U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION STAFF’S 

ADOPTION DETERMINATION REPORT FOR THE U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY’S ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 

STATEMENTS FOR THE PROPOSED GEOLOGIC 

REPOSITORY AT YUCCA MOUNTAIN 

September 5, 2008
ES-1 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Pursuant to Section 114(f) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA), the U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) has prepared environmental impact statements (EISs) (DOE, 2008b, c; 2002) to 

evaluate the potential environmental impacts associated with the construction, operation, and 

permanent closure of a high-level radioactive waste geologic repository at Yucca Mountain, 

Nevada. 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff has conducted a review to determine 

whether it is practicable to adopt the EISs in accordance with criteria in 10 CFR § 51.109(c). 

This regulation states that the NRC staff will find that it is practicable to adopt any environmental 

impact statement prepared by DOE in connection with a geologic repository unless “[t]he action 

proposed to be taken by the Commission differs from the action proposed in the license 

application submitted by the Secretary of Energy; and [t]he difference may significantly affect 

the quality of the human environment; or [s]ignificant and substantial new information or new 

considerations render such environmental impact statement inadequate.” 

Based on its review and discussion presented in this report, the NRC staff has concluded the 

following: 

• With regard to the criterion in 10 CFR § 51.109(c)(1), the NRC staff has determined that 

the proposed action to be taken by the Commission, and as described in the EISs (DOE, 

2008b, c; 2002), is substantially the same as the proposed action described in the 

license application. 

• With regard to the criterion in 10 CFR § 51.109(c)(2), the EISs (DOE, 2008b, c; 2002,) 

are generally consistent with NRC and Council on Environmental Quality regulations and 

NRC guidance for completeness and adequacy. The staff has identified significant and 

substantial considerations that render the groundwater analyses of the 2002 EIS and the 

Repository Supplemental EIS inadequate. The staff has not identified significant and 

substantial new information or considerations that would render the Rail Corridor SEIS 

inadequate. 

 

The NRC staff concludes that it is practicable to adopt the EISs (DOE, 2008b, c; 2002) with 

supplementation. As discussed in Section 3.2.1.4.2, the NRC staff concludes that the 2002 EIS 

(DOE, 2002) and the Repository Supplemental EIS (DOE, 2008b) do not adequately 

characterize the potential impact of the proposed action on groundwater and from surface 

discharges. Staff concludes that supplementation is needed to ensure the 2002 EIS and the 

Repository Supplemental EIS are adequate. 

Consistent with the NWPA and with NRC’s regulations in 10 CFR § 51.109, the NRC staff’s 

adoption review is neither a duplication of DOE’s efforts nor a detailed review of all technical 

aspects of the analyses contained in the EISs. Further, an NRC staff determination of adoption 

of these EISs does not necessarily mean that NRC independently would have arrived at the 

same conclusions as DOE on matters of fact or policy. 
i 

CONTENTS

Section Page 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................... ES-1 

FIGURES ...................................................................................................................................iii 

ACRONYMS/ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................................iv 

1 INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................1-1 

 1.1 Background and General Requirements .........................................................1-1 

 1.2 Overview of the Adoption Review Process......................................................1-2 

 1.3 Scope and Considerations Related to Staff’s Review......................................1-3 

 1.4 Relationship to License Application Reviews ..................................................1-5 

2 SIMILARITY OF PROPOSED ACTIONS [10 CFR § 51.109(c)(1)] ...............................2-1 

 2.1 Review Methods .............................................................................................2-1 

 2.2 Review Areas..................................................................................................2-2 

 2.3 Assessment Results........................................................................................2-2 

 2.4 Conclusions ....................................................................................................2-3 

3 SIGNIFICANT AND SUBSTANTIAL NEW INFORMATION OR 

 CONSIDERATIONS [10 CFR § 51.109(c)(2)] ..............................................................3-1 

 3.1 Review Methods .............................................................................................3-1 

 3.1.1 Completeness and Adequacy...........................................................3-1 

 3.1.2 Significant and Substantial New Information or Considerations ........3-2 

 3.2 Assessment Results........................................................................................3-3 

 3.2.1 Completeness and Adequacy...........................................................3-3 

 3.2.1.1 Comparison of the Format of EISs to NRC 

 Requirements in 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, 

 Appendix A......................................................................3-3 

 3.2.1.2 Comparison of the Content of EISs to NRC 

 Requirements in 10 CFR § 51.91 ....................................3-3 

 3.2.1.3 Compliance with Other NRC Requirements ....................3-4 

 3.2.1.4 Adequacy of Analyses with Respect to NEPA .................3-5 

 3.2.1.4.1 In-Process Activities ..................................3-5 

 3.2.1.4.2 Impacts on Groundwater and from 

 Surface Discharge of Groundwater............3-8 

 3.2.1.4.3 Impacts on Native Americans ..................3-12 

 3.2.1.4.4 Accidents.................................................3-13 

 3.2.1.4.5 Transportation Analysis ...........................3-13 

 3.2.1.4.6 Cost-Benefit Analysis...............................3-13 

 3.2.2 Significant and Substantial New Information or Considerations ......3-14 

 3.2.2.1 Groundwater Analyses ..................................................3-14 

 3.2.2.2 Postclosure Criticality....................................................3-14 

 3.2.2.3 Hydrothermal Upwelling ................................................3-15 

 3.2.2.4 Volcanic Hazards Information........................................3-15 

 3.3 Conclusions ..................................................................................................3-15 

4 NRC CONSULTATIONS..............................................................................................4-1 

 4.1 Consultation under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.......4-1 
ii 

CONTENTS, Continued

Section Page 

 4.2 Consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.........................4-1 

5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ...............................................................................5-1 

 5.1 Summary ........................................................................................................5-1 

 5.2 Conclusions ....................................................................................................5-1 

6 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................6-1 

APPENDIX A — CONTRIBUTORS TO THE REVIEW 

APPENDIX B — CONSULTATION LETTERS 
iii 

FIGURES 

Figure Page 

1-1 Relationship between DOE NEPA Analyses for a Proposed Geologic 

 High-Level Radioactive Waste Repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada............1-4 

2-1 Overview of the DOE Proposed Action for Constructing, Operating, 

 Monitoring, and Closing a Geologic Repository for High-Level Radioactive 

 Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nevada...................................................................2-1 
iv 

ACRONYMS/ABBREVIATIONS 

BLM Bureau of Land Management 

DOE U.S. Department of Energy 

CNWRA Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses 

CRWMS M&O Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System Management and Operating 

EIS Environmental impact statement 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

MTHM Metric tons of heavy metal 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act 

NMSS Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards 

NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission or Commission 

NWPA Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 

TAD Transportation, Aging, and Disposal 

TSPA Total System Performance Assessment 
 1-1

1 INTRODUCTION 

The Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) of 1982, as amended, specifies that in the United States, 

spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste will be disposed of in a deep geologic 

repository. The NWPA identifies the roles of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

(NRC) with regard to the licensing of a geologic repository. Amendments to the NWPA in 1987 

identified Yucca Mountain, Nevada, as the 

single candidate site for characterization as a 

potential geologic repository. 

On June 3, 2008, DOE submitted a license 

application (DOE, 2008a) to NRC, seeking 

authorization to construct a deep geologic 

repository for disposal of high-level 

radioactive waste at Yucca Mountain, 

Nevada. NRC staff will docket and begin its 

detailed review of the license application. 

NRC will issue a construction authorization 

only if the license application demonstrates 

compliance with the requirements in 10 CFR 

§ 63.31. 

1.1 Background and 

General Requirements 

As described in the NWPA, Section 114(f), 

DOE prepared a final environmental impact 

statement (EIS) in February 2002 to meet 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

requirements related to the construction, 

operation, and closure of a potential geologic 

repository for high-level radioactive waste at 

Yucca Mountain, Nevada (DOE, 2002). This 

EIS accompanied the Secretary of Energy’s 

site recommendation to the President on 

February 14, 2002. In July 2002, Congress 

passed and the President signed a joint 

resolution designating Yucca Mountain as the 

site for development as a geologic repository. 

In October 2006, DOE published a notice of 

intent in the Federal Register (DOE, 2006a) 

to prepare a supplemental EIS to update the 

2002 EIS (Repository Supplemental EIS). At 

the same time, DOE announced its intent to 

develop an EIS for the Nevada rail alignment 

(Rail Alignment EIS) and a supplement to the 

rail corridor analyses presented in the 2002 

EIS [Rail Corridor Supplemental EIS (SEIS)] 

Roles of Different Federal Agencies in the Yucca 

Mountain License Review 

The Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) of 1982, as 

amended, established Yucca Mountain, Nevada as the 

single candidate site for characterization as a potential 

geologic repository for the disposal of high-level 

radioactive waste. As defined in 10 CFR § 63.2, highlevel radioactive waste means, “...(1) The highly 

radioactive material resulting from the reprocessing of 

spent nuclear fuel, including liquid waste produced 

directly in reprocessing and any solid material derived 

from such liquid waste that contains fission products in 

sufficient concentrations; (2) Irradiated reactor fuel; and 

(3) Other highly radioactive material that the 

Commission, consistent with existing law, determines 

by rule requires permanent isolation.” 

The NWPA also defined the role for three Federal 

agencies in the licensing of the potential repository at 

Yucca Mountain, including specific aspects related to 

compliance with National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) requirements: 

• The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is 

responsible for designing, constructing, operating, 

and decommissioning a permanent geologic 

repository. For the purposes of compliance with 

NEPA, DOE is the lead agency in preparing an 

environmental impact statement (EIS) for the 

proposed repository. 

• The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

is responsible for developing environmental 

standards specific to Yucca Mountain for use in 

evaluating the safety of a geologic repository. The 

Energy Policy Act of 1992 directs EPA to develop 

these standards. 

• The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is 

responsible for developing regulations to 

implement the EPA environmental standards, and 

for licensing and overseeing the construction and 

operation of the repository. In addition, NRC would 

consider future DOE applications for license 

amendments to permanently close the repository, 

dismantle surface facilities, remove controls to 

restrict access to the site, or undertake other 

activities involving any unreviewed safety question. 

To comply with the NWPA, NRC is to adopt the 

DOE final EIS to the “extent practicable.”
 1-2

(DOE, 2006b). The draft EIS and draft supplemental EISs were issued for public comment on 

October 12, 2007 (DOE, 2007a, b, c). The public comment period for the draft EIS and 

supplemental EISs ended on January 10, 2008, and DOE published the final supplemental 

EISs and the final Rail Alignment EIS on June 16, 2008 (DOE, 2008b, c, d). 

DOE submitted the 2002 EIS with the license application on June 3, 2008. DOE submitted the 

Repository Supplemental EIS on June 16, 2008, in accordance with 10 CFR § 51.67(b). The 

Rail Corridor SEIS and Rail Alignment EIS were also provided on June 16, 2008. 

