federal actions, DOE would identify and evaluate cultural resources, as required by Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, and would take appropriate measures to avoid or mitigate adverse impacts to such resources. As a consequence, archaeological information gathered from artifact retrieval during land disturbance would contribute additional cultural resources information to the regional data base for understanding past human occupation and use of the land. However, there would be a potential for illicit or incidental vandalism of archaeological or historic sites and artifacts as a result of increased activities in the repository area, which would be extended for Module 1 or 2 (see Table 8-3), and this could contribute to an overall loss of regional cultural resources information. The Native American view of resource management and preservation is holistic in its definition of cultural resources, incorporating all elements of the natural and physical environment in an interrelated context (DIRS 102043-AIWS 1998, all). The Native American perspective on cultural resources is further discussed in Chapter 3, Section 3.1.6. Potential impacts resulting from the Proposed Action described in Chapter 4, Section 4.1.5, would also apply to Inventory Module 1 or 2.8.2.6 Socioeconomics
8.2.6.1 Inventory Modules 1 and 2 Impacts
This section addresses potential socioeconomic impacts associated with Inventory Module 1 or 2 and concludes that impacts for Inventory Module 1 or 2 would be essential the same during construction phase as the Proposed Action, slightly greater during the development and emplacement phases than the Proposed Action, the same during the monitoring phase, and slightly greater than impacts for the Proposed Action during the closure phase. The impacts in all phases for Module 1 or 2 would be small, as are impacts estimated for the Proposed Action (see Chapter 4, Section 4.1.6). DOE analyzed both the higher-temperature operating mode and the lower-temperature operating mode. Table 8-16 summarizes the peak direct employment levels during all phases for the Proposed Action and for the Inventory Modules. Construction8.2.6.2 Cumulative Impacts from Inventory Module 1 or 2 and Other Federal, Non-Federal, and Private Actions
Reasonably foreseeable future actions at the Nevada Test Site could affect the socioeconomic region of influence (Nye, Clark, and Lincoln Counties). Sections 8.1.1 and 8.1.2 discuss other activities in the region that could have a socioeconomic impact. However, most of these activities have either already occurred or would occur prior to peak employment associated with the proposed repository. Because of the minimal amount of overlap that would occur in the activities, the affected communities would have more time to assimilate any new residents that might relocate to the region. Thus, no substantial impacts would be likely to occur from these activities.8.2.7 Occupational and Public Health and Safety
This section discusses the short-term health and safety impacts to workers and to members of the public (radiological only) associated with construction, operation and monitoring, and closure activities at the Yucca Mountain site for Inventory Module 1 or 2 (Sections 8.2.7.1 through 8.2.7.3 [8.2.7.1, 8.2.7.2, 8.2.7.3]). Section 8.2.7.4 provides a summary of these impacts. Appendix F contains the approach and methods used to estimate the health and safety impacts and additional detailed results for Module 1 or 2 health and safety impacts to workers. With one exception, no other Federal, non-Federal, or private actions were identified with spatially or temporally coincident short-term impacts in the region of influence that would result in cumulative health and safety impacts with those of the proposed Yucca Mountain Repository. Chapter 3 discusses the potential radiological doses from past weapons testing at the Nevada Test Site. While all of the current population was not present at the time of the testing, residents who were present during the time periods when weapons testing (in particular, atmospheric weapons testing from the 1950s to the early 1960s) occurred could have received as much as 5 rem to the thyroid gland from iodine-131 releases. Using a tissue-weighting factor of 0.03 as specified in International Commission on Radiological Protection Publication 26 (DIRS 101075-ICRP 1977, all), this would equate to an effective dose equivalent of about 150 millirem. Because of the length of time since atmospheric weapons testing ceased, essentially all of this dose has already occurred. This dose would apply only to those residents who lived in the region of influence during the time period of atmospheric weapons testing. DOE has not added this dose to the maximally exposed individual dose, but DOE has included this information so that long-term residents in the region of influence can evaluate their potential for impacts from past nuclear weapons testing. (The dose is included in the risk estimates in Table 8-60 for the summary of public health and safety.) With the increased number of persons living and working in the region, the number of injuries and fatalities from nonrepository-related activities would increase. However, injury and mortality incidence should remain unchanged or decrease, assuming the continued enforcement of occupational and public health and safety regulations. Regarding the health and safety impact analysis for Inventory Module 1 or 2, the radiological characteristics of the spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste would be the same as those for the Proposed Action; there just would be more material to emplace. As described in Appendix A, the radioactive inventory (and radiological properties) of the Greater-Than-Class-C waste and Special-Performance-Assessment-Required waste is much less than that for spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. Therefore, the subsurface emplacement of the material in Inventory Module 2 would not greatly increase radiological impacts to workers over those estimated for Module 1. For the surface facility evaluation, the number of workers would be the same for Inventory Module 1 or 2 (DIRS 104508-CRWMS M&O 1999, Section 3.3, third paragraph). Therefore, DOE did not perform separate impact analyses for Modules 1 and 2. The primary changes in the parameters that would affect the magnitude of the worker health and safety impacts between the Proposed Action and Inventory Module 1 or 2 would be the periods required to perform the work and the numbers of workers for the different phases. Appendix F, Table F-43 p. 2 contains a detailed breakdown of the estimates for the involved and noninvolved workforce for the repository phases for Inventory Module 1 or 2 in terms of full-time equivalent worker-years. For the public, the principal changes in parameters that would affect the magnitude of the health impact estimates would be the length of the various phases and the rate at which air would be exhausted from the repository. The exhaust rate of the subsurface ventilation system would affect both the radon-222 concentrations to which subsurface workers would be exposed and the quantity of radon-222 released to the environment. Appendix G, Section G.2.3.1, discusses radon-222 concentrations in the subsurface environment and release rates to the environment from the various project phases.8.2.7.1 Construction
This section presents estimates of health and safety impacts to repository workers and members of the public for the construction phase. The values are similar to those for the Proposed Action because the length of the construction phase would be the same and activities would be similar. Industrial Hazards8.2.7.2 Operations
This section presents estimates of health and safety impacts to workers and members of the public during the operations period. The primary differences between Inventory Module 1 or 2 and the Proposed Action would be the longer durations for development and emplacement activities. Under Module 1 or 2, it would take DOE 14 more years to complete drift development (36 years total) than for the Proposed Action and 14 more years to complete emplacement (38 years total) than for the Proposed Action. Industrial Hazards8.2.7.3 Monitoring
This section contains estimates of the health and safety impacts to workers and members of the public for the monitoring period. The length of this period would depend on the operating mode; however, the monitoring phase for Inventory Module 1 or 2 would generally be shorter than the corresponding monitoring phase for the Proposed Action as shown in Table 8-3. Industrial Hazards8.2.7.4 Closure
This section contains estimates of health and safety impacts to workers and members of the public for the closure phase. Industrial Hazards8.2.7.5 Summary
This section contains three summary tables:8.2.8 Accidents
Disposal in the proposed repository of the additional spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste along with the Greater-Than-Class-C waste and Special-Performance-Assessment-Required waste in Inventory Module 1 or 2 would result in a very small increase in the estimated risk from accidents described in Chapter 4, Section 4.1.8, for the Proposed Action. The potential hazards and postulated accident scenarios identified and evaluated in Chapter 4, Section 4.1.8, would be the same as those for Module 1 or 2 because there would be no change to the basic repository design or operation. The time required for receipt, packaging, and emplacement of the additional waste would extend from 24 to 38 years, but the probability of an accident scenario (likelihood per year) would be essentially unaffected. The accident scenario consequences evaluated for the Proposed Action would bound those that could occur for Inventory Module 1 or 2 because the spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste, except the Greater-Than-Class-C waste and the Special-Performance-Assessment-Required waste, would be the same. DOE has not determined the final disposition method for Greater-Than-Class-C and Special-Performance-Assessment-Required waste but, based on the characteristics and expected packaging of these wastes (type and quantity of radionuclides; see Appendix A), the accident scenario consequences calculated in Chapter 4, Section 4.1.8 for spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste would be bounding. Therefore, substantial cumulative accident impacts would be unlikely for Inventory Module 1 or 2. The analysis of potential external events in Appendix H considered the potential effects on the Yucca Mountain Repository if there was a decision in the future to resume nuclear weapons testing or from a possible vehicle launch or recovery accident at the proposed VentureStar®/Kistler project. An earlier environmental assessment (DIRS 100136-DOE 1986, all) states that DOE could temporarily suspend underground repository activities during a nuclear weapons test to ensure worker safety. The Department has not decided that such a suspension of work activities at the repository would be necessary at the present time; however, as it finalized the design of the proposed repository, the Department could find it necessary to enact worker safety requirements at the repository site if there was a resumption of nuclear weapons testing. As discussed in Section 8.1.2.2, the Kistler aerospace activity is currently on hold. In addition, the analysis identified no other Federal, non-Federal, or private action that could affect either the occurrence probability or consequences of the accident scenarios evaluated for the Proposed Action or Inventory Modules.8.2.9 Noise
The emplacement of Inventory Module 1 or 2 would have noise levels associated with the construction and operation of the repository similar to those for the Proposed Action. An increase in potential noise impacts from Module 1 or 2 would result only from the increased number of shipments to the site. The expected rate of receipt would be about the same as that for the Proposed Action; therefore, the impact would be an extended period (approximately 14 years) that shipping would continue beyond the Proposed Action. DOE does not expect other Federal, non-Federal, or private actions in the region to add measurable noise impacts to those of the Proposed Action or Inventory Module 1 or 2 because the other activities are some distance from the proposed repository, and it is unlikely that overall increased noise would result.8.2.10 Aesthetics
There would be no impacts for Inventory Module 1 or 2 beyond those described in Chapter 4, Section 4.1.10, because the profile of the repository facility would not be different as a result of implementation of Modules 1 or 2. One action that could add to cumulative aesthetics impacts of the region would be the construction and operation of a proposed wind farm (DIRS 154545-DOE 2001, all) on the Nevada Test Site. The locations being considered for the proposed wind farm are located within the areas of Pahute Mesa and the Shoshone Mountains. The areas under consideration are higher in elevation than the surrounding environs. With the addition of the wind turbine to maximum heights of approximately 430 feet above-ground surface these wind turbines may be visible from the west (especially from mountain ranges west of the Nevada Test Site).8.2.11 Utilities, Energy, Materials, and Site Services
This section discusses potential impacts to utilities, energy, materials, and site services from the construction, operation and monitoring, and closure of the repository for Inventory Module 1 or 2. The scope of the analysis includes electricity use, fossil-fuel and oil and lubricant consumption, and consumption of construction materials. Chapter 4, Section 4.1.11, evaluates special services such as emergency medical support, fire protection, and security and law enforcement, which would not change for Inventory Module 1 or 2. The material in this section parallels Section 4.1.11, which addresses impacts from the Proposed Action. DOE has considered the other actions described in Section 8.1 to evaluate the potential for cumulative impacts on utilities, energy, materials, and site services. Most of the actions have limited information on their potential cumulative impacts, or the available information indicates that there could be no cumulative impacts. However, one action that would potentially have a cumulative impact is the Alternative Energy Generation Facility (Wind Farm) on the Nevada Test Site, which would increase electrical generating capacity for the region by approximately 600 megawatts, which represents less than 15 percent of the peak power (4,300 megawatts) distributed by Nevada Power in 2000, as described in Chapter 3, Section 3.1.11.2. To determine the potential impacts of Inventory Module 1 or 2, DOE evaluated the projected uses of electricity, fuel, oils and lubricants and construction materials for each repository phase and compared them to those for the Proposed Action. The following paragraphs describe these evaluations. Construction8.2.12 Management of Repository-Generated Waste and Hazardous Materials
8.2.12.1 Inventory Module 1 or 2 Impacts
