Official Transcript of Proceedings 

 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Title: Public Meeting on the NRC Staff's Draft 

Supplement to the Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Proposed Geologic 

Repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada 

Docket Number: NRC-2015-0051; 06300001 

Location: Rockville, Maryland 

Date: Thursday, September 3, 2015 

Work Order No.: NRC-1846 Pages 1-89 

NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC. 

 Court Reporters and Transcribers 

 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. 

 Washington, D.C. 20005 

 (202) 234-4433
 1 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 

 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

 + + + + + 

PUBLIC MEETING ON THE NRC STAFF’S DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO 

THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

FOR THE PROPOSED GEOLOGIC REPOSITORY 

AT YUCCA MOUNTAIN, NEVADA 

 + + + + + 

 THURSDAY 

 SEPTEMBER 3, 2015 

 + + + + + 

The Public Meeting was convened in the 

Commissioners’ Conference Room, One White Flint North, 

11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, at 3:00 

p.m., Chip Cameron, Facilitator, presiding. 

PRESENT: 

CHIP CAMERON, Facilitator 

ADAM GENDELMAN, Office of the General Counsel 

CHRISTINE PINEDA, Senior Project Manager, Yucca 

Mountain Directorate, NMSS 

JAMES RUBENSTONE, Acting Director, Yucca 

Mountain Directorate, NMSS 
 2 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

OPENING 3 

INTRODUCTION 8 

OVERVIEW OF SUPPLEMENT 11 

OPPORTUNITY FOR CLARIFYING QUESTIONS 21 

OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS 32 

CLOSING 87 
 3 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 

1 P R O C E E D I N G S 

2 2:59 p.m. 

3 MR. CAMERON: Okay, good afternoon 

4 everyone. My name is Chip Cameron and I'd like to 

5 welcome you to the public meeting this afternoon. 

6 And, our topic today is a Draft 

7 Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement prepared 

8 by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on groundwater 

9 issues at Yucca Mountain. 

10 And, we'll try not to use many acronyms 

11 today, but two that you will hear are EIS for 

12 Environmental Impact Statement and NRC for Nuclear 

13 Regulatory Commission. 

14 And, I'm pleased to serve as your 

15 facilitator for the meeting this afternoon. And, in 

16 that role, I'll try to help all of you to have a 

17 productive meeting. 

18 I just want to say a few words about some 

19 meeting process issues I'd like to tell you about. 

20 The objectives for the meeting, secondly, 

21 the format for the meeting, third, some simple ground 

22 rules to help us have a productive meeting this 

23 afternoon and then, to introduce the NRC staff who are 

24 up at the table and who will be talking to you today. 

25 In terms of objectives for the meeting, the 
 4 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 

1 first one is for the NRC staff to provide you with a clear 

2 explanation and clear information on the Draft 

3 Supplemental EIS, what's in the EIS and the process for 

4 the EIS. 

5 Second objective is to provide an 

6 opportunity to the NRC to listen to your comments and 

7 concerns on the Draft EIS. 

8 And I want to emphasize the term draft. 

9 This document will not be finalized until the NRC 

10 considers all of the comments that are going to come in 

11 from today's public meeting, from the comments at our 

12 public meetings in Nevada and from the written comments 

13 that people might submit to the NRC. And, the NRC staff 

14 will be telling you in a few minutes about how you go 

15 about submitting comments on the Draft EIS. 

16 In terms of the format, there's three basic 

17 segments to the meeting and one of them is going to be 

18 the presentations that you're going to hear from the NRC 

19 staff in a few minutes. 

20 Secondly, we'll have a short amount of time 

21 for some clarifying questions on the EIS process. 

22 And then, third is going to be the public 

23 comment not only from those of you in the room here in 

24 Rockville who want to comment, but from anybody who's 

25 on the phone from around the country who might want to 
 5 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 

1 give us a comment. 

2 And, here in Rockville, if you want to 

3 comment, I would just ask you to come over here to the 

4 podium and provide your comments to the NRC staff. 

5 Now, the NRC staff is going to be listening 

6 to your comments. They're not going to be engaging in 

7 any discussion with you about those comments today, but 

8 they will be listening carefully and they will consider 

9 those comments as they prepare the final Environmental 

10 Impact Statement. 

11 Ground rules, I would just ask you to wait 

12 until all the NRC presentations are done before asking 

13 any questions. And, I would also ask you that we only 

14 have one person at a time speaking. I don't think that 

15 we're going to have any problems with that today, but 

16 we do want to give our full attention to whomever has 

17 the floor at the moment. 

18 And also, we want to get what I call a clean 

19 transcript. Matt Miller is our stenographer, our Court 

20 Reporter, and if only one person is speaking, then he'll 

21 know who to identify in the transcript. 

22 That transcript will be publically 

23 available and it's your record of today's meeting and 

24 it's the NRC's record. 

25 I would ask you to be as crisp and concise 
 6 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 

1 as you can be in your comments. I want to make sure that 

2 everybody gets a chance to share their comments with the 

3 NRC today. 

4 I don't think that we're going to have a lot 

5 of people, although we're not sure how many people that 

6 are on the phones will want to comment. But, I'm going 

7 to ask you to follow a five minute guideline. It's a 

8 soft five minutes, okay? And, we'll see how we're doing 

9 with time. 

10 Periodically, I will go out to the people 

11 on the phone to see what their comments are. And, we'll 

12 start off in the audience today. 

13 And, I don't think it's going to be a 

14 problem, but if I have to ask you to finish up, I 

15 apologize in advance for that. 

16 Fortunately, you can supplement your 

17 comments today, and this goes for people on the phone, 

18 you can supplement your comments with written comments. 

19 And the comments that are provided in the room today and 

20 on the phone, they'll carry the same weight as written 

21 comments. So, you can supplement. 

22 And, final ground rule is that, just as 

23 always, courtesy, and that applies to all of us. You 

24 may hear viewpoints today that differ from your own and 

25 I would just ask you to respect the person who's giving 
 7 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 

1 that comment. 

2 The focus of the meeting, the focus of the 

3 public comments is on the Draft Supplemental EIS which 

4 deals with groundwater issues. 

5 And, I know there's a lot of broader 

6 concerns, perhaps, on Yucca Mountain in general. We 

7 know that this has been a long and complicated process 

8 over a number of years. And, the NRC, in their 

9 presentations are going to try to put this supplement, 

10 its focus on groundwater, into the context of the whole 

11 Yucca Mountain project. And, that may help you to focus 

12 your comments. 

13 For those of you in the room, there are 

14 handouts, the view graphs. There's something called a 

15 feedback form that the NRC has which helps them to 

16 improve public meetings. So, you can fill that out, 

17 it's over here on the side, you can fill that out and 

18 leave it with us today, or I think it's already franked. 

19 In other words, you can take it home, fill it out and 

20 just put it in the U.S. Mail and it'll get to the NRC. 

21 And I would just thank you all for being 

22 here in the room and being on the phone. 

23 And, let me introduce the NRC speakers. We 

24 have Jim Rubenstone here and he's the Acting Director 

25 of the Yucca Mountain Directorate at NRC. And, it's in 
 8 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 

1 the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. 

2 And, he's going to provide a welcome and a little context 

3 for you. 

4 And then, the main presentation is going to 

5 be by Christine Pineda. And, she's a Senior Project 

6 Manager in the Yucca Mountain Directorate. And, she's 

7 going to tell you a little bit about the Draft EIS. 

8 And also, although he won't be speaking 

9 unless there's a particular legal question that we need 

10 to answer, this is Adam Gendelman. And, he is the 

11 attorney for Yucca Mountain and High Level Waste and 

12 he's in our Office of General Counsel here at the NRC. 

13 And, with that, Jim, do you want to start 

14 us off? 

15 MR. RUBENSTONE: Thank you, Chip. 

16 I hope the sound system's working fine. 

17 Good afternoon and welcome, once again, to 

18 this, the first of our public meetings on the NRC's Draft 

19 Supplement to the Department of Energy's Environmental 

20 Impact Statement for a geologic repository for spent 

21 nuclear fuel and high level waste at Yucca Mountain, 

22 Nevada. 

23 As Chip said, I'm Jim Rubenstone from the 

24 Yucca Mountain Directorate and I want to extend the 

25 welcome not only to the folks in the room here at 
 9 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 

1 Headquarters, but also to those who are following on the 

2 web stream and are listening on the telephone. 

3 Right now, everyone on the telephone should 

4 be in listen mode and when we get to the opportunity for 

5 questions and comments, be prepared and the Operator 

6 will let you know how to open your line. 

7 As you know, NRC has released this Draft 

8 Supplement for public comment and the public comment 

9 period began on August 21st. 

10 We had a teleconference last week to talk 

11 about the process for providing comments. 

12 As you also know, and I hope you know, 

13 public comments are very important to the NRC and one 

14 of the main purposes today is to accept your comments. 

15 We want to make sure, as Chip said, that they're properly 

16 recorded so they can be addressed. So, the meeting is 

17 being recorded and transcribed. 

18 Let me remind you also that, in addition to 

19 providing comments here today or at our other public 

20 meetings, they can also be submitted by mail or through 

21 the regulations.gov website. 

22 We have a handout, among the other 

23 handouts, about how to provide comments that has the 

24 details of how to submit those. 

25 And, all of the handouts, in addition to the 
 10 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 

1 one on commenting, there's some background information. 

2 Those will be made available on our NRC website no later 

3 than next week. The best way to get to this information 

4 from the front page of our website is to go to the High 

5 Level Waste Disposal drop-down and then to the Key 

6 Documents link and that should get you to all the 

7 information that's involved with this Draft Supplement. 

8 Before I turn things over to Christine 

9 Pineda, our Project Manager for the Supplement, I want 

10 to note that NRC has received two requests in writing 

11 from the State of Nevada and from Inyo County to extend 

12 the public comment period. They requested an 

13 additional 60-day extension beyond the 60 days that we 

14 had posted. 

15 There were also several participants on our 

16 call last week who requested that the comment period be 

17 extended as well. 

18 Now, we want to be responsive to these 

19 requests, but we also have an obligation to complete our 

20 work on this Supplement in a timely manner and on a 

21 relatively limited fixed budget. 

22 Therefore, we are announcing today, we'll 

23 be extending the comment period for an additional month 

24 with a new closing date of November 20 and that is the 

25 date that's shown on the handout. 
 11 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 

1 Unfortunately, we'll not be able to add 

2 additional public meetings during this extension. 

3 However, we will be scheduling an additional 

4 teleconference for some point in November before the 

5 comment period closes. And, we'll announce the date of 

6 that as soon as we have that scheduled. 

7 So, let me now introduce and turn the 

8 microphone over to Christine Pineda, our Senior Project 

9 Manager and she will introduce you to the Draft 

10 Supplement and the opportunities for providing 

11 comments. 

12 Christine? 

13 MS. PINEDA: Thank you, Jim. 

14 Everyone hear me okay? 

15 I'm Christine Pineda, as Jim said, and 

16 thank you for attending today. And, thanks to those of 

17 you who are on the phone. 

18 Today, I will go over -- give you some 

19 background on the NRC's Environmental Review process 

20 for the proposed repository at Yucca Mountain and some 

21 of the larger context of the licensing -- the overall 

22 licensing review and some of the history. 

23 And then, I will give you an overview of the 

24 contents of the Draft Supplement. 

25 And then, we will have an opportunity, a 
 12 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 

1 short opportunity, for you to ask clarifying questions 

2 and then we will go to the public comment portion of the 

3 meeting. 

4 So, some of you may be wondering how we got 

5 here. The Environmental Review framework for the NRC's 

6 review for the Yucca Mountain Repository is essentially 

7 defined by the National Environmental Policy Act. 

8 And the National Environmental Policy Act 

9 requires that agencies consider the impact of their 

10 decision making, the environmental impacts of their 

11 decision making. And, the NRC prepares environmental 

12 documents for its licensing actions and also for its 

13 rule makings. 

14 The Nuclear Waste Policy Act requires that 

15 the Department of Energy prepare the Environmental 

16 Impact Statement for the proposed repository and it 

17 requires that the NRC adopt the Department of Energy's 

18 Environmental Impact Statements to the extent 

19 practicable. 

20 So, given that framework, there have been 

21 a number of activities over the past decade plus, and 

22 the Department of Energy produced its final 

23 Environmental Impact Statement in 2002 which it 

24 submitted with its site recommendation to the President 

25 in 2002. 
 13 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 

1 In 2008, the Department of Energy produced 

2 a final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement and 

3 it submitted that along with its 2002 Environmental 

4 Impact Statement to the NRC as part of its License 

5 Application package. 

6 The NRC staff initiated a review of the 

7 License Application and of the environmental documents 

8 in 2008 and the staff issued its Adoption Determination 

9 Report for the Environmental Impact Statements in 

10 September of 2008. 

11 Next slide? 

12 In the Adoption Determination Report, the 

13 staff determined that the Department of Energy's EISs 

14 could be adopted but that supplementation was needed and 

15 the report describes the areas of additional analysis 

16 that is needed, and that is in the area of groundwater 

17 impacts. 

18 And so, it includes groundwater impacts for 

19 the area of groundwater flow beyond the regulatory 

20 compliance point and that is to further characterize how 

21 the groundwater flows beyond the regulatory compliance 

22 point and where the groundwater may reach the ground 

23 surface either from pumping or at natural discharge 

24 points. 

25 The NRC staff also determined that 
 14 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 

1 information was needed for impacts from both 

2 radiological and non-radiological contaminants that 

3 could be released from the repository. 

4 And, just to clarify, the regulatory 

5 compliance point is a point that's approximately 11 

6 miles south of the repository site. 

7 And why is the NRC staff supplementing the 

8 Department of Energy's EIS? 

9 The NRC, as I mentioned, the NRC reviewed 

10 the Department of Energy EISs in 2008 and determined 

11 that the EISs could be adopted and requested at that time 

12 that the Department of Energy produce the supplement, 

13 but the Department of Energy deferred to the NRC to 

14 prepare the supplement at that time. 

15 However, in 2011, because no further 

16 appropriations were made for the Yucca Mountain 

17 project, the Commission directed the NRC staff to stop 

18 work on the licensing review process and also directed 

19 the panel of Judges to stop the adjudicatory proceeding 

20 for this project. 

21 In 2013, a ruling by the District Court -- 

22 the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 

23 Circuit directed the NRC to resume work as long as it 

24 had appropriated -- previously appropriated funds. 

25 So, it directed the NRC to continue work on the project. 
 15 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 

1 And, in response to Commission direction, 

2 the staff began work on the Safety Evaluation Report in 

3 2013 and completed that in January of this year, and has, 

4 subsequently started work on the Draft Supplement which 

5 we have now published for comment. 

6 So, and I should back up and say that, 

7 again, we did request that the Department of Energy 

8 prepare the Supplement, but the Department of Energy, 

9 again, deferred to the NRC. So, that's why we are 

10 preparing the Supplement. 

11 As I mentioned, the scope of the Supplement 

12 was already described in the Adoption Determination 

13 Report and that's the scope that we kept to in producing 

14 this Supplement. 

15 The scope is limited because the NRC staff 

16 found that the Environmental Impact Statements were 

17 otherwise acceptable for adoption. 

18 So, just to reiterate, the Supplement 

19 evaluates the potential environmental impacts on 

20 groundwater and impacts associated with the surface 

21 discharge of that groundwater that could result from 

22 contaminants entering the groundwater from the proposed 

23 repository. 

24 The potentially affected area that we 

25 covered in the Supplement is the area of the groundwater 
 16 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 

1 flow path that could include contaminant releases and 

2 it follows the groundwater flow, focusing or 

3 emphasizing the area beyond the regulatory compliance 

4 points. 

5 So, groundwater flows past the compliance 

6 point, it flows through the Amargosa Desert and, 

7 ultimately, to the Furnace Creek and Middle Basin areas 

8 of Death Valley. So, it evaluates the groundwater flow 

9 path as well as the potential surface discharge areas 

10 for pumping and natural discharges. 

11 This is a map of the Death Valley Regional 

12 Groundwater Flow System and it is -- represents the -- 

13 it's a map of the United States Geological Survey's 

14 model of the groundwater flow in this general region. 

15 And this model is the model that the NRC staff used in 

16 determining or assessing the groundwater flow and 

17 assessing the potential impacts that could go into the 

18 groundwater and flow through the aquifer. 

19 So, you can see that -- it might be hard to 

20 read - but, if you can see Yucca Mountain, the regulatory 

21 compliance point is basically following that vertical 

22 line south to the corner there. And, that's 

23 approximately 11 miles south of the Yucca Mountain site. 

24 Next slide? 

25 The resources that we assess the impacts 
 17 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 

1 for include, of course, the groundwater and, in the 

2 Supplement, we use the term the aquifer environment and 

3 that's because it's not just the water that you're 

4 looking at, it's the host rock for the water. So, 

5 depending on the chemical make up of the rock and the 

6 contaminants that you're looking, the contaminants may 

7 flow freely along with the groundwater or it could 

8 become basically stuck onto the host rock. 

9 Also, for points where there are natural 

10 discharge points or groundwater pumping locations, we 

11 looked at impacts on soils and then on potential impacts 

12 on public health, if people were exposed to soils or 

13 groundwater, as well as impacts on ecological 

14 resources, so flora and fauna, and the potential for 

15 disproportionate impacts on minority or low income 

16 populations that could be located where the groundwater 

17 reaches the surface. 

18 Next slide? 

19 So, as I mentioned, the analysis looks at 

20 the potential impacts from both radiological and 

21 non-radiological contaminants and looks at those 

22 impacts for a period of one million years beyond the time 

23 when the repository would be closed. So, it looks at 

24 when in that one million year period would we observe 

25 the highest concentrations for the different 
 18 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 

1 radionuclides or non-radioactive materials. 

2 And, it builds on the Department of 

3 Energy's model of repository performance as assessed by 

4 the NRC staff in the staff's Safety Evaluation Report. 

5 Next slide? 

6 To capture a reasonable range of impacts, 

7 we looked at two different pumping scenarios for 

8 groundwater and different climate scenarios. 

9 So, the pumping scenarios include the 

10 assumption that pumping would occur. And, for example, 

11 it would occur at the Amargosa -- where it occurs now 

12 which is the Amargosa Farms location. It's pumping for 

13 irrigation. 

14 And, under that assumption, we assumed that 

15 all of the contaminants would be drawn up through the 

16 pumping at that location. So, that's a conservative 

17 assumption. 

18 And then, we also assumed in another case 

19 that there would be no pumping, in which case all of the 

20 groundwater would flow directly to the natural 

21 discharge locations. 

22 And, again, we assume for each natural 

23 discharge location that the entire contaminant plume 

24 would reach that location. 

25 For climates we looked at a hot and dry 
 19 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 

1 climate which is similar to the present day climate, but 

2 also a cooler and wetter climate because that would 

3 result -- of course, there would be more precipitation 

4 which would result in more groundwater entering the 

5 groundwater and entering the aquifer and affecting the 

6 concentrations of the contaminants in groundwater. 

7 And also, it could affect -- it could sort 

8 of bring back potential discharge locations that are 

9 ancient that are not currently discharge locations. 

10 Next slide? 

11 And, this is an example of prehistoric 

12 discharge sites. And this is, as it says, the State 

13 Line area of Nevada and California. And these are, I 

14 think, about 30,000 years old or older. 

15 So, it's kind of hard to see, but you can 

16 see in the left hand photo the sort of the layering of 

17 the minerals that were deposited. And, in the right 

18 hand photo, it's a little harder to see, but you can see 

19 similar structure there. 

20 Okay, next slide? 

21 The Supplement concludes that the 

22 potential direct and indirect impacts of the repository 

23 would be small, and this means that the environmental 

24 effects would be nondetectable or would be so minor that 

25 they would not noticeably alter any important attribute 
 20 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 

1 of each resource that we assessed the impacts for. 

2 As well, we determined that the potential 

3 cumulative impacts would be small and those would be 

4 impacts, when considering the impacts of the repository 

5 alone in addition to impacts from other activities in 

6 the region. 

7 And, these conclusions are consistent with 

8 the NRC staff's understanding of how contaminants would 

9 move through the aquifer. 

10 Next slide? 

11 So, the next steps, we have a public meeting 

12 in Nevada. We've got a meeting in Las Vegas on 

13 September 15th in the evening from 7:00 to 9:00 p.m. and 

14 a meeting in Amargosa Valley on September 17th, also 

15 from 7:00 to 9:00 p.m. And those meetings will be 

16 preceded by an open house. 

17 And then, we'll also have a teleconference 

18 on October 15th, teleconference only, and, as Jim 

19 mentioned, we'll have another teleconference some time 

20 in November as a result of extending the comment period. 

21 And, we expect to publish the final 

22 Supplement in the first half of 2016. 

23 Next slide? 

24 So, we can go to clarifying questions now 

25 and I'll just point out that there's -- this slide up 
 21 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 

1 here has the information on it that we've also provided 

2 on the handout that's on the table. It describes the 

3 ways that you can present or provide your comments to 

4 the NRC staff. 

5 Thanks very much. 

6 MR. CAMERON: Okay, thank you. Thank you, 

7 Christine. Thank you, Jim. 

8 We have a few minutes for any clarifying 

9 questions on the EIS process. If anybody -- anybody in 

10 the room have a question? And, Kevin, please introduce 

11 yourself to you. 

12 MR. KAMPS: Hello, my name is Kevin Kamps 

13 with Beyond Nuclear. 

14 And, one question I have is, is there a 

15 phone number yet for October 15th and will it be the same 

16 as the November teleconference? 

17 MS. PINEDA: There is not a phone number 

18 yet, but I will be getting one next week and I will try 

19 to make them be the same number. But, I'll send out -- 

20 we have our email distribution and I'll send that 

21 information out once we get those phone numbers. 

22 MR. CAMERON: And, if people want to find 

23 out what that number is, is there -- do they just -- where 

24 do they tune in to? 

25 MS. PINEDA: I will add it to the public 
 22 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 

1 meeting notice site where we already have the October 

2 15th meeting posted there, so I'll add it to that site 

3 and then also in our email distribution, I'll put it in 

4 there. But, the main place on the website would be the 

5 public meeting notification site. 

6 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thanks, Christine. 

7 Anybody else? Yes, Diane? Please 

8 introduce yourself. 

9 MS. D'ARRIGO: Diane D'Arrigo, Nuclear 

10 Information and Resource Service. 

11 I have a couple of technical questions. I 

12 wanted to know the total amount of waste that is being 

13 assumed to go into the repository and how much of that 

14 is high burn up? And, so what -- and what cask 

15 assumptions are being made for those types of fuel? I 

16 guess that would be what TADs are there? 

17 MR. RUBENSTONE: I don't want to get too 

18 deeply into the technical details of the Supplement, but 

19 just, in general, we used what was proposed as the action 

20 in DOE's License Application. 

21 So, the inventory is as defined in their 

22 License Application which is consistent with the 

23 Nuclear Waste Policy Act, which is 70,000 metric tons 

24 heavy metal equivalent, 63,000 metric tons of which is 

25 spent nuclear fuel. 
 23 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 

1 And, the assumptions about what fraction is 

2 of what burn up is what was proposed by the Department 

3 of Energy. 

4 And, the same goes for the engineered 

5 barrier system, the canisters that would be -- and waste 

6 packages that would be used. Those are as described in 

7 the license application. 

8 MS. D'ARRIGO: How much is high burn up? 

9 MR. RUBENSTONE: Again, I don't have that 

10 number off the top of my head, but it is whatever was 

11 proposed in the License Application. 

12 MR. CAMERON: Okay. And, Diane, we're 

13 going to try to keep this on the transcript. But, as 

14 Jim said, we're not going to be able to go too deeply 

15 into those questions, but why don't you just get it on 

16 the record? 

