October 28, 2015 

 

MEMORANDUM TO: James Rubenstone, Acting Director 

Yucca Mountain Directorate 

Office of Nuclear Material Safety 

 and Safeguards 

FROM: Christine Pineda, Project Manager /RA/

 Yucca Mountain Directorate 

 Office of Nuclear Material Safety 

 and Safeguards 

SUBJECT: SUMMARY OF OCTOBER 15 PUBLIC MEETING ON THE NRC 

STAFF’S DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DEPARTMENT OF 

ENERGY’S EIS FOR THE PROPOSED REPOSITORY AT YUCCA 

MOUNTAIN, NEVADA 

On Thursday, October 15, 2015, members of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) 

staff held a Category 3 public meeting via teleconference. The purpose of the meeting was to 

provide an overview of the NRC staff’s draft supplement to the U.S. Department of Energy’s 

(DOE) environmental impact statements for the proposed high-level waste repository at Yucca 

Mountain, Nevada, and to accept public comments on the document. Participants had an 

opportunity to ask clarifying questions about the NRC’s environmental review process. 

The public meeting began at 2:00 p.m. Eastern Time and concluded at approximately 4:00 p.m. 

The meeting began with an introduction of NRC staff and a review of meeting ground rules, 

followed by a presentation on the draft supplement. Meeting attendees were then given the 

opportunity to ask clarifying questions and present their comments. The transcript for the 

meeting is available in ADAMS at Accession No. ML15294A368. 

Approximately 37 people attended the meeting, and approximately 16 people gave comments 

one or more times during the meeting. Meeting attendees included members of the public, 

members of federal, state and local government organizations, and members of media 

organizations and public advocacy groups. A list of meeting attendees is attached to this 

summary. 

Questions that were asked included whether the NRC’s process allowed for stakeholders to 

challenge the NRC’s decision to supplement the DOE EISs without any updates having been 

made to the EISs themselves; whether the staff plans to take any steps to further address 

impacts on cultural and historic resources; whether the NRC staff expects to adjust the schedule 

or resource estimate for completing the supplement; and how interested stakeholders would be 

notified if the Yucca Mountain licensing process were to resume. 

Topics and concerns that were raised during the comment period included: the scope of the 

supplement; the accuracy of the supplement given events that have occurred or decisions that 

have been made since the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) submitted its license application in 

2008; the potential for groundwater contamination from the repository; the potential for 

disproportionate impacts on minority and low-income populations; the length of time 
J. Rubenstone - 2 - 

encompassed by the supplement; assumptions in the supplement concerning high-burnup spent 

fuel; and the potential for failure of spent nuclear fuel storage containers. Commenters also 

requested more time to review the draft supplement beyond the 31 days’ extension to 

November 20, 2015, already granted. 

Some comments expressed general opposition to nuclear power and calls to shut down power 

plants. Other comments concerned the potential for groundwater in Yucca Mountain to corrode 

waste packages; the suitability of Yucca Mountain as a site for high-level radioactive waste 

disposal; alternatives to deep geologic disposal; risks associated with moving spent fuel from 

pools to dry storage systems; costs associated with storing, transporting and disposing of spent 

fuel; support for hardened onsite storage; calls to move forward in developing the Yucca 

Mountain repository; and the potential for the U.S. to become the recipient for disposal of 

radioactive waste generated around the world. 

Comments expressed concern about the risks associated with the continued storage of spent 

nuclear fuel at sites around the country and support for moving the waste to a repository that is 

not situated on pristine lands. Other comments related to the potential for accidents and other 

risks associated with transporting high-burnup and other spent fuel; supported rail transport over 

truck transport; and criticized the physical conditions of rail lines and how the rail industry is 

regulated. Another comment called for interested stakeholders to provide information about 

Yucca Mountain, DOE, or the NRC for an “engineering tribute” to be held after the next 

presidential inauguration. A commenter expressed concern that the NRC has cancelled a study 

to determine the long-term cancer risk to people living near nuclear power plants and the 

implication for potential NRC regulation of a high-level waste repository. 

To subscribe to our e-mail updates, send an e-mail with the word “Subscribe” in the subject line 

to YMEIS_supplement@nrc.gov. 

Enclosure: Meeting Attendees List 

CONTACT: Christine Pineda, NMSS/YMD 

 (301) 415-6789 
J. Rubenstone - 2 - 

encompassed by the supplement; assumptions in the supplement concerning high-burnup spent 

fuel; and the potential for failure of spent nuclear fuel storage containers. Commenters also 

requested more time to review the draft supplement beyond the 31 days’ extension to 

November 20, 2015, already granted. 

Some comments expressed general opposition to nuclear power and calls to shut down power 

plants. Other comments concerned the potential for groundwater in Yucca Mountain to corrode 

waste packages; the suitability of Yucca Mountain as a site for high-level radioactive waste 

disposal; alternatives to deep geologic disposal; risks associated with moving spent fuel from 

pools to dry storage systems; costs associated with storing, transporting and disposing of spent 

fuel; support for hardened onsite storage; calls to move forward in developing the Yucca 

Mountain repository; and the potential for the U.S. to become the recipient for disposal of 

radioactive waste generated around the world. 

Comments expressed concern about the risks associated with the continued storage of spent 

nuclear fuel at sites around the country and support for moving the waste to a repository that is 

not situated on pristine lands. Other comments related to the potential for accidents and other 

risks associated with transporting high-burnup and other spent fuel; supported rail transport over 

truck transport; and criticized the physical conditions of rail lines and how the rail industry is 

regulated. Another comment called for interested stakeholders to provide information about 

Yucca Mountain, DOE, or the NRC for an “engineering tribute” to be held after the next 

presidential inauguration. A commenter expressed concern that the NRC has cancelled a study 

to determine the long-term cancer risk to people living near nuclear power plants and the 

implication for potential NRC regulation of a high-level waste repository. 

To subscribe to our e-mail updates, send an e-mail with the word “Subscribe” in the subject line 

to YMEIS_supplement@nrc.gov. 

Enclosure: Meeting Attendees List 

DISTRIBUTION:

PUBLIC 

NMSS/YMD Distribution 

CSafford (OGC) 

AGendelman (OGC) 

Miriam Juckett (mjuckett@swri.org) 

ADAMS Accession No.: ML15302A184

OFFICE NMSS/YMD OGC NMSS/YMD 

NAME CPineda AGendelman 

via email

JRubenstone 

via email 

DATE 10/21/2015 10/28/2015 10/21/2015 

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
 Enclosure 

List of Attendees 

Public Meeting on the NRC Staff’s Draft Supplement to the 

Department of Energy Environmental Impact Statements for the 

Proposed Geologic Repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada 

October 15, 2015; 2:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m.

First Name Last Name Organization or Affiliation (if known) 

1 RD Andrews Citizen 

2 Jonathan Brotzman National Park Service 

3 Susan Carpenter Cape Downwinders 

4 Patrick Dostie State of Maine 

5 Sarah Fields Uranium Watch 

6 Kenneth Freelain International Definition 

7 Steve Frishman State of Nevada 

8 Rose Gardner Citizen 

9 Milton Gorden S. Cohen and Associates 

10 Paula Gotsch Grandmothers, Mothers and More For Energy Safety 

11 Ace Hoffman Citizen 

12 Susu Jeffrey Friends of Coldwater 

13 Elaine Kabala Inyo County, California 

14 Kevin Kamps Beyond Nuclear 

15 Michael Keegan Don't Waste Michigan 

16 Leonard Kellum Citizen 

17 Connie Kline Citizen 

18 Amber Ladeira Citizen 

19 Marvin Lewis Citizen 

20 Martin Malsch State of Nevada 

21 Katrina McMurrian Nuclear Waste Strategy Coalition 

22 Prasad Nair U.S. Department of Energy 

23 Mary Olson Nuclear Information and Resource Service 

24 Jim Ostroff Platts 

25 Bette Pierman Michigan Safe Energy Future 

26 Cecile Pineda No Nuke Committee San Francisco 

27 David Schonberger Citizen 

28 Dennis Sewell Georgia Public Service Commission 

29 Bill Stremmel Citizen 

30 Ruth Thomas Environmentalists, Inc. 

31 Chip Cameron Zero Gravity Group (facilitator) 

32 Miriam Juckett Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses 

33 David Decker U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

34 Adam Gendelman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

35 Dave McIntyre U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

36 Christine Pineda U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

37 James Rubenstone U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission