Draft Supplement to 

the Department of Energy’s Environmental 

Impact Statements for the Proposed 

Yucca Mountain Repository

Amargosa Valley, Nevada

September 17, 2015

Christine Pineda

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
Overview

• Background – environmental review

• Overview of the draft supplement

• Opportunity for clarifying questions

• Public comments

2
How did we get here?

Environmental Review

• Framework

– National Environmental Policy Act

– Nuclear Waste Policy Act

• Activities

– Department of Energy (DOE) environmental 

impact statements in 2002 and 2008

– NRC staff review and Adoption 

Determination Report in 2008

3
What did the NRC staff find in the 

Adoption Determination Report?

4

• EISs could be adopted, but supplementation 

is needed

• Scope of needed supplementation:

– Impacts on groundwater beyond the regulatory 

compliance point

– Impacts from surface discharge of groundwater 

beyond the regulatory compliance point

– Including radiological and nonradiological 

contaminants
Why is the NRC staff 

supplementing DOE’s EISs?

• NRC review and hearing process was 

suspended in 2011

• The NRC requested that DOE complete the 

supplement

• DOE deferred to the NRC

• NRC staff began work on the supplement 

after completing the Safety Evaluation 

Report

5
What is the scope of the 

supplement?

• Described in Adoption 

Determination Report 

• Scope is limited 

because NRC staff found 

environmental impact 

statements otherwise 

appropriate for adoption

6
What is the potentially 

affected area?

• Area of groundwater flow path that could 

include contaminant releases from 

repository 

• Evaluates groundwater flow path beyond 

regulatory compliance location

• Surface discharge areas (pumping and 

natural)

7
Death Valley Regional Groundwater Flow System

8
What resources could be 

affected?

• Groundwater – the aquifer environment

• Soils

• Public health

• Ecology

• Potential for disproportionate impacts on 

minority or low-income populations

9
What is the framework 

for the analysis?

• Radiological and nonradiological 

contaminants

• One million years after repository closure

• Builds on DOE’s model of repository 

performance, as assessed and found 

acceptable in NRC staff’s Safety Evaluation 

Report

10
What conditions are 

analyzed?

• Groundwater pumping

– Pumping for irrigation in Amargosa Farms

– No pumping possible natural discharge

• Climates

– Hot and dry (similar to present day)

– Cooler and wetter

11
Deposits at Former 

Discharge Locations

12

Prehistoric spring discharge deposits

State Line area, Nevada-California
What does the supplement 

conclude and why?

13

• Potential direct and indirect impacts would be 

small

• Potential cumulative impacts would be small

• Impacts are consistent with NRC staff 

understanding of contaminant transport 

through the aquifer
Next Steps

• Teleconference, October 15

• Teleconference, November 12

• Comment period closes November 20, 2015

• Final supplement expected in first half of 

2016

14
How to Comment

Present Oral Comments at a Public Meeting

Sign up at the registration desk to present oral comments in person at today’s meeting

Call into the phone line for the October 15 or November 12 teleconferences

Submit Written Comments through November 20, 2015

Please include Docket ID NRC-2015-0051 in the subject line of written comments.

Post comments to the Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to http://www.regulations.gov 

and search for documents filed under Docket ID NRC-2015-0051. Click on the 

comment icon and complete the web form.

Mail comments to NRC: Cindy Bladey, Chief, Rules, Announcements, and Directives 

Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, Mail Stop OWFN12-H08, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001

Present written comments at a public meeting: Hand your written comments to NRC 

staff members at an EIS Supplement public meeting.

15