17 MS. D'ARRIGO: I was clarifying that -- I 

18 was trying to clarify how much of the 70,000 metric tons 

19 heavy metal equivalent is high burn up and how high of 

20 burn up? And, what I'm hearing is that you don't know. 

21 MR. RUBENSTONE: No, what I'm saying is I 

22 can't tell you right now, but it is what was in the DOE 

23 License Application which included some fraction of 

24 high burn up fuel, but I just don't know the fraction. 

25 MS. D'ARRIGO: It did include some? 
 24 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 

1 MR. RUBENSTONE: I believe it did, but 

2 again, I would have to go back and look specifically. 

3 MR. CAMERON: Okay, thank you. Thank you, 

4 Diane. 

5 Jennifer, is anybody on the phone have 

6 clarifying question on process? 

7 OPERATOR: Yes, first we have Mary Olson 

8 from NIRS. You line is open. 

9 MS. OLSON: Great, thank you so much. 

10 Hi, Chip, hi to everybody else. 

11 MR. CAMERON: Hi. 

12 MS. OLSON: I have a sort of a historical 

13 process question that is not about the SEIS content. 

14 But, we heard that NRC staff reviewed the various DOE 

15 documents and decided they were acceptable to be 

16 adopted. 

17 And, I'm just wondering if there was any 

18 sort of record of decision issued on this or does that 

19 come after the final little additional piece, this SEIS? 

20 I want to know the history of records of decision by NRC. 

21 MR. CAMERON: Okay, thanks, Mary. Jim? 

22 MR. RUBENSTONE: Yes, this is Jim 

23 Rubenstone. 

24 Because there is an adjudication involved 

25 in this process, and those are the hearings that 
 25 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 

1 Christine referred to that were suspended in 2011. Any 

2 record of decision which is a term of art in NEPA space, 

3 the record of decision will happen after the hearings. 

4 And, just as another, you know, background 

5 historical note, the hearings, as they were beginning 

6 back in 2008 and forward from there, the first step were 

7 submission of contentions by various parties and 

8 rulings on admissibility. 

9 There were contentions admitted on the 

10 Environmental Impact Statements. So, those were part 

11 of the hearing proceedings. And the record of decision 

12 on the environmental impacts would come after the 

13 completion of the adjudication and then the 

14 Commission's review of those decisions. 

15 MS. OLSON: Thank you. 

16 MR. CAMERON: Okay, thanks, Mary. 

17 Jennifer, anybody else have a clarifying 

18 question? 

19 OPERATOR: Yes. The next question is from 

20 Ruth Thomas, the Environmentalists Group. 

21 MS. THOMAS: Thank you. 

22 I've been looking over the adoption of the 

23 Supplement and I wanted to be clear about understanding 

24 this. 

25 Now, they don't -- they talk about the NRC's 
 26 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 

1 Adoption Determination Report which was of 2008. How 

2 does that fit into the decision making system? I 

3 haven't ever heard of that particular -- 

4 MR. CAMERON: Okay, that's a -- 

5 MS. THOMAS: -- determination. I mean 

6 it's -- could somebody explain that? 

7 MR. CAMERON: That's a good question, 

8 Ruth. We'll go to Christine to explain that. 

9 Christine? 

10 MS. PINEDA: Hi Ruth, this is Christine 

11 Pineda. 

12 The Nuclear Waste Policy Act requires that 

13 the NRC adopt the Department of Energy Environmental 

14 Impact Statements to the extent possible, practicable, 

15 and the Adoption Determination Report that we produced 

16 in 2008 is the staff's determination that we could adopt 

17 the Department of Energy's EISs and, of course, with the 

18 needed supplementation. So, that's the staff's 

19 position. 

20 So, as Jim mentioned, there would have to 

21 be a formal hearing process where the contentions that 

22 have been submitted on a Department of Energy's EIS and 

23 any new contentions that might be admitted would have 

24 to be reviewed and then a decision made concerning the 

25 adequacy of the Department of Energy's EIS and the NRC's 
 27 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 

1 Adoption Determination Review and any Supplements that 

2 came out of the entire process. 

3 So, it's just one step in the whole process 

4 and it's the staff's position. 

5 MR. CAMERON: And, for Ruth and everybody 

6 else, the document that -- 

7 MS. THOMAS: Well, now I remember the 

8 National Environmental Policy Act -- 

9 MR. CAMERON: Ruth? Ruth, could you hold 

10 on one second, please? 

11 MS. THOMAS: What? 

12 MR. CAMERON: Can you just hold on one 

13 second? I just want to point out to everybody that, in 

14 the Federal Register Notice that announced the 

15 Supplement, there is a reference to the Adoption Report 

16 and it gives you a number, a citation, in the NRC ADAMS 

17 system for where you can get that document. 

18 And, Ruth, I think we're going to have to 

19 go on to see if anybody else has a clarifying question 

20 so that we could get to comment. But, thank you for that 

21 question. It was a great question. 

22 And, Jennifer, I'm going to ask you if 

23 there's anybody who has a clarifying question? 

24 OPERATOR: Yes, the next question comes 

25 from Michael Keegan of the Waste Michigan. Your line 
 28 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 

1 is open. 

2 MR. KEEGAN: Hello, thank you. That's 

3 Don't Waste Michigan. 

4 Could you please tell me if there has been 

5 another site that has been investigated? If there's 

6 been an EIS on another site, an alternative site to Yucca 

7 Mountain? 

8 MR. CAMERON: Okay, thanks, Michael. 

9 Jim? 

10 MR. RUBENSTONE: This goes back into some 

11 history and I'm not going to speak too definitively 

12 because this is actions that were taken probably more 

13 than 30 years ago. 

14 I do not know the extent of the 

15 environmental evaluations that were done for other 

16 sites. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act amendments in 1987 

17 directed the Department of Energy to focus its site 

18 characterization only on the Yucca Mountain site. 

19 So, if there had been any other 

20 environmental work done on other sites, my guess is that 

21 it would have pre-dated those amendments in 1987. 

22 MR. CAMERON: And, Christine, do you have 

23 something? 

24 MR. RUBENSTONE: And, this is for a high 

25 level waste disposal site. 
 29 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 

1 MR. CAMERON: Christine? 

2 MS. PINEDA: I think that before Yucca 

3 Mountain was designated, I think there were three sites 

4 in the running. And I think there were environmental 

5 documents for those three sites, at least -- and, I'm 

6 not sure if they were, at that stage, if they were 

7 Environmental Assessments or Environmental Impact 

8 Statements. 

9 MR. KEEGAN: Okay, Michael Keegan, again. 

10 MR. CAMERON: Go ahead, Michael. 

11 MR. KEEGAN: Can you hear me? 

12 MR. CAMERON: Yes. 

13 MR. KEEGAN: Yes, for the record, could you 

14 please enter that in as to whether there has been 

15 alternative sites examined or if the Yucca Mountain is 

16 the only site that has been examined? 

17 MR. RUBENSTONE: Well, again, I think -- 

18 MR. KEEGAN: Thank you. 

19 MR. RUBENSTONE: -- I believe that's 

20 outside the scope of what we're trying to address with 

21 this Supplement. And, again, I don't have that 

22 information, but we can see if we can research it. 

23 MR. CAMERON: Okay. 

24 MR. KEEGAN: I disagree. That is not 

25 beyond the scope, that is within the scope. I need to 
 30 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 

1 know whether there's been an alternative site 

2 investigated or not. 

3 MR. CAMERON: Okay, thank you, Michael. 

4 And, I think Jim said they were going to think about 

5 that. But, thank you for the question. 

6 And, Jennifer, anybody else? 

7 OPERATOR: Yes, the next question is from 

8 Paula Gotsch from Grandmothers, Mothers and More for 

9 Energy Safety. Your line is open. 

10 MS. GOTSCH: Thank you. 

11 In trying to -- a process question -- when 

12 you say that the staff decided that what the plan was 

13 acceptable except for the groundwater problem. And, I 

14 -- the amorphous staff, is that -- are those people that 

15 make the decision, in other words, the group that 

16 decided it was okay, are they named any where and also 

17 their area of expertise? Like, how many of them are 

18 hydrologists? How may are whatever? In other words, 

19 who made the decision? 

20 MR. CAMERON: Okay, thanks, Paula. 

21 Jim, do you want to try to address that? 

22 MR. RUBENSTONE: Yes, again, this fits 

23 into the overall process for the review of the Yucca 

24 Mountain Application including the environmental 

25 documents. The staff that made the determination on 
 31 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 

1 the adoption are named in the Adoption Determination 

2 Report as the preparers as is the NRC process for all 

3 environmental documents. There is a section that names 

4 the contributors to that document. 

5 And, again, just to be sure you understand 

6 the process, in the Yucca Mountain review, the NRC staff 

7 does its review, reaches its conclusions, puts forth its 

8 documents and then is a party in the adjudication. 

9 So, these are the recommendations of the 

10 staff which are to be adjudicated before the Atomic 

11 Safety Licensing Board. Again, that proceeding began 

12 and is now suspended. 

13 So, the final decision on the construction 

14 authorization would be done by the Commission itself, 

15 but that is only to happen after completion of the 

16 adjudication and then the Commission's review of the 

17 contested and uncontested issues. 

18 So, what was in the staff's Adoption 

19 Determination Report is the staff's position as to 

20 whether the DOE Environmental Impact Statements could 

21 be adopted by NRC to fulfill NRC's requirements under 

22 the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. 

23 MR. CAMERON: Okay, thank you, Paula. 

24 Jennifer, anybody else? 

25 OPERATOR: There are no more questions on 
 32 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 

1 the phone. 

2 MR. CAMERON: Okay, thank you. 

3 We're going to go to comment now and our 

4 first three speakers here in Rockville are Marty Malsch, 

5 Kevin Kamps and Kenneth Freelain. And, Marty, and all 

6 of you, I would offer you this podium and microphone to 

7 make your comments. 

8 MR. MALSCH: Good afternoon, everyone. 

9 Thank you for the opportunity to offer comments today 

10 on staff's Draft Yucca Mountain's Environmental Impact 

11 Statement Supplement on Groundwater. 

12 I'm Marty Malsch with the law firm Egan, 

13 Fitzpatrick, Malsch & Lawrence and I'm speaking today 

14 on behalf of the State of Nevada. 

15 Nevada's technical experts are reviewing 

16 the Draft Supplement and, as staff noted in last week's 

17 conference call and as staff noted today, Nevada asked 

18 for a 60-day extension to file comments so that its 

19 experts would have an adequate time for review. 

20 We would have preferred a 60-day extension, 

21 but we certainly welcome a 30-day extension. 

22 Nevada plans to file timely and very 

23 detailed written comments on staff's groundwater 

24 supplement. It would be premature for me to discuss 

25 these comments today in any detail. But, I thought it 
 33 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 

1 would be useful at this stage, this early stage, to 

2 highlight three areas of likely focus. 

3 First, there is the matter of scope. The 

4 scope of staff's current Draft Supplement is apparently 

5 controlled by staff's September 5, 2008 adoption 

6 decision. 

7 That decision included in Section 3.1.2 an 

8 evaluation of whether significant new information or 

9 other considerations arose since the DOE's 2002 and 2008 

10 environmental documents could affect the conclusions in 

11 those documents. 

12 But, that was seven years ago. At least 

13 four significant events have occurred since then that 

14 could affect the conclusions and DOE's environmental 

15 documents, and all of them warrant at least some further 

16 review by staff. 

17 First, there was the President's March 24, 

18 2015 decision that Defense high level waste should be 

19 disposed of in a repository devoted exclusively to that 

20 purpose. 

21 In light of that decision, the proposed 

22 action and DOE's 2002 and 2008 environmental documents 

23 to commingle Defense and commercial high level wastes 

24 violates the National Environmental Policy Act. 

25 Second, there is the July 10, 2015 
 34 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 

1 designation of the Basin and Range National Monument. 