Activities for the emplacement of Inventory Module 1 or 2 would generate waste totals beyond the quantities estimated for the Proposed Action (see Chapter 4, Section 4.1.12). The generated waste types and the treatment and disposal of each waste type would be the same as those described for the Proposed Action. The quantities of generated waste are primarily affected by the increase in the amount of spent nuclear fuel and waste emplaced and the subsequent longer operations and monitoring and closure phases. (Table 8-3 lists the difference in time sequences.) Table 4-40 presents the waste types and quantities generated from activities during the construction phase. This table applies to both the Proposed Action and the Inventory Modules because the timeframe and actions are the same during this phase. Table 8-40 lists the waste quantities generated for Inventory Modules 1 and 2 for the operation and monitoring phase. Table 8-41 lists the waste quantities generated for Inventory Modules 1 and 2 for the closure phase. Sanitary and industrial solid waste, sanitary sewage, and industrial wastewater would be disposed of in facilities at the repository site. These facilities would be designed to accommodate the additional waste from Inventory Module 1 or 2. However, DOE could use existing Nevada Test Site landfills to dispose of nonrecyclable construction and demolition debris and sanitary and industrial solid waste. If Nevada Test Site landfills were used, about 360,000 cubic meters (13 million cubic feet) for the higher-temperature operating mode and 640,000 cubic meters (23 million cubic feet) under the lower-temperature operating mode would be disposed of from construction through closure. Disposal of the Proposed Action waste quantities would require the Nevada Test Site landfills to operate past their projected operating lives and to expand as needed (Chapter 4, Section 4.1.12.2). Disposal of the larger waste quantities under Inventory Module 1 or 2 would require the availability of additional disposal capacity in future landfill expansions. Impacts from the treatment and disposal of hazardous waste off the site would be the same for the Proposed Action and Inventory Module 1 or 2. At present, commercial facilities are available for hazardous waste treatment and disposal, and DOE expects similar facilities to be available until the closure of the repository. The National Capacity Assessment Report (DIRS 103245-EPA 1996, pp. 32, 33, 36, 46, 47, and 50) indicates that the estimated 20-year (1993 to 2013) available capacity for incineration of solids and liquids at permitted treatment facilities in the western states is about 7 times more than the demand for these services. Moreover, the report indicates that the estimated landfill capacity for hazardous waste disposal is about 50 times the demand. Given the current outlook for the capacity versus demand for hazardous waste treatment and disposal, the treatment and disposal of repository-generated hazardous waste would not present a large cumulative impact. The Nevada Test Site has an estimated total disposal capacity of 3.7 million cubic meters (130 million cubic feet). The DOE analysis of demand for low-level radioactive waste disposal at the Nevada Test Site through 2070 projects a need for about 1.1 million cubic meters (39 million cubic feet or 30 percent) of the total disposal capacity (DIRS 155856-DOE 2000, Table 4-1). The reserve capacity at the Nevada Test Site is about 2.6 million cubic meters (92 million cubic feet). The disposal of repository-generated waste would require about 5 percent of the reserve capacity for the higher-temperature operating mode and about 5 percent to 9 percent for the lower-temperature operating mode. Even under the Final Waste Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement's (DIRS 101816-DOE 1997, pp. 7-23 and I-39) regional disposal concept, the disposal of repository-generated low-level radioactive waste under the Proposed Action and Inventory Module 1 or 2, cumulatively with other DOE waste generators, would use less than 20 percent of the Nevada Test Site's reserve disposal capacity. The emplacement of Inventory Module 1 or 2 would require the same types and annual quantities of hazardous materials as the Proposed Action, as described in Chapter 4, Section 4.1.12.3. These materials would be used for the additional years associated with the emplacement of the module inventory. As with the Proposed Action, no cumulative impact would be likely from the procurement and use of hazardous materials at the repository.8.2.12.2 Cumulative Impacts from Inventory Module 1 or 2 and Other Federal, Non-Federal, and Private Actions
Waste operations at the Nevada Test Site (disposing of Nevada Test Site-generated waste and accepting waste from other sites in accordance with decisions from the Waste Management Programmatic EIS) could present a cumulative impact. Section 8.2.12.1 discusses the impact on Test Site facilities from disposal of repository waste and waste that is already projected to be disposed of at the Test Site. If Nevada Test Site landfills are used to dispose of nonrecyclable construction and demolition debris and sanitary and industrial waste, the landfills would be required to operate past their projected operating lives and to expand as needed (the degree of expansion would depend on how much waste was disposed of at the repository facilities). Low-level waste capacity at the Nevada Test Site is sufficient to accommodate the repository-generated waste and the projected volume of 1.1 million cubic meters of waste from the Test Site, although the facility might have to use some of its reserve capacity to meet the combined need.8.2.13 Environmental Justice
As discussed in Chapter 4, Section 4.1.13, the environmental justice analysis brings together the results of all resource and feature analyses to determine (1) if an activity would have substantial environmental impacts and (2) if those substantial impacts would have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations. DOE determined that cumulative impacts from Inventory Module 1 or 2 along with those expected from other Federal, non-Federal, and private actions would not produce cumulative adverse impacts to any surrounding populations, which would include minority and low-income populations. Evaluation of subsistence lifestyles and cultural values has confirmed that these factors would not change the conclusion that the absence of high and adverse impacts for the general population means there would be no disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minority or low-income communities. No substantial impacts were identified; therefore, cumulative impacts from Inventory Module 1 or 2 and other Federal, non-Federal, and private actions would not cause environmental justice concerns. DOE recognizes that Native American people living in areas near Yucca Mountain have concerns about the protection of traditions and the spiritual integrity of the land that extend to the propriety of the Proposed Action, and that the implementation of the Proposed Action would continue restrictions on access to the site. Chapter 4, Section 4.1.3.4, discusses these views and beliefs.8.3 Cumulative Long-Term Impacts in the Proposed Yucca Mountain Repository Vicinity
This section describes results from the long-term cumulative impact analysis that DOE conducted for Inventory Modules 1 and 2 (Section 8.3.1) and for past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions at the Nevada Test Site, and past actions at the Beatty low-level radioactive waste site (Section 8.3.2).8.3.1 Inventory Module 1 or 2 Impacts
The analysis of long-term performance for Inventory Modules 1 and 2 used the same methodology described in Chapter 5 and Appendix I for the Proposed Action to estimate potential human health impacts from radioactive and chemically toxic material releases through waterborne and airborne pathways. Section 8.3.1.1 presents the radioactive and chemically toxic material source terms for Inventory Modules 1 and 2, and Sections 8.3.1.2 and 8.3.1.3 present the results of the analysis for Inventory Modules 1 and 2, respectively. In addition to long-term human health impacts from radioactive and chemically toxic material releases, the other potential long-term impact identified following repository closure involve biological resources. Though the surface area affected by heat rise would be larger for Inventory Module 1 or 2, the amount of heat per unit area would be constant for a given repository operating mode (lower- or higher-temperature), and, therefore, the small ground surface temperature increase would be the same. Thus, long-term biological effects of Module 1 or 2 from heat generated by waste packages that would potentially raise ground surface temperatures would be the same as those described in Chapter 5, Section 5.9 for the Proposed Action.8.3.1.1 Radioactive and Chemically Toxic Material Source Terms for Inventory Modules 1 and 2
For calculations of long-term performance impacts, the radioactive material inventory of individual waste packages for commercial spent nuclear fuel, high-level radioactive waste, and DOE spent nuclear fuel under Inventory Modules 1 and 2 would be identical to the radioactive material inventory under the Proposed Action for the same waste categories. Inventory Module 2 includes an additional waste category for Greater-Than-Class-C and Special-Performance-Assessment-Required wastes. This category includes a different category of waste package with its own radioactive material inventory. This waste was simulated with 601 idealized waste packages. The inventory used for each modeled waste package is an averaged radioactive material inventory of each waste category (commercial spent nuclear fuel, DOE spent nuclear fuel, high-level radioactive waste, and Greater-Than-Class-C and Special-Performance-Assessment-Required wastes). More waste packages would be used for Inventory Modules 1 and 2 than for the Proposed Action to accommodate the expanded inventories. Table 8-42 lists the number of waste packages used in the analysis of long-term performance calculations for the Proposed Action and Modules 1 and 2. [IDEALIZED WASTE PACKAGES] As listed in Table 8-42, Inventory Module 2 differs from Inventory Module 1 only by the addition of 601 Greater-than-Class-C and Special-Performance-Assessment-Required idealized waste packages. Table 8-43 lists the inventory of the Greater-than-Class-C and Special-Performance-Assessment-Required waste packages under Inventory Module 2. A screening analysis documented in Appendix I, Section I.6.1, showed that the only chemical materials of concern for the 10,000-year analysis period were those that would be released as the external waste package Alloy-22 layer and the waste package support pallet materials corroded. This is because most waste packages would be intact for more than 10,000 years after closure (the results of the analysis of long-term performance for radionuclides described in Appendix I, Section I.5, show that, at most, only three waste packages would be breached before 10,000 years, due to improper heat treatment, under the Proposed Action). Therefore, accounting for the quantities of materials in the engineered barrier system, but not in the waste packages, and accounting for toxicity to humans, the only chemical materials of concern would be chromium, nickel, molybdenum, and vanadium. The inventories of these chemical materials in the engineered barrier system for the Proposed Action and Inventory Modules 1 and 2 are listed in Table 8-44. These are essentially the only inventories available for mobilization and transport within 10,000 years after closure; the inventories of chemical materials in the waste packages would not begin to degrade until waste package failure. Further information on the inventory of chemical materials of concern is provided in Appendix I, Section I.3. The only radionuclide that would have a relatively large inventory and a potential for gas transport is carbon-14. Iodine-129 can exist in a gas phase, but it is highly soluble and, therefore, would be likely to dissolve in groundwater rather than migrate as a gas. Radon-222 is a gas, but would decay to a solid isotope before escaping from the repository region (see Appendix I, Section I.7.3). After the carbon-14 escaped from the waste package, it could flow through the fractured and porous rock in the form of carbon dioxide. About 2 percent of the carbon-14 in commercial spent nuclear fuel is in gas in the space (or gap) between the fuel and the cladding around the fuel (DIRS 103446-Oversby 1987, p. 92). There are 1.37 grams of carbon-14 in an abstracted commercial spent nuclear fuel waste package (see Appendix I, Table I-5). This represents 6.11 curies per waste package. Since 2 percent of the total is gaseous, the gaseous inventory consists of 0.122 curie of carbon-14 per commercial spent nuclear fuel waste package. There would be additional carbon-14 activity associated with Inventory Module 2, in relation to Module 1, resulting from neutron irradiation of the core shroud metal. The carbon-14 would be unlikely to be present as gaseous carbon dioxide that could be released to the environment and is therefore not included in Table 8-45.8.3.1.2 Impacts for Inventory Module 1
The human-health impacts from Inventory Module 1 for radioactive materials and chemically toxic materials are discussed in this section.8.3.1.2.1 Waterborne Radioactive Material Impacts
The DOE used the modeling methods described for the Proposed Action in Chapter 5 (and in greater detail in Appendix I) to calculate the impacts both for an individual and the local population resulting from groundwater releases of radioactive material for 10,000 years and 1 million years following repository closure for Inventory Module 1.8.3.1.2.1.1 Higher-Temperature Operating Mode.
Table 8-46 lists the estimated impacts for an individual for the higher-temperature operating mode under the Proposed Action and Inventory Module 1. The peak annual individual dose for the first 10,000 years shows slightly higher values for the mean and 95th percentile of the Proposed Action than for Module 1. Because Module 1 has a higher inventory, this would seem like an incorrect trend. However, note that in the first 10,000 years releases are dominated by at most about 3 waste package failures due to a manufacturing defect (improper heat treatment). Thus, the release is essentially insensitive to inventory and the differences in Table 8-46 between the Proposed Action and Module 1 are merely the result of slightly different statistical outcomes in the 300 simulations. Table 8-47 lists the impacts to the population during the first 10,000 years after repository closure for both the Proposed Action and Inventory Module 1 for the higher-temperature operating mode. These impacts were calculated on the same population basis used for the Proposed Action calculations presented in Chapter 5, that is a population size was based on the projected population numbers for 2035 in Figure 3-25 in Chapter 3. For these calculations, the analysis assumed that no contaminated groundwater would reach populations in any regions to the north of Yucca Mountain. Therefore, populations in the sectors north of the due east and due west sectors were not considered to be exposed.8.3.1.2.1.2 Lower-Temperature Operating Mode.