In accordance with NWPA, Section 114(f), NRC is to adopt the DOE EIS to “the extent 

practicable.” As described in NRC NEPA-implementing regulations in 10 CFR § 51.109(a)(1), 

the EIS is considered to include “...any supplement thereto.” The regulations for the NRC 

adoption determination are set forth in 10 CFR § 51.109(c). These regulations state that the 

NRC staff “...will find that it is practicable to adopt any environmental impact statement 

prepared by the Secretary of Energy in connection with a geologic repository proposed to be 

constructed under Title I of the NWPA of 1982, as amended, unless: 

• The action proposed to be taken by the Commission differs from the action proposed in 

the license application submitted by the Secretary of Energy; and the difference may 

significantly affect the quality of the human environment; or 

• Significant and substantial new information or new considerations render such 

environmental impact statement inadequate.” 

Using these criteria, NRC may adopt the EIS and any supplements, adopt them in part 

indicating a supplement is needed in part, or not adopt them, requiring supplementation. 

1.2 Overview of the Adoption Review Process 

The NRC staff has conducted a review to determine whether it is practicable to adopt DOE’s 

EISs. Section 1.3 discusses the EISs that are the subject of this review. The adoption review 

addressed the adoption criteria identified in 10 CFR § 51.109(c), including a review, pursuant to 

10 CFR § 51.109(c)(2), using NRC guidance (NRC, 2003a), of the adequacy of the EIS and 

supplements under NRC NEPA regulations in 

Part 51. Council on Environmental Quality 

regulations and guidance were also used to 

inform the staff’s evaluation of the adequacy of 

the EISs with respect to NEPA. The staff's 

adoption review includes input from a number of 

technical disciplines. This input was considered 

within the context of the statutory and regulatory 

requirements for the NRC adoption of the EISs. 

Appendix A lists the contributors to the review. 

The classification of impact significance is 

discussed in NRC guidance for environmental 

reviews (see NRC, 2003a, and the text box at 

right). The NRC staff used these classifications 

of impacts in applying the adoption criteria of 

10 CFR § 51.109(c). 

Classifying Impact Significance 

(after NRC, 2003a)

• Small Impact: The environmental effects are 

not detectable or are so minor that 

they will neither destabilize nor noticeably 

alter any important attribute of the 

resource considered. 

• Moderate Impact: The environmental effects 

are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not 

destabilize, important attributes of the 

resource considered. 

• Large Impact: The environmental effects are 

clearly noticeable and are sufficient to 

destabilize important attributes of the 

resource considered.
 1-3

1.3 Scope and Considerations Related to Staff’s Review 

The DOE documents listed below are the subject of the NRC adoption review for the proposed 

Yucca Mountain Repository: 

• “Final Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic Repository for the Disposal of 

Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, 

Nevada” (2002 EIS) (DOE, 2002). 

• “Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic Repository for the 

Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, 

Nye County, Nevada” (Repository Supplemental EIS) (DOE, 2008b). 

• “Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic Repository for the 

Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, 

Nye County, Nevada—Nevada Rail Transportation Corridor” (Rail Corridor SEIS) 

(DOE, 2008c). 

NRC also considered the following DOE EIS, which examines the environmental impacts 

associated with constructing and operating a rail line along specific alignments within the 

Caliente and Mina corridors: 

• “Final Environmental Impact Statement for a Rail Alignment for the Construction and 

Operation of a Railroad in Nevada to a Geologic Repository at Yucca Mountain, Nye 

County, Nevada” (Rail Alignment EIS) (DOE, 2008d). 

DOE published the Rail Alignment EIS together with the Rail Corridor SEIS. To the extent that 

the Repository Supplemental EIS and the Rail Corridor SEIS incorporate by reference the Rail 

Alignment EIS analyses for the Caliente alignment, these areas of the Rail Alignment EIS are 

also part of the staff’s adoption review. Sections of the Rail Alignment EIS pertaining to the 

Caliente alignment that were not specifically incorporated by reference were considered a 

potential source of new information, but are not specifically part of the NRC adoption review 

scope. Figure 1-1 illustrates the interrelationships among the different listed documents. 

Consistent with the NWPA’s intention to eliminate duplication and with NRC’s regulations in 

10 CFR § 51.109, the NRC staff’s adoption review is neither a duplication of DOE’s efforts nor a 

detailed review of all technical aspects of the analyses contained in these EISs. Further, an 

NRC staff determination of adoption of these EISs does not necessarily mean that NRC would 

have independently arrived at the same conclusions as DOE on matters of fact or policy. The 

staff recognizes that DOE, as the lead agency for implementing the NEPA process for the 

proposed repository, may reach conclusions that are different from those others might make. 

Consistent with NUREG–1748 (“Environmental Review Guidance for Licensing Actions 

Associated with NMSS Programs”), the NRC staff considers that the use of a regulatory 

requirement to limit an analysis of impacts is not necessarily appropriate in the context of NEPA. 

As discussed further in Section 3.2.1.4.2, the NRC staff concludes that the discussion regarding 

the environmental impacts on groundwater requires further supplementation. 
 1-4

Figure 1-1. Relationship Between DOE NEPA Analyses for a Proposed Geologic 

High-Level Radioactive Waste Repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada (From DOE, 

2008b, Foreword) 

In its EISs, DOE has identified and described the status of permitting and consultation 

processes and additional investigations. Some of the bases for EIS impact analyses and 

proposed mitigation measures include the anticipated results of these processes or 

investigations that are still ongoing. DOE commits in various sections of its EISs to resolving 

these ongoing activities, examples of which are discussed further in Section 3.2.1.4.1 of this 

report. 

Section 1 of this report provides background, describes the DOE NEPA documents under 

review, and establishes the scope of the NRC review. Section 2 presents the NRC staff 

assessment of the consistency between the proposed action described in the EIS and the action 

proposed to be taken by the Commission. Section 3 provides the results of the NRC staff 

assessment of whether there are significant and substantial new information or new 

considerations that would render the EIS inadequate. As part of this assessment, the NRC staff 

addresses the completeness and adequacy of DOE’s EISs with respect to the applicable NRC 

NEPA regulations and guidance. Section 4 summarizes NRC responsibilities with respect to 

other environmental laws, and Section 5 summarizes the staff’s conclusions. 
 1-5

1.4 Relationship to License Application Reviews 

In addition to the EIS adoption review, NRC staff conducted a separate acceptance review (or 

docketing review) of the license application. NRC staff will docket the license application for the 

proposed repository and begin its detailed review pursuant to 10 CFR § 63.31(a). The purpose 

of the detailed review of the license application is to determine if DOE’s proposal for repository 

design, performance, and operation complies with the NRC regulations in Part 63 for the 

issuance of a construction authorization. This review will examine and evaluate the scientific 

and engineering basis DOE presents in its license application (NRC, 2003b). An NRC staff 

determination on the practicability of adopting the EISs is without prejudice on the outcome of 

the review under Part 63. 
 2-1

2 SIMILARITY OF PROPOSED ACTIONS [10 CFR § 51.109(c)(1)] 

Under 10 CFR § 51.109(c)(1), the NRC staff must determine whether there are any differences 

between the proposed action to be taken by the Commission and as described in the EISs 

(DOE, 2008b, c; 2002) and the proposed action described in the license application (DOE, 

2008a) and evaluate whether any differences may significantly affect the quality of the human 

environment. The action proposed to be taken by the Commission is the potential issuance to 

DOE of an authorization to construct a repository, the subsequent potential issuance of a 

license to receive and possess waste (operate and monitor the repository), and potential 

issuance of an amendment to close the repository (Figure 2-1). NRC’s proposed action for the 

repository does not include any NRC regulatory actions that may be associated with the 

transportation of waste.1

 DOE proposes in its license application to construct, operate, monitor, 

and eventually close a geologic repository at Yucca Mountain (DOE, 2008a). 

2.1 Review Methods 

The staff reviewed and compared sections of the 2002 EIS and the Repository Supplemental 

EIS and license application that discuss DOE’s proposal. The results of this review are 

Figure 2-1. Overview of the DOE Proposed Action for Constructing, Operating, 

Monitoring, and Closing a Geologic Repository for High-Level Radioactive Waste at 

Yucca Mountain, Nevada (From DOE, 2008b, Section 2.1) 

 

1

 DOE must transport waste in casks approved by NRC through a separate regulatory process. 
 2-2

presented in Section 2.3. The review considered the nature and extent of proposed operations 

at the site and facilities that could be constructed, modified, or impacted as a result of the 

proposed action; it was not a detailed technical comparison of all of the activities associated 

with the proposed action. If the results of the comparison indicated that there are differences 

between the descriptions of the proposed action (i.e., differences between the proposed action 

in the license application and that in the EISs), then the staff determined whether those 

differences could result in significant environmental impacts. The staff also reviewed mitigation 

actions proposed in the EISs to determine whether they would affect the comparison of 

proposed action descriptions. 

2.2 Review Areas 

The NRC staff reviewed sections of the Repository Supplemental EIS (DOE, 2008b) that 

describe DOE’s proposed action, including Sections 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4 of Chapter 1; Section 2.1 

of Chapter 2; and Section 4.2 of Chapter 4 (addressing impacts from retrieval). The staff also 

reviewed the 2002 EIS (DOE, 2002), specifically focusing on those sections that the Repository 

Supplemental EIS indicated as relevant to its current proposal (e.g., retrieval of wastes). The 

Repository Supplemental EIS description of the proposed action (DOE, 2008b, Section 2.1.7) 

includes a general summary of the proposed action from the Rail Alignment EIS (DOE, 2008d), 

and this was also reviewed as part of the NRC review scope. The Rail Corridor SEIS (DOE, 

2008c) and Rail Alignment EIS (DOE, 2008d) were not part of this comparison of the proposed 

actions, since NRC’s proposed licensing action for the repository does not include regulating 

construction or operation of the rail line. 

The NRC staff compared the proposed action described in the EISs to relevant sections of the 

license application (DOE, 2008a). Areas of the DOE license application that NRC staff 

determined to be relevant for this comparison are applicable subsections of the General 

Information portion of the license application, Sections 1.1, 1.2, and 2 and applicable 

subsections of Safety Analysis Report Sections 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.11, 1.12, and 4.1. 

2.3 Assessment Results 

The EIS describes the proposed actions at the geologic repository in adequate detail to enable 

an understanding of proposed facilities, construction schedule, operations, monitoring, and 

facility closure (DOE, 2008b, c). 

The license application (DOE, 2008a, Safety Analysis Report) presents detailed information 

required to demonstrate compliance with the performance objectives in Part 63 and, therefore, 

presents the most detailed information on structures and systems important-to-safety. The 

license application presents less detailed information on structures and systems not importantto-safety and for certain other activities, such as aggregate and engineered fill material borrow 

areas and ancillary or support facilities. However, the descriptive information on these activities 

and facilities is consistent and adequate to assess the environmental impacts. 