2 This may affect the conclusion of DOE's Rail Corridor 

3 Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement because 

4 some of the Caliente Corridor transects the new 

5 monument. 

6 Third, since the Application was filed in 

7 2008, work was terminated on the Transportation, Aging 

8 and Disposal Canisters, the so called TAD canisters, 

9 that were assumed in the License Application and a large 

10 amount of the commercial used fuel is now loaded in 

11 different canisters. 

12 If repackaging is required, this could give 

13 rise to environmental impacts not evaluated previously. 

14 And fourth, a critical part of DOE's 

15 evaluation in its NEPA documents of the so-called no 

16 action alternative was its evaluation of Scenario 2, a 

17 total loss of institutional controls and used fuel 

18 storage sites after 100 years. 

19 In the Commission's Generic Environmental 

20 Impact Statement for continued storage of spent nuclear 

21 fuel, NUREG-2157, the Commission held that this 

22 scenario was contrary to the NEPA rule of reason and 

23 violated NEPA. 

24 Yet, a fair reading of the DOE 

25 Environmental Impact Statements is that Yucca Mountain 
 35 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 

1 is, in fact, not the preferred option under NEPA if this 

2 particular scenario is eliminated from consideration. 

3 Nevada is continuing its review of these 

4 matters and its written comments will offer more 

5 details. 

6 Second, and again, as noted, well as noted 

7 today by Christine, the source term used for 

8 radionuclides that was used in the Draft's Groundwater 

9 Supplement is a result of DOE's Total System Performance 

10 Assessment. 

11 Staff's reliance on DOE's Total System 

12 Performance Assessment would appear to render material 

13 and relevant to the Draft Supplement many, if not all, 

14 of Nevada's TSPA safety contentions. Most of these 

15 contentions were not addressed specifically in Drafts 

16 SER Volume III and raised issues that have never been 

17 the subject of public comment under NEPA and in 

18 accordance with CEQ regulations. We plan to offer more 

19 details about this also in our written comments. 

20 And then, finally, the NRC is subject to the 

21 Information Quality Act as implemented by a January 14, 

22 2005 OMB Bulletin, an NRC Handbook that is part of NRC 

23 Management Directive 3.17. 

24 It seems clear that the Draft Supplement 

25 constitutes a highly influential scientific assessment 
 36 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 

1 that is scientifically and technically novel and should 

2 be subject to peer review by independent experts not 

3 employed by NRC. 

4 We are not aware of any plans by the NRC to 

5 sponsor such a review. It would appear that an 

6 independent peer review would be practical, appropriate 

7 and required by law. 

8 In addition, the February 22, 2002 OMB 

9 Guidelines implementing the Information Quality Act 

10 required the NRC to comply with certain generally 

11 applicable quality guidelines in the Safe Drinking 

12 Water Act. 

13 It's not apparent that the Draft's 

14 Supplement complies with these principles. 

15 Again, thank you for the opportunity to 

16 comment. We will provide more detailed comments and 

17 supporting analysis in our written comments. And, I 

18 should add that I have written copies of my remarks that 

19 have things like legal citations and such and I am 

20 prepared to hand them out. 

21 Thank you very much. 

22 MR. CAMERON: Okay, thank you. Thank you, 

23 Marty. 

24 Let's go to Kevin Kamps, Beyond Nuclear. 

25 MR. KAMPS: Thank you. 
 37 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 

1 Good afternoon. My name is Kevin Kamps 

2 with Beyond Nuclear and I also serve on the Board of 

3 Directors of Don't Waste Michigan. 

4 NRC's DSEIS has absurdly concluded that 

5 radioactive releases from the proposed Yucca Mountain 

6 High Level Radioactive Waste Dump would be small. That 

7 is essentially minimal and harmless over the course of 

8 a million years into the future. 

9 Actually, if irradiated nuclear fuel is 

10 ever buried at Yucca, it would leak massively over time 

11 into the groundwater, creating a nuclear sacrifice zone 

12 over a board region downstream. 

13 This would include hazardous and even 

14 deadly radioactive contamination of the groundwater 

15 currently used for drinking and irrigation water in 

16 Nevada's agricultural Amargosa Valley. 

17 The Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge 

18 and Death Valley National Park as well as the Timbisha 

19 Shoshone Indian community inhabiting Death Valley would 

20 also be in harm’s way. 

21 The potential for disproportionate impacts 

22 on minority or low income populations is especially high 

23 considering the current lifestyle of the Timbisha 

24 Shoshone Indian community as well as the traditional 

25 lifestyle of the Western Shoshone Indian Nation. 
 38 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 

1 The potential for cumulative impacts 

2 associated with other past, present or reasonably 

3 foreseeable future actions is very high. After all, 

4 the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Department of Energy 

5 and Military conducted atmospheric nuclear weapons 

6 tests in the vicinity of Yucca Mountain from 1951 to 

7 1963. They continued to conduct underground 

8 full-scale nuclear weapons tests at the Nevada Test Site 

9 from 1963 to 1992, many of which leaked radioactivity 

10 to the atmosphere and environment as well as 

11 contaminated regional groundwater. 

12 Even after 1992, nuclear weapons testing 

13 has continued at the Nevada Test Site in the form of 

14 subcritical experiments involving plutonium. 

15 Another cumulative impact involves 

16 large-scale transport to and dumping of so-called low 

17 level radioactive wastes at the Nevada Test Site. 

18 We join with the State of Nevada Agency for 

19 Nuclear Projects, several other environmental groups 

20 and others in urging NRC to extend the public comment 

21 deadline by at least an additional 60 days. 

22 We also urge that additional in-person 

23 public meetings be scheduled in California where 

24 Yucca's radioactively contaminated groundwater would 

25 ultimately surface in springs as well as elsewhere 
 39 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 

1 across the country given that Yucca's opening would 

2 launch the unprecedented large-scale shipment of risky 

3 high level radioactive waste by truck, train and barge 

4 through most States. 

5 And, we urge that all in-person public 

6 meetings also include the call in option already being 

7 provided at other locations on other dates. 

8 And, I would just like to echo some of the 

9 statements that Mr. Malsch just made as well. 

10 The SEIS is incomplete and fatally flawed. 

11 It doesn't address the waste inventory that has now been 

12 changed and is uncertain due to President Obama's March 

13 24, 2015 decoupling of Defense nuclear wastes and 

14 commercial nuclear wastes which ends a decades old 

15 commingling decision. 

16 This was an official Executive Memo that 

17 was announced by the Energy Secretary and carries the 

18 force of law. 

19 The scope is too narrow. The scenarios 

20 used are bogus. And, the point of compliance is 

21 objectionable. 

22 The point of compliance at 11 miles is 

23 another one of Yucca's many double standard standards, 

24 as Dr. Arjun Makhijani has put it. 

25 The only way for Yucca Mountain to meet its 
 40 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 

1 legal obligations is to dilute the radioactivity for 11 

2 miles, but this contamination of groundwater and 

3 drinking water will extend far beyond the 11 mile 

4 downstream point. 

5 The transportation impacts I mentioned are 

6 a part of the need to expand the scope of this EIS 

7 proceeding. 

8 Also, the planned waste disposal package 

9 has become obsolete. The standard Transportation, 

10 Aging and Disposal canister, the TAD, is cancelled 

11 effectively at this point. There is no actual design 

12 that meets the specifications and requirements that has 

13 not been completed. 

14 The Department of Energy has terminated the 

15 TAD design and certification program. So, the waste 

16 package performance is unknown. This has a direct 

17 impact on the Total System Performance Assessment. 

18 The scope issue is a false flag in this 

19 major Federal action. Again, the shipping of the 

20 nuclear wastes makes this a major Federal action across 

21 the nation. It's not a local Nevada issue. 

22 I mentioned the impacts on the Timbisha 

23 Shoshone who live in Death Valley in terms of 

24 environmental justice and in terms of cumulative 

25 impacts. 
 41 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 

1 The NRC itself in this document recognizes 

2 on page 3-37, and I quote, the springs in the Furnace 

3 Creek area including the Furnace Creek, Texas, 

4 Travertine and Salt Springs are of traditional and 

5 cultural importance to the Tribe, end quote. 

6 And, one question I was not able to ask 

7 during the clarification session and I'll ask right now, 

8 and that is, if a Government shutdown will simply 

9 suspend the clock on this proceeding and will that clock 

10 be reactivated once the shutdown ends? 

11 Thank you. 

12 MR. CAMERON: Okay, thank you. Thank you, 

13 Kevin. 

14 I don't know if anyone know? 

15 MR. RUBENSTONE: NRC does not have a 

16 position on the impact of a potential Government 

17 shutdown on the timing of the comment period. I think 

18 that's an issue that will need to be considered if that 

19 comes to pass. 

20 MR. CAMERON: Okay, thank you. Thank you, 

21 Kevin. 

22 Is Anthony Leshinskie here? Or Erica 

23 Gray? 

24 Okay, we're going to go to the phones now 

25 and I know there may be a couple people in the room who 
 42 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 

1 may want to decide to comment, so we'll make sure we're 

2 back to them. 

3 But, at this point, Jennifer, could you 

4 active Ruth Thomas's line so we can hear her comments? 

5 OPERATOR: Ruth, your line is open. 

6 MS. THOMAS: Thank you. 

7 I wanted to support what was said and 

8 particularly in terms of the Indian people. And, I 

9 would call attention to page 3-32 in the Supplement and 

10 would like to have documentation that supports the 

11 conclusions that are met and, particularly as they 

12 relate to the Indian property. 

13 And to remind people that have forgotten 

14 the Indians think in terms of seven generations and this 

15 is going to affect way into the future. And, I want that 

16 to be considered. And, our organization will be 

17 submitting written comments as well. 

18 Thank you. 

19 MR. CAMERON: Thank you, Ruth. 

20 And, Jennifer, can you see, we had a couple 

21 of pre-registrants who were going to speak on the phone. 

22 Can you if either Marvin Lewis or Donna Gilmore are on 

23 the phone? If they want to comment, could you activate 

24 their line one at a time? I guess Marvin first and then 

25 Donna second. 
 43 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 

1 OPERATOR: Sure, hold on just one moment. 

2 Marvin, your line is open. 

3 MR. LEWIS: Thank you. 

4 I want to make a statement that I hope is 

5 out of scope, but I fear it won't be. 

6 One, as soon as radioactive waste will be 

7 moving to Yucca Mountain, we will have one more terrible 

8 and dangerous issue to face here in Philadelphia. 

9 I don't know if you know, but I'm going to 

10 tell you that within the last few months, we've had over 

11 100 cars flip over in one accident, accident in quotes, 

12 meaning I'm not sure it was really an accident. And I 

13 don't believe anybody else knows if it's an accident 

14 because, sure enough, it appears that a gunshot went 

15 through a window, harming the driver of the train that 

16 flipped over. A hundred plus cars, passengers. 

17 And, luckily, radioactive wastes weren't 

18 involved for once. And, I hope it stays that way and 

19 it will stay that way if we never -- well, not if we never 

20 -- but, we'll have a better chance of it if the amount 

21 of waste being moved on the tracks in this country is 

22 minimized or eliminated or not moved at all, or a lot 

23 of other questions open up. 

24 We have in Pennsylvania trains a mile long. 

25 Right now, all they're carrying is petroleum from shale 
 44 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 

1 up in Canada. We don't need more problems because we've 

2 had five of them in Pennsylvania or surrounding States 

3 have accidents. We've had enough accidents. We don't 

4 need more dangerous materials moving through 

5 Philadelphia. Believe me, we don't. 

6 I could go on and on and on, but I'm boring 

7 enough, I'm sure. 

8 One more item about Philadelphia, and I 

9 hope it isn't true where you live, we've had a little 

10 problem with money to keep our fire stations open which 

11 would be used in an accident with radioactive materials, 

12 although I'm not sure we're -- well, come to think of 

13 it, how can you be well trained enough? How can you have 

14 the right equipment when a nuclear -- when a train load 

15 of radioactive waste flips over? 