Impacts were not calculated for the lower-temperature operating mode under Inventory Module 1 or 2 because of the lack of differentiation between higher-temperature and lower-temperature operating modes under the Proposed Action (see Chapter 5). Comparison of the mean individual dose history at the RMEI location for the lower- and higher-temperature operating modes is shown in Figure 8-4. For the Proposed Action, the individual dose for the lower-temperature operating mode at a given location would be about the same as that for the higher-temperature operating mode, with the long-term peak slightly greater for the higher-temperature operating mode. Calculations for Inventory Module 1 produce a similar response. Given the similarity of impacts, and that the lower-temperature operating mode impacts are generally bounded by the higher-temperature operating mode impacts, it was deemed unnecessary to perform detailed simulations for the lower-temperature operating mode under Inventory Module 1. The results would be similar to, but less than, those for the higher-temperature operating mode under Inventory Module 1, as reported in Section 8.3.1.2.1.1.8.3.1.2.2 Waterborne Chemically Toxic Material Impacts
A number of nonradioactive materials that DOE would place in the repository are hazardous to human health at high concentrations in water. This section examines the consequences to individuals in the Amargosa Desert from releases of these nonradioactive materials under Inventory Module 1. The inventory of chemically toxic materials that would be emplaced in the repository under the Proposed Action is identified by element in Appendix I, Section I.3. Based on this inventory, a screening analysis (described in Appendix I, Section I.6.1) identified which of the chemically toxic materials might pose a risk to human health. Only chromium, molybdenum, nickel, and vanadium were identified as potentially posing such a risk, and these elements were further evaluated in a bounding consequence analysis, as described in Appendix I, Section I.6.2. The analysis was performed under the conservative assumption that all chromium dissolves in hexavalent form. The results of the bounding analysis are summarized for both the Proposed Action and Inventory Module 1 in Table 8-50. In some cases a Maximum Containment Level or Maximum Contaminant Level Goal was available for comparison to the calculated concentration. In other cases, only an Oral Reference Dose was available. The Oral Reference Dose can be compared to intake that would result for a 70-kilogram (154-pound) person drinking 2 liters (0.53 gallon) of water per day. More detail on these comparative measures can be found in Chapter 5, Section 5.6, and Appendix I, Section I.6.2.5. Because the bounding concentration of chromium, molybdenum, nickel, and vanadium in well water is calculated to be below the Maximum Contaminant Level Goal or yield intakes well below the Oral Reference Dose for Inventory Module 1, there is no further need to refine the calculation to account for physical processes that would limit mobilization of this material or delay or dilute it during transport in the geosphere.8.3.1.2.3 Atmospheric Radioactive Material Impacts
Using the analysis methods described in Chapter 5, Section 5.5, DOE estimated the impacts of carbon-14 releases to the atmosphere within 10,000 years past closure for Inventory Module 1. As explained in Appendix I, Section I.7.1, the maximum release rate to the ground surface for this period is the same for both Inventory Modules 1 and 2 as for the Proposed Action. Therefore, there would be no incremental atmospheric radioactive material impacts for Inventory Module 1 for the Proposed Action.8.3.1.3 Incremental Impacts for Inventory Module 2
DOE addressed the long-term consequences from Inventory Module 2 by analyzing the effects of disposing waste packages containing Greater-Than-Class-C and Special-Performance-Assessment-Required wastes in addition to the material in Inventory Module 1. Table 8-43 lists the average inventory of the additional waste packages containing Greater-Than-Class-C and Special-Performance-Assessment-Required wastes. The following sections discuss these impacts in terms of waterborne radioactive releases, chemically toxic materials waterborne release, and atmospheric radioactive material releases.8.3.1.3.1 Waterborne Radioactive Material Impacts
The addition of Greater-Than-Class-C and Special-Performance-Assessment-Required wastes is the only difference between Inventory Modules 1 and 2. Inventory Module 2 was modeled as an incremental inventory; specifying only the Greater-Than-Class-C and Special-Performance- Assessment-Required waste as the radionuclide inventory. The results of the incremental inventory simulations constitute the additional impacts of Inventory Module 2 over those of Module 1. In addition, they represent the dose attributable solely to the Greater-Than-Class-C and Special- Performance-Assessment-Required waste. Table 8-51 lists the incremental consequences for an individual from the Greater-Than-Class-C and Special-Performance-Assessment-Required wastes in Inventory Module 2 during 10,000 years and 1 million years following repository closure. Peak impacts from waterborne radioactive materials for Module 2 would be less than 1 percent higher for 1,000,000 years after repository closure. For the first 10,000 years following the repository closure, the Module 2 impact would remain very small (mean annual individual dose of 0.0007 millirem, compared to the Environmental Protection Agency standard of 15 millirem for this period as defined in 40 CFR Part 197).8.3.1.3.2 Waterborne Chemically Toxic Material Impacts
A number of nonradioactive materials that DOE would place in the repository are hazardous to human health at high concentrations in water. This section examines the consequences to individuals in the Amargosa Desert from releases of these nonradioactive materials under Inventory Module 2. The inventory of chemically toxic materials that would be emplaced in the repository under the Proposed Action is identified by element in Appendix I, Section I.3. Based on this inventory, a screening analysis (described in Appendix I, Section I.6.1.) identified which of the chemically toxic materials could pose a risk to human health. Only chromium, molybdenum, nickel, and vanadium were identified as posing such a risk, and these elements were further evaluated in a bounding consequence analysis, as described in Appendix I, Section I.6.2. The results of the bounding analysis are summarized for both the Proposed Action and Inventory Module 2 in Table 8-52. In some cases a Maximum Contaminant Level Goal was available for comparison to the calculated concentration. In other cases, only an Oral Reference Dose was available. The Oral Reference Dose can be compared to the intake that would result for a 70-kilogram (154-pound) person drinking 2 liters (0.53 gallon) of water per day. More detail on these comparative measures can be found in Chapter 5, Section 5.6, and Appendix I, Section I.6.2.5. Because the bounding concentration of chromium, molybdenum, nickel, and vanadium in well water is calculated to be below the Maximum Containment Level Goal or yield intakes well below the Oral Reference Dose for Inventory Module 2, there is no further need to refine the calculation to account for physical processes that would limit mobilization of this material or delay or dilute it during transport in the geosphere. The incremental (that is, the increase in) consequences for an individual from the Greater-Than-Class-C and Special-Performance-Assessment-Required wastes in Inventory Module 2 over Inventory Module 1 during 10,000 years and 1 million years following repository closure is 4 percent for all four waterborne chemical materials of concern (chromium, molybdenum, nickel, and vanadium).8.3.1.3.3 Atmospheric Radioactive Material Impacts
There would be no incremental impact for airborne carbon-14 releases for Inventory Module 2. None of the additional waste packages would contain a waste form in which carbon-14 would exist in gaseous form (that is, as carbon dioxide). As for the Proposed Action and Inventory Module 1, radon-222 would be released as a gas but would decay to a solid isotope before escaping from the repository region (see Appendix I, Section I.7.3).8.3.2 Cumulative Impacts from Other Federal, Non-Federal, and Private Actions
This section discusses potential cumulative impacts from other Federal, non-Federal, and private actions that could contribute to doses at the locations considered in the performance assessment of the Yucca Mountain Repository. The actions identified with the potential for long-term cumulative impacts are past, present, and reasonably future actions at the Nevada Test Site and past actions at the low-level radioactive waste disposal facility near Beatty, Nevada.8.3.2.1 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions at the Nevada Test Site
Historically, the primary mission of the Nevada Test Site was to conduct nuclear weapons tests. Nuclear weapons testing and other activities have resulted in radioactive contamination and have the potential for radioactive and nonradioactive contamination of some areas of the Nevada Test Site. These areas and the associated contamination and the potential for contamination were evaluated for potential cumulative impacts with postclosure impacts from the proposed Yucca Mountain Repository. This section discusses these Nevada Test Site activities, the locations where these activities occurred, and the potential for cumulative long-term impacts with the repository. Unless otherwise identified, DOE derived the information in this section from the Nevada Test Site Final EIS (DIRS 101811-DOE 1996, all). The Yucca Mountain site is in the southwestern portion of the Nevada Test Site along its western boundary, as shown in Figure 8-2. At the Nevada Test Site, seven categories of activities have resulted in radioactive contamination or have the potential to result in radioactive and nonradioactive contamination:8.3.2.1.1 Underground Nuclear Testing
The United States began a moratorium on the explosive testing of nuclear weapons in October 1992. As discussed in the Nevada Test Site EIS (DIRS 101811-DOE 1996), however, other weapons testing continues at the Test Site, including dynamic, hydrodynamic, and explosive tests. These tests are necessary for the continued assurance of the nuclear arsenal but do not result in nuclear explosions like those that were common during the Cold War. Environmental contamination is due largely to past weapons testing and not to the current limited activities at the Test Site. Although there are potential past and present impacts of the explosive testing of nuclear weapons, the long-lived radionuclides that such testing deposited far underground could pose future impacts, which this section evaluates. As of September 23, 1992, the estimated total radionuclide source term for all tests was about 130 million curies (DIRS 157116-Bowen et al. 2001, Table V, p. 21). Because these radionuclides are either in or close to the water table and therefore subject to dissolution and possible transport by groundwater, they are referred to as the hydrologic source term. This source term represents the remaining radioisotopes (as of September 23, 1992) that could be available to the groundwater regime. However, because of the existence of multiple, complex migration pathways and limited characterization data, there is considerable uncertainty concerning the actual hydrologic source term. In recent years, the drilling of new characterization wells and the retrofitting of existing boreholes and wells have provided valuable new data that are now being integrated into the overall database so new evaluations can be made. These studies and planned future studies will help reduce the current levels of uncertainty concerning the quantity of radionuclides available for groundwater transport as well as uncertainty concerning both the mechanisms and consequences of radionuclide transport by groundwater flow at the Nevada Test Site. Testing with subcritical assemblies since 1994 has added quantities of material that are very small compared to the historical testing. Thus, the Department has based its analysis on the much larger inventory from historical testing (DIRS 156758-Crowe 2001, all). There is recent evidence of plutonium migration from one underground test. Groundwater monitoring results indicate that plutonium has migrated about 1.3 kilometers (0.8 mile), possibly facilitated by the movement of very small and relatively mobile particles called colloids in the groundwater (DIRS 103282-Kersting et al. 1999, p. 59). No radioactive contamination attributable to underground tests has been detected in monitoring wells off the Nevada Test Site. DOE is conducting further monitoring and research to study these and other potential radionuclide migration phenomenon. The above information indicates that groundwater could transport radionuclides from underground nuclear tests at the Nevada Test Site. This transport could result in releases from underground testing at the sites analyzed for releases from the proposed repository. DOE did not make long-term performance assessment calculations for the underground testing inventory with the same rigor as the analyses for the repository, and there is much uncertainty related to the hydrogeologic system. 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, including the waste package design, and improve operational safety and efficiency. The result of the design evolution process was the development of the Science and Engineering Report flexible design (DIRS 153849-DOE 2001, all). In addition, DOE has continued technical development of the Total System Performance Assessment since the publication of the Draft EIS, including further site characterization, improvements to the engineered system design, system performance assessment calculations, and quality assurance and validation of results. These efforts have resulted in an updated performance assessment referred to as the Total System Performance Assessment-Site Recommendation (TSPA-Site Recommendation; DIRS 153246-CRWMS M&O 2000). The results of this analysis for long-term impacts from the Yucca Mountain Repository are reported in Chapter 5 of this Final EIS. The TSPA-Site Recommendation evaluated the long-term performance of the Science and Engineering Report flexible design and included the best available information related to contaminant fate and transport. The results for the groundwater impacts from the repository in this analysis are substantially lower than reported in the Draft EIS. However, an update of this simplified scaling analysis used to estimate the potential cumulative impact from underground testing at the Nevada Test Site was not performed for the Final EIS because the principal factors affecting contaminant fate and transport remained essentially unchanged between the TSPA-Viability Assessment and the TSPA-Site Recommendation. DOE considers the estimates of Nevada Test Site groundwater impacts developed using the simplified model conservative and applicable for environmental evaluation. Further, any minor enhancements to these factors incorporated into the TSPA-Site Recommendation would have yielded results for an updated cumulative analysis well within the uncertainty reported for the analysis based on the TSPA-Viability Assessment. Therefore, DOE developed a simplified analysis that uses the TSPA-Viability Assessment (DIRS 101779-DOE 1998, all) repository infiltration and groundwater fate and transport models to scale groundwater impacts that could result from the underground test inventory. The analysis made the following assumptions for this calculation:8.3.2.1.2 Greater Confinement Disposal