Following are some minor differences the NRC staff has identified in the descriptions of the 

proposed actions: 

• The license application states that the Native American Interaction Program would be 

the method used to evaluate Native American requests to access the repository site 

and geologic repository operations area (DOE 2008a, Safety Analysis Report, 
 2-3

Section 5.9.1.1). In the Repository Supplemental EIS, DOE commits to use this 

program, but does not explicitly state that the program would be used to evaluate access 

requests by Native Americans. In fact, other methods to regulate land use are identified 

in the EIS. The Repository Supplemental EIS (DOE, 2008b, Section 4.1.1.1) indicates 

land use would be regulated by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 

1976, the conditions of the permanent legislative withdrawal set forth by Congress, 

and other applicable laws (also see DOE 2008b, Volume III, response to 

Comment RRR000657/0014, page CR-307). Because DOE commits in its 

license application to using the Native American Interaction Program to evaluate 

access requests, the NRC staff assumes that the lack of a similar specific commitment in 

the EIS is not intended to indicate that DOE will not engage in this program. 

• As stated in the Repository Supplemental EIS (DOE, 2008b, Section 4.2), DOE does not 

consider retrieval as part of the proposed action. However, retrieval capability is 

required under the NWPA and Part 63, and the EIS addresses the impacts of retrieval of 

emplaced waste as a contingency to demonstrate compliance with NRC regulations in 

10 CFR § 63.111(e). DOE states (DOE, 2008b, Section 4.2) that the concept for 

retrieval has not changed from that which DOE analyzed in the 2002 EIS, and that the 

analyses reported in that EIS (2002, Section 4.2) continue to represent potential impacts 

during retrieval. The waste retrieval storage area identified in the 2002 EIS (DOE, 2002, 

Figure 4-5) does not appear to have the same layout as the area identified in the license 

application (DOE, 2008a, Safety Analysis Report, Figure 1.11-1). However, DOE 

appears to have assumed the same basic constraints (i.e., retrieval and surface storage 

for up to 70,000 metric tons of heavy metal within the withdrawal area). For this reason, 

the NRC staff concludes that the differences related to retrieval would not be significant. 

Any retrieval of emplaced waste, a contingent future activity that could occur before 

permanent closure of the repository, may require NRC approval pursuant to 10 CFR § 

63.45 and may require additional consideration under NEPA. 

• The Repository Supplemental EIS provides a general discussion of the spent fuel and 

waste types planned for disposal in the proposed repository, but does not include an 

analysis of each type of fuel such as may be found in the license application (DOE, 

2008a, Safety Analysis Report). DOE states that it identified accident scenarios for the 

EIS using scenarios developed for the repository design and provides several references 

to reports used to support the license application (DOE, 2008b, Section E.2). For this 

reason, the staff assumes that the fuel types used in the EIS accident analyses are 

consistent with the fuel types proposed for disposal in the license application. 

With the exception of the discussions above, the information in the 2002 EIS and the Repository 

Supplemental EIS on surface and subsurface facility descriptions, operations, monitoring, and 

closure activities is consistent with that in the license application. 

2.4 Conclusions 

Pursuant to 10 CFR § 51.109(c)(1), the NRC staff has determined that the proposed action as 

described in the 2002 EIS and Repository Supplemental EIS is substantially the same as the 

proposed action described in the license application. For the reasons stated in Section 2.3, 

minor differences in the proposed action descriptions do not indicate the potential for significant 

environmental impacts not already evaluated in the EIS. 
 3-1

3 SIGNIFICANT AND SUBSTANTIAL NEW INFORMATION OR 

CONSIDERATIONS [10 CFR § 51.109(c)(2)] 

Under 10 CFR § 51.109(c)(2), the NRC staff must determine whether significant and substantial 

new information or considerations have arisen that were not considered in the 2002 EIS, the 

Repository Supplemental EIS, or the Rail Corridor SEIS, and would render the 2002 EIS, as 

supplemented, inadequate. 

As part of its determination of whether there are any significant and substantial new information 

or considerations that would render the EIS inadequate, the NRC staff evaluated the 

completeness and adequacy of the relevant portions of the DOE EISs (DOE, 2008b, c; 2002) 

with respect to the requirements of NEPA. As noted in Section 1.3 of this report, the scope of 

the adoption review also includes only those portions of the Rail Alignment EIS (2008d) that are 

specifically incorporated by reference. 

3.1 Review Methods 

3.1.1 Completeness and Adequacy 

NRC staff reviewed the 2002 EIS, the Repository Supplemental EIS, and the Rail Corridor 

SEIS to determine if they meet NRC NEPA requirements in Part 51. Sections of Part 51 that 

are relevant to an assessment of completeness and adequacy for a final EIS are 10 CFR § 

51.91, “Final Environmental Impact Statement—Content,” and 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, 

Appendix A, “Format for Presentation of Material in Environmental Impact Statements.” 

The staff reviewed the EISs to determine whether: 

• DOE considered the key topics necessary to adequately evaluate potential impacts from 

the proposed action; 

• The final EISs (DOE, 2008b, c, d; 2002) include responses to public comments on the 

draft EISs (DOE, 2007a, b, c; 1999); 

• Opposing views are documented in the EISs; 

• The descriptions of the proposed action and the affected environment are sufficient to 

support DOE conclusions regarding environmental impacts; and 

• DOE assessments of potential impacts have technical bases to support the impact 

conclusions documented in the NEPA analyses. 

The staff used the following NRC Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS) 

guidance documents to assess the completeness and adequacy of the EISs: 

• The Division of High-Level Waste Repository Safety Director’s Policy and Procedures 

Letter 011, “Adoption Determination Review of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Final 

Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Geologic Repository at Yucca 

Mountain for Issuance of a Construction Authorization, Revision 1” (Kokajko, 2008) 
 3-2

• NUREG–1748, “Environmental Review Guidance for Licensing Actions Associated With 

Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS) Programs” (NRC, 2003a, Chapter 5) 

The NRC staff’s review was also informed by Council on Environmental Quality regulations and 

guidance, as well as guidance from other agencies (e.g., Environmental Protection Agency, 

Department of Interior, National Park Service) to evaluate specific resource areas. 

The following sections include a summary of NRC staff’s overall assessment of completeness 

and adequacy of the EISs.

3.1.2 Significant and Substantial New Information or Considerations 

The staff review sought to identify new information or considerations and to document the 

substance and source of the information. The staff then evaluated whether the new information 

or considerations could affect the conclusions and call into question the adequacy of the 2002 

EIS, as supplemented (DOE, 2008b, c; 2002). The staff performed the following reviews: 

• The staff determined whether DOE explicitly identified new information or new 

considerations in the license application (DOE, 2008a) or EISs (such as information 

associated with repository design). In addition to information DOE may have identified, 

the staff reviewed, where applicable, other new information or new considerations that 

could be considered significant or substantial. 

• The staff reviewed the impacts addressed in the EISs (DOE, 2008b, c; 2002) in light of 

relevant information in the license application (DOE, 2008a) to determine whether the 

EISs reasonably encompass the impacts of actions described in the license application. 

• The staff determined whether there are significant differences in the methodology and 

analytical approach between the license application (DOE, 2008a) and the EISs (DOE, 

2008b, c; 2002). The staff then determined whether any significant differences could 

result in a significant difference in the environmental impacts evaluated in the EISs. 

• The staff reviewed public comments on DOE’s draft EISs to determine whether the 

comments identify significant and substantial new information that is not adequately 

considered in the EISs. 

• The staff determined whether significant and substantial new information or 

considerations exist that are associated with relevant court cases under the NWPA. 

• The staff determined whether relevant DOE records of decision not already considered 

in the EISs may raise significant and substantial new information pertaining to the 

proposed repository. 

The following section discusses the results of the staff’s reviews for completeness and 

adequacy and for significant and substantial new information or considerations. 
 3-3

3.2 Assessment Results 

3.2.1 Completeness and Adequacy 

3.2.1.1 Comparison of the Format of EISs to NRC Requirements in 10 CFR Part 51, 

Subpart A, Appendix A 

Appendix A of Part 51, Subpart A, describes the format for an EIS. The specific sections are: 

• Cover Sheet; 

• Summary; 

• Table of Contents; 

• Purpose of and Need for Action; 

• Alternatives including the proposed action; 

• Affected Environment; 

• Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions; 

• List of Preparers; 

• List of Agencies, Organizations, and Persons to Whom Copies of the Statement are 

Sent; 

• Substantive Comments Received and Responses; 

• Index; and 

• Appendices. 

NUREG–1748 (NRC, 2003a, Chapter 5) provides more detailed information on the technical 

content of these sections. The EISs comply with Appendix A and are generally consistent with 

NUREG–1748 for the technical content of an EIS. 

In preparing the supplemental EISs, DOE incorporated certain analyses by reference. For 

example, DOE incorporated by reference portions of the 2002 EIS related to the no-action 

alternative (DOE, 2002, Volume I, Chapter 7) into the Repository Supplemental EIS (DOE, 

2008b, Chapter 7). In addition, DOE incorporated some sections of the Rail Corridor SEIS 

(DOE, 2008c, Volume I, Sections 3.2 and 3.4) and the Rail Alignment EIS (DOE, 2008d, 

Sections 3.2, 3.3, and Chapters 4, 5, 7, and 8) by reference throughout the Repository 

Supplemental EIS (DOE, 2008b). This incorporation by reference meets Part 51, Subpart A, 

Appendix A and is consistent with the techniques described in Council on Environmental Quality 

regulations at 40 CFR § 1502.21. 

Additional detailed analyses are included as appendices. As described below, the EISs include 

separate volumes that summarize and respond to comments received on the draft EISs. The 

appendices are compliant with Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix A, and are generally consistent 

with NUREG–1748 (NRC, 2003a, Chapter 5). 

3.2.1.2 Comparison of the Content of EISs to NRC Requirements in 10 CFR § 51.91 

The DOE final EISs incorporate separate volumes that contain responses to written and oral 

comments received on the draft EISs (DOE, 2002, Volume III; DOE 2008b, Volume III; DOE, 

2008c, d, Volume VI). In the comment-response volumes of the EISs, DOE has identified each 

comment and prepared responses. In some cases where the comments were similar, DOE 

summarized the comments and provided a single response. The DOE final EISs also include 

summaries of changes made to the draft EISs in response to public comments. For example, 
 3-4

the Repository Supplemental EIS (DOE, 2008b, Section 1.5.2b) provides examples of changes 

in response to public comments received on the draft Repository Supplemental EIS (DOE, 

2007a), and changes in the text are marked in the margins of the final EISs. 