16 But, we have an added problem. Some of our 

17 fire stations are browned out which means they aren't 

18 manned part of the time. Kind of hard to fight 

19 radioactive and fires and whatever without people, but 

20 we do it. 

21 I just want you to have some perspective on 

22 what you're talking about when you're talking about 

23 moving radioactive waste through this country. 

24 Thank you. 

25 MR. CAMERON: Thank you. Thank you, 
 45 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 

1 Marvin. 

2 Jennifer, can you see if Donna Gilmore is 

3 on the phone and wants to comment? And then, someone 

4 who I thought was in the audience who I think is on the 

5 phone is Tony Leshinskie from the State of Vermont. 

6 Can you see, first, about Donna and then 

7 next about Tony? 

8 OPERATOR: Okay, Donna, your line is open. 

9 MS. GILMORE: Okay, thank you. 

10 Yes, I'm questioning -- it seems to me that 

11 the NRC should be required to justify their assumptions. 

12 You know, I've been familiar with the high burn up fuel 

13 and the lack of information available to confirm storage 

14 even short term or the long term and the impact of that. 

15 There needs to be -- the NRC shouldn't be 

16 able to just say something is true and assume it without 

17 having facts. There are documents that they reference, 

18 they need to be updated with current information, not 

19 old decisions that were made prior to high burn up being 

20 used. So, they need to go back to the drawing board on 

21 that. 

22 We're sitting here in San Onofre, in a 

23 marine environment where these canisters we have are 

24 subject to stress corrosion cracking, talking about 

25 transporting these. Right now, there's no approval for 
 46 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 

1 cracked canisters. There's no approval to transport 

2 them. There's no approval to -- there's no evaluation 

3 for seismic risk of cracking canisters. No one at the 

4 NRC knows what's going on with that fuel right now. 

5 I mean, Bob Einziger said I hope we never 

6 have to open one of those, you know, I mean this is your 

7 own experts. 

8 So, you need to go back to the drawing board 

9 on this. I'll have more comments later. I hope to 

10 Nevada in person on that because I don't want to take 

11 up everybody's time because I could go on for an hour, 

12 but I won't. 

13 Thank you. 

14 MR. CAMERON: Okay, good. We'll look 

15 forward to seeing you in Nevada possibly. And, thank 

16 you, Donna. 

17 And, Jennifer, is Tony on the phone? Is he 

18 available? 

19 OPERATOR: His line actually just dropped. 

20 But, I do have five other comments. 

21 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Well, let's go to 

22 Abby Johnson. 

23 OPERATOR: Okay. Abby, your line is open. 

24 MS. JOHNSON: Hi, this is Abby Johnson with 

25 Eureka County. 
 47 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 

1 I apologize, I missed the very beginning. 

2 I know this isn't a comment exactly on the document, but 

3 I'm wondering if there's a place where the view graphs 

4 that Christine was going through are available on the 

5 website? 

6 MS. PINEDA: I apologize, they're not 

7 available at this moment, but they will be up very 

8 shortly and they'll be on the -- well, they'll be -- if 

9 you go to, as Jim was -- well, you weren't on the line 

10 earlier, but if you go to the NRC's web page and then 

11 you go to Radioactive Waste and High Level Waste 

12 Disposal and then go to Key Documents, that's where 

13 we're going to be posting all of the documents related 

14 to the meetings and other documents related to this 

15 project. 

16 MS. JOHNSON: And, would that be like 

17 sometime this week or next week? 

18 MS. PINEDA: That'll be next week. 

19 MS. JOHNSON: That it would be posted? 

20 MS. PINEDA: Yes. 

21 MS. JOHNSON: Okay, thank you so much. I 

22 appreciate that. 

23 MR. CAMERON: Okay, thanks, Abby. 

24 MS. JOHNSON: Thank you, Chip. 

25 OPERATOR: Tony, your line is open. 
 48 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 

1 MR. LESHINSKIE: This is Tony Leshinskie. 

2 I'm representing State of Vermont and the State Nuclear 

3 Engineer. 

4 When I registered for this conference, I 

5 was not anticipating speaking, but I found out 

6 subsequently that by registering the way I had done that 

7 I had reserved time to speak. I was hoping that some 

8 of my colleagues from the Agency of Natural Resources 

9 who do evaluate groundwater issues would be able to join 

10 me today, but they are unable to do so. 

11 But, since I do have the opportunity, 

12 hearing the discussion so far, it reminded me of a 

13 teleconference I listened to several weeks ago 

14 regarding greater than Class C waste. And I would 

15 direct the Yucca Mountain project to review the 

16 transcripts of that particular hearing. 

17 In particular, there were a number of 

18 concerns raised about whether it was possible or 

19 probable to accurately evaluate whether, you know, a 

20 geologic area will be arid or dry 10,000 years from now. 

21 And, the comment that stuck with me, and I do not have 

22 the commentator's name with me, pointed out that 10,000 

23 years ago, Death Valley was underwater. 

24 And so, this type of consideration should 

25 be evaluated here. To what extent that has been done 
 49 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 

1 so far, I'm really unable to judge. But, I would ask 

2 that if it has not been considered so far, please do so. 

3 And, please consider, again, the ideas that were raised 

4 regarding greater than Class C waste issues. 

5 Thank you very much and that's all I have 

6 to say. 

7 MR. CAMERON: Okay, thank you, Tony. 

8 And, Jennifer, how about Gwen Dubois? 

9 OPERATOR: Gwen, your line is open. 

10 MS. DUBOIS: Thank you. 

11 Hi, my name's Dr. Gwen Dubois, I'm from 

12 Chesapeake Physicians for Social Responsibility. I'm 

13 an Internist in Baltimore. 

14 First of all, I'm concerned with 

15 environmental justice issues and the continued exposure 

16 knowing that no level of radiation is safe and for 

17 pregnant women, children and women in general, more 

18 sensitive to the carcinogenic effects of exposure to 

19 radiation. 

20 So, we're asking the same communities to 

21 continue to bear exposure and even though they say that 

22 there's no -- or the EIS says that there's really no 

23 significant exposure to radionuclides, I think that's 

24 sort of under this assumption that low level is safe. 

25 And, of course, we don't know what events 
 50 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 

1 could happen. 

2 And, along the same environmental justice 

3 concerns, I'm from Baltimore, as I said. Baltimore is 

4 a city with a lot of poverty, especially inner city. 

5 And, in 2001, we experienced a chemical containing train 

6 that had a terrible fire in a tunnel right near the 

7 downtown and near the baseball stadium. And, the 

8 temperatures went to 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit in that 

9 tunnel. 

10 And, of course, we all thought, oh my God, 

11 imagine -- or us in the anti-nuclear community -- what 

12 if that had been radioactive waste? 

13 And, when I say anti-nuclear community, I'm 

14 just active against the concerns about nuclear weapons 

15 and nuclear power as it creates plutonium and highly 

16 enriched uranium initially because of its ability to 

17 create a more proliferation. 

18 But, then seeing nuclear power and what to 

19 do with its waste that we have no really good solution 

20 for. 

21 So, I am concerned, in summary, that we're 

22 going to okay a plan without any casks that we can put 

23 the waste in as we transport across the country knowing 

24 that there are going to be accidents. You know, I 

25 bicycle, if you bicycle enough, you're going to be in 
 51 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 

1 an accident. If you drive a car enough, there's going 

2 to be an accident. 

3 What the figures are is that every 700 miles 

4 -- I don't remember what the figure is, but you can 

5 imagine that there are going to be a certain number of 

6 accidents and then we're going to have waste, some of 

7 this high burn up fuel stored and then transported. We 

8 don't have that all worked out yet. 

9 So, I don't see how we can approve one part 

10 of this without making sure that every step on the way 

11 has such a low likelihood of a catastrophe happening 

12 that the benefits outweigh the risks. We're not there 

13 yet. 

14 And, we should have seen enough with things 

15 that we didn't expect to happen whether it's Hurricane 

16 Katrina or Sandy or Fukushima that the unexpected 

17 happens and if it coincides with very dangerous material 

18 being caught in the middle of it, it's a catastrophe. 

19 So, we're not there yet and I think an EIS, at this point, 

20 is premature or has to be redone in a more complete way 

21 so that we have evaluated all the factors. 

22 Thank you. 

23 MR. CAMERON: Thank you. Thank you very 

24 much. 

25 Jennifer, could we go to Paula and then 
 52 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 

1 Maureen and then to Ace Hoffman? 

2 JENNIFER: One moment. 

3 Paula, your line is open. 

4 MS. GOTSCH: Thank you. 

5 In listening to what's been said so far, it 

6 seems to me that just to go back to why Nevada was not 

7 granted the full 60 days. 

8 When you were talking about a problem 

9 that's supposed to go on for millions of years, it seems 

10 so petty to not give them the whole 60 days. They have 

11 a right here to have as much time as they need and it 

12 just seems -- in other words, you have a schedule to get 

13 your work done, where does that all fit in in the scheme 

14 of things when you're talking about millions of years 

15 of a problem? 

16 The public has seen what happened at 

17 Hanford and now WIPP. So, here's two sites that were, 

18 you know, managed by the NRC and DOE or who ever and they 

19 failed miserably and subject to ridiculous accidents. 

20 And, my question about who signed off on 

21 this and said it was acceptable and what were their 

22 credentials was part of what someone else brought up. 

23 What about an independent peer review? 

24 Some thing so important, it seems to me, 

25 that why not open it up to other people? 
 53 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 

1 The problem I see here and I think that 

2 you've got to consider also what you're opening up a can 

3 of worms which everybody who's spoken so far spoke about 

4 all the unfinished business and all the stuff that isn't 

5 settled is that by doing this. 

6 It's like you're going to say, okay, I'm 

7 moored with the nuclear industry because now we have a 

8 place, at least one place, to put this stuff and now 

9 we'll probably have another one. We can okay this now 

10 so that's going to look good. And that's just bad to 

11 do that because you don't have place. 

12 And here's people saying you're opening up 

13 this risk all over the country. Don't make believe 

14 stuff. Don't make believe it. 

15 Thank you. 

16 MR. CAMERON: Thank you. Thank you, 

17 Paula. 

18 And, for Maureen, Jennifer, can we have 

19 Maureen and then Ace? 

20 OPERATOR: Yes. Maureen, your line is 

21 open. 

22 MS. HEADINGTON: Most people know me as 

23 Moe, I don't know if they know Maureen. 

24 But, you know, I'm listening to this, I was 

25 on the last hearing that took place about a week ago and 
 54 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 

1 had put in a request for the additional 60 days. And, 

2 I'm the person who talked about the fact that I'm a 

3 grassroots activist and it takes longer for news to 

4 trickle through grassroots, but we're really at the 

5 heart of what's going on because we outreach to 

6 communities, not just a membership base. 

7 And, 60 days isn't even enough, an extra 60 

8 days isn't enough. 

9 The comments moments ago made by Dr. Dubois 

10 about EIS being premature, it absolutely is premature. 

11 I think that if you take a step back and look at just 

12 commonsense and sound judgment, this is about a calendar 

13 that is running the show. It's dictating everything 

14 and there seems to be a nonchalance about the 

15 significance of all of these important facts, details, 

16 observations that I'm hearing today and have been 

17 hearing for a long time. 

18 I get a sense that these issues kind of are 

19 compartmentalized and taken in isolation. But, I want 

20 to point out, I was in the Chicago area and home to more 

21 reactors in Illinois than any other State. We're 

22 sitting on lots of waste. 

23 They've got to find out, first of all, stop 

24 making it. But, given the fact that we still do, find 

25 a way to get rid of the waste on site. If they're smart 
 55 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 

1 enough to do it at Yucca, then be smart enough to get 

2 rid of it on site and take away the dangers inherent in 

3 transport. 

4 I've been following the stories about the 

5 bomb trains which are amazing. And no matter what it 

6 is that's being transported, whether it's plutonium 

7 fuel rods or other flammable or volatile cargo, it seems 

8 that the problems are pretty much the same. But, it's 

9 like, have you considered not just this in isolation, 

10 this transport of plutonium to Yucca Mountain in 

11 isolation, but against the backdrop of everything else 

12 going on? 