Waste disposed of at the Nevada Test Site under Greater Confinement Disposal constitutes a radiological source term that is less than 10 percent of the repository radionuclide source term immediately available for groundwater transport when the first waste packages at the Yucca Mountain Repository are assumed to have initially degraded (that is, 2 percent of the total repository radionuclide source term). The waste disposed of by Greater Confinement Disposal was placed in boreholes that are approximately 37 meters (120 feet) deep; the waste itself is no closer than approximately 21 meters (70 feet) to the surface. DOE has reviewed analyses related to the Nevada Test Site and has concluded that there is no credible pathway for long-term releases of materials by resuspension of nonvolatile radionuclides because the material is sufficiently far below the surface. In addition, evapotranspiration exceeds precipitation in this region, which, coupled with the fact that the boreholes are sufficiently above the water table (more than 125 meters), indicates that there is no credible release scenario for Greater Confinement Disposal material to enter the groundwater. Therefore, DOE expects no cumulative impacts from Greater Confinement Disposal activities.8.3.2.1.3 Future Nevada Test Site Low-Level Waste Disposal
The Nevada Test Site is a disposal site for low-level radioactive waste generated by DOE-approved generators. Managed radioactive waste disposal operations began in the early 1960s, and DOE has disposed of low-level, transuranic, mixed, and classified low-level wastes in selected pits, trenches, landfills, and boreholes on the Nevada Test Site. Environmental impacts from the disposal of low-level waste at the Nevada Test Site are discussed in the Nevada Test Site Final EIS (DIRS 101811-DOE 1996, pp. 2-15 to 2-17). The current source term of low-level and mixed wastes in shallow land disposal on the Nevada Test Site does not constitute a substantial inventory in relation to the radionuclide source term immediately available for groundwater transport from the repository when the first waste packages initially degrade (that is, 2 percent of the total repository radionuclide source term). However, shallow burial of low-level radioactive waste continues to be an important waste disposal activity at the Nevada Test Site. Therefore, this section evaluates reasonably foreseeable future activities in this category as a potential cumulative impact. Waste disposal activities on the Nevada Test Site occur at two specific locations. They are the Area 3 and Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Sites. The Area 3 Radioactive Waste Management Site is on Yucca Flat and covers an area of approximately 0.2 square kilometer (50 acres). DOE uses conventional landfill techniques to dispose of contaminated debris from the Nevada Test Site Atmospheric Testing Debris Disposal Program and packaged bulk low-level waste from other DOE sites in subsidence craters from underground nuclear tests. The estimated total remaining capacity for low-level waste in the Area 3 site is 1.8 million cubic meters (64 million cubic feet) (DIRS 103224-DOE 1998, Section A.5.2) . DOE has used the Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Site since 1961 to dispose of low-level waste and classified low-level waste from Nevada Test Site operations. In 1978, the Test Site began accepting low-level waste generated by other DOE sites. The total area of the Area 5 site is 3 square kilometers (740 acres). The developed portion occupies 0.37 square kilometer (92 acres) in the southeast corner and contains 17 landfill cells (pits and trenches), 13 Greater Confinement Disposal boreholes, and a transuranic waste storage pad. DOE is seeking a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act permit for Pit 3 as a mixed-waste disposal unit. In the future, if the mixed-waste volume warranted it, the Department might consider obtaining a new unit and, hence, a new permitted facility. However, current projected waste volumes do not indicate the need for an additional mixed-waste disposal unit at this time. The estimated total remaining capacity for low-level waste in the Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Site is 1.2 million cubic meters (42 million cubic feet) (DIRS 103224-DOE 1998, Section A.5.3). As discussed in Section 8.2.12.1, DOE projects a need for 1.1 million cubic meters of capacity for low-level waste disposal at the Nevada Test Site through 2070 (DIRS 155856-DOE 2000, Table 4-1). The Final Waste Management Programmatic EIS (DIRS 101816-DOE 1997, Summary) reported volumes of radioactive waste DOE may dispose of at the Nevada Test Site for "current plus 20 years" of waste disposal. The current inventory plus 20 years of additional disposal inventory would total 3,000 cubic meters (106,000 cubic feet) of low-level mixed waste, 1,700 cubic meters (60,000 cubic feet) of low-level waste, and 610 cubic meters (21,500 cubic feet) of transuranic waste (DIRS 101816-DOE 1997, Summary, p. 102). The Nevada Test Site Final EIS (DIRS 101811-DOE 1996, Table 4-1, p. 4-6) estimates the total current inventory already in shallow disposal at the Nevada Test Site to be 500,000 curies at the time of disposal (uncorrected for decay to the present time). According to the Final Waste Management Programmatic EIS, the only expected groundwater impacts from low-level mixed, low-level radioactive, and transuranic waste disposal at the Nevada Test Site in excess of regulatory limits are for the hazardous chemicals 1,2-dichloroethane, methylene chloride, and benzene, and those only under Regionalized Alternative 3 and the Preferred Alternative in that EIS (DIRS 101816-DOE 1997, p. 11-61). None of these hazardous chemicals would be in the Yucca Mountain Repository inventory, so there would be no potential cumulative impacts from those chemicals from the Proposed Action or Inventory Module 1 or 2. DOE has estimated potential long-term impacts from radioactive material disposed of at the Nevada Test Site. DOE based its calculations of long-term atmospheric releases for the Nevada Test Site on estimates of the inventory at the Test Site that could be accessible by residents around the area. For this calculation, the Department considered three potential sources of radionuclide releases:8.3.2.2 Past Actions and Present Actions at the Beatty Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal and Hazardous Waste Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities
A low-level radioactive waste disposal facility, formerly operated by U.S. Ecology, a subsidiary of American Ecology, is 16 kilometers (10 miles) southeast of Beatty, Nevada, and 180 kilometers (110 miles) northwest of Las Vegas. This site is about 15 kilometers (9.3 miles) west of the proposed Yucca Mountain Repository (see Figure 8-2). The disposal facility, which opened in 1962, covers roughly 0.14 square kilometer (35 acres) of unlined trenches. Acceptance of low-level radioactive waste ended December 31, 1992 (DIRS 101815-DOE 1997, Chapter 4, Table 4-17). The Nevada State Health Division formally accepted permanent custody of the low-level radioactive commercial waste disposal in a letter to American Ecology dated December 30, 1997 (DIRS 148088-AEC 1998, all). An adjacent U.S. Ecology facility remains open for hazardous waste disposal. From 1962 through 1992, the inventory shipped to the Beatty low-level radioactive waste facility totaled 137,000 cubic meters (4.8 million cubic feet) in volume (DIRS 101815-DOE 1997, Chapter 4, Table 4-17) with radioactivity of about 640,000 curies (DIRS 101815-DOE 1997, Chapter 4, Table 4-18). The radioactivity in this sum was measured by year of shipment (that is, it is not corrected for decay since that time). The Manifest Information Management System (DIRS 148160-MIMS 1992, all) calculated the total radionuclide inventory the Beatty facility received from 1986 through 1992, which represents 29 percent of the total undecayed inventory at that facility. Even if multiplied by a factor of 3 to 4 to compensate for the period (1962 to 1985) for which the Manifest Information Management System did not provide information, the source term represents a small percentage of the radionuclide source term immediately available for groundwater transport from the repository when the first waste packages initially degrade (that is, 2 percent of the total repository radionuclide source term). Therefore, cumulative long-term impacts from the Beatty Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility with the repository would be very small. The U.S. Ecology Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facility is a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act-permitted facility, with engineered barriers and systems and administrative controls that minimize the potential for offsite migration of hazardous constituents.8.4 Cumulative Transportation Impacts
This section discusses the results of the cumulative impact analysis of transportation. Paralleling the transportation analyses of the Proposed Action in Chapter 6, potential national transportation cumulative impacts from Inventory Module 1 or 2, and past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, are presented in Section 8.4.1. Potential cumulative impacts with construction and operation of the Nevada transportation implementing rail and heavy-haul truck alternatives are included in Section 8.4.2. The shipment of Inventory Module 1 or 2 to the repository would use the same transportation routes, but would take more shipments and an additional 14 years compared to the Proposed Action. Table 8-2 lists the estimated number of shipments for Modules 1 and 2. Impacts from Module 1 or 2 would be similar because the shipping rate would be the same for spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste and only about 3 percent more shipments would be made over the 38-year period under Module 2 to transport Greater-Than-Class-C and Special-Performance-Assessment-Required wastes. Because the difference in impacts between Inventory Modules 1 and 2 would be small, the following discussions present the impacts from both modules as being the same.8.4.1 National Transportation
This section describes cumulative impacts from national transportation. Section 8.4.1.1 presents potential cumulative impacts from shipping Inventory Module 1 or 2 from commercial nuclear generating sites and DOE facilities to the proposed Yucca Mountain Repository (Section 8.4.1.1). Section 8.4.1.2 presents potential cumulative national transportation impacts for the Proposed Action and Module 1 or 2 when combined with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future shipments of radioactive material.8.4.1.1 Inventory Module 1 or 2 Impacts
This section describes the potential cumulative impacts of loading operations at generating sites and incident-free radiological impacts, vehicle emission impacts, and accident impacts associated with transportation activities for Inventory Module 1 or 2. Cumulative impact results are provided for the mostly legal-weight truck and mostly rail scenarios which are described in Chapter 6. The section also describes potential cumulative impacts from transportation of other materials, personnel, and repository-generated waste for Modules 1 or 2. Appendix J contains additional detailed analysis results. Loading operations would be extended for an additional 14 years to load the greater quantities of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste under Inventory Module 1 or 2. The impacts of routine loading operations described for the Proposed Action in Chapter 6, Section 6.2.2, would increase for Module 1 or 2 due to the additional inventory. Therefore, the increase in dose to the public would be about 42 person-rem based on 0.001 person-rem per metric ton of heavy metal and 42,000 additional MTHM (46,000 tons) (DIRS 104731-DOE 1986, Volume 2, p. E.6) for Modules 1 and 2. This dose could result in an additional 0.02 cancer fatality in the exposed population. Table 8-54 lists estimated radiological and industrial hazard impacts to involved workers for the routine loading operations under Module 1 or 2. The Proposed Action impacts are listed for comparison. Because noninvolved workers would not have tasks that involved radioactive exposure, there would be no or very small radiological impacts to noninvolved workers. For the reasons identified in Chapter 6, Section 6.2.2.2, industrial hazard impacts to noninvolved workers would be about 25 percent of the impacts to the individual worker shown in Table 8-54. The impacts of loading accident scenarios under Inventory Module 1 or 2 would be the same as those described for the Proposed Action in Chapter 6, Section 6.2.4.1. The same type of single accident event and its impacts are applicable to shipments under the Proposed Action or Module 1 or 2. As summarized in Chapter 6, Section 6.2.4.1, the analysis results indicate that there would be no or very small potential radiological consequences from loading accident scenarios involving spent nuclear fuel or high-level radioactive waste. These consequences would bound the consequences from similar accidents involving Greater-Than-Class-C or Special-Performance-Assessment-Required waste because of the lower available radionuclide inventory (see Appendix A). Table 8-55 lists radiological impacts to involved workers and the public and vehicle emission impacts from incident-free transportation for the mostly legal-weight truck and mostly rail scenarios. The analysis of impacts for the mostly legal-weight truck scenario assumed that shipments would use commercial motor carriers for highway transportation and general freight commercial services for rail transportation for the naval spent fuel shipments that cannot be transported by legal-weight trucks. The mostly rail analysis accounts for legal-weight truck shipments that would occur for the commercial nuclear generator sites that do not currently have the capacity to handle or load rail casks. In addition, for the mostly rail analysis, DOE assumed that it would use either a branch rail line or heavy-haul trucks in conjunction with an intermodal transfer station in Nevada to transport the large rail casks to and from the repository. The range provided in the table for the mostly rail scenario addresses the different possible rail and heavy-haul truck implementing alternatives described in Chapter 6. The lower end of the range reflects use of a branch rail line in Nevada and the upper end of the range reflects use of heavy-haul trucks in Nevada. The involved worker impacts in Table 8-55 include estimated radiological exposures of truck and rail transportation crews and security escorts for legal-weight truck and rail shipments; the public doses account for the public along the route, the public sharing the route, and the public during stops. The Inventory Module 1 or 2 impacts would exceed those of the Proposed Action due to the additional number of shipments. DOE does not expect radiological impacts for maximally exposed individuals to change from the Proposed Action due to the conservative assumptions used in the analysis of the Proposed Action (see Chapter 6, Section 6.2.3). The assumptions for estimating radiological dose include the use of the maximum allowed dose rate and conservative estimates of exposure distance and time. For example, the U.S. Department of Transportation maximum allowable dose rate of 10 millirem per hour at a distance of 2 meters (6.6 feet) [40 CFR 173.44(b)] was used for estimating exposure to individuals. In addition, the conservative assumptions for exposure distance and time for workers (that is, crew members, inspectors, railyard crew member) and the public (that is, resident along route, person in a traffic jam, person at a service station, resident near a rail stop) for the Proposed Action are unlikely to be exceeded for Inventory Module 1 or 2 (see Chapter 6, Section 6.2.3). Table 8-56 lists the radiological accident risk and traffic fatalities for transportation by mostly legal-weight truck and mostly rail for Inventory Module 1 or 2. The radiological accident risk measures the total impact of transportation accidents over the entire shipping campaign (24 years for the Proposed Action and 38 years for Module 1 or 2). The consequences from a maximum reasonably foreseeable accident scenario would be identical to those discussed for the Proposed Action (see Chapter 6, Sections 6.2.4.2.1 and 6.2.4.2.2) because the parameters and conditions for the hypothetical accident event involving spent nuclear fuel or high-level radioactive waste would be the same for a shipment under the Proposed Action or Module 1 or 2. In addition, the hypothetical accident would be bounding for accident scenarios involving Greater-Than-Class-C and Special-Performance-Assessment-Required wastes. As summarized in Chapter 6, Section 6.1.3, and further described in Appendix J, in addition to the transportation of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste to the repository, other materials would require transportation to and from the proposed repository. These materials would include construction materials, consumables, repository components (disposal containers, drip shields, etc.), office and laboratory supplies, mail, and laboratory samples. Required transportation would also include personnel commuting to the Yucca Mountain site and the shipment of repository-generated wastes offsite for treatment, storage, or disposal. The implementation of Inventory Module 1 or 2 would increase this transportation as a result of the additional required subsurface development and the longer time required for repository development, emplacement, and closure. However, even with the increased transportation of other material, personnel, and repository-generated wastes for Module 1 or 2, DOE would expect these transportation impacts to be small contributors to the total transportation impacts on a local, state, and national level with no large cumulative impacts based on the analysis of the Proposed Action in Section 6.1.3. The annual air quality impacts for Inventory Module 1 or 2 would be the same as those conservatively estimated in Section 6.1.3 and, therefore, no cumulative air quality impacts would be expected in the Las Vegas airshed, which is in nonattainment for carbon monoxide. Table 8-57 summarizes fatalities from transporting other materials, personnel, and repository-generated waste. The estimated fatalities assume truck shipments in Nevada which would have higher potential impacts than shipments by rail. The Proposed Action impacts are listed in the table for comparison.8.4.1.2 Cumulative Impacts from the Proposed Action, Inventory Module 1 or 2, and Other Federal, Non-Federal, and Private Actions
The overall assessment of cumulative national transportation impacts for past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions concentrated on the cumulative impacts of offsite transportation, which would yield potential radiation doses to a greater portion of the general population than onsite transportation and would result in fatalities from traffic accidents. The collective dose to workers and to the general population was used to quantify overall cumulative radiological transportation impacts. This measure was chosen because it could be related directly to latent cancer fatalities using a cancer risk coefficient and because of the difficulty in identifying a maximally exposed individual for shipments throughout the United States from 1943 through 2047. Operations at the Hanford Site and the Oak Ridge Reservation began in 1943, and 2047 is when the EIS analysis assumed that radioactive material shipments to the repository for Inventory Module 1 or 2 would end. The source of this cumulative transportation impacts analysis is the Yucca Mountain EIS Environmental Baseline File on transportation (DIRS 104800-CRWMS M&O 1999, Section 7.0), with the exception of impacts from the Proposed Action and Module 1 or 2, which are from Table 8-55. The cumulative impacts of the transportation of radioactive material would consist of impacts from:8.4.2 Nevada Transportation
This section analyzes potential cumulative impacts that Inventory Module 1 or 2 and past, present, and other reasonably foreseeable future Federal, non-Federal, and private actions could have on the construction and operation of a branch rail line or the construction and operation of an intermodal transfer station and associated highway upgrades for heavy-haul trucks in the State of Nevada. The analysis included potential cumulative impacts in the vicinity of the five potential branch rail line corridors, the three potential intermodal transfer station locations, and the five associated potential highway routes for heavy-haul trucks. With respect to potential cumulative impacts from Inventory Module 1 or 2, there would be no cumulative construction impacts because the need for a new branch rail line or new intermodal transfer station and associated highway upgrades for heavy-haul trucks would not change; that is, whatever DOE would build for the Proposed Action would also serve Module 1 or 2. In addition, because the planned annual shipment rate of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste to the Yucca Mountain Repository would be about the same for Module 1 or 2 and the Proposed Action, the only cumulative operations impacts would result because of the extra 14 years of shipping time required for Module 1 or 2. With this basis, the operation and maintenance of a branch rail line or an intermodal transfer station and associated highway route for heavy-haul trucks were analyzed for potential cumulative impacts from Module 1 or 2. Land-use and ownership impacts identified in Chapter 6 (Section 6.3) would be avoided or otherwise resolved to implement the Proposed Action. However, additional conflicts associated with continued use of the affected land areas could occur due to shipping operations being excluded 14 years beyond that analyzed in the Proposed Action. DOE expects no cumulative impacts from the extended 14 years of operation for Inventory Module 1 or 2 to air quality; hydrology (surface water and groundwater); biological resources and soils; cultural resources; socioeconomics; noise; aesthetics; and utilities, energy, and materials, the impacts of which were assessed on a per shipment, weekly, or annual basis (see Chapter 6, Section 6.3). Cumulative impacts from Inventory Module 1 or 2 to occupational and public health and safety are included in the occupational and public health and safety impacts of national transportation in Section 8.4.1. The operation of an intermodal transfer station for more years under Module 1 or 2 would affect waste management impacts. Because of the additional years of operation, more waste of the same types would be generated than for the Proposed Action. However, the small waste quantities generated for Module 1 or 2 would have a minimal impact to the receiving treatment and disposal facilities. Because there would be no large cumulative impacts for any of the resource areas from Module 1 or 2, disproportionately high and adverse cumulative impacts to minority or low-income populations or to Native Americans would be unlikely. Other than Inventory Module 1 or 2, one other Federal action and several private actions could have the potential for cumulative impacts with the construction and operation of a new branch rail line or intermodal transfer station and associated highway route for heavy-haul trucks. One private action that could lead to cumulative impacts with the Carlin rail corridor implementing alternative is by Cortez Gold Mine, Inc., which has an existing Pipeline Project mining operation and processing facility (DIRS 103078-BLM 1996, all), a proposed Pipeline Infiltration Project (DIRS 103081-BLM 1999, all), and a possible Pipeline Southeast Expansion Project (DIRS 103078-BLM 1996, p. 5-7) in the Crescent Valley area of Nevada through which the Carlin branch rail line would pass (see Section 8.1.2.3 and Figure 8-5). Because the Carlin corridor would pass through the general area of these projects, there could be cumulative land-use and ownership impacts that would require mitigation. The analysis for the Carlin rail corridor represents the maximum impact; other rail corridor implementing alternatives would have smaller impacts. Cumulative impacts for the mostly legal-weight truck scenario would also have smaller impacts. Another private action that could result in cumulative impacts would be shared use of a branch rail line that DOE constructed and operated to transport spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste to the Yucca Mountain Repository by others (for example, mine operators, private freight shippers) because of the increased rail traffic. Because predicting the increase in rail traffic is not possible at this time, this analysis cannot estimate the cumulative impacts. There could be some added impacts to all the resource areas beyond those evaluated for the Proposed Action in Chapter 6, but there could also be benefits from the improved economic potential for resource development in interior areas of Nevada as well as greater economic development potential for nearby communities. DOE would have to consider these impacts in any decision it made to allow shared use of the branch rail line. One Federal action and one private action could lead to cumulative impacts with the construction and operation of the Caliente intermodal transfer station. DOE has specified the Caliente site as one of four possible locations for the construction and operation of an intermodal transfer station for the shipment of low-level radioactive waste to the Nevada Test Site (DIRS 103225-DOE 1998, pp. 2-4 to 2-12). In addition, a commercial venture planned by Apex Bulk Commodities for the Caliente site would construct an intermodal transfer station for the transport of copper concentrate. Figure 8-6 shows a possible layout plan for these intermodal transfer stations at Caliente. Section 8.1 provides more information on the potential DOE and Apex intermodal transfer stations. The following sections describe the potential cumulative impact analysis at the Caliente site from the construction and operation of an intermodal transfer station to support the proposed Yucca Mountain Repository, coupled with an intermodal transfer station for shipment of low-level radioactive waste to the Nevada Test Site and an intermodal transfer station proposed by Apex Bulk Commodities.8.4.2.1 Land Use and Ownership
Chapter 6, Section 6.1.2.1, discusses reasonably foreseeable actions along the rail corridors and heavy-haul truck routes as they would apply to the Proposed Action. The differences in Module 1 and Module 2 in comparison to the Proposed Action are discussed below. As discussed in Chapter 6, Section 6.3.2.1 there are currently 20 new electric generating plants proposed for the State of Nevada. Of these, 13 are proposed for Clark County in southern Nevada. Currently, plant details are not readily available for a detailed evaluation. However, should these plants be constructed, the rights-of-way necessary for transmission lines and/or natural gas supply lines will most likely be constructed on Bureau of Land Management lands. This would increase the amount of public lands in Nevada that would not be available to other users. Actual impacts associated with the rights-of-way, especially to the candidate rail corridors, would be similar to existing rights-of-way discussed in Section 6.3.2.1. Section 6.3 of Chapter 6 and Section J.3.1.1 of Appendix J also discuss potential land use and ownership conflicts along candidate rail corridors that could result from the Proposed Action. These include potential conflicts with land areas on the Nellis Air Force Range, Timbisha Shoshone trust land parcel near Scottys Junction, Nevada, planned Ivanpah Valley regional airport, and wilderness study areas. If DOE decided to construct and operate a branch rail line in a rail corridor, it would avoid or mitigate any associated land use and ownership conflicts to implement the Proposed Action. However, additional conflicts associated with continued use of affected land areas could occur due to shipping operations being extended for 14 years beyond that of the Proposed Action. The land required for the DOE low-level radioactive waste and Apex intermodal transfer stations would add to the approximately 0.21 square kilometer (50 acres) of property that would be required for the intermodal transfer station that would support the proposed Yucca Mountain Repository. The rail spur and facility for the low-level radioactive waste intermodal transfer station would disturb approximately 0.02 square kilometer (5 acres) of land. The Apex transfer facility would be in a building about 90 by 30 meters (300 by 100 feet). In addition, Apex would have a truck maintenance facility in a building about 30 by 18 meters (100 by 60 feet) that it could share with the low-level radioactive waste intermodal facility. The incremental impacts resulting from the changes in land use associated with the three intermodal transfer stations would not result in a substantial cumulative impact. In addition to the cumulative changes in land use and ownership, DOE considered potential conflicts with plans and policies issued by various government entities along the alternative transportation corridors. In particular, DOE reviewed the Las Vegas 2020 Master Plan (DIRS 157274-City of Las Vegas 2001, all) and various other planning documents, including master plans for the Cities of Caliente (DIRS 157312-Sweetwater and Anderson 1992, all) and Alamo (DIRS 157275-Intertech and Sweetwater 1990, all), and the Lander County Revised Policy for Federally Administered Lands (DIRS 157310-Lander County 1999, all). The Las Vegas Master Plan provides broad policy direction for future land use decisions and related aspects in the City of Las Vegas through 2020. While the Alamo plan deals primarily with zoning issues, the Caliente plan discusses actions for dealing with potential population growth generated by the construction and operation of a repository at Yucca Mountain. The Caliente document generally expresses a need to annex lands that are contiguous to and south of the City in Meadow Valley Wash. The Caliente Intermodal Transfer Facility would be in Meadow Valley Wash (see Chapter 6, Figure 6-17). In general, local government policy indicates a goal of minimizing the conversion of private lands for public use. The transportation corridors and routes described in the EIS, particularly the rail corridors, were developed to minimize impacts to private lands. Section 6.3.2 discusses the amount of private land encountered along the rail corridors and a minimum-to-maximum range for each corridor, including variations and options. However, definitive information is not available on specific tracts of land that could be required for a specific transportation mode or route. Once DOE selected a transportation mode and a specific transportation corridor, more definitive information could be developed on potential conflicts with land uses and various agency plans and policies and, ultimately, the mitigation measures that could be needed to resolve conflicts and impacts on a given area.8.4.2.2 Air Quality