DOE’s methodology in responding to comments meets the requirements of 10 CFR § 51.91(a) 

and is generally consistent with guidance in NUREG–1748 (NRC, 2003a, Section 4.4.5). The 

substance of the DOE responses to comments is compliant with NRC requirements and 

consistent with NRC guidance (NRC, 2003a). In its comments on the draft EISs, NRC staff 

noted that clarity and consistency could be improved among the different analyses (Weber, 

2007). In addition, the staff provided comments concerning transparency and traceability of the 

technical bases. DOE responded that these comments were taken into consideration in revising 

the draft EISs (e.g., DOE, 2008b, Volume III, Section 1.15). The staff noted instances, however, 

where DOE did not respond to staff comments2

. DOE’s failure to adequately address certain 

NRC comments did not affect the overall adequacy of the EISs, with the exception of comment 

RRR000524/0030, as discussed below in Section 3.2.1.4.2. Staff comments on the draft EISs 

that warrant further discussion in the context of the adoption review are discussed further in 

Section 3.2.1.4 of this report. 

The EISs also document opposing viewpoints and identify DOE’s preferred alternatives or 

options (e.g., DOE, 2008b, Sections 2.5 and 4.1.5.1.2), thus meeting the requirements in 

10 CFR § 51.91(b) and (d). Section 51.91(c) requires an EIS to state how the alternatives 

considered in it and decisions based on it will or will not achieve the requirements of sections 

101 and 102(1) of NEPA and of any other applicable environmental laws and policies. The EISs 

do not appear to contain explicit statements that would address 10 CFR § 51.91(c). However, 

with respect to alternatives, under Section 114(f)(6) of the NWPA, NRC is not required to 

consider alternatives to geologic disposal or alternative sites to the Yucca Mountain site. The 

NRC staff concludes, therefore, that DOE is not required to meet 10 CFR § 51.91 for a 

discussion of alternatives. With respect to decisions that may be based on the EISs, the staff 

concludes that the EISs’ discussions of DOE efforts to assess cumulative impacts, consult with 

other governments, develop mitigation measures, assess the irretrievable commitment of 

resources, and develop best management practices address the intent of Section 101 of NEPA. 

In accordance with Section 102(1) of NEPA, the EISs list applicable Federal, state and local 

laws that would apply to its proposed action (Chapter 11 of DOE, 2008b; 2002). DOE also 

discusses compliance with other relevant and applicable environmental laws and policies. 

3.2.1.3 Compliance with Other NRC Requirements 

The regulation in 10 CFR § 63.321(c) requires that DOE provide in the EIS for Yucca Mountain 

the results of its analysis and technical basis for the human intrusion scenario, if not projected to 

occur before 10,000 years following disposal. Similarly, 10 CFR § 63.341 requires that DOE 

provide in the EIS the results of its analysis and technical basis for the projected individual peak 

dose that would occur after 10,000 years following disposal but within the period of geologic 

stability. DOE provided the information required by these regulations in the 2002 EIS and 

updated the information in the Repository Supplemental EIS. NRC has since proposed 

removing these requirements in revisions to Part 63 (70 FR 53313), which implement a dose 

standard after 10,000 years; these revisions to Part 63 are not yet final. 

 

2

 For example, DOE did not address NRC comments RRR000524/0009, concerning referencing, and RRR000524/0034, concerning 

consistency among the EISs. 
 3-5

The regulation in 10 CFR § 51.67(a) states that DOE must submit any final EIS prepared in 

connection with any geologic repository and that the statement must include, among the 

alternatives under consideration, denial of a construction authorization or license. As discussed 

in Section 1 of this report, DOE submitted with its license application the 2002 EIS and 

subsequently submitted its final Repository Supplemental EIS. These EISs both consider the 

no action alternative, which addresses denial of a construction authorization or license, and thus 

comply with this regulation. 

The regulation in 10 CFR § 51.67(b) states that DOE may be required to supplement its final 

EIS if it makes a substantial change in its proposed action or identifies significant new concerns 

or information bearing on the proposed action or its impacts. DOE has not identified a 

substantial change in its proposed action or significant new concerns since submitting its license 

application on June 3, 2008. 

The regulation in 10 CFR § 51.67(c) states that DOE must inform the Commission of the status 

of any civil action for judicial review initiated pursuant to Section 119 of the NWPA. The status 

report must state whether the courts have found the EIS to be adequate or inadequate and must 

identify any issues relating to the adequacy of the EIS that may remain subject to judicial 

review. On June 16, 2008, DOE submitted a letter with its Repository Supplemental EIS 

providing the status report discussed above (Boyle, 2008). This letter describes the State of 

Nevada’s challenge to the 2002 EIS and the 2004 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit. It also discusses that court’s 2006 decision concerning Nevada’s 

separate challenge to DOE’s transportation analyses and resulting Record of Decision. Based 

on the court’s rulings, the DOE letter concludes: 

Other than the issues that the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit 

indicated in its 2004 and 2006 decisions were not ripe for review, there are no 

remaining issues that may be subject to judicial review relating to the 2002 FEIS. 

To date, there have been no petitions for review filed concerning the SEIS. 

The NRC staff concludes that DOE’s letter report satisfies the requirements in 10 CFR § 

51.67(c). 

3.2.1.4 Adequacy of Analyses with Respect to NEPA 

The DOE EISs comply with NRC NEPA regulations and guidance for completeness and 

adequacy (DOE, 2008b, c; 2002), with the exception of the groundwater analysis, which is 

discussed in section 3.2.1.4.2. In addition, NRC staff identified areas related to the analyses in 

the EISs that warrant further discussion in this report, but are not found to be inadequate. 

DOE’s in-process activities are discussed in section 3.2.1.4.1, and the additional areas are 

discussed in sections 3.2.1.4.3-3.2.1.4.6. 

3.2.1.4.1 In-Process Activities 

In its Repository Supplemental EIS and Rail Alignment EIS, DOE has identified and described 

the status of permitting and consultation processes and additional investigations. Some of the 

bases for the impact analyses and proposed mitigation measures include the anticipated results 

of these activities that are still in process. DOE commits in various sections of its EISs to 

resolving these in-process activities, and examples of these are discussed further below. NRC 

regulations at 10 CFR § 51.71(c) require that an EIS “...list all Federal permits, licenses, 

approvals, and other entitlements that must be obtained in implementing the proposed action 
 3-6

and will describe the status of compliance with those requirements.” As indicated in NUREG–

1748 (NRC, 2003a, Section 5.1.4), an EIS should describe the most current status of the 

required permit applications and consultations, but it is not necessary that all permitting and 

consultation activities be completed before publication of the final EIS. Additionally, Council on 

Environmental Quality regulations at 40 CFR § 1502.22 state that an EIS may document 

incomplete or unavailable information provided that the EIS clearly indicates such information is 

lacking. The staff concludes, therefore, that DOE’s discussions of these activities meet 

NRC regulations and are consistent with Council on Environmental Quality regulations and 

NRC guidance. 

The in-process activities may be grouped into those that require consultation or coordination 

with other Federal agencies or other governments and those that require action only by DOE. 

Examples of in-process activities that involve other government entities include, but may not be 

limited to, the following: 

• On March 4, 2008, DOE submitted a right-of-way application to the U.S. Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) to construct those portions of a proposed railroad from Caliente, 

Nevada, to Yucca Mountain that will cross public land administered by BLM (DOE, 

2008d, Rail Alignment EIS, Section 1.5.1). 

• On March 13, 2008, DOE submitted a “Biological Assessment of the Effects on 

Threatened and Endangered Species of Constructing and Operating a Railroad from 

Caliente, Nevada, to Yucca Mountain,” to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and 

requested initiation of formal consultation as required by Section 7 of the Endangered 

Species Act (DOE, 2008d, Rail Alignment EIS, Appendix B, Section B.2.1). A biological 

opinion has not yet been issued. 

• DOE activities that might discharge dredge or fill into surface waters of the United States 

or lead to loss of wetlands may require a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

under the Clean Water Act, Section 404. DOE has been consulting with the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers to discuss potential permit requirements. On October 16, 2007, 

DOE submitted a request for jurisdictional determination for the Caliente rail alignment to 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (DOE, 2008d, Rail Alignment EIS, Appendix B, 

Section B.2.2.1). 

• On March 17, 2008, DOE filed an application with the Surface Transportation Board 

seeking authorization to obtain a certificate of public convenience and necessity to 

construct and operate a rail line from Caliente, Nevada, to Yucca Mountain (DOE, 

2008c, Rail Corridor SEIS, Section 1.4.2). The Surface Transportation Board has 

docketed the application, but has not yet reached a decision whether to grant or deny 

the permit or grant the permit with environmental conditions (Surface Transportation 

Board, 2008). 

• DOE is consulting with the Nevada State Historic Preservation Office and the Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation to develop a programmatic agreement for the proposed 

repository that covers potential impacts on cultural and historical resources (DOE, 

2008b, Table 11-4). 

• DOE has indicated its intent to have continuing discussions with Native American tribes 

through the Native American Interaction Program to determine best management 
 3-7

practices and mitigation measures to address tribal perspectives (DOE, 2008d, Rail 

Alignment EIS, Section 7.1.2). DOE has also proposed establishing one or more 

Mitigation Advisory Boards with governmental entities (Federal, local) to identify 

concerns pertaining to mitigation of adverse impacts. 

• In accordance with 10 CFR § 63.121, DOE must obtain the water rights needed to 

accomplish the purpose of the geologic repository operations area. As discussed in the 

Repository Supplemental EIS, DOE filed a water appropriation request with the Office of 

the Nevada State Engineer on July 22, 1997, for permanent rights to 530,000 cubic 

meters (430 acre-ft) of water annually from five wells located in the Fortymile Canyon–

Jackass Flat Hydrographic area within the land withdrawal boundary to meet the 

projected water demands for the proposed action (DOE, 2008b, Section 11.2.3.4). The 

Nevada State Engineer has denied the DOE water appropriation permit applications for 

these five wells. DOE has appealed this decision in U.S. District Court (DOE, 2008b, 

Section 11.2.3.4). A court ruling has not been issued for this case. 

• In the Rail Alignment EIS, DOE stated it does not anticipate needing borrow pits for the 

Caliente alternative, because of the relatively close balance of cuts and fills during 

construction (DOE, 2008c, d, Volume VI, response to Comment RRR000524/0014, page 

CRD3-95). Borrow pits are subject to BLM approval under 43 CFR Part 3600. If such 

activities are determined to be necessary for the Caliente alignment, DOE commits to 

obtaining the necessary free-use permits for production of saleable minerals from BLM 

in accordance with regulations in 43 CFR Part 3604. 

• DOE’s proposed action includes the use of transportation, aging, and disposal (TAD) 

canisters. The TAD canisters require NRC certification for transportation in accordance 

with Part 71 and an NRC license for surface storage at commercial sites in accordance 

with Part 72 (DOE, 2008b, Section 2.1.1). The TAD canister design has not been 

finalized, nor have certification/license applications been submitted to NRC. DOE’s 

expectation under the proposed action is that potentially as much as 90 percent of 

commercial spent nuclear fuel would be packaged in TAD canisters by the operators at 

generator sites (DOE, 2008a, Section 2.1.1). In response to public comments, DOE 

included in the Repository Supplemental EIS an analysis of transportation and repository 

impacts if 75 percent of spent fuel is packaged in TAD canisters at generator sites and 

the remaining 25 percent at the repository (DOE, 2008b, Appendix A, Section 2). 

