October 6, 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 SEPTEMBER 17 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, September 17, 2015, members of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

(NRC) staff held a Category 3 public meeting at the Amargosa Community Center in Amargosa 

Valley, Nevada. 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 also had an opportunity to ask clarifying questions 

about the NRC’s environmental review process. 

The public meeting began at 7:00 p.m. Pacific Time, following a one-hour open house for 

stakeholders to engage with the NRC staff. 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. Seventeen individuals provided comments. The meeting concluded at 

approximately 8:55 p.m. 

The NRC staff's slide presentation is available in the NRC's Agencywide Document 

Management and Access System (ADAMS) at Accession No. ML15265A497. The transcript for 

the meeting is available in ADAMS at Accession No. ML15274A168. A video archive of the 

meeting will be available in the near future on the NRC's website at http://video.nrc.gov, under 

“Archived Videos.” These materials, as well as the meeting handouts and posters, are also 

available on the NRC’s website at http://www.nrc.gov/waste/hlw-disposal/keydocuments.html#er. 

The ADAMS public electronic reading room is accessible at http://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/adams.html. Persons who do not have access to ADAMS, or who encounter problems in 

accessing documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC’s Public Document Room 

reference staff at 1-800-397-4737, or via e-mail at pdr@nrc.gov. 

Approximately 72 people attended the meeting. Meeting attendees included members of the 

public, members of federal, state, and local governments, members of tribal governments, and 
- 2 - 

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

summary. 

Clarifying questions from the attendees included: requests for maps that show highways, 

populated areas, and other key locations in the Amargosa Valley area, as well as distances 

from the regulatory compliance location to Amargosa Farms and other potential surface 

discharge locations; a request for confirmation about the specific areas covered by the NRC 

staff’s analysis in the supplement; and requests for clarification about the hearing process and 

about whether the EIS reflected potential changes in DOE’s proposed design.

Topics raised during the comment period included concerns about the NRC’s process and 

technical aspects of the supplement, and concerns about broader polices, processes, and 

issues related to Yucca Mountain or the proposed repository. Comments about the supplement 

or about the NRC’s process for developing the supplement addressed the following issues: 

concern about the NRC’s independence and its role in preparing the supplement, and concerns 

about the unavailability of federal funding for affected local governments to support their 

technical reviews of the draft supplement. 

Comments were made expressing support for completing the license application review and 

approval process; support for vetting of the science by the affected counties before approval is 

granted; concerns about the assumptions and scope of the supplement; and a request that the 

final supplement reflect information concerning developments or decisions made since 2008 

that would result in repository program changes, including the supplement’s reliance on DOE’s 

model of repository performance. 

Comments were made expressing concerns about the potential for the proposed repository to 

leak contaminants into the groundwater moving through Nevada into California; concerns about 

impacts on the regional ecosystems and the ecotourism industry; the link between groundwater 

in the Amargosa Valley area and groundwater in the vicinity of Tecopa and Shoshone, 

California; concerns about impacts on disadvantaged populations and wildlife in Tecopa and 

Shoshone; and disagreement with findings in the draft supplement about the extent of potential 

contamination. 

Comments were made expressing concern that contaminated groundwater from the Nevada 

Test Site would be erroneously attributed to the repository; and concern that little or no money 

allotted for emergency preparedness had been spent to improve the Amargosa Valley area 

emergency response infrastructure. Some commenters expressed their view that the repository 

would pose no danger and would not contaminate groundwater or that any potential 

contamination would not be significant. 

General policy or process comments addressed the following topics or concerns: support for 

the repository’s potential economic benefits to Nye County; expressions of general opposition to 

the proposed repository; disapproval of Clark County’s changed positions over time concerning 

the proposed repository; concern about the potential that the repository site would need to be 

reclaimed if the project does not proceed; concern about how the U.S. government has 

implemented the NEPA process in identifying and evaluating a potential repository site; 

discussion of the possible direction the repository licensing process could take should Congress 

appropriate additional funds for the project; support for choosing a repository site based on 

informed consent; support for placing spent nuclear fuel in a repository over continuing to store 

it at power plant sites; support for closing down nuclear power plants; and support for nuclear 

power. 
- 3 - 

Other comments included a comparison of the history of nuclear activities and potential 

groundwater contamination on the Nevada Test Site to the potential for impacts from the 

proposed repository; noted that DOE does not have the necessary water rights to operate a 

repository at Yucca Mountain; drew comparisons between potential risks from the repository 

and the risks humans face in everyday life; expressed concern about the potential for stress 

corrosion cracking in spent fuel storage containers; and expressed concerns about the NRC’s 

cancellation of a study to determine the long-term cancer risk to people living near nuclear 

power plants. 