Air quality cumulative impacts during construction of three intermodal transfer stationsone for intermodal transfers of casks containing spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste, one for intermodal transfers of low-level radioactive waste shipments to the Nevada Test Site, and one for intermodal transfers of Apex copper concentratewould not be expected to occur since construction activities would likely occur at different times. The area in which the construction would occur is in attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards and is outside of the Las Vegas Valley particulate matter (PM10) and carbon monoxide nonattainment areas. Even if construction for all three intermodal transfer stations occurred concurrently, administrative controls would be implemented to prevent an adverse impact from collective emissions and dust-generating activities. Emissions from all sources would be less than applicable standards for repository activities. Emissions would also be below established standards for a mostly legal-weight truck transportation scenario. For a mostly rail scenario, criteria pollutants would be emitted during earthmoving operations for branch rail line or intermodal transfer station and highway upgrade construction projects. Cumulative impacts would be greatest for activities occurring in the Las Vegas air basin, which is currently in nonattainment for particulate matter (PM10) and carbon monoxide. For rail implementing alternatives, emissions into the Las Vegas air basin would exceed emission standards only for construction of a Valley Modified branch rail line. Emission standards could be exceeded by up to 90 percent for PM10 and up to 60 percent for carbon monoxide. Emissions from upgrading highways for a Caliente/Las Vegas heavy-haul truck route could also exceed standards for the Las Vegas air basin. PM10 emissions could slightly exceed the standard and carbon monoxide emissions could exceed the standard by 10 percent. All other activities would not cause emissions that exceeded emission standards. During operations, there would be approximately one or two repository rail shipments and as many as 11 associated heavy-haul trucks a week, an average of about three trains and seven trucks a day for DOE low-level radioactive waste shipments, and one truck an hour for the Apex copper concentrate transport. At present, an average of one train an hour and light highway traffic travels through Caliente. The incremental increase in air pollutants from rail and highway traffic resulting from the three actions would cause slight, temporary increases in pollutants, but would not exceed Federal standards (Chapter 6, Section 6.3.2; DIRS 103225-DOE 1998, pp. 4-13, 5-4, and 5-8). Criteria pollutants released during routine operations of the intermodal transfer stations would include nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, and particulate matter. DOE expects these emissions would also be well within Federal standards.8.4.2.3 Hydrology
Surface Water8.4.2.4 Biological Resources and Soils
The proposed locations of the intermodal transfer stations are in an irrigated pasture area that is partly wetland. However, because the area was modified as pasture and the native habitat has been degraded, cumulative impacts to biological resources would be low. Construction activities could lead to soil erosion. Water would be applied to suppress dust and compact soil. The operation of the stations would have small cumulative impacts on soils. Erosion damage control would be performed as necessary throughout the operational periods.8.4.2.5 Cultural Resources
Cumulative impacts could occur to archaeological, historic, and traditional Native American cultural sites from the construction of the intermodal transfer stations. Cultural resource surveys of a portion of the Meadow Wash Area have identified two archaeological sites in the vicinity of the proposed Caliente DOE low-level radioactive waste intermodal site (DIRS 103225-DOE 1998, p. 4-13). Neither site falls within the proposed intermodal transfer station areas. However, Native American consultants have identified these archaeological sites as having significant cultural values for present-day Native American tribes, and construction and operation of the intermodal transfer station at this location could create a cumulative impact to these cultural values. DOE would perform ethnographic studies and archaeological surveys during the engineering design phases and before construction to identify these impacts and address their mitigation. Impacts to cultural resources could occur along each of the candidate rail corridors where site file and literature searches have indicated a potential for archaeological, historic, and traditional cultural properties (see Chapter 3, Section 3.2.2.1.5). Some impacts to these resources could be cumulative, such the intersection of the National Historic Pony Express Trail by variations of the Carlin Corridor or the construction and operation of a branch rail line in Crescent Valley along the Carlin Corridor, where Native Americans believe that operations at the Cortez Mine have already had an impact on a Native American cemetery. After determining the mode of transportation and the preferred routing, DOE would undertake archaeological field studies and ethnographic evaluations of the corridor to identify further potential impacts and possible mitigative actions to reduce the effects of those impacts. Some impacts associated with the use of existing highways could be cumulative, depending on the route selected. For example, Native American consultants have identified several places or areas along some of the highways that have cultural significance to regional tribes (see Chapter 3, Section 3.2.2.2.5). Heavy-haul truck traffic could have a cumulative adverse effect on the Goldfield National Register Historic District, although the potential for specific impacts to buildings in the historic district has yet to be fully evaluated. As with other potential components of the Nevada transportation scenario, DOE would complete additional archaeological, historical and ethnographic studies during the engineering design phase to identify and evaluate these types of potential impacts.8.4.2.6 Socioeconomics
Employment levels for operation of the repository, Apex, and DOE low-level radioactive waste intermodal transfer stations would be 66, 25, and 14 employees, respectively (Chapter 6 and Section 8.1.2.2). Employment associated with the repository and low-level radioactive waste intermodal transfer stations includes operations personnel and truck drivers. Concurrent operations for all three stations would occur over a portion of the entire 24- or 38-year shipping period for the Proposed Action or Inventory Module 1 or 2, respectively. Employment levels would increase gradually to the maximum values listed above and then decrease gradually toward the end of emplacement activities for repository-related workers. Impacts to employment, population, personal income, Gross Regional Product, and state and local government expenditures during station operations would be small for Lincoln County (Chapter 6, Section 6.3.2.2; DIRS 103225-DOE 1998, pp. 4-14 and 5-9). The truck traffic in the Caliente area would be increased from the three intermodal transfer stations. The small increase would have a very small impact on U.S. Highway 93, which would be used when entering and leaving the intermodal transfer station access road. U.S. 93 is currently characterized as having light traffic. The period of concurrent truck traffic from the three intermodal transfer stations would also occur only over a portion of the 24- or 38-year shipping duration for the Proposed Action or Inventory Module 1 or 2, respectively.8.4.2.7 Occupational and Public Health and Safety
The incremental impacts resulting from an increase in radiological risk associated with the intermodal transfer stations for the repository and low-level radioactive waste shipments at Caliente would not result in a substantial cumulative impact. The estimated total collective worker dose from the entire DOE low-level radioactive waste intermodal shipping campaign, including transportation impacts, would be about 4.21 person-rem (DIRS 103225-DOE 1998, p. 4-10). This dose, added to the total repository intermodal transfer station and rail and heavy-haul truck shipments worker dose of about 2,200 to 3,300 person-rem for the Caliente intermodal transfer station for Inventory Module 1 or 2 (Appendix J, Table J-59) would be an increase of less than 1 percent. The population dose associated with low-level radioactive waste shipments by truck from the Caliente intermodal transfer station would be 7.55 person-rem for the entire shipping campaign (DIRS 103225-DOE 1998, Table C-11, p. C-23). This dose, added to the dose from shipments in Nevada that use heavy-haul trucks of about 600 person-rem over 38 years, would increase the population dose and associated health effects by less than 1 percent. In addition to incremental impacts resulting from increases in radiological risk, there would be increments in nonradiological impacts of transportation in Nevada that are not included in the national impacts of transporting spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste to a Yucca Mountain Repository. These increases would arise from 14 additional years of operating a branch rail line or of maintaining highways for use by heavy-haul trucks and operating an intermodal transfer station. The increments in nonradiological impacts for operation of a branch rail line would include increased traffic fatalities from worker commuting and the transportation of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste, as well as repository materials. The increases would range from 0.45 to 1.1 fatalities (see Tables 6-78, 6-79, 6-85, 6-86, 6-93, 6-94, J-61, J-62, and J-63).8.4.2.8 Noise
There would be an increase in noise levels at Caliente from any of the three candidate intermodal transfer station sites and the associated train switching operations and truck traffic. Noise levels would increase during daytime and night hours for rail activities and during daytime hours for truck shipment activities associated with the repository heavy-haul trucks and the DOE low-level radioactive waste trucks. Apex truck shipments would occur once an hour, 24 hours a day. Noise associated with railcar shipments would occur as the railcars were uncoupled from trains and transferred in and out of the stations, which could occur during the day or night. Elevated noise levels would occur during loading and unloading operations and briefly as trucks passed on the highway. Trucks would not travel through Caliente for shipments to either Yucca Mountain or the Nevada Test Site. Overall, the elevation of noise levels associated with rail and truck activity near a level that would cause concern would be unlikely. In addition, due to the location of the intermodal transfer stations in an uninhabited canyon area, noise impacts from rail and truck loading and unloading would be low. Cumulative effects would also be limited because operations at the DOE low-level radioactive waste and Apex intermodal transfer stations would overlap only a portion of the shipping campaign associated with the proposed repository. Future development of the Timbisha Shoshone Trust Lands parcel near Scottys Junction could result in additional impacts. Residences and commercial ventures located near the transportation corridor on this parcel (the Bonnie Claire variation of the Caliente and Carlin rail corridors) could encounter noise levels that would not exceed 90 dB at 15 meters (49 feet) from the route.8.4.2.9 Aesthetics
Chapter 6, Section 6.1.2.9 discusses direct impacts from the candidate rail corridors and heavy-haul truck routes. Section 6.3.2 discusses indirect visual impacts as they could affect land use along the rail corridors. The alteration of the landscape immediately surrounding the Bureau of Land Management Class II lands [within about 8 kilometers (5 miles) of the Kershaw-Ryan State Park] could exceed the Class II objective. In addition, the Wilson Pass Option in the Jean Corridor passes through Class II lands [55 kilometers (34 miles)] in the vicinity of Wilson Pass in the Spring Mountains. Class II designation by the Bureau of Land Management could require retention of the existing character of the landscape. However, the area proposed for the Caliente intermodal transfer station has been classified as Class III, which would require partial retention of the existing character of the landscape. The intermodal facilities would not greatly alter the landscape more than the current passing trains and sewage treatment operations. The Class II lands of the Wilson Pass Option would require retention of the existing character of the landscape. Public exposure would be limited due to obstruction by natural vegetation. Therefore, visual impacts would be very small (DIRS 103225-DOE 1998, pp. 4-12 and 5-8).8.4.2.10 Utilities, Energy, and Materials
Electric power lines with adequate capacity are available near the site. Electric power, water supply, and sewage disposal facilities are currently provided to the sewage treatment facility near the proposed location of the intermodal transfer stations (DIRS 103225-DOE 1998, p. 4-12). Therefore, cumulative impacts to utilities would be small. The quantities of concrete, asphalt, and steel needed to build the intermodal facilities (associated mostly with the repository intermodal transfer station) would be unlikely to affect the regional supply system.8.4.2.11 Management of Intermodal Transfer Station-Generated Waste and Hazardous Materials
The expected quantities of sanitary waste, small amounts of hazardous waste, and low-level radioactive waste associated with radiological surveys would be unlikely to have large impacts to landfill, treatment, and disposal facilities available for use by this site. Therefore, cumulative impacts for waste management would be small. Only limited quantities of hazardous materials would be needed for station operations, and DOE does not expect these needs to affect the regional supply system (DIRS 103225-DOE 1998, pp. 4-12, 4-13, and 5-8).8.4.2.12 Environmental Justice
Because there would be no large cumulative impacts to human health and safety from the construction or operation of the intermodal transfer stations, there would be no disproportionately high and adverse impacts to minority and low-income populations. The absence of large cumulative environmental impacts for the general population means that there would be no disproportionately high and adverse environmental impacts for the minority or low-income communities. An evaluation of subsistence lifestyles and cultural values confirms these general conclusions. The foregoing conclusions and evaluations and the commitment by DOE to ensure minimal impacts to cultural resources show that construction and operation of the intermodal transfer stations would not be expected to cause or contribute to disproportionately high and adverse impacts to Native Americans (DIRS 103225-DOE 1998; pp. 4-14 and 5-9).8.5 Cumulative Manufacturing Impacts
This section describes potential cumulative environmental impacts from the manufacturing of the repository components required to emplace Inventory Module 1 or 2 in the proposed Yucca Mountain Repository. No adverse cumulative impacts from other Federal, non-Federal, or private actions have been identified because no actions have been identified that, when combined with the Proposed Action or Inventory Module 1 or 2, would exceed the capacity of existing manufacturing facilities. The overall approach and analytical methods and the baseline data used for the evaluation of cumulative manufacturing impacts for Inventory Module 1 or 2 were the same as those discussed in Chapter 4, Section 4.1.15 for the Proposed Action. The evaluation focused on ways in which the manufacturing of the repository components could affect environmental resources at a representative manufacturing site and potential impacts to material sources and supplies. Table 8-59 lists the total number of repository components required for the Proposed Action and Inventory Modules 1 and 2. As listed, the total number would increase by approximately 30 to 50 percent for Modules 1 and 2 in comparison to the Proposed Action depending on the operating mode and packaging scenario. The highest total number of repository components would be for Module 2, assuming the lower-temperature operating mode using derated waste packages, and this was the number used in the cumulative impact analysis. Based on the total number of components that would be required over a 38-year period for Inventory Module 1 or 2, the annual manufacturing rate would remain the same as that for the Proposed Action. Based on the number of drip shields required over a 12-year period for Inventory Module 1 or 2, the annual manufacturing rate would increase about 30 percent over that for the Proposed Action 10-year drip shield manufacturing period. Thus, the annual Module 1 or 2 impacts for air quality, socioeconomics, material use, and waste generation would be as much as 30 percent higher than those for drip shield manufacturing discussed in Chapter 4, Section 4.1.15 for the Proposed Action, and these impacts would continue for 12 years rather than the 10 years for the Proposed Action. The total number of worker injuries and illness or fatalities would increase in proportion to the increase in components manufactured. The potential number of injuries and illnesses over the entire 50-year period for Module 1 or 2 would be from 930 to 1,300 and the estimated number of fatalities would be 0.44 to 0.63 (that is, no expected fatalities), depending on the operating mode and packaging scenario. As for the Proposed Action, there would be few or no impacts on other resources because existing manufacturing facilities would meet the projected manufacturing needs and new construction would not be necessary and environmental justice impacts (that is, disproportionately high and adverse impacts to minority or low-income populations) would be unlikely.8.6 Summary of Cumulative Impacts
As shown throughout Chapter 8, DOE has examined many actions in the region to determine the potential for cumulative impacts. These impacts could arise from a variety of sources, including other activities in the area and reasonably foreseeable activities. Table 8-60 summarizes cumulative impacts from all origins. Where qualitative descriptions are more meaningful, these have been included in lieu of quantitative values, although the quantitative values might be provided in this chapter. In other cases, the quantitative values have been provided to give a better representation of the potential impacts.References
Note: In an effort to ensure consistency among Yucca Mountain Project documents, DOE has altered the format of the references and some of the citations in the text in this Final EIS from those in the Draft EIS. The following list contains notes where applicable for references cited differently in the Draft EIS.102043 | AIWS 1998 | AIWS (American Indian Writers Subgroup) 1998. American Indian Perspectives on the Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Project and the Repository Environmental Impact Statement. Las Vegas, Nevada: Consolidated Group of Tribes and Organizations. ACC: MOL.19980420.0041. | ||
148088 | AEC 1998 | AEC (American Ecology Corporation) 1998. "AE News, 1998 News Releases." Boise, Idaho: American Ecology Corporation. Accessed April 20, 1999. TIC: 243770. http://www. americanecology.com/page1398.html | ||
146592 | Black and Townsend 1998 | Black, S.C. and Townsend, Y.E., eds. 1998. Nevada Test Site, Annual Site Environmental Report for Calendar Year - 1997. DOE/NV/11718-231. Las Vegas, Nevada: U.S. Department of Energy, Nevada Operations Office. TIC: 242871. In the Draft EIS, this reference was cited as Bechtel 1998 in Chapter 12. | ||
103078 | BLM 1996 | BLM (Bureau of Land Management) 1996. Cortez Pipeline Gold Deposit: Final Environmental Impact Statement - Volume I. Battle Mountain, Nevada: Bureau of Land Management. TIC: 242970. | ||
103081 | BLM 1999 | BLM (Bureau of Land Management) 1999. Cortez Gold Mines, Inc. Pipeline Infiltration Project. Environmental Assessment NV063-EA98-062. Battle Mountain, Nevada: Bureau of Land Management. TIC: 243547. | ||
155095 | BLM 2000 | BLM (Bureau of Land Management) 2000. Record of Decision and Plan of Operations Approval, Cortez Gold Mines South Pipeline Project. NV64-93-001P(96-2A). NV063-EIS98-014. Battle Mountain, Nevada: Bureau of Land Management. TIC: 250223. | ||
155530 | BLM 2000 | BLM (Bureau of Land Management) 2000. South Pipeline Project, Final Environmental Impact Statement. NV64-93-001(96-2A). Battle Mountain, Nevada: U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. ACC: MOL.20010721.0006. | ||
155597 | BLM 2000 | BLM (Bureau of Land Management) 2000. Round 2 Preliminary Recommendation, Expenditure of the Special Account. Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act, December, 2000. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bureau of Land Management. ACC: MOL.20010721.0010. | ||
155531 | BLM 2001 | BLM (Bureau of Land Management) 2001. "1998 Program Planning, Current Projects." Battle Mountain Field, [Nevada]: Bureau of Land Management, Battle Mountain Field Office. Accessed July 31, 2001. ACC: MOL.20010721.0007. http://www.nv. blm.gov/bmountain/project_planning/current_projects.htm | ||
157116 | Bowen et al. 2001 | Bowen, S.M.; Finnegan, D.L.; Thompson, J.L.; Miller, C.M.; Baca, P.L.; and Oliva, L.F. 2001. Nevada Test Site Radionuclide Inventory, 1951-1992. LA-1 Los Alamos, New Mexico: Los Alamos National Laboratory. | ||
155950 | BSC 2001 | BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2001. FY 01 Supplemental Science and Performance Analyses, Volume 1: Scientific Bases and Analyses. TDR-MGR-MD-000007 REV 00 ICN 01. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: MOL. 20010801.0404; MOL.20010712.0062; MOL.20010815.0001. | ||
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. | ||
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. | ||
157274 | City of Las Vegas 2001 | City of Las Vegas 2001. "Las Vegas 2020 City of Las Vegas Master Plan." A New Master Plan for the City of Las Vegas. Las Vegas, NV: City of Las Vegas. Accessed December 12, 2001. http://www.lasvegas2020.org/elements.htm | ||
156758 | Crowe 2001 | Crowe, B.M. 2001. "Subcritical Experiments." E-mail from B.M. Crowe (DOE) to E. Rollins (Dade Moeller and Associates), October 31, 2001. | ||
101214 | CRWMS M&O 1996 | CRWMS M&O (Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System Management & Operating Contractor) 1996. Nevada Potential Repository Preliminary Transportation Strategy Study 2. B00000000-01717-4600-00050 REV 01. Two volumes. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.19960724.0199; MOL.19960724.0200. In the Draft EIS, this reference was cited as TRW 1996 in Chapter 12. | ||
104589 | CRWMS M&O 1998 | CRWMS M&O (Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System Management & Operating Contractor) 1998. Classification and Map of Vegetation at Yucca and Little Skull Mountains, Nevada. B00000000-01717-5705-00083 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.19990615.0237. In the Draft EIS, this reference was cited as TRW 1998c in Chapter 12. | ||
102030 | CRWMS M&O 1999 | CRWMS M&O (Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System Management & Operating Contractor) 1999. Waste Package Final Update to EIS Engineering File. BBA000000-01717-5705-00019 REV 01. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.19990330.0530. In the Draft EIS, this reference was cited as TRW 1999c in Chapter 12. | ||
104508 | CRWMS M&O 1999 | CRWMS M&O (Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System Management & Operating Contractor) 1999. Repository Surface Design Engineering Files Report. BCB000000-01717-5705-00009 REV 03. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.19990615.0238. In the Draft EIS, this reference was cited as TRW 1999a in Chapter 12. | ||
104523 | CRWMS M&O 1999 | CRWMS M&O (Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System Management & Operating Contractor) 1999. Engineering File - Subsurface Repository. BCA000000-01717-5705-00005 REV 02 DCN 01. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.19990621.0157; MOL.19990615.0230. In the Draft EIS, this reference was cited as TRW 1999b in Chapter 12. | ||
104800 | CRWMS M&O 1999 | CRWMS M&O (Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System Management & Operating Contractor) 1999. Environmental Baseline File for National Transportation. B00000000-01717-5705-00116 REV 01. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.19990608.0033. In the Draft EIS, this reference was cited as TRW 1999u in Chapter 12. | ||
150558 | CRWMS M&O 2000 | CRWMS M&O (Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System management & Operating Contractor) 2000. Update to the EIS Engineering File for the Waste Package in Support of the Final EIS. TDR-EBS-MD-000010 REV 00 ICN 01. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.20000317.0446. | ||
150941 | CRWMS M&O 2000 | CRWMS M&O (Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System management & Operating Contractor) 2000. FEIS Update to Engineering File - Subsurface Repository. TDR-EBS-MD-000007 REV 00 ICN 01. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.20000612.0058. | ||
152010 | CRWMS M&O 2000 | CRWMS M&O (Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System management & Operating Contractor) 2000. Repository Surface Design Engineering Files Report Supplement. TDR-WHS-EV-000001 REV 00 ICN 1. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.20000626.0025. | ||
153246 | CRWMS M&O 2000 | CRWMS M&O (Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System management & Operating Contractor) 2000. Total System Performance Assessment for the Site Recommendation. TDR-WIS-PA-000001 REV 00 ICN 01. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.20001220.0045. | ||
152582 | Davis 2000 | Davis, P. 2000. "Kistler Aerospace Project." Telephone conversation from P. Davis (Jason Technologies) to J. Gregory (Kistler Aerospace), July 25, 2000. ACC: MOL.20001019.0133. | ||
100136 | DOE 1986 | DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 1986. Environmental Assessment Yucca Mountain Site, Nevada Research and Development Area, Nevada. DOE/RW-0073. Three volumes. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. ACC: HQZ.19870302.0332. | ||
104731 | DOE 1986 | DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 1986. Environmental Assessment for a Monitored Retrievable Storage Facility. Volume II of Monitored Retrievable Storage Submission to Congress. DOE/RW-0035/1. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. ACC: HQO.19950815.0019. | ||
103189 | DOE 1992 | DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 1992. Environmental Assessment for the Shipment of Low Enriched Uranium Billets to the United Kingdom from the Hanford Site, Richland, Washington. DOE/EA-0787. Richland, Washington: U.S. Department of Energy. TIC: 242983. | ||
157156 | DOE 1993 | DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 1993. Environmental Assessment of the Import of Russian Plutonium-238. DOE/EA-0841. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy. TIC: 251416. | ||
101802 | DOE 1995 | DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 1995. Department of Energy Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Management and Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Programs Final Environmental Impact Statement. DOE/EIS-0203-F. Idaho Falls, Idaho: U.S. Department of Energy, Idaho Operations Office. TIC: 216020. | ||
103208 | DOE 1995 | DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 1995. Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Tritium Supply and Recycling, Executive Summary. DOE/EIS-0161. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy. TIC: 243898. | ||
103212 | DOE 1995 | DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 1995. Environmental Assessment, Disposition and Transportation of Surplus Radioactive Low Specific Activity Nitric Acid, Hanford Site, Richland, Washington. DOE/EA-1005. Two volumes. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy. TIC: 243921. | ||
101729 | DOE 1996 | DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 1996. Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Completion of the West Valley Demonstration Project and Closure or Long-Term Management of Facilities at the Western New York Nuclear Service Center. DOE/EIS-0226-D. Two volumes. [Washington, D.C.]: U.S. Department of Energy. TIC: 223997. | ||
101811 | DOE 1996 | DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 1996. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Nevada Test Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada. DOE/EIS 0243. Las Vegas, Nevada: U.S. Department of Energy, Nevada Operations Office. TIC: 239895. | ||
101812 | DOE 1996 | DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 1996. Final Environmental Impact Statement on a Proposed Nuclear Weapons Nonproliferation Policy Concerning Foreign Research Reactor Spent Nuclear Fuel. DOE/EIS-0218F. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy. TIC: 223998. | ||
101813 | DOE 1996 | DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 1996. Medical Isotopes Production Project: Molybdenum-99 and Related Isotopes, Environmental Impact Statement. Two volumes DOE/EIS-0249-F. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy. TIC: 232857. | ||
103215 | DOE 1996 | DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 1996. Storage and Disposition of Weapons-Usable Fissile Materials Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. DOE/EIS-0229. Summary and four volumes. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy. TIC: 243897. | ||
103216 | DOE 1996 | DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 1996. Disposition of Surplus Highly Enriched Uranium Final Environmental Impact Statement. DOE/EIS-0240. Two volumes and summary. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Fissile Materials Disposition. TIC: 231278. | ||
103217 | DOE 1996 | DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 1996. Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Stockpile Stewardship and Management. DOE/EIS-0236. Summary and four volumes. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy. TIC: 226584. | ||
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. | ||
103219 | DOE 1996 | DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 1996. Final Environmental Impact Statement, S1C Prototype Reactor Plant Disposal. DOE/EIS-0275. Two volumes. [Washington, D.C.]: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Naval Reactors. TIC: 242980. | ||
101814 | DOE 1997 | DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 1997. Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Disposal Phase, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. Three volumes. DOE/EIS-0026-S-2. Carlsbad, New Mexico: U.S. Department of Energy. TIC: 238195. | ||
101815 | DOE 1997 | DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 1997. Integrated Data Base Report-1996: U.S. Spent Nuclear Fuel and Radioactive Waste Inventories, Projections, and Characteristics. DOE/RW-0006, Rev. 13. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy. TIC: 242471. | ||
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: 242988. | ||
103021 | DOE 1997 | DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 1997. Regional Groundwater Flow and Tritium Transport Modeling and Risk Assessment of the Underground Test Area, Nevada Test Site, Nevada. DOE/NV-477. Las Vegas, Nevada: U.S. Department of Energy. TIC: 243999. | ||
103221 | DOE 1997 | DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 1997. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Disposal of the S3G and D1G Prototype Reactor Plants. DOE/EIS-0274. Two volumes. [Washington, D.C.]: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Naval Reactors. TIC: 242981. | ||
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.19981007.0027; MOL.19981007.0028; MOL.19981007.0029; MOL.19981007. 0030; MOL.19981007.0031; MOL.19981007.0032. | ||
103224 | DOE 1998 | DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 1998. The Current and Planned Low-Level Waste Disposal Capacity Report. Revision 1. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy. TIC: 243825. | ||
103225 | DOE 1998 | DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 1998. Intermodal Transportation of Low-Level Radioactive Waste to the Nevada Test Site, Preapproval Draft Environmental Assessment. Las Vegas, Nevada: U.S. Department of Energy. TIC: 243941. | ||
103226 | DOE 1998 | DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 1998. Nevada Test Site Resource Management Plan. DOE/NV-518. Las Vegas, Nevada: U.S. Department of Energy. TIC: 244395. | ||
155932 | DOE 1998 | DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 1998. Final Environmental Impact Statement on Management of Certain Plutonium Residues and Scrub Alloy Stored at the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site - Summary. DOE/EIS-0277F (Summary). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy. | ||
118979 | DOE 1999 | DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 1999. Surplus Plutonium Disposition Final Environmental Impact Statement. DOE/EIS-0283. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Fissile Materials Disposition. TIC: 246385. | ||
152493 | DOE 1999 | DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 1999. Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Alternative Strategies for the Long-Term Management and Use of Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride. DOE/EIS-0269. Germantown, Maryland: U.S. Department of Energy. ACC: MOL.20001010.0216. | ||
155100 | DOE 1999 | DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 1999. Idaho High-Level Waste and Facilities Disposition Draft Environmental Impact Statement. DOE/EIS-0287D. Idaho Falls, Idaho: U.S. Department of Energy, Idaho Operations Office. ACC: MOL.20001030.0151. | ||
155779 | DOE 1999 | DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 1999. Intermodal and Highway Transportation of Low-level Radioactive Waste to the Nevada Test Site. DOE/NV-544-VOL I. Las Vegas, Nevada: U.S. Department of Energy. ACC: MOL.20011009.0006. | ||
157153 | DOE 1999 | DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 1999. Environmental Assessment for the Parallex Project Fuel Manufacturer and Shipment. DOE/EA-1216. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy. | ||
157154 | DOE 1999 | DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 1999. Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for Continued Operation of the Los Alamos National Laboratory. DOE/EIS-0238. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy. | ||
157155 | DOE 1999 | DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 1999. Final State-Wide Environmental Impact Statement. DOE/EIS-0281. Albuquerque, New Mexico: U.S. Department of Energy Albuquerque Operations. | ||
157166 | DOE 1999 | DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 1999. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Production of Tritium in a Commercial Light Water Reactor. DOE/EIS-0288. Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Energy Assistant Secretary for Defense Programs. | ||
155529 | DOE 2000 | DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 2000. The Nevada Test Site Development Corporation’s Desert Rock Sky Park at the Nevada Test Site, Environmental Assessment. DOE/NV EA-1300. Las Vegas, Nevada: U.S. Department of Energy, Nevada Operations Office. ACC: MOL.20010721.0004. | ||
155856 | DOE 2000 | DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 2000. The Current and Planned Low-Level Waste Disposal Capacity Report. Revision 2. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy. ACC: MOL.20011009.0040. | ||
157167 | DOE 2000 | DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 2000. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Treatment and Management of Sodium-Bonded Spent Nuclear Fuel. DOE/EIS-0306. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology. | ||
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. | ||
154121 | DOI 2000 | DOI (U.S. Department of the Interior) 2000. Final Legislative Environmental Impact Statement, Timbisha Shoshone Homeland. Three volumes. San Francisco, California: U.S. Department of the Interior, Timbisha Shoshone Tribe. | ||
155478 | Dorsey 2001 | Dorsey, C. 2001. "Nye County Gets Out-of-This-World Deal for Museum Land." Las Vegas, Nevada: Las Vegas Review-Journal. Accessed June 27, 2001. TIC: 250281. http://www.lvrj.com/lvrj_home/2000/Jul-20-Thu-2000/news/14004073. html | ||
103243 | EPA 1996 | EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) 1996. Ambient Levels and Noncancer Health Effects of Inhaled Crystalline and Amorphous Silica: Health Issue Assessment. EPA/600/R-95/115. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. TIC: 243562. | ||
103245 | EPA 1996 | EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) 1996. National Capacity Assessment Report: Capacity Planning Pursuant to CERCLA Section 104(c)(9). EPA530-R-95-016. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. TIC: 242975. | ||
103705 | EPA 1997 | EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) 1997. Health Effects Assessment, Summary Tables, FY-1997 Update. EPA 540/R-97-036. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. TIC: 243784. In the Draft EIS, this reference was cited as International Consultants 1997 in Chapter 12. | ||
148224 | EPA 1999 | EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) 1999. "Chromium (VI); CASRN 18540-29-9." IRIS (Integrated Risk Information System). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Accessed June 10, 1999. TIC: 244103. | ||
148228 | EPA 1999 | EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) 1999. "Molybdenum; CASRN 7439-98-7." IRIS (Integrated Risk Information System). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. TIC: 244105. Accessed June 10, 1999. http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0425.htm | ||
148229 | EPA 1999 | EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) 1999. "Nickel, Soluble Salts; CASRN Various." IRIS (Integrated Risk Information System). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. TIC: 244108. Accessed June 10, 1999. http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0421.htm | ||
155928 | Estrada 2001 | Estrada, M. 2001. Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statement for the F-22 Air Force Development Evaluation and Weapons School Beddown at Nellis Air Force Base. Letter from M. Estrada (DAF) to D. Siekerman (Jason Technologies), July 3, 2001, with attachment. ACC: MOL.20010724.0157. | ||
153882 | Griffith 2001 | Griffith, G.W. 2001. “Repository Surface Design Engineering Files Letter Report – MGR Solar Power System (Revision 2).” Letter from G.W. Griffith (CRWMS M&O) to D. Kane (DOE/YMSCO) and K. Skipper (DOE/YMSCO), February 5, 2001, LV.SFD.GWG.02/01-010, with enclosure. ACC: MOL.20010302.0365. | ||
101075 | ICRP 1977 | ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection) 1977. Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Volume 1, No. 3 of Annals of the ICRP. ICRP Publication 26. Reprinted 1982. New York, New York: Pergamon Press. TIC: 221568. | ||
157275 | Intertech and Sweetwater 1990 | Intertech Consultants and Sweetwater Consulting Services 1990. Alamo Land Use Plan. Pioche, Nevada: Lincoln County Nuclear Waste Project. | ||
155918 | Keck 1999 | Keck, T.J. 1999. Record of Decision for the United States Air Force F-22 Force Development Evaluation and Weapons School Beddown, Nellis AFB, Nevada. [Washington, D.C.]: U.S. Department of the Air Force. ACC: MOL.20010724.0148. | ||
103282 | Kersting et al. 1999 | Kersting, A.B.; Efurd, D.W.; Finnegan, D.L.; Rokop, D.J.; Smith, D.K.; and Thompson, J.L. 1999. "Migration of Plutonium in Ground Water at the Nevada Test Site." Nature, 397, ([6714]), 56-59. [London, England: Macmillan Journals]. TIC: 243597. | ||
157310 | Lander County 1999 | Lander County 1999. Revised Policy Plan for Federally Administered Lands. Lander County, Nevada: Lander County. | ||
148160 | MIMS 1992 | MIMS (Manifest Information Management System) 1992. "Annual Volume and Activity Summary." Idaho Falls, Idaho: Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory. Accessed May 23, 1999. http://mims.inel.gov/web/owa/vol.report. TIC: 244119. In the Draft EIS, this reference was cited as MIMS 1999 in Chapter 12. | ||
153066 | Murphy 2000 | Murphy, S.L. 2000. Deaths: Final Data for 1998. National Vital Statistics Reports. Vol. 48, No. 11. Hyattsville, Maryland: National Center for Health Statistics. TIC: 249111. | ||
100018 | National Research Council 1995 | National Research Council 1995. Technical Bases for Yucca Mountain Standards. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. TIC: 217588. | ||
101856 | NCRP 1993 | NCRP (National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements) 1993. Limitation of Exposure to Ionizing Radiation. NCRP Report No. 116. Bethesda, Maryland: National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. TIC: 207090. | ||
103413 | NPC 1997 | NPC (Nevada Power Company) 1997. Nevada Power Company 1997 Resource Plan. Executive Summary. Volume 1. Las Vegas, Nevada: Nevada Power Company. TIC: 243146. | ||
102171 | NSHD 1999 | NSHD (Nevada State Health Division) 1999. "Low-Level Waste Site Post-Closure Activities." [Carson City], Nevada: State of Nevada, Health Division, Bureau of Health Protection Services. Accessed February 16, 1999. TIC: 243845. http://www.state.nv.us/health/bhps/raddocs/lowste.htm | ||
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. | ||
103446 | Oversby 1987 | Oversby, V.M. 1987. "Spent Fuel as a Waste Form – Data Needs to Allow Long Term Performance Assessment under Repository Disposal Conditions." Scientific Basis for Nuclear Waste Management X, Symposium held December 1-4, 1986, Boston, Massachusetts. Bates, J.K. and Seefeldt, W.B., eds. 84, 87-101. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Materials Research Society. TIC: 203663. | ||
155979 | PBS&J 2001 | PBS&J (Post Buckley Shuh & Jernigan) 2001. Moapa Paiute Energy Center Draft Environmental Impact Statement. BLM Case No. N-66776. Two volumes. [Las Vegas, Nevada]: U.S. Bureau of Land Management. ACC: MOL.20010803.0365. | ||
155159 | REECo 1994 | REECo (Reynolds Electrical & Engineering) 1994. Site Characterization and Monitoring Data from Area 5 Pilot Wells, Nevada Test Site, Nye County, Nevada. DOE/NV/11432-74. Las Vegas, Nevada: U.S. Department of Energy. ACC: MOL.20010803.0362. | ||
153277 | SAIC 1991 | SAIC (Science Application International Corporation) 1991. Special Nevada Report, September 23, 1991. Las Vegas, Nevada: Science Application International Corporation. ACC: NNA.19920131.0361. | ||
155595 | Stuart and Anderson 1999 | Stuart, I.F., and Anderson, R.O. 1999. "Owl Creek Energy Project: A Solution to the Spent Fuel Temporary Storage Issue." WM 99 Proceedings, Feb. 28 - Mar. 4, 1999, Tucson, Arizona: "HLW, LLW, Mixed Wastes and Environmental Restoration—Working Towards a Cleaner Environment. La Grange Park, Illinois: American Nuclear Society. | ||
157312 | Sweetwater and Anderson 1992 | Sweetwater Consulting Services and R.O. Anderson Engineering 1992. City of Caliente Master Plan. Caliente, Nevada: City of Caliente. | ||
103470 | Timbisha Shoshone and DOI 1999 | Timbisha Shoshone Tribe 1999. "The Timbisha Shoshone Tribal Homeland, A Draft Secretarial Report to Congress to Establish a Permanent Tribal Land Base and Related Cooperative Activities." [Death Valley National Park, California]: Timbisha Shoshone Tribe. Accessed June 12, 2001. ACC: MOL.20010727.0168. http://www. nps.gov/deva/timbisha_toc.html | ||
108774 | Tyler et al. 1996 | Tyler, S.W.; Chapman, J.B.; Conrad, S.H.; Hammermeister, D.P.; Blout, D.O.; Miller, J.J.; Sully, M.J.; and Ginanni, J.M. 1996. "Soil-Water Flux in the Southern Great Basin, United States: Temporal and Spatial Variations Over the Last 120,000 Years." Water Resources Research, 32, (6), 1481-1499. Washington, D.C.: American Geophysical Union. TIC: 235938. | ||
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. | ||
103477 | USN 1984 | USN (U.S. Department of the Navy) 1984. Final Environmental Impact Statement on the Disposal of Decommissioned, Defueled Naval Submarine Reactor Plants. Three volumes. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Navy. TIC: 242986. | ||
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. | ||
103479 | USN 1996 | USN (U.S. Department of the Navy) 1996. Final Environmental Impact Statement on the Disposal of Decommissioned, Defueled Cruiser, Ohio Class, and Los Angeles Class Naval Reactor Plants. [Washington, D.C.]: U.S. Department of the Navy. TIC: 242987. | ||
148148 | Williams and Levy 1999 | Williams, J.M. and Levy, L.E. 1999. The Desert Space Station Science Museum, Contributions to the Nye County and Nevada Economies, Expected Construction, Procurement and Operations. Nye County Economic-Demographic Reports: #7. [Tonopah, Nevada]: Nye County Department of Natural Resources and Federal Facilities. TIC: 247305. | ||
155515 | Williams 2001 | Williams, N.H. 2001. "Contract No. DE-AC-08-01RW12101 – Submittal of Letter Update to ‘Engineering Files – Subsurface Repository’ and FEIS Updates, Work Breakdown Structure 1.2.20.1.2 Work Package 12112012M1." Letter from N.H. Williams (BSC) to S.J. Brocoum (DOE/YMSCO), June 27, 2001, PROJ.06/01.014, with enclosures. ACC: MOL.20010719.0123. | ||
155516 | Williams 2001 | Williams, N.H. 2001. "Contract No. DE-AC-08-01NV12101 - Submittal of Deliverable ‘Repository Surface Design - Surface Facilities EIS Letter Report’." Letter from N.H. Williams (BSC) to S.J. Brocoum (DOE/YMSCO), May 29, 2001, PROJ.05/01.031, with enclosure. ACC: MOL.20010613.0247. |