Examples of in-process activities that involve continuing DOE processes or investigations 

include, but may not be limited to, the following: 

 

• DOE anticipates and concludes that residual adverse effects associated with a rail 

alignment would be “small” to “moderate” (DOE, 2008d, Rail Alignment EIS, 

Section 4.2.13.4), because DOE expects its future consultation and historic/cultural 

resource management processes to resolve such impacts. Because these processes 

are ongoing, DOE does not present conclusions regarding specific impacts or mitigation 

measures that might be implemented. 

• DOE has proposed a number of management actions related to mitigation of potential 

adverse impacts. These DOE actions include a commitment to implementing an 

environmental management system program to monitor the effectiveness of mitigation 

measures and modify them as necessary, developing of a mitigation action plan to 
 3-8

identify specific mitigation commitments, and chartering one or more mitigation advisory 

boards to be led by governmental entities along the Nevada transportation corridor to 

identify potential adverse impacts and mitigation measures (DOE, 2008b, Section 9.2.2). 

• DOE describes geotechnical investigations that are still needed to assess historical 

mining locations that may intersect with the proposed Caliente rail alignment (DOE, 

2008d, Rail Alignment EIS, Section 3.2.1.2.3). 

• DOE states that the Repository Supplemental EIS analysis of the impacts from 

manufacturing repository components assumes that all manufacturing would occur at 

one representative site, but that this is an unlikely scenario (DOE, 2008b, 

Section 4.1.14.1). DOE further states that it did not perform a site-specific analysis 

of impacts, because the locations of specific facilities are unknown until the 

competitive bidding process is complete. 

As discussed above, the staff concludes that DOE’s discussions of these activities meet 

NRC regulations and are consistent with Council on Environmental Quality regulations and 

NRC guidance. 

3.2.1.4.2 Impacts on Groundwater and from Surface Discharge of Groundwater 

NRC’s NEPA regulations (10 CFR § 51.109(c)(2)) provide that it will not be practicable to adopt 

any environmental impact statement prepared by DOE for a geologic repository if there is 

“significant and substantial new information or new considerations [that would] render such 

environmental impact statement inadequate.” As discussed in the following sections of the 

report, staff finds that the failure of the EISs to completely and adequately characterize potential 

contaminant release to groundwater and from surface discharge is a significant new 

consideration that renders the EISs inadequate. DOE’s analysis of the postclosure behavior of 

the repository recognizes that the release of contaminants to groundwater can be expected over 

the long term (DOE, 2008b, Chapter 5). The NRC staff concludes that this is a reasonably 

foreseeable outcome for a repository. The EISs consider impacts to groundwater, but the 

analysis does not provide adequate discussion of the cumulative amounts of radiological and 

non-radiological contaminants that may enter the groundwater over time, and how these 

contaminants would behave in the aquifer and related environment. The discussion of 

groundwater impacts in the EISs is not consistent with NRC regulations for completeness and 

adequacy of the discussion of environmental consequences of the proposed action [e.g., 10 

CFR Part 51, Appendix A(7)]. In this instance, the incomplete and inadequate characterization 

itself constitutes a significant consideration, irrespective of the magnitude of potential impacts. 

Given the importance of groundwater as a natural resource in the arid Yucca Mountain region, 

staff concludes that supplementation is needed to ensure the 2002 EIS and the Repository 

Supplemental EIS are adequate. 

The following sections of the report summarize the characterization of groundwater impacts in 

the EISs, discuss the two specific aspects that the staff finds to be inadequate, and describe the 

additional information needed to complete the consideration of impacts. 

3.2.1.4.2.1 Characterization Provided in the EISs 

Environmental impacts of the proposed action over the long-term are considered in Volume 1, 

Chapter 5 of the 2002 EIS and the Repository Supplemental EIS. Discussion of potential 

impacts on groundwater, and on human health through a groundwater pathway, comprises 
 3-9

much of these chapters. Impacts on groundwater come from the modeled release of material 

(both radioactive and non-radioactive) from the repository as components of the engineered 

barrier system slowly corrode and lose their capability to contain their contents. 

The repository lies above the water table, in the unsaturated zone. The EISs state that waterborne releases from the repository are likely to travel near vertically to groundwater below the 

repository site. A regional groundwater flow model is discussed in the 2002 EIS and the 

Repository Supplemental EIS (Section 3.1.4.2 of each). In the regional flow model, this 

groundwater flows to the south-southeast within an unconfined aquifer of volcanic rocks and 

alluvium. The EISs state that water from the volcanic-alluvial aquifer can potentially discharge 

to the surface at Alkali Flats (Franklin Lake Playa), along the Amargosa River, and in springs in 

the Furnace Creek area of Death Valley, but that this water does not feed springs in Ash 

Meadows or Devil’s Hole (DOE, 2008b, Sections 3.1.4.2.1, 5.4). 

DOE’s principal means of assessing the effects of release and transport processes is its Total 

System Performance Assessment (TSPA), which considers those features, events, and 

processes of the engineered and natural system that affect repository performance (DOE, 

2008a, Safety Analysis Report, Chapter 2). TSPA is a probabilistic model, in that the results are 

generated by multiple runs with different values of input parameters as a way to account for 

uncertainties. 

The EISs use the human dose calculated in TSPA as the principal measure of radiological 

impacts on groundwater. This dose is calculated using a model of well withdrawal of 

contaminated groundwater for drinking and irrigation, and including inhalation of surface dust 

potentially contaminated by well water, at a location ~18 km (11 mi) south of the repository. The 

results are given for calculated time-steps over the million-year period following permanent 

closure of the repository. In addition to the human dose, TSPA similarly calculates results for 

the 10,000-year period following closure for radionuclides in groundwater. The EISs compare 

the calculated results to the regulatory performance objectives and note that the results are well 

below the regulatory standards. 

The EISs consider impacts on groundwater at other locations beyond ~18 km (11 mi) to be no 

greater than those calculated in TSPA for the ~18-km (11-mi) location. In the Repository 

Supplemental EIS, DOE states that the contaminant plume, as currently modeled, is sufficiently 

narrow that well withdrawal would capture the entire plume at and at all locations beyond the 

~18-km (11-mi) locale (DOE, 2008b, Section 5.1.1.4). In the 2002 EIS, fractional “scaling 

factors” as multipliers of the TSPA results at ~18 km (11 mi) were calculated for more distant 

locations (including Alkali Flats), to account for increased dispersion of a contaminant plume 

down flow from the ~18-km (11-mi) location (DOE, 2002, Section 5.4.1; Appendix I.4.5). 

The EISs indicate possible surface discharge at Franklin Lake Playa (DOE, 2002, Section 5.9; 

2008b, Section 5.10). The discussion in these sections of impacts from potential discharges is 

limited to a statement that no detrimental radiological impacts on plants and animals are 

expected. 

The EISs describe non-radiological impacts on groundwater for the release of chemically toxic 

materials. The releases considered are from the corrosion of materials of the engineered 

barrier system within the repository. The Repository Supplemental EIS provides concentrations 

for three corrosion-derived elements. These are calculated from annual mass-dissolution rates 

of exposed engineered material in the repository using methods for well water withdrawal 

analogous to those used in TSPA for radioactive contaminants in groundwater (DOE, 2008b, 
 3-10

Section 5.7, Appendix F.5). DOE considers the calculated concentrations as bounding for 

groundwater at all locations. 

3.2.1.4.2.2 NRC Staff Evaluation 

The NRC staff concludes that the information provided in the EISs does not adequately 

characterize how potential contaminants may affect groundwater resources in the volcanicalluvial aquifer, and the potential effects from surface discharge. In the EISs, impacts on 

groundwater are discussed principally as those defined for regulatory compliance. NRC’s 

NEPA regulations in Part 51 and guidance in NUREG–1748 indicate that compliance with 

regulatory requirements does not necessarily satisfy the need to consider the environmental 

impacts of the proposed action. The regulations and guidance recognize that further analysis 

and discussion may be needed [e.g., 10 CFR § 51.71; 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix 

A(7)]. For impacts on groundwater and from surface discharge, the staff concludes that 

additional analysis is necessary and EIS supplementation is needed. 

Two distinct, but related aspects of potential impacts on the groundwater system are 

insufficiently characterized in the EISs and require supplementation. These are (1) the nature 

and extent of the repository’s cumulative impact on groundwater in the volcanic-alluvial aquifer; 

and (2) the potential impacts of discharge of potentially contaminated groundwater to the 

surface. The limitations of the approach presented in the EISs and the specific needs for 

supplementation are discussed for each in turn. 

Need for Supplementation 1: Impacts on Groundwater 

The volcanic-alluvial aquifer is part of the internally-drained Great Basin, and potential 

contaminants have limited means of leaving the aquifer (radioactive decay is a principal means 

for lowering the levels of many of the radiological contaminants). The EISs characterize 

radionuclide impacts on groundwater by calculating doses and concentrations for an annual 

contaminant release captured by well withdrawal of a given volume of groundwater. This 

methodology assumes that the full amount of contaminants released each year is removed by 

groundwater withdrawal, to avoid possibly underestimating annual peak doses or radionuclide 

levels for regulatory compliance with 10 CFR 63. Because the yearly flux of contaminants is 

assumed to be removed, the extent of contamination and accumulation in the aquifer of 

releases over multiple years is not fully considered. Similar reasoning is used in the EISs for 

estimating impacts on groundwater from non-radiological contaminants. The calculation 

provided in the EISs is presented as bounding for the quantity of non-radiological material that 

may be released in a year. This calculation does not consider more than a single year’s amount 

of contaminant in groundwater. For both radiological and non-radiological contaminants, the 

EISs do not characterize contamination in the aquifer if annual withdrawal did not occur. 

The EISs have not provided complete and adequate discussion of the nature and extent of the 

repository’s cumulative impact on groundwater in the volcanic-alluvial aquifer. A supplement 

should include the following additional information: 

• A description of the full extent of the volcanic-alluvial aquifer, particularly those parts that 

could become contaminated, and how water (and potential contaminants) can leave the 

flow system. For example, the DOE license application describes potential groundwater 

flow farther to the south of Alkali Flats, into the Southern Death Valley subregion of the 

regional model domain (DOE, 2008a, General Information, Section 5.2.2.2). This 

component of the groundwater flow system is not discussed in the EISs. 
 3-11

• An analysis of the cumulative amount of radiological and non-radiological contaminants 

that can be reasonably expected to enter the aquifer from the repository, and the amount 

that could reasonably remain over time. In its license application, for example, DOE 

provides calculated cumulative releases of some radionuclides at different stages within 

the repository system, as intermediate results in TSPA (e.g., DOE, 2008a, Safety 

Analysis Report, Section 2.4.2.2.3). This type of information, for radiological and nonradiological contaminants, could be used in the analysis. 