13 Because the trains carrying crude oil from 

14 Alberta tar sands or the fracked Bakken shale crude from 

15 North Dakota known as bomb trains because they're 

16 flammable, volatile cargo. 

17 In 2015, there were five separate oil 

18 trains that left the tracks that resulted in explosions. 

19 Some were in Ontario. But, what happens in Canada 

20 equally can happen here and does. We had one of these 

21 happen here in Illinois just a few months ago. 

22 These oil trains travel unchecked through 

23 highly populated areas in Canada and in the U.S. It's 

24 a slap in the face to be told there is minimal or small 

25 or no danger. I would like something quantified. I 
 56 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 

1 want to know what small means. I think we're entitled 

2 to transparency here. We need to know how these 

3 statements could be made and if they are, attribute 

4 them. Start footnoting everything you have so that we 

5 can decide if we feel that those are reputable people 

6 making these decisions. If so, I would question their 

7 judgment. 

8 I just feel that this is a disaster waiting 

9 to happen. It's the old you can get it right 99 times 

10 out of a hundred but that one time, what will it do? 

11 What will it cause? It is inevitable. 

12 And, if you look back at DOE's projections 

13 for the GNEP, Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, on 

14 which I worked in my community. DOE actually did make 

15 -- come up with numbers of how many accidents there would 

16 be. So, you can't go on the assumption that there will 

17 be none. There will be some and it's a matter of that 

18 cost benefit and how many of us or our homes or our 

19 families are worth it to the powers that be? 

20 I would like transparency in terms of any 

21 elected official that dares to speak on this subject, 

22 that at the same time, that it must be said how much money 

23 they are getting from the industry, from anyone 

24 affiliated with nuclear power industry, because 

25 otherwise, they have zero credibility. 
 57 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 

1 I would ask that this project be put on hold 

2 until the Price-Anderson Act is abolished because, if 

3 you are limiting liability to the nuclear industry, then 

4 you are also admitting liability. And, it should not 

5 fall on the public. 

6 And, I thank you for this time. 

7 MR. CAMERON: Okay, thank you, Moe. 

8 Jennifer -- 

9 OPERATOR: And, next we have Ace Hoffman. 

10 Your line is open. 

11 MR. CAMERON: Okay. 

12 MR. HOFFMAN: Okay, thank you. This is 

13 Ace. 

14 Earlier in the meeting, it appears that 

15 there is a lack of funding. And I wonder if that is the 

16 main reason why we're not going to have meeting in 

17 California or Illinois or Connecticut or anywhere else 

18 where there are nuclear reactors? Is it because of a 

19 lack funding? 

20 And, this is for a project which will 

21 probably cost $50 billion and that's not including -- 

22 that's my estimate, of course -- but, it's not including 

23 the money that was already spent which I guess is about 

24 $30 billion that's been tossed down the hole. 

25 Or is it the reason that there's not going 
 58 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 

1 to be a meeting in California because groundwater 

2 destruction, after an accident, a transport accident 

3 anywhere, doesn't count? It only counts if it's a 

4 groundwater problem at Yucca Mountain? 

5 And, lastly, is there not going to be a 

6 meeting in California because Death Valley, where the 

7 waste can end up even if it's an accident in Yucca 

8 Mountain is already considered a wasteland? Or is 

9 there some other reason? 

10 Is this, on a second topic, is this expected 

11 to be the last waste repository in America? Does the 

12 plan consider whether or not it's going to be an open 

13 ended problem? If we don't shutdown the reactors, then 

14 how can it possibly be large enough to hold all the waste 

15 that's ever going to be produced? 

16 And, I want to make a note of three facts 

17 which is that one this is that the Arizona Police and 

18 the Federal Bureau of Investigation are still looking 

19 for who ever derailed the Sunset Limited there 20 years 

20 with the loss of life. 

21 And, earlier this year, a train carrying, 

22 I don't know what it was carrying, but it ran into a fuel 

23 truck which was carrying fuel, a military fuel truck, 

24 shut down the highway next to it for hours and hours and, 

25 you know, did quite a bit of damage. Fortunately and 
 59 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 

1 miraculously, nobody was killed as far as I can recall. 

2 These crude oil trains that will be going 

3 left and right, that are going left and right all over 

4 the place, is there a plan, and is it going to be 

5 described, how you're going to be sure that the spent 

6 fuel trains are not on the same tracks next to each other 

7 as one of these bomb trains or any kind of dangerous 

8 train or any train, they're all dangerous, are they all 

9 going to be stopped as the spent fuel trains go by? 

10 And I don't think any of that is out of scope 

11 because it's all going to produce groundwater problems 

12 when there's an accident. 

13 Thank you very much. 

14 MR. CAMERON: Okay, thank you. Thank you, 

15 Ace. 

16 And, I think we have Mary Olson next, is 

17 that correct, Jennifer? 

18 OPERATOR: Yes. Yes, Mary Olson, your 

19 line is open. 

20 MS. OLSON: Great, thank you. 

21 This is Mary Olson, the Southeast Office of 

22 Nuclear Information and Resource Service. We do have 

23 members in all 50 States. 

24 And I want to echo the fact that people are 

25 talking about things which a license would trigger. 
 60 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 

1 And, although there are parts of the Total System 

2 Performance Assessment which suggests that maybe a 

3 license for Yucca Mountain is not the very next step, 

4 this SEIS is being construed as if it's just this little 

5 teeny tiny piece and, yet, as completing the License 

6 Application to some extent, and that License Applicant 

7 would trigger all these transport comments. 

8 I want to support the fact that NRC listened 

9 to these concerns that people are bringing. 

10 I also want to absolutely support an 

11 additional 30 days. Thank you for the 30 that was 

12 granted today. I know it's a little bit odd for a 

13 grassroots advocate to extend the comment period into 

14 the High Holidays, but I also think that the State of 

15 Nevada has every right to a 60-day extension and we 

16 formally request that. I will do it in writing, but I 

17 am right now verbally, formally requesting the full 

18 60-day extension. 

19 And, I also heard today the peer review 

20 idea. Hell yes, this is very important work. It's 

21 going to be a global trendsetter for the rest of the 

22 world and, yes, there should definitely be peer review 

23 on this work, on all of it. 

24 Now, we come up against a portfolio of 

25 issues which have been touched on today and I want to 
 61 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 

1 clarify that our community has deep concerns that the 

2 License Application does not, probably never did, but 

3 does not now reflect factually based data about the 

4 components of the program that we expect to be quote, 

5 unquote the reality. 

6 So, if NRC is going to move forward with 

7 this SEIS with its License Application based on the DOE 

8 Application as written, I heartily commend that they 

9 should all become license conditions, that if the 

10 license conditions of the License Application are not 

11 met, that the thing will come to a glorious grinding 

12 halt. 

13 Either that or you guys have to stop smoking 

14 whatever it is you are and get real because the fuel is 

15 different than Department of Energy originally assessed 

16 it. There may be a quote, unquote high burn up 

17 component, but today, we know from your very own staff 

18 that every reactor is burning high burn up fuel and 

19 started in the mid '90s and that makes 15 years of fuel, 

20 some of which may or may not be mixed into the queue, 

21 depending on how that politics goes, at a different rate 

22 than is in the Application which was based on data that 

23 predates the NRC decision to help the industry go to high 

24 burn up fuel. 

25 So, you have all these pieces in your 
 62 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 

1 pockets and the left hand and the right hand either 

2 better start talking to each other or the left hand 

3 better become an iron glove that says these are the 

4 license conditions and if they are not met, the license 

5 is invalid. 

6 Because this is ridiculous. And, I'm -- 

7 yes, I'm pissed. So, there's the high burn up issue, 

8 there's the TAD, Transport, Aging, Disposal, which 

9 never occurred. 

10 We now have all the container issues that 

11 Donna Gilmore said she could talk hours about. And, she 

12 could and should. And, you guys should listen. And, 

13 I know some of the guys at NRC are listening. 

14 But, is the Yucca Mountain Directorate 

15 talking to those people? I hope so. You should, you 

16 should at least have lunch together and say what's Donna 

17 saying and get it straight because she knows what she's 

18 talking about. 

19 We're having a very worrying series of 

20 problems associated with stainless steel containers, 

21 lots of heat, lots of radioactivity and the fact that 

22 there are designer versions out there that are unique 

23 on sites where modifications were made. 

24 I mean, this is a nightmare and if you're 

25 just going to like launch into it without acknowledging 
 63 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 

1 that it exists, heaven help us all. 

2 So, the containers, what's in the 

3 containers and then we come to the fact that we just had 

4 a President uncommingle waste that this whole License 

5 Application rests on. The not so thermally hot Defense 

6 waste is not necessarily bound for Yucca Mountain 

7 anymore. 

8 As a matter of fact, it says it is not in 

9 the Executive Order. So, how are you going to reconcile 

10 the design of Yucca Mountain based on the Defense waste 

11 with it not now being part of that picture? 

12 In other words, the License Application 

13 should be invalidated, guys. And, if it's not, then you 

14 should put conditions on every single aspect of that 

15 deal. 

16 And, how does this relate to the SEIS? It 

17 relates directly because all of those components that 

18 I'm talking about directly impact the source term. 

19 They directly impact the solubility of the source term. 

20 They directly impact the heat loading and, therefore, 

21 the rock characteristics and, therefore, the vast flow 

22 pathways. 

23 There is no way that any of those issues I 

24 just raised do not have to do with the ultimate system 

25 performance assessment upon which this SEIS projection 
 64 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 

1 is based. 

2 And, finally, I want to fully thank Ace 

3 Hoffman for bringing up the fact that if this is 

4 groundwater impacts, you've got them nationwide in this 

5 picture. And there's absolutely no way that you should 

6 only be looking at the Yucca Mountain piece. 

7 I mean, if that's what this SEIS is about, 

8 it should be called, you know, like Standard Compliance 

9 or something like that because there will be groundwater 

10 impacts, as he pointed out, every time there's an 

11 incident or an accident that involves any type of 

12 release or contaminated exterior of containers which we 

13 know from Germany and France is a really prevalent 

14 problem when you start moving this stuff around. 

15 Now, final comment, when we sued Nuclear 

16 Information and Resource Service and public citizens 

17 sued the EPA on the Environmental Standard for Yucca 

18 Mountain and they -- 

19 MR. CAMERON: Did we just -- Jennifer, are you 

20 still there? It sounds like we lost our connection. 

21 While we're waiting for the connection to 

22 come back, is there anybody in the room who wants to -- 

23 OPERATOR: Thank you for calling, may I 

24 please have your pass code? Caller, I'm not able to 

25 hear you. Please check the mute feature on your phone. 
 65 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 

1 I am still not able to hear you, please check your number 

2 and try your call again. Thank you. 

3 MR. GENDELMAN: Hello? 

4 OPERATOR: Thank you for calling. May I 

5 please have your pass code? 

6 PARTICIPANT: The pass code is 9708500. 

7 OPERATOR: Thank you. And, may I please 

8 have your first and last name with the spelling? 

9 PARTICIPANT: I think Christine Pineda is 

10 the conference organizer. But, this is the Nuclear 

11 Regulatory Commission line. 

12 OPERATOR: Okay. So, this is a leader 

13 line then? 

14 PARTICIPANT: Yes. 

15 OPERATOR: Okay. I will rejoin you with 

16 an open line. 

17 PARTICIPANT: Thank you. 

18 OPERATOR: You’re welcome. 

19 MR. CAMERON: So, are we going to finish up 

20 with Mary Olson, Jennifer? No? 

21 Can we go back in the room now while we're 

22 waiting or should we wait? 

23 OPERATOR: You are reconnected to the 

24 conference, hold on just a moment. 

25 Mary, your line is open. 
 66 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 

1 MR. CAMERON: Yes, Mary, could you finish 

2 up for us, please? 

3 MS. OLSON: Very briefly, just that 

4 because of the deep time involved, we're talking about 

5 compliance in a million years. So, our little 

6 regulatory rules today have a little room in them for 

7 this Federal Agency to consider its role, you know, in 

8 a broader context. 

9 So, I am invoking the moral context that we 

10 now know and did not know when we did that law suit on 

11 the standard that little girls and women are somewhere 

12 between seven and two times more vulnerable than the 

13 standard man who still dominates the regulatory 

14 structure for NRC and all of its brethren and sistren 

15 agencies. 

16 And, therefore, I am formally asking that 

17 you guys really throw all of the concerns people are 

18 raising into a context where you understand that, you 

19 know, it's a moving target what protection means. It's 

20 a moving target what the whole scenario and the source 

21 term means. 

22 All these targets are moving and you have 

23 a responsibility for all the generations to come, not 

24 just who ever's pulling your strings on your next 

25 deadline. 
 67 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 

1 So, thank you for listening. 

2 MR. CAMERON: Okay, thank you. Thank you, 

3 Mary. 

4 And, Jennifer, we're going to hear from 

5 Michael Keegan and then we're going to come back in the 

6 room to some people here who want to talk. 

7 And then, I'm going to check back with you 

8 to see if there's anybody else on the phone. Okay? 

9 Could up put Michael on? 

10 OPERATOR: Okay. Michael, your line is 

11 open. 

12 MR. KEEGAN: Okay, thank you. Can you 

13 hear me? 

14 MR. CAMERON: Yes. Yes. 

15 MR. KEEGAN: Can you hear me? 

16 MR. CAMERON: Yes, we can hear you, 

17 Michael. 

18 MR. KEEGAN: Okay, very good. 

19 Let's see, am I on speaker? I want to make 

20 sure I'm not on speaker, just a moment. 

21 OPERATOR: I just lost his line. 

22 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Just out of 

23 curiosity, we are going to come back in the room after 

24 Michael gets back on. But, do you have anybody else out 

25 there on the phones that wants to comment? 
 68 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 

1 OPERATOR: Not at this time. Again, if 

2 you'd like to make a comment, just press star one. 

3 MR. CAMERON: Okay, good, good. That at 

4 least gives us an idea of how to deal with the rest of 

5 the time. 

6 Why don't we wait one minute and see if 

7 Michael comes on? Otherwise, we'll go here in the room 

8 and we'll get Michael on later on. 

9 Okay, let's go to the room. We'll go to 

10 this gentleman here and, if you could just please 

11 introduce yourself to us? 

12 MR. NELSON: Hi, good afternoon. My name 

13 is Dennis Nelson. I am a Director of SERV, Support and 

14 Education for Radiation Victims. I'm also a retired 

15 Naval Officer and a research biochemist, biophysical 

16 chemist. 

17 And, I was struck by this idea that there's 

18 minimal impact of such a repository, at least 11 miles 

19 downstream in the underground stream. 

20 It seems very strange to me that you can 

21 make those kinds of assumptions over a million years. 

22 It's just -- I find it kind of ludicrous. 

23 But, the point I wanted to make is that, 

24 from my perspective as a biophysical chemist, I think 

25 that this whole process of risk estimation is wrong, 
 69 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 

1 that it has been subverted by people who have tried to 

2 impose dose as a construct on radiation and it just 

3 doesn't fit. 

4 I've done toxicology. I know toxicology 

5 and I'm a chemist. And toxicology is based on dose. 

6 And dose -- in fact, there's a statement in toxicology 

7 that dose makes the poison. In other words, everything 

8 is potentially toxic if you get enough of it even water, 

9 you can drown in it. 

10 But, all of this is based on chemical and 

11 chemical concentrations. That doesn't happen with 

12 radiation. Radiation has a single nuclear 

13 disintegration which has enough energy to precipitate 

14 a reaction without high numbers of atoms. I mean, a 

15 single atom can do that. 

16 But, in toxicology, it takes millions and 

17 millions of atoms because of Avogadro's number. It's 

18 such a big number that you have to have billions and 

19 trillions of atoms of a toxin to cause something to 

20 happen. 

21 And so, by inference, you can say that, if 

22 it's diluted, if it's diluted sufficiently, you get 

23 below that threshold concentration, nothing's going to 

24 happen. And that's true. In toxicology, if you get 

25 below the critical concentration, nothing happens. 
 70 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 

1 But, that's not the case with radiation. A 

2 single disintegration can cause -- has enough energy to 

3 precipitate a chemical reaction or a destructive 

4 reaction. It's more like a bullet going through 

5 tissue. You know? Radiation going through cells is 

6 like a bullet going through tissue. It causes damage 

7 and that damage has to be repaired. 

8 So, you can't make those kinds of 

9 constructs and you can't assume that downstream -- 11 

10 miles downstream it's going to be diluted enough that 

11 nothing's going to happen because a single atom can 

12 cause something to happen. 

13 Now, probability-wise, that's not too 

14 likely because we're constantly getting bombarded with 

15 stuff and with radiation and cosmic radiation and all 

16 that. 

17 But, it is causing damage and that damage 

18 has to be repaired and there's a limited amount of repair 

19 capability in a human body. 

20 You're born with your repair cells, your 

21 pluropotential stem cells. You have a certain number. 

22 You have a certain number of divisions that a cell clone 

23 can go through before it's used up all its telemers and 

24 then it has to die. It has to go through apoptosis, self 

25 cell destruction. 
 71 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 

1 But, that -- and then it's replenished with 

2 the pluropotential stem cells. But, you only have a 

3 limited number of those. 

4 So, any damage that you do to your cells is 

5 going to, in some way, affect you and affect your life. 

6 And maybe your life expectancy because if you use up all 

7 your potential repair cells, you've used them up and 

8 then you die. 

9 So, I just want you to think about that. 

10 It's not as simple as you're making it out to be and these 

11 guys who say that radiation can be -- radiation 

12 exposure, the risk from radiation exposure can be 

13 described as dose are -- they're just plain wrong. 

14 Thank you. 

15 MR. CAMERON: Thank you. Thank you very 

16 much, Dennis. 

17 And, Jennifer, can you put Michael on and 

18 then we'll go to Erica Gray? 

19 OPERATOR: Yes. Michael, your line is 

20 open. 

21 MR. KEEGAN: Okay, thank you. Thank you. 

22 I'm sorry, you got cut off there apparently. 

23 What I wanted to point out is, yes, indeed, 

24 this goes back decades. And the institutional records 

25 have been lost. The history has been lost. And, it's 
 72 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 

1 been these -- been critics who have tracked us for 

2 decades who are now the historical record. 

3 What I'm seeing lacking is quality 

4 assurance throughout this process. And, I want to 

5 point the NRC staff to an audit report by the Office of 

6 the Inspector General of November 16, 2009 where they 

7 found quality assurance was lacking within the NRC on 

8 reviewing quality assurance programs, too cozy with the 

9 industry and just things were done too casually. 

10 I see that same quality assurance lacking 

11 here and that really is the fundamentals of engineering. 

12 And, when I hear all these open ended questions 

13 unresolved, things that have changed tremendously, it's 

14 troubling. 

15 So, I want to direct the NRC to have a 

16 quality assurance program in place. I certainly do 

17 advocate a peer review and there has to be 

18 accountability. There has to be responsibility and the 

19 buck has to stop somewhere and in Rickover's Navy, the 

20 buck has to stop and there has to be somebody who is 

21 responsible ultimately. 

22 And, what I am seeing is everybody sort of 

23 passing the buck, dodging it. We now have the NRC doing 

24 what was to have been a DOE project. It's just so 

25 compromised in so many ways. 
 73 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 

1 And, those are my comments. Thank you. 

2 MR. CAMERON: Okay, thank you. Thank you, 

3 Michael. 

4 Do we have Erica on the phone, Jennifer? 

5 OPERATOR: Erica Gray, your line is open. 

6 MS. GRAY: Hello, can you hear me? 

7 MR. CAMERON: Hi. 

8 MS. GRAY: Hi, this is Erica Gray calling 

9 from Richmond, Virginia. I'm going to just kind of 

10 repeat, obviously, what a lot of other people have 

11 already stated. 

12 There is no way you can look at a time frame 

13 of millions of years. I heard Arjun Makhijani on a call 

14 a couple of weeks ago stating that a prominent geologist 

15 had stated, you know, may be you can look out a hundred 

16 years, maybe even go into five hundred, but past that, 

17 there's no way you can look at further into the future. 

18 The idea of putting stuff underground and 

19 thinking we can seal it off is just a bad idea. When 

20 it comes to high level waste, high burn up, I'm here in 

21 Virginia where Dominion has signed us up for a high burn 

22 up fuel cask demonstration and experiment. 

23 So, there is really no way that the industry 

24 nor the NRC really can guarantee safety or really know 

25 how this high burn up fuel is going to behave in the 
 74 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 

1 coming decade or two decades. 

2 You know, fast tracking this idea is bad and 

3 really, I think that peer review is going to be very 

4 important and, really, look at our experiences we have 

5 across the country. I mean we've got Hanford. We've 

6 got the WIPP facility, we've got Savannah River site, 

7 we've got plumes. I don't have confidence. 

8 We need to stop making this waste in the 

9 first place and the brakes need to go on this idea, this 

10 kind of thinking we can throw this stuff underground and 

11 the job's done. That's not going to work. 

12 So, that's all I have to say. Thank you. 

13 MR. CAMERON: Okay, thank you, Erica. 

14 How about John LaForge, Jennifer? 

15 OPERATOR: John, your line is open. 

16 MR. LAFORGE: Yes, thank you. 

17 I represent Nukewatch in Wisconsin and I 

18 report on these issues extensively. 

19 I'm wondering now, I see that the 

20 transcript's being written as we speak and I just wanted 

21 to know if this transcript of today's discussion is 

22 going to be available after today? Will it be 

23 accessible online? 

24 MR. CAMERON: Okay, can we answer that for 

25 John? 
 75 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 

1 MS. PINEDA: Yes, the transcript will be up 

2 when we do our website update next week with all of the 

3 documents related to this meeting and the transcript and 

4 the meeting summary will be up, too. 

5 MR. LAFORGE: How about -- 

6 MR. CAMERON: Okay. 

7 MR. LAFORGE: -- sooner than that? Won't 

8 it be able to be looked at even this evening or tomorrow? 

9 MS. PINEDA: The NRC staff has to review 

10 the transcript for errors and things like that before 

11 we can finalize it and post it. 

12 MR. CAMERON: And, I think -- 

13 MR. LAFORGE: Thank you. 

14 MR. CAMERON: -- that there's a time 

15 element for the Court Reporter to be able to get you the 

16 transcript, too, right? 

17 MS. PINEDA: Well, we will get it up as 

18 quickly as we can. 

19 MR. CAMERON: Okay, thanks, John. 

20 Anything else? 

21 MR. LAFORGE: No, thank you. 

22 MR. CAMERON: All right. 

23 Jennifer, is there anybody else on the 

24 phone? 

25 OPERATOR: Yes, we have Ruth Thomas for the 
 76 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 

1 Environmentalist Group. Your line is open. 

2 MS. THOMAS: Hello. I wanted to bring out 

3 the plans that have been going on for some time and this 

4 deciding what priorities the Nuclear Regulatory 

5 Commission needs to focus on and what activities need 

6 to be eliminated or shut down. 

7 And, from the public's viewpoint and for 

8 the future, the NRC needs to stop all the work that 

9 they're doing on these future reactors and future plans 

10 and think about solving or trying to solve or put as many 

11 people as possible on the activities related to waste 

12 and dealing with the problem we already have and not 

13 continue to encourage and to license more and more 

14 facilities and all kinds of facilities. 

15 And, there's going to be a meeting about it 

16 -- well, the Commission is going to meet on this issue 

17 the 8th of September. And, the meeting that they had 

18 on the 1st of September, I haven't finished reading the 

19 transcript, but there were -- well, I know I wasn't able 

20 to get on the call and a lot of other people weren't 

21 because the line was closed for I don't know how long 

22 during the meeting, not the whole time, but a good bit 

23 of the time it was closed. 

24 So, the public's viewpoint in 

25 consideration -- 
 77 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 

1 MR. CAMERON: Okay, Ruth -- 

2 MS. THOMAS: -- was not well represented 

3 at all in the transcript and it's -- we're the ones that 

4 have -- well, actually, we're the ones that are paying 

5 for all this either through our taxes or our electric 

6 bills. 

7 And, yet, it's such a struggle for a member 

8 of the public to get to say anything or to get 

9 information. So, I've been doing it for 43 years and 

10 I guess I'm just an optimist, I think maybe somehow or 

11 other this will be turned around. 

12 MR. CAMERON: Okay, Ruth, thank you very 

13 much 

14 MS. THOMAS: Thank you. 

15 MR. CAMERON: Thank you and I should have 

16 said this earlier and it's usually in this type of 

17 meeting we only allow someone one opportunity to 

18 comment. But, it was good to hear from you again, Ruth. 

19 I just wanted to alert everybody to that. 

20 And, we have one person here in the room who 

21 wants to comment and I understand we have one person on 

22 the phone. 

23 And, Jennifer, we're going to go back in the 

24 room now and then we'll be back to Mr. Gary Sachs. Okay? 

25 And, we're going to hear from Diane D'Arrigo right now. 
 78 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 

1 OPERATOR: Okay. 

2 MR. CAMERON: Diane? 

3 MS. D'ARRIGO: This is Diane D'Arrigo, 

4 Nuclear Information and Resource Service. 

5 I, of course, fully support the comments of 

6 my colleague in our Southeast office. 

7 And, actually, I'm concerned that I asked 

8 a couple of questions earlier about basic content, basic 

9 assumptions of what's being considered in the document. 

10 And, I would say that it appears that the 

11 NRC is not prepared, if you were going to have a question 

12 period, to not have someone here who could give me the 

13 answer to what the amount of waste is that's going go 

14 into the facility or that the assumptions are going to 

15 be. What amount of high burn up fuel? 

16 These are basic things that you're asking 

17 us to comment on and we just got the document about a 

18 week ago. So, it would be, I would say for future 

19 hearings, it would be good to have somebody from the NRC 

20 who could answer these questions unless you really don't 

21 have the answers. But, my suspicion is that you do, you 

22 just don't have the technical people here. 

23 So, I will point out that that's a pretty 

24 important aspect to whether or not this facility is 

25 going to meeting the environmental criteria under NEPA. 
 79 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 

1 There's a lot of political pressure right 

2 now to, well, there has been, to increase the amount of 

3 waste that will go into the Yucca Mountain site to have 

4 it take more than the 70,000 metric tons. 

5 We know, as earlier was mentioned, that all 

6 reactors are using high burn up fuel now. So, the 

7 amount of radioactivity in the commercial fuel is much 

8 greater than would have been assumed on the earlier 

9 assumptions. 

10 It was also mentioned that the President 

11 made a decision to not include the Defense waste which 

12 doesn't have as much radioactivity, the commercial fuel 

13 is much, much hotter even if it's not high burn up. 

14 So, this is a more specific concern about 

15 you don't know what is going to be in the inventory. 

16 And, yes, you've asked DOE to give you more information, 

17 but we are saying that you need a lot more information 

18 and to proceed without knowing that is irresponsible. 

19 And it's already a problem with the 

20 previous earlier conditions. Our organization with 

21 others made a petition to the Department of Energy 

22 several years ago to disqualify the Yucca site because 

23 it couldn't meet the existing criteria based on water, 

24 volcanos, earthquakes. 

25 The amount of radioactivity that could go 
 80 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 

1 into the air and into the water both at the site and from 

2 transport across the country needs to be included in 

3 this and it's not clear that it is at all. 

4 Let's see, so that's part of what I wanted 

5 to say. 

6 I also wanted to support the concerns that 

7 have been raised about environmental justice. The 

8 notification or the inclusion of concerns of people who 

9 have greater susceptibility to radioactivity, who have 

10 more exposure because of their cultural habits or the 

11 concentration of the radioactivity in the milk from 

12 Amargosa Valley or in the food from Amargosa Valley. 

13 The scope needs to be broader and consider 

14 all of these things. 

15 The casks or the packages, as were 

16 mentioned, apparently do not exist and I don't 

17 understand how -- well, we would oppose -- we oppose the 

18 approval of a plan or an Environmental Statement when 

19 there is no container. 

20 The containers themselves, the casks, at 

21 least for high burn up fuel now, have not been certified 

22 for transport. I'm not sure if that's still the case 

23 for storage, but for transport, it's my understanding 

24 that there's not a transport container for high burn up 

25 fuel that's been certified by the NRC at this point. 
 81 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 

1 Yet, the assumption is made that the NRC will approve 

2 that and that the containers will be able to be moved. 

3 But, at this point, that's not the reality. 

4 And then, once the containers are in the 

5 mountain, we obviously need that drip shield and we 

6 would need more of that. What does it mean when there's 

7 higher amounts of inventory? 

8 Over the years, during the Yucca Mountain 

9 process, the Yucca Mountain development of all the 

10 environmental documents, the rules changed three or 

11 four times for what was the point of compliance or the 

12 amount of radioactivity or the length of time. 

13 So, all of this seems to be in a flux and 

14 you can use now what DOE's current limits are, but we 

15 are calling on you to use the assumption that women and 

16 children, the fetus, are more susceptible to 

17 radioactivity and need greater protection, that 

18 radioactivity will bioaccumulate in the environment and 

19 from the air and the water and the milk and so forth, 

20 the crops. 

21 And, to err on the side of conservatism as 

22 the protection levels change. I support the concern 

23 that was raised about not really knowing how much 

24 radioactivity does hurt someone because the information 

25 is changing and the information is not taking into 
 82 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 

1 consideration the most vulnerable parts of our life 

2 cycle, the human life cycle and others species' life 

3 cycles. 

4 So, my conclusion is that we still believe 

5 that the site should be disqualified. We support a 

6 longer comment period. We believe the NRC should 

7 provide or would support making whatever assumptions 

8 you're going to make be license conditions since these 

9 seem to be able to change as my coworker suggested. 

10 MR. CAMERON: Thank you. Thank you, 

11 Diane. 

12 Jennifer, could you put Gary Sachs on 

13 please? 

14 OPERATOR: Yes, Gary, your line is open. 

15 MR. SACHS: Thank you. 

16 Isn't Yucca Mountain dead yet? Hasn't 

17 Yucca Mountain been killed numerous times? Wasn't 

18 water found? We're still here? How old are we? What 

19 is it we're not understanding that there's water where 

20 you intend to put radiation or if you use the wrong cat 

21 litter all things are bound to explode? Don't you think 

22 so? 

23 But, who am I to say? So, I do not support 

24 Yucca Mountain opening under any circumstances. I do 

25 not support planning the ability to -- you do not have 
 83 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 

1 the ability to plan for a million years. 

2 I support everything Diane said and every 

3 thing that was said prior to when I spoke today. 

4 And, Chip, I assume Diane is in the room 

5 with you? I am extremely disappointed in not believing 

6 that the NRC doesn't have someone who could respond 

7 technically to the concerns that are raised in the room. 

8 Because they have -- have had concerns responded to, 

9 bringing passion to my dialogue in the room with you. 

10 And if it's not happening there, but maybe Diane's not 

11 there. 

12 MR. CAMERON: No, she's here, Gary. Yes. 

13 Okay, thank you. Thank you, Gary. 

14 And, Jennifer, is there anybody else on the 

15 phone? We're getting close to closing here, but we 

16 don't want to miss anybody that might be on the phone. 

17 OPERATOR: There are currently no 

18 questions in the queue. 

19 If you would like to ask a question, press 

20 star one or make a comment. 

21 MR. CAMERON: Okay. We still have a 

22 little bit of time. Anybody else who hasn't spoken yet 

23 want to say anything? 

24 I'm going to ask Jim Rubenstone, Acting 

25 Director, Yucca Mountain Directorate, to close out for 
 84 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 

1 us. 

2 Jim? 

3 MR. RUBENSTONE: Thank you, Chip. Thank 

4 you to everyone who took part in this meeting, 

5 especially to those who provided us with comments. 

6 As I said in the beginning, we do take your 

7 comments seriously and we appreciate them very much and 

8 we will do our best to address them as we move this 

9 document to its final stages. 

10 I'd like to remind you once again that we 

11 will have some additional public meetings. They're on 

12 the slides that we will get posted. They're on the 

13 handout that is here about commenting. And that you can 

14 also comment by mail and at the regulations.gov website. 

15 We will do our best to get all of this 

16 information posted to our website as quickly as we can. 

17 But, as Christine noted, we do need some time to review 

18 the transcript before we put it up because we want to 

19 make the most accurate transcript that we can. 

20 I'm getting a signal we may have one more 

21 commenter, so I will stop there and let -- we'll take 

22 one more, the additional commenter on the phone. 

23 OPERATOR: Okay. Barbara Stevens from 

24 the Volunteer Nuclear Information Resource Service, 

25 your line is open. 
 85 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 

1 PARTICIPANT: Right, Barbara -- this is 

2 her husband. I'm holding the phone for just a second. 

3 Here she is. 

4 MS. STEVENS: Oh, I'm sorry. I was hoping 

5 my husband could talk for me. 

6 But, can I speak now? 

7 MR. CAMERON: Yes, go ahead, Barbara. 

8 MS. STEVENS: Okay. I'm a -- my husband 

9 and I were in New Mexico at the time of the 20 years of 

10 the Environmental Impact Statement for WIPP. And, we 

11 got to the point of into it 20 years, we had a legal 

12 Federal hearing on opening WIPP and all the scientists 

13 who -- the independent scientists were allowed to speak. 

14 And, while they were speaking, the DOE, 

15 whoever did it, the NRC, DOE, whoever it was opened WIPP 

16 while the legal hearing was going on. 

17 So, we come from a place of not having a lot 

18 of respect for these agencies that are so tied to the 

19 giant colossal owners of the nuclear everything. 

20 So, I'm sorry, we worry forever about any 

21 kind of credibility and certainly, water, just drinking 

22 water, is enough of an issue perhaps. 

23 Please forgive me for being so, you know, 

24 resentful or something or concerned about the 

25 credibility of the agencies that are so closely tied to 
 86 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 

1 the industry. 

2 So, I guess, at this point, I could bring 

3 up drinking water or water, all the groundwater issues. 

4 Of course, the -- my husband is shouting. 

5 That does sound like we're back to -- and it's the 

6 transportation is absurd. You know it. We all know 

7 it. We all know that you’re selling, you know, that 

8 what's happening. 

9 So, please reverse your course. 

10 MR. CAMERON: Okay, Barbara, thank you and 

11 your husband. Where are you located anyway? 

12 MS. STEVENS: Greenbelt, Maryland. 

13 MR. CAMERON: Okay. 

14 MS. STEVENS: But, we were in New Mexico. 

15 MR. CAMERON: All right. 

16 MS. STEVENS: For about a 20 year period. 

17 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thank you very much 

18 and, Jennifer, we're going to go back and let Jim 

19 Rubenstone close out for us. 

20 Thank you, too, for your help, Jennifer. 

21 MR. RUBENSTONE: Yes, I thank you very much 

22 to our operator who did a fine job in getting the 

23 comments in. 

24 And, again, I want to thank everyone for 

25 their comments. We will have further meetings and, as 
 87 

NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 

1 we noted at the beginning, we have extended the comment 

2 period until November 20th. 

3 And, with that, I want to thank my 

4 colleagues here, Christine Pineda, Adam Gendelman and, 

5 of course, Chip Cameron and our very capable staff that 

6 helped out in this meeting. 

7 So, again, thanks to all the commenters and 

8 we will see you at our next meeting. 

9 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 

10 off the record at 5:01 p.m.)

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16