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 - 3 - 

Other comments included a comparison of the history of nuclear activities and potential 

groundwater contamination on the Nevada Test Site to the potential for impacts from the 

proposed repository; noted that DOE does not have the necessary water rights to operate a 

repository at Yucca Mountain; drew comparisons between potential risks from the repository 

and the risks humans face in everyday life; expressed concern about the potential for stress 

corrosion cracking in spent fuel storage containers; and expressed concerns about the NRC’s 

cancellation of a study to determine the long-term cancer risk to people living near nuclear 

power plants.

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 

DISTRIBUTION:

PUBLIC 

NMSS/YMD Distribution 

CSafford (OGC) 

AGendelman (OGC) 

Miriam Juckett (mjuckett@swri.org) 

ADAMS Accession No.: ML15280A279

OFFICE NMSS/YMD OGC NMSS/YMD 

NAME CPineda AGendelman 

via email

JRubenstone 

via email 

DATE 9/25/2015 10/6/2015 10/6/2015 

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 

September 17, 2015; 7:00 p.m. – 8:56 p.m.

First Name Last Name Organization or Affiliation (if provided) 

1 John Bosta Amargosa Valley Town Board 

2 Buck Bray Nye County, Nevada 

3 Diane Brighton Citizen 

4 Wayne Brotherton Nye County, Nevada 

5 Margaret Brotherton Nye County, Nevada 

6 Theresa Cantwell Citizen 

7 Mike Cottingham Town of Amargosa, Nevada 

8 Bruce Crater Citizen 

9 I.W. C. (illegible) Citizen 

10 Jacqui Denlinger Court reporter 

11 Fred Dilger State of Nevada 

12 Dorothy Dolby Citizen 

13 Trevor Dolby Amargosa Town Office 

14 Patrick Donnelly Amargosa Conservancy 

15 Sophia Doyle Nye County, Nevada 

16 Brenda Dymond Amargosa, Nevada 

17 Annette Fuentes Citizen 

18 Victor Fuentes Citizen 

19 R. Friese Death Valley National Park 

20 Ken Garey Amargosa, Nevada 

21 Ed Goedhart Citizen 

22 Gerhard Gran Citizen 

23 Irene Granados Amargosa, Nevada 

24 David Hall Nye County, Nevada 

25 Bob Halstead Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects 

26 Josh Hart Inyo County, California 

27 Ace Hoffman Citizen 

28 Sharon Hoffman Citizen 

29 Gary Hollis Nye County 

30 Elaine Jackson Amargosa, Nevada 

31 Cash Jaszczak Nye County, Nevada 

32 Mary King Pahrump and Shoshone, Nevada 

33 Matt Kingsley Inyo County, California 

34 Toni Kizzia Tecopa, California 

35 Darrell Lacy Nye County, Nevada 

36 Andrew Lingenfelter Office of U.S. Senator Dean Heller 

37 Bob Little Citizen 
2

First Name Last Name Organization or Affiliation (if provided) 

38 Sharon Little Citizen 

39 Erwin Martell Amargosa, Nevada 

40 Ana Rosa Martinez Amargosa, Nevada 

41 Raul Martinez Amargosa, Nevada 

42 Robert McCracken Nye County, Nevada 

43 Rod McCullum Nuclear Energy Institute 

44 Dave Merritt Amargosa, Nevada 

45 Pat Minshall Amargosa, Nevada 

46 G. Nelson Amargosa, Nevada 

47 Amy Noel Tecopa Hot Springs Resort 

48 Jonathan Penman-Brotzman National Park Service 

49 William Piffer Amargosa, Nevada 

50 Robert Regan Citizen 

51 Cathreen Richards Inyo County, California 

52 Jim Rook Citizen 

53 Dan Schinhofen Nye County, Nevada 

54 Carrie Stewart Zeus Environmental 

55 Michelle Swango Amargosa, Nevada 

56 Jack Sypolt Nevada Site Specific Advisory Board 

57 Dan Totheroh Inyo County, California 

58 George T. (illegible) Citizen 

59 M.N. Voegele Nye County, Nevada 

60 Jonathan Zamora Amargosa, Nevada 

61 Illegible Illegible Citizen 

62 Chip Cameron Zero Gravity Group (meeting facilitator) 

63 Miriam Juckett Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses 

64 David Pickett Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses 

65 John Stamatakos Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses 

66 Randy Fedors Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

67 Adam Gendelman Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

68 Tim McCartin Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

69 Dave McIntyre Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

70 Christine Pineda Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

71 James Rubenstone Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

72 Steve Self Nuclear Regulatory Commission