• Estimates of contamination in the groundwater, given potential accumulation of 

radiological and non-radiological contaminants. One way to analyze the overall impacts 

on groundwater may be a mass-balance approach that accounts for mass released, the 

part of the groundwater flow system affected by potential releases, and the expected 

processes that could affect released contaminants. Such an approach would also show 

the extent of contamination and possible impacts on water quality. 

Need for Supplementation 2: Impacts from Surface Discharges of Groundwater 

The EISs acknowledge the likelihood of future discharges of contaminated groundwater to the 

surface. Questions regarding possible locations and impacts of these discharges were raised in 

comments on the draft Repository Supplemental EIS, both from NRC staff and from the 

Timbisha Shoshone. DOE’s responses restate its conclusion that any potential impacts from 

surface discharges would be no greater than those represented by doses associated with 

groundwater withdrawal and use at the ~18-km (11-mi) location (DOE, 2008b, Volume III, 

response to Comment RRR000524/0030, page CR–497, and Comment RRR000690/0013, 

page CR–330, respectively). 

The discharge of potentially contaminated groundwater to the surface can involve physical 

conditions that are different from groundwater withdrawal and use in irrigation. These 

differences may affect how radionuclides can potentially accumulate in near-surface soils. For 

example, springs in the Yucca Mountain area typically discharge water at low rates. The spring 

water evaporates quickly and forms mineral deposits at the surface. These mineral deposits can 

contain potential radionuclide contaminants. In arid lands, evaporation of near-surface 

groundwater also can lead to precipitation of minerals in soil and shallow sediments, even 

without spring flow. In contrast, irrigation water penetrates deeper into the soil and can leach 

minerals from the surface and deposit them in the subsurface. Differences in soil and 

vegetation also affect how water can move from the surface to the subsurface and form 

minerals. How much contaminant can accumulate in either a spring deposit or irrigated field 

depends on how much water is discharged or evaporated at a location, the amount of 

contamination in the water, and the processes for deposition and removal of minerals and 

contaminants. 

Spring deposits that provide evidence for past discharge of groundwater to the surface are 

common in the Yucca Mountain region, including fossil deposits that formed during past wetter 

climates. The paleoclimate record indicates that future wetter periods are reasonably expected 

for the region (e.g., DOE, 2008a, Safety Analysis Report, Section 2.3.1.2). Future surface 

discharges during wetter periods may involve different amounts of water and contaminants, and 

different processes for deposition and removal, compared to present conditions. 
 3-12

The EISs have not provided a complete and adequate discussion of the impacts on soils and 

surface materials from the processes involved in surface discharges of contaminated 

groundwater. A supplement should include the following additional information: 

• A description of the locations of potential natural discharge of contaminated groundwater 

for present and expected future wetter periods (for example, as discussed in DOE, 

2008a, Safety Analysis Report, Section 2.3.1.2). 

• A description of the physical processes at the surface discharge locations that can affect 

accumulation, concentration, and potential remobilization of groundwater-borne 

contaminants. 

• Estimates of the amount of contaminants that could be deposited at or near the surface. 

This involves estimates of the amount of groundwater involved in discharge or nearsurface evaporation, the amounts of radiological and non-radiological contaminants in 

that water, contaminant concentrations in the resulting deposits, and potential 

environmental impacts (e.g., effects on biota). 

3.2.1.4.2.3 Conclusions 

The NRC staff concludes that the EISs do not adequately characterize the potential impact of 

the proposed action on groundwater and from surface discharge. Staff concludes that the 

criterion of 10 CFR § 51.109(c)(2), for “significant and substantial new information or new 

considerations [that would] render such environmental impact statement inadequate,” is met for 

the portion of the EISs that consider impacts to groundwater and from surface discharge over 

the long term. Supplementation is needed to ensure the EISs are adequate. 

If DOE develops the supplement, it would follow its own requirements and procedures. 

Any supplement prepared by the NRC staff would be developed in accordance with NRC 

regulations in Part 51 and with NUREG-1748. If NRC staff prepares the supplement, the staff 

would publish a notice of intent in the Federal Register pursuant to 10 CFR § 51.27 and 

§ 51.116. Given the description in this report of the needed supplementation, and pursuant to 

10 CFR § 51.26(d), the staff would not conduct scoping for the supplement. When a draft 

supplement is published for public comment, the staff would publish in the Federal Register a 

notice of availability. Following a public comment period, the staff would publish a final 

supplement. The staff anticipates that it could publish the final supplement within approximately 

six months of the date of the Federal Register notice of intent. 

3.2.1.4.3 Impacts on Native Americans 

Throughout the EISs, DOE discusses separately the spiritual and philosophical aspects of 

Native American cultural values and the tangible impacts on associated cultural sites and 

resources (e.g., impacts on artifacts or access restrictions). The EISs describe generally DOE’s 

efforts to assess effects on specific cultural and historic resources. Using the NRC policy 

statement on Environmental Justice (NRC, 2004), DOE also concludes that there would be no 

disproportionately high and adverse health impacts to minority and low-income populations 

within an 84-km (52-mi) radius of Yucca Mountain. DOE indicates that it would further 

characterize and mitigate such effects in compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act 

(NHPA) and other applicable laws. The EISs (DOE, 2008b, c; 2002) also contain discussions of 

American Indian viewpoints. DOE acknowledges that Native American tribes consider 
 3-13

repository development to adversely affect elements of their cultural values and lifeways (DOE, 

2002, “Summary,” Section S.5.1.6). DOE characterizes the American Indian views as an 

“opposing American Indian viewpoint” (DOE, 2008b, Tables 2-2 and 2-6). DOE indicates its 

intent to continue discussions with Native Americans through the Native American Interaction 

Program to determine best management practices and mitigation measures to address tribal 

perspectives (for example, DOE, 2008d, Rail Alignment EIS, Section 7.1.2). Separately, DOE 

also commits to compliance with the various laws that may affect Native American cultural 

practices, including the American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 and the Native 

American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (DOE, 2008b, Section 11.2.6). DOE 

notes that, because consultations and investigations are still ongoing, information is not yet 

available concerning specific impacts and specific mitigation measures that DOE would 

implement. DOE has also proposed establishing one or more mitigation advisory boards with 

governmental entities to identify concerns pertaining to mitigation of adverse impacts (DOE, 

2008b, Chapter 9). The staff concludes that the EISs’ consideration of Native American 

concerns and the impacts assessed on cultural resources are adequate under NEPA. 

3.2.1.4.4 Accidents 

DOE provides an analysis of the frequency and consequences of an aircraft crash on surface 

facilities as one of its accident scenarios (see DOE, 2008b, Section E.2.1.2.1). DOE evaluated 

the crash frequency to be 5.9 x 10−7

 per year, which is greater than the frequency threshold for 

evaluating potential impacts provided in DOE’s NEPA-implementing guidance (1 x 10−7

 per 

year). DOE then provides a summary of the assumptions used in this frequency assessment. 

For its review under NRC’s NEPA requirements, the NRC staff concludes that DOE’s frequency 

analysis in the Repository Supplemental EIS is not necessary, because the EIS has addressed 

the consequences of this scenario. To account for consequences, DOE states that it analyzed 

a scenario in which a jet aircraft strikes and penetrates a Canister Receipt and Closure Facility, 

and that Section E.7 discusses this scenario as a potential sabotage event. The staff concludes 

that this analysis is adequate for a consideration of impacts associated with an accidental 

aircraft crash. 

3.2.1.4.5 Transportation Analysis 

The transportation impact calculations included in the Repository Supplemental EIS focus on 

the transportation activities included in the proposed action (i.e., the mostly rail preferred 

alternative). These transportation impact calculations are based on updated information, such 

as year 2000 census data, new canister design, updated inventories, and updated shipment 

estimates. DOE did not update the analyses of alternative transportation scenarios analyzed in 

the 2002 EIS that are no longer included in the proposed action (e.g., truck-only transportation 

and intermodal transfer from rail to truck in Nevada). The NRC staff concludes that these prior 

analyses do not need to be updated since they are not part of the proposed action or 

alternatives evaluated. Accordingly, the staff has determined that DOE has considered the 

transportation impacts of the proposed action in its EISs in a manner that is consistent with NRC 

guidance and applicable regulations. 

3.2.1.4.6 Cost-Benefit Analysis

NRC guidance (NRC, 2003a, Section 5.7) identifies, as a matter of NRC practice, that a costbenefit analysis should be provided as a separate section in an EIS to describe the major costs 

and benefits for each alternative under consideration. NRC regulations in 10 CFR § 51.71(d) 

state that the benefits and costs of the proposed action and alternatives should be discussed, 
 3-14

but the regulations do not explicitly require that a separate cost-benefit analysis be developed. 

The regulations state that “...the draft environmental impact statement will include a preliminary 

analysis that considers and weighs the environmental effects of the proposed action; the 

environmental impacts of alternatives to the proposed action; and alternatives available for 

reducing or avoiding adverse environmental effects and consideration of the economic, 

technical, and other benefits and costs of the proposed action and alternatives....” Although not 

summarized in a separate section, DOE does consider environmental costs and benefits as part 

of its analyses of impacts. Also, the 2002 EIS provides quantitative life-cycle cost estimates 

(DOE, 2002, Sections 2.1.5 and 2.2.3). The Repository Supplemental EIS provides a summary 

of estimates of costs for cleanup from transportation accidents (DOE, 2008b, Appendix G, 

Section G9.7), and summarizes the environmental consequences of the proposed action 

(e.g., DOE, 2008b, Section 2.3). DOE has updated total life-cycle costs for the repository and 

for the Caliente rail corridor (DOE, 2008e), though these estimates were published after 

publication of the EISs (DOE, 2008b, c). The NRC staff has determined that DOE has 

considered the environmental costs and benefits of the proposed action and the alternatives in 

its EISs in a manner that is consistent with NRC guidance and applicable regulations. 

3.2.2 Significant and Substantial New Information or Considerations 

Some new information or considerations were identified as a result of the staff’s review. The 

nature and significance of this information are described below. With the exception of the 

groundwater analysis (discussed in Section 3.2.1.4.2), the staff concludes that the information 

or considerations described in this section do not result in a potential significant difference in the 

impacts evaluated in the EISs. 

This section also supplements information presented in Section 3.2.1.4, above. Many of these 

items pertain to ongoing investigations or consultations. If these various activities result in 

environmental impacts that are significantly different from those currently assessed in the DOE 

EISs, the NRC staff expects that DOE would develop additional documentation to fulfill its 

responsibilities under NEPA. Likewise, significant or substantial new information or 

considerations may arise from the staff’s detailed review of DOE’s license application that could 

require additional NEPA documentation. 

3.2.2.1 Groundwater Analyses 

As discussed in depth in Section 3.2.1.4.2, the NRC staff concludes that both the 2002 EIS 

(DOE, 2002) and the Repository Supplemental EIS (DOE, 2008b) do not adequately address 

the impacts on groundwater and surface discharges from the proposed action. Staff concludes 

that supplementation is needed to ensure the 2002 EIS and the Repository Supplemental EIS 

are adequate. 

3.2.2.2 Postclosure Criticality 

DOE has conducted extensive analyses of postclosure criticality since the 2002 EIS, with 

reports dating from as recently as 2008. These analyses are identified and discussed in 

Section 2.2.1.4.1 of the Safety Analysis Report (DOE, 2008a). However, as the staff noted in 

comment RRR000524/0009 on the draft Repository Supplemental EIS, the EIS does not 

reference these analyses. None of the analyses appears to be discussed in Chapter 5 of the 

final Repository Supplemental EIS. DOE concludes in the Repository Supplemental EIS (DOE, 

2008b, Section 5.9) that updated design information and studies would not significantly change 

the environmental impacts of postclosure criticality that are assessed in the 2002 EIS. Based 
 3-15

on its knowledge of this issue and based on its review of the information provided in the 2002 

EIS, the NRC staff concludes that the 2002 EIS’s general conclusion about postclosure 

criticality impacts would not significantly change. 

3.2.2.3 Hydrothermal Upwelling 

The Repository Supplemental EIS (DOE, 2008b) discusses opposing views on the interpretation 

of the presence of carbonate-opal veinlets at Yucca Mountain that could indicate warm 

upwelling of water rather than water infiltrating from the surface. However, the discussion in the 

Repository Supplemental EIS (DOE, 2008b, Section 3.1.4.2.2) does not reference information 

dated after 2004. More recent information on these studies is available. For example, recent 

studies presenting opposing reviews include Gray, et al. (2005); Dublyansky and Polyansky 

(2007); and Whelan, et al. (2008). Based on its review of these and other reports, the NRC staff 

concludes that this more recent information would not significantly alter the discussion 

presented in the Repository Supplemental EIS (DOE, 2008b). 

3.2.2.4 Volcanic Hazards Information 

The Repository Supplemental EIS (DOE, 2008b) and the DOE license application (DOE, 2008a) 

use information derived from a 1996 expert elicitation for the analysis of potential volcanism at 

the Yucca Mountain site (CRWMS M&O, 1996). Subsequent aeromagnetic and ground 

magnetic data indicate the possible existence of buried basaltic volcanic centers in Crater Flat 

and northern Amargosa Valley that are not included in the 1996 probabilistic volcanic hazard 

analysis (DOE, 2008b, Section 3.1.3.1.3). These new data could result in changes to the mean 

annual frequency of intersection of a basaltic dike with the repository footprint. DOE states in 

the Repository Supplemental EIS (DOE, 2008b, Section 3.1.3.1.3) that it is updating the 1996 

analysis to “...review and interpret the new information.” Based on its knowledge of this issue 

and based on its review of the information provided in the Repository Supplemental EIS (DOE, 

2008b), the NRC staff concludes that the EIS’s general conclusion about the impacts associated 

with volcanic activity would not significantly change. 

3.3 Conclusions 

The NRC staff concludes that the 2002 EIS, the Repository Supplemental EIS, and the Rail 

Corridor SEIS meet NRC completeness and adequacy requirements in 10 CFR § 51.91 and in 

10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix A, and that the EISs are generally consistent with NRC’s 

NEPA guidance in NUREG–1748 (NRC, 2003a). The NRC staff has determined that significant 

and substantial new considerations related to groundwater analyses in the 2002 EIS (DOE, 

2002) and in the Repository Supplemental EIS (DOE, 2008b) render those analyses of the EISs 

inadequate without further supplementation. These considerations are addressed in depth in 

Section 3.2.1.4.2 of this report. The staff has not identified other significant or substantial new 

information or considerations that would render the EISs (DOE, 2008b, c; 2002) inadequate. 
4-1

4 NRC CONSULTATIONS 

4.1 Consultation under Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act 

Section 106 of the NHPA requires consultation for any Federal action that may affect historic or 

cultural resources. As a Federal agency, NRC has the responsibility to comply with these 

requirements. NRC guidance for conducting Section 106 consultation is described in 

NUREG–1748 (NRC, 2003a, Appendix D). 

As identified in Section 114(f) of the NWPA, DOE is the lead agency for preparing an EIS for a 

proposed geologic repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. DOE must also conduct 

consultations to fulfill its responsibilities under the NHPA. Toward this end, DOE entered into a 

programmatic agreement with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the Nevada 

State Historic Preservation Office in 1988. Since then, DOE has obtained updated information 

on cultural and historical resources near Yucca Mountain and is preparing a new programmatic 

agreement for cultural resource management with respect to the construction, operation, 

monitoring, and eventual closure of a geologic repository. As noted in Section 3.2.1.4.1 of this 

report, DOE is still consulting with the Nevada State Historic Preservation Office and the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation to finalize the programmatic agreement. In the 

Repository Supplemental EIS (DOE, 2008b, Section 4.1.5), DOE stated, “While this agreement 

is in ongoing negotiation among the parties, DOE is abiding by the process set forth in Section 

106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470, et seq.).” 

NRC may elect to become a concurring party to this programmatic agreement (if finalized) to 

fulfill its obligations under the NHPA, if NRC decides to issue DOE a construction authorization 

for the proposed repository. NRC has sent a letter to DOE requesting an amendment to the 

draft programmatic agreement. The proposed amendment is a clause stating that NRC may 

wish to become a concurring party. A copy of this letter is attached in Appendix B. 

If the programmatic agreement among DOE, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and 

the Nevada State Historic Preservation Office were not finalized, NRC would conduct its own 

consultation process to comply with the requirements of Section 106 of NHPA. NRC staff would 

fulfill its Section 106 consultation requirements by following the guidance in NUREG–1748 

(NRC, 2003a, Appendix D), as appropriate. 

4.2 Consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act 

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires consultation for any Federal action that may 

affect endangered or threatened species or critical habitat. As a Federal agency, NRC has the 

responsibility to comply with these requirements. NRC guidance for conducting Section 7 

consultation is described in NUREG–1748 (NRC, 2003a, Appendix D). 

In developing its EIS for the proposed repository at Yucca Mountain (DOE, 2008b, c; 2002), 

DOE must also conduct consultations to fulfill the requirements of the Endangered Species Act. 

DOE conducted and finalized consultations with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which issued 

a biological opinion for the proposed repository (DOE, 2002, Appendix O). DOE has also stated 

in a letter to the Service that it is the lead agency and has completed formal consultation for 

construction, operation, monitoring, and closure of the proposed geologic repository (see 

Appendix B). 
4-2

In August, 2008, NRC staff spoke with a representative of the Southern Nevada Field Office of 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, who confirmed that consultation under Section 7 with DOE is 

complete and that the Service does not require any NRC action at this time. 
 5-1

5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 

5.1 Summary 

Pursuant to Section 114(f) of the NWPA, DOE has prepared EISs (DOE, 2008b, c; 2002) to 

evaluate the potential environmental impacts associated with the construction, operation, and 

permanent closure of a high-level radioactive waste geologic repository at Yucca Mountain, 

Nevada. 

The NRC staff has conducted a review to determine whether it is practicable to adopt the EISs 

in accordance with criteria in 10 CFR § 51.109(c). The NRC staff also compared the EISs to 

NRC’s NEPA regulations in Part 51, NRC guidance (NRC, 2003a), and, as appropriate, Council 

on Environmental Quality regulations and guidance to evaluate the adequacy of the DOE 

analyses with respect to NEPA. 

Consistent with the NWPA and with NRC’s regulations in 10 CFR § 51.109, the NRC staff’s 

adoption review is neither a duplication of DOE’s efforts nor a detailed review of all technical 

aspects of the analyses contained in these EISs. Further, an NRC staff determination of 

adoption of these EISs does not necessarily mean that NRC independently would have arrived 

at the same conclusions as DOE on matters of fact or policy. 

NRC staff will docket the license application and begin its detailed review (NRC, 2003b). The 

purpose of the detailed review is to determine if the design, performance, and operations 

proposed by DOE comply with the NRC regulations for the proposed Yucca Mountain repository 

in Part 63. A staff determination that it is practicable to adopt the EISs does not prejudge the 

outcome of the review of DOE’s license application under Part 63. 

5.2 Conclusions 

Based on its review and discussion presented in the preceding sections, the NRC staff has 

concluded the following: 

• With regard to the criterion in 10 CFR § 51.109(c)(1), the NRC staff has determined that 

the proposed action to be taken by the Commission and as described in the EISs (DOE, 

2008b, c; 2002) is substantially the same as the proposed action described in the 

license application. 

• With regard to the criterion in 10 CFR § 51.109(c)(2), the EISs (DOE, 2008b, c; 2002) 

are generally consistent with NRC and Council on Environmental Quality regulations and 

NRC guidance for completeness and adequacy. The staff has identified significant and 

substantial considerations that render the groundwater analyses of the 2002 EIS and the 

Repository Supplemental EIS (DOE, 2008b; 2002) inadequate. The staff has not 

identified significant and substantial new information or considerations that would render 

the Rail Corridor SEIS (DOE, 2008c) inadequate. 

The NRC staff concludes that it is practicable to adopt the EISs (DOE, 2008b, c; 2002) with 

supplementation as discussed in Section 3.2.1.4.2. 
 6-1

6 REFERENCES 

Boyle, W.J. “Status Report of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Pursuant to 

10 CFR 51.67.” Letter (June 16) to M.F. Weber, NRC. ML081750197. Las Vegas, Nevada: 

DOE, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. 2008. 

CRWMS M&O. “Probabilistic Volcanic Hazards Analysis for Yucca Mountain, Nevada.” 

BA0000000–1717–2200–00082. Rev. 00. North Las Vegas, Nevada: DOE, Yucca Mountain 

Site Characterization Office. 1996. 

DOE. DOE/RW–0573, “Yucca Mountain Repository License Application.” Las Vegas, Nevada: 

DOE, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. 2008a. 

DOE. DOE/EIS–0250F–S1, “Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for a 

Geologic Repository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste 

at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada.” Las Vegas, Nevada: DOE, Office of Civilian 

Radioactive Waste Management. 2008b. 

DOE. DOE/EIS–0250F–S2, “Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for a 

Geologic Repository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste 

at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada—Nevada Rail Transportation Corridor.” Las Vegas, 

Nevada: DOE, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. 2008c. 

DOE. DOE/EIS–0369, “Final Environmental Impact Statement for a Rail Alignment for the 

Construction and Operation of a Railroad in Nevada to a Geologic Repository at Yucca 

Mountain, Nye County, Nevada.” Las Vegas, Nevada: DOE, Office of Civilian Radioactive 

Waste Management. 2008d. 

DOE. DOE/RW–0591, “Analysis of the Total System Life Cycle Cost of the Civilian Radioactive 

Waste Management Program, Fiscal Year 2007.” Washington, DC: DOE, Office of Civilian 

Radioactive Waste Management. 2008e. 

DOE. DOE/EIS–0250F–S1D, “Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for a 

Geologic Repository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste 

at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada.” Las Vegas, Nevada: DOE, Office of Civilian 

Radioactive Waste Management. 2007a. 

DOE. DOE/EIS–0250F–S2D, “Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for a 

Geologic Repository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste 

at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada—Nevada Rail Transportation Corridor.” Las Vegas, 

Nevada: DOE, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. 2007b. 

DOE. DOE/EIS–0369D, “Draft Environmental Impact Statement for a Rail Alignment for the 

Construction and Operation of a Railroad in Nevada to a Geologic Repository at Yucca 

Mountain, Nye County, Nevada.” Las Vegas, Nevada: DOE, Office of Civilian Radioactive 

Waste Management. 2007c. 

DOE. “Supplement to the Final Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic Repository for 

the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye 

County, NV.” Federal Register. Vol. 71. pp. 60490–60494. 2006a. 
 6-2

DOE. “Amended Notice of Intent to Expand the Scope of the Environmental Impact Statement 

for the Alignment, Construction, and Operation of a Rail Line to a Geologic Repository at Yucca 

Mountain, Nye County, NV.” Federal Register. Vol. 71. pp. 60484–60490. 2006b. 

DOE. DOE/EIS–0250F, “Final Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic Repository for 

the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye 

County, Nevada.” North Las Vegas, Nevada: DOE, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste 

Management. 2002. 

DOE. DOE/EIS–0250D, “Draft Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic Repository for 

the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye 

County, Nevada.” North Las Vegas, Nevada: DOE, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste 

Management. 1999. 

Dublyansky, Y. and O. Polyansky. “Search for Cause-Effect Relationship Between Miocene 

Silicic Volcanism and Hydrothermal Activity in the Unsaturated Zone of Yucca Mountain, 

Nevada: Numerical Modeling Approach.” Journal of Geophysical Research. Vol. 112, B09201. 

doi:10.1029/2006JB004597. 2007. 

Gray, M.B., J.A. Stamatakos, D.A. Ferrill, and M.A. Evans. “Fault Zone Deformation Process in 

Miocene Tuffs at Yucca Mountain, Nevada.” Journal of Structural Geology. Vol. 27. 

pp. 1,873–1,891. 2005. 

Kokajko, L.E. “Issuance of Revision 1 of High-Level Waste Repository Safety Director’s Policy 

and Procedures Letter 011, Adoption Determination Review of the U.S. Department of Energy’s 

Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Geologic Repository at Yucca Mountain 

for Issuance of a Construction Authorization.” Memorandum (March 13) to Division of HighLevel Waste Repository Safety Staff. Washington, DC: NRC. 2008. 

NRC. “Policy Statement on the Treatment of Environmental Justice Matters in NRC Regulatory 

and Licensing Actions.” Federal Register. Vol. 69. pp. 52040–52048. 2004. 

NRC. NUREG–1748, “Environmental Review Guidance for Licensing Actions Associated With 

NMSS Programs. Final Report.” Washington, DC: NRC. August 2003a. 

NRC. NUREG–1804, Revision 2, “Yucca Mountain Review Plan. Final Report.” Washington, 

DC: NRC. July 2003b. 

Surface Transportation Board. “Surface Transportation Board Denies Request to Reject Dept. 

of Energy Application to Build 300-Mile Rail Line in Nevada.” 2008. <http://www.stb.dot.gov/ 

newsrels.nsf/0/eec2141bd49061ab85257475006d8730?OpenDocument> (4 August 2008). 

Weber, M.F. “U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Comments on U.S. Department of Energy 

Draft Environmental Impact Statements Related to a Proposed Geologic Repository at Yucca 

Mountain, Nevada.” Letter (December 13) to E.F. Sproat, DOE. Washington, DC: NRC. 2007. 

Whelan, J.F., L.A. Neymark, R.J. Moscati, B.D. Marshall, and E. Roedder. “Thermal History of 

the Unsaturated Zone at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, USA.” Applied Geochemistry. Vol. 23. 

Issue 5. pp. 1,041–1,075. May 2008. 
APPENDIX A 
A–1

CONTRIBUTORS TO THE REVIEW 

Name Organization Education Years of 

Experience 

Ahn, Tae U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory 

Commission 

(NRC) 

Dr., Metallurgy, 1978 

M.E., Materials Science, 1974 

B.S., Metallurgical Engineering, 1970 

25 

Arlt, Hans NRC Dr. rer.nat., Natural Science, 1995 

B.S., Geological Sciences, 1981 

15 

Benke, Roland Center for 

Nuclear 

Waste 

Regulatory 

Analyses 

(CNWRA) 

Ph.D., Nuclear Engineering, 2000 

M.E., Radiological Health Engineering, 1996 

B.S., Nuclear Engineering, 1994 

14 

Bradbury, John NRC Ph.D., Geochemistry/Mineralogy, 1984 

M.S., Geology, 1975 

B.S., Chemistry, 1970

24 

Bryan, C. Hobson Consultant Ph.D., Sociology/Psychology, 1968 

M.A., Sociology/Psychology, 1966 

B.A., Sociology/Psychology/English, 1964 

44 

Canter, Larry Consultant Ph.D., Environmental Health Engineering, 1967 41 

Cook, John NRC M.S., Environmental and Industrial Health, 1975 

B.S., Chemistry, 1972 

33 

Compton, Keith NRC Ph.D., Environmental Engineering and Science, 

2001 

B.S., Physics, 1986 

16 

Dancer, David NRC M.S., Chemical Engineering, 1969 

B.S, Chemical Engineering, 1967 

41 

Dasgupta, Biswajit CNWRA Ph.D., Structural Engineering, 1987 

M.Tech., Structural Engineering, 1980 

B. Tech., Civil Engineering, 1976 

32 

Easton, Earl NRC B.S., Chemical Engineering, 1974 33 

Fedors, Eunice Consultant B.A., Historic Preservation, 1985 23 

Garcia-Santos, 

Norma 

NRC M.S., Chemical Engineering, 2001 

B.S., Chemical Engineering, 1997 

8 

Gray, Anita NRC Ph.D., Health Physics, 1999 

M.S., Applied Physics, 1994 

M.S., Physics, 1992 

B.S., Physics, 1988 

16 

Guttmann, Jack NRC M.S., Nuclear Engineering, 1974 

B.S., Mechanical Engineering, 1973 

35 

Held, Polly Consultant M.A., Anthropology/Geoinformatics, 2004 

A.B., Anthropology, 1992 

16 

Hill, Brittain NRC Ph.D., Geology, 1991 

M.S., Geology, 1984 

B.A., Geological Sciences, 1981

27 

Huber, Edgar K. Consultant Ph.D., Anthropology, 1993 

M.A., Anthropology, 1984 

B.A., Anthropology, 1978 

30 

Jagannath, Banad NRC Ph.D., Geotechnical Engineering, 1969 

M.S., Geotechnical Engineering, 1961 

B.S., Civil Engineering, 1959 

40 
A–2

Name Organization Education Years of 

Experience 

Justus, Philip NRC Ph.D., Geology, 1971 

M.S., Geology, 1967 

B.S., Geology, 1962 

46 

Laffere, Charles Consultant B.S., Urban and Regional Planning, 2007 1 

LaPlante, Patrick CNWRA M.S., Biostatistics and Epidemiology, 1994 

B.S., Environmental Studies, 1988 

20 

Mancillas, James CNWRA Ph.D., Chemistry, 2005 

B.S., Chemistry, 1999 

9 

Manepally, Chandrika CNWRA M.S., Civil Engineering, 1997 

B.E., Civil Engineering, 1995 

13 

McCartin, Timothy NRC M.S., Physics, 1976 

B.S., Physics, 1973

35 

McKague, H. 

Lawrence 

Consultant Ph.D., Mineralogy/Petrology, 1964 

M.S., Geology, 1960 

B.S., Geology, 1957 

51 

Peters, Eugene NRC M.S., Geology & Geochemistry, 1999 

M.S., Environmental Engineering & Science, 1996 

B.A., Geological Sciences, 1987

21 

Pineda, Christine NRC M.S., Environmental Sciences and Policy, 2000 

B.A., Sociology, 1993 

Certificate, Environmental Studies, 1993 

10 

Pohle, Jeffrey NRC M.S., Engineering, 1976 

B.A., Geology, 1972 

36 

Rikhoff, Jeffrey NRC M.R.P., Regional Environmental Planning, 1988 

M.S., International Economic Development and 

 Appropriate Technology, 1987 

B.A., English, 1980 

20 

Ritsema, Daniel Consultant M.S., Civil Engineering, 1996 

B.S., Civil Engineering, 1993 

B.S., History, 1990 

15 

Rivera, Carmen NRC Certificate, Environmental Engineering, 2005 

B.S., Chemical Engineering, 2005 

2 

Ryder, Christopher NRC M.S., Environmental Health, 1980 

B.S., Biochemistry 

27 

Robinson, Edward NRC B.S., Nuclear Engineering, 2005 

Minor, Biomedical Engineering, 2005 

3 

Rubenstone, James NRC Ph.D., Geological Sciences, 1984 

B.S., Geology, 1976 

32 

Sampson, Michele NRC M.B.A., Business Management, 1995 

B.S., Transportation and Logistics, 1989 

15 

Shah, Mahendra NRC Ph.D., Structural Engineering, 1970 

M.S., Engineering Management, 1987 

M.S., Structural Engineering, 1963 

B.E., Civil Engineering, 1961 

40 

Simpkins, Ali CNWRA M.S., Nuclear Engineering, 1991 

B.S., Nuclear Engineering, 1989 

19 

Strye, Brian Consultant M.S., Environmental Sciences, 2001 

B.S., Biology, 1996 

12 

Tillar, William Consultant M.S., Air Pollution Meteorology, 1992 

B.S., Atmospheric Sciences, 1990 

18 
A–3

Name Organization Education Years of 

Experience 

Turner, David R. CNWRA Ph.D., Geology, 1990 

M.S., Geology, 1985 

B.A., Music/Geology, 1981 

27 

Vechioli, Lucieann NRC B.S., Mechanical Engineering, 2004 3 

Werling, Bradley CNWRA M.S., Environmental Science, 2000 

B.S., Chemistry, 1999 

B.A., Engineering Physics, 1985 

23 

Whaley, Sheena NRC J.D., 2005 

B.S., Physics, 1991 

17 

Witt, Kevin NRC M.S., Nuclear Engineering, 2003 

B.S., Mechanical Engineering, 2001 

7 
APPENDIX B 
 B–1

CONSULTATION LETTERS 
 B–2
